The above clip is a debate between Phil Peters, Vice President of the Lexington Institute, and Mauricio Claver-Carone, lobbyist for the anti-Castro U.S.-Cuba Political Action Committee, on the merits of maintaining or relaxing the U.S. embargo of Cuba.
The debate itself follows a typically unproductive “talk past each other” sort of progression, but it lays out the traditional arguments on each side of the issue.
On the pro-embargo side, Mauricio argues that the embargo has three essential conditions that must be met before it is lifted—unconditional release of political prisoners, recognition of certain human and political rights, and legalization of opposition political parties, labor unions, etc.—and that therefore, if the United States were to unconditionally remove the embargo regulations, it would show that the country does not care about these three outcomes in Cuba.
On the opposite side, Phil points out that the Cuban people are no better off, and the regime is no weaker and no more democratic after half a century of embargo: it is only older. Furthermore, for years the Castros have been able to send Cubans the message that the United States is imperialist and trying to starve the Cuban people. If the Obama administration lifts the embargo, then, it puts all the responsibility, blame and expectations for the country’s economy squarely on the shoulders of the Cuban state. That could be the best formula for bringing about change.
Listen to their further thoughts above.
