Our political and ?economic relationship with Cuba is on a path to ?normalization.
If the current change in trajectory is ?maintained at least in the long run, we might have full ?diplomatic and economic ?relations with Cuba.
The nation is somewhat divided on this issue, and it is easy to see why.
Cuba has a long history of human rights violations, an oppressive regime at the helm and is a recognized official state sponsor of terrorism.
Not to mention their past alliance with, and some would say allegiance to, our ?ideological adversary, the ?former Soviet Union.
It was this allegiance more than 50 years ago that brought about the extensive trade ?embargo we have all grown up with and with which we are ?familiar.
This full economic embargo originated as ?retaliation and an offensive measure to combat the spread of communism and the ?Soviet Union’s influence on the ?region. However, within recent history, that has changed.
The embargo has come to represent a punishment of sorts for the human rights ?violations that were ?conducted under the Castro dictatorship.
Many of its proponents claimed, and continue to claim, that the economic sanctions we have in place ?incentivizes the Castro ?government in Havana to make pro-democracy and pro-liberty changes.
It should be pointed out that, after five decades with this philosophy, nothing has changed.
Conversely and somewhat ironically, this is the same logic the current administration is using as its justification for normalizing relations.
It argues the embargo has only hurt the oppressed in Cuba and gives the regime an enemy to justify its terrorizing hold on the populace.
It believes that if economic prosperity can come to Cuba through means of our ended embargo, there will ultimately be political change.
The general philosophy is this: a large middle class has enough self-interest and enough means to organize and advocate for political change.
In some ways we are trying to make a simple trade.
We will give Cuba prosperity, or at least more development than it already experiences, and it will give us a decrease in its totalitarian control.
Maybe if we are really lucky, we might even get ?democracy. But who knows.
From my perspective, it’s hard to be optimistic.
A regime that has held on to its power so fervently for more than 50 years is probably unlikely to change just because you can get Coca-Cola or Sperrys on the island.
What we are truly faced with is the age-old motivational question of the carrot or the stick. We can all agree change needs to take place, and preferably quickly.
But what is the best course of action? Will the removal of the sanctions only reward the Castro regime and solidify its rule? Or will their removal encourage the installment of liberty?
Only time will tell if this new approach is successful. I hope it is.
But there is something strangely eerie and maybe a little foreboding about getting back into bed with a dictator.
cgerst@indiana.edu
