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.
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
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.
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.
[QUOTE=Dr. Drake]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]
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
That’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.
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.
[QUOTE=Dr. Drake]
That’s kind of my question.
[/QUOTE]
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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 (“Nuestro honor no podra ser jamas bloqueado.” – “Our honor can never be blockaded.”) isn’t limited to government propaganda.
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?
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.