 | ||
|
||
| English | Español | Deutsch | Русский |
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
American Embargo on Castro's Cuba Letter to The Wall Street Journal 01/26/98 Dear Editors: In “Washington’s Embargo feeds Castro’s Tyranny” of January 21, José Miguel Vivanco and Anne Manuel argue that “it’s time to recognize the role the U.S. embargo has played in keeping Mr. Castro in power.” They assert that “the embargo has made enemies of all Washington’s potential allies” and “given governments world-wide an excuse to remain silent” in the face of Mr. Castro’s brutal repression. Mr. Castro was kept in power from 1961-1989 not by the U.S. embargo, but by more than $100 billion in subsidies from the Soviet Union. How quickly the world forgets that for nearly 30 years Cuba formed a key element in the strategic interests of the Soviet Union. In the mid 50’s Cuba ranked 4th in Latin American economic development. Today it ranks last, along with Haiti. This decline began decades ago, not because of the U.S. embargo, but because of the corruption, ineptitude, and squandering of resources that have been Castro’s trademark. To use the embargo as an excuse for tacit approval of Castro is merely pretense. Parties remain silent not because “they don’t want to be seen as joining Washington’s bullying tactics,” but because they profit from Castro’s system. Castro offers foreign investors a non-striking labor force whose members work gratefully for dirt-cheap wages and who feel privileged when they receive soap, toothpaste and deodorant on payday. Castro imposes NO environmental regulations on businesses, offers lucrative tax benefits, and free repatriation of all income. Many potential American investors are impatient, dreaming of such a business “haven” so nearby. So they lobby to change U.S. policy. As for the “carrot-and-stick” approach adopted by the European Union – some of whose members profit greatly from investments in Cuba – let us ask what progress has been made since this “policy” went into effect. Since then, brutal repression, arrests, beatings, threats, jail sentences, and an exodus of rafters from the island have been common occurrences in Cuba. EU members ride the horse; where is the stick? And the animosity in some circles toward Washington’s position? Cui bono? Let us not forget that foreign concerns are making money out of confiscated American properties in Cuba. They oppose Washington’s attempt to redress this situation and protect the interests of American citizens. Governments protest because politicians receive campaign contributions from those firms threatened by Washington’s initiatives. It is not the embargo that has “guaranteed the world’s solidarity with the Western Hemisphere’s last dictatorship.” It’s something much more basic. In closing, let us remind your readers that when the Helms-Burton bill became law in March 1996, most dissident organizations within Cuba hailed it as a painful, but necessary, step toward limiting Castro’s staying power. Those who profit from Castro’s regime can hardly be expected to endorse it. Dr. Emilio-Adolfo Rivero |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
. |
||||||||||||||||||||
 |