.png)
 |
| Philip Moore Class of 2016 |
Communism. Cold War. Castro. Cuban Missile Crisis. Bay of Pigs. Human Rights Violations. State Sponsor of Terrorism. These are a few of the terms that might come to mind when a friend, if a friend, asks you about Cuba. You also might just be a foodie and think of your favorite Cuban restaurant, Havana Rumba.
When I ask people my age about their thoughts on Cuba, I get a lot of those types of responses, and it becomes even more interesting when I ask them why. For the sake of simplicity, I am going to throw out the responses from those interested in politics, international relations and history and from those who just have a prior background with Cuba, and these are the types of explanations that are left, “Castro is a crazy lunatic.” “Castro hates Americans, so we hate him.” “Communism is horrible, and it steals your freedom.” “The Cuban Missile Crisis was when our parents would hide under tables with their lunch trays over their heads.” “Cuba is the second worst country after North Korea.” “Isn’t Animal Farm set in Cuba?” “Raul, who is that?” “Cuba, Iran, and North Korea are all the same in my book. They don’t even deserve to be countries.”
In 2012, John Dunlosky and Katherine Rawson performed a study with 671 college students about their general knowledge to compare to college students’ general knowledge in 1980, and the study found that none of the students could answer:
“What is the last name of the Cuban leader whom Fidel Castro overthrew?”
While the question might seem trivial, it does point to a critical lack of understanding, which can play an important role in policy decisions. To put this into perspective, let’s take a look at the Affordable Care Act. When speaking about the ACA, Jonathan Gruber, MIT economist and a consultant for the federal government, stated that President Obama’s lack of transparency was relying on the stupidity of American voters to get the bill passed. This comment has led to journalists coining the term “Gruber Doctrine,” which refers to Obama’s tactics for making policy. This same doctrine is now being applied to President Obama’s stance on both Iran and Cuba. In the context of Iran, President Obama has kept most of the details of the nuclear deal private, and it took a union of Republican and Democratic Senators to gain Congressional oversight in the process.
The perpetuated stereotypes on Cuba have created a severe problem with American understanding of Cuba. From my experience, most people admit very little knowledge about Cuba and can generally only state a few key words that they have heard in the news. With this lack of understanding, President Obama again has the potential to make policy decisions with little transparency.
Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, two Cuban American Congressmen and Republican nominees for President, have both criticized Obama’s push for normalization, yet the media has targeted the embargo as “a relic of the Cold War,” and has been supportive of the President’s foreign policy toward Cuba. From a factual basis, the embargo was formalized in 1962, and while the Cold War ended in 1991, the embargo has been maintained for 24 years since the War’s conclusion, which suggests that there is more to it than just an action made during the Cold War.
What does this all mean? Cuba is complex. Simply lifting the embargo will not resolve a complex diplomatic situation that has lasted over fifty years. There are many issues that need to be settled. Many Americans lost their land, businesses and homes when Castro nationalized the economy, and American courts have recognized their rights to repayment. Cuba alleges that the US is entitled to pay reparations for the burden that the embargo placed on its country. The severity of the human rights violations is also unknown to most Americans. Removing Cuba from the state sponsored terrorism list eliminates some of the bans and lessens some of the fines for American businesses; however, the embargo still restricts American businesses from investing in Cuba. Furthermore, American distrust of Cuba is prevalent and makes Cuba a very risky investment for private companies. Additionally, some policymakers view the embargo as a method for helping Cuba develop into a democracy.
In closing, American understanding of the situation is imperative as we move forward in the process of normalization. Cuba is less than 100 miles from the United States and only being able to say a few things like “Cuba is communist and run by Castro” is not sufficient. Healthy foreign policy requires transparency; ignorance is not a solution. While the Gruber Doctrine is highly suggestive and political, it does remind the public that we must work to be informed and understand the policies of our government. President Obama’s stance on Cuba might be right for both the US and Cuba, or it could be a decision that hurts the Cuban economy even more. We don’t want to look back on the day that the US lifted the Cuban embargo as a tragic mistake, and preventing that possibility requires a true understanding of Cuba.
I will continue my exploration and study of Cuba by taking a class in Havana this summer, and I hope to find some answers to the vexing questions that surround Cuba.
Philip Moore is a junior McConnell Scholar at the University of Louisville. He studies political science and economics.