The Cuban Embargo: To Uphold or End Proclamation 3447?

Bryan J. Sutherlin History of Latin American and the Caribbean Spring 2014

Signed on February 3, 1962, President John F. Kennedy enacted Proclamation 3447, which has remained intact to this day. This Proclamation, otherwise known as the Cuban Embargo, put a stranglehold on trade between the United States and Cuba, effectively ceasing all forms of Cuban-American commerce. More than fifty years later and following increased diplomatic relations due to natural disaster aid, the question of whether or not the embargo should be lifted has become a widely conversed topic. The majority of journalists and field experts believe that lifting the Cuban Embargo would enhance the American and Cuban economies, but those who oppose the repeal believe that American investors would cause ecological harm to Cuban lands and that it would increase tourism, thus stimulating Castros payroll. Prior to the hatred shared between the two nations, Cuba and the United States kept very friendly relations. The United States even backed the former President of Cuba, Fulgencio Batista, during his presidency from 1940 to 1944 and again beginning in 1952 in hope that he would cease the spread of communism to Latin America and protect U.S. investments in Cuba, such as the United Fruit Company.1 They had supported him until his upheaval in 1959 by Fidel Castro. Prior to Castros takeover, Americans collectively purchased close to 87% of Cuban exports and filled Cuban resorts and casinos, capping off its tourism.2 As communism was introduced with Castro at the helm, $18 million worth of American assets, such as factories and places of business, located on the island were seized,3 sparking fiery diplomatic relations. After Eisenhower signed a partial embargo in the late 1960s, and then completely ended Cuban-American diplomacy with the closure of the United States embassy in
1
2

"Cuban Dictator Batista Falls from Power." History.com. A&E Television Networks. Web. 14 Apr. 2014. "Cuba Embargo." ProCon.org. 5 Feb. 2014. Web. 18 Feb. 2014. 3 Cuba Embargo.

Havana,4 the main focus for the government was to end the repressive reign of Fidel Castro. Hundreds of exiled Cuban citizens trained by the American government failed to overthrow Castro with the Bay of Pigs invasion on April 17, 1961, resulting in the delivery of nuclear missiles to the Caribbean island by the former Soviet Union a year later. 5 This Soviet delivery to Castros Cuba marked the beginning of an alliance that kept the islands economy running until the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. The idea of communism found its way into the American media with Castro at the helm alongside his Soviet allies, armed with nuclear weaponry, sparking a national fear of the ideology. In 1962, President John F. Kennedy signed Proclamation 3447, formally ceasing all Cuban-American diplomacy. Americans across the country supported this newly enacted embargo, which served the national interest and momentarily eased the fear of communism. Strong nationalistic feelings led Americans to believe that demonstrating power by forcing another nation to suffer was acceptable within the 15 years following the conclusion of World War II. The withholding of food and basic necessities from Cuba caused this suffering. However, as times changed, the nationalism remained but Americans became more sympathetic to the human interest of Cubans. Americans gained a new desire to provide aid to countries in need, altering the national interest. Scholarly writers have promoted this new national interest by stating that the original logic of the embargo has become outdated. The initial hope for a Cuban uprising against Castro was no longer viewed as acceptable to these scholars. According to Louis Perez, a history professor at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, if the

4 5

Cuba Embargo. Ibid.

White House was to act within this national interest, it would end the embargo.6 This national interest includes the idea of introducing democratic republicanism, as well as, human rights within the Caribbean island as stated by a presidential memorandum released in April 2009.7 Despite the government previously providing relief to Cuba in times of need, Perezs opinion must become reality to restore Cuban American relations. Hurricane Michelle touched down in Cuba in November 2001, the highest magnitude hurricane to hit the island since 1952. The Category 4 storm left the Caribbean island in shambles, leaving destruction for miles. As the storm passed through, the United States drafted an agreement with Cuba, temporarily reopening diplomacy, which allowed for companies in the United States to send over food in the form of humanitarian relief.8 The United States became the islands number one food supplier as Castro paid the relief fees up front.9 Due to the cash flow between the two nations despite the embargo, Perez says that an embargo with as strict implementation as Proclamation 3447 is no longer plausible.10 Engaging in the importation and exportation of food between two embargoed countries is not sensible. Not only would a lifting of the embargo set a clean slate of diplomacy, but it would also allow Cubans to receive even more food, successfully replenishing those in poverty with essential goods. Many journalists believe that the initial troubles of the Cuban citizens caused by the embargo had the opposite effect of what was planned by the United States. Instead of promoting an uprising, Cubans turned their attention from the fight for democracy to the
6

Perez, Louis A., Jr. "Want Change in Cuba? End U.S. Embargo." CNN. Cable News Network, 21 Sept. 2010. Web. 18 Feb. 2014. 7 Perez. 8 Cuban Embargo. 9 Ibid. 10 Perez.

quest of relinquishing the starvation. With a lift on the embargo, Perez believes that relief for Cubans in regard to their daily struggles for food and other essentials would allow them to focus on other aspirations.11 These aspirations involve joining together as a unified country and fighting for democracy, a topic that, according to Daniel Raphael of the Huffington Post, Cubans are eager to talk about.12 By supplying Cubans with the items they have been starved of for decades and ultimately giving them the chance to fight for betterment of the country, Perez states that it represents a level of respect for the Cubans, acknowledging that they have the vision and vitality needed to enact needed reforms.13 Not only does the embargo represent a level of respect and allow Cubans to focus on democracy, but ending it and the subsequent lack of necessities also allows the island, as a whole, to raise its standard of living. Throughout the last five decades during the Embargo era, countless Cuban citizens have escaped the impoverished conditions by illegally traveling to the U.S. shores for political asylum and in hope for a new beginning. This influx of illegal Cuban travel created issues for the United States government in terms of immigration, leading President Clinton to establish the Cuban Migration Agreement in May 1995, which was summarized by the wet foot/ dry foot policy.14 This policy stated that if incoming Cubans were to be caught on the water by U.S. Coast Guard officials, they would be deported back to Cuba free of prosecution, however, if they were caught on U.S. land, they would be allowed to stay. Allowing escaped Cubans to remain in the United States after illegally emigrating under the embargo is both hypocritical and can cause further
11 12

Perez. Raphael, Daniel. "End the Cuban Embargo." The Huffington Post, 22 Jan. 2014. Web. 06 Apr. 2014. 13 Perez. 14 Cuban Embargo.

hostilities between the two nations. If the United States condemns the trade and travel with Cuba, it must also condemn the immigration of Cubans under all circumstances. This also can be a striking point for Cuban officials whose citizens are being welcomed by a country that has closed off all diplomatic relations. Cuba and the United States have been known in recent memory as bitter enemies thanks in part to the embargo. The hostilities sparked by poor diplomatic relations have helped to keep the embargo intact according to Chris Freind, an independent columnist and investigative reporter for Newsmax.15 Friend writes that the United States can gain huge victories for freedom and free enterprise right in our backyardby befriending Cuba.16 Lifting the embargo and befriending Cuba would not only reopen diplomatic relations, such as trading and tourism, but also allow for an opportunity at an alliance. Although the country has had ties with the Soviet Union in the past, if the United States were to befriend and create an alliance with the island, it would remove the surging Russians and Vladimir Putin from rekindling ties with Cuba. Despite the human rights violations committed by Castro and Cuban officials, such as eliminating freedom of expression and arresting those who speak out against the government,17 the United States befriended the Chinese who have similarly committed the same violations.18 The notion of keeping Cuba separated from Russia diminishes the possibility of another crisis for the United States. While many journalists write that the Cuban Embargo should be lifted, the issue of whether to lift it or not remains a two-sided debate. On the other side of this debate,
15

Freind, Chris. "Time to Lift Embargo on Cuba." Newsmax. Newsmax Media, 18 Mar. 2014. Web. 07 Apr. 2014. 16 Freind. 17 "World Report 2013: Cuba." Human Rights Watch. Web. 15 Apr. 2014. 18 Freind.

those that are pro-embargo oppose these anti-embargo journalists, using statistics and their beliefs to construct an argument. One pro-embargo journalist is Humberto Fontova. Fontova, a Cuban American political commentator, writes that tourism to Cuba is at an all time high despite Proclamation 3447.19 The United States and Cuba remain bounded by an embargo, but that has not stopped the island from having relations with other countries around the world. It may not have the greatest diplomatic ties internationally, but its Caribbean location has proven, as of late, as a hot spot for tourism. According to Fontova, this rise in tourism has a direct correlation to the islands repression as the influx of revenue fuels the Castro regime.20 As tourism has increased over the years, the repression faced by Cuban citizens has also increased. As a Cuban American, Fontova believes that the embargo should remain intact for the benefit of Cuba. Not only does he believe that it should remain intact, but he also believes that the embargo should be tightened.21 This is due in large part to the elevated number of tourists from the United States that would flood the airways for the chance to vacation and visit the island upon a lifted embargo. The spike in tourism that it would generate would, in turn, spike Castros power through a revenue surge, as more money equals more control. Castros control has proven fatal to Cubas citizens through the human rights violations that he has committed. Fontova writes that lifting the embargo would be viewed as hypocritical of the United States in terms of these violations.22 Allowing travel and trade with a country whose leader has been known for committing
19

Fontova, Humberto. "The United States Must Maintain the Embargo Against Cuba." Cuba. Ed. Noah Berlatsky. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2013. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "Why We Remain Resolute Against Traveling to Cuba." Miami Herald 10 Mar. 2012. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 19 Feb. 2014. 20 Fontova. 21 Ibid. 22 Fontova.

heinous acts on its people could potentially strengthen the notion of the United States hypocrisy in regards to the issue of human rights. Tourism to Cuba is at an all time high due its Caribbean location and beautiful coastal scenery. The islands ecological environments provide shelter to indigenous plants and animals. Some of these plants and animals cannot be found anywhere else in the world and only call Cuba home.23 Due to these unique ecological qualities, Cornelia Dean of the NY Times and Harvard University is a proponent for the embargo remaining intact. As a science staff writer and science professor, Dean and other ecologists fear that a lifted embargo could result in the damaging of the beautiful beaches, mangroves, and reefs, among others, thus harming the rare species of animals and plants within. 24 Eager American investors are credited with the creation of this fear on the grounds that they will quickly move into Cuba with the common hope of exploiting these lands for profit.25 If the embargo were to be lifted, new developments such as hotels and resorts would change the entire landscape, as the prospect of sudden and massive growth in mass tourism translates to dollar signs in the eyes of every investor.26 While the threat to Cubas ecological environments by American investors is a real one, several American and Cuban researchers are working to help eliminate the possibility of any risk to the landscapes. These researchers have worked together to identify hot spots of environmental activity that are important to the ecological well being of Cuba. These hot spots have been set aside for protection from investors to keep from

23

Dean, Cornelia. "Ending the Cuban Embargo Could Harm an Ecological Sanctuary." The U.S. Policy on Cuba. Ed. Amy Francis. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2009. At Issue. Rpt. from "Conserving Cuba, After the Embargo." New York Times 25 Dec. 2007: F1-L. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 19 Feb. 2014. 24 Dean. 25 Ibid. 26 Ibid.

being purchased and ruined through development.27 Deans argument as to why she is pro-embargo is a valid one, however, the issue she has mentioned can, and has, been fixed. Working with the Cuban people, like these American researchers have done, provides further proof that it is possible for the United States and Cuba to work together. The Cuban Embargo failed its initial intention of promoting an uprising of the Cuban people against Fidel Castro. Now, fifty-two years later, it remains as the last lingering relic from the Cold War.28 The tension between the United States and Cuba has eased in recent years, which raises the debate of whether or not it should be lifted. The scholarly arguments stated by both sides of this debate are credible; however, a majority of these scholars favor the lifting of Proclamation 3447, an action that needs to be done for the well being of both the United States and Cuba, the latter facing shortages of food and necessities as a result of it. Despite ending diplomatic relations in 1962, the two countries have still worked together during the past five decades, revealing the transparency of the embargo. Many journalists agree that a lift would benefit the economies of both countries and give Cuban citizens the push it needs to fight for the democracy and freedom from oppression for which they yearn.

Bibliography

27 28

Dean. Raphael.

"Cuban Dictator Batista Falls from Power." History.com. A&E Television Networks. Web. 14 Apr. 2014. "Cuba Embargo." ProCon.org. 5 Feb. 2014. Web. 18 Feb. 2014. Dean, Cornelia. "Ending the Cuban Embargo Could Harm an Ecological Sanctuary." The U.S. Policy on Cuba. Ed. Amy Francis. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2009. At Issue. Rpt. from "Conserving Cuba, After the Embargo." New York Times 25 Dec. 2007: F1-L. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 19 Feb. 2014. Fontova, Humberto. "The United States Must Maintain the Embargo Against Cuba." Cuba. Ed. Noah Berlatsky. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2013. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "Why We Remain Resolute Against Traveling to Cuba." Miami Herald 10 Mar. 2012. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 19 Feb. 2014. Freind, Chris. "Time to Lift Embargo on Cuba." Newsmax. Newsmax Media, 18 Mar. 2014. Web. 07 Apr. 2014. "Lift the Cuban Embargo." The New York Times. Ed. The Editorial Board. The New York Times Company, 12 Dec. 2013. Web. 18 Feb. 2014. Perez, Louis A., Jr. "Want Change in Cuba? End U.S. Embargo." CNN. Cable News Network, 21 Sept. 2010. Web. 18 Feb. 2014. Raphael, Daniel. "End the Cuban Embargo." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 22 Jan. 2014. Web. 06 Apr. 2014. "World Report 2013: Cuba." Human Rights Watch. Web. 15 Apr. 2014.