Is it time for the U.S. to drop economic sanctions on Cuba?

[XT]

@Sage Rat

You don’t think much like an accountant. Lost profits are essentially the same as a cost.

Well, I’m not an accountant…I’m an engineer. I don’t see these lost profits however. Where do you envision these profits coming from? Cuba is essentially a poor third world nation. So, our market penetration there is going to be fairly small. In addition, as I said above, Europe and Canada (and many other countries) already trade with Cuba…and I doubt THEY are reaping vast profits. As for Cuban products that could be sold in the US…the only thing I can think of off the top of my head that they could sell here that would be unique (and desirable) would be cigars…and thats pretty much a niche market at best.

So…what profits do you think we are losing?

@Sage Rat

Not really. If anything, American politicians have more to gain than to lose.

:dubious: How so? If there was any traction in normalizing relations with Cuba I’d think some candidate out there (or most likely a bunch of them) would be pushing for it. When was the last candidate that used this as a major plank or action item? The only place its even on the radar is in Florida…and I can assure you a politician there would certainly have more to lose than gain with a pro-Cuba stance.

@Sage Rat

I mentioned several. Lost profits, political bonus to any party who can be seen to be trying to fix Cuba–which is important since Florida is a key voting state, and lessening illegal immigration into Florida.

As you mentioned them in this post I haven’t been able to respond to them…until THIS post of my own. I have now done so. So, as I asked above…what profits? What bonus do you see for the party that fixes Cuba…as its not really even on the average US citizens radar (i.e. they don’t care)? Oh, perhaps there is a small percentage of Dems who would go for it…but they are ALREADY going to vote a straight Dem ticket.

As for the illegal immigration…I don’t think this is a major problem that most people are all hot and bothered about. If I’m wrong about that, feel free to show it…but my impression is, again, this isn’t exactly on the mainstream radar of the average American.

@Sage Rat

I imagine that it will mostly just depend on what Florida Cubans want. If they look like, once Castro is dead, they would like for the US to start moving in, then we’ll move in. I don’t think we’d have any choice not to.

Certainly…that was essentially the point I was making. By and large, only Florida ex pat Cubans CARE about Cuba, or our relations with Cuba. Once Castro is dead, and IF the government over there substantially changes, THEN there might be some traction to change our relationship with Cuba. For that matter, once Castro and his bro are safely underground, that might be enough traction to have a change. As BG asked if it was time to drop the sanctions, my answer was…not yet. I answered this way not because I really care…I don’t, and in fact wouldn’t mind a change in our relations with Cuba. However, the reality is there is no compelling reason, at this time, for the US TOO change our relationship…and there are several reasons why we won’t (like those Florida Cubans and the political clout they wield…and the fact that by and large only they CARE about any of this).

@Sage Rat

And personally, I don’t see why they would want us to continue he embargo once Castro is dead. Why do you think they would want that?

Well, in point of fact I DIDN’T say this…you assumed this was my answer without consulting me. Go back up and read what I wrote…and show me where I said that the Florida Cuban’s wouldn’t want a change if Castro was dead…or where I even talked about this at all.

However, I can think of a few reasons why many Florida Cuban’s wouldn’t want a change in sanctions, especially if the old communist government in Cuba survives Castro’s death. Without going into detail, many of those ex Cuban’s want their land and property back…THATS why its an important issue to them, and THATS why they want the sanctions to continue.

That said, my guess is that a significant percentage of these ex Cuban’s WOULD be in favor of a change in policy with Cuba once Castro and his bro are dead. And if BG wants to re-start this thread when that happy event takes place, then my answer will change…and I’ll say that politically it will be time for such a change. While I don’t think there will still be compelling reasons (from the US’s perspective) to change our relations with Cuba, there will be a window of opportunity there…and a lot of the political resistance will vanish for the most part.

-XT

[XT]

@PBear42

Another vote for lifting sanctions.

Well…if we are simply voting (as in, taking a poll), then sure…I vote for lifting the sanctions as well.

@PBear42

Frankly, I consider it our most embarrassing foreign policy.

Oh, I can think of lots more embarrassing foreign policy decisions the US has made at various times in our checkered past. Hell, Iraq, IMHO, is an order of magnitude more embarrassing…no WMD and all.

Why do you think this though? At the time they were originally imposed sanctions against Cuba were certainly warranted…IMHO anyway. Do you disagree? As for keeping them in place…well, our history with Cuba didn’t stop with the Cuban missile crisis. In addition, they have the force of literally decades of inertia behind them…and as I’ve said a few times now, no compelling reason (from a political perspective) to get rid of them. There is no hue and cry by the American people TOO get rid of them…by and large we don’t care one way or the other.

@PBear42

We trade with China.

Certainly…and there are/were good and compelling reasons TOO start trading with China again. Weening them from the Soviets and driving a wedge between them for starters. Also, China is a HUGE potential market, and as a fairly industrialized nation they have goods and services that would be in demand here in the US, with a huge labor force. All the things Cuba lacks.

Another thing (though this is more recent), is that while China is still communist, they have an economic model that is much closer to capitalist than what Cuba has…and so they are more attractive as a trading partner, and more attractive as a place for our companies to invest in.

@PBear42

We trade with Vietnam.

We have limited trade with Vietnam…and our trading with them is more recent. However, to a lesser degree, the same case as for China can be made for Vietnam…even to their quasi-capitalist economic model. Again, there were compelling reasons for us to resume trade with Vietnam, despite a bitter war there…reasons that don’t exist between the US and Cuba.

@PBear42

When they were still around, we traded with the Soviets.

Certainly…for a lot of political reasons, not least because we hoped not to go to war with them, and trade was a way to maintain contact. In addition the Soviet Union/Russia actually has products and services that we were interested in.

@PBear42

We cozy up to the Saudis, who are some of the biggest totalitarians on the planet.

Ah…I see. You think we don’t trade with Castro because he’s a dictator? Ok, all is clear. We trade with the Saudis because frankly they have stuff we need…desparately. We traded with China initially for political reasons…same with Vietnam and the Soviets. There are no compelling political or economic reasons for us to trade with Cuba at this time. They have nothing we need (as a nation). Its as simple as that.

@PBear42

Inertia, and because there’s not enough in it for us. Shame on us.

I like to think of it more as reality. If enough American’s cared, or if there were some other compelling reason, then it would have happened…or will happen. As the only American’s who DO care, care in a negative way…well, I can do the math there and can understand precisely why things haven’t changed. Do I disagree with this policy? Well…sort of. Certainly I think its a policy that has outlived its usefulness (by about a decade…since say the last Cuban adventures in Africa or Central/South America). I can see, however, why something like this can persist in our system…and I don’t think its a huge shame on us for simply allowing it too when we have no real reason to change it. After all, its been a two way street you know…while the US hasn’t been overly fond of Cuba, the contrary has also been true.

-XT

[PBear42]

Ah, but the question posed by the OP wasn’t whether sanctions would be discontinued, but whether they should. Since you apparently agree they should, telling us why they won’t isn’t very interesting and isn’t really responsive to the OP. Nor did you comment on the core of my post. The reason we should drop sanctions is humanitarian consideration of the Cuban people (as opposed to the leaders, who I don’t like at all). Thoughts on that?

[HoboStew]

@xtisme

Why is it a weak argument? It costs us nothing to continue these sanctions. Whatever economic effects they had were over and done with decades ago. We simply do without Cuban products (mostly sugar at the time and cigars IIRC). So…if it costs us nothing to continue them, why is this a weak argument? Perhaps you could go into some detail why you feel this way.

Well bear in mind my position is one on generalities here, not this specific issue per se. Like I say there are many things about this issue I don’t know. My point was that just because we have been doing something in the past is not reason enough alone to continue doing so. I assume this isn’t a major contention on your end, if I am mistaken say so and I will elaborate. Also, are you SURE it costs us nothing to continue these sanctions? :dubious:

@xtisme

On the other hand, there would be POLITICAL costs to dropping those sanctions. <snip>…but in the mean time, in the short term, there would certainly be problems politically. <snip>And lastly, by and large most American’s simply don’t give a shit about it one way or the other. So…why is the status quo a weak argument…

Not following you here. You seem to be saying in the same breath that there would be political ramifications to dropping the sanctions, but most American’s dont care either way. If most Americans don’t care, then I don’t think the political ramifications are significant enough to factor into this decision, no?

I might be straining myself reaching for a metaphor here, but here goes. If I am not getting enough exercise, I evaluate whether or not that is beneficial to my long term goals. When I decide that I am not getting enough, I join a gym. If later I decide that I am not getting enough value for the money I pay for the gym, I stop paying for it. I dont just sit there and not exercise because thats where the inertia goes, nor do I continue paying for a gym that I never use because of inertia. I don’t see why using that as government policy makes any more sense.

[HoboStew]

:smack:

oh god. Sorry bout the strain/exercise unintended pun. Just awful. I’m fining myself $50,000. Sorry folks.

:smack:

[Bridget_Burke]

It’s past time to start trading with Cuba. US Farmers would benefit, for one.

WASHINGTON (June 16, 2006) – The U.S. House of Representatives this week approved an amendment offered by Rep. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., to the 2007 Transportation-Treasury-Housing appropriations bill, that would help U.S. farmers sell agricultural products to Cuba.

National Farmers Union commended Moran and other congressional members for their leadership in ending the food trade ban to the Cuban market.

“It is high time that the United States starts walking the walk on trade instead of just talking the talk,” NFU President Tom Buis said. “It makes zero sense to restrict U.S. farmers and ranchers from engaging in trade with a willing buyer just 90 miles off our coast.”

www.nfu.org/news/2006/06/16/nfu-supports-cuba-trade.html

The old gusanos in Havana are dying off; Castro’s outlived most of them.

We have no problem dealing with China–why is Cuba such a threat?

…China’s roaring economy is being built on the back of millions of Chinese workers denied their most fundamental rights. And it is being built within a political system subject to greater and greater stress from this same economic growth that it does everything to promote…

But China’s current economic system could not exist in a democratic nation. The kinds of political and economic decisions made in China do not require democratic discussion, and the government of China has put aside all other considerations in order to develop the economy. Only under such authoritarian rule is it possible for the market to be so tightly controlled and for there to be this kind of trade surplus.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/239170_huvisitop.html

[lalenin]

@Bridget Burke

The old gusanos in Havana are dying off; Castro’s outlived most of them.

The gusanos in Havana are not that old, you probably meant to say the old gusanos in ‘Miami’ instead.

By the way, doesn’t the board have a policy against hate language in GD? ‘Gusanos’ is the derrogatory name Fidel used to call Cubans who disagreed with him and left Cuba. Nowadays in Cuba they are called ‘mariposas’ or butterflies, because without their remittances Cubans would be hurting.

[lalenin]

@PBear42

The reason we should drop sanctions is humanitarian consideration of the Cuban people (as opposed to the leaders, who I don’t like at all). Thoughts on that?

Ok, if the US decides to drop sanctions humanitarian considerations should be the last thing they think about. The embargo has zero impact on Cubans, it has a huge impact on the Cuban government however since it has no access to credit transactions with the US.

Having said that I’ll add that the embargo is a very convenient crutch for the Cuban government and it is used as an excuse for every failure. But since the Cuban government does not depend on popular support to remain in power, losing that crutch wouldn’t change a thing. The tune would change from ‘we have shortages because of the cruel blockade’ to ‘we have shortages because we are recovering from the cruel blockade’.

[lalenin]

@Sage Rat

I mentioned several. Lost profits, political bonus to any party who can be seen to be trying to fix Cuba–which is important since Florida is a key voting state, and lessening illegal immigration into Florida.
I imagine that it will mostly just depend on what Florida Cubans want. If they look like, once Castro is dead, they would like for the US to start moving in, then we’ll move in. I don’t think we’d have any choice not to.

And personally, I don’t see why they would want us to continue he embargo once Castro is dead. Why do you think they would want that?

Regarding illegal immigration to Florida, by definition Cubans do not count as illegal immigrants, since by law all Cuban who reach US soil are automatically granted legal status. Lifting the emabrgo is usually talked about along with legislation to change that law, and since Cubans, like everyone from a poor nation, will continue to try to cme to the US that might in fact increase the number of illegal immigrants.

Cubans in the US are not a monolith, when Castro dies there will be some who want the embargo lifted and some who don’t. Cubans in Florida with political power on the other hand will probably want to keep the embargo in place since that has been the source of their political power.

[Bridget_Burke]

@lalenin

The gusanos in Havana are not that old, you probably meant to say the old gusanos in ‘Miami’ instead.

By the way, doesn’t the board have a policy against hate language in GD? ‘Gusanos’ is the derrogatory name Fidel used to call Cubans who disagreed with him and left Cuba. Nowadays in Cuba they are called ‘mariposas’ or butterflies, because without their remittances Cubans would be hurting.

I grartefully accept your correction about “Havana.” Of course, I meant “Miami.”

If my language violated board policy, I’m sure a Moderator will let me know.

[Sarahfeena]

@Bridget Burke

If my language violated board policy, I’m sure a Moderator will let me know.

A moderator may not realize that “gusanos” is an offensive term to a Cuban expatriat such as lalenin.

[tomndebb]

@Bridget Burke

If my language violated board policy, I’m sure a Moderator will let me know.

In general, calling someone a worm or a maggot is hardly a neutral term. Since the term is only used disparagingly and is not widely used, in any event, I think we’d be better off refraining from its use in this Forum.

[ /Moderating ]

[tomndebb]

No. The time to have dropped the economic sanctions was around 1970 (give or take a couple years) when it was clear that Cuba was not going to present a physical threat to the U.S. and before it began sending so many people over here that it tilted out political decisions based on the desires of a fairly small electoral group.

Drop the farcical sanctions, subject Cuban immigrants to the same restrictions we impose on Guatemalans or Salvadorans or other peoples we have harmed, and encourage those who do immigrate to become true Yanks rather than seeing themselves as some sort of diaspora that can then sic their adopted country on the government they fled.

[lalenin]

@tomndebb

No. The time to have dropped the economic sanctions was around 1970 (give or take a couple years) when it was clear that Cuba was not going to present a physical threat to the U.S. and before it began sending so many people over here that it tilted out political decisions based on the desires of a fairly small electoral group.

I disagree that by 1970 it was in any way clear that Cuba did not present a physical threat to the US. In 1970 it had been less than 10 years since Cuba had been preparing to host nuclear missiles aimed at the US. In 1970 the USSR was in fool support mode for Cuba, and Cuba in turn was exporting revolution to Africa, Central and South America.

Between 1990 and 1995 was the perfect time, Cuba had lost the support of the USSR and it would have made a huge difference in the streets in Cuba to know that the US had offered to open trade and Fidel had refused. By 1996 when the US was trying to open up tourism was starting to bring in some cash and the Cuban government could afford to refuse the offer by shooting down the Hermanos al Rescate planes.

@tomndebb

Drop the farcical sanctions, subject Cuban immigrants to the same restrictions we impose on Guatemalans or Salvadorans or other peoples we have harmed, and encourage those who do immigrate to become true Yanks rather than seeing themselves as some sort of diaspora that can then sic their adopted country on the government they fled.

I don’t know of any US policy that encourages Cuban immigrants to become anyting less than ‘true Yanks’. As for sic’ing their adopted country on the government they fled, I think you’d agree that the US government has done a heck of a lot less in that respect than it has done for Haiti.

[What_Exit]

@lalenin

… In 1970 the USSR was in **fool support mode ** for Cuba, and Cuba in turn was exporting revolution to Africa, Central and South America.
…

I know English is your second language and I really greatly appreciate you contributions on Cuba from an expatriate’s point of view. I just have to say this is the best typo I have seen in a long time. I love the “Fool Support Mode”.

Sorry for the interruption and my bolding in the quote.

Jim {BTW: “Fool Support Mode” would make an excellent band name. }

[lalenin]

@What Exit?

I know English is your second language and I really greatly appreciate you contributions on Cuba from an expatriate’s point of view. I just have to say this is the best typo I have seen in a long time. I love the “Fool Support Mode”.

Sorry for the interruption and my bolding in the quote.

Jim {BTW: “Fool Support Mode” would make an excellent band name. }

Hey, I meant for that to happen… :D,no actually I didn’t but it sure is appropriate isn’t it.

[Muffin]

I don’t think I’m going out on a limb by suggesting that USA’s reputation throughout the world is not at an all time high. In particular, there is a longstanding problem of the USA buggering up Central and South American nations, and there is the more recent problem of Bush’s wrongheaded war in Iraq. With respect to Cuba, it was another in a long line of banana republics that was controlled by American economic interests until the commies kicked them out.

What comes to mind is the term “Bully”. The USA is in the habit of bullying nations, and Cuba is a prime example. Should the USA normalize relations with Cuba, it would be one small step for the USA in the the direction of simple human decency, at a time when the USA’s reputation could use some bolstering.

[Bridget_Burke]

@tomndebb

In general, calling someone a worm or a maggot is hardly a neutral term. Since the term is only used disparagingly and is not widely used, in any event, I think we’d be better off refraining from its use in this Forum.

[ /Moderating ]

OK. The term is not only used disparagingly, but some words do upset people. I’ll definitely stop calling them that. (At SDMB, at least.)

[tomndebb]

@lalenin

I disagree that by 1970 it was in any way clear that Cuba did not present a physical threat to the US. In 1970 it had been less than 10 years since Cuba had been preparing to host nuclear missiles aimed at the US. In 1970 the USSR was in fool support mode for Cuba, and Cuba in turn was exporting revolution to Africa, Central and South America.

U.S. nuclear missiles based in Turkey and aimed at the U.S.S.R. at the same time were actually closer to a larger number of significant targets than anything based in Cuba.
::: shrug :::

I’m willing to accept that the early 90s might have been an even better time to drop the sanctions; however, since I have been advocating their elimination since the early 1970s, I’ll stick with that as my default period.

@lalenin

I don’t know of any US policy that encourages Cuban immigrants to become anyting less than ‘true Yanks’. As for sic’ing their adopted country on the government they fled, I think you’d agree that the US government has done a heck of a lot less in that respect than it has done for Haiti.

As long as the U.S. caters to Cuban “immigrants” in ways that it does not treat refugees from the rest of Central America and plays around with Radio and TV Marti and delays returning Elian Gonzalez to his father, the government is treating the Cuban segment of Floridian society as a special class of people rather than as immigrants to be assimilated. The fact that the U.S. government has slightly more common sense than the firebrands among the Floridian Cubans and does not act on all of their calls or that the U.S. is so hamfisted that its actual anti-Cuban efforts are generally ineffective does not minimize what the immigrants have hoped to do.

[lalenin]

@Bridget Burke

OK. The term is not only used disparagingly, but some words do upset people. I’ll definitely stop calling them that. (At SDMB, at least.)

In what way, refering to Cubans, is the term used other than disparaginly?