Since the key to the update of the thread seems based around the power/blackout issues, let’s also note that the US has been having it’s own issues with insufficiently maintained infrastructure. It’s not JUST a Communism v. Capitalism issue, although the economic weakness of Cuba is a large part of it.
Just proves that whatever your economic/political POV it’s far too easy to ignore today what may become critical tomorrow. Right up until various things begin to fail in unrecoverable ways.
I’m not sure what problem you are referring to but I didn’t say anything about ‘unconstrained’ capitalism. Nobody’s going to invest in Cuba if the government doesn’t respect property rights at all.
Because unlike other countries the US is 90 miles from Cuba, and it has money to spend and invest.
I’ve only visited Cuba once. I found the people very friendly, creative and frustrated. Cubans did not deserve the exploitation that existed under Batista, and they certainly do not deserve the tough conditions that currently exist.
The immediate problems are an inflation rate of 30% and difficulties with powerful storms and generating enough electricity. Venezuela and Russia traditionally supplied oil in exchange for medical help and geopolitical considerations. Cuba cannot currently afford to buy oil and America’s embargo makes life more difficult. Cuba’s previous allies have different priorities now.
To prosper, Cuba needs much more democracy and intelligent tourism investment done in a way that preserves the nation’s natural beauty and limits the anything goes exploitation that supposedly occurred prior to Castro (but was much before my time).
I personally feel America is better off with an ally rather than a nearby country easily exploited by more powerful despotic regimes - China might well be willing to make expensive investments but perhaps a different course would be better. The current Cuban government clearly fears popular unrest, and America would prefer a government able to guarantee more freedoms. I’m not an expert on the subtleties involved and am sure a balancing act to encourage democratic reforms while offering humanitarian measures has serious difficulties of which I am unaware - not least issues of property rights and a transparent legal system. The correct solution will not please everyone. However, the Cuban people deserve better and I feel America has a stronger role to play in bolstering their neighbour while allowing further freedom to flourish.
I am often wrong. Please offer me your viewpoint if you feel differently about the issue.
The Helms-Burton Act of 1996 made non-US persons and companies potentially subject to penalties if they conduct business with Cuba. It allows U.S. nationals to sue foreign companies and individuals who “traffic” in property that was confiscated or nationalized by the Cuban government, and persons found to “traffic” in confiscated property to be barred from entry to the U.S. What it means to “traffic” in nationalized property is nebulous, and the net effect – intentionally so – is to deter international companies from investing in and doing business with Cuba.
You know, I mentioned that the thread came back into focus because of the economic and infrastructure issues that have been in the US news lately, but I want to also point out the language of the OP as how it relates to a pernicious (IMHO) idea that is common. Note this quote is the whole of the OP, from Feb 2023.
Granted, in non-representative governments, there’s not a lot of chance for those not already in a position of some power to push for change, but it reminds me a bit of our ongoing discussion of how the DOJ isn’t saving us from Trump.
[ and no, before you rightfully toss a bunch of bricks at me, I fully agree that asking people to pull themselves up by the bootstraps, “man up”, or “work harder” is unspeakably unfair and ignorant of all the constraints legal, cultural, and economically imposed upon them ]
But, in general (oversimplifying) those who are already in a position of leadership, in Cuba and around the world, are so heavily insulated from the lack of prosperity that they have minimal reason to improve the general lot as long as their power isn’t at risk. In a representative government, sure, there’s the chance that sufficient misery can push out the vote, but even there, as our current USA situation shows, you can always push the blame, rightly or wrongly onto someone else. And we, and the rest of humanity, fall for it in disturbing percentages throughout history.
So, taking things back a step, asking existing leaders to lead the way to a “prosperous” Cuba is probably a non-starter.
Which brings us back to most of the recent discussion in the thread. Does Cuba need a change of government, whether representative or other, or international partnerships to prosper?
Probably IMHO. If the situation is as bad as reporting leads us to believe, alongside multiple hurricanes and tropical storms, with said storms becoming the expected new normal in our current climate, something has to give. Not always for the better, but again, the thread is prospering.
If this had been, say, before Covid and all the resulting issues, I’d have expected China to step in and provide help in exchange for power and influence in our backyard (no, I’m not the first, even in thread, to suggest this). After all, China is a world leader in the theory of prosperity =/= freedom and democracy. But since their current stability is based on the two concepts of strong central control and economic prosperity to quiet discontent, they’re a bit busy and internally invested right now.
So, back to the OP’s question. What will it take to allow Cuba to prosper. If it’s too far gone (for all the reason I and everyone else have mentioned) to save itself, then it’s going to take the international situation to grow divided enough that the local basing (from China, Russia, or other polity wanting to cause caution in America) is sufficient incentive to cause investment, or for the world situation to become good enough that other nation-states with to be seen as benevolent in their generosity to secure international approval.
Guess which of the two scenarios the world seems headed towards. 
The “good” news for the rest of the world, and the bad news for Cuba is right now, none of those powers that would benefit from the first of those two scenarios seem to have the time, energy, or money to bother when they have much more pressing concerns.
As for the USA helping out, even if there were major Democratic reforms, between MAGA (right there in the name) putting the emphasis on internal “enemies” and Democrats rightly pointing out all of our other commitments, and fighting off a misinformation war on how we’re “wasting” money on non-citizens out of compassion and a realpolitik need to keep expansionist militarist nation states cautious… no, I don’t see much help there either.
Idle IMHO thought though, I wonder if all the middle Eastern Petro-States would be better served investing in Cuba and other such struggling nations, rather than throw more money at things like LIV golf, or building another mega-structure. Absolutely more risk, granted, but…
Mexico, the Bahamas, Jamaica, Dominican republic… but distance is no longer a barrier to international trade. The problem is, with a communist economy, Cuba has little to trade. Cigars and Rum are the big two. It does have some mineral wealth in the way of zinc and nickel.
Currently Cuba’s export partners are Venezuela, China, Canada, The Netherlands, Singapore, Spain, France, Ivory Coast, Brazil, and Russia.
Sure. But as long as Cuba remains a Communist Dictatorship, that wont happen.
Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump all signed a waiver of parts of the law.
Effective May 10, 1999, with CFR Title 31 Part 515, the act was amended.[20] In 2000, the law was further amended with the passage of the Trade Sanction Reform and Export Enhancement Act, which allowed the export of US agriculture and medical goods to Cuba so long as certain conditions were met.[20]
Well, there was some relaxation under Obama. The old Cubans who remember life before Castro are very different from the frustrated and impatient younger generation. The ability of Cubans to open restaurants and provide some income leads to a desire for more. The government may not want this, but it could be inevitable if they cannot provide basic services. A middle path that helps the people and avoids violence would be best, and America should better encourage this IMHO. I see extreme measures as merely encouraging a Chinese outpost close to Florida.
What’s your point? You said that the embargo only impacts Cuban trade with the US — you are wrong. U.S. law deliberately sanctions non-US companies and persons who do business with Cuba. How does some Presidents waiving “parts” of Helms-Burton change that? And if you’d read the article you cited more thoroughly you’d see that in 2019 Trump in fact let the Title III waiver lapse.
Googling, the leader of Cuba since 2021 is Miguel Díaz-Canel, who isn’t any relation to Fidel Castro. So, no the Castro family lock isn’t a given.
Someone mentioned China and I’m wondering if they would want to pour money into the country in exchange for a military base and perhaps mineral and fishing rights. I’ll bet that would freak out the US government.
Yes, which is why I pointed out the quote was from February 2023, and post # 2 confirmed that a non-Castro had been in power since since prior to the OP’s writing!
I just wanted to mention that the OP seems to feel that change had to come from the top-down, and that I didn’t really agree with the premise.
Some of that is no longer enforced and many nations- such as the list I gave- ignore it and without anything really bad happening.
… until a real wacko gets elected to the White House and decides to enforce the shit out of this extraterritorial law.
Then again, this is the always-sensible USA we’re talking about. What are the odds of us ever electing a real wacko to the White House?
Oh yeah, riiiight. Oops.
What, exactly, did trump do to enforce it during his last 4 years? This sort of stuff is above his head.
With a wacko, you can’t predict what he will or won’t do. In trump’s personal case, we don’t know what a minion will or won’t do with trump’s mosty passive acquiescence. As long as trump gets a cut, the details don’t much matter.
Setting aside his senility and age, I cold certainly see him being all over pushing Cuba to the brink by a de facto blockade of non-US trade & investment if he became convinced that he’d end up owning half the island and all of the many resort-compatible beaches when the Communists fell.
Canada’s response to Helms-Burton:
He began enforcing the Title III restrictions in 2019, breaking with all of his predecessors. This allows US nationals to sue foreign companies for allegedly “trafficking” in nationalized or confiscated property – which pretty much opens up any company doing business in Cuba to a lawsuit.
@Spoons, that is priceless!
Related to US attempts to interfere with other countries’ trade with Cuba:
Foreigners who have been to Cuba in or after 2021 are permanently ineligible for an automatic electronic US visa. To enter the US, they have to apply for the much more expensive and time-consuming type of visa.