Amnesty International released a report this week (in Spanish and English here) called “The US Embargo Against Cuba: Its Impact on Economic and Social Rights,” reiterating previous AI calls to lift the embargo but shifting focus to how the trade and financial sanctions affect human rights (not simply political rights) of Cuba.
This is a tack few have been taking since the new administration entered office this year. The debate of whether or not to lift the embargo has been more political: side 1 says the embargo hasn’t pushed the regime to change, therefore it has failed, so let’s do away with it; side 2 says the embargo must remain until the regime makes those changes regarding human rights and freedom of the press, etc., and removing the regulations would be a “unilateral concession.”
What about how the embargo affects Cubans themselves? AI argues that, among other things, it limits Cuba’s capacity to import medicines, medical equipment and the latest technologies (the recent case of Philips is one good example), which disproportionally affects the most vulnerable members of society.
But to many, this humanitarian or human rights-based argument, while important, has not been as convincing as the rational, US interests-based argument made by Steve Clemons in a piece this summer: “We need to move to a different position of interest-driven mutual respect… Increased commerce and people-to-people exchange will benefit both sides of the US-Cuba relationship… It is imperative that we stop deluding ourselves to think that the embargo is a leverage point or that the embargo can effect internal change in Cuba. This is a fallacy.”
Also key is his point that “today Cuba is not exporting guns and arms and revolution; it is exporting doctors.” This is true: whatever feeling the United States might have had at one point that Cuba was a threat, the very idea is now ridiculous. The only power it has internationally comes from its export of medical assistance and from its symbolic significance as a “survivor” after decades of strangulation by the U.S. vise.
Of course, considering only that it is not a threat internationally does not account for Cuba’s internal conditions and the problem the United States has with them. But, like other countries of the world, the United States must eventually realize that to push Cuba forward on certain issues (e.g. political prisoners and various restricted freedoms), having a dialogue based on trust and mutual respect will be more effective than the current non-relations based on mutual suspicion. It must be: this has gotten nowhere. Only the brief meetings (read: dialogue) over these many years between U.S. or other foreign officials with Cuban officials have ever resulted in the release of political prisoners. Bill Richardson’s direct negotiations with Fidel Castro led to the release of three individuals in 1996, and Spanish officials secured the release of four prisoners in 2008, for example.
