The phony Cuba embargo debate

The phony Cuba embargo debate
Posted By José R. Cárdenas Wednesday, March 21, 2012 - 3:47 PM Share

In recent weeks, an unholy alliance of political activists and economic
opportunists have been trying to convince anyone who will listen that
the U.S. embargo of Cuba is inviting "catastrophic" damage to Florida by
preventing the U.S. from responding to a potential oil spill from a
newly launched Cuban rig just outside U.S. waters. The claim is without
merit.

The impetus for this contrived argument is that in late January, the
Spanish oil company Repsol began exploratory drilling in Cuban waters --
80 nautical miles from the Florida Keys -- using a Chinese-made rig
owned by an Italian company.

The fact is, under current U.S. policy, any U.S. President has broad
authorities to ensure all U.S. resources and expertise can be deployed
in case of a disaster off the southeastern U.S. coast. And all
indications are the administration has moved expeditiously -- with
lessons learned from the Deepwater Horizon blowout in the Gulf of Mexico
-- to plan a U.S. response -- with no changes needed in U.S. law.

Yet, that has not stopped the doomsday scenarios. For example,
according to one alarmist analysis, in case of an accident:

"The Coast Guard would be barred from deploying highly experienced
manpower, specially designed booms, skimming equipment and vessels, and
dispersants. U.S. offshore gas and oil companies would also be barred
from using well-capping stacks, remotely operated submersibles, and
other vital technologies."

The arguments, frankly, are a hash of half-truths and erroneous and
contradictory statements about the U.S. embargo. For example, we are
told the U.S. embargo prevents interaction between the U.S. and Cuban
officials to discuss response scenarios, only to learn that they already
are interacting. Meetings between U.S. and Cuban officials (and those
from Bahamas, Jamaica, and Mexico) have already taken place under the
auspices of the U.N. International Maritime Organization.

Then there is the ludicrous scenario posited of vintage Cuban crop
dusters being forced into action because the embargo allegedly would
prevent U.S. aircraft from dropping oil dispersants. Nonsense.

In addition, there is the de rigueur clumsy caricature of pro-embargo
Cuban Americans, who "might protest any decision allowing U.S. federal
agencies to assist Cuba or letting U.S. companies operate in Cuban
territory." This seems not to be aware that most Cuban Americans live in
South Florida and would have a decided interest in any despoiling of the
state's environment. They would hardly be averse to any U.S.
mobilization to counter a spill. What they do justifiably object to is
any exploitation of the situation for political ends.

Indeed, a particularly egregious example of the politicization of the
issue has been the involvement of the Environmental Defense Fund, which
has been positively sanguine about Cuban oil drilling. A powerful lobby
able to mobilize hundreds of activists to oppose U.S. offshore drilling,
they have been leading advocates of across-the-board U.S. cooperation
with Cuba on offshore oil drilling, despite the latter's woeful
inexperience and dearth of capabilities in offshore oil drilling. In
this, they have been aided and abetted by assorted U.S. oil services
companies who have been misrepresenting U.S. policy in a misguided
attempt to create economic opportunity.

In the end, the likelihood that Cuba possesses any commercially viable
oil reserves off its shores is dubious. And, in the unlikely event that
it does discover any, it's probable that they will be exploitable only
after the Castro regime passes into the dustbin of history. In the
meantime, however, allowing Cuba anywhere near a deepwater platform is
akin to handing a hand-grenade to a monkey. The Obama administration
could have done better by strong-arming foreign companies from
partnering with the Castro brothers on this project. But they appear to
have a handle on cleaning up any attendant mess -- without any
superfluous changes to U.S. policy towards the Castro dictatorship.

http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/03/21/the_phony_cuba_embargo_debate