Happy Anniversary!!!

The US embargo on Cuba, a monument to futility:

The world is much changed since the early days of 1962, but one thing has remained constant: The United States’ economic embargo on Cuba, a near-total trade ban that turned 50 on Tuesday.Supporters say it is a justified measure against a repressive Communist government that has never stopped being a thorn in Washington’s side. Critics call it a failed policy that has hurt ordinary Cubans instead of the government.

All acknowledge that it has not accomplished its core mission of toppling Fidel Castro or his brother and successor, Raúl.

“All this time has gone by, and yet we keep it in place,” said Wayne Smith, who was a young American diplomat in Havana in 1961 when relations were severed and who returned as the chief American diplomat after they were partially re-established under President Jimmy Carter. “We talk to the Russians, we talk to the Chinese, we have normal relations even with Vietnam,” Mr. Smith said. “We trade with all of them. So why not with Cuba?”

….

With just 90 miles of sea between Florida and Cuba, the United States would be a natural No. 1 trade partner and source of tourism.

The embargo is a constant talking point for island authorities, who blame it for shortages of everything from medical equipment to the concrete needed for highway construction. Cuba frequently fulminates against the “blockade” at the United Nations and demands the United States end its “genocidal” policy.

Hard to say, of course, but I suspect that the embargo is the #1 reason that the Castro regime remains in power. Eliminating the embargo would change the incentive structure for a lot of different actors in Cuba, not to mention deprive the regime of its chief talking point. Great work! I had hoped that the Obama administration would undertake a more forward looking Cuba policy, but combination of intransigent Congress, lack of vision, and electoral calculus meant that only marginal (though positive) work has been accomplished.  I do wonder whether the eventual passing of Fidel and Raul will break the political ice in the United States.

…a couple more points:

1. Conservatives often bring up the South Africa comparison with regards to Cuba; a nasty (and to pre-empt any denials of the regime’s nastiness, see here) regime deserves sanctions whether or not those sanction contribute to regime change. Of course, conservatives didn’t actually make that argument about South African sanctions in the 1980s, and I suspect that if the apartheid regime had survived fifty years of multilateral sanctions, people might have started asking questions.

2. Whatever national security justification existed for the embargo obviously ended after 1989; indeed, a sensible administration with any degree of political freedom might well have attempted overtures to the Castro regime even prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union, as the benefits to Cuba from trade would prospectively have been immense (setting aside for a moment the question of de-stabilization, which the Castro brothers might not have thought through).

3. The political failure of politicians from Southern states other than Florida to create a coalition to end the embargo remains surprising to me.  Indeed, lots of people in Florida would stand to gain immensely from free trade with Cuba. I’m generally happy to go with interests as as sufficient reason for politician behavior, but it seems to me that this case also involves a lack of imagination.

4. I would guess that the single biggest beneficiary of the embargo on Cuba is the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, which presumably sucks up a great deal of the tourism that Cuba would otherwise enjoy.  Of course, there are good reasons to visit Puerto Rico anyway, but I’d be curious to see how the tourism industry in Puerto Rico changed in the 1960s, and also the extent, if any, to which Puerto Ricans have lobbied to maintain the embargo.