Well on the issue of the actual effects of the embargo, you indeed seem to be speaking more as an individual with an opinion, than as a representative of the sentiments of the Cuban people. May i add that the opinion you are promoting seem to be very much in dispute.
Consider f. e.
http://www.snma.org/ihealth/cubaembargo.html
Which references a report by the American Association for World Health summarized here:
http://www.cubasolidarity.net/aawh.html
And the full text here:
You’re right about getting accurate information on Cuba. Here’s a good gauge though, when the US interest section announced in 1994 that it would grant 20,000 yearly visas in a lottery system, 500,000 applied that first year. The number of applications has not gone down, obviously some of those are the same ones from year to year, but it’s still a significant number. Consider also what has happened every time Castro has allowed open emigration, in 1980 125,000 in 3 months. I don’t recall the numbers from 1994 but it was probably 20-30 thousand, in a few weeks, and that time they were leaving in inner tubes.
And of course each one of those incidents happened decades after Castro’s takeover, and most of those leaving had known nothing but Castro’s rule, in other words the “new men” that Guevara talked about.
And to get back to the OP, Castro’s government is suffering from the same malady that other communist governments have, namely he knows that given a choice Cubans would wave a happy goodbye to communism. Either from a boat or airplane, or by changing governments. Consequently you end up with the situation in Cuba today, people can not leave, and they have no voice in their government. So to answer the OP, nope, communist leaders probably don’t believe the hype. Not for very long anyway.
In response to this i would like to highlight two things from the mentioned report. It deals with impact on trade with medical equipment, but is equally valid for any form of trade:
and
Good point Randy, many people outside of Cuba disagree with me. And my opinion is indeed contrary to the opinion of the Cuban government, part of the reason I no longer live in Cuba, where it is illegal to criticise the government, its policies, or its leaders., the last is a pdf file.
Randy, I refer you to this CNN article which points out that much of this has not been true for a while. In fact after Hurricane Michelle hit Cuba, this CNN article talks about food purchases made by Cuba under these changes in the law.
And your opinion is also, and more pertinently, contrary to that of most Cubans inside Cuba if i have interpreted you correctly?
Come on Mr Bayonet, Castro may not be a shining beacon of democratic freedoms, but he’s no Stalin or Franco. He locks up a lot of people but as far as I can make out Cuba is mercifully free of the sort of murderous excesses favoured by the school of dictators formed in the 1930s. I know that about 80 journalists and dissidents were arrested in Cuba last week, and that their trials will be for the most part jokes, but Franco or Stalin would have just killed them years ago. And probably their families too, and then burned their houses down.
Hm, these links do only mention humanitarian exceptions on food and medicine. All good and well that those exceptions have been made, on the items they single out.
But the impact from embargo regulations of subsidiary trade, and shipping, holds for all other items of trade as well.
I don’t where you got that idea. I did say that most Cubans hate the embargo, and I also said that I favor removal of the embargo. But I also said that I and most people in the island that I know also recognize that Cuba’s problems have very little to do with the embargo.
I think what we’re talking about here is degrees of repression, and I’d caution you consider that both Franco and Stalin are long gone, their regimes also long gone, and that has allowed the documentation and publicization of their brutality.
Castro is still very much in power and the verdict on his own brutality has not yet been rendered. Cuba, like China, hands out the death penalty for such crimes as drug trafficking, armed robbery, and aggravated rape, in addition to the more “traditional” crimes of murder and counter-revolution. Just because Granma doesn’t publish the number of people executed in Cuba in any given year it doesn’t mean they are not taking place. Spain and the USSR also did not publicize their leaders murderous ways while they were still in power.
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here, yes the embargo affects the ability of the Cuban government to trade with the US. That is the nature of a trade embargo. Exceptions have been made by the US concerning food and medicines, that’s a good thing.
I suspect however, that once the embargo is completely lifted Cuba’s trading position won’t change much, unless it can also get some generous credit from US banks and firms, and considering Cuba’s borrowing practices that seems unlikely.
I thought I was quite clear. Those points made earlier on the subject of medicine, are as valid for all other products.
I’ll rephrase the cite without the reference to medical equipment:
The Ban on Subsidiary Trade constrains Cuba’s ability to import goods from third country sources.
The embargo prohibits ships from loading or unloading cargo in U.S. ports for 180 days after delivering cargo to Cuba. This provision strongly discourages shippers from delivering goods to Cuba. Consequently shipping costs rise dramatically and further constricts the flow of items.
Ok, I’ll bite, can you please post a comparison of shipping costs, and the dramatic increase brought about by these restrictions? Because, although I searched, I found no references for it. And while I’ll grant you that it is reasonable to assume a higher shipping cost when restrictions on shipping are imposed I don’t think that increase is likely to be as large as portrayed.
For instance, a ship may not dock in the US for 180 days after docking in Cuba, well, shipments may be unloaded in a 3rd country first, or the ship docks in the US first, and then Cuba. Like I mentioned before, and anyone who has been to Cuba will confirm, there is no shortage of goods in Cuba, most goods however are priced in dollars, which are simply not available to ordinary Cubans.
Did you hear me say that? I thought that you would realize, that I was talking about most people, not all people.
The difference being, that what we learned in the US is true. Americans don’t flee by the hundreds every day trying to escape persecution.
All right, this is the second time you’ve done this to me. In first quote, I never said that nobody ever moves to a communist country. And in this quote, I never said that I would make reforms or resign under all circumstances.
Please, if you’re going to respond to what I say, please respond to what I actually said.
One point of comparison here.
How about Mexico? How many Mexicans would cross the US border in an instant if they had the chance? Are the poor in Mexico any better off than the poor in Cuba?
Yes, of course people flee non communist countries like Mexico and Haiti. And???
That’s just economic migration. It is different from emigrating to escape oppressive regimes. Besides, Mexico and the USA are bound by a free trade agreement, which is not exactly the case of the USA’s relationship with Cuba.
Well you were asking me an unspecified question:
Here “people” not specified, and it’s of sigificant importance what kind of people you are thinking of here. I’ll examplify:
“people” = “any people at all”:
This was the interpretation I responded to.
“people” = “people in general / people in large numbers”:
In this case I would say that this is not true in the case of Cuba. But on the other hand it is true for a very small number, probably zero, of third world countries.
“people” = “people like you and me; reasonably prosperous westerners”:
In the case of Cuba, probably a fair amount of us would. I’ve heard that there are no-tax zones, to spawn foreign investments. (Only through word-of-mouth, not unlikely though). So we could make a fair buck while basking in the sunshine.
So you see, there is a need to qualify what you mean, if you want to make a point.
You can be certain that you too have learned some things about communist countries that were not true. You can be certain that USSR citizens learned some things about the US that were true.
If you wan’t to add some validity to your argument start speaking in relative proportions at least, and be specific please.
So what then, what did you actually say?
Which translates to the following assumptions:
(I) You are the leader of a country.
(II) Your country is under an embargo.
(III) The embargo is impoverishing your people.
(IV) The embargo is upheld by the US.
and Conclusion: You would make reforms, or resign, to please the US and lift the embargo.
The fact that you’re moving from those assumptions to that conclusion must be heavily dependent on an implicit assumption about the country in (IV); to be “good”, “justified” or something similar. (Otherwise you are placing the general responsibility for the effects of an embargo on the country affected by it, which is absurd, and which was also pointed out).
So I asked you a (rethorical) question to highlight how your argument would look if replaced your “good” country with some country you percieve as “bad”. Don’t you think your argument should be able to hold that much water?
(Re: Joel, the above)
I can’t belive I’ve been spelling “rethorical” wrong all these years. How embarrassing. Nobody will ever take my political ravings seriously now. Maybe that’s why Castro makes all his points through speeches rather than by writing.