The Cuba Blockade Has Died, but the Embargo Lives On

Fernando Ravsberg*

The Blockade on Cuba is uninstalling.

HAVANA TIMES — Negotiations between Cuba and the United States are making it clear that the financial embargo on the island was also a blockade that placed restrictions on Havana’s relations with other countries around the world and international organizations.

The avalanche of offers of business, credits, investments and partnerships, and the number of politicians and entrepreneurs who have visited the island after December 17 last year, demonstrate that many had not approached Cuba before fearing reprisals from Washington.

And one couldn’t blame them: in 1992, the US approved the Torricelli Act, to prevent the subsidiaries of US companies in third countries from selling anything to Cuba. Four years later, they issued the Helms-Burton Act, which entitles the United States to sue those who make any transactions involving properties nationalized in Cuba.

No one in their right mind could today ignore the collateral effects that this blockade must have had on the island’s economy. How many doors did simple fear close? How much extra money was paid to cover risks? How much of a technological lag did this situation cause?

The fear of doing business with Cuba could be gaged on the basis of the interest that British, French, Spanish, Mexican, South Korean, Canadian and Japanese investors have demonstrated over the last few months, and from the change in attitude seen at the Paris and London Clubs.

The world’s reaction has been of such magnitude that some inattentive colleagues assume that the embargo is over. US entrepreneurs, the only ones invited to the party who are denied a slice of the cake, make no such mistake.

The French president shook hands with Cubans and condemned the US embargo.

Not all of the island’s economic problems stem from the blockade, of course. That said, deliberately ignoring its effects would be an act of cynicism, comparable to the cynicism of those who claim it does not have an impact on the Cuban economy while demanding that it be left in place.

According to official State Department documents, the embargo was born to bring about hunger, misery, low wages and despair among those who supported the Cuban government, to push these people to rebel and overthrow the revolutionary leadership.

Reading these documents, one cannot accept the claim that the blockade was intended to affect the government exclusively. US officials themselves reveal that, from the start, this measure was aimed at applying pressure on common people.

For 40 years, Washington forbade the sale of food and medicine to Cuba. This measure could only have sought to undermine the health of the population, particularly in the midst of critical moments, such as the economic crisis of the 1990s.

The huge step back that forced Cuba to replace US technology with Soviet technology was devastating. The country’s industry lost in quality and efficiency and the price and consumption of fuel went up. On occasion, production costs were higher than those of the international market.

Photo: Raquel Pérez Díaz

Strictly forbidden from using the US dollar as a currency for its commercial transactions, Cuba was forced to accept a very high financial exchange rate. When they tried to sidestep Washington’s blockade, the banks ended up with fines of up to US $ 8 billion.

Obama holds a record as the US president who applied the most fines on banking institutions for conducting transactions with Havana. He inspired such fear that no bank was willing to open an account for Cuba’s diplomatic delegation in Washington.

Before being elected, the United States’ first African-American president believed the embargo on Cuba could be used as a “lever” to move Havana in the direction Washington had established. His greatest merit was acknowledging he was wrong.

Today, the embargo is condemned by all of the world’s governments (as evidenced at the UN National Assembly), by the majority of US and Cuban-American citizens and, according to polls, by the US president himself.

Curiously, all of this condemnation does not quite manage to put an end to the economic embargo, which remains in effect thanks to the US Congress. This is reminiscent of those ancient Roman senators who felt powerful enough to oppose the will of the entire world.

Obama was the US president who applied the most fines on foreign banks for conducting transactions with Cuba. He worked to make the embargo a veritable blockade more than any other, before accepting this policy was a failure.

Obama’s policy change, however, dealt a crucial blow to the “blockade”, and US companies and those of other nations do not fear reprisals as much. It is one step towards dismantling the international fence Washington had propped up around Cuba with laws, threats, sanctions and fines.

At any rate, the economic “embargo” is still standing and to think it will fall of its own weight is deluded. A Cuban-American senator has just presented a bill that would make making the embargo more flexible dependent on Cuba’s payments for nationalized properties.

Others seek to revise the Cuban Adjustment Act in an attempt to force Cubans to become political dissidents in order to be allowed to immigrate to the USA. Anti-Castro hardliners may indeed fight tooth and nail to keep the embargo – a natural reaction, when we bear in mind that their very existence is being threatened.
—–

(*) Visit the website of Fernando Ravsberg.

18 thoughts on “The Cuba Blockade Has Died, but the Embargo Lives On

  • The US policy is legal as it was passed by the Congress and signed into law by the President. The problem for you folks who are Americans is your political system. Don’t blame me!
    The semantics you refer to were introduced by Mr. Ravsberg when he incorrectly described the US embargo as a blockade – which it ain’t!
    I carefully explained that in my opinion Mr. Ravsberg got it right when he said that:
    “this measure was aimed at putting pressure on the common people”
    I then explained why in my opinion the US politicians were wrong.
    My observation about elephants was made without thinking about a particular US political party – perhaps I should have included the donkeys?
    I hope you read the extracts I gave from the US Cuban Democracy Act. and the specific reference to “the Castro regime”. The Act was passed by your elected government! As you may know, my elected governments – whether Liberal or Conservative have consistently given diplomatic recognition to the Cuban government and has permitted Canadian companies to do business in Cuba. Also my elected governments both Liberal and Conservative have voted at the UN in favour of the US lifting the embargo – but the stubborn elephant has consistently refused – or was it an ass?

  • Right you are.
    China is a fine blend of totalitarian economies to wit:
    1) State capitalism wherein government officials determine what is done with the surplus created by the workers at the bottom. The workers have no say in anything.
    .
    2) Free enterprise capitalism wherein private individuals or boards determine what is done with the surplus created by the workers at the bottom. The workers have no say in anything.
    Both are totalitarian
    Neither can be termed socialist or communist for that one reason alone.
    Under either socialism or communism , it is the workers at the bottom who determine policy i.e. the majority, which in any democracy SHOULD determine everything of importance. …that is,
    if you truly believe in democracy.

  • FYI,
    In order for any economy to be tagged “socialist” it would HAVE to be , by definition, one controlled by the workers , from the bottom up.
    What the world has seen in the Soviet Union , in China, in Vietnam and in Cuba is STATE CAPITALISM wherein instead of a private individual or corporate board deciding what is done with the surplus created by the workers as it is with U.S.-style free enterprise capitalism , those top-down decisions are made by government officials under Cuba’s Leninist ( top-down) economic form which again CANNOT academically be termed socialist ( and MOST CERTAINLY not communist) .
    The answer to Cuba and the USA’s problems is direct democracy which unhappily, is an alien concept for most people .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *