Why can't US tourists visit Cuba?

[Dr. Drake]

The other Cuba thread got me wondering. I understand the events of the 1950s and 1960s, but why is this still an issue in 2012? The only explanation I've seen is the powerful Cuban-American lobby, but it just doesn't make sense. Americans are willing to give up their freedom and the potential economic benefits of trade because of a small special-interest group? The pro-Israel lobby is much more powerful, I would think, but they do not dictate trade and travel moratoriums for ordinary Americans. Not a perfect parallel, of course, but I'm hard-pressed to think of a good analogy. And of course I can't see how it's in American interests to have a poor and unfriendly neighbor; wouldn't it be safer, in terms of both terrorism and the economy, to have a productive trading partner?

As far as I know, Cuba is the only country that Americans are not legally allowed to visit. Is it just that no one wants to bell the cat (=be the first to admit the status quo isn't working), or is there some benefit to the way things are that I'm not seeing?

[Lemur866]

The reason is that we imposed the embargo in the 60s and there hasn't been a successful effort to end the embargo yet.

There wasn't a Cuba lobby back when this started, so it wasn't imposed at the behest of the Cuba lobby. It was part of the Cold War. Cuba had just turned communist. This explains why the embargo was imposed.

Now, why hasn't it been repealed? The Cuba lobby is concentrated in Florida. Florida is a swing state that can go either Republican or Democrat. The Cuba lobby is, or was, large enough that it could make up a swing bloc. That is, in a system where 49.5% of the voters form a bloc favoring one policy, and 49.5% of the voters form a bloc favoring another policy, the 1% of the voters who aren't part of either bloc can decide policy by voting with one fo the other blocs.

This has the potential to make small dedicated voting blocs extremely important far out of proportion to their representation in the electorate.

So, no party has wanted to anger the Cuba lobby by giving up on the Cold War embargo and normalizing relations with Cuba. Plus, Castro is still alive. I bet you a dollar that when Castro dies normalization will suddenly become politically possible.

[PrettyVacant]

Friends report it's a great Honeymoon destination. Keen photographers like it, too. Beautiful, friendly people, everyone says. I hope to visit quite soon.

The US? Some kind of wacked out ideology thing. Welcome to the 1960s

[Musicat]

We're waiting for Castro to die.

[John Mace]

Was this really supposed to be a Pit thread?

Anyway, the purported reason for the embargo was that the Cuban government nationalized property belonging to Americans, and ending the embargo is contingent on returning or compensating the former owners of that property.

It's a little more complicated than that, but that's the actual origin of the embargo and supposedly why we don't end it.

[florez]

I have friends who went to Cuba, but first they had to travel to Mexico. I wonder, can Americans also travel to Cuba from Canada?

[John Mace]

I have friends who went to Cuba, but first they had to travel to Mexico. I wonder, can Americans also travel to Cuba from Canada?

Yeah, but that's kinda going in exactly the opposite direction for most of us.

[Giles]

There are direct flights between Canada and Cuba, but any Americans on those flights are probably breaking US law.

[Dr. Drake]

Was this really supposed to be a Pit thread?

Anyway, the purported reason for the embargo was that the Cuban government nationalized property belonging to Americans, and ending the embargo is contingent on returning or compensating the former owners of that property.

It's a little more complicated than that, but that's the actual origin of the embargo and supposedly why we don't end it.That makes sense for the origin of the embargo. It makes no sense at all for why we don't end it. (And no, it's not supposed to be a Pit thread: I want to understand, is all.)

The bit about the ability of a tiny minority in a large swing state is an interesting thought. So basically, ANY significant minority in Florida can hold national policy hostage, but the same people in California or the entire population of North Dakota acting in unison have no effect whatsoever. A fascinating system, but it seems somewhat less than functional.

[needscoffee]

There is some limited travel to Cuba from the US. I have friends who just went. It was a very controlled tour, but perfectly legal, and I believe it did not have to go through an intermediary country.

[Dr. Rieux]

IIRC, somebody in the Clinton-era State Dept. cracked, "The U.S. doesn't have a Cuba Policy, but every four years it has a South Florida Policy."

[orcenio]

Yeah, but that's kinda going in exactly the opposite direction for most of us.Well, there is a lot of Canada-Cuba traffic (for winter vacations, tourist travel and such (http://www.one.cu/publicaciones/06turismoycomercio/indturismointernac/trimestral/5.pdf)), so much that arrivals from Canada make up ~40% of all international visitors (http://www.one.cu/publicaciones/06turismoycomercio/indturismointernac/trimestral/6.pdf). It's hard to believe that this comes only from Canadians.

[saoirse]

The "dry foot" policy complicates the matter. You can't really have free travel to and from a place and offer citizenship to anyone leaving there.

[Duckster]

Cuba is a totalitarian police state which relies on repressive methods to maintain control. These methods include intense physical and electronic surveillance of both Cuban citizens and foreign visitors. Americans visiting Cuba should be aware that any on-island activities could be subject to surveillance, and their contacts with Cuban citizens monitored closely. The United States does not have full diplomatic relations with Cuba, but Cuba welcomes American travelers and Americans are generally well received. The Cuban Assets Control Regulations are enforced by the U.S. Department of the Treasury and affect all U.S. citizens and permanent residents wherever they are located, all people and organizations physically located in the United States, and all branches and subsidiaries of U.S. organizations throughout the world. The regulations require that persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction be licensed in order to engage in any travel-related transactions pursuant to travel to, from, and within Cuba. Transactions related to tourist travel are not licensable. This restriction includes tourist travel to Cuba from or through a third country such as Mexico or Canada. U.S. law enforcement authorities enforce these regulations at U.S. airports and pre-clearance facilities in third countries. Travelers who fail to comply with Department of the Treasury regulations could face civil penalties and criminal prosecution upon return to the United States. (Bolding mine.)

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1097.html

The official US Government hardline.

[foolsguinea]

I think the Yanquis are still pissed about that Oswald guy.

[Odesio]

The bit about the ability of a tiny minority in a large swing state is an interesting thought. So basically, ANY significant minority in Florida can hold national policy hostage, but the same people in California or the entire population of North Dakota acting in unison have no effect whatsoever. A fascinating system, but it seems somewhat less than functional.

It's been chugging along for about 225 years now which isn't so bad as governments go. How long has yours been around?

[Rhythmdvl]

It's been chugging along for about 225 years now which isn't so bad as governments go. How long has yours been around?

Please don't defend the US system.

It's not that it's indefensible, it's that your retort sucks.

[Odesio]

Please don't defend the US system.

It's not that it's indefensible, it's that your retort sucks.

Well, shucks! You sure taught me a valuable lesson and have injured me greatly. I must now slink off into my secret hiding place to lick my wounds. Good burn, dude. Seriously, if you're going to go at me for my crappy retort I do think you're obligated to at least come up with a good reply of your own.

[guizot]

Friends report it's a great Honeymoon destination. Keen photographers like it, too. Beautiful, friendly people, everyone says. I hope to visit quite soon.I have friends who went to Cuba, but first they had to travel to Mexico. I wonder, can Americans also travel to Cuba from Canada?NB: There are ways for US citizens (not of Cuban ancestry) to go to Cuba, including through Canada. You just have to do separate flights. I've gone there (for the music), by way of Mexico. The details were discussed recently in this thread: "Travel to North Korea but not Cuba? (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=635882)"

[Siam Sam]

My 91-year-old uncle is traveling to Cuba this year on some sort of approved program. Can't remember what it's called, as I've misplaced his letter. He's still pretty active -- turned 90 last year on a three-day cruise of the Danube River -- and is not Cuban or even Hispanic. His wife, my aunt, is Hispanic, but with roots in Mexico and not Cuba, so it's nothing to do with Cuban affiliation. I'll try to find the name of the program.

[Rhythmdvl]

Well, shucks! You sure taught me a valuable lesson and have injured me greatly. I must now slink off into my secret hiding place to lick my wounds. Good burn, dude. Seriously, if you're going to go at me for my crappy retort I do think you're obligated to at least come up with a good reply of your own.

Drake said something insightful. You said something idiotic. Thinking that there is any need for a "good reply" is similarly idiotic.

[Odesio]

Drake said something insightful. You said something idiotic. Thinking that there is any need for a "good reply" is similarly idiotic.

Really? Saying the U.S. government is somewhat less than functional is insightful? No, it's pure hyperbole. By all means, keep on. You're entertaining at least.

[Nava]

It's been chugging along for about 225 years now which isn't so bad as governments go. How long has yours been around?

*checking my info*

[Nava]

My memory was actually right: Dr. Drake is a dual-citizen American/Canadian, his husband is British, they lived in California for several years and eventually emigrated to Canada. So his system has been chugging along for longer... maybe you should check where the target is before you start shooting?

A couple of relevant (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=613911) threads (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=628468).

[Guinastasia]

Basically, it's a fifty-year-old hissyfit. ;)

[Sitnam]

A dream trip of mine, I just hope I get there before McDonalds.

[Dr. Drake]

It's been chugging along for about 225 years now which isn't so bad as governments go. How long has yours been around?As others have said, I'm half American, including by birth, upbringing, education, and citizenship, so... 225 years or so. One of the things I learned there was that Americans have the right to criticize their government, and that a good citizen should strive to improve his country rather than resort to knee-jerk jingoistic worship of all things American, because that road leads to fascism. So either refute the point or argue the interpretation, but don't think I'm going to be swayed by an appeal to the age of the Constitution. The document was designed to be changed when necessary, not worshipped.

[Odesio]

The bit about the ability of a tiny minority in a large swing state is an interesting thought. So basically, ANY significant minority in Florida can hold national policy hostage, but the same people in California or the entire population of North Dakota acting in unison have no effect whatsoever. A fascinating system, but it seems somewhat less than functional.

Rhythmdvl had a valid point. I did focus on your last sentence to the exclusion of the insightful observation you made. I am not sure we can blame U.S. policy towards Cuba on Florida's status as a swing state. Florida wasn't a swing state in 1980, (no data for 1984 but since Reagan pretty much won every state...), 1988, 1992, or 1996 and our policy towards Cuba was largely unchanged during those years. That leaves the last three elections (2000, 2004 and 2008) with Florida as a swing state.

Of course the lack of swing state status doesn't preclude the Cuban-American voter from influencing national policy towards Cuba. Let's just assume it is for a moment. I don't think this means that ANY minority group in Florida would be able to hold national policy hostage. First, the issue of Cuba is something that the vast majority of American voters are indifferent towards. Even for those of us who have an opinion on the subject one way or the other; it's just not a pressing political concern. It would be a very different thing if a vocal minority tried to hold national policy hostage on a policy people actually cared about. A Representative from the 9th Congressional District of the great state of California might be able to let the Cuba question slide because her constituents don't really care about it. She would be unable to let something like gay rights slide because she's probably got a significant number of constituents who care one way or the other about the issue.

That's just a theory. I think a lot of U.S. policy both domestic and foreign exist because nobody feels like changing it. But I'm ambivalent as to its validity.

[Odesio]

One of the things I learned there was that Americans have the right to criticize their government, and that a good citizen should strive to improve his country rather than resort to knee-jerk jingoistic worship of all things American, because that road leads to fascism.


I completely agree. I didn't take exception to your criticism of U.S. policy towards Cuba (I agree relations should be normalized). I took exception to one throwaway line that came at the end of your post. You said our system was less than functioning. That statement is to legitimate criticism as any knee-jerk jingoistic worship of all things American is to a valid response.

[Siam Sam]

My 91-year-old uncle is traveling to Cuba this year on some sort of approved program. Can't remember what it's called, as I've misplaced his letter. He's still pretty active -- turned 90 last year on a three-day cruise of the Danube River -- and is not Cuban or even Hispanic. His wife, my aunt, is Hispanic, but with roots in Mexico and not Cuba, so it's nothing to do with Cuban affiliation. I'll try to find the name of the program.

Okay, I found my uncle's letter. He and my aunt -- again, he's 91 (above I meant he turned 91 on the Danube last year), but she's only in her 70s (I think; could be in her 80s by now) -- are going to Cuba as participants in what's called a "People to People" (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/grand-circle-foundation-announces-new-people-to-people-program-to-cuba-137977433.html) program sponsored by the Grand Circle Foundation (http://www.grandcirclefoundation.org/). Seems the foundation has been licenced to do this by the Office of Foreign Assets Control, the branch of the US Treasury that regulates travel to Cuba. He didn't give an exact date but said it would be early this year, so I guess it's any time now.

[florez]

Okay, I found my uncle's letter. He and my aunt -- again, he's 91 (above I meant he turned 91 on the Danube last year), but she's only in her 70s (I think; could be in her 80s by now) -- are going to Cuba as participants in what's called a "People to People" (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/grand-circle-foundation-announces-new-people-to-people-program-to-cuba-137977433.html) program sponsored by the Grand Circle Foundation (http://www.grandcirclefoundation.org/). Seems the foundation has been licenced to do this by the Office of Foreign Assets Control, the branch of the US Treasury that regulates travel to Cuba. He didn't give an exact date but said it would be early this year, so I guess it's any time now.



Thanks, Siam Sam, I was wondering if you would find that.

[NDP]

A dream trip of mine, I just hope I get there before McDonalds.

Or Starbucks. In fact, I'd give them the edge over McDonalds.

Basically, it's a fifty-year-old hissyfit.

Bingo. There's no reason why full diplomatic relations should not have been implementedand the trade block lifted years ago. Right now, it's pretty much a pointless grudge.

[amarinth]

Okay, I found my uncle's letter. He and my aunt -- again, he's 91 (above I meant he turned 91 on the Danube last year), but she's only in her 70s (I think; could be in her 80s by now) -- are going to Cuba as participants in what's called a "People to People" (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/grand-circle-foundation-announces-new-people-to-people-program-to-cuba-137977433.html) program sponsored by the Grand Circle Foundation (http://www.grandcirclefoundation.org/). Seems the foundation has been licenced to do this by the Office of Foreign Assets Control, the branch of the US Treasury that regulates travel to Cuba. He didn't give an exact date but said it would be early this year, so I guess it's any time now.Last summer, travel restrictions were eased (http://travel.nytimes.com/2011/07/10/travel/at-long-last-legal-trips-to-cuba.html). But only certain types of tours, only certain types of tours (they generally have to have a cultural or educational bents) with licensed tour operators who have filed detailed itineraries of where they're going and what they're doing.

[Paul in Qatar]

Friends report it's a great Honeymoon destination. Keen photographers like it, too. Beautiful, friendly people, everyone says. I hope to visit quite soon.

The US? Some kind of wacked out ideology thing. Welcome to the 1960s

Gosh, I suppose a lot of warm, poor, countries are nice if you have money and do not mind supporting the local dictator. This year, why not Burma?

[Eva Luna]

Okay, I found my uncle's letter. He and my aunt -- again, he's 91 (above I meant he turned 91 on the Danube last year), but she's only in her 70s (I think; could be in her 80s by now) -- are going to Cuba as participants in what's called a "People to People" (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/grand-circle-foundation-announces-new-people-to-people-program-to-cuba-137977433.html) program sponsored by the Grand Circle Foundation (http://www.grandcirclefoundation.org/). Seems the foundation has been licenced to do this by the Office of Foreign Assets Control, the branch of the US Treasury that regulates travel to Cuba. He didn't give an exact date but said it would be early this year, so I guess it's any time now.

My boss (who is not Hispanic) just got back from a similar trip a couple of weeks ago. His wife (also not Hispanic) has been wanting to go to Cuba for years, but he was worried about his law license if he was caught traveling illegally through Mexico.

He loved it and had a great time, and was surprised at how openly complete strangers were in talking to him - the Fidel jokes blew him away.

[usar_jag]

I just spent over a year in Cuba--not sure if I'd recommend it, though.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Gosh, I suppose a lot of warm, poor, countries are nice if you have money and do not mind supporting the local dictator. This year, why not Burma?

Sure you wanna start chucking stones at dictator-proppers, O Artist Formerly Known as Paul in Saudi?

[Bridget Burke]

Sure you wanna start chucking stones at dictator-proppers, O Artist Formerly Known as Paul in Saudi?

Warm, rich countries are different!

[Johnny L.A.]

The United States is a Free Country. We can go wherever we're allowed to.

[foolsguinea]

It's been chugging along for about 225 years now which isn't so bad as governments go. How long has yours been around?This is a silly argument. If we use age as a justification, then the longer a bad system stays in place, the harder it is to change it.

[clairobscur]

Gosh, I suppose a lot of warm, poor, countries are nice if you have money and do not mind supporting the local dictator. This year, why not Burma?


Uh? This coming from someone who has lived in Saudi Arabia for years? :rolleyes:

[ElvisL1ves]

The United States is a Free Country. We can go wherever we're allowed to.
Coming back can be a problem, though.

[guizot]

Coming back can be a problem, though.In practice, it's only going to be a problem if you're obviously carrying a bunch of cigars at Customs, or otherwise engaging in blatant transportation of goods in some way. In fact, enforcement of violations of the "Trading With the Enemy Act" has resulted in only four people actually penalized at Customs at the border since 2009. This website (http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/CivPen/Pages/civpen-index2.aspx) shows ALL sanctions for ALL prohibited international trade (with countries like Iran or Sudan) which have been imposed recently. Since 2004 only about 900 individuals have been penalized for dealing with Cuba--and just about all are individuals ordering cigars online. Other than individuals, the others are big companies that have paid civil fees in settlements for somehow transporting Cuban goods into the U.S. (probably by way of a third country). No one was imprisoned at the border, as far as I can tell from here and other documentation.

As for "supporting the regime of a dictator"--well, if that were really the issue, then the government could just stop all those Cubans in south Florida from sending any remittances at all to their family back home--but it doesn't.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

I just spent over a year in Cuba--not sure if I'd recommend it, though.

Can you elaborate as to why not?

[Miller]

Moved to GD from the Pit.

[JRDelirious]

We're waiting for Castro to die. IMO what keeps El Jefe motivated to stay on this side of the grass anymore is sheer determination to deny the folks he kicked out in the early 60s the satisfaction.


Bingo. There's no reason why full diplomatic relations should not have been implementedand the trade block lifted years ago. Right now, it's pretty much a pointless grudge.

Yep. And even more pointless when you think that meanwhile, we normalized relations with Vietnam. Vietnam! But Cuba, oh, noooo, not Cuba...

[Paul in Qatar]

Sure you wanna start chucking stones at dictator-proppers, O Artist Formerly Known as Paul in Saudi?

And I am in Saudi Arabia. And I am changing the system. I do not (for example) go drinking in Bahrain as I am opposed to supporting their dictatorship.

[RedFury]

I just spent over a year in Cuba--not sure if I'd recommend it, though.

Can you give us an overview of what life there is like? For instance, I'd be curious about ex-pat communities there.

[guizot]

Can you give us an overview of what life there is like? For instance, I'd be curious about ex-pat communities there.Probably was assigned to Gitmo, so it really wouldn't be like actually living in Cuba. Almost no one there ever leaves the base, I believe.

[RedFury]

Hmmm...I've always thought of Gitmo as an extreme vacation spot. Kinda like the X-games of vacation.

[BMalion]

A few years ago I was sweating bullets as I brought a box of Cuban cigars home to America from Toronto.

Turns out the customs guy just waved us through.

[kushiel]

A dream trip of mine, I just hope I get there before McDonalds.

Speaking of, my coworker has vacationed in Cuba several times and she says the food tastes so much different than ours just because of different agricultural practices. She says it's still good, but the beef has different texture and flavour to it and stuff like that. Be interesting to see how that would change with a Mickey D's!

[XT]

Since the core of the OP has already been answered (it's not illegal for US tourists to visit Cuba, just restricted...and this is because the embargo by the US on Cuba is still in place, and probably will remain so until either the current Cuban leadership dies off or Cuba pays reparations for the seizure and nationalization of property and industry from US citizens...or, by this point, their decedents).

Americans are willing to give up their freedom and the potential economic benefits of trade because of a small special-interest group?

The trouble is, there isn't a burning need for the citizens of the US to go to Cuba as tourists. It would be nice, but by and large there just aren't enough people who care. It's in CUBA'S best interest to normalize relations with the US, not ours, since the tourist trade is the biggest source of income for Cuba. It also wouldn't be a huge boost to the US wrt trade with Cuba...again, the money would flow the other way.

The trouble would be that as things stand now and have stood since the revolution, no one (not even those Europeans and Canadians who ARE allowed to freely travel to Cuba for tourism or trade) is going to invest real money in Cuba, since there is the whole seizure and nationalization thingy still hanging over it all. That's kind of why there has been a jump in tourism since the 90's (when the Cuba's, strapped for cash, actually allowed official tourist to start coming to the country again) but has dropped off lately...most of their stuff is old and poorly maintained by western standards, and without external investment it's unlikely to change.

Bottom line though is there just aren't enough Americans who care about Cuba, or even have it on their radar to change the status quo. There is no huge benefit to us to change...and the Cuban's are too set in their own ways to make a real effort at rapprochement with the US, something that would benefit them tremendously. Perhaps when the old guard finally shuffles off this mortal coil things will change...but I wouldn't hold my breath.

As far as I know, Cuba is the only country that Americans are not legally allowed to visit. Is it just that no one wants to bell the cat (=be the first to admit the status quo isn't working), or is there some benefit to the way things are that I'm not seeing?

The trouble is, the status quo IS working...for us. What is the big benefit to the average American to change it? Why would they care enough to agitate for it? What would they get out of it? The answers are basically nothing. The benefit would be to Cuba in the US doing this sort of thing. A better question is, seeing China and all the benefits they have incurred by normalizing relations with the US in the 70's, why the fuck haven't the Cuban's figured this out yet, especially after the gravy train from the Soviet Union stopped chugging along?

-XT

[Dr. Drake]

The trouble is, the status quo IS working...for us. What is the big benefit to the average American to change it? Why would they care enough to agitate for it? What would they get out of it? The answers are basically nothing. The benefit would be to Cuba in the US doing this sort of thing....An interesting and thoughtful post. My response is that I dislike having my freedom arbitrarily restricted by my government, and that's enough for me to agitate for change. Of course, freedom can be bought and sold for dollars.

[XT]

An interesting and thoughtful post. My response is that I dislike having my freedom arbitrarily restricted by my government, and that's enough for me to agitate for change. Of course, freedom can be bought and sold for dollars.

Sure, and I agree. Full disclosure...I'd LOVE for the embargo to be lifted and trade restored between Cuba and the US. I'm a cigar smoker, and access to Cuban cigars is high on my list of wonderful things. However, it's just not a priority for most Americans, who probably never even think about it and who would probably not vacation in Cuba even if they had the opportunity to do so (and who also don't smoke cigars or need sugar or other products the Cubans could produce for trade with the US). So, maintaining the status quo is easiest for the US to do since there aren't a lot of benefits, and changing it without real changes to Cuba first is just more of a political headache than the political gain would be worth. The only folks who really think about Cuba are mainly opposed to any real change in the status quo without Cuba paying reparations and making deep and fundamental changes first.

-XT

[kenobi 65]

However, it's just not a priority for most Americans, who probably never even think about it and who would probably not vacation in Cuba even if they had the opportunity to do so (and who also don't smoke cigars or need sugar or other products the Cubans could produce for trade with the US).

I think that's the truth of it. Beyond cigar aficionados, and those like Dr. Drake who just don't like being restricted by their government on general principles, the inability to easily travel to or trade with Cuba has no impact on the lives of the vast majority of Americans. Thus, they have no incentive to support a change, while the Cuban expat lobby still has an incentive to oppose a change.

[guizot]

I think that's the truth of it. Beyond cigar aficionados, and those like Dr. Drake who just don't like being restricted by their government on general principles, the inability to easily travel to or trade with Cuba has no impact on the lives of the vast majority of Americans.Well I myself have gone there because of my deep appreciation of the present musical culture (particularly timba). Yes, those musical acts can get visas to tour in the States, but only the really big names, and often they have difficulties doing so. Plus, attending live performances in country itself is totally different than the venues here. But to be honest, when I go there I certainly don't miss McDonalds, etc., and other dreck that U.S. tourism would attract.Thus, they have no incentive to support a change, while the Cuban expat lobby still has an incentive to oppose a change.If it weren't for that lobby, there is nothing to stop the U.S. government from wanting a stronger Cuban economy by way of tourism. The stronger the Cuban economy, the more they can buy from us.

[Chessic Sense]

Remember that trade only happens because two guys want what the other has. Every single transaction is mutually beneficial.

So basically, ANY significant minority in Florida can hold national policy hostage, but the same people in California or the entire population of North Dakota acting in unison have no effect whatsoever.

No, not ANY significant minority. Only minorities that have 49% of the rest of the population in agreement with them. So no, the Miami branch of the KKK can't hold national policy hostage. And the same people in California could have an effect if they could get another 49% to agree with them on their particular issue.

Whaddaya know, democracy works.

[guizot]

And the same people in California could have an effect ...Yes, but not the same number. It would take about one and a half million people of a specific interest group in California to effect the same kind of change in national foreign policy. Likewise, if all those Cubans lived in Idaho, no one would give a damn.

[XT]

If it weren't for that lobby, there is nothing to stop the U.S. government from wanting a stronger Cuban economy by way of tourism. The stronger the Cuban economy, the more they can buy from us.

I doubt it. At this point there simply is no over riding reason for the US to change the status quo, even without the lobby (who are relatively small, compared to other lobbies in the US). Having the Cuban economy stronger is really not a priority for the US, even if it would be a (marginal) uptick in our exports, assuming that the Cubans would buy from us even if we opened up access between our two countries.

Well I myself have gone there because of my deep appreciation of the present musical culture (particularly timba). Yes, those musical acts can get visas to tour in the States, but only the really big names, and often they have difficulties doing so. Plus, attending live performances in country itself is totally different than the venues here. But to be honest, when I go there I certainly don't miss McDonalds, etc., and other dreck that U.S. tourism would attract.

Americans just pollute every place they go with their dreck, sadly. I have to say, having been to Cuba myself, that it could use a bit of dreck to spiff things up a bit...it was pretty run down and bedraggled when I was there, though I'm not a music culture fan, so perhaps that would make up for things. I DID enjoy buying and smoking some really good cigars, and having some tasty rum (some of the food wasn't bad either, though that was mostly not from restaurants), but as it was when I was there I wouldn't be in any hurry to go back. Maybe the people are less beaten down and...not sure of the word...depressed?...these days.

-XT

[guizot]

. . . assuming that the Cubans would buy from us even if we opened up access between our two countries.Cuba has been buying from us for a while now. Our exports to Cuba went down a few years ago because of the decline of the fixed peso, so everything that helps the Cuban economy is good news to the corn farmer in Texas, if not to the exile in south Florida.

[XT]

Sure, but it's not a huge amount we are talking here, even if we opened it up fully to more than agricultural stuff. Most Americans wouldn't realize any benefit. CUBA would, but that's not our lookout.

As I said, I'm all for it and wish it would happen, but I can certainly see why it's not a priority, even without the ex-pat Cuba lobby taking a hard line. The only way there will be real, substantial change on this is either once Fidel et al kick the bucket or if Cuba radically changed with the intent of full rapprochement with the US.

-XT

[guizot]

Sure, but it's not a huge amount we are talking here, even if we opened it up fully to more than agricultural stuff. Most Americans wouldn't realize any benefit. I think it's about four billion, a pretty good amount--agriculture to South Korea is about five or six, as a comparison. One of the big factors is that it's so close. The fact is that Americans don't discretely "realize" any specific economic benefit--just the aggregate, and sound economic policy ultimately becomes a question of the aggregate.

[Dr. Drake]

The point is that there are two options, the current policy and a less restricted policy. Basic cost-benefit analysis in a policy change:

* Very minor economic benefit to us in increased trade (presumably most important)
* Very minor cultural benefit to us in increased tourism, new vacation spots
* Major humanitarian benefit to the Cubans
* Tiny bit of increased freedom for American citizens

* Rather minor cost in annoying the Cuban-Americans, less than 1% of the population.
* Losing a tiny bit of face by admitting Castro's revolution has not failed.

Am I missing anything? It seems like the benefits far outweigh the costs. Some of the major factors (the Soviets, the possibility of returning Cuba to the pre-Castro days) are long gone, and now we're just cutting off our nose to spite our face, out of habit, I guess. It just seems weirdly pointless. Of course, I don't know where to factor Guantanamo in all of this.

[XT]

Am I missing anything? It seems like the benefits far outweigh the costs. Some of the major factors (the Soviets, the possibility of returning Cuba to the pre-Castro days) are long gone, and now we're just cutting off our nose to spite our face, out of habit, I guess. It just seems weirdly pointless. Of course, I don't know where to factor Guantanamo in all of this.

You are missing the political costs. Put it this way...politicians (or their staffs) can do cost to benefit analysis type calculations as well as anyone, and no one wants to touch this with a 10 foot pole. Why? Because there isn't any political pay off in changing the status quo unless and until Cuba changes first....while there are political downsides, even leaving aside the ex-pat Cuba contingent. People either don't care/don't even think about Cuba, have a negative viewpoint and don't see any need to change that status quo, are highly against it, or, in some cases as with guizot are in favor of changing the status quo but not enough to seriously agitate for it to the point it gets on the US political radar.

It's just not going to happen, IMHO...not until the situation changes. And most of that change is going to have to come from Cuba, again IMHO. Fidel and Bro are going to have to shuffle off, as well as a large part of the old guard who have been running Cuba since the revolution, and some fundamental changes are going to have to happen. Again, note that even though other countries DO allow trade and tourism with Cuba, there hasn't exactly been a flood of foreign investment into the country. A good question would be...why? The answer would be...because the Cubans haven't really changed all that much, fundamentally. The only real reason they started allowing tourism at all again was because the gravy train had been derailed when the USSR went tits up. The reason there still hasn't been a lot of foreign investment still stems from the fact that during the revolution the Cuban government seized assets and property without any attempt at compensation, and as with Venezuela, when you do that you are sort of fucked if you want to get new geese to lay new golden eggs.

The Cubans should have/need to take a page from China's book, but sadly they seem to stubborn to do so...and there just isn't any driving reason for the US to change things at this late date. We can afford to just ignore Cuba and go along our merry way...after all, we can buy cigars and sugar from other countries, and there are plenty of places for our tourists to go. Even some without McDonald's...

;)

-XT

[Dr. Drake]

You are missing the political costs. Put it this way...politicians (or their staffs) can do cost to benefit analysis type calculations as well as anyone, and no one wants to touch this with a 10 foot pole. Why?I just don't understand this. I hear what you're saying, but I don't see what the political downsides are. If people don't care, how can it be a negative? If they do care, what is their concern? From everything I've seen here, it all comes down to the Cuban expatriates, Cold War inertia, or something that hasn't been spelled out for me.

[XT]

Cuba has a mostly negative connotation with the American public, due to literally decades of negative news about it. So, if you are a politician, why expend the political capital on something that most Americans don't care about or would view negatively? In order to shift the American public's perception you'd need to expend the effort TOO shift that public opinion...and it's simply not been worth the cost for the rather nebulous benefit of helping Cuba's economy.

We've opened things up to Cuba quite a bit since I was a kid (the revolution happened a year or so before I was born), especially in the last decade or so. Give it another decade or two and things will probably continue to slowly open, if nothing changes (which is doubtful...even Fidel has to kick to bucket some time, and the rest of the old guard are getting pretty long in the tooth. I'M getting long in the tooth, and like I said, I was born after the revolution). Unless something changes, that will be the case.

If something DOES change, fundamentally, to shift US public opinion (such as the fall of the Cuban government), then things could change more rapidly. Look at China or Russia or a lot of the old Eastern Bloc nations as examples. Without that, however, it's just not worth the political capital to change because of the effort it would take to shift public opinion without something around which to rally that change. I mean, what would you say, if you were a politician? We want to change our decades old policies towards Cuba because it will help there economy? Oh, they haven't really changed at all, but we feel bad for them and want to give them a boost? What sort of traction is that going to gain on the American political scene? The only folks who would support that are folks like those on this board...like me, or other 'dopers who think the whole embargo thingy is silly and outdated. But it's going to be a hard sell for most Americans without some sort of change that can be pointed to as a good reason for us to change the status quo.

-XT

[Lemur866]

Yes, it all comes down to Cuban expatriates and Cold War inertia. This was explained long ago. Did you not believe us when we explained it?

Inertia is a powerful force. In order to normalize relations with Cuba it would take an act of Congress. Congress isn't going to act to normalize relations with Cuba unless the individual members of Congress think it's a good idea. And they only do that if there is a constituency that supports the change.

[Dr. Drake]

Yes, it all comes down to Cuban expatriates and Cold War inertia. This was explained long ago. Did you not believe us when we explained it?No, because that seemed like a silly way to run a country, and I found it hard to believe that people were really that invested in their ignorance. I guess I'll let myself be convinced, but it's depressing.

[XT]

Consider it from the other perspective...how stupid is it for Cuba to continue to do the silly shit they have been doing. And for what? So they can remain poor and backward and continue to repress their population and lower living standards all around? What sort of pay off is THAT for them?

Silly way to run a country, no? From OUR perspective, again, what's the pay off for us as a society? The freedom for a few folks to get to go to Cuba for vacation? Some nice cigars and sugar? Maybe some rum and hookers? There just isn't any large incentive for us to change. There IS a large incentive for them to change, but they don't seem to want too. Impasse...

-XT

[kenobi 65]

No, because that seemed like a silly way to run a country, and I found it hard to believe that people were really that invested in their ignorance. I guess I'll let myself be convinced, but it's depressing.

OK, look at it this way.

The Cuban expat lobby wants very much for the current policy to continue (unless the Cuban government provides the reparations described above, which ain't happening any time soon). They've proven that they're a reasonably important voting bloc in Florida, and this is their hot-button issue. If a political candidate goes against the current policy, it's a guarantee that said candidate will lose the votes from that bloc.

There are some people, like yourself, who'd like to see the policy changed. There apparently aren't terribly many of them, and I'd wager that, for most of them, this single issue isn't going to drive their votes, one way or the other.

For nearly everyone else, not only is this not an issue which is going to drive their votes one way or the other, but it's not even something to which they give a moment's thought. So, yeah, they're ignorant about it...but even if they weren't, that knowledge would not change their lives in any significant way.

In short: there's very little upside for a politician to go against the current policy, and a potentially large downside.

[Dr. Drake]

But those who can earn votes from Florida are only 4% of the Senate and 7½% of the House. So for over 90% of Congress, that specific downside does not exist. What I don't know is how senior the Floridians are on the various relevant committees.

[XT]

But those who can earn votes from Florida are only 4% of the Senate and 7½% of the House. So for over 90% of Congress, that specific downside does not exist. What I don't know is how senior the Floridians are on the various relevant committees.

Let's try this another way. Assume you are correct here and that it only matters in Florida. Why has there been no major change then, and no major effort TOO change (the caveat being that we have changed slightly over the years, especially in the last 10...but not towards full normalization)? Politicians can certainly see opportunities and calculate political cost to benefit analysis...so, why hasn't any of them done so and pushed hard for full normalization of relations with Cuba?

-XT

[Dr. Drake]

Let's try this another way. Assume you are correct here and that it only matters in Florida. Why has there been no major change then, and no major effort TOO change (the caveat being that we have changed slightly over the years, especially in the last 10...but not towards full normalization)? Politicians can certainly see opportunities and calculate political cost to benefit analysis...so, why hasn't any of them done so and pushed hard for full normalization of relations with Cuba?

-XTThat's kind of my question. Obviously, it's because I'm not correct. Either there's a downside I don't see, and I don't think that's been demonstrated, or the upside is insufficient to challenge the status quo, which I think is the most likely. And, as you've said, restrictions have been easing incrementally, and plans may be in place to normalize as soon as there's a good PR moment, like F. Castro's death (statistically not far off).

Contributing factors: Probably both the American people and Congress assumed that Cuba would initiate reforms after the fall of the USSR, and / or that Castro wouldn't live so long. And of course I do agree that Cuba has far more incentive to change than the US does, though that's a bit of a separate issue.

[Baruch Spinoza]

After Castro seized power in Cuba, the government expropriated (nationalized/seized) various industries, just like governments do to varying degrees everywhere, including the US and various public utilities or wartime industrialization, and frequently when a government changes radically.

Under established international law, any foreign owners of assets seized by a government must be given reasonable compensation. Without compensation, the government of the foreign owner can lay a claim against the seizing government for compensation.

During the Cold War, the US hyped this claim enormously, and banned any American from using their money in Cuba under the guise of preventing Castro from profiting from Americans before he paid back the compensation.

This comparatively small commercial dispute has been overly exploited into an absurd policy. j

Cuba could end this whenever they wanted by asking for a commerical arbitration of the dispute. The actual value of what would be owed is comparatively small, particularly with modern economics understanding the full effect of those US companies in Cuba.

However, Cuba does not want to end the dispute. Being despised by the US is their primary source of funding.

And, of course, the extremist US politicians who keep a death-causing economic and social embargo on Cuban goods and culture that hurts the US because they can then appear more extreme to the Cuban Americans and maybe get a few votes on this false issue.

The US has spent much much more on the embargo than a few companies would have ever gotten back from the "compensation." In practice, such compensation is rarely paid. Most companies have insurance for it. The US is exploiting this because our voters are too stupid to see how they are manipulated. We need a real education system.

[XT]

That's kind of my question.

Right...and it's been answered in various ways. You don't seem comfortable with the answers, so I'm trying to get you to think about it in a different direction...i.e. from the standpoint of a politician. If you, a theoretical politician (no insult intended ;)) see an advantage in pushing through normalized relations with Cuba, then you are going to do it. If there is no advantage, then you aren't. Obviously, very few (if any) US politicians DO see such an advantage. Q.E.D. there probably isn't one, for all the reasons folks have given you in this thread previously.

Either there's a downside I don't see, and I don't think that's been demonstrated, or the upside is insufficient to challenge the status quo, which I think is the most likely.

It HAS been demonstrated, in several different ways. The issue is that you don't accept that it has been. If you will detail your objections to what has been said so far then maybe someone could address those points. That would be better than folks just saying the same things again, and you still not accepting them, since it's unclear just what your objections are. At least to me.

And, as you've said, restrictions have been easing incrementally, and plans may be in place to normalize as soon as there's a good PR moment, like F. Castro's death (statistically not far off).


Yep, though it will probably take more than simply Castro's death to effect a large scale and sudden change. As long as incremental progress that takes a few more years or decades is ok, then that's what's already happening.

Contributing factors: Probably both the American people and Congress assumed that Cuba would initiate reforms after the fall of the USSR, and / or that Castro wouldn't live so long. And of course I do agree that Cuba has far more incentive to change than the US does, though that's a bit of a separate issue.

It's not really a separate issue though, considering our system of government. If there is no clear incentive for the people to push for change (i.e. they don't care or even feel negatively about a given issue), then there is not going to be any large scale change. Look at any hot button issue in the US, especially historically. Change is glacial...until it's not, then it's sudden. Cuba isn't nearly as important an issue as, say, gay marriage or civil rights...and those things took years (gay marriage is still in the process of being resolved in fact), until there was some tipping point. The only thing I see as a tipping point wrt Cuba is a major sea change in their politics...otherwise we get slow, glacial change over years or decades.

-XT

[Dr. Drake]

I appreciate the thoughtful replies. I don't know if my own ignorance has been fought to a standstill, but it's certainly been wounded.

[guizot]

Cuba could end this whenever they wanted by asking for a commerical arbitration of the dispute. The actual value of what would be owed is comparatively small, particularly with modern economics understanding the full effect of those US companies in Cuba. This point bears repeating. While it might seem that all Cubans should be desperate to get U.S. tourism, there are reasons why they don't feel great urgency to get it at all costs. And I'm not just talking about the government. Many people in the U.S. seem to think that they have the only country in the world that one could feel pride for.

Even the average Cuban who distrusts and disagrees with Fidel Castro is still proud that Cuba has gotten by without kowtowing to the U.S., and the sentiment displayed by the banner in this photo (http://www.flickr.com/photos/49289187@N02/6877764025/in/photostream/lightbox/) ("Nuestro honor no podra ser jamas bloqueado." -- "Our honor can never be blockaded.") isn't limited to government propaganda.

[kenobi 65]

If you, a theoretical politician (no insult intended ;)) see an advantage in pushing through normalized relations with Cuba, then you are going to do it. If there is no advantage, then you aren't. Obviously, very few (if any) US politicians DO see such an advantage. Q.E.D. there probably isn't one, for all the reasons folks have given you in this thread previously.

Exactly. If you're a politician in Florida (or if you're running for president), supporting the status quo is advantageous, as it ensure you'll get votes (or, at least, it helps to ensure that you won't lose votes due to this).

If you're a politician in any other state, there isn't enough of a political advantage to supporting a change to make it worth spending any of your political capital, esp. because it will be an issue which will become contentious in Congress, thanks to the Florida delegation, and those who would side with them. Are you going to try to push through legislation which (a) your constituents don't really care about (and so, it's not worth any points to you in the next election), (b) is going to generate a lot of venomous mail from Florida (even if they aren't your constituents), and (c) will likely get vetoed by the President, if he's looking to run again?

[BigT]

Especially when the alternative is that you do it slowly enough that no one cares. That's the problem I see with Dr. Drake's questions. The choice isn't just between doing all at once and not doing it all. There's also the option to slowly erode the blockade, and that's what is happening.

There's no pressing need to end the embargo right now.

[aruvqan]

Especially when the alternative is that you do it slowly enough that no one cares. That's the problem I see with Dr. Drake's questions. The choice isn't just between doing all at once and not doing it all. There's also the option to slowly erode the blockade, and that's what is happening.

There's no pressing need to end the embargo right now.
Why not end it right now? It isn't actually accomplishing anything other than making it impossible for me to enjoy tourism in Cuba, though I suppose that I could try to get a MAC flight to Gitmo using my Navy ID to get there.

Look - I can go to mainland China, North Korea [if I could talk them into giving me a visa which I understand is difficult] and I could be like one of those backpacking morons and wander into a war zone, but I can't go to an island 90 miles from Florida because some expats have their ancient panties in a bunch over shit that happened 50 years ago? WTF dude.

[Cheshire Human]

Why not end it right now? It isn't actually accomplishing anything....

Because there is no benefit to any politician to push the point. The Cuban expats care, so their congressclowns care, because it can make or break them in the next election. Every other congressclown in the country has nothing at all to gain, vote-wise, in pushing the issue. Their constituents who want the embargo* ended (like me) don't want it badly enough for it to be a campaign issue, and most of their constituents don't even give a shit at all. So there is no upside to them pushing for ending it. No votes to be had.

But if there's no downside, vote-wise, why not try? Because there is a downside. It requires they do some wheeling-and-dealing in congress to do so. That will invariably mean they wind up owing political favors to other congressclowns. Payback may well involve having to support an issue some time in the future that will cost them votes. And they will have wasted that political capital on an issue their constituents didn't give a shit about.

Except for people running for election in Florida or for President, there's no political benefit, and major potential for political harm for even touching the issue. So why touch it?


*Note for others in the thread who have been misusing the term "Blockade": It's an Embargo, not a Blockade. Two entirely different things. There hasn't been a blockade of Cuba since before I was born. Look them up on Wiki if you want to know the difference, but even if you don't, please stop using the wrong term. A blockade is just short of an actual act of war.

[Lemur866]

There's also the option to slowly erode the blockade, and that's what is happening.


There is no blockade of Cuba. A blockade would mean that our navy was intercepting ships bound for Cuba, and sending them back. A blockade is an act of war.

We have an embargo of Cuba, which is a different thing. US citizens and corporations aren't allowed to purchase Cuban goods and services. This is an embargo.

However, we don't attempt to stop Cuba from selling goods and services to Canadians. That would be a blockade.

As for the notion that the second we lifted the embargo American firms would stampede into Cuba and "ruin" it, well, Cuba is open to firms from around the world. Canadian and Mexican and German companies are free to open businesses in Cuba, so why haven't the Europeans and Canadians ruined Cuba? The answer of course is that it isn't just the embargo that prevents firms from operating in Cuba, it is also the Cuban government.

And the Cuban government doesn't allow foreign firms to operate in Cuba unless the Cuban government is a 51% partner.

Another misconception is that Cubans keep old American cars from the 50s because, due to the embargo, they can't get new cars. Well, they can't get new cars but not because of the embargo. They could buy cars from Japan or Europe or Mexico, after all, it would just be American cars they couldn't buy. The real reason there are cars from the 50s is that the Cuban government doesn't allow private citizens to buy cars. If you already have a private car you're allowed to keep it, but you can't buy one. And so, families that owned private cars before the revolution have to keep their 50 year old vehiciles running somehow, because if it breaks down completely the government won't allow them to get another one.

[robert_columbia]

I would think that other Latin Caribbean destinations might be a little unhappy at potentially losing US tourist dollars to Cuba. If Americans could go to Cuba again, how many Americans will decide to go there instead of, say, Puerto Rico?

[XT]

It would depend on what they had to offer to American tourists as to how many potential dollars they would get. The thing is, it's not a fixed pie of US dollars, so just because someone might decide to go to Cuba instead of Honduras, doesn't mean that some other American might not decide to go to Honduras for the first time....or, maybe folks would go to Cuba for the first time, and wouldn't have ever gone to Puerto Rico regardless. I don't think it would be a problem.

-XT

[BrainGlutton]

There is no blockade of Cuba. A blockade would mean that our navy was intercepting ships bound for Cuba, and sending them back. A blockade is an act of war.

We have an embargo of Cuba, which is a different thing. US citizens and corporations aren't allowed to purchase Cuban goods and services. This is an embargo.

However, we don't attempt to stop Cuba from selling goods and services to Canadians. That would be a blockade.

We did blockade Cuba once, but that was during the Missile Crisis.

[BrainGlutton]

I would think that other Latin Caribbean destinations might be a little unhappy at potentially losing US tourist dollars to Cuba. If Americans could go to Cuba again, how many Americans will decide to go there instead of, say, Puerto Rico?

Then I guess they'll just have to compete on the basis of which island offers higher-quality and/or more reasonably priced prostitution. Let the Whore Wars begin! :cool:

[orcenio]

Then I guess they'll just have to compete on the basis of which island offers higher-quality and/or more reasonably priced prostitution. Let the Whore Wars begin! :cool:I don't know why, but I thought of this skit (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJNsZgHCVKU#t=0m44s).

[handsomeharry]

Drake said something insightful. You said something idiotic. Thinking that there is any need for a "good reply" is similarly idiotic.

Drake's reply wasn't insightful, it was horseshit. He said that any significant minority in FL could hold national policy hostage.

I'll leave it to everybody else to pick the nits on that statement.

[Dr. Drake]

Drake's reply wasn't insightful, it was horseshit. He said that any significant minority in FL could hold national policy hostage.

I'll leave it to everybody else to pick the nits on that statement.It may have been horseshit, but it wasn't from my horse. I was trying to understand Lemur866's point about the Cubans being a swing bloc. If I misunderstood what a swing bloc is and does, please correct me, especially since nobody else in this thread had anything to say about it.

And you pick flies from horseshit, not nits.

[handsomeharry]

It may have been horseshit, but it wasn't from my horse. I was trying to understand Lemur866's point about the Cubans being a swing bloc. If I misunderstood what a swing bloc is and does, please correct me, especially since nobody else in this thread had anything to say about it.

And you pick flies from horseshit, not nits.

Dr. Drake, I wish to apologize for saying that about your post. It was as rude as can be, and I had no right to use it about your comment. My only excuse is my stupidity and rudeness, and I hope you can overlook both.
hh

[Dr. Drake]

Dr. Drake, I wish to apologize for saying that about your post. It was as rude as can be, and I had no right to use it about your comment. My only excuse is my stupidity and rudeness, and I hope you can overlook both.
hhNo worries at all—it's just a message board, and I _am_ embarassingly prone to posting stupid things. I am usually grateful to be called on them.