|
Why encourage lawbreaking?
Posted on Mon, Jul. 29, 2002 in
The Miami Herald.
Misguided congressional attempts to ease restrictions on U.S. travel and
sales to Cuba are bad public policy.
Provisions approved by the House last week leave current sanctions in place
but cut funding for enforcement. In effect, representatives are telling
Americans: "Go ahead, break the law . . . (wink, wink); no one will catch
you.''
Don't misunderstand. We believe that travel to Cuba by Americans could break
the information embargo imposed by the Castro regime for 43 years. But we
continue to support the current embargo on U.S. trade and investment in Cuba
because, as long as the regime maintains its iron grip on the island economy,
U.S. commerce would only enrich and strengthen Castro and his cronies.
The last thing Congress should do is loosen the embargo, particularly now
when Cuba's traditional trading partners are putting economic pressure on the
country to respect human rights and political freedoms.
The moves in the House come as no surprise. A growing, bipartisan chorus
keeps taking stabs at the embargo. Some Democrats long opposed to the trade
sanctions now are joined by Republicans from grain-growing states.
Last week's legislation was only the lastest run at the embargo. And it
wasn't the first time that lawmakers voted to cut Treasury Department funding
for enforcing travel restrictions and issuing fines to Americans who break them.
Forget that it would remain illegal for American tourists to spend money in
Cuba and that those who did would remain subject to fines. The administration
could decide that the Justice Department, rather than Treasury, should enforce
these sanctions. The House, moreover, passed a similarly misguided provision
that would cut enforcement funds for the licensing of food and
healthcare-product sales to Cuba by U.S. sellers. Not even President Bush's veto
threat stopped them.
Some embargo opponents have argued that U.S. trade could spark democratic
change. In recent years, farm groups have been pushing to open the market to
their food sales. Both arguments fall short:
• The Cuban regime's lack of hard currency and history of stiffing
trade partners should give eager grain merchants some pause.
• Neither Canada nor the European Union has seen economic engagement
with Cuba lead to improvements in human rights or democratic tendencies. Indeed,
the EU just refused to allow Cuba access to a multibillion aid fund because the
regime doesn't meet basic human-rights and democracy requirements.
These countries now know what too many in the House have yet to realize:
Without democratic reforms in Cuba, trade will only strengthen the repressive
regime. The Senate would be wise not to follow in the House's lead.
| 
