Regardless of whether you agree with it, the Obama administration has made its mark on Cuba-United States foreign policy. Last December, President Barack Obama addressed the nation and laid out a plan to normalize relations with the island. Obama not only pressured Congress to repeal the longstanding embargo, but also called for an embassy in Havana and a resumption of diplomatic relations with the regime. As justification for the policy shift, the president coolly remarked that he was “not interested in having battles that, frankly, started before [he] was born.”
Nearly four months later, the president seems intent on renewing relations with the Communist state. Most recently, Obama exchanged pleasantries with Raul Castro in Panama and expunged the island from the State Department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism. The president, however, fails to recognize that resuming relations with Cuba means more than fancy photo-ops and free trade of fine cigars. The impact of simply eliminating the Cuban embargo and normalizing relations will have lasting repercussions, and it is questionable whether this foreign policy reversal will benefit anyone at all.
Today, many Americans associate the word “embargo” with “Cuba” just as easily as they associate “Sunday” with “football.” Yet sentiment has turned against the embargo as of late, and many have expressed their desire for resuming relations with Cuba. According to a Feb. 2014 poll conducted by the Atlantic Council, 56 percent of Americans support a return to business as usual with the island nation. Unfortunately, lifting the embargo would be a severe miscalculation that would benefit neither country.
In short, the lifting of the Cuban embargo is far from mutually beneficial — it is, rather, mutually detrimental. Both countries would suffer losses if the embargo were repealed. For the U.S., these losses are easy to understand. To put it simply, at the moment Cuba is, in many respects, a poor investment. As Jorge Benitez wrote in a Feb. 2014 U.S. News column, investing in Cuba is essentially “pouring billions of dollars down the drain.” Benitez points out that under the Castro regime Cuba has defaulted on several of its multi-billion dollar loans since the 1980s. Countries such as Russia and Mexico have lost large sums of money to the regime. To boot, Moody’s Investors Service recently rated Cuba as a Caa2 investment — it is a “substantial risk” and no better than putting money in “junk bonds,” according to Benitez. Lifting the embargo would likely result in loss, not profitable trade, for the U.S. Perhaps more importantly, lifting the embargo would result in a significant loss of a political bargaining chip for the U.S. — an obvious sign of weakness.
On the other hand, proponents of eliminating the embargo argue that keeping it in place harms the Cuban population and bars their access to basic necessities. This argument, however, is flawed. Lifting the embargo is not guaranteed to deliver benefits to Cubans. Because of its centralized economy, many Cubans likely would not reap the benefits of free trade. While government officials may be able to line their pockets with new trade prospects, Cubans young and old will continue living in squalor.
Herein lies the crux of the matter — the regime’s oppressive policies will surely persist in the absence of the embargo. Those in support of lifting the embargo fail to realize that Cuba-U.S. relations are a two-way street. It is naïve to assume that the Castro regime will throw up its arms, embrace free trade and immediately address its egregious violations of human rights. Lifting the embargo is not a panacea for the ills that plague the island.
Unfortunately, panderers on both sides of the aisle have fashioned the Cuba issue to fit their political agendas. Last Monday, Gov. Andrew Cuomo, D-NY, embarked on a highly publicized trade mission to the island. Cuomo, joined by several New York moguls, hoped to set the ball rolling for the New York business interest. The Cuban embargo is not a partisan matter, and such pandering only distracts from the need to find a mutually beneficial solution for both nations. Any decision on Cuba — even if it requires complex political calculus — should further not just business interests but the wellbeing of Cubans, Americans and Cuban-Americans like myself.
