Jennifer Hyman
Amidst talks of terrorist groups,
independence referendums, and civil wars, a longstanding controversy is quietly
being discussed in the international political scene. The United States embargo
on Cuba has been ongoing for over half a century. In the latest episode of
HBO’s Last Week Tonight, host John
Oliver covered the topic, discussing its presence in the 21st
century and arguing as to why it should end. From a liberalist perspective, it
is difficult to argue against Oliver’s points. The U.S.-Cuba embargo is out of
place in the modern era. Ultimately, the only purpose the embargo serves today
is a reflection of the United States’ presence and position in international
relations.
Beginning
as a realist approach, the Cuban embargo was offensive strategy to combat the
threat of nuclear war and ultimately ensure the survival of the United States
at the expense of the Cuban economy. At the time, adopting a realist approach
was necessary to navigating the unexplored area of international relations, but
with decades since the end of the Cold War and a U.S. shift towards liberalism,
justification for continuing the embargo is fading.
According to liberalist theory, the
Cuban embargo poses no rational explanation for why it should continue. The
United States’ absolute power far exceeds that of the Cuban government therefore
providing no reason to continue it. Liberalist theory also advocates for actors
to cooperate and negotiate based on the idea of interdependence. Despite low
scores on freedom ratings, the United States has no humanitarian argument for
upholding the embargo on Cuba while it continues to trade with other states possessing
equal if not lower freedom scores. Yet, president after president continues to
extend the embargo annually by renewing the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917
that states the continuation is in the national interest while economic reports
indicate that the embargo is costing the U.S. economy billions of dollars
annually. This idea of pursuing an act that falls within the national interest
of a state is in line with liberalism; however, the lack of evidence to support
this claim is a reflection of the United States’ hypocrisy.
Earlier this year, former U.S. Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton spoke on lifting the embargo, arguing that it would
improve the United States’ image abroad and its relationship with other Latin
American countries. Clinton may be
right. An end to the U.S.-Cuba embargo could bolster U.S. soft power as
currently the United States and Israel are among the only nations in the United
Nations General Assembly that oppose lifting the embargo. However, by
continually rejecting international pressure to end the embargo, the United
States reaffirms its position as the state with the most hard power. An end to
the Cuban embargo could stand as a symbolic loss of hard power to a nation that
covets it.
By analyzing the Cuban embargo in
the modern era through the context of IR ideologies, we can define the position
of the United States at the international level. Because the U.S. shifted their
approach from realism to liberalism it lacked reason to continue. Today it
serves as a tool for maintaining and gaining different types of power.
Jennifer, I think your engagement of the liberal and realist readings is valid and engaging. A way to continue this conversation would be to consider Cuba's position/ sentiments on the issue. You suggest in your post that the embargo on US-Cuba trade is a result of US action --meaning Cuba just accepts the US's decisions. This reality reminds me of the dynamic of relationships between obviously strong and obviously less strong states that is addressed in Thucydides. While Thucydides’ teachings allude mostly to war and why states may or may not participate, I think it would be interesting to extend his view of state relationships to other interactions ---like embargos.
ReplyDeleteThe presentation of Thucydides’ arugment/ concept is drastic, painting a picture of a parental authority and a child. The embargo reminds me of a punishment that a parent would enact on a child. In fact, one could argue that the embargo resembles a punishment that a parent might in act “just because” –which really speaks on the relationship and power difference between the US and Cuba.
Jennifer -
ReplyDeleteI really like the way you brought attention to a topic that isn't being discussed very widely in the media right now. While the rest of us talked mostly about the obvious IR issues (ISIS, Gaza, and Scotland) you brought up a conflict that is more in the shadows and that I was previously unaware of. It just goes to show how much soft power the US really has - we manage to keep criticisms of our own foreign policy decisions on the fringes of public awareness.
I do have an argument against your claim that lifting the embargo would mean a loss of hard power. I don't think it necessarily symbolizes a military defeat or a lack of strength the way losing Vietnam did. Rather, I think it would show a changing dynamic with Cuba in which cooperation is possible. Thus, I believe that our continuation of the embargo is not motivated by a need to show off our military but instead a continuation of the Cold War view that Cuba is the enemy. You make a very strong case against the embargo. My only disagreement is on why we continue to implement it.
Jennifer, I too am glad you brought up this very interesting issue. I too was ignorant to the fact that the U.S. embargo on Cuba was a fairly prominent issue. However, I just wish you used more examples and such as support. For example, you state that the U.S. "continues to trade with other states possessing equal if not lower freedom scores" but you fail to give examples of who these states are. Also, I would like it if you expanded on "the embargo is costing the U.S. economy billions of dollars annually." I mean we have other trading partners and such so are we losing money on lost exports or what? And finally, I would like to know why "an end to the U.S.-Cuba embargo could bolster U.S. soft power," because wouldn't giving in to the pressure from other nations actually make us look weaker and like we don't do what we believe in, just what others want us to do?
ReplyDeleteConnor, I see your point about soft power. Over 97% of countries in the UNGA are in favor of an end to the Cuban embargo. If the U.S. were to be influenced by international opinion and end it, it could be seen as giving into pressure from other nations and that is why I felt it could be seen as a loss of hard power; however, it would also improve the image of the U.S. because it could be seen as a step in line with the overwhelming international opinion and therefore increase soft power. Essentially, it is a bit of a give and take. For the economic cost of the embargo, from what I understand, it's small businesses who don't have the infrastructure or means to skirt the embargo, mostly those in Florida, that are taking on the economic burden. Lastly, examples of other states the U.S. continues to trade with who have equal or lower freedom scores include China, Chad, Uzbekistan, and Saudi Arabia.
DeleteJennifer,
ReplyDeleteThis is definitely a thought-provoking post, especially one that challenges us to think on how the different theories would react. I agree with your analysis of the realist and liberal approaches. If you were to consider constructivism as well, I believe they would align themselves with the realists and support the continuation of the Cuban embargo. The alter-casting idea of creating an inferior group is definitely something the US seems to do a lot unfortunately which would explain why this is still an issue. I do however disagree slightly with the fact that realist reasoning is being faded out. I believe that lifting the embargo would be seen by much of the public as a weakening of power, which suggests that realist rationalization is underlying decision making because it rests on the idea of relative power.
Jennfier, I really found your topic to be very interesting. It is definitely one of the more important international relations issues that has flown under the radar. I agree with you that there is good reason to end the embargo as there honestly is no point to continue it. Our economy isn't gaining from it and other countries oppose our continuation. However, i do believe from a power standpoint, we do have power to lose by discontinuing it. As you stated, " continually rejecting international pressure to end the embargo, the United States reaffirms its position as the state with the most hard power". Because of this, I believe it is difficult for us to just end this embargo despite good sense to do so. Our country is known for its hard power, and diminishing its value, from a realist approach, is an unnecessary loss.
ReplyDelete