From today's WSJ, sounds good to me...
It's Time to Do Unto Cuba
As We Do Unto China
By Robert A. Sirico. Father Sirico is president of the Acton Institute
for the Study of Religion and Liberty and is co editor of "The Social
Agenda" (Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2000).
Last week the White House and Congress agreed on legislation that
would permit sales of U.S. food and medicine to Cuba for the first time in
28 years. Some conservatives have opposed this deal because they think it
will prop up one of the last remaining communist regimes. In reality, this
legislation is a moral victory that should help achieve Pope John Paul II's
desire for Cuba to "open itself up to the world, and . . . the world to open
itself up to Cuba."
Everyone, except perhaps the National Council of
Churches, knows it's true that Cuba has a terrible
human-rights record. Americans are reluctant to
appear to "reward" Fidel Castro, especially as it's
also true that Mr. Castro's communist policies
have done more to harm his country's economic
situation than have U.S. sanctions.
However, the recent debate over trade with China
-- one of the most intellectually productive in
political memory -- has driven home the point that
human-rights problems in totalitarian countries are
not best addressed through sanctions and
protectionism. Open trade and cultural exchange create greater
opportunities for the monitoring of such societies by outsiders, even as
increased prosperity empowers the victims of oppressive governments to
stand up for their rights.
The hypocrisy in treating Cuba and China differently should be apparent.
People on the left have argued against trade with China, while saying that
trade with Cuba is a moral necessity. Those on the right contend that trade
with China is crucial to improving human rights there, yet refuse to
contemplate the loosening of sanctions against Cuba. Just about the only
consistent voices in this debate have been those of protectionists and
die-hard Cold Warriors, who oppose trade with either country.
But any linkage of morality and economics requires a consistent application
of the principle that trade and human rights reinforce each other. Sanctions
are not only economically damaging -- they are also politically
counterproductive and morally dubious.
In my visits to both China and Cuba, I never encountered a citizen who
hoped for less -- as opposed to more -- contact with the U.S. No one
ever came up to me and whispered: "Please retain sanctions against us.
They help us fight against the human-rights violations of our government."
On the contrary, most victims of these harsh governments believe that
dealing with U.S. companies, as well as having them set up shop in their
countries, will actually have a liberating influence on the lives of ordinary
people. Cubans and Chinese fervently desire to have more exchange with
Americans at every level, whether it takes the form of tourism, trade or
technology.
The White House and Congress are happy to make this argument in regard
to China. But Cuba is always said to be different. This may be because
Castro is a sworn enemy of the U.S. Far from making overtures to us, he
continues to vilify all things American, particularly the exiled community in
Cuba that lost so much in the revolution. Relations grew especially tense
because of the controversy over Elian Gonzalez. Before Elian was returned
to Cuba last week, Mr. Castro staged mass rallies to attack the U.S. for
harboring him. Where is the extended hand of friendship that we see
sometimes from the Chinese government?
True, Mr. Castro has said that he wants the sanctions repealed. But he is
also fully aware that these punitive measures allow him to deploy the U.S.
as a scapegoat for the utter failure of his communist system. And why are
the Cuban exiles in Miami so passionately opposed to the idea of dropping
sanctions? For them, the anti-Castro measures are a matter of history and
justice. Their property was looted and their lives destroyed by this man, so
their feelings are wholly understandable.
Their case, however, is less persuasive when you look at the practicalities.
Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R., Fla.), for example, argues that sanctions
"constitute decisive leverage for a democratic transition to take place once
Castro is gone from the scene." For him, trade with the U.S. could result in
"the Cuban people condemned to decades more of oppression."
Waiting for a foreign leader to die while we refuse any economic contact is
surely not a coherent policy, nor one that is consistent with a desire to
promote human rights. In any case, the sanctions are not hurting Mr.
Castro personally. As for dictating political events in the post-Castro era,
aren't sanctions more likely to foster resentment among Cubans that could
reduce our future influence in Cuba by a significant extent?
It's hard to take too seriously the prediction that trade would make life
worse for ordinary Cubans. The Cuban people have endured great
hardship for four decades, both from the oppressive policies of the Castro
regime and from the effects of external sanctions. Opening trade relations
-- or at the very least permitting an inflow of food and medicine -- actually
holds out the prospect of breaking a long-running impasse.
Others say that because Mr. Castro controls the economy, trade with
Cuba will benefit only the government, not the people. Yet if that were
true, the Cuban people would surely be the first to oppose a change in the
status quo. To repeat: From my visits there, and after close contact with a
wide range of people, I have never heard a Cuban say that sanctions have
had a positive effect on their lives.
There are many issues to be worked out, of course. Numerous American
companies and citizens have claims for property seized after 1959,
amounting to $6 billion. In fairness, these claims should be addressed. But
are they more likely to be settled with, or without, greater economic
contacts with Cuba? In that unfortunate country, as in China, free trade
gives hope to the people who suffer the most from governments that violate
human rights. |
