Appears someone has inevitably bowed to awesome U.S. Power to wage economic sanctions, trade embargoes, and travel restrictions. Only took 50 years.
Listen: I get not doing business with scoundrels, but since I’m delving into practical geopolitical realities, look at this: We’re dealing with a puny island nation that couldn’t get off it’s ass to produce much of anything anyway (though the cigars are fab), so what we essentially accomplished was not to cut them down, but if anything, to keep them from rising up (economically, as international traders), which would have made it increasingly difficult for Castro to hold power. Now, one could understand doing something like that to a Japan, a China, a Taiwan — but Cuba? The former would undoubtedly be harmed tremendously, so sanctions would have real practical clout. For a Cuba, all it did was empower "them."
I have believed for 20 years that U.S. economic sanctions are essentially what kept Castro in power. The U.S. handed him his half-century fiefdom. Our actions made it easy for him to play David, and who doesn’t love David?
To play Devil’s Advocate with myself, Cuba was unique, being a Communist nation 90 miles from our shores; and The Cuban Missile Crisis undoubtedly etched quite a scar on the American psyche for a generation, at least.
Well, I for one will welcome some sort of détente, even if it isn’t in the manner I’d go about it.
I wonder why American conglomerates haven't brought pressure to open up the Cuban market. Surely, a Coca-Cola or other such consumer company would love to have access to Cuba. Could you imagine how a Cuban's quality of life would increase with a flood of cheap goods?
"I have believed for 20 years that U.S. economic sanctions are essentially what kept Castro in power."
And I say that's bloody nonsense. Power is what's kept Castro in power, and people who think that someone like that can be traded out of power are deluded. (Mark my words: it's not going to work with China, either.)
Now; the legal prohibitions against American individuals trading with Cuba are completely reprehensible. However; even if they hadn't existed, not one penny of my money ever would have gone to that place, which would have been just as much my right.
People who believe that Castro could have been traded out of power have also lost sight of what thieves are and just how much they can soak up before the deluded come to their senses.
"My point is that it's not the trade that would have removed him from power, but its effects, i.e., citizens with some economic power and leverage."
Rubbish. Look:
"His power was a consequence of keeping his people poor and miserable,…"
Oh, yeah? If that's true, then explain how he came to power in the first place.
"I'm also saying that such sanctions did nothing to topple him, which is categorically true, because they didn't."
This is plainly obvious and not in dispute.
It also has nothing at all to do with the sheer conjecture that free trade would have toppled a killer.
What kept Castro in power for most of his reign were massive Soviet subsidies.
It is perfectly legitimate to hold that sanctions on trading with the Castro regime are illegitimate and at the same time to hold that no decent person would trade with the Castro regime.
"I think it's always best to advocate for freedom, regardless of consequences, even when freedom means that some people choose to patronize thugs, murderers and thieves."
Of course those people would be contemptible.
You are, however, not advocating freedom "regardless of consequences" – you are making the highly dubious claim that trade with the Castro regime would bring down the Castro regime. Beck is quite right (if perhaps overly charitable) to label this as "conjecture."
"But you already admit that the legal prohibitions against free trade are reprehensible, which means the U.S. government was wrong — morally wrong — to do it."
The U.S government is one thing.
Attempting trade with murderers is something else altogether, and in principle, a very foolish thing to attempt.
I'm not talking about the government. You are.
I'm addressing something far more general.
A reading of Machiavelli's The Prince might help explain how he continued to hold power after the subsidies ended. He was no longer a new prince, so to speak. He'd secured his holdings.
The same immoral political economy espoused in that book is used everywhere, by all political systems, but I'm guessing everyone here already knows that…
Richard:
"We can be certain of one thing: sanctions did nothing to weaken him. I say they helped to strengthen him. The other possibility is that they had no effect at all."
Yet another possibility is that sanctions helped to thwart his — and his backer's –expansionist plans.
He dies as king of impoverished Cuba, not as the czar (or Soviet puppet ruler) of a wider Carribean/Latin American/African socialist empire.
Billy:
My point is that it's not the trade that would have removed him from power, but its effects, i.e., citizens with some economic power and leverage.
His power was a consequence of keeping his people poor and miserable, a situation that was easy to blame on the USA (which isn't true, of course).
We can be certain of one thing: sanctions did nothing to weaken him. I say they helped to strengthen him. The other possibility is that they had no effect at all.
Which possibility do you think is more likely?
"Rubbish."
Bullshit.
"If that's true, then explain how he came to power in the first place."
La Revolucion, which of course was just another scam like they all were, and are — essentially like the scam being run right now here. Chance (randomness) played a role too, things coming together as they did, when they did (other such revolutionary attempts have failed).
Sure, he always kept up the revolutionary rhetoric (we do, too, and it just about as meaningless — though it did have original meaning), but he always kept his people poor.
Look: I'm not saying categorically that allowing "free trade" (such as it is) would have led to economic leverage that would have toppled him. I'm saying it's possible. I'm also saying that such sanctions did nothing to topple him, which is categorically true, because they didn't.
We have only two possibilities, the other being closed off: "free trade" would have had no effect, or it would have weakened him, perhaps leading to his downfall. I'm betting on the latter, but you're welcome to bet on the former, which would be your only alternative.
"It also has nothing at all to do with the sheer conjecture that free trade would have toppled a killer."
But you already admit that the legal prohibitions against free trade are reprehensible, which means the U.S. government was wrong — morally wrong — to do it.
My argument reduces to the simple realization that prohibitions against individuals and businesses acting freely, as in trading with Cuba, was morally wrong, and oh, by the way, didn't achieve the objective anyway.
Could freedom, or some greater semblance of it, have contributed to a better outcome, i.e., regime change, and then we'll see?
I suppose it's "complete conjecture," but so is the only other alternative — that it would have contributed not at all.
I think it's always best to advocate for freedom, regardless of consequences, even when freedom means that some people choose to patronize thugs, murderers and thieves.
So if you're not arguing for sanctions, which I don't think you are, then I'm having a hard time understanding your objection.
John:
"What kept Castro in power for most of his reign were massive Soviet subsidies."
I'll agree with that. Then again, when those stopped, which I think they did in the 90s, he held on, so it doesn't help any argument (not saying you and Billy are making it) that U.S. sanction would have been effective in weakening him without the Soviet aid. And also, a huge percentage of that aid was for military hardware and support. The people were still dirt poor, which I think is the biggest factor in Castro's success. It was too easy to blame their predicament on the Great Satan to the North.
"It is perfectly legitimate to hold that sanctions on trading with the Castro regime are illegitimate and at the same time to hold that no decent person would trade with the Castro regime."
I agree with that, too, but I'd also make a distinction between trade that serves the regime directly and trade which might tend to undermine it, or, at least to mutually benefit the trader and the many innocents inhabiting Cuba. That said, I understand that it's damn unlikely that any trade the U.S. might have allowed wouldn't have gone right to the politicos first and foremost.
"Of course those people would be contemptible."
Yes, if their aim was to help Castro and his regime.
"You are, however, not advocating freedom "regardless of consequences" – you are making the highly dubious claim that trade with the Castro regime would bring down the Castro regime."
Oh yes I am. Nowhere have I suggested or implied that the U.S. should have forced anyone to do business with Cuba, its regime, or its inhabitants. My advocacy is directly for freedom, as such, and the premise is that total freedom is always the best policy even when it comes with bad consequences, like people who might have used that freedom to help Castro.
Which brings me to Billy's comment.
"I'm not talking about the government. You are. I'm addressing something far more general."
We'll c'mon, we've both talked about the government, and we've both addressed the general. It's all right up there. At any rate, I'm simply making the point — simply stated — that ends don't justify the means.
I know you're not advocating for the U.S. sanctions. That's not and never was my point. Neither was I advocating that the U.S. should have forced trade, or actively encouraged it.
They should have stayed out of it and let the chips fall where they may.
Freedom is the best policy. That's my point, and I think it's pretty general, wouldn't you say?
Now, all that said, allow me to quote myself from the beginning of the 2nd paragraph of this post:
"Listen: I get not doing business with scoundrels, but since I'm delving into practical geopolitical realities…"
So even if they would have worked, the ends don't justify the means if we mean what we say about freedom. That they didn't work ought to be no surprise. That people are going to do shitty things when free to do them is something us enlightened anarchists learned not to tear ourselves up over a long time ago, or try to hand wave away in the face of all the "but thens" from statists.
Had free trade economically empowered some people, such that political hierarchies began to form, and had that eventually led to Castro's weakening and subsequent downfall (to be replaced by some less strong socialism, no doubt), then that relatively "good" development would not have justified those who may have tried to help Castro, but it would simply have affirmed that freedom is the only proper policy, consequences be dammed.
"Yet another possibility is that sanctions helped to thwart his — and his backer's –expansionist plans."
I had honestly not considered that. Although… as Sabotta pointed out, the Soviets were helping him bigtime, and there was a time when he was able to send thousands of troops far and wide.
I'd like to comment on this older post, in general but with more emphasis on the last comments by both Mrs Morgan and Mr Nikoley…
There was a time in American history where free(er) entrepreneurs did business with such countries as Japan and China, both monarchies at the time (think mid to late 1800's). Then American politics decided to regulate trade. Direct result: China of course struggled it's way to what it is today and Japan… of course became an enemey of the United States in WWII.
I think I will side with Mr. Nikoley that things would probably have been better than worse for Cuba, but…
Only at a point where the Soviet Union was not backing them. Otherwise, I can easily see that free-trade could have been the disaster that Mrs Morgan made mention of, for the obvious reason that his alliance to Soviet Russia would have made for a much stronger enemy.
I can't say or not if Cuban citizens were better or worse off during the Cold War era, but I would guess they probably were even though it was just Soviet monetary support to maintain or bolster their military capabilities. Better that than nothing. So, the Soviet Union disinterated, that bit of support gone… THEN may have been the opportune time to lift sanctions. With no larger threat from the Soviets… I don't think Castro would have declared war on the Carribean. At that point, it would have been sheer folly.
In general… The morality of such a decision to allow trade can not be made on the basis of the country's ruler alone. Clearly, there's a risk to reward ratio on both sides to be considered and if nothing else… if free(er)-trade starts to have unfavorable results (increases aggression), then a nation can always re-impose or threaten to re-impose sanctions.
And what of the history of man? There was a time when tyranny was quite common in the world, in the form of murderous monarchs and such. It would have been silly to stop trade altogether! How can one hope to defeat bad ideologies if everyone is/was kept poorer?! Well, to any who would argue otherwise… then realize that America itself never would have been. We'd be stuck in the dark ages until we could all be "perfectly moral"!
That sounds too much like relgion and it's promised land, heaven etc if thou free of sin…
It's like I say, Richard, sometimes in counter to other arguments over ideological differences, especially amongst libertarians: what was the ideology of everyone you trades with today? I.e., the guy at the convenience store, or the checker at the grocery; the car or appliance salesman, and so on and so on.
In the context of trade, there is some value being traded for another, presumably so that both parties estimate themselves better off.
Indeed, Mr Nikoley.
But I haven't seen this view among too many liberals and/or objectivists, concerning China, Cuba, the current war on terror in the Middle East…
A good many seem to hold an absolute view on morality that is entirely impossible to adhere to (or near enough), given the progression of man to this point. The stranger thing being, those who hold such absolute views tend to attack other opposite and skewed viewpoints which are themselves (more or less) absolute as well. So they bicker and blog and name-call…
This is demonstrated of course more abundantly in the current war on terror, but the Cuba and China debate that I see take place on occaison are also examples of the same thing. Whatever view one adopts… liberal, ojectivist, political/religious left/right…
I don't know why, but each side seems to look at the other and sees something only worhty of attack and scorn. Yet, each side has it's "Garden of Eden" from which, if we would all just obey, things would go splendidly for all of mankind! Strange.
But, in so far as the war on terror, it turns out the commodity oil seems to be keeping things in check rather well more than any philosphical point(s). Like nukes in the stand-off with the Soviets in the Cold War, whatever side one was on, the worst didn't happen precisely because of the concept of mutually assured destruction.
Oil seems to be the main peackeeper now. Each side must realize, consciously or sub, that an all-out attack would defeat itself. Arabs only dared a few major attacks… they would loose tons in oil revenue if they went all-out. The US and allies (for what those are worth…) know they can't declare an all-out war on Saudia Arabia and Iran without the same drastic economic consequences, so they occupy minor enemies in what seems to e a blackhole "war".
When I look at such topics as this, the more and more I'm convinced that mankind is in a state of learning and growing, not the deterioration that side X would claim would result from our actions. Ever see the movie "Wargames"? Towards the end of that movie, a computer system had to teach itself the point of nuclear war. Of course, it concluded it was a sum-zero game and nuclear war was averted…
In terms of today…
Within the last decade (give or take X years)
We have seen increased and/or improved trade relations with China and the Middle East, the last bastions of serious communism and islamic extremism. Prosperity is certainly better for all. Cuba will probably join in soon. More focus is being put on Africa and Mexico is migrating more or less freely to the US. South America… Not too sure about that one!
All this happened in about a decade. It's really quite amazing, no? The faster we move, like that fictional computer system, the closer people get to the ultimate conclusion wheater or not they like it. And just to think… all this has resulted from probably only a handful of the human potential on this planet forced to realize this.
The future is looking good! :)
Anyway, I think you got a helluva good blog here; probably the only one I come to with any frequency. I look forward to my next visit!
Well, Richard, I have to say that my optimism waxes and wanes, but you make the same sorts of points I've been making and which always seem to bring me back to the table of a bit of moderation in all of this.
I'm forever torn, because I hate scoundrels. I also realize that it's only really through the force of State, nowadays, that they can even exist and prosper. I'm confident that in an anarchy they be dealt with far before they could amass enough power to become invincible. We have to understand: it take one hell of a lot of power and might to wield force on a mass scale.
I can not escape the notion that even scoundrels make calculations about their risks and what they have to loose. Trade may strengthen them, but it also gets them entwined in all sorts of alliances with people with vastly different values.
It it so bright eyed to presume that over a process of time that they come to realize that trade gets them more or what they want, sooner, and anyway, that doing things that threaten suck trade relations sets them back, and that their only alternative to make up the difference is through force?
This is why it always comes back to the State, and the only reason the state can exist is because of the idea of the allegiance to State, and it's as pernicious as the allegiance to god. If nobody, of few, cared about the State, it'd wither away, eventually.
Well, the allegiance to god has been weakening for centuries. I think the State is a tougher problem, simply because it really exists. In the end, that makes it far more dangerous than god I'd guess.