Cuba Embargo, is it still necessary?

[Calimera II]

It will benefit the government. The people's wealth is distributed (and mostly consumed) by the corrupt government members and party officials.

Unlike in places like NK, the government does distribute money to the citizens. Maybe not as much as the should be, but some. What's more, the welfare system in Cuba is good enough that nobody is starving there. If more money from the US comes in, then the more the people will benefit.

People in Cuba are poor, very poor. Healthcare is for most people very bad, and only the hospitals dedicated to "healthcare tourism" are actually good. Education is of very low standards too. And housing is bad as well. If the government would actually care about it's people, it would spend it's money on these critical areas, and not the intelligence service whatsoever.

And again: if you stop the embargo you sponser the Cuban government. And thus sponser a dictatorship.

[Rio Cana]

Unlike in places like NK, the government does distribute money to the citizens. Maybe not as much as the should be, but some. What's more, the welfare system in Cuba is good enough that nobody is starving there. If more money from the US comes in, then the more the people will benefit.

People in Cuba are poor, very poor. Healthcare is for most people very bad, and only the hospitals dedicated to "healthcare tourism" are actually good. Education is of very low standards too. And housing is bad as well. If the government would actually care about it's people, it would spend it's money on these critical areas, and not the intelligence service whatsoever.

And again: if you stop the embargo you sponser the Cuban government. And thus sponser a dictatorship.

Those in high positions might tend to live better but generally they tried to make sure no one falls below the poverty line. Many might be just above the poverty line but supposedly not many below it. Healthcare they get for free and it is not bad. Remember, that island is among the best when it comes to drug manufacturing and research.Education is also for free. Including higher education. Education which would costs thousands of dollars in another nation is free. The problem is the jobs they get are government jobs which pay hardly anything. After all, the whole nation is on the governments payroll. However, they have been changing this by allowing some private enterprises to be created. The government wants to get 20% of those on the government payroll off there payrolls. There economy can no longer afford it. Those with there own businesses then pay taxes to the government. They are going economically the way of China. There revolution withstood the US but cannot withstand local fast food chains that are being created.

Watch the last few minutes of this BBC video. Fast Forward to 49:30.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Z_BDTapLms

[Augarundus]

I'm going to play devil's advocate and ride against the liberal circlejerk going on in this thread, even though I mostly agree with it. Here's my argument:

The Cuban embargo is necessary for the stability of the Western Hemisphere - removing it would allow multiple scenarios for major war elsewhere.

1) Castro does not like the US.[1] I am not saying the Cuba regime is a true-Scotsman Marxist society. Only that Cuba has pursued diplomatic ties with nations that have either adversarial relations (Russia, Iran) or possible long-term competitive goals (china) with the United States.

2) Lifting the embargo would allow an influx of wealth via trade to Cuba - this would rejuvenate the failing Castro regime and create a more powerful Cuba. [1]

3) This would allow Iran, Russia, China to project influence in Latin America, as well as encouraging Cuba to advance its own anti-American agenda in the Western Hemisphere. [1]

4) This presents a possible security threat to the United States, which would require the United States to divert its focus from other regions. [2] This is empirically the case - Russian influence in Cuba presented a security risk for the United States, and allowed a foreign power to exploit the US for concessions (the withdrawal of nuclear weapons from Turkey).

5) This redirection of American attention and military power would result in military conflict elsewhere, as nations would fight to fill the vacuum that retrenching US influence left behind. [3]


The Cuban embargo is necessary to prevent a powerful Castro regime from posing a security threat to the United States. Preventing such a threat is critical to American grand strategy which prevents global conflict. In short, the embargo prevents war.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I'm going to play devil's advocate and ride against the liberal circlejerk going on in this thread, even though I mostly agree with it. Here's my argument:

The Cuban embargo is necessary for the stability of the Western Hemisphere - removing it would allow multiple scenarios for major war elsewhere.

1) Castro does not like the US.[1] I am not saying the Cuba regime is a true-Scotsman Marxist society. Only that Cuba has pursued diplomatic ties with nations that have either adversarial relations (Russia, Iran) or possible long-term competitive goals (china) with the United States.

2) Lifting the embargo would allow an influx of wealth via trade to Cuba - this would rejuvenate the failing Castro regime and create a more powerful Cuba. [1]

3) This would allow Iran, Russia, China to project influence in Latin America, as well as encouraging Cuba to advance its own anti-American agenda in the Western Hemisphere. [1]

4) This presents a possible security threat to the United States, which would require the United States to divert its focus from other regions. [2] This is empirically the case - Russian influence in Cuba presented a security risk for the United States, and allowed a foreign power to exploit the US for concessions (the withdrawal of nuclear weapons from Turkey).

5) This redirection of American attention and military power would result in military conflict elsewhere, as nations would fight to fill the vacuum that retrenching US influence left behind. [3]


The Cuban embargo is necessary to prevent a powerful Castro regime from posing a security threat to the United States. Preventing such a threat is critical to American grand strategy which prevents global conflict. In short, the embargo prevents war.

1. One of the reasons that Castro does not like the U.S. is due to the embargo. Removing it would improve relations.

2. As I pointed out earlier, opening up markets in Eastern Europe gave the people access to goods and services that made the West more appealing. The only Soviet-supported state left is Cuba, while the rest fell.

3. The nations that you mention already have influence in Cuba, or at least there is nothing keeping them from projecting said influence. Opening trade and diplomatic relations would only serve to increase our influence.

4. If Russian influence in Cuba presented a security threat to the United States, how would U.S. trade influence in Cuba pose a security threat?

5. What? What military re-direction? This would bring Cuba closer to the United States, not make it a threat.

[Chernoslavia]

I could still get Cuban tobacco FROM Cuba. So I honestly don't give a shit.

[Rio Cana]

As democratic as an election solidly within another nation's sphere of influence could be, sure. True national sovereignty never existed in Cuba until the revolution.

That depends on your definition of "true national sovereignty". The Platt Amendment always made sure that the United States was at the forefront of Cuban politics, but this was made so because of how unstable Cuba's government was immediately following it's independence. Most of it's revolutionary leaders were dead, and the lack of a respectable candidate for national leadership led to violent power struggles that the United States felt it had resolve itself in order to preserve it's economic interests on the island.

"Just at the moment I am so angry with that infernal little Cuban republic that I would like to wipe its people off the face of the earth. All that we wanted from them was that they would behave themselves and be prosperous and happy so that we would not have to interfere."
—Theodore Roosevelt

Despite this, Cuba was a prosperous and democratic republic prior to the revolutions of 1952 and 1959, with a very high standard living that was in no small part thanks to very close economic ties with the United States. If by "true national sovereignty" you simply mean a termination of political and economic dependency on the US, than yes, Cubans never had it until the revolution. But if you ask any Cuban old enough to remember life in Cuba before the revolutions, they'd choose the old way of life over your specious concept of true national sovereignty and the loss of economic determinism and civil liberty that came with it.

The above seems like propaganda.

One of the most important leaders of the independence fight against Spain wanted US supplies but not US involvement because he knew what would happen. After the Spanish American war ended the Spanish turned over control to the US not Cuba. Cuba was not even invited to the talks. Nor the Philippines or Puerto Rico. So what was that all about. The Cubans could not even raise there own flag in there Capital city for two years. When the US military government finally left then the Cubans could raise the flag.

Has for democracy on that island, did you see how many Presidents they had in the 30's, so what was that all about.

US politicians from the time of the Spanish American war and even some people who study history today have this strange notion that Cuba and even Puerto Rico were entirely made up of ignorant savages. Surprise they must have been when they found some very brilliant people especially in the local government who could draw circles around them. Cuba had had a University in there Capital since 1758, Some in PR. went there or to Spain or France for higher education.

For example in Puerto Rico there was Muñoz Rivera's who was a poet, newspaperman and politician.
He once wrote the following in 1902 four years after PR. had changed hands from Spain to US.

wrote a poem titled Sísifo, comparing Puerto Rico's political situation to Sisyphus' punishment.

Seems that poem still hold water over 100 years later.

Found the poem. Its short.

By Luis Muñoz Rivera (1902), referencing Greek mythology in speaking of Puerto Rico’s political position after the United States won control of the island from Spain.

This will take you to the poem, scroll down when you get there since its the last poem on that page. Both in Spanish and English.
http://history.house.gov/Exhibitions-an ... cal-Poems/

[Augarundus]

1. One of the reasons that Castro does not like the U.S. is due to the embargo. Removing it would improve relations.

2. As I pointed out earlier, opening up markets in Eastern Europe gave the people access to goods and services that made the West more appealing. The only Soviet-supported state left is Cuba, while the rest fell.

3. The nations that you mention already have influence in Cuba, or at least there is nothing keeping them from projecting said influence. Opening trade and diplomatic relations would only serve to increase our influence.

4. If Russian influence in Cuba presented a security threat to the United States, how would U.S. trade influence in Cuba pose a security threat?

5. What? What military re-direction? This would bring Cuba closer to the United States, not make it a threat.

1. Perhaps, but, if Brookes is right, Castro has other motivations for hating the US, and the embargo is more of a rhetorical tool on which he can blame Cuba's failings. Cuba acts as a proxy for nations that strategically oppose the US (China, Russia, and Iran) who do not care about the embargo. Additionally, there are many other reasons for Cuba's antagonistic relationship with the US (including Cuban exiles in the US - should Cuba warm to the US, the US will not reciprocate, because the Cuban lobby hates Castro). Even so, empirically Cuba destroys every prospect for cooperation when they see it, probably because Castro needs to demonize the US to prop up his regime.

2) Cuba is not Eastern Europe, Russia today is not the Soviet Union, and the embargo is not the Iron Curtain. These are different scenarios and, while the analogy superficially makes sense, there's no reason why it would hold true given today's conditions. (One potential reason is that the United States today is weaker in relative terms than it was in 1991 - other nations are closing the gap with the US, so we don't always get what we want. 1991 looked like "the unipolar moment" - America had defeated its only rival in the world and could force everyone to do whatever it wanted. So, we "opened up" Eastern Europe because we could - westernizing Cuba would not be so easy).

3) Cuba will not reciprocate our attempts to improve relations, and, even if they were to try, the Cuban lobby in the United States would torpedo such efforts (see subpoint 1). Even though Cuba has strong relations with Iran, Russia, and China now, the fact that Cuba is poor and isolated prevents them from acting out in any meaningful way. The removal of the embargo would strengthen Cuba's hard power and allow them to act as a meaningful proxy to the aforementioned states by building coalitions with Bolivarian republics against the US and Pacific Alliance. Cuba is antagonistic now, but they'd only be dangerous if they were to become powerful.

4) Russian influence is only a security threat if that influence can be translated into material opposition. Cuba's poverty and isolation prevents that, but increasing trade ties would enrich the Castro regime. That would allow for a true security threat to emerge.

5a) It would not bring Cuba closer to the US, see points 1, 2, and 3.
5b) It would make Cuba a threat, see points 3 and 4.
5c) The US has the ability to project its influence worldwide because it is secure at home. The fact that America has no real threats on its doorstep (mounties to our north, poor mexicans to our south, and fish on our right and left) means that we don't have to worry about our own security, so we get to worry about other peoples' security (we get to be an empire because we are insulated from threats). If American integrity and security were to be threatened (by a Cuban-led coalition of states aligned with Russia, China, and Iran), the United States would have to focus on the security of its own backyard (the Western Hemisphere), diverting resources from other areas (the Middle East, Europe, and East Asia). This means America's competitors (Russia, China, Iran) can exploit opposition in the Western Hemisphere (namely by a powerful Cuba) to redirect American attention and resources, disproportionately diminishing American influence elsewhere.

[Seriong]

People in Cuba are poor, very poor. Healthcare is for most people very bad, and only the hospitals dedicated to "healthcare tourism" are actually good. Education is of very low standards too. And housing is bad as well. If the government would actually care about it's people, it would spend it's money on these critical areas, and not the intelligence service whatsoever.

And again: if you stop the embargo you sponser the Cuban government. And thus sponser a dictatorship.

Those in high positions might tend to live better but generally they tried to make sure no one falls below the poverty line. Many might be just above the poverty line but supposedly not many below it. Healthcare they get for free and it is not bad. Remember, that island is among the best when it comes to drug manufacturing and research.Education is also for free. Including higher education. Education which would costs thousands of dollars in another nation is free. The problem is the jobs they get are government jobs which pay hardly anything. After all, the whole nation is on the governments payroll. However, they have been changing this by allowing some private enterprises to be created. The government wants to get 20% of those on the government payroll off there payrolls. There economy can no longer afford it. Those with there own businesses then pay taxes to the government. They are going economically the way of China. There revolution withstood the US but cannot withstand local fast food chains that are being created.

Watch the last few minutes of this BBC video. Fast Forward to 49:30.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Z_BDTapLms

That healthcare is not even kind of good, look behind what they show foreign tourists.
http://www.therealcuba.com/Page10.htm

[Tel]

I don't see the point in this embargo.

It was meant to deter threats.

What are they going to do, fire their doctors and lawyers at us out of catapults on their triremes?

[MERIZoC]

Those in high positions might tend to live better but generally they tried to make sure no one falls below the poverty line. Many might be just above the poverty line but supposedly not many below it. Healthcare they get for free and it is not bad. Remember, that island is among the best when it comes to drug manufacturing and research.Education is also for free. Including higher education. Education which would costs thousands of dollars in another nation is free. The problem is the jobs they get are government jobs which pay hardly anything. After all, the whole nation is on the governments payroll. However, they have been changing this by allowing some private enterprises to be created. The government wants to get 20% of those on the government payroll off there payrolls. There economy can no longer afford it. Those with there own businesses then pay taxes to the government. They are going economically the way of China. There revolution withstood the US but cannot withstand local fast food chains that are being created.

Watch the last few minutes of this BBC video. Fast Forward to 49:30.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Z_BDTapLms

That healthcare is not even kind of good, look behind what they show foreign tourists.
http://www.therealcuba.com/Page10.htm

Give us a real source, not some crap blog.

[-The West Coast-]

The Cuban government is an enemy of the United States government and an embargo will be placed until the enemy government is replaced.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

1. One of the reasons that Castro does not like the U.S. is due to the embargo. Removing it would improve relations.

2. As I pointed out earlier, opening up markets in Eastern Europe gave the people access to goods and services that made the West more appealing. The only Soviet-supported state left is Cuba, while the rest fell.

3. The nations that you mention already have influence in Cuba, or at least there is nothing keeping them from projecting said influence. Opening trade and diplomatic relations would only serve to increase our influence.

4. If Russian influence in Cuba presented a security threat to the United States, how would U.S. trade influence in Cuba pose a security threat?

5. What? What military re-direction? This would bring Cuba closer to the United States, not make it a threat.

1. Perhaps, but, if Brookes is right, Castro has other motivations for hating the US, and the embargo is more of a rhetorical tool on which he can blame Cuba's failings. Cuba acts as a proxy for nations that strategically oppose the US (China, Russia, and Iran) who do not care about the embargo. Additionally, there are many other reasons for Cuba's antagonistic relationship with the US (including Cuban exiles in the US - should Cuba warm to the US, the US will not reciprocate, because the Cuban lobby hates Castro). Even so, empirically Cuba destroys every prospect for cooperation when they see it, probably because Castro needs to demonize the US to prop up his regime.

2) Cuba is not Eastern Europe, Russia today is not the Soviet Union, and the embargo is not the Iron Curtain. These are different scenarios and, while the analogy superficially makes sense, there's no reason why it would hold true given today's conditions. (One potential reason is that the United States today is weaker in relative terms than it was in 1991 - other nations are closing the gap with the US, so we don't always get what we want. 1991 looked like "the unipolar moment" - America had defeated its only rival in the world and could force everyone to do whatever it wanted. So, we "opened up" Eastern Europe because we could - westernizing Cuba would not be so easy).

3) Cuba will not reciprocate our attempts to improve relations, and, even if they were to try, the Cuban lobby in the United States would torpedo such efforts (see subpoint 1). Even though Cuba has strong relations with Iran, Russia, and China now, the fact that Cuba is poor and isolated prevents them from acting out in any meaningful way. The removal of the embargo would strengthen Cuba's hard power and allow them to act as a meaningful proxy to the aforementioned states by building coalitions with Bolivarian republics against the US and Pacific Alliance. Cuba is antagonistic now, but they'd only be dangerous if they were to become powerful.

4) Russian influence is only a security threat if that influence can be translated into material opposition. Cuba's poverty and isolation prevents that, but increasing trade ties would enrich the Castro regime. That would allow for a true security threat to emerge.

5a) It would not bring Cuba closer to the US, see points 1, 2, and 3.
5b) It would make Cuba a threat, see points 3 and 4.
5c) The US has the ability to project its influence worldwide because it is secure at home. The fact that America has no real threats on its doorstep (mounties to our north, poor mexicans to our south, and fish on our right and left) means that we don't have to worry about our own security, so we get to worry about other peoples' security (we get to be an empire because we are insulated from threats). If American integrity and security were to be threatened (by a Cuban-led coalition of states aligned with Russia, China, and Iran), the United States would have to focus on the security of its own backyard (the Western Hemisphere), diverting resources from other areas (the Middle East, Europe, and East Asia). This means America's competitors (Russia, China, Iran) can exploit opposition in the Western Hemisphere (namely by a powerful Cuba) to redirect American attention and resources, disproportionately diminishing American influence elsewhere.

1. These motivations are likely to disappear in the face of a boosted economy.

2. We were opening up Eastern Europe in the years leading up to the Iron Curtain falling.

3. We don't know if they're reciprocate or not, and as shown by the OP, the older guard of the Cuban lobby is decreasing in influence, while the younger ones seek closer ties.

4. How would a Cuba with close trade ties with the United States pose a security threat?

5. A friendlier Cuba--which would be very likely, as closer trade ties with nearly every nation has led to a less chilly relationship--would be less of a security threat.

[MERIZoC]

The Cuban government is an enemy of the United States government and an embargo will be placed until the enemy government is replaced.

No it's not.

[-The West Coast-]

The Cuban government is an enemy of the United States government and an embargo will be placed until the enemy government is replaced.

No it's not.

Uh... If it wasn't, then we wouldn't be embargoing them, would we?

[Seriong]

That healthcare is not even kind of good, look behind what they show foreign tourists.
http://www.therealcuba.com/Page10.htm

Give us a real source, not some crap blog.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-8TcpOz6A4 20/20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25_RgM1jHeo&eurl=http://www.babalublog.com/ Fox
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNhgym2bMtA The inside of a Cuban Hospital, that isn't for foreigners
http://moon.com/2012/01/cubas-healthcare-system-has-its-downside/ Travel guide to Cuba

[MERIZoC]

No it's not.

Uh... If it wasn't, then we wouldn't be embargoing them, would we?

"I punched a man in the face."
"Why?"
"Because he was a Nazi."
"How do you know that?"
"Why else would I have punched him?"
See the flawed logic?

[Galloism]

They'll give up and turn full capitalist any day now.

[MERIZoC]

They'll give up and turn full capitalist any day now.

I doubt that. Most of the Cubans I talked to there seemed pretty fine with the left-wing economic system. Would they like more political freedom? Yes. But that's a different matter.

[Kelinfort]

They'll give up and turn full capitalist any day now.

I doubt that. Most of the Cubans I talked to there seemed pretty fine with the left-wing economic system. Would they like more political freedom? Yes. But that's a different matter.

It'd be like Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua

[Galloism]

They'll give up and turn full capitalist any day now.

I doubt that. Most of the Cubans I talked to there seemed pretty fine with the left-wing economic system. Would they like more political freedom? Yes. But that's a different matter.

You can tell just by looking at the country by flying sort of near it.

It's just ready to break and kowtow to our economic way. It's taken over 50 years, but any moment now they'll break. Just you watch.

[MERIZoC]

I doubt that. Most of the Cubans I talked to there seemed pretty fine with the left-wing economic system. Would they like more political freedom? Yes. But that's a different matter.

It'd be like Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua

I'm afraid I don't quite get the analogy. You mean like the current socialist party that was democratically elected there?

[Kelinfort]

It'd be like Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua

I'm afraid I don't quite get the analogy. You mean like the current socialist party that was democratically elected there?

Yeah. Ortega took power first by force, lost to a centre right party when he held elections, and then was elected back to power. Something like that may happen in Cuba if it transitioned to democracy.

[Seriong]

I'm afraid I don't quite get the analogy. You mean like the current socialist party that was democratically elected there?

Yeah. Ortega took power first by force, lost to a centre right party when he held elections, and then was elected back to power. Something like that may happen in Cuba if it transitioned to democracy.

I don't think Castro would be elected under an honest election. Given the conditions that Cubans currently face.

[Llamalandia]

Look here's the thing, I like the Cuban people (mostly) but absolutely hate abhor and find generally abominable the Cuban govt. Would lifting the embargo be beneficial and helpful for the Cuban people? yes, would it be good for the Cuban govt? also a yes. That's the problem. Its like the sanctions imposed on Iran, it be better if we didn't have to do them, but until the Iranian govt can behave like civilized people do then we have to for both our safety and as a matter of principle maintain the sanctions. It's the same situation with Cuba (though they pose less of an actual threat of physically harming us).

[Greed and Death]

I doubt that. Most of the Cubans I talked to there seemed pretty fine with the left-wing economic system. Would they like more political freedom? Yes. But that's a different matter.

You can tell just by looking at the country by flying sort of near it.

It's just ready to break and kowtow to our economic way. It's taken over 50 years, but any moment now they'll break. Just you watch.

My friends in the CIA are training a bunch of exiles just to help with that...