U.S.-Cuba SanctionsU.S.-Cuba Sanctions

OverviewOverview

The U.S. continues to have an extensive trade embargo on Cuba.

Policies have fluctuated over the past 50 years, but overall minimal change has been made in removing the sanctions.

Present-day Cuba is no longer a threat to the U.S., but the issue still remains a highly politicized one.

Fidel and Raul Castro are more open now to U.S. talks; Raul has been implementing market reforms as well.

TimelineTimeline 1960 - Eisenhower puts into effect a partial economic

embargo on Cuba. 1961 – The Foreign Assistance Act prohibits all aid to Cuba

and allows for a total embargo. Kennedy bans all trade and amends The Foreign Assistance

Act to prohibit any country to provide aid to Cuba. Carter lifts travel ban in 1977, but Reagan reinstates it in

1981. Inspired by the Mariel boatlift incident in 1980. Cuban Democracy act of 1992 Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Helms-Burton) Act

of 1996 Bush II tightened travel restrictions and Cuba is placed on

the States Sponsors of Terrorism List. Obama implemented measures in April 2009 to relieve

restrictions, but relations have worsened since the imprisonment of contractor Alan Gross in late 2009.

In September 2010, Obama extended sanctions until 2011.

Reasons for SanctionsReasons for Sanctions

Prevailing view that isolating Cuba economically will destroy it politically.

Sanctions were implemented for national security reasons given Cuba’s ties with the USSR during the Cold War.

A change of focus with the Cuban Democracy Act for regime change and human rights.

Bush II argued Cuba was supporting terrorism abroad.

Cuban-American activists are highly influential in countering reforms; the Cuban American National Foundation.

Effects and ContradictionsEffects and ContradictionsCuba does not pose a threat to the U.S.Rather than weaken Castro’s regime, the embargo has

strengthened it.Castro uses the embargo as a scapegoat for Cuba’s

economic woes and his regime has not fallen like many thought it would.

Bush II stated free trade promotes democracy and opposed sanctions on China due to its human rights record.

Venezuela is the Latin American threat, but the U.S. buys oil and allows for investments in the U.S. energy sector.

The Helms-Burton Act hurts U.S. relations with our allies.The U.S. is virtually alone in its sanctions against Cuba, and

the UN has been in favor of ending them since 1992.The U.S. policies prevent Cuban as well as American

private sector growth.

Benefits of removing the Benefits of removing the sanctionssanctions

With the passing of the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000, the sales of U.S. agricultural products have skyrocketed.

Cuba is currently the 5th largest exporter in Latin America of these product; farmers sold more to Cuba than to Brazil.

Cuba could become a $1 billion export market; the U.S. International Trade Commission estimates this amount in potential revenue is lost each year the sanctions remain in place.

With market growth, the potential for political change seems evident.

U.S. relations with its allies will strengthen.

U.S. OptionsU.S. Options1. Maintain the status quo by keeping the

embargo in place and limiting growth in Cuba in hopes that the Castro regime will fall.

2. Loosen restrictions such as travel, remittances, and allow for more U.S. investment; taking smaller steps to reach the same goal.

3. Eliminate the economic embargo and the Helms-Burton Act entirely.

The Time for Change is The Time for Change is NowNow

Small steps have fallen short; the U.S. and Cuba started out on good terms with Obama, but relations are now bitter and Cuba says the U.S. is not doing enough.

The Castro regime has changed; Raul is open to market changes.

The Helms-Burton Act hinders relations with our allies; the UN and the EU have long been opposed to the embargo.

CANF has had a change of heart; the focus now is on Cuban citizens.

Cuba is a critical U.S. agricultural market.The embargo symbolizes U.S. hypocrisy; the Cuba

double standard.Internal growth will meet U.S. goals better than

external isolation.