.png)
 |
| Philip Moore Class of 2016 |
While the opening day
of embassies in both Cuba and the U.S. is historic, it is only the continuation
of transitional policies by the Cuban government. Throughout the past eleven
months, the media has placed the emphasis on President Obama’s decision to
restore diplomatic relations; however, I find it to be a much stronger exercise
to view the embassy opening as another step by Cuba in its quest to relieve the
immense economic and political pressure it has faced since the collapse of the
Soviet Union.
Relative lack of importance in the United
States
In the United States,
we generally view the embargo as either a Republican-Democrat issue or as a
relic of the Cold War. In both cases, the perspective is shallow and lacks
historical merit; for example, the current form of the embargo, the
Helms-Burton Act, was signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton in
1996. Five years after the end of the Cold War, he had the authority to end the
embargo; instead, he waited and finally approved a law that strengthened the
economic restrictions against Cuba, gave the authority of revoking the embargo
to Congress and included a provision that allowed lawsuits against foreign
corporations if they used or acquired resources or property that were
expropriated by the Cuban government from Americans in the early 1960s. This
provision led to scrutiny from the entire international community as a
violation of international law and as such, is one example of the radical form
of the Act. In addition to the extraterritoriality of the law, the tone and
severity is compounded by the perspective of a co-author of the bill, Senator
Helms: “I don't care how Castro leaves office, vertically or horizontally, but
Fidel Castro has got to go.” It might seem shocking that this law could have
passed just twenty years ago, but one incident led to massive support of the
law.
On February 24th,
1996, the Cuban military shot down two civilian aircrafts off the coast of
Havana, causing the death of four Cuban-Americans. The murder of American
citizens led to intense anti-Castro demonstrations, and the public called for a
strong response against Cuba. Thus, President Clinton succumbed to the push
from hardliners for a firm sanctioning of Cuba and signed into law the
Helms-Burton Act a little over two weeks after the incident. With the
re-election year of 1996, some speculate that President Clinton’s desire to win
Florida was a key factor in his decision especially since he only won 22% of
the Cuban-American vote in 1992. This theory is supported by the continued
importance of Florida and the Cuban-American population there in the 2000
presidential election.
I mention all these
details to illustrate that the core reasons for the congressional passage of the
embargo no longer exist. It has been twenty years since the inexcusable and
tragic death of the four Cuban-Americans, and the press no longer holds an
overwhelmingly negative stigma of Cuba. As for the anti-Castro sentiment, Fidel
Castro is sick and no longer plays a pivotal role in Cuban politics, and Raul
has already proclaimed he will step down in 2018, which will lead to an
inevitable transition in Cuban politics. The nationalization of property and
investments of corporations and individuals still is unresolved; however, some
of the corporations do not exist anymore, and others will most likely be able
to receive a discount on a private-public project in Cuba at the end of the
embargo. Therefore, there will be methods to diminish this issue. Finally,
Cuban-Americans are now becoming divided on whether or not to end the embargo,
and as a 2014 poll conducted by FIU illustrated, 68% of the Cuban-Americans
surveyed favored the restoration of diplomatic relations. In other words,
winning the Cuban-American vote does not necessitate a hardline approach to
Cuban relations. With the political motivations dissipating and Castro almost
out of power, the end of the embargo is as inevitable as a governmental
transition in Cuba.
The significance of diplomatic relations for
Cuba
In this light, it
makes much more sense to view the renewed diplomatic relations from a Cuban
perspective rather than a U.S. perspective, in this context, Cuba faces many
difficulties. Cuba is transitioning to an open island both politically and
economically, but in this transition, Cuba must guard against dependency. Cuba
was dependent on Spain for almost 400 hundred years, and then it became
dependent on the United States for another sixty years. Finally, it succumbed
to a complete dependency on the Soviet Union for another thirty years. When the
Soviet Union finally collapsed, Cuba’s economy went through a period of freefall.
Without oil, sufficient food, and basic necessities, Cubans endured horrible
conditions, and the economy grinded to a halt. Government employees’ salaries
were decimated, and Castro encouraged the workers to remember the spirit of Che
and work not for pay but to fulfill the goals of the revolution. Cuba’s economy
finally began to develop as the government traded doctors for oil and better
utilized its human capital. In the present day, Cuba still struggles with
manufacturing, and it has a long way to go toward development. The end of the
embargo, an injection of U.S. capital, and a restructuring of its debt could
solve many of Cuba’s economic woes, Cuba’s end goal should not just be an
improved economy.
For the past fifty
years, Cuba has had a series of failed economic policies, and although economic
improvements are critical, they must take the backseat to maintaining the
accomplishments of the post-revolutionary government. From 1960 to 1990, the
Cuban government promoted a policy of growth with equity, and its spending in
healthcare and education has paid clear dividends in terms of the literacy
rate, life expectancy, and development of human capital. Additionally, Cuba has
a relatively high degree of equity, and although some clear economic
inequalities are present, overall it has a fair degree of equality. While some
might critique this equality as everyone is just poor, there is more to it than
just that, and fiscal policies should work to harness economic growth in a
productive method that benefits all levels of society. From this point of view,
Cuba must be cautious of foreign investment and the volume of remittances
coming into the country because as more capital comes to the island, there will
be a larger degree of inequality present. In conclusion, the focus of Cuba must
not be high growth; instead, it should be on the fight to maintain the strides
Cuba has made in equality and socioeconomic factors, while also increasing the
quality of life for its citizens.
Philip Moore is a senior McConnell Scholar at the University of Louisville. He majors in Spanish, political science, and economics.