Why Sanctions on Cuba Must Remain

Why Sanctions on Cuba Must Remain



Jaime Suchlicki, is the Emilio Bacardi Moreau distinguished professor of

history, editor of the Cuban Affairs Journal and director of the

Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies, University of Miami. He

is the author of several books including "Mexico: From Montezuma to the

Rise of the PAN" and "Cuba From Columbus to Castro."



UPDATED NOVEMBER 20, 2013, 12:17 PM



In his Nov. 18 speech at the Organization of American States, Secretary

John Kerry failed to make a compelling case for keeping U.S. sanctions

on Cuba. While correctly pointing out that the Monroe Doctrine is no

longer valid, Kerry insisted that "people to people" travel, the visits

by Americans under U.S. license to Cuba, is having an impact in

penetrating the Communist system.



If the travel ban and the embargo are ended unilaterally now by the

U.S., what negotiating tool to encourage change in Cuba will the U.S.

government have with a future regime?

His assumptions are incorrect. First, the Castro brothers and their

allies aren't naïve; U.S. tourists have no chance of subverting their

regime and influencing internal developments.



Second, American tourists won't bring democracy to Cuba. Over the past

decades several million tourists from Europe, Canada and Latin America

have visited the island, and nothing has changed. If anything, Cuba is

more repressive, with the state apparatus strengthened by the influx of

tourist dollars.



Third, tourism and trade don't lead to economic and political change. No

study I know of has found that tourism, trade or investments had

anything to do with the end of communism in Eastern Europe and the

Soviet Union. A disastrous economic system, competition with the West,

successive leadership changes with no legitimacy, a corrupt and weak

Communist Party, anti-Soviet feeling in Eastern Europe and the failed

Soviet war in Afghanistan were among the reasons for change.



Fourth, engagement with a totalitarian state won't bring about its

demise. Only academic ideologues and some members of Congress interested

in catering to the economic needs of their state's constituencies cling

to this notion. Their calls for ending the embargo have little to do

with democracy in Cuba or the welfare of the Cuban people.



Repeated claims that the embargo is the cause of Cuba's economic

problems are hollow. The reasons for the economic misery of the Cubans

are a failed political and economic system. Like the communist systems

of Eastern Europe, Cuba's system does not function, stifles initiative

and productivity and destroys human freedom and dignity.



What's more, ending U.S. sanctions without major concessions from Cuba

would send the wrong message to the Castro regime and to the rest of

Latin America. Supporting regimes and dictators that violate human

rights and abuse their population is an ill-adviced policy that rewards

and encourages further abuses.



If the travel ban and the embargo are ended unilaterally now by the

U.S., what negotiating tool to encourage change in Cuba will the U.S.

government have with a future regime? Countries don't change their

policies without a quid pro quo from the other side. Unilateral

concessions are pocketed by our adversaries without providing meaningful

changes.



Sanctions should be ended as a result of negotiations between the U.S.

and a Cuban government willing to provide meaningful and irreversible

political and economic concessions, not only to the U.S. but, more

important, to the Cuban people.



Source: "Why Sanctions on Cuba Must Remain in Place - Room for Debate -

NYTimes.com" -

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/11/19/sanctions-successes-and-failures/why-sanctions-on-cuba-must-remain-in-place