The Republic of Cuba and the Economic Sanctions of the United States of America Albert Garcia, Jr. Political Science 472 Professor Tanter Final Research Paper December 9, 1996 I. Historical Background: the Cuban Economic Embargo The relationship between the United States and Cuba has been very unpleasant for the past 34 years because of an economic embargo imposed by the United States. A result of the Cold War, the Communist controlled island was an asset to the former Soviet Union in dealings with U.S. foreign policy. However, the relationship between the two nations could be changing due in part to the fall of the Communist regime in the U.S.S.R.. These two countries have a more extensive history leading up to the implementation of the economic embargo on February 3, 1962 under the Trading With the Enemy Act (1917). Cuba has a history of political discontinuity and revolt of administration; often with the United States government becoming directly involved. Cuba was turned over to the United States under the Treaty of Paris for a period of 3 years before it was granted its own national sovereignty. Cuba did enjoyed a period of democracy from 1902-1924 until General Gerardo Machado forcibly extended his rule as President from 1924-1933. Machado was eventually deposed by an uprising led by military General Fulgencio Batista. Batista proceeded to establish his own tenure of dominant leadership for the next 25 years. Then on July 26, 1958, after a series of failed attempts to overthrow the government, armed rebel forces led by a young man named Fidel Castro successfully overthrew the Batista regime. Thought to be an ally to the United States after a Washington address in 1959, Castro said, "We are against all kinds of dictators, whether it be through a man, country, class, oligarchy or by the military; we are against communism." However, the United States was soon to learn that Castro had other intentions in store for his country. This new regime concerned the Unites States, especially after Castro declared himself to be a Marxist-Leninist in December of 1961. Following the expropriation of over $ 1 billion of property belonging to the United States and its citizens, Castro formed strong ties with the U.S.S.R.. The United States did not welcome the partnership that was developing between Castro and the Soviets. Later in 1962, the United States discovered that the Soviet Union was placing missles in Cuba. This incident led to the Cuban Missle Crisis. Under the direction of the John F. Kennedy Administration, the Soviet Union aggreed to withdraw its armament after an elevated level of nuclear war was imminent. Following this event, Kennedy established an economic embargo on Cuba. The reasons involved in his justification included: 1. Fear of Castro's intent to further implement his totalitarian rule over other countries in Central and South America. Castro supported various guerrilla groups whose mission it was to over throw vulnerable democratic governments. 2. The close ties that Castro was forming with the Soviet Union. 3. To demonstrate the United States policy of communist containment. 4. The United States effort to influence the change of Cuba from a totalitarian state to a democratic one. Following these events, Castro continued his totalitarian rule. He began to support revolutions in both Africa and Latin America, often with the support of the Soviet Union. The Ford Administration attempted to improve relations with a "reformed" Cuba in 1974. However, with the deployment of 40,000 Cuban and Soviet troops to Angola, the United States and Cuban relations reversed once more. In the minds of U.S. decision-makers, Cuba was an extention of the Soviet Union justifying their enforcement of the embargo. It was not until the 1980's, particularly with the Reagan Administration, that modern-day American-Cuban policy had increased. His administration focused on ways of strengthening the embargo. Since Cold War military expenditures were increasing, Cuba's economic Soviet assistance was dwindling. Cuba suffered tremendously by the fall of the Soviet Union. Back in 1989, it is believed that Cuba received over $ 4 billion in military and economic aid. In 1992, Russian President Boris Yeltsin severed economic ties with Castro. It is now, when Castro feels the effects of the American embargo. Prior to the downfall, the embargo simply made it slightly more difficult to send and receive goods. Afterall, it had the support of Communist China and the U.S.S.R. In recent years, the Cuban economic output has fallen by 70%. Struck by food and fuel shortages, the citizens of Cuba have been hardest hit by the economic embargo. After the Cold War, the United States was forced into looking for additional reasons for maintaining its current "tight grip" on the island. The U.S. blamed some of its actions on Cuba's lack of humanitarian rights. The government saw no tolerance of speech, assembly or religious freedom. There were reports of degrading punishment against decedents. The underlying fact was not the violation itself, rather, the frightening amount of violations that occurred. The Cuban Democracy Act (CDA) was passed in 1992 by the United States Congress, signed by President Bush and approved by President Clinton. This Act further solidified the embargo by not allowing U.S. subsidiaries to conduct business with Cuba. Friendly nations were also encouraged to discontinue aid or trade with the Cuban government. As if that was not enough, any ships going into Cuba could not dock in U.S. ports for an additional 18 months. The CDA outlined the American policy on Cuba that had been existence from the moment communist rule fell over the island. The U.S. embargo was further strengthened by terminating the trade of foreign U.S. businesses with Cuba. The CDA also called upon all U.S. allies to assist America on its quest of fully sanctioning Cuba. However, as mentioned later, this provision did not win the backing of most allies. Another portion of the Act called for a dramatic increase in the contact with Cubans. Whether it be via phone, fax, internet, television or radio, the United States sought to circumnavigate the information monopoly that was in place. Theoretically, this would allow for the United States to show a different side to Castro and America's governments to the citizens of Cuba. In 1995, Clinton declared the lifting of some travel, aid and money transfer restrictions between family members through an Executive Order. This action was in response to UN accusations that the United States was hurting the people of Cuba and not the governing body. All of this changed after a chain of events transpired in 1996. On February 24, 1996, four Cuban-Americans, from the Brothers to the Rescue organization, were shot down by two Cuban military MiGs. Unarmed, the four American citizens were shot down over International Waters. The Brothers to the Rescue organization patrols the waters in between Cuba and the Florida border of the United States searching for Cuban refugees that have fled Cuba. Immediately following this event, the UN condemned the Cuban government for its actions and demanded a response from Cuba. The Cuban government refused to acknowledge any wrong doing. Meanwhile, Back in Washington, DC, Senator Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) and Representative Dan Burton (R-Indiana) were drafting the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act. This Act called for: 1. The encouragement of free and fair democratic elections in Cuba with members of the international community in observance. 2. The strengthening of international sanctions against the Castro regime. 3. The assistance of Cubans in regaining their freedom and prosperity. This would lead them into membership amongst the democratic countries of the Americas. 4. The protection of United States nationals against confiscatory taking and the wrongful trafficking of property confiscated by the regime. 5. The creation of a framework for the support from the United States in the event of a Cuban transition or democratically elected government. 6. The continued national security of the United States in the face of threats from the Cuban government in all shapes and forms. Following increased pressure from Cuban-Americans in Miami, Florida, and concern over the safety of Americans near the Cuban territory, the Clinton Administration responded to the incident by endorsing the Helms-Burton act. What is perhaps the most powerful demonstration against the communist-controlled island yet, the Helms- Burton Act ensures that the only way the United States will and could terminate the embargo involves the existence of a democratically elected government in Cuba exercising power. When the President signed the Act, he stated, " a strong message is being sent to the Cuban government: we will not tolerate attacks on United States citizens, and we will stand with those both inside and outside Cuba who are working for a peaceful transition to freedom and democracy." President Clinton has been given a "window" before the Act is to be fully enacted. When the Act becomes law, the United States will send the strongest message ever, the United States will not maintain quitting as an option in dealing with its quest to make Cuba democratic. In essence, this would eliminate any type of compromise between the two countries. The message that would be sent to Castro is clear, stay in power and the United States will not change its stance until communist rule of Cuba has been dissolved. President Clinton asked for an extention before the Act was to take affect primarily because of its aim at further sanctioning Cuba's effort to obtain further foreign investment. The Helms-Burton Act increases further pressure against American allies for investing in Cuba. The Act allows Americans, as well as Cuban-Americans, to file suit in U.S. courts against foreigners conducting business on/with confiscated properties. Because of its damaging potential, the international community has been vocal in critiquing the United States' efforts to apply American laws outside of the country. Due primarily to this provision, the Act has been universally rejected because it challenges numerous free trade agreements around the world. The United States was condemned by the European Union for its provision in the Helms-Burton Act because of heightened concern over its effect on European Businesses currently working with Cuba on March 14, 1996. Shortly afterwards, the United Nations continued its condemnation of the U.S. embargo through General Assembly vote. The UN passed legislation which prohibited any country from enacting laws that would apply constraints against another state. Canada has also been strongly against the measures outlined within the Act. Canada has warned that it will challenge the portion that deals with foreign trade under provisions in the North American Free Trade Agreement. II. Policy and Procedure: Castro vs. the United States Why keep the present-day strict embargo? The United States shapes its foreign policy from a variety of different ideologies and procedures. Several theoretical applications must be understood before comprehension of the American embargo on Cuba can be fully grasped. A rational decision maker engages in analytical decision-making by identifying options, estimating likelihood of success, trades off, expected costs and the benefits of establishing an expected value and then selecting options that promise the upmost gains and losses. Some, however, argue that the chief mechanism of choice is not always going to be a rational one. Quite often, a decision-maker is constrained by cognitive bias and belief. When applied to Castro, it is clear, that at times, he is not a rational decision-maker, rather a cognitive decision- maker. A cognitive decision-maker is one whose decision process is less rational in nature because past of occurrences and misperceptions that are dismissed and biases which influence the outcome of decisions. Proof of Castro's irrationality can be directly tied into his refusal to acknowledge the failure of his regime. This may be in part attributed to his fear of losing control over the Cuban populace. It is clear that the failure of Socialism is chiefly responsible for the economic collapse. In dealing with the Cuban policy, the lack of incentives on the U.S. government can be considered somewhat rational when a decision must be made. The game of bargaining becomes one of the chief policy strategies used against the island. This operation carries an assumption of government decision making-utilizing the "bargaining theory". Several factors, such as the Cuban-American interest groups and American business interests, are playing roles in defining what exactly are the United States interests while simultaneously looking into self-serving ways to end the conflict with Cuba. Bargaining is the process by which an actor (U.S.) tries to resolve a conflict with another party (Cuba) through reaching resolve in a circumstance where one's best interests are not lost. Thus, the economic embargo has not been lifted by the United States because it sees no options in dealing otherwise but, still manages to reach its own goals through such acts as the Helms-Burton and the CDA. Bargain Theory in the arena of Cuba and the United States is also complemented by the use of other techniques. Strategy is used by the United States to allow for its intentions to be announced with a desire for them to be met. The United States has made it extremely clear to the Castro government that the embargo may be altered should changes take affect, particularly, less totalitarianism and more freedom and democracy in the daily lives of its citizenship. Through the Helms-Burton and the CDA, the United States attempts to set its demands in exchange for a potential loosening of the embargo. The power of persuasion can also be found when dealing with rogue states. When control of an opponents events are an advantage to the initiator, persuasion is used to simply serve an informative purpose towards actions before they are taken. An example may be the U.S. tactics of persuasion in making Castro feel that it is he, not the United States, decides how much longer the embargo exists over his country. Thus, forcing the Castro Administration to look within itself for change rather than trying to change external variables to accomplish a U.S. withdraw. Castro can be considered an irrational actor. Lifting the embargo would simply provide him with the necessary resources he needs to maintain the status-quo. It is clear that Castro is in a basement of fear because he has continuously shown that he will not reach an agreement out of provoked fear. However, Castro's greatest fear lies with his concern over losing his absolute power over Cuba. It is clear that he lies in the basement because of his resistance to assimilate his regime into something the international community would better accept. This resistance upholds the coercive diplomacy theory which the U.S. embargo reflects. Through further embargo strengthening, Castro still has refused to loosen control and question his dictatorship. III. Conclusion: Maintaining the U.S. Embargo The modern-day embargo has only been effective since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Castro is beginning to feel the constraints envisioned by the original policy-makers when the embargo was designed. Because of the United States' global economic strength, Castro has been unable to gain access into organizations such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and numerous international financial institutions where the United States could block any efforts by Castro. According to the Cuban American National Foundation, " There is no better affirmation as to the effectiveness of US policy towards Cuba than the fact that unilateral lifting of US sanctions has become the number one foreign policy priority of the Castro regime. The US embargo is an effective instrument of US policy and has really only been in operation for a little over three years. Therefor, it is simply unnecessary to lift the embargo and undo a strategy that has just begun to achieve its objectives. In essence, maintaining the US embargo is the strongest "solution" to solving US-Cuban conflicts." The collapse of Cuba is not the U.S. desire within its foreign policy. It is the downfall of Castro that fuels the policy targeted by the United States. The United States must acknowledge that the embargo can not be lifted for several reasons: 1. The United States must continue to pressure Castro so that other states do not perceive the U.S. as being weak. 2. A continued firm pressure on the Castro regime while allowing the Cuban economy to maintain some stability until there will be a greater possibility of change that can occur. 3. Decrease the amount of time the Castro regime can stay in power. 4. Castro will not step down until the Cuban system totally collapses. The Castro regime, despite any propaganda to the contrary, has refused to take any significant steps toward economic reform. Castro must endure, due to the US embargo changes, economic realities . The growing opposition against Castro reaffirms the fact that the Cuban people are victims of one of the most oppressive regimes of the twentieth century. Twelve million people are still seeking to assert their human dignity and reclaim the inalienable rights which have been reaped away by the Castro regime. Taking all the different arguments and applications into account, the US embargo against Cuba is the most rational and effective policy towards Cuba right now. Cuba is one of the only communist societies left on this earth. It has weakened Castro's regime and its capability to repress the Cuban people and should not be lifted. It has forced Castro into a dead-end. Castro's options are increasingly decreasing. With the introduction of the Helms-Burton Act of 1996, America's resolve to help the Cuban people and to put an end to Castro's regime remains fervent. Of course, only time will be the deciding factor of the ultimate success of the US embargo against Cuba. However, after evaluating its objectives as well as the current economic crisis destroying Cuba, it is very possible that maintaining the US embargo will lead to the end of Castro's inhumane exploitation of the Cuban citizenship. It is this possibility that must always remain at the center of any policy that not only deals with Cuba but, with any rogue state that poses a similar unjust rule over human beings. It is a role that the United States of America fought for over 200 years ago and must still battle over for those who can not find freedom where freedom is deserving and should lie.