By Paul Simon. Paul Simon is director of the Public Policy
Institute at Southern Illinois University. March 4, 2001.
Chicago Tribune
America's policy toward Cuba has never made much sense, and it will take on
a tone of complete unreality if our nation adopts a policy modifying the
economic boycott toward Iraq to include only weapons and supplies of military
significance. If we can do that in the case of Saddam Hussein and Iraq, why not
Fidel Castro and Cuba?
For 42 years our aim has been to topple Castro's leadership with an economic
boycott. Our policy is a relic of the Cold War when Cuba sided with the Soviets.
But the Cold War is over and our policy remains unchanged.
I have long opposed the embargo and a recent visit to Cuba--including a
six-hour session with Castro--confirmed the stupidity of our course of action.
For example, the embargo is hurting Cubans who take circuitous routes to
secure needed U.S. medicines. It also harms the U.S. economically and
politically. While there are 1957 Chevrolets and Fords and even Studebakers on
the streets of Havana, the new cars are from Japan, South Korea, Germany, France
and other nations. Tourist buses I saw were from Sweden and Germany. There are
Swiss and Japanese hotels, but no Hilton, no Hyatt. Our policy is costing us
money and jobs.
Gradual economic shifts are taking place in Cuba. Self-employment is now
tolerated, as is hiring a small number of employees for a business. Foreign
investors can hold up to 100 percent of the ownership of a plant or business,
though partnering with Cubans is encouraged.
However, Castro is not running a democracy. I wish he were. But among the
dozens of non-democracies I have visited, Cuba is more like Poland and Hungary
during the latter days of the Soviet Union. In those two countries then and in
Cuba today, citizens appear to be fairly free to criticize government policies,
but they do not have the freedom to organize opposition to the government.
When you compare the human-rights record of Cuba to China and North Korea,
Cuba's record is markedly better, yet we recognize and encourage trade with
China and North Korea and not our neighbor.
And in security matters, do China and North Korea represent a short-term
and/or long-term threat to the United States? Maybe.
Does Cuba? No.
When the Soviet Union represented a threat some argued that the U.S. should
stop travel and trade and academic and professional exchanges there. Others
argued that a policy of isolation would hold back change. The embargo supporters
did not win and the Soviet Union as we knew it no longer exists. The application
of this lesson to Cuba is obvious.
President Bush could easily make small shifts in the embargo policy that
would aid both nations:
- Americans should be free to travel to Cuba to learn firsthand the
strengths and deficiencies of Cuba's government. With the possible exception of
North Korea, we remain the only nation that does not permit its citizens to
travel freely to Cuba.
- We should encourage academic exchanges.
- Selling automobiles, food and medicine certainly won't harm the U.S.
- We should let Cuban officials travel freely to the U.S. When the president
of Cuba's parliament wanted to visit the U.S. recently to attend a world meeting
of parliamentarians, he was not permitted to come, a petty action that made us
look ridiculous.
President Bush can and should lead on easing the embargo. If he takes a few
small steps toward reality he will be pleasantly surprised at the response and
perhaps eventually recognize Cuba as we do China and North Korea. Prior to the
Iowa caucuses last year, then-Gov. George W. Bush told an audience there: "I
know how to lead. I don't run polls to tell me what to think. The most
important, most influential job in America should be the president, not the
president's pollster."
Wise words. A good test as to how meaningful they will be in relaxing our
policy toward Cuba. | 