Stephen Johnson. Published Friday, June 9, 2000, in the Miami Herald
No matter what their position on Elián González, most Americans have said they're glad to see the daily tug-of-war recede from their TV screens. Not so critics of the U.S. embargo against Cuba, who used the debate to gain converts to their view that sanctions a- gainst Cuba should
be lifted.
The arguments for dropping the 40-year-old trade embargo are fairly familiar by now. Opponents argue that sanctions haven't worked, that they keep food and medicine from needy Cubans, that they unfairly bar U.S. goods from entering a promising new market. They add that without the embargo, a
flood of American commerce would promote democracy in Cuba. While such claims sound plausible, the embargo still makes sense.
For one thing, critics are setting their sights too high when they say sanctions aren't ``working.'' True, but the U.S. embargo forced the former Soviet Union to subsidize Cuba's inefficient economy by $5.6 billion a year. And after the Soviet empire fell apart in 1991, the embargo curtailed
Fidel Castro's support for revolution in other countries. It also forced him to permit limited self-employment.
Unfortunately, the regime's finances have been helped recently by limited investments from other countries, leading Castro to become less tolerant of the small enterprises. As a result, the number of self-employed Cubans has never exceeded 200,000 and is now about 150,000.
While the embargo restricts most U.S.-Cuba trade, it does not impose a humanitarian burden. Cuba frequently has bought wheat from Canada, rice from Vietnam, and medicine from Europe, Asia and Latin America. Donations of food and clothing and the licensed sale of U.S. medical products are
permitted.
The real cause of Cuba's hardship is not the embargo but the state's Soviet-style economy. Traditional exports such as sugar cost the regime more to produce than they sell for on the global market. Tourism brings in hard currency but not nearly enough to provide for Cuba's needs. Debt payments
are so uncertain that major trade partners often must extend new loans.
Even if the embargo were dropped, such economic problems would pose a practical barrier to trade. Few banks would be willing to deal with a dictator, so businesses might be tempted to seek credit from the U.S. government. This would put American taxpayers in the ironic position of picking up the
old Soviet subsidy account.
If Americans want to help ordinary Cubans, they can use existing laws to donate food, medicine and clothing through international charities. Embargo opponents should concentrate their energies on persuading Castro to lift his own blockade on private enterprise, open markets and civil liberties
-- reforms that would produce prosperity.
HELP U.S. NEIGHBORS
If lawmakers want to help U.S. agri-businesses, they might consider licensing ``cash and carry'' grain sales to Cuba. But these businesses -- not U.S. taxpayers -- should be the ones to take the risk.
Washington could better help U.S. business by jump-starting free-trade negotiations with Central and South America and opening markets worth $1.5 trillion, compared to Cuba's limited $5 billion import sector.
Helping one's neighbors is an American tradition. But without access to U.S. credit, Castro can't destabilize other governments or maintain absolute control at home. The embargo makes sense because it helps support the Cuban people -- and not Castro.
Stephen Johnson is a policy analyst for Latin America at the Heritage Foundation (www.heritage.org), a Washington-based public-policy research institute.
©2000 Knight Ridder/Tribune
Copyright 2000 Miami Herald |