1

MASTERARBEIT / MASTER’S THESIS Titel der Masterarbeit / Title of the Master’s Thesis

“It’s not all just rum and cigars”: The Effects of the U.S. Embargo against Cuba.

verfasst von / submitted by

Lucija Bobinec BA

angestrebter akademischer Grad / in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts (MA)

Wien, 2016 / Vienna, 2016

Studienkennzahl lt. Studienblatt / degree programme code as it appears on the student record sheet:

A 066 824

Studienrichtung lt. Studienblatt / degree programme as it appears on the student record sheet:

MA Politikwissenschaften / MA Political Science

Betreut von / Supervisor: Mitbetreut von / Co-Supervisor:

Univ.-Doz. Dr. Gernot Stimmer Ao. Univ. -Prof. DDr. Ingfrid Schütz-Müller

2

3

Acknowledgements

First, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Univ.-Doz. Dr. Gernot

Stimmer for his continuous support of my research. Moreover, I would like to thank Ao. Univ.

-Prof. DDr. Ingfrid Schütz-Müller and his brother Dipl. Ing. Ingolf Schütz-Müller, without

whom this project would not have been possible.

Finally, and most importantly, I would like to give thanks to all of the special people who

made my stay in Cuba so magical and unforgettable.

Vienna, 2016

4

5

CURRICULUM VITAE

Lucija BOBINEC Permanent Address Mollardgasse 36/11 A- 1060 Vienna, Austria Phone: +43 699 1898 8771 E-Mail: lubobinec@icloud.com Personal Information Date of Birth 29th of August 1990 Nationality Croatian EDUCATION 2013 – 2016 2015 2011 - 2013 2011 2007 - 2008

University of Vienna, Austria Political Science, Masters Degree Course University of Havana, Cuba University of Vienna, Austria Political Science, Bachelors Degree Course High School Diploma (Matura) Externistenkommission Graz Colegio Privado Yapeyú, Corrientes Capital, Argentina. (Graduation Dec. 2008)

LANGUAGE SKILLS Mother tongue: German and Croatian. Excellent: English. Proficient: Spanish. COMPUTER SKILLS Proficient in: Microsoft Office Programme (Word, Excel etc.)

6

7

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

1.1. Temporal, Content and Geographical Framework

1.2. Research Question, Hypothesis, Method and Thesis Structure

1.3. Reasons for Scientific Interest

2. Method

3. Theoretical Framework

3.1. Realism

3.2. Neorealism

3.3. Structural Realism

4. The Concept of Power

4.1. Hard Power

4.2. Soft Power

4.3. Smart Power

4.4. Economic Power

4.5. The Concept of Sanctions

5. The History of the American Policy against Cuba

5.1. U.S. Sanctions against Cuba from 1960 to today

6. The Embargo from a Legal Perspective

6.1. Legal Aspects

6.2. Extraterritorial Jurisdiction

7. The Effects of the U.S. Embargo against Cuba

7.1. The Economic Effects

7.2. The Political Effects

7.3. The Social Effects

8. The United Nations on the U.S. Embargo against Cuba

9. The European Union on the U.S. Embargo against Cuba

10. Statements on the U.S. Embargo against Cuba from Cuba’s allies

11. President Barack Obamas Policy on Cuba

12. Conclusion

13. Bibliography

8

9

1. INTRODUCTION

Every day now I run the risk of giving my life for my country and for fulfilling my obligation...

to achieve the independence of Cuba in time to stop the United States from moving into the

West Indies and, with ever greater force, into the lands of America.

- José Martí

The Cuban Revolution; the Missile Crisis of 1962; José Martí, Fidel Castro and Che Guevara;

these are the widely-known events, images and figures connected with the historical period in

which Cuba achieved independence, and they point as well to the effects of the Cold War in

the Western Hemisphere. The United States Embargo against Cuba, a well-known matter of

fact, is one of the outcomes of that period. Since President John F. Kennedy made the

decision to completely isolate the island in February 3, 1962, these sanctions have been total.1

This network of sanctions is unique in terms of its length, its thoroughness, and its

sophistication.2 Half a century since the blockade was established, the American policy

towards Cuba is seemingly starting to change.

Having visited Cuba in April, 2015, just a few months after United States President Barack

Obama and Cuban President Raul Castro decided to re-establish diplomatic relations, which

lead to the removal of Cuba from the list of countries that support terrorism, I decided that I

wanted to engage further with the effects of that famous embargo and explore the actual

consequences that Cuban people have to live with on a daily basis. Ever since the imposition

of the embargo in 1962, Cuba has faced major economic and political challenges that have led

to “a unique social system that has developed from the necessity of survival” as Dr. Ivan

Muñoz Duthil perfectly explained during an interview. During this trip, I had the honor to

speak to very interesting people, and to travel around the country and try to understand the

life of typical Cubans; I also realized that the effects of the United States Embargo against

Cuba are not just economic or political: the social impact has been even greater. This set the

whole research project into a very interesting and unexpectedly profound framework. I

concluded: it’s not all just rum and cigars.

1 Lamrani, Salim (2013): The Economic War Against Cuba. A Historical and Legal Perspective on the U.S. Blockade. Monthly Review Press, New York. P.13. 2 ibid.

10

1.1 TEMPORAL, CONTENT AND GEOGRAPHICAL FRAMEWORK The political relationship between the United States and Cuba goes all the way back to the

18th century, when Cuba was still a Spanish colony and the U.S. still newly united. Cuba has

always been the center of sugar and tobacco production in the Caribbean, and has always been

both geographically and strategically essential; therefore, it was automatically important for

the United States. Both the history of relations between Cuba and the United States as well as

the political history of Cuba itself are more than fascinating. Nonetheless, this research

project will focus specifically on the history and the outcome of the United States Embargo

against Cuba, for the benefit of the subsequent analysis. Therefore, the historical overview

provided by this thesis begins shortly before the U.S. Embargo against Cuba was established

in 1962, and focuses on American policy towards Cuba and its consequences, up to the

present day. The blockade is just “one facet of the United States policy against Cuba”3;

however, this research is centered on its effects in particular, and deliberately does not engage

with the topics of “subversion, the deployment of agents on Cuban territory and CIA covert

operations”4 or with the “‘concentration camp’ on illegally occupied land in Guantánamo.”5 A

look at the whole relationship between the U.S. and Cuba, including the period of the Cold

War, would far exceed the scope of this analysis and not contribute to its research aims.

Furthermore, Cuba’s turn towards the Soviet Union, around the time the U.S. Embargo

against Cuba was established, is mentioned as an economic and political effect of the

embargo, but is neither fully discussed nor put in historical context in order to avoid further

engagement with policies that are not of interest to this research project. Geographically, this

analysis focuses on the Republic of Cuba, an island state situated in the Caribbean Sea,

comprising an area of 42,803 sq. mi 6 and with 11,047,251 inhabitants.7 Currently, its

government system is communist, led by Raul Castro, who has ruled as president since 2008.

The monetary unit is the Cuban Peso (CUP), while the CUC (Cuban Convertible Peso) is used

by tourists. Its capital city is Havana, which is also the largest city with 2.116 million people.8

The national language in Cuba is Spanish. The distance between America’s Miami and

Cuba’s Havana is 368.05 km9.

3 ibid. P.112. 4 ibid. 5 ibid. 6 “Facts & Figures about Cuba” http://www.infoplease.com/country/cuba.html 7 ibid. 8 ibid. 9 “Distance between Cities Places on Map” http://www.distancefromto.net

11

12

1.2. RESEARCH QUESTION, HYPOTHESIS, METHOD, AND THESIS STRUCTURE

Since President Obama’s announcement that he would loosen conditions of the United States

Embargo against Cuba and re-establish diplomatic ties with the country, the international

community has been closely following the steps that will lead to Cuba’s new future. A lot of

attention is being paid to the uncertainty of what will happen and to the precautions to be

taken once the U.S. Embargo against Cuba comes to an end.

The aim of this thesis is to analyze the effects of American policy regarding Cuba on the

island’s population. Specifically, this research project focuses on the U.S. Embargo against

Cuba and its effects, as seen on the economic, political and social levels. The main purpose of

this thesis is to analyze the U.S. Embargo itself and the full extent of its impact. Therefore,

this thesis will focus on answering the following two research questions:

- What are the effects of the U.S. Embargo against Cuba? This question will consider

the effects on Cuba’s economy, politics, and social development.

- Has the U.S. Embargo been successful? This question will examine whether the

outcome of the embargo, regarding Cuba’s development on an economic, political,

and social level, is actually the outcome the U.S. government had in mind when the

embargo was put in place in 1962.

The first part of this thesis is a qualitative document analysis, which will engage with the

theoretical framework and the methods employed in this thesis’ analysis in order to answer

the abovementioned research questions. One particular school of thought underpins this

research: Structural Realism, as it is conceived by Kenneth Waltz. Moreover, the first chapter

uses the term ‘power’ according to the definition of Joseph S. Nye, Jr. These terms relate to

the theoretical part, and enable the formation of a complete theoretical framework. As a result

of, two specific hypotheses can be derived:

- If the United States embargo against Cuba sought to influence Cuba’s economic

condition to a certain legal extent, without causing further damage, then the goal has

not been accomplished (to this day) because the impact on the civil society has been

significantly negative.

13

- If the United States embargo against Cuba was intended to suppress the Castro regime,

then American policy towards Cuba has failed to the extent that the Castro regime has ruled

Cuba consistently and continues to do so today.

The second part of this thesis focuses on the historical background of the U.S. embargo

against Cuba. To understand it fully, it is crucial to engage with the specific American policy

on that topic. Every American president since 1962 has had his own approach to Cuba, more

or less different from his predecessor. From John F. Kennedy to Barack Obama, each

presidential administration has had its own political position regarding Cuba. The specifics

and most important events with regard to US policy towards the Cuban embargo are

explained in the historical chapter of this thesis. This section is based on research from a

qualitative document analysis of books, articles and other forms of media, in order to provide

a relevant and thorough overview.

The third section is dedicated to the actual topic: the embargo, itself. With the help of

document analysis, including books about international and economic law, the embargo as a

form of sanction is defined and differentiated from other forms of legal and economic

sanctions. Secondly, the very important term extraterritorial jurisdiction is discussed, again in

order to ease further understanding. Once that has been clarified, the effects of the embargo

on Cuba’s economy, politics, and social development are analyzed in the subsequent

subchapters. These effects are illustrated through the help of expert interviews conducted in

Cuba, as well as the analysis of books, articles and various other kinds of media. This is

followed by a description of the actions and reactions of other global actors to the U.S.

Embargo against Cuba.

The fourth and final part of this thesis is the conclusion, which summarizes the main findings

of this thesis.

14

1.3. REASONS FOR SCIENTIFIC INTEREST

Like most Latin American countries, Cuba holds both its national heroes and its flag in very

high regard. José Martí, Che Guevara, Fidel Castro “la bandera” and “la revolución” are terms

and images in daily use. Unlike other Latin American countries, Cuba is a communist state,

but religion remains important. This contrast is just one of Cuba’s many paradoxes. The

country’s population consists of 85% Roman Catholics, while the rest of the 15% includes

Protestants, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jews and followers of Santeria.10 Cubans describe their

communism as the purest form of democracy, with its state legacy of a bottom-up principle

for the people – even while they are still subject to the Castro regime that has ruled over Cuba

for decades. When Cubans talk about the revolution and the good it brought, they seem both

very proud and – simultaneously - tired of it. While the United States has kept Cuba on the

list of countries that support terrorism for decades, the American anti-terrorism military

headquarters are located in Guantánamo Bay.

Although Cuba is rated as a Second World Country, its literacy rate is 99.8% (2011 est.)11 and

its education and health systems are considered to be among the best in the world. While, for

Cubans, affordable internet is still a dream, modern phenomena as couch-surfing and

blogging are popular trends in the Cuban cyber world. Despite of the image people have of

Cuban nightclub culture of being just “salsa and rumba,” at the famous Malecón or in “La

Floredita”, there is a whole modern underground club scene, similar to those found in Europe.

While people do use food stamps and are still restricted in the clothing they can purchase,

there are a lot of restaurants and some very fashionable hipster-movements. One would think

that, in a communist and yet religious country, being gay would be a no-go – but not in Cuba:

there are several gay bars, beaches for gay couples, as well as openly straight transvestites.

Even though being in Cuba feels a bit like traveling back in time, in some ways it is more

advanced than the western world. It seems that there are a lot of paradoxes about this country,

and that there is no simple way to describe Cuban life.

10 “Facts & Figures about Cuba” http://www.infoplease.com/country/cuba.html 11 ibid.

15

In the end, there is nothing pure about Cuba.12 Its architecture as well as its music, its people

– everything is mixed and ... shaped into something uniquely Cuban.13 It is exactly these

characteristics that make Cuba interesting to scientific inquiry. The question that remains is as

follows: Is Cuba’s social development – so different from that of other South American

countries - the outcome of the half-century long blockade? Moreover, how far do politics and

the economy impact daily life? How much can the population be influenced by such an

embargo, and how influential can the government be? As a political scientist specializing in

International Politics and International Law, it is fascinating to analyze the reaction of social

development to political situations. Furthermore, engaging with the legal aspects of the

embargo is of great interest to political science, as is the reaction of other international actors

to such a special case. All in all, the economic, political and social impact of the American

embargo against Cuba is a topic of current interest and deserving of greater attention.

12 “Top things to do in Cuba” - Lonely Planet http://www.lonelyplanet.com/cuba/things-to-do/cuba-s-architectural-highlights 13 ibid.

16

2. METHOD On the one hand, it is usual to say that methods are techniques for describing reality.14 They

help to enact the world that they describe.15 Therefore, the method chosen is crucial to the

research outcome. This thesis is based on a qualitative research approach since this kind of

method fits best with the theoretical framework of structural realism and the nature of this

research purpose. The qualitative method used in this research project is qualitative document

analysis, which forms the core research method of this investigation. The books, articles and

papers of known political analysts, journalists and scientists form the ground on which this

analysis is built. Furthermore, online sources and social media provide extremely up-to-date

data, which is an important asset given that the topic of this thesis is of current interest.

Additionally, expert interviews provide insight into the subject matter and expand the scope

of the research for the best analysis outcome.

SEVERAL UNIQUE ASPECTS OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH THAT CONTRIBUTE TO RICH,

INSIGHTFUL RESULTS

- Synergy among respondents, as they build on each other’s comments and ideas.

• - The dynamic nature of the interview or group discussion process, which engages respondents more

actively than is possible in a more structured survey.

• - The opportunity to probe ("Help me understand why you feel that way") enabling the researcher to

reach beyond initial responses and rationales.

• - The opportunity to observe, record and interpret non-verbal communication (i.e., body language,

voice intonation) as part of a respondent’s feedback, which is valuable during interviews or

discussions, and during analysis.

• - The opportunity to engage respondents in "play" such as projective techniques and exercises,

overcoming the self-consciousness that can inhibit spontaneous reactions and comments.

Source: Qualitative Research Consultants Association - “ What is Qualitative Research?”

http://www.qrca.org/?page=whatisqualresearch

14 Law, John (2009): Seeing like a survey. Cultural Sociology, 3 (2): P. 239. 15 ibid. P. 249.

17

Document Analysis:

In general, document analysis is the interpretation of certain documents by the researcher in

order to give a certain voice and meaning to the subject matter. This research uses different

documents and forms of media, but, nevertheless, two sources form the core of the document

analysis. These are “The Future of Power” by Joseph S. Nye, Jr. and “The Economic War

Against Cuba – a historical and legal perspective on the U.S. Blockade” by Salim Lamrani.

Both books were chosen with good reason. Joseph S. Nye, Jr., an American political scientist

and former Dean of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, has engaged with American

politics and policies throughout his career, and invented the term “smart power” which is an

important concept for the theoretical framework of this research and crucial to answering the

research question.

Salim Lamrani, French author, journalist, and professor at the Paris Descartes University and

University Paris-Est Marne-La-Vallée, has dedicated his research to the investigation of the

United States - Cuba relationship, and has written countless articles and papers on the subject,

in addition to the abovementioned work. His analysis of the U.S. embargo against Cuba is an

important guide for this research and is essential to the study of the effects of the blockade.

Expert Interviews:

Expert interviews revolve around the expert’s knowledge, which is considered valuable and

therefore influential. The expert interviewee does not necessarily have to be an academic or

elite expert. Elite refers to a group or class of persons considered to be superior to others

because of their intelligence, social standing, or wealth.16 Nevertheless, the person chosen for

an expert interview should be an expert on the research topic in some way. For this research

project, I traveled to Cuba to talk to regular people, academics, professors and specialists

alike. Fortunately, I was able to gather a lot of information just by talking to people I met on

my travels. Still, the most important interviews this research is based on and influenced by

were those conducted with the following experts:

16 “Elite” – Free Dictionary http://www.thefreedictionary.com/elite

18

Dipl. Ing. Ingolf Schütz-Müller

DI Ingolf Schütz-Müller is an Austrian architect and former United Nations Coordinator in

Afghanistan, as well as Head of the UNDP/UNOPS Environment Programme Division in

New York, with intensive professional links to Cuba. He received the Cross of Honor for

Science and Art (Ehrenkreuz für Wissenschaft und Kunst) awarded by the Austrian President

for his 30 years of dedication in maintaining Austria’s academic link to the United Nations

and for organizing political science tours of the United Nations/New York, the Pacific Island

countries, and the University Havana, Cuba. I had the pleasure of interviewing Mr. Schütz –

Mueller on the 24th of April 2015 in Havana.

Prof. Rita Alfonso Pacheco

Prof. Alfonso Pacheco is a Cuban Spanish language professor, who studied Spanish Literature

at the University of Havana and has worked as a teacher to both foreign and national students

ever since. Prof. Alfonso Pacheco also introduced me to her daughter, Diana Rosa Cárdenas

Alfonso, who is a professional opera singer working in Italy, and who I had the pleasure to

interview when she was performing in Vienna. I was lucky enough to interview Prof. Alfonso

Pacheco on the 23rd of April 2015 in Havana and Ms. Cardenas Alfonso on the 24th of

October 2015 in Vienna.

Dr. Ivan Muñoz Duthil

Dr. Muñoz Duthil is the chairman of the German cultural institute “la Cátedra Humboldt” in

Havana. He studied linguistics at both the University of Havana and Leipzig University in

Germany. He has also established “German language studies” as a course of studies at the

University of Havana. I had the pleasure of interviewing Mr. Munoz Duthil in Havana on the

23rd of April 2015 in Havana.

Taxi driver

On my way from the University of Havana to the district Havana Vieja, I talked to the taxi

driver about his thoughts on Cuba and the United States policy against his country for approx.

15 minutes. It was the 22nd of April 2015.

19

Additionally, I talked to the following people, experts in their field, and was able to ask them

questions and converse with them, though not necessarily interview them in a traditional way:

Professor of the University of Vienna DDr. Ingfrid Schütz-Müller: Political Scientist Dr.

Jesus Pastor Garcia Brigos; Ambassador Dr. Carlos Alzugaray; Historian Dra. Olga Rosa

González Martín; Economy Specialist Dr. Ricardo Torres; Expert for External Relations

Dr. Alberto Prietro: and United Nations Resident Coordinator in Cuba, Myrta Kaulard.

20

3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Political theory can matter by thought and by society, only by making trouble. If it fails to

make trouble it becomes ornamental and inconsequential

– Roberto Mangabeira Unger

A political theory is a series of interrelated claims about what justifies the use of coercion.

This means that behind every opinion one has ever had about what governments should or

should not do, there is a series of assumptions or premises about the kinds of things that make

people free and why freedom is important. Furthermore, political theory is about opinions

about what kind of quality matters, how important social order is, the limits of political

authorities, and the purpose of living together in a society.

In order to analyze why the United States established its embargo against Cuba as well as

what the effects of that act were, it is crucial to first place that event into a theoretical

framework. There are different theories of International Politics. These can be divided into

pessimistic, optimistic, and neutral approaches. Many theories of International Relations are

either internally or externally contested, and few scholars believe in only one or another.17 A

few that are interesting to this study include realism, neorealism, liberalism, constructivism,

and feminism. In spite of this diversity, several major schools of thought are discernable,

which are differentiated principally by the variables they emphasize—e.g. military power,

material interests, or ideological beliefs.18 While various theories may lead to more or less

compelling conclusions about International Relations, none is definitively ‘right’ or

‘wrong’.19. However, realism - specifically structural realism - is the most adequate theory for

this analysis. The following section will explain why.

17 Slaughter, Anne-Marie (2011): International Relations, Principal Theories. Published in: Wolfrum, R. (Ed.) Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Oxford University Press. P.1.1. 18 ibid. P.1.1. 19 ibid. P.6.23.

21

3.1 REALISM

Realists believe that states are sovereign and autonomous, and that there is no relation

between them. From a realist’s view, this is because of human nature and the absence of an

international government. Realists conclude that there is little place left for morality when one

focuses on survival through power. They are bound only by forcible → coercion or their own

→ consent.20 In such a system of disorder, the power of State is the most important element.

The term power in realism is defined in terms of military, economic, and diplomatic

influence. As said, the main objective is the survival of the State. Foreign invasion and

occupation are thus the most pressing threats that any State faces.21 Even if domestic interests,

strategic culture, or commitment to a set of national ideals would dictate more benevolent or

cooperative international goals, the anarchy of the international system requires that States

constantly ensure that they have sufficient power to defend themselves and advance the

material interests they deem necessary for survival.22 Realism is based on rationalism, which

is why realists assume that states will only act if the action maximizes their probability of

enduring. It is thus contrasted with idealism and liberalism, which both tend to emphasize

cooperation. A distinction should be drawn between classical realism—represented by such

twentieth-century theorists as Reinhold Niebuhr and Hans Morgenthau—and radical or

extreme realism.23 Extreme realist scholars accept the realist premises of anarchy, egoism, and

power politics. In their diverse ways, they are all particularly concerned with the implications

of this situation on the ability of democracies to conduct effective foreign policies—these are

worries that were heightened by the dangers posed by the Cold War and the development of

nuclear weapons.24 Hans Morgenthau, for instance, attempted to combine calls for renewed

presidential leadership with exhortations for a revivified republicanism – a position that often

intersected with Niebuhr’s.25 The realism theory was initiated by the end of the Second World

War and is therefore constructed pessimistically.

20 ibid. P.1.2 21 ibid. P.1.4 22 ibid. 23 Korab-Karpowicz, Julian (2013): Political Realism in International Relations. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. P.1. 24 Williams, Micheal C. (2011): The politics of theory: Waltz, realism and democracy. Published in: Realism and World Politics by Ken Booth. P. 54. 25 ibid.

22

3.2. NEOREALISM

Neorealism is an offshoot of traditional realist theory. There is general agreement that the

most significant realist/neorealist work is Kenneth Waltz’s Theory of International Politics

(1979).26 Waltz’s basic strategy for preserving realism in the face of the pluralist challenge is

to restrict its scope.27 First, whereas for Morgenthau ‘theory’ is quite a loose term – despite

his frequent references to the laws of politics and such– for Waltz, theory is defined quite

precisely in his first chapter and in terms drawn from the thinking on scientific method of

Karl Popper, as refracted through the lens of modern economic theory.28 Waltz is concerned

with producing interrelated, linked, law-like propositions from which testable hypotheses can

be drawn – although he does acknowledge that “testing” is likely to be a more impressionistic

process in International Relations than it is in exact sciences.29

Instead of focusing on defending one’s own state and power against other states (realism),

neorealist scholars look at the systemic nature of power distribution. They engage with the

balance of power through certain concepts of polarity: unipolarity, bipolarity and

multipolarity. The focus of neorealist analysis is answering questions such as “Is power

distributed in a couple of powers, which balance each other out (bipolar) or are there more

powers? (multipolar)”. The concept of polarity also relates to the notions of “offensive and

defensive neorealism”. These are distinctions between the power needed and the amount of

the power needed or a country to develop. Defensive-neorealist scholars might focus on the

minimal level of security a country needs to survive, whether or not the country is secure

enough to avoid any kind of attack or any kind of interference. Offensive-neorealist scholars

focus on the state’s ability to influence; on whether a country has enough power to not only

ensure its own safety, but to dominate other countries in the world.

26 Brown, Chris; Ainley, Kirsten (2005): Understanding International Relations. Third Edition. Palgrave Macmillan. P. 41. 27 ibid. 28 ibid. 29 ibid.

23

3.3. STRUCTURAL REALISM

A theory needs to be as simple or as complicated as the material it is attempting to study. The

test of a good theory is whether or not it generates particular midrange claims with regard to

things like security, influence, size which are both relatively simple and relatively powerful to

help answer the research questions. Based on that criteria, structural realism theory is the

most pragmatic and the most useful for the purposes of this research project, and has therefore

been selected for this analysis of the effects of the U.S. embargo against Cuba.

In the 1950s, many Americans feared that the Soviet Union would surpass the United States

as the world’s leading power.30 The Soviet Union had the world’s largest territory, the third

largest population, second largest economy, and produced more oil and gas than Saudi

Arabia.31 It possessed nearly half of the world’s nuclear weapons, had more men under arms

than the United States, and the highest number of people employed in research and

development.32 For the United States that was a threat. In that sense, it is the structure of the

international system that explains in large parts how states behave. Another way one can

express it is this: domestic politics, or the composition, the makeup of individual states, does

not matter very much to how those states behave in international politics on a day to day

basis. More specifically, due to the fact that states exist in an anarchic system where there is

no higher authority, those states cannot turn to any higher authority if they get into trouble.

That fact, coupled with the fact that states can never be certain that they will not end up next

door to a really powerful state that has malignant intentions, causes states to do everything

they can to be as powerful as possible.

Since the United States actually did end up essentially next door to a state seen as a threat: the

Soviet Union in Cuba, the theory of structural realism can explain the decision of the U.S. to

establish an embargo against the island country. Structural realism, as influenced by

economics, takes a predominantly materialist perspective on all human affairs, including

international relations.33 Through the lenses of structural realist scholars see the reason states

want to be very powerful and pursue power as the desire to dominate a specific region of the

world. In that situation, no other state is capable of hurting the dominant state. If a state is

30 Nye, Jospeh (2015): Is the American Century over? Polity Press. P.32. 31 ibid. 32 ibid. 33 Beyer, Cornelia (2011): Hegemony, Equilibrium and Counterpower – a synthetic approach. Published in: Realism and World Politics – edited by Ken Booth. P.232.

24

small and weak in the international system, it is vulnerable. If a state does not have a lot of

power, big and powerful states are in a position to take advantage of that weakness. Again,

because the system is anarchic and because there is no higher authority above states, there is

nobody that weak states can turn to for help: a risky and vulnerable situation. The way to

avoid that risk is simply to be very powerful. As a result, the ideal situation for any state in

the international system is to be as powerful as possible because that is the best way to

survive in a system where there is no higher authority and no certainty that states will not end

up next door to a country with malignant intentions and lots of military power.

If one understands this premise, one understands, on a theoretical basis, why the United States

embargoed Cuba. The United States, certainly the biggest power in the Western Hemisphere,

could not risk being vulnerable and took action to prevent its vulnerability. In other words,

Cuba, a small island country in the Caribbean, rose, at some point, to such an extent that there

was an actual need for the United States to demonstrate its power by setting limits that the

smaller country could not cross. Later on, when Cuba turned to Communism, the United

States became even more determined to keep its power by blocking and threatening Cuba.

Through its connection to the USSR, Castro must have had the same intention of securing

power and a powerful military force. Again, when one takes the anarchic nature of the

international system into account, one understands that states without power are vulnerable.

To prevent this vulnerability, and therefore secure the survival of the state, Cuba turned to the

Soviets and the United States to strict sanctions.

In the world of realism, there are two sets of theories. One might call them the human nature

realist theories and the structural realist theories. Morgenthau said that all human beings are

born with a certain type of personality and that when they get into power, they want to pursue

it as an end in itself. In that school of thought, it is human nature, the way human beings are

born, that causes all conflicts in the eyes of the international system. That is a very different

way of thinking about the world than the perspective of Structural Realism. Structural realists,

like Kenneth Waltz, believe that it is rather the structure of the international system, the

architecture of the system itself, and not human nature that causes states to behave

aggressively. Furthermore, it is the same structure that causes states to engage in security

competitions.

25

The development of nuclear weapons forced realist thinkers to reassess the relationship

between violent interdependence and the security implications of anarchy on a global rather

than merely regional scale.34 For at least the first decade of the nuclear era, the most prevalent

realist view of the implications of nuclear weapons for interstate politics was essentially an

extension of the arguments of Carr and other industrial globalists on the impact of the mature

industrial revolution on the European state-system. They took the view that nuclear weapons

had produced a situation of worldwide vulnerability for even the greatest of states,

comparable to the perilous state-of-nature, and that the emergence of a world state was

therefore necessary for security.35 This vulnerability is accompanied by the fact that there is

no higher authority above those states, and that states can never be certain that another state

will not come after them, militarily, somewhere down the road. Although both schools of

realist thought lead to the same form of behavior, which is rather aggressive, the root causes

are seen differently. On the one hand, human nature realists focus on the way human beings

are hardwired, while, on the other hand, structural realists focus on the basic way the system

is organized.

With this in mind, it should become apparent why the structural realist school of thought was

chosen for this research project, rather than the human nature realist school. Realism provides

answers to questions, such as “How did important events like World War I and World War II

occur?” and, in this case, provides the answer to the question: “Why was an embargo

necessary and what have the effects of that necessity been?” To a realist scholar, the most

important thing that a theory can do is to provide simple explanations to very important

events. This is not to diminish other theories, which are able to explain minor actions or minor

considerations, preferable situations in the international system, or even provide explanations

relevant to this thesis. As Machiavelli, the ultimate realist, proclaimed five centuries ago, it

may be better for a prince to be feared than loved, but the prince is in greatest danger when he

is hated.36 The U.S. Embargo against Cuba is a tool of soft power to gain a desired outcome.

But it also is a realist move to secure American dominance in the Western Hemisphere.

Therefore, the theory of structural realism combined with Joseph Nye’s concept of power

forms the perfect basis for this research project.

34 Deudney, Daniel (2011): Anarchy and Violence Interdependence. Published in: Realism and World Politics – edited by Ken Booth. P. 27. 35 ibid. 36 Nye, Jospeh (2011): The Future of Power. PublicAffairs, New York. P.82.

26

4. THE CONCEPT OF POWER

Engagement with the concept of power serves to clarify the notion of power with regard to the

U.S. Embargo against Cuba. It facilitates an understanding of the power the United States

manifested through its establishment of the embargo, as well as the power (and therefore the

effects) of the embargo itself. Various authors, including Dahl, Bachrach and Baratz, Deutsch,

Baldwin, etc., have engaged with the concept of power in remarkable ways. Nonetheless, this

thesis is based on Dr. Joseph Nye’s concept of power, as defined in his book The Future of

Power, which was chosen because of its relevance (published in 2011) and because of his

inclusion of theories by the abovementioned authors, which makes it the most profound and

complete source to work with at this point in time.

First of all, power can be pursued in two different ways. One can be more powerful than

another based on the possession of certain goods and/or when one has convinced the other of

its power, for its own advantage.

POWER DEFINED AS RESOURCES

context skill

Power = resources > conversion strategy > preferred outcomes

POWER DEFINED AS BEHAVIORAL OUTCOMES

Power = affect others > re:something > by means > to preferred outcomes

(scope) (domain) (coercion, reward, attraction)

Nye, Joseph (2011): The Future of Power, Public Affairs; New York. P. 10.

Figure 1.1.: Power as Resources and Power as Behavioral Outcomes.

Both ways of gaining power are commonly used in all kinds of politics. For the purpose of

this thesis, the focus and examples will refer to International Relations. From a neorealist

point of view, power is the highest good for a state to achieve, and therefore, the main target

when it comes to International Relations—this explains why the explanation of power is

important to this research. Nye’s concept of power explains different kinds of power and

27

therefore different kinds of ways of achieving power. This insight is crucial for an

understanding of the American policy towards Cuba.

In 1977, Ray Cline, a high-ranking CIA official, published a formula for estimating power:

Perceived Power = (Population + Territory + Economy + Military) x (Strategy + Will)

After inserting numbers into his formula, he concluded that the Soviet Union was twice as

powerful as the United States.37 A more recent effort to create a power index involved

considering a country’s resources (technology, enterprise, human, capital, physical) and

national performance (external constraints, infrastructure, ideas) as well as how they

determined military capability and combat proficiency.38 In Nye’s opinion, this concept of

power is not reliable enough, because of its focus on military strength. Military force and

combat proficiency do not say much about outcomes in the world of finance, climate change,

or about the power of non-state actors, he say.39 Nye explains that the modern world needs a

modernized explanation of the term power, which includes all modern phenomena, such as

cyberrevolutions, and takes those equally into account.40 Ignoring this dimension and using a

too narrow definition of power can lead to a poorly shaped foreign policy.41 Therefore, Nye

introduces a new definition of the term power. He poses two questions that ease the definition

of power: Who is involved in the power relationship (the scope of power)? and what topics are

involved (the domain of power)?42 The answers to these questions provide a clear

understanding of which kind of power is suitable. In terms of the three kinds of power, Nye

presents the concepts of Hard, Soft and Smart Power.

37 Cline, Ray S. (1977): World Power Assessment. Boulder, CO; Westview Press. 38 Nye, Jospeh (2011): The Future of Power. PublicAffairs, New York. P.4. based on Tellis; Bially; Layne; McPherson; Solinger (2000): Measuring National Power in Postindustrial Age: Analyst´s Handbook, Santa Monica, CA. 39 ibid. 40 ibid. 41 Nye, Jospeh (2011): The Future of Power. PublicAffairs, New York. P.11. 42 ibid. P.6.

28

4.1. HARD POWER

When most people speak or write about military power, they tend to think in terms of the

resources that underlie the hard power behavior of fighting and threatening to fight – soldiers,

tanks, planes, ships, and so forth.43 There is nothing wrong with this common estimation, but

there is more to hard power. First of all, hard power is used for security issues, for alliances

and for assistance. Nye introduces another facet of hard power when he says that non-

coercive and benign uses of military resources can be seen as an important source of the soft

power behavior of framing agendas, persuasion, and attraction in world politics. This leads to

the conclusion that hard power always goes along with some soft power tools. Consequently,

hard power is coercion and payment and soft power is persuasion and attraction.

In combination with the theoretical framework of this thesis, which stresses that there is no

higher authority in international politics and that international relations are therefore based on

power, hard power is an important concept. Military power is, in this scenario, crucial to

maintaining security, and, if possible, rule over others in order to maintain power and

stability. Whether rooted in human nature as in the classic realism of Thucydides and

Machiavelli, or in the larger systemic forces stressed by modern structural realism, military

resources that provide the ability to prevail in war are conventionally portrayed as the most

important form of power in global affairs.44 Since modern democracies in general and the

western world in particular tend to avoid war in any situation, hard power is becoming more

of a symbol of security and is currently more often used for assistance. This modality can take

the form of training foreign militaries, engaging in international military education,

undertaking regular exercises, or providing humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.45

In other parts of the world, hard power remains the main force. Furthermore, as Nye explains,

the ultimate hard power is still nuclear power. Nuclear power has developed in the last

century and is therefore, on the one hand, a modern phenomenon of power. On the other hand,

it is ‘just’ an additional technological advancement, and thus simply replacing the weapons in

use before the advent of nuclear technology. According to this way of thinking, states that

have nuclear weapons also have more power. The disproportionate gap between the vast

43 Nye, Jospeh (2011): The Future of Power. PublicAffairs, New York. P.25. 44 ibid. P.28. 45 ibid. P.47.

29

devastation nuclear weapons can inflict and any reasonable political goal has made leaders of

states understandably loath to employ them.46 So, the ultimate form of military force is too

costly for all practical purposes – costly in terms of both the moral taboo and the risk of

retaliation – for national leaders to use in war.47 Nonetheless, nuclear weapons, even when

they are not used, do play a significant role in international politics. For example, North

Korea and Iran both keep nuclear weapons to demonstrate their power, and therefore their

ability to deter the United States.

Nye also explains that the use of military forces faces international constraints, for example,

antimilitarism, particularly in democracies, and has become more costly when used to rule

nationalistic and socially mobilized populations. However, Nye mentions, armed conflict has

not disappeared today, but rather interstate and transnational wars tend more and more to

involve non-state actors. The second modality of military power – coercive diplomacy –

depends upon the same underlying resources as those that produce competence in kinetic

fighting and destruction, but it also depends upon the credibility and cost of a threat.48 A good

example of coercive diplomacy is the deployment of ships and planes. In one study of 215

cases in which the United States used “force without war” in the mid-twentieth century, half

involved only the movement of naval units, whereas others involved the altering or moving of

ground or air units as well.49 In conclusion, hard power can be used to demonstrate either

active or passive military force, but seeks soft power for control.

46 Nye, Jospeh (2011): The Future of Power. PublicAffairs, New York. P. 29. 47 Tannenwald, Nina (2005): Stigmatizing the Bomb: Origins of the Nuclear Taboo, in; International Security 29, no. 4, P.5-49. 48 Nye, Jospeh (2011): The Future of Power. PublicAffairs, New York. P.44. 49 Blechman; Kaplan (1978): Force Without War. Brookings Institution, Washington DC. Chap.4.

30

4.2. SOFT POWER

Even though modern neorealist scholars usually do not support the concept of soft power,

since it is not aggressive enough to ensure a state’s survival, traditional realists did include

soft power in their understanding of power. In 1939, noted British realist E.H. Carr described

international power as falling into three categories: military power, economic power, and

power over opinion.50 In structural realism, power is reduced to real and assessable assets:

something that could be dropped on your foot or on cities, rather than something that might

change your mind about wanting to drop anything in the first place.51 Still, soft power is a

form of power and does not fit in any other theory of International Relations, except realism.

Therefore, Nye finds that there is no contradiction between realism and soft power. In his

opinion, competitive struggles over legitimacy are part of enhancing or depriving actors of

soft power, and that this is particularly true in the information age of the twenty-first century.

It is not just states or governments who use soft power tools: corporations, institutions, NGOs,

and even transnational terrorist networks often have soft power of their own.52 Even

individual celebrities are able to use their soft power “by making ideas palatable, acceptable,

colorful. Or as the singer Bono put it ... his function is to bring applause when people get it

right, and make their lives a misery when they don’t.”53

One might understand that soft power uses words in the form of persuasion, and peer pressure

in the form of attraction, in order to achieve the desired results. Soft power in International

Relations is often equated to diplomacy. But it is more than that: it can be described as

“everything but” hard power. Soft power may appear less risky than economic or military

power, but it is often hard to use, easy to lose, and costly to reestablish.54 The most important

asset for soft power is credibility, and therefore credibility must not be destroyed. As Joseph

S. Nye precisely states, a country’s soft power rests heavily on three basic resources: its

culture (in places where it is attractive to others), its political values (when it lives up to them

at home and abroad), and its foreign policies (when others see them as legitimate and having

moral authority). For example, some European politicians explain that countries that want to

50 Nye, Jospeh (2011): The Future of Power. PublicAffairs, New York. P.82. 51 ibid. 52 ibid. P.83. 53 Cowell, Alan (2005): Power of Celebrity at Work in Davos. In: International Herald Tribune, January 9th 2005. Or in: Nye, Jospeh (2011): The Future of Power. PublicAffairs, New York. P.83. 54 Nye, Jospeh (2011): The Future of Power. PublicAffairs, New York. P.83.

31

be part of the European Union, are attracted by the EU’s soft power tools. As another

example, a well-run military can be source of attraction, and military-to-military cooperation

and training programs can establish transnational networks that enhance a country’s soft

power.55

Nye introduces three faces of power behavior which clarify the distinction between hard and

soft power:

FIRST FACE

(Dahl: Inducing others to do what they otherwise would not do)

Hard: A uses force/payment to change B’s existing strategies.

Soft: A uses attraction/persuasion to change B’s existing preferences.

SECOND FACE

(Bachrach and Baratz: Framing and setting agenda)

Hard: A uses force/payment to truncate B’s agenda (whether B likes it or not).

Soft: A uses attraction or institutions so that B sees the agenda as legitimate.

THIRD FACE

Lukes Shaping others’ preferences)

Hard: A uses force/payment to shape B’s preferences (“Stockholm syndrome”).

Soft: A uses attraction and/or institutions to shape B’s initial preferences. Nye, Joseph (2011): The Future of Power, Public Affairs; New York. P. 91.

Table 4.1.: Three Faces of Power Behavior.

Nye also points out that attraction can be something positive, but can also turn out negative.

In some cases, actors attract other actors who then take unwanted actions. There are, then,

two models of the effect that soft power can have on its targets: direct and indirect.56

55 Nye, Jospeh (2011): The Future of Power. PublicAffairs, New York. P. 86. 56 ibid. P.94.

32

Therefore, soft power turns out to be rather sensitive and requires quality communication

skills in order to achieve to the desired outcome.

33

4.3 SMART POWER

Smart power can be described as a collaboration between hard and soft power. Nye, who

invented the term smart power, explains that smart power can be seen in finding ways to

combine resources into successful strategies. To this purpose, he introduces five important

questions, which lead to a smart power approach. These are as follows: (1) What goals or

outcomes are preferred? (2) What resources are available and in which contexts? (3) What are

the positions and preferences of the targets of influence attempts? (4) Which forms of power

behavior are most likely to succeed? (5) What is the probability of success?

In answering these five questions, actors can choose which forms and tools of power to use

and which forms and tools of power are most suitable for their purpose. As Assistant

Secretary of State, Andrew J. Shapiro once put it, “the concept of ‘smart power’ - the

intelligent integration and networking of diplomacy, defense, development, and other tools of

so-called ‘hard and soft’ power – is at the very heart of President Obama and Secretary

Clinton’s policy vision.”57 Even though the term smart power is quite new, the practice is not.

Smart power is already a common set of tools for achieving goals in various governments,

organizations, and countries. Nye simply gave the concept a name. Therefore, smart power is

not something exclusively American. Nye suggests that a smart power strategy requires that

the old distinction between realists and liberals needs be abolished to make room for a new

synthesis that could be called liberal realism. “While the US remains the world’s most

powerful single country, it cannot maintain, much less expand, international peace and

prosperity on its own.”58 Therefore, cooperation as a form of smart power might be a future

approach. Finally, a smart power strategy should look to the long-term evolution of world

order, and must realize the responsibility of the largest country in the international system to

produce global public or common goods.59

57 Assistant Secretary of State Andrew J. Shapiro, ”Political-Military Affairs: Smart Power Starts Here”, keynote address to ComDef , September 9, 2009, in U.S. Department of State, Diplomacy in Action. Washington, DC. www.state.gov/t/pm/rls/rm/128752.htm. 58 Haass, Richard (2010): ”When World is in Transition, Can Great Countries Have Good Policies?” in: Sunday Times, May 23rd 2010. 59 Nye, Jospeh (2011): The Future of Power. PublicAffairs, New York. P.83.

34

4.4. ECONOMIC POWER

In addition to the forms of power described by Joseph S. Nye, he also talks about economic

power as a trigger that can produce both hard and soft power. The basic economic resources

that underlie both hard and soft power are such things as the size and quality of gross

domestic product (GDP), per capita income, the level of technology, natural and human

resources, political and legal institutions for markets, as well as a variety of shaped resources

for special domains, such as trade, finance, and competition.60 Economic power might be used

for dominance and control. Moreover, how much dominance and control an actor has is based

on the specific market he participates in, as well as how many resources he has. Although it is

true that governments often have difficulty using potential economic power because of the

resistance of domestic interests, transnational corporations, links between issues, and

international institutional constraints, such as membership in the World Trade Organization

(WTO), it does not follow that states lack economic power.61

The main focus of economic power is to make other actors more dependent on your market

than you are dependent on other actors’ markets. Furthermore, Nye explains that when actors

are affected by other actors’ economic power, their reaction and future relationship depends

on their state of vulnerability and sensitivity. He differentiates between those two terms,

explaining that vulnerability produces more power in relationships than sensitivity. The

perfect economic case would be “symmetry”, Nye says, referring to situations of relatively

balanced versus unbalanced dependence. Perfect symmetry is quite rare, so most cases of

economic interdependence also involve a potential power relationship.62 Moreover, Nye

argues that a balanced interdependence does not guarantee stability. For example,

asymmetries in currency markets are a particularly important and efficient aspect of economic

power because they underlie the vast systems of trade and financial markets.63

Today, the most important resource, in economic terms, is oil. Oil is the most important raw

material in the world, in both economic and political terms, and it is likely to remain a key

source of energy well into this century.64 Therefore, countries rich in oil tend to be more

60 Nye, Jospeh (2011): The Future of Power. PublicAffairs, New York. P.52. 61 ibid. P.53. 62 ibid. P.55. 63 ibid. P.58. 64 ibid. P.64.

35

powerful in international politics, as well as more stable in the international market. The

international market is also influenced by oil prices and depends a lot on the import and

export of oil. Furthermore, many international conflicts are based on oil issues, for example,

pipelines being placed in transition countries, or because of the prestige and monopolies held

by some countries because of their oil resources, production, and exports. Nye argues that

Russian firms like Gazprom, as well as state-owned Chinese enterprises and sovereign wealth

funds like Dubai World, all complicate market behavior and increase opportunities for

political manipulation. According to Nye, the diffusion of power to non-state actors, including

transnational corporations, places limits on states’ abilities to use economic instruments.

Economic power will be one of the most important implements in the toolbox of smart power

policies, but policy answers will often depend on the context of each market and its

asymmetries of vulnerability.65

65 Nye, Jospeh (2011): The Future of Power. PublicAffairs, New York. P.64.

36

4.5. THE CONCEPT OF SANCTIONS

Usually, sanctions are understood as the most recognizable form of economic power, besides

the obvious demonstration of power, such as military interventions. Sanctions are defined as

measures of encouragement or punishment designed to reinforce a decision or make a policy

authoritative.66 Moreover, sanctions can be positive or negative. According to David Baldwin,

a British historian and university professor, there are several kinds of negative sanctions:

embargoes, arms embargoes, travel bans, preclusive buying, capital sanctions, such as the

freezing of assets, unfavorable taxation, and suspension of aid.67 In general, sanctions can be

implemented on all actors participating in international affairs, and are regulated by

international law. The goal of a sanction is punishment of a certain behavior as well as

manipulation in order to achieve to a particular outcome. Whether sanctions are effective or

not depends on their characteristics. A study found that sanctions were most likely to be

successful when the objective was modest and clear, the target was in a weakened position to

begin with, economic relations were great, sanctions were heavy, and the duration was

limited.68

In his work, The Power of Positive Sanctions, Baldwin defines positive sanctions as actual or

promised rewards, while negative sanctions are defined as actual or threatened punishments.

In order to distinguish rewards from punishments, one must establish B’s baseline of

expectations at the moment A’s influence attempt begins.69 Furthermore, it is important to

point out why the distinction between positive and negative sanctions matters. For this

purpose, Baldwin uses the description of “A” as an actor attempting to impose a sanction on

“B”, the actor receiving the sanction. He hypothesizes a difference: when A’s influence

attempt is based on a promise, B’s compliance obligates A to respond with a reward; whereas

B’s failure to comply calls for no further response from A.70 He goes on to explain that

another important consequence of the asymmetry between positive and negative sanctions is

that promises tend to cost more when they succeed, whereas threats tend to cost more when

they fail. Thus, positive sanctions can be more useful for international relations between

66 Nye, Jospeh (2011): The Future of Power. PublicAffairs, New York. P.71. 67 Baldwin A. David (1985): Economic Statecraft. Princeton University Press. P.41-42. 68 Paul; Clarke; Grill (2010): Victory Has a Thousand Fathers: Sources of Success in Counterinsurgency. RAND/ National Defense Research Institute; Washington, DC. P.16. 69 Baldwin A. David (1971): The Power of Positive Sanctions. In: World Politics. Princeton University Press P.23. 70 ibid. P. 28.

37

actors regarding future issues, while negative sanctions have the potential to ruin future

relations. For an example relevant to this research topic, it is imaginable that the U.S. policy

towards Cuba, in the form of a negative sanction, may have increased the difficulty of

collaboration with Communist nations in general with regard to issues like environmental

pollution, sustainable development, etc.

Another important difference between negative and positive sanctions is their legitimation. It

is usually easier to legitimize demands based on positive sanctions than demands based on

negative ones.71 What positive and negative sanctions do have in common is that both have

the equal possibility of being imposed through hard and soft power. When it comes to

sanctions, the United States takes the lead in implementing them on other countries. Eighty-

five new sanctions were applied on foreign states by the US between 1996 and 2001 alone.72

As mentioned, every actor on the international playground can impose sanctions; for example,

the UN has imposed various positive and negative sanctions to manipulate certain actors. The

most recent sanctions imposed by the United Nations are those regarding Iran’s nuclear

development. In sum, regardless of whether positive or negative sanctions are established

through hard or soft power or both forms, the outcome of the sanctions depends on several

conditions and possible inter-relational changes, and thus cannot be assured by theory nor by

a specific formula.

In conclusion, both theoretical approaches, Waltz’s structural realism and Nye’s concept of

power, are needed to understand the U.S. embargo against Cuba. Structural realism provides a

clear picture of why the United States embargoed Cuba and Nye’s concept of power describes

how sanctions can be effective.

71 Baldwin A. David (1971): The Power of Positive Sanctions. In: World Politics. Princeton University Press P.33. 72 Gottemoeller, Rose (2007): The Evolution of Sanctions in Practice and Theory.In; Survival 49, no.4. P.100.

38

5. THE HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN POLICY AGAINST CUBA

In the 1930s and 1940s, the University of Havana was a hot pot of political activity. First,

students revolted against dictator Gerardo Machado. Those years were a very violent period in

Cuban history. Social and political struggle continued all through the 1950s. As a result, one

may understand that Fidel Castro’s generation had a terrible sense of frustration. Cuba was

supposed to be one of the three wealthiest countries in the Western Hemisphere, along with

the United States and Argentina, and yet they could not unite themselves together politically.

One could say that it was one tragedy after the other. First, the War of 1898, then the

American intervention: the Platt Amendment, which gave the United States partial power

over anything in Cuba. Leader after leader was either corrupt, killed, or replaced by the

United States. The historical significance of the Cuban revolution is that it was the first time

in the Western Hemisphere that a revolution had been accomplished in the name of

socialism.73 It was the first socialist revolution led by independent radicals throughout its most

decisive phases.74

It was January 1st, 1959, when General Batista fled and left Cuba in the hands of Fidel Castro.

Castro had often expressed his desire to have friendly relations with the United States.75 The

sharp criticisms directed at Washington were the result of extended U.S. assistance to the

Batista regime.76 The first social and economic measures the Castro government undertook

did not go well with the United States. On May 17th, 1959, agrarian reform was introduced,

one of the most advanced of the period, which was predicated on the legal foundations of

Cuba’s 1940 constitution.77 It aimed to allocate to farmers cultivable land that would allow

them to meet their own subsistence needs, and put an end to the latifundia system that had

long prevailed in Cuba.78 Around that time, Washington had begun to consider sanctions

against Cuba for the first time.

73 Gottemoeller, Rose (2007): The Evolution of Sanctions in Practice and Theory.In; Survival 49, no.4. P.100. 74 ibid. 75 Central Intelligence Agency, «NSC Briefing:Cuba,» January 6 1959, Freedom of Information Act case no.CSI-1998-00005, release date February 6, 1998. 76 ibid. 77 Lamrani, Salim (2013): The Economic War Against Cuba. A Historical and Legal Perspective on the U.S. Blockade. Monthly Review Press, New York. P.19. 78 ibid.

39

At the time, the Cuban economy depended heavily on both imports from and exports to the

United States. Moreover, U.S. investments in Cuba were carried out under conditions often

favorable to the multinationals.79 These enterprises were often exempted from paying taxes

and were allowed to repatriate their profits.80 Because of this, Cuba’s economic growth was

limited. The first hit by the United States was the cancellation of the investment of an

American electricity firm in Cuba. This measure, an action that signaled increased hostility

toward the Havana government, was taken following the new government’s 30 percent

reduction in the price of Cuban electricity.81 The United States saw itself as a victim of the

Cuban nationalization process. In fact, there were other foreign investors in Cuba – though

none to the same extent as the United States – who were also affected by the nationalization

process. According to international law, nationalization is not against the law if the

government grants a compensation fee. In the case of Cuba’s nationalization process, the

amount of compensation paid was based on the enterprises’ most recent corporate tax

returns—returns that were, for obvious reasons, often less than the real value of the assets.82

All of the nations affected by the expropriation process negotiated with the Cuban

government and accepted global compensation agreements, with the notable exception of the

United States.83

According to both international and national law, a state’s economic self-determination is

legitimate, and nationalization is accepted as part of that economic self-determination.

Therefore, Cuba’s government did not violate any law by expropriating or transferring

ownership of foreign property while compensating the foreign investors. In fact, it was the

United States’ Eisenhower administration that did not accept Cuba’s politics and decided to

overthrow the Cuban government.

79 Lamrani, Salim (2013): The Economic War Against Cuba. A Historical and Legal Perspective on the U.S. Blockade. Monthly Review Press, New York. P.19. 80 ibid. 81 Perez; Ponce Suarez (2006): Incidencias del bloqueo del gobierno de los Estados Unidos en las bibliotecas cubanas:2001-2005. Jose Marti Library, P.55. 82 Lamrani, Salim (2013): The Economic War Against Cuba. A Historical and Legal Perspective on the U.S. Blockade. Monthly Review Press, New York. P.20. 83 ibid.

40

5.1. U.S. SANCTIONS AGAINST CUBA FROM 1960 TO TODAY

On June 29th, 1960, the oil companies Texaco, Shell, and Esso stopped their deliveries to

Cuba, thereby forcing the island to obtain supplies from the USSR, in exchange for sugar.84

Responding to a new directive from Washington, the U.S. multinationals also began refusing

to refine Soviet oil, thereby automatically triggering the nationalization of the refineries on

the island.85 The first forceful measure that was undertaken by the Eisenhower administration

in 1960, was to cancel the Cuban sugar import quota. It should be noted that sugar accounted

for 80 percent of all of Cuba’s exports to the United States. The sugar industry was Cuba’s

natural and historical market, and employed almost 25 percent of Cuba’s population.86 In

response to this act, the Cuban government nationalized all U.S. properties. Shortly after, the

Eisenhower administration decided to cut off all diplomatic relations with Cuba and to ban all

U.S. citizens from traveling to Cuba.

In the early 60s, when President Kennedy came into office, his administration decided to

extend the sugar suspension until 1962. On September 4th, 1961, U.S. Congress passed the

Foreign Assistance Act, which prohibited foreign aid to the government of Cuba and

authorized the president to impose a total embargo on trade with the island.87 Shortly after, on

February 3rd, President Kennedy imposed a total embargo against Cuba. It went into effect

on February 7th, 1962, and, in violation of international humanitarian law, included a ban on

drugs and food products.88 Just a few weeks later, in March of the same year, the Kennedy

administration decided to extend the embargo to all products that contained Cuban materials,

even if those products were manufactured in countries other than the U.S. or Cuba. Similarly,

from August 1962 on, every nation providing assistance to Cuba was automatically excluded

from the USAID program.89 On September 16th, 1962, Kennedy composed a blacklist that

included all ships with commercial relations to Cuba, regardless of their country of origin, and 84 Lamrani, Salim (2013): The Economic War Against Cuba. A Historical and Legal Perspective on the U.S. Blockade. Monthly Review Press, New York. P.23. 85 Bravo, Olga Miranda (1996): “ Por que Bloqueo y no embargo”, Cuba vs. bloqueo, http://www.cubavsbloqueo.cu/Default.aspx?tabid=68 , see also Olga Miranda Bravo, Cuba-USA: Nacionalizaciones y Bloqueo (Havana: Editorial de Ciencias Sociales, 1996). 86 Molina Garcia, Jesus M. (2005): La economia cubana desde el siglo XVI al XX. Del colonialismo al socialismo con mercado. In: Comision Economica Para America Latina y el Caribe, Feb.2005. P. 23. 87 Congressional Research Service, Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, http://nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/R40089.pdf. 88 John F. Kennedy (1962) “Proclamation 3447: Embargo on All Trade with Cuba”, American Presidency Project, February 3rd ; http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=58824#axzz1PMB9WbnC. 89 Lamrani, Salim (2013): The Economic War Against Cuba. A Historical and Legal Perspective on the U.S. Blockade. Monthly Review Press, New York. P.25.

41

banned them from docking in U.S. ports.90 These measures drastically reduced the links

between Cuba and the Western world, and increased the island’s dependence upon the

USSR.90

The next American administration was that of Lyndon B. Johnson. The Johnson

administration supported the pre-existing embargo against Cuba, and even extended it by

making additional adjustments to the policy of extraterritorial sanctions. In February 1964, the

2,500 employees of the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo were forced to live and spend their

income on the base.91 These new restrictions resulted in the Cuban economy losing an

additional $ 5 million annually.92 Its effects were visible in the daily life of Cubans. These

conditions were enacted even though Articles 19 and 20 of the Charter of Organization of

American States specify that:

19: No state or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any

reason whatever, in the internal and external affairs of any other State. The foregoing

principles prohibits not only armed forces but also any other form of interference or

attempted threat against the personality of the State or against its political, economic,

and cultural elements.93

20: No State may use or encourage the use of coercive measures of an economic or

political character in order to force the sovereign will of another State and obtain from it

advantages of any kind.94

Cuba remained under embargo. These tactics were quite effective: between 1964 and 1966

trade relations between Cuba and the West plummeted from 36.9 percent to 19.6 percent of its

total trade.95 In May 1966, the Agriculture Committee of the House of Representatives

approved a law entitled “Food for Freedom Program,” which prohibited the exportation of

90 ibid. 90 Lamrani, Salim (2013): The Economic War Against Cuba. A Historical and Legal Perspective on the U.S. Blockade. Monthly Review Press, New York. P.25. 91 ibid. P.26. 92 Rivera, Alicia (2004): EE UU prohibe publicar articulos cientificos de Cuba, Iran, Libia y Sudan. In: El Pais, Feb 24. Issue. 93 Organization of American States, Charter, June 10, 1993, Articles 19 and 20. http://www.cidh.oas.org/Basicos/French/q.Chartepercent20OEA.htm. 94 ibid. 95 Lamrani, Salim (2013): The Economic War Against Cuba. A Historical and Legal Perspective on the U.S. Blockade. Monthly Review Press, New York. P.27.

42

U.S. food products to countries that maintained trade relations with Cuba.96 This demonstrates

that the U.S. embargo against Cuba had extraterritorial aspects from the very beginning.

The next two American presidencies – Nixon and Ford – continued the embargo against

Cuba. Products from Cuba had been banned in the United States. Nevertheless, some

adjustments were made to allow the entry of Cuban cultural products, such as those of the

film industry, into the United States.97 In the meantime, the international community started to

criticize the American policy toward Cuba. As a result, President Gerald R. Ford lessened the

sanctions somewhat. It was eventually the Organization of American States which agreed to

abolish the sanctions against Cuba and let every member state of the Organization of

American States decide whether to have diplomatic relations with Cuba or not. As a result of

these developments, Ford authorized a group of U.S. businessmen to travel to Cuba through

the issuance of special licenses.98 He also allowed payment to Cuba for fees arising from the

landing of U.S. planes on its territory, as well as for certain commercial transactions.99 An

agreement on exclusive fishing zones was also signed by the two nations.100

In 1977, Jimmy Carter became president of the United States. With every new presidency,

new hopes regarding the American policy toward Cuba came up. Indeed, the new American

president managed to change American habits with regard to the Caribbean island. During his

term in office, Argentina opened a line of credit for Cuba and exported locomotives and

railroad cars with U.S. brand names, although they were produced in Argentina.101 Carter

opted to modifying certain aspects of the economic sanctions and authorized subsidiaries of

U.S. companies located outside the country to enter into relations with Cuba.102 The American

president made a great effort to reestablish relations with Cuba, and, ultimately, managed to

allow U.S. citizens to make trips to Cuba. He also legalized the sale of medicine and food to

Cuba. Cubans living in the United States were finally able to send financial aid to their

families on the island.103 In June of 1977, the National Security Council chose to end the

96 ibid. S.28. 97 Bravo, Olga Miranda (1996): “ Por que Bloqueo y no embargo”, Cuba vs. bloqueo, http://www.cubavsbloqueo.cu/Default.aspx?tabid=57. 98 Lamrani, Salim (2013): The Economic War Against Cuba. A Historical and Legal Perspective on the U.S. Blockade. Monthly Review Press, New York. P.28. 99 ibid. 100 Bravo, Olga Miranda (1996): “ Por que Bloqueo y no embargo”, Cuba vs. bloqueo, http://www.cubavsbloqueo.cu/Default.aspx?tabid=57. 101 Lamrani, Salim (2013): The Economic War Against Cuba. A Historical and Legal Perspective on the U.S. Blockade. Monthly Review Press, New York. P.29. 102 ibid. 103 «Senate Panel Votes to Allow Cuba to Buy U.S. Food and Medicine» - New York Times, May 11, 1977.

43

policy of blacklisting marine craft with foreign trade relations to the island.104 Bilateral trade

transactions were authorized in the telecommunications field in August 1980.105 For the first

time since relations had broken off in 1961, diplomatic missions were opened in Washington

and Havana.106 Everything seemed very promising. Several bilateral agreements were made,

and issues concerning Cuba’s economy were in the government’s focus. President Jimmy

Carter was eager to establish healthy relations with the communist island, and used all of his

diplomatic skills to accomplish them.

Unfortunately, after Carter’s presidency, the Reagan administration began and brought with it

severe changes. The new administration reversed most of the reforms that had been

undertaken by Carter, and implemented the Santa Fe Program, a quintessential

neoconservative policy aiming to overthrow the Cuban government.107 In 1981, the U.S.

Senate approved a resolution prohibiting the allocation of federal resources to promote trade

with Cuba.108 In 1982, Washington included Cuba on its list of terrorist nations and increased

control over imports from countries that maintained trade relations with the island.109 Due to

these actions, the acting U.S. ambassador in Havana decided to resign and leave the State

Department in protest. Moreover, Reagan forbade economic relationship with some Cuban

companies. In 1988, the Omnibus Foreign Trade and Competitiveness Act, whose objective

was the reinforcement of restrictions on imports from Cuba, came into force.110 As a result,

several dozen new maritime companies were placed on the blacklist and could no longer

maintain commercial relations with the United States.111

In the early 90s, the George H.W. Bush administration signed the Torricelli Act of 1992.

Shortly before that, the Soviet Union had disintegrated and the international community

believed that this would put an end to the unpleasant relationship between the United States

104 Lamrani, Salim (2013): The Economic War Against Cuba. A Historical and Legal Perspective on the U.S. Blockade. Monthly Review Press, New York. P.29. 105 Bravo, Olga Miranda (1996): “ Por que Bloqueo y no embargo”, Cuba vs. bloqueo, http://www.cubavsbloqueo.cu/Default.aspx?tabid=58. 106 Hovey, Graham (1977): U.S. and Cuba Ready to Announce Limited Exchange of Diplomats; U.S. and Havana Plan Diplomatic Missions. In: New York Times, June 3rd, 1977. 107 Bravo, Olga Miranda (1996): “ Por que Bloqueo y no embargo”, Cuba vs. bloqueo, http://www.cubavsbloqueo.cu/Default.aspx?tabid=59. 108 Lamrani, Salim (2013): The Economic War Against Cuba. A Historical and Legal Perspective on the U.S. Blockade. Monthly Review Press, New York. P.30. 109 U.S. Congress, “Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988”, August 23rd 1988, http://gsi.nist.gov/global/docs/Omnibus.pdf. 110 Lamrani, Salim (2013): The Economic War Against Cuba. A Historical and Legal Perspective on the U.S. Blockade. Monthly Review Press, New York. P.31. 111 U.S. Congress, “Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988”, August 23rd 1988, http://gsi.nist.gov/global/docs/Omnibus.pdf.

44

and Cuba. Surprisingly then, the United States government approved the Torricelli Act, which

tightened the already-tight sanctions against Cuba, and made it no longer possible to explain

the conflict between the two nations in terms of the Cold War.112 Washington then brandished

another argument designed to justify the intensification of sanctions: the violation of human

rights in Cuba.113 The Torricelli Act, passed by Congress two years after the approval of the

Mack amendment that had drastically limited the business transactions of U.S. subsidiaries

based abroad, was supposed to be the “final blow” to the Cuban Revolution.114 Indeed,

according to its author, legislator Robert Torricelli, the Castro regime would disappear in a

matter of weeks.115

The Torricelli Act had a great impact on Cuba. It’s called the “special period” or “el periodo

especial”. Shortages of food, medicine, fuel, clothing, and other essential things were part of

everyday Cuban life. Moreover, any vessel that called at a Cuban port would be denied entry

to the United States for a period of 180 days from the date of its debarkation, which was

contrary to international law, and once again added an extraterritorial dimension to the

sanctions against Cuba.116 The Torricelli Act also included fines for foreign countries who

assisted Cuba in any way. Thus, if Spain were to grant $100 million to Cuba, the United

States would reduce its aid to Spain by the same amount.117 In addition, the Torricelli Act

determined the economic and political model that Cuba was able adopt.118 The situation the

Torricelli Act created was brutal, and demonstrates the way in which the United States

government tried to suppress the Castro regime with all its force and with all the dirty moves

it could come up with.

Yet this misnamed act is dubious in theory, cruel in its political practice and ignoble in

its election-year expediency… An influential faction of the Cuban-American

community clamors for sticking it to a wounded regime… There is, finally, something

112 Lamrani, Salim (2013): The Economic War Against Cuba. A Historical and Legal Perspective on the U.S. Blockade. Monthly Review Press, New York. P.31. 113 U.S. Department of State, “Cuban Democracy Act of 1992”, http://www.state.gov/www/regions/wha/cuba/democ_act_1992.html. 114 Lamrani, Salim (2013): The Economic War Against Cuba. A Historical and Legal Perspective on the U.S. Blockade. Monthly Review Press, New York. P.32. 115 ibid. 116 ibid. 117 U.S. Department of State, “Cuban Democracy Act of 1992”, http://www.state.gov/www/regions/wha/cuba/democ_act_1992. 118 Lamrani, Salim (2013): The Economic War Against Cuba. A Historical and Legal Perspective on the U.S. Blockade. Monthly Review Press, New York. P.32.

45

indecent about vociferous exiles living safely in Miami prescribing more pain for their

poorer cousins.119

While Cuba was dealing with its great economic depression, the United States was electing

their new president: Bill Clinton was inaugurated as President in 1993. Just a a few years

later, in 1996, an American plane belonging to the Brothers to the Rescue organization was

shot down by the Cuban army. The Cuban army decided to shoot it down after it repeated

entered Cuban airspace. Of course, there is no official document which admits U.S. error on

this matter, but it is known that the head of the Brothers to the Rescue organization, Jose

Basulto, had been involved in CIA operations against the Castro Regime before. Moreover,

right after the U.S. provocation, the United States government did not miss a chance to

sanction Cuba even more – and straight away. The Helms-Burton Act was passed. Some

journalists say that the legislation had been prepared before and was “just waiting” for an

opportune moment to be passed. The law codified all standards, regulations, and presidential

orders passed since 1962, thereby elevating to the rank of law the whole arsenal of measures

against Cuba that had been approved in the past. Furthermore, it deprived the U.S. president

of all prerogatives that had been permitted under the Foreign Assistance Act.120 However,

only congress has been able to change legislation on economic sanctions. Moreover, the

Helms-Burton Act included several ridiculous laws within it, such as giving the U.S.

government the prerogative to decide what Cuban children would learn in school, or to

prohibit the candidacy of Fidel and Raul Castro in any future elections. It can therefore

irrefutably be concluded that the United States government was once again trying to suppress

the Castro regime. As with the Torricelli Act, the Helms-Burton Act, through Article 109,

allocated a budget to finance internal opposition, revealing publicly for the first time a policy

that had long been hidden.122

In the late 90s, the Clinton administration began to relax the American policy towards Cuba.

Some direct flights between the United States and Cuba were allowed, and cultural and

scientific exchange was tolerated. In October 2000, following the passage of several

devastating hurricanes across Cuba and under pressure from the U.S. agricultural lobby in

search of new markets for surplus production, Congress decided to adopt the Trade Sanctions

119 New York Times, July 15, 1992. 120 Lamrani, Salim (2013): The Economic War Against Cuba. A Historical and Legal Perspective on the U.S. Blockade. Monthly Review Press, New York. P.34. 122 Lamrani, Salim (2013): The Economic War Against Cuba. A Historical and Legal Perspective on the U.S. Blockade. Monthly Review Press, New York. P.35.

46

Reform and Export Enhancement Act.123 This allowed the trade of food and medicine for

humanitarian reasons.

When George W. Bush came into power, his Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, saw him

as the president who would end the U.S. Embargo against Cuba. In fact, Bush was the most

belligerent White House resident since Ronald Reagan, where Cuba was concerend.124 The

new administration brought some changes. First of all, it restricted a lot of the scientific and

cultural exchange between the two countries. In February 2004, Washington banned Ibrahim

Ferrer, the famous Cuban singer featured on the album The Buena Vista Social Club, who was

then seventy-seven years old, along with four other artists from traveling to the United States

to receive the Grammy Awards they had won.125 Shortly after, Washington prosecuted certain

companies and banks because they had dealt with Cuba. The same month, the Treasury

Department reduced the number of agencies previously authorized to make transfers to Cuba

from 300 to 161.126 The Bush administration also brought two acts into effect: the “2004

Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba Report” and the “2006 Commission for Assistance

to a Free Cuba Report”- the CFAC. The main objective of this undertaking was to return

properties that had been nationalized by Cuba to their previous American owners. Similar to

the earlier Torricelli Act, the U.S. government took for granted the right to interfere in Cuba’s

economic, political and social systems. The CFAC restricted basically everything: travel,

citizen’s ability to send money to Cuba, visit their family, etc. The CFAC even redefined the

concept of family. The new sanctions were criticized by the international community.

This new development reflects pressure from the most extremist Cuban-American right-

wing lobbies and constitutes the exact opposite of what is needed to promote opening

tolerance and democracy in Cuba... It represents a distortion in the priorities for the

foreign policy. Because of what a congressman rightfully describes as a strange

obsession against Cuba, resources essential to the fight against terrorism will be

released for a policy of sanctions. And it is doomed to fail. In a word, Mr. Bush has

been badly advised to opt for a policy which combines ideology and narrowest short-

term politics.127

123 Lamrani, Salim (2013): The Economic War Against Cuba. A Historical and Legal Perspective on the U.S. Blockade. Monthly Review Press, New York. P.36. 124 ibid. S.37. 125 ibid.S.38. 126 Bravo, Olga Miranda (1996): “ Por que Bloqueo y no embargo”, Cuba vs. bloqueo, http://www.cubavsbloqueo.cu/Default.aspx?tabid=81. 127 Financial Times «Leader: A Cuban Dead-End» May 10, 2004.

47

The second CFAC was not very different from the first plan; it was rather complementary.

Unlike previous policies, the Bush administration set a deadline of eighteen months for the

overthrow of the Cuban government.128 Up to the end of the Bush administration, the U.S.

government did its best to suppress the Cuban Castro regime. Sanctions against Cuba were

tightened in every possible way, and new approaches to that priority were sought constantly.

From 2008 on, the Obama administration brought change. From the time Barack Obama came

into office, he had continuously expressed his desire to better the relationship between the

United States and Cuba, and to find new approaches to a peaceful solution. He often stated

that the Cuban problem was a humanitarian issue and that he wanted it to be treated as such.

Therefore, his administration did not view the embargo as helpful when it came to Cuban

social development. Obama lifted several of the restrictions that had been set up by the Bush

administration and expanded the range of goods that could be sent from the United States to

Cuba. Even though, Obama appeared to be very cooperative in terms of ending sanctions

against Cuba, he did not do much towards this end in his first term as president.

A clear turn in the American policy towards Cuba could be identified on the 17th of December

2014, when President Obama announced a positive shift. His speech at the White House

included the following statement:

Neither the American, nor Cuban people are well served by a rigid policy that is

rooted in events that took place before most of us were born. … First, I’ve instructed

Secretary Kerry to immediately begin discussions with Cuba to reestablish diplomatic

relations that have been severed since January of 1961. Going forward, the United

States will reestablish an embassy in Havana, and high-ranking officials will visit

Cuba. … Now, where we disagree, we will raise those differences directly -– as we

will continue to do on issues related to democracy and human rights in Cuba. But I

believe that we can do more to support the Cuban people and promote our values

through engagement. After all, these 50 years have shown that isolation has not

worked. It’s time for a new approach. … I believe in the free flow of information.

Unfortunately, our sanctions on Cuba have denied Cubans access to technology that

has empowered individuals around the globe. So I’ve authorized increased 128 Condoleezza Rice and Carlos Gutierrez, Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of State, July 2006), http://www.cafc.gov/documents/organization/68166.pdf.

48

telecommunications connections between the United States and Cuba. Businesses will

be able to sell goods that enable Cubans to communicate with the United States and

other countries.129

Since then, the things mentioned in the speech have indeed changed. President Obama’s

announcement followed a prisoner swap: the three still-jailed members of the Cuban Five

(one had been released in 2011 and another earlier in 2014) were released in exchange for a

U.S. intelligence asset, Rolando Sarraff Trujillo, who had been imprisoned in Havana for

nearly twenty years.130 Gross* was also released that morning on humanitarian grounds.131

The agreement came after eighteen months of secret talks between U.S. and Cuban officials

that were both encouraged and brokered by Pope Francis.132 The United States embassy in

Havana reopened on July 20th, 2015. In April 2015, Raul Castro represented Cuba, for the

first time, at the Summit of the Americas in Panama where he met U.S. President Obama and

shook his hand publicly. In November of the same year, the United States and Cuba held the

first bilateral Law Enforcement Dialogue, which included issues such as counter-terrorism,

counter-narcotics, transnational crime, cyber-crime etc. In March 2016, the Obama family the

first American presidential family to visit Cuba after decades of the U.S. embargoing the

country, came to Havana.

*Alan Philip Gross – is a United States government contractor employed by United States Agency for International Development (USAID). He was arrested in 2009 by the Cuban government while working on a program funded under the 1996 Helms-Burton Act.

129 President Barack Obama, December 17th 2014 “Statement by the President on Cuba Policy Changes”, https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/12/17/statement-president-cuba-policy-changes 130 Renwick, Danielle; Lee, Brianna; McBride, James (2016): “U.S. – Cuba Relations” September 7th, http://www.cfr.org/cuba/us-cuba-relations/p11113 131 ibid. 132 ibid.

49

6. THE EMBARGO FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE

In 1962, the United States established an embargo against Cuba, which has often been

referred to as a ‘blockade’ rather than an ‘embargo’. A blockade refers to measures taken to

stop people or supplies from entering or leaving (a port or country), especially during war.133

From a legal perspective, that was true during the missile crisis in the early 60s, but the

current United States policy towards Cuba is an embargo. Therefore, this research analysis

focuses on the term ‘embargo’ and will discuss its legal aspects in this chapter. Moreover, it is

important to point out that the U.S. embargo against Cuba does not consist of one single

sanction, but rather multiple sanctions. These are based on several legislative actions: The

Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the Cuban Assets

Control Regulations of 1963, the Torricelli Act of 1992, the Helms-Burton Act of 1996, the

Trade Sanction Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000, and the U.S. Commission for

Assistance to a Free Cuba of 2004 and 2006.134

Although the term ‘embargo’ is often used in combination with terms such as

‘boycott’ and/or ‘sanction,’ it is still important to distinguish between the meanings of these

terms. The Oxford University Press 2015 defines an embargo as “an official ban on trade or

other commercial activity with a particular country”.135 An embargo is a tool of economic

warfare that may be employed for a variety of political purposes, including demonstrating

resolve, sending a political signal, retaliating for another country’s actions, compelling a

country to change its behavior, deterring it from engaging in undesired activities, and

weakening its military capability.136 For example, an embargo can be implemented in the

form of a trade, oil, or broad embargo. A trade embargo may be comprehensive (designed to

halt all inward and outward-bound trade except for humanitarian items) or selective (for

example, an embargo only on trade in goods having military uses).137 The term ‘boycott’ on

the other hand, can be described as a “withdraw[al] from commercial or social relations with a

133 'Blockade' – Miriam Webster Dictionary 2015 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blockade 134 Lamrani, Salim (2013): The Economic War Against Cuba. A Historical and Legal Perspective on the U.S. Blockade. Monthly Review Press, New York 135 ”Embargo” Oxford Dictionary 2015 https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/embargo 136 “Embargo” Encyclopedia Britannica 2015 http://www.britannica.com/topic/embargo-international-law 137 American Society of International Law: “Enforcing International Law” https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/1/issue/1/enforcing-international-law

50

country, organization or person as a punishment or protest”.138 Ultimately, a sanction is a

“threatened penalty for disobeying a law or rule”.139 These three terms can work together,

making it difficult to distinguish between them. For example, a trade embargo can be part or

the outcome of a sanction. However, every country is impacted by a sanction in different

ways. It depends on the size of the target country, as well as on its economic, political, and

social stability. The effect of a sanction also depends on who imposes the embargo. If

multiple countries are involved in imposing an embargo on one single country, the outcome is

more likely to be drastic. Another factor is the specific country or the union of several specific

countries who impose the embargo on another specific country or a specific union of

countries. There is no general insight to embargos, their effects always depend on who

imposes them, who the target country is, and the duration of the sanctions regime. It is

international law that establishes the norms and conditions.

138 American Society of International Law: “Enforcing International Law” – term “Boykott” https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/1/issue/1/enforcing-international-law 139American Society of International Law: “Enforcing International Law” – term “Sanction” https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/1/issue/1/enforcing-international-law

51

6.1. LEGAL ASPECTS

In effect, international law operates as the common language for diplomacy, not as a system

of readily applicable rules.140 International law must be discussed, interpreted, agreed upon in

formal or informal terms and, finally, implemented.141 Due to that fact, implemented

sanctions against countries are made for various reasons and impact in different ways. There

is no formula of international law to follow in order to surely get the desired outcome. The

enforcement tools of international law are thus imperfect.142 Not only are they applied

unevenly in some cases, but they frequently work slowly if at all.143 The bodies that apply

them are not necessarily fully representative of the international community.144 Despite all

this, there are international enforcement mechanisms that do work in ways that may not

always be obvious.145 In particular, the international community, no less than domestic

society within any nation-state, conducts much of its daily business on the basis of self-

enforcing norms that never make the headlines.146 Enlightened self-interest makes those

norms effective.147

However, there are general principles which should be considered regarding international law

when imposing a sanction.

Referring to the General Assembly’s resolution 2625 (XXV) Declaration on Principles of

International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in

accordance with the Charter of the United Nations148:

a.) The principle that States shall refrain in their international relations from the

threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence

of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purpose of the United

Nations,

140 White, Nigel D. (2015): The Cuban Embargo under International Law. El Bloqueo. Routledge, New York. P.172. 141 ibid. 142 American Society of International Law: “Enforcing International Law” https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/1/issue/1/enforcing-international-law 143 ibid. 144 ibid. 145 ibid. 146 ibid. 147 ibid. 148 General Assembly (twenty-fifth session) (24th October 1970): Resolution 2625 (XXV) Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations ; http://www.un-documents.net/a25r2625.htm

52

b.) The principle that States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful

means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not

endangered,

c.) The duty not to intervene in matters within the domestic jurisdiction of any

State, in accordance with the Charter,

d.) The duty of States to co-operate with one another in accordance with the

Charter,

e.) The principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples,

f.) The principle of sovereign equality of States,

g.) The principle that States shall fulfil in good faith the obligations assumed by

them in accordance with the Charter.

Following these general principles of international law, there are special principles to consider

regarding the imposition of an embargo.

a.) The Principle of Non-Violence:

It is against international law if the country imposing an embargo ignores the principle of

non-violence. Partly, it can also be argued that coercive economic measures are against the

principle of non-violence if they reach a certain intensity.148 However, it is quite difficult to

define the point of reaching the limit. The debate in the United Nations General Assembly has

indeed led to the adoption of several resolutions in which economic sanctions are doomed but

those resolutions still cannot prove that such measures are actually against international

law.149 Due to that fact, there is no proof that the American policy is against international law

with regard to the principle of non-violence.

148 Neuss, Jobst Joachim (1989): Handelsembargo zwischen Völkerrecht und IPR, München.P.44.ff 149 Ress, Hans-Konrad (1999): Das Handelsembargo. Völker-, europa- und außenwirtschaftliche Rahmenbedinungen, Praxis und Entschädigung, Heidelberg.P.15.

53

b.) The Principle of Non-Intervention:

The principle of non-intervention is an integral part of customary international law

and it demands, based upon the principle of the sovereign equality of States, consideration of

the matters which are essentially within the internal jurisdiction of a State.150 The principle of

non-intervention not only limits the intervention of military forces, but it also proscribes the

intervention of other states through economic measures. Thus, the U.S. Embargo against Cuba

finds itself on shaky ground with regard to this principle of international law.

c.) The Principle of Non-Discrimination of International Law:

An act or omission causing discrimination may be clearly attributable to a state when the state

itself acts in a discriminatory manner or fails to act to stop discrimination that it is aware is

present (an omission).151 Therefore, it can be argued that embargoed countries are clearly

discriminated against in economic terms, by the mere fact that they are put in an even more

dire economic position. However, the non-discrimination rule has its roots in the principle of

the sovereign equality of all states. Since the U.S. embargo against Cuba does not directly

violate the principle of sovereign equality of all states, it is hard to argue that the embargo

purposely violates the principle of non-discrimination of international law.

d.) The Principle of Non-Violation of the Obligation of Economic Cooperation:

States have the duty to cooperate with one another in the various spheres of international

relations, regardless of the differences in their political, economic, and social systems, in

order to: maintain international peace and security, and to promote international economic

stability and progress, as well as to ensure the general welfare of nations and continued

international cooperation free from discrimination based on such differences.152 If a state is

not able to cooperate economically with other states due to a sanction, the sanction imposed is

against international law. Since Cuba has been under embargo, and, on top of that, targeted by

the Herms-Burton Act, its ability to cooperate economically with other countries has been

particularly limited. Therefore, it can be argued that the U.S. Embargo against Cuba is against

international law when it comes to the principle of non-violation of the obligation of

economic cooperation.

150 Ress, Hans-Konrad (1999): Das Handelsembargo. Völker-, europa- und außenwirtschaftliche Rahmenbedinungen, Praxis und Entschädigung, Heidelberg.P.16. 151 Doebbler, Curtis F. (2007): The Principle of Non-Discrimination in International Law. CD Publishing. P.11. 152 General Assembly (twenty-fifth session) (24th October 1970): Resolution 2625 (XXV) Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations ; http://www.un-documents.net/a25r2625.htm

54

e.) The Principle of Non-Violation of the International Law of Property:

Property rights in immovable things – including land, houses, and industrial and commercial

facilities – are recognized under international law.153 For decades, tribunals have concluded

that an expropriation of “property” occurs when, inter alia, a state seizes title to, or permanent

possession of, land or other immovable assets owned by a foreign investor.154 Similarly,

authorities increasingly agree that a foreign investor has a direct right to pursue an

expropriation claim against the host state in an international tribunal, not merely a derivative

right stemming from its state.155 If the consequence of a trade embargo is the expropriation of

foreign nationals – and the embargoed state cannot compensate them – then the trade embargo

is against international law.156 This scenario is quite tricky when it comes to Cuba. On the one

hand, there are a lot of actors who argue that due to the privatization process in Cuba, the

expropriation of foreign nationals is illegal, and therefore, they deserve compensation. On the

other hand, based on international law, the U.S. Embargo against Cuba is the reason that Cuba

has no ability to compensate these foreign nationals.

153 Sprankling, John G. (2014): The International Law of Property. Oxford University Press. P. 34. 154 ibid. 155 ibid. P.41. 156 General Assembly (twenty-fifth session) (24th October 1970): Resolution 2625 (XXV) Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations ; http://www.un-documents.net/a25r2625.htm

55

6.2 EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION

Jurisdiction is the official power to make legal decisions and judgements.157 Extraterritorial

jurisdiction is the term used to describe how far outside the border countries’ laws apply.

Spatial legality problems are being aggravated now more than ever by an increase in

extraterritorial jurisdiction, or the assertion of legal power by states over conduct outside their

borders.158 A country is allowed to create its own criminal code as long as it does not interfere

with internationally-agreed standards. However, it is jurisdiction – where and to whom those

laws apply – that is usually reserved to the territory controlled by the country. It is the ability

to prosecute a citizen for violations that take place outside country borders that is known as

extraterritorial jurisdiction. For example, most militaries are governed by the country they are

from and not the country they are in. There are also particular types of crimes which are

prosecuted according to international agreements. These include genocide and war crimes.

For general violations, a host countries’ criminal code prosecution depends on which country

it is. For example, Austrian citizens are bound to Austrian law no matter where they are in the

world, and, by default, they are also bound to the country they are in. In situations where

domestic and foreign law deflect, authority is usually delegated to the country where the

prosecution is taking place. However, some countries only extend their jurisdiction to cover

specific situations. The economic sanctions against Cuba by the United States are applied

extraterritorially, and thus affect the citizens and companies of third countries.159 For this

reason, Cubans call the state of siege imposed by Washington a “blockade”, an operation

designed to completely cut off all supplies, and not simply an “embargo”, which is an

administrative measure or legal barrier aiming to prevent the movement of goods from one

country to another.160 The actual effects of the United States’ extraterritorial jurisdictional

imposition will be explained in the next chapter.

157 ”Jurisdiction” Oxford Dictionary 2015 https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/jurisdiction 158 Colangelo, Anthony J. (2012): Spartial Legality. Published in: Northwestern University Law Review. Vol.107, No.1.P.83. 159 Lamrani, Salim (2013): The Economic War Against Cuba. A Historical and Legal Perspective on the U.S. Blockade. Monthly Review Press, New York. P. 55. 160 Bravo, Olga M. (1996): Por que Bloqueo y no embargo?.In: Cuba vs. Bloqueo: http://www.cubavsbloqueo.cu/Default.aspx?tabid=65.

56

7. THE EFFECTS OF THE U.S. EMBARGO AGAINST CUBA

Unfortunately, there is no general insight in the form of a report about the exact effects of the

U.S. embargo against Cuba. To find out what the effects are, one has to go through books,

articles, papers and talk to a lot of people to gain an idea of the most crucial effects the

country has had to suffer. As mentioned, it is Cuba’s population that has suffered most from

the effects of the U.S. embargo. Conventional wisdom holds that multilateral embargoes are

more effective than unilateral embargoes.161 But while U.S. unilateral measures have not been

effective at ending the Castro regime, they have had a far greater impact on Cuba’s economy

and society than would ordinarily be expected of a unilateral trade embargo.162 The impacts of

the embargo can be divided into three different areas: economic, political and social impacts.

However, the effect of the embargo on one or another area influences all other areas as well.

Therefore, the economic effects listed have clearly had a related negative effect on the

political and social development of the country. Throughout history, it has been clear that the

embargo did not fulfil its purpose of suppressing the Castro regime. Therefore, the American

policy towards Cuba was not successful. The price of that failure has been paid by the Cuban

people: their lives are restricted in every possible way. “I don’t understand why the United

States thinks that they can control everything. Every once and a while they come up with a

new plan to control us”, Prof. Rita Alfonso Pacheco said during an interview. “The effects of

the embargo are horrible. They are far more than just economical. For example, food is very

expensive. We work for 15 CUC a month. The Cuban money is usually used to buy stuff on

the street like vegetables, fruits or snacks in little snack bars. The CUC is used to buy goods

in the shops. But not many people can afford that. For example, clothes are very expensive. A

shirt can cost up to a whole month’s income. To have to make the decision between whether

to buy food or clothes is not fair. Especially when it comes to a whole family you should feed

and dress. This situation, these "little missions impossible" can cost you nerves and eventually

your mental health. The pressure to survive in a system with no hope is unimaginable”, the

teacher explained. “The control of the government is tough... they control every single

newspaper. Therefore the information we get... well, if you are smart, you take it with caution.

You never know. Even though the government does good things too, you never know if

everything could be true...” Dr. Ivan Muñoz Duthil said.

161 Gordon, Joy (2012): The U.S. Embargo against Cuba and the Diplomatic Challanges to Extraterritoriality. P.63. http://www.fletcherforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Gordon_36-1.pdf 162 ibid.

57

While interviewing people, researching and dealing with the U.S. embargo against Cuba, I

collected a lot of information. To ease the understanding of the effects of the embargo, the

information collected will be listed analytically in the following section.

58

7.1. THE ECONOMIC EFFECTS

The biggest economic impact due to the U.S. embargo against Cuba has directly affected the

field of health care. Medical supplies are mainly restricted due to the extraterritorial character

of the embargo since a lot of pharmaceutical multinationals and their subsidiaries would

violate that sanction. For example, Cuban ophthalmological services are not able to use trans

pupillary thermotherapy in the treatment of children suffering from cancer of the retina.163

Cuba is prevented from acquiring the surgical microscopes and other equipment needed for its

treatment because these products are sold exclusively by the U.S. company Iris Medical

Instruments.164 Moreover, it is almost impossible to treat this illness without the necessary

advanced technology.

Similarly, the National Institute of Oncology and Radiobiology in Havana cannot use

radioactive isotope plaques for the treatment of retinal cancer, also sold exclusively by

companies in the United States.165 Due to that fact, patients suffering from that condition have

to have their eyes removed instead of getting the right treatment to rescue the carcinal eye.

Additionally, Cuba finds itself in the position of being unable to acquire optical coherence

tomography (OCT), which allows for the study of the retina and optic nerve.166 Marketed by

the German company Carl Zeiss, it cannot be sold to Cuba because it contains American-

made component parts.167 And these examples are not exceptions to the rule, much more

access to treatment and medicine is denied to Cubans due to the embargo.

The most horrific effects are on children. Cuban children are unable to benefit from the

Amplatzer device, manufactured in the United States and used to prevent organ rejection

during surgical operations and provides for the percutaneous closure of atrial septal defects,

thereby avoiding open heart surgery.168 In the same way, Cuban children do not have access

to the drug Sevofluorane, the most advanced general anesthetic inhaler, necessary for surgical

operations, because the U.S. multinational Abbot has a monopoly.169 “Anyhow, the good

thing is that medicine and medical treatment are free. We are very proud of that fact as we

know that this is not the case in other countries around us. For example there are many people

coming from other Caribbean islands as, for example, St. Lucia to get good medical 163 Lamrani, Salim (2013): The Economic War Against Cuba. A Historical and Legal Perspective on the U.S. Blockade. Monthly Review Press, New York. P.46. 164 ibid. 165 ibid. 166 ibid. P.47. 167 ibid. 168 ibid. 169 De la Osa, José (2011): Impide Estados Unidos a Cuba compra de anestésicos para ninos. In: Granma, May 3rd 2011.

59

treatments here in Cuba. And, what I like the most and I am not sure if this is similar to other

countries or your country, but here the doctors are like family. Our doctor comes to us every

once in a while to visit my elderly parents. They drink a cup of water or juice and maybe even

eat a little snack and the she examines them properly, asking them about their general well-

being, not just strictly medical. My parents are very delighted every time our doctor visits us

because they trust her and they feel as if she really can help them in every situation. So yes, of

course, I am angry when I hear things like ‘restriction of medical goods and about children

whose eyes have to be removed because of the lack of advanced technology due to the

blockade’ but on the other hand, this is Cuba. Our hands are tied, but we make the best of it.

That’s what our doctor always says,” the Cuban language teacher, Rita, explained during the

interview.

But then again, the sanctions on the cost of health care do cross a certain line of “against

humanity” when reads things like following: on June 4th, 2004, the Office of Foreign Assets

Control (OFAC), an agency of the Treasury Department, sanctioned the pharmaceutical

company Chiron Corporation with a fine of $168,500 for exporting vaccines for children to

Cuba through one of its European subsidiaries, even though it had been licensed to do so by

UNICEF.170 Also in 2004, the Purolite Company of Philadelphia was fined $260,000 for

having sold ion exchange resins to Cuba, used for water purification.171 The organization

Amnesty International reported on this matter in its report of May 13th, 2011, which read as

follows:

According to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), treatments for children

and youth suffering from bone cancer and victims of cancer of the retina were not

available because they were under U.S. patent. The embargo also compromised the

supply of antiretroviral drugs for children suffering from HIV AIDS. Under the terms of

the embargo, medicines and medical equipment manufactured under a U.S. patent

cannot be sold to the Cuban government.172

Dr. Ivan Muñoz Duthil said regarding this issue: “It never affected me or my family but I

heard neighbors and friends complain about sick relatives who could not get the right 170 U.S. Department of the Treasury (2004): OFAC Civil Penalties Enforcement Information, June 4th, 2004 www.treasury.org/resource-center/sanctions/OFAC-Enforcement/Documents/06042004.pdf. 171 Lamrani, Salim (2013): The Economic War Against Cuba. A Historical and Legal Perspective on the U.S. Blockade. Monthly Review Press, New York. P.48. 172 Amnesty International (2009): “The US Embargo against Cuba: It´s impact on Economic and Social Rights”. http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR25/007/2009/en/5146978b-73f8-47a2-a5bd-f839adf50488/amr250072009eng.pdf,5,6.

60

treatment or medicine due to the U.S. sanctions against our country. It makes me angry to

know that there could be treatment, but because of some – in this regard – stupid

governmental conflict, a person has to suffer. You know that this is just unfair. Horrible and

against human rights I would say. I can’t understand why other countries would just watch

stuff like that happen and not help. I am not saying that my country is better than any other

country, but what I know is that if there is any humanitarian crisis, and if any doctors or

medical stuff is needed, Cuba is always eager to send its doctors to help. There are numerous

examples where that happened. Especially in Africa. So my question is if we can’t import the

necessary technology or medicine, why don’t other countries then help us, and come and get

the sick children, treat them in their own country and bring them back again? We did that

after the Chernobyl accident. Slavic children were flown into Cuba so that we could treat

them because we have very good doctors here. If a country like Cuba, which is severely

restricted, can do such an act of kindness, why can’t, for example, your country help our sick

children? You should maybe talk to your Austrian government.”

Amnesty International notes “the negative impact of the embargo on the economic and social

rights of the Cuban population, affecting in particular the most vulnerable sectors of society...

the restrictions imposed on trade and financing, with their extra-territorial aspects, severely

limit Cuba’s capacity to import medicines, medical equipment and the latest technologies,

some of which are essential for treating life-threatening diseases and maintaining Cuba’s

public health programs.”173 A study by the American Association for World Health (AAWH),

whose honorary president is Jimmy Carter, notes that the penalties “violate the most basic

agreements and international conventions that have been put in place to protect human rights,

including the Charter of the United Nations (Article 5), the Charter of the Organization of

American States (Article 16), and the articles of the Geneva Conventions that regulate the

treatment of civilians in wartime”.174 A “humanitarian catastrophe was averted only because

the Cuban government has maintained” a health system that “is considered uniformly as the

preeminent model of the Third World.”175 During a UN talk in Havana, Ms. Myrta Kaulard,

the UN resident coordinator in Cuba, stated that the embargo and its impacts are basically

against public health. “The restriction of medical supplies and other important necessities are

173 Amnesty International (2009): „The US Embargo against Cuba: It´s impact on Economic and Social Rights“. http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR25/007/2009/en/5146978b-73f8-47a2-a5bd-f839adf50488/amr250072009eng.pdf,5,6. 174 American Association for World Health, „Denial of Food and Medicine: The Impact of the U.S. Embargo on Health and Nutrition in Cuba,“ Interreligious Foundation for Community Organization, March 1997. 175 ibid.

61

simply against human rights. Whether this is completely the United States’ fault or Cuban

government politics is unclear. But for sure, this is what needs to be improved as soon as

possible.” The New England Journal of Medicine published an article saying, that,

The Cuban health care system […] is exceptional for a poor country and represents an

important political accomplishment of the Castro government. Since 1959, Cuba has

invested heavily in health care and now has twice as many physicians per capita as the

United States and health indicators on a par with those in the most developed nations –

despite the U.S. embargo that severely reduces the availability of medications and

medical technology.176

In conclusion, the impact the U.S. embargo against Cuba has had on the island’s ability to

provide healthcare is definitely severe, but nevertheless, Cuba provides excellent health care

to its citizens, and that is remarkable. Moreover, it is not just medical supplies whose entry is

restricted. The embargo also makes it very difficult for tourists visiting Cuba, which has a

direct effect on Cuba’s economy. “When I started working in Cuba, that was with the UN,

there were no tourists. Maybe a few, but basically none. After a while and especially after the

‘special period,’ or, as Cubans call it, ‘el periodo especial’ the Cuban government decided to

‘open up’ for tourists. They knew that they could make some money with tourism. Cuba is a

spectacular Caribbean island, of course, people would like to come and hang out on one of

those beautiful beaches under the palm trees, sipping their Cuba Libre or, as Hemingway

would do, daiquiri,” Dipl. Ing. Ingolf Schütz-Müller explained during the interview. “So the

Cuban government opened up for tourism and money started to flow in; of course, that had

it’s good parts, but also it’s bad parts. Cubans realized, after being isolated for so long, that

people who came to Cuba simply had a higher standard of living.”

According to Dipl. Ing. Ingolf Schütz-Müller, “tourism brought along jealousy, And jealousy

is never a good thing. The Cuban government always protected foreigners and treated them

better, in a case of doubt, than they did their own citizens. Of course that seems unfair, and

the Cubans grew to resent foreigners. On the other hand, it was and still is difficult for

foreigners to even visit the island. For Americans in particular, it’s practically impossible, as

for everyone who holds the American Green Card, because they are governed by the same

law as American citizens when it comes to travel to embargoed countries. The flights to get to 176 Fitzhugh Mullan (2004): „Affirmative Action, Cuba Style“. In: New England Journal of Medicine published December 23rd 2004.

62

the island are complicated and one has to make several stops to reach Cuba. But then again,

that is changing—you just have to watch the news. It seems to be getting better.” The United

States Treasury Department considers any trip to Cuba to be a violation of the sanctions.

Violating the law, as an American citizen, leads to penalties. For example, retired couple

Wally and Barbara Smith were sentenced a fine of $55,000 because they created a website

called Bicycling Cuba, where they shared useful information about the island’s “best bicycle

routes”. The couple also wrote a book about their experience and time spent on the island.

“We think it’s morally wrong to essentially wreck the economy of a country that has done

nothing of substance against our interests for forty years, and poses absolutely no threat to

us.”177 There are countless examples and similar stories to this one. The United States’

government considers any interaction with Cuba to be a violation of the Trading with the

Enemy Act of 1917. Furthermore, issues like that of the Smiths can easily expand to being

considered a “threat to U.S. national security”. Following the ninety-three terrorism

investigations, the Treasury Department imposed a total of $9,425 in fines on defendants.178

On the other hand, it demanded a total of $8 million in fines from American tourists who had

visited the island of Cuba.179

But it is not just the violations of the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917 or terrorism

investigations that lead to trouble when it comes to the United States and Cuba.

Economically, the most complicated aspect of their relationship is the effect of the

extraterritorial applications of the economic sanctions. As mentioned in the previous chapter,

sanctions applied extraterritorially affect citizens of third countries as well. Even though the

United Nations Resolution 2625 of October 24 1970 stipulates that:

No State may use or encourage the use of economic, political or any other type of

measure to coerce another State in order to obtain the subordination of the exercise of

its sovereign rights and to secure advantages of any kind [...] Every State has an

177 Wallace A., Anne (2004): “Retirees Fined for Traveling to Cuba to Research Book”, Associated Press, April 20th. 178 Lamrani, Salim (2013): The Economic War Against Cuba. A Historical and Legal Perspective on the U.S. Blockade. Monthly Review Press, New York. P.54. 179 Baucus, Max (2004): “Baucus Calls Bush Cuba Policy ´Absurd`”, U.S. Senate, May 6th. www.senate.gov/-baucus/Press/04/05/2004506C41.html.

63

inalienable right to choose its political, economic, social and cultural systems, without

interference in any form by another State.180

Moreover, numerous companies and banks have been placed on a blacklist by Washington

because of issues of trading with Cuban material or Cuban currency even though they were

not dealing directly or intentionally with Cuba. On December 3rd, 2004, the Treasury

Department imposed a $200,000 fine on the Santander Bank and Trust, a subsidiary of the

Spanish conglomerate Santander Central Hispano, located in the Bahamas, for having made

remittances to Cuba in dollars.181 “Literally everyone has to watch out when making deals

with Cuba. The American government has eyes everywhere and they seem to know

everything. Of course companies think twice before going into business with Cuban

companies. Usually they don’t make business deals. And I really can understand that, I

wouldn’t risk thousands of dollars for a fine either. But it remains sad... I remain sad because

our economy can’t grow like that. That is another restriction which is killing our international

economic relations. At least those few we have,” Economic specialist Dr. Ricardo Torres said

during a lecture at the University of Havana.

In summary, the effect of the U.S. embargo against Cuba on the island’s economy is truly

unacceptable. “Economic freedom is the driving force of a countries economic development”,

Dr. Torres explained. And yet, economic freedom does not have to be the cause of economic

development. Rather, economic development can be the root of economic freedom. “It is

saving and investment. If those two elements are not in balance, than a country’s economic

development is restricted”, Dr. Torres taught. “If the citizens of a country need to save money

to be able to buy extra food or clothes, then there is just no room to save up money for

something else. People’s priorities depend on their income. If there is none or just little

income, then the priority is to survive, and not to save or invest”, he explained.

A country’s economy is based on various elements, such as: the government’s share of output,

limits to foreign investment, banking restrictions, taxation, tariff rates, wage and price

controls, general business regulations, property rights and the extent of the black market. If

one considers those aspects, one can understand the unbalanced state of Cuba’s economy:

180 UN General Assembly October 24, 1970 in „Résolutions adoptées sur les rapports de la sixiéme commission“, UN, 25th session, 1970; http://www.un.org/french/documents/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/2625percent28XXVpercent29&Lang=F. 181 U.S. Department of the Treasury, „OFAC Civil Penalties Enforcement Information,“ December 3rd 2004; http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/OFAC-Enforcement/Documents/12032004.pdf.

64

Investments are rare and limited, general business regulations are not only regulated by the

government but also by the American sanctions, and therefore, the black market is

flourishing. However, the American embargo against Cuba did not bring this kind of

disbalance alone, since Cuba is under a totalitarian regime and therefore ‘domestically’

restricted. On the other hand, countries of totalitarian regimes or former totalitarian regimes

are not damned to be or stay poor; examples of this include South Korea and Taiwan. Even

though both economies have long been under totalitarian regimes, with non-transparent

control and limited foreign investment, they have both managed to grow their economies

through export. The same applies to Cuba.

The American government claims that it is the Castro regime that is holding back the island’s

economy, and that their laws and regulations are the cause of the recession. “Even though it is

not easy to create something with tied hands, Cuba could still export its goods, such as

tobacco or sugar, then invest more in tourism – improve service, accommodation,

entertainment – and eventually have a stable economy. That is the first step; to have a secure

economy”, Dr. Torres said. So in the end, it is the sanctions’ extraterritorial application that

causes the most trouble. There would be ways to improve Cuba’s economy, despite the Castro

regime restrictions, if only the sanctions were lifted.

65

7.2. THE POLITICAL EFFECTS

An embargo is, first and formally, an economic sanction to target the economy of the

embargoed country. Nevertheless, its impact is felt far beyond the island’s economy. A

country’s political development is rarely unaffected by its economy. Usually, and, as history

has shown, as soon as there are economic difficulties, countries tend to develop a greater

sense of nationality and patriotism. This can be stated as a primary effect of the US-embargo

Cuba’s political landscape: Cubans stick together, even more than before. “The aim of this

terrible sanction’s craziness is to destroy our political system, to overthrow Fidel and Raul,

and to change the political face of the nation. But they will not succeed in doing this—the

people of Cuba love Fidel. They trust Raul, and they would never turn their back against our

leader, without whom we could never be as educated and healthy as we are. Thanks to their

educational system and health system. They [Americans] are wrong in thinking that Cubans

would stop supporting them,” Historian Dra. Olga Rosa González Martín stated during a

lecture at the University of Havana.

In many regards, the U.S. embargo against Cuba represents a caricature of the various

American misapplications of economic sanctions: if the goal is to the end the Castro regime

this policy has not only failed, but has spent half a century doing so.182 If the intent is to

support Cubans in their aspirations for a different political system, the sanctions have failed in

that regard as well, since even the most vocal dissidents in Cuba criticize the embargo.183 In

the face of the ‘smart sanctions’ movement to develop economic tools that target the

leadership rather than the people, the embargo against Cuba represents the opposite pole: it

impacts the Cuban population indiscriminately, affecting everything from family travel, to the

publication of scientific articles by Cuban scholars, to the cost of buying chicken for Cuban

households.184 Since the beginning of the American sanctions against Cuba, the people of

Cuba have trusted Fidel Castro, even though not everyone is a Castro supporter. As in any

other country, there are always sub-movements against certain political decisions or

regulations. Since Cuba is under a totalitarian regime, criticism is even less welcome than in

some other western countries. “But still, the majority of Cubans, especially the elderly, to

182 Gordon, Joy (2012): The U.S. Embargo against Cuba and the Diplomatic Challanges to Extraterritoriality. P.63. http://www.fletcherforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Gordon_36-1.pdf 183 ibid. 184 ibid.

66

whom a lot was given – talking about education in the first place – will always support Fidel,

and now Raul", Dra. Olga Rosa González Martín said during her lecture.

The Cuban American lobby in the United States is one of the strongest groups to force the

maintenance of the sanctions against their own country. The reasons for this are various, but

in general, it is the first generation of Cuban Americans to do so. When Fidel Castro came to

power, he introduced communism to the people of Cuba. Communism in Cuba, as in many

other countries, changed the landscape of civil society, eliminating private businesses,

restricting movement, and taking over private land to make it state property. The only part of

society that profit from of communist policy, at least in some way, is usually the poorest part

of society. This is what has happened in Cuba. Castro’s reforms gave a voice to the poorest

people, but also led to resentment among those whose land and businesses were taken away.

It is not the aim of this thesis to go into detail about what happened after Castro overthrew the

former Batista regime of the 50s, and subsequently changed the political landscape of Cuba,

nor to judge the reasons behind that happening; but, it has to be noted that the methods used

to do so were surely not honorable. Many people were killed, and many people had to flee the

country. Those who fled, fled primarily to the United States, which is how the Cuban

American lobby grew strong, and eventually enforced the sanctioning of Cuba. Nonetheless,

the main goal of the embargo, to bring down the Castro regime, has not just failed, but has

also helped Castro to retain power in his own country:

To this day, there is one communist country toward which American policy has been

unrelentingly hostile. One communist government with which we have never even

attempted détente. One communist country that we invaded without even a fig leaf of an

invitation from a legitimate government. One communist country where we have never

tried the seductive power of capitalism and instead have maintained a total trade

embargo. And now, 20 years after communism collapsed almost every place else, in this

same country, a communist government survives, unreformed and unapologetic. If any

conclusion can be drawn with scientific certainty about any question in the field of

political science [...] it surely is that the United States’ Cuba policy has not worked [...]

And nothing has changed, except that our embargo makes us look more ridiculous and

67

powerless than ever. The small changes President Obama announced this week will

help. But abandoning the embargo as a proven failure would help more.185

Many American politicians and scholars like to criticize Cuba’s political form: communism.

They lay the blame for the lack of Cuban economic development at the feet of the Castro

regime and their form of communism. But if one looks more closely, it’s possible to see that

the first American attempts to control the Castro regime led Fidel into the hands of the Soviet

Union as well as towards communism in its current form. This is an assumption and cannot be

theoretically supported or well documented, therefore this matter will not be explained

further. Nevertheless, it should be mentioned.

185 Kinsley, Michael (2009): “The Cuban Embargo a Proven Failure”. In: Washington Post, April 17, 2009.

68

7.2. THE SOCIAL EFFECTS

The social effects of the U.S. embargo against Cuba have been the most severe. Economical

and political effects form the impact the sanctions have on Cuba’s society. Since the isolation

of the country, Cuban civil society has lived a life far away from the modern western world.

Even though, once in Cuba, one can expect to see the cliché vintage American cars and the

beautifully untouched tropical beaches, it is interesting to experience the surprise one can

have when understanding that the social development of the country is remarkable, despite

being restricted by its tough circumstances.

“During the ‘special period’ everything was gone. We really didn’t have much, and you can

imagine that we never had much, but at that time, we really had almost nothing. And that,

almost, is what makes us special, I think” Prof. Rita Alfonso-Pacheco said during the

interview. “Tough times make you very creative. We had to improvise. And people developed

magnificent talents, they didn’t even know they had. Recycling was the way to go. Before

throwing away anything, we always first thought of a way to reuse it. It really was not a

happy time, but I was very happy every time I could invent something new. Make a toy for

my daughter out of an old can, for example”, the teacher explained. “Moreover, I think that

this is what makes us unique. We had to go through so many tough times, through Batista’s

regime, through the fall of the Soviet Union which lead to ‘the special period,’ and ultimately

we have gone through 50 years of total blockade. Name a country that can survive that! If

somebody can, then Cuba can. Not to say that this is not very unfair, and I really do not

understand why this is happening to this country, as if we have done something horrible and

now we are being punished for decades”, Prof. Alfonso-Pacheco said.

What is notable in Cuba is the kindness and friendliness of the people. One could expect a lot

of anger, and therefore increased crime, due to people’s suffering, but that is not the case at

all. It is a very secure country, and people are very generous, even with the little that they

have. “The low crime rate is great for tourism. People feel safe when they arrive in Cuba,

despite the bad propaganda some American media spreads. But a very big shift tourism

brought along is that even though the government has its focus on educating their people very

well, to have really good doctors, lawyers, teachers, and so on, a lot of those highly qualified

people now drive taxis or bicycles instead, and make more money that way than they would

working for the government”, Dipl. Ing. Ingolf Schütz-Müller said during the interview. “This

is actually the only legal way to make a decent living. Cubans focus on tourism, because

69

tourists bring money into the country. If they have a spare room, they will rent it to tourists as

a ‘casa particular’ and if they have a car in stable condition – even though ‘stable condition’

in Cuba really is not comparable to European standards – they will offer sightseeing to people

who are willing to pay for it,” he explained.

Therefore, one can state that another impact of the embargo is that peoples focus on tourism

and neglect the profession they trained for. If the embargo were to be lifted, and the general

economic standard were to rise through export, import and trade, people’s focus would go

back to their trained profession. “People here are very focused on making money. Even

though we have communism, and everybody should have the same and not desire to have

more than their neighbor, they still do. That is the problem and that is the impact of the United

States’ capitalism. The Castro’s did not fight all those years to have their people wanting the

same as everybody else: money. If there were no blockade, and we could have normal trade

relations with other countries, our economy would flourish, and everybody would have

enough. They would be happy with their education and free medicine and would not want

more. Then our communist government would be satisfied as well as the people. But like this,

it is impossible for us to be happy when tourists are constantly reminding us of the things we

do not have and really can’t have”, a taxi driver in Havana explained during a taxi ride from

the University of Havana to Havana Vieja.

Tourism not only brought along positive changes, such as legal business possibilities, it also

brought along sex tourism, which has had a negative impact on Cuba’s HIV rate, low

compared to neighboring countries, though in danger of rising higher due to tourism. Amiable

and attractive Cubans have learned that they can leave their poverty behind by flirting with,

dancing with, and talking with visitors who become their companions and lovers.186 This has

resulted in Cuba’s two economies: one for people who earn $20 a month, and another for the

companions of tourists, who spend more on a single meal or bed than those who are not

connected to the tourist economy spend in a month.187

Even though the Cuban government provides free housing for its citizens, so that no one has

to sleep on the street, the country is too poor to be able to maintain those houses and streets.

The facades of houses are falling down, making it dangerous to visit some of Havana’s

186 Jourdane, Maurice (2015): “Effect of Cuban Embargo”. In: The Huffington Post. May 5th, 2015. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/maurice-jourdane/effect-of-cuban-embargo_b_7201274.html 187 ibid.

70

neighborhoods. Cubans call these poor conditions ‘antiguo’, emphasizing it as if it were

‘special and old’ and not just simply desolate. Moreover, this is a perfect example of the

general Cuban mentality. Cubans tend to ‘overlook’ problems and focus more on the positive

side of things. “Due to the blockade, and having really nothing, we simply learned to be very

happy with the things we have. I always told my daughter to focus on the things that make her

happy and not on the things she doesn’t have or isn’t even able to have,” Prof. Alfonso-

Pacheco explained.

To sum up, the social impact of the embargo is influenced by the economic and political

effects of the U.S. sanctions. On the one hand, Cuba’s health care system has been restricted,

since proper medicine and treatment technology cannot be imported into the country. The

consequences of this are borne by the population. On the other hand, due to America’s rather

aggressive approach to changing the Cuban governmental system by sanctioning the country

for years and years, it has only added fuel to the fire instead of enabling normal international

trade relations, and therefore, has hindered the a possibility of the society developing into a

democracy. Moreover, due to the embargo, the only way to increase income is to focus on

tourism. Even though tourism has its positive aspects, as Cubans get in touch with foreigners

and are able to profit from that in many ways, it also has a very negative downside: the

development of two very different economies based on two different currencies CUC (the

money tourists use) and CUP (the money Cubans use). A two-class system is therefore

evident. In conclusion, the American policy on Cuba has had a real and very negative impact

on the daily life of Cuban citizens.

71

8. THE UNITED NATIONS ON THE U.S. EMBARGO AGAINST CUBA

In 2015, the United Nations General Assembly voted for the 24th year for the lifting of the

United States embargo against Cuba. The British newspaper The Guardian commented on

that happening as follows:

The resolution was adopted by the 193-member General Assembly with 191 votes in

favor. Israel joined its ally the United States in voting no […] When it first passed in

1992, it received 59 yes votes, three votes against and 71 countries abstained. The shift

to a near-unanimous vote in favor shows the widespread disapproval of the US embargo

on Cuba […] Cuba’s foreign minister, Bruno Rodríguez, told the General Assembly on

Tuesday that the embargo is “a flagrant, massive and systematic violation of the human

rights of all Cubans”.188

In its sixty-ninth session, the General Assembly voted on Resolution 68/8 entitled “Necessity

of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of

America against Cuba”. The most important as well as most interesting reactions of United

Nations organs to the subject matter are explained below:

Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean:

Effects of the United States embargo: The current situation

The Cuban economy has been subject to severe financial constraints derived from the

2009-2010 crisis and has been affected by the increase in the international prices of

foods that the country largely imports. The embargo on Cuba that the United States has

maintained since 1962, together with the inclusion, as of 1982, of this Caribbean State

on the list drawn up by the United States of countries sponsoring terrorism seriously

impair the economic development of the island and inflict grave harm on the Cuban

population. Currently, the embargo is significantly curtailing the positive effects of

measures recently implemented in Cuba in connection with its economic and social

policy guidelines and the updating of its economic model, which the Government has

188 Reuters (2015): “UN Condemns Cuba Embargo for 24th consecutive year” September 27th in: The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/27/un-condemns-cuba-embargo-for-24th-consecutive-year

72

revived with a view to putting Cuba on a path of robust growth in a globalized

context.189

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations:

Overall, the embargo has very negative implications for Cuba’s balance of trade and

foreign exchange earnings, as well as for the country’s supply of food and agriculture

products. The embargo affects the import of food products for human consumption, in

particular those destined to meet the needs of social programs, as restrictions limit their

quantity and quality and thus having a direct effect on the food security of the

vulnerable segments of the population. The overall economic damage in the agricultural

sector between June 2013 and May 2014 is estimated to be $307,367,200.190

Office of the Resident Coordinator of the United Nations system for operational activities for

development, Cuba:

The efforts of the United Nations contribute to people-centered development strategies

that seek to improve both the population’s quality of life and economic performance in

a sustainable manner. In this context, the embargo has a pervasive impact on the social,

economic and environmental dimensions of human development in Cuba, affecting the

most vulnerable socioeconomic groups of the Cuban population in particular. The

United Nations system in-country can rarely benefit from global United Nations

corporate contracts with United States companies for the purchase of equipment and

services, such as computers, software licenses and Internet services. Therefore,

providers must be exclusively identified for these offices, entailing higher prices and

administrative costs. Consequently, financial resources that could have been used to

more effectively achieve the expected program and development results are required to

cover additional costs incurred as a result of embargo conditions. Humanitarian

assistance is also limited by these restrictions, even if the humanitarian supplies, such as

189 United Nations General Assembly (2015): United Nations Resolution 68/8 „ Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba” adopted on September 27th 2015. http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/69/98 P. 107. 190 ibid. P.111.

73

medicines, medical equipment and food, are purchased through multilateral

cooperation.191

World Health Organization/Pan American Health Organization:

The negative effects of the embargo, in the area of health, are multiplied by their impact

on the cost and availability of products used on a daily basis and on the provision of

basic social services, thereby lowering the population’s standard of living. The

restrictions imposed by the embargo have been exacerbated by the current global

economic crisis, which has also hit Cuba. Public health is also indirectly impaired by

the obstacles to investment in infrastructure: housing, roads, water and sanitation. It is

more directly impacted by the dearth of resources needed to counter epidemiological

threats. The embargo impairs direct care for persons of all ages and both sexes through

its impact on the institutions in the single health care system, research, epidemiological

surveillance and disease control.192

Thus, it can be seen that the majority of the nations’ delegations that attended the voting for

Resolution 68/8 voted in favor of the lifting of the embargo. Furthermore, the United Nation

organs stressed that the embargo should be lifted on behalf of the Cuban people, who are

severely restricted by its effects, as mentioned above.

191 United Nations General Assembly (2015): United Nations Resolution 68/8 „ Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba” adopted on September 27th 2015. P.120. http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/69/98 192 ibid. P. 140.

74

9. THE EUROPEAN UNION ON THE U.S. EMBARGO AGAINST CUBA

In general, the European Union considers the issue of the United States embargo against Cuba

to be bilateral and therefore, referring to international law, other governments should not be

involved. The problem the European Union sees is the extraterritorial aspect of the United

States sanctions against Cuba as the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992 (Torricelli-Act) as well as

the Helms-Burton-Act of 1996, because of the impact it has on third party involvement. The

speaker of the European Union Delegation to the United Nations, noted at the United Nations

General Assembly that:

While recognizing the decision by the US Government to lift restrictions on remittances

and family travel to Cuba, we cannot accept that unilaterally imposed measures impede

our economic and commercial relations with Cuba… The European Union believes,

therefore, that the lifting of the US embargo would open the Cuban economy to the

benefit of the Cuban people. We again express our rejection of all unilateral measures

directed against Cuba that are contrary to commonly accepted rules of international

trade. 193

Moreover, EU representatives and foreign ministers are eager to maintain the established

diplomatic relation between the European Union and Cuba. The Delegation of the European

Union to Cuba has resided in Havana since 2008 and actively contributes to international

projects as food and security, health and education. Furthermore, the European Union is one

of Cuba’s most important export partners, after Venezuela. Cuba exports fuel, tobacco and

sugar to the European Union. Additionally, Cuba participates in EU regional programs for

Latin America, including, among other things, the Erasmus+ program, to enable student

exchange for higher education.

193 EU Statement – United Nations General Assembly September 27th 2015: US Embargo against Cuba. http://eu-un.europa.eu/eu-statement-united-nations-general-assembly-us-embargo-against-cuba/

75

10. STATEMENTS REGARDING THE U.S. EMBARGO AGAINST CUBA

FROM CUBA’S ALLIES

VENEZUELA

The U.S. embargo against Cuba does not only affect Cuba. It is also stands in the way of

economic relations between Cuba and other Latin American countries. Therefore, the Latin

American community is very eager for the United States to lift its sanction against the

Caribbean island. It is no secret that Venezuela and Cuba have very close ties. Under the rule

of Hugo Chavez,* the Venezuelan government supported Cuba with oil, while Cuba supported

Venezuela with medical care, sending its doctors to Venezuela. Both leaders, Castro and

Chavez were very much against the northern American empire. After an economic crash in

Venezuela, the new president, Maduro,* has accused the American government of trying to

destabilize the Venezuelan economy. More than ever, the Venezuelan government is very

much in support of lifting the U.S. sanctions against Cuba, and sees itself even more as an ally

to Cuba, when it comes to both countries’ relationship to the United States. Furthermore,

since American President Barack Obama visited Cuba in Havana in March 2016, and the

relationship between the two presidents, and therefore between the two governments, seems

to be improving, the Venezuelan government is hoping for improved relations as well. From

the point of view of the public eye, the Venezuelan people do not really welcome those new-

found-ties between Cuba and the United States, since the public prefers the cohesion of Latin

American states, and fears that if Cuba has good relations to the US in the future it might

harm the Latin American community.

In politics, love is not forever and neither is hate, and this applies to international

relations too. Many people say that they aren’t allies without common interest. From

this way I think the government of Cuba is doing its best for their people to get closer to

the US.194

* Hugo Chavez: former Venezuelian president (1999 – 2013) * Nicolas Maduro: current Venezuelian president (2013 -) 194 Evans, Nicmer (2016): “Venezuela keeps close eyes on Cuba – US ties”. CNN interview. Aired on 21st of March 2016 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4DU69GhIJQ - 23rd of October 2016

76

In conclusion, even though Venezuela, as a close Cuban ally, is eager for the US to lift its

sanctions against Cuba, it may have to adapt its policies to new political developments.

BRAZIL

Brazil is one of the most important trading partners for Cuba. Cuba exports raw sugar, rolled

tobacco, hard liquor, and raw nickel, among other things, to Brazil. The Brazilian government

has committed huge taxpayer funds – in loans, subsidies, and direct humanitarian assistance –

to support infrastructure projects, food exports, and other initiatives in, of, and for Cuba.195

Moreover, for a long time, Brazil was one of Cuba’s main sources of hard currency. After

President Rousseff left office, the seemingly limitless flow of money from Brazil to Cuba

came to an end. However, exports from Cuba to Brazil, as well as the general support of the

Brazilian government did not end. Brazil's government says it paid Cuba more than $500

million for doctors’ services in 2015, and another $100 million went to the doctors

themselves.196 In 2008, Brazil opened a APEX* office in Havana. This is a sign of economic

cooperation from Brazil towards Cuba. Furthermore, Brazil is very eager to invest in Cuba’s

Mariel Port. It could become a very important station for sea traffic between the Americas and

Europe.

For Brazil, the port funding is an investment in the nation's quest to be Cuba's No. 1

partner, as a former foreign minister put it, and to establish itself as an alternative to

Venezuela, which has cultivated a special relationship with Cuba … “It was extremely

criticized during the election campaign, but the Mariel port has shown today just how

important it is for the whole region and for Brazil,” Rousseff said after the

announcement was made. “It's strategic due to its closeness to the United States.”197

Of course, Brazil’s investments in Cuba are very much a benefit for the Brazilian government

itself. They have contributed to the Brazilian surplus, and laid the groundwork for better

access to the American market in the future. Therefore, the Brazilian government stresses the

195 Werlau, Maria C. (2014): “Must Read: Are Cuba and Brazil Partners in Human Trafficking?” Capitol Hill Cubans, October 24th. http://www.capitolhillcubans.com/2014/10/must-read-are-cuba-and-brazil-partners.html 196 Frank, Mark; Boadle, Anthony (2016): “Rousseff´s fall Brazil casts cloud in Cuba”, Reuters, May 12th. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-cuba-brazil-idUSKCN0Y32T7 * A Brazilian agency for the promotion of exports and investments 197 Wilkinson, Tracy (2015): “In funding Cuba port project, Brazil set to grain key foothold”, February 17th. http://www.latimes.com/world/brazil/la-fg-ff-cuba-mariel-20150217-story.html

77

importance of lifting the United States’ sanctions against Cuba, and hopes for a huge

economic benefit for its ally, as well as for its own economic growth.

78

11. PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA’S POLICY ON CUBA

It is no secret that since president Barack Obama came into office in 2008, he set his sight on

Cuba in order to ease political relations between the United States and Cuba, and to lifting the

embargo against the Caribbean island:

Decades of U.S. isolation of Cuba have failed to accomplish our objective of

empowering Cubans to build an open and democratic country. At times,

longstanding U.S. policy towards Cuba has isolated the United States from

regional and international partners, constrained our ability to influence outcomes

throughout the Western Hemisphere, and impaired the use of the full range of

tools available to the United States to promote positive change in Cuba. Though

this policy has been rooted in the best of intentions, it has had little effect – today,

as in 1961, Cuba is governed by the Castros and the Communist party. We cannot

keep doing the same thing and expect a different result. It does not serve

America’s interests, or the Cuban people, to try to push Cuba toward collapse. We

know from hard-learned experience that it is better to encourage and support

reform than to impose policies that will render a country a failed state. We should

not allow U.S. sanctions to add to the burden of Cuban citizens we seek to help.198

In addition to admitting that the United States policy towards Cuba has failed, the American

president set clear steps towards a better relationship between the two countries. Obama is the

first American president to accomplish set goals regarding Cuba since the sanctioning started

in 60s. In the meantime, the American embassy in Havana has re-opened, and several bilateral

meetings between the two presidents have been held. Direct flights from the United States to

Cuba have been approved. While a ban on tourism to Cuba remains U.S. law, President

Barack Obama has authorized exceptions.199 Citizens that meet one of 12 criteria, such as

visiting for unspecified educational purposes, can now visit Cuba.200 Unfortunately, the

American congress remains the only government body that can lift all sanctions against Cuba.

198 White House (2016): “Charting a new course on Cuba”. https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/foreign-policy/cuba 199 Mason, Jeff; Dastin, Jeffery (2016): „U.S. awards direct flights to Havana. American Air gets most“ Reuters, July 7th. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cuba-idUSKCN0ZN1EF

200 ibid.

79

Obama keeps working hard to convince congress to understand the failed policy towards

Cuba and to change its way of looking at the problem.

80

12. CONCLUSION

“It’s not all just rum and cigars” The effects of the U.S. Embargo against Cuba

It is one of the most discussed American foreign policies towards another country. It is a

series of one of the most severe sanctions against another country. It is one of the longest

embargoes ever held against a country. It is not fair, not politically smart, and definitely not

successful: it is the U.S. embargo against Cuba.

After a year of research, having read articles and books, opinions and analyses about the

American policy towards that extraordinary Caribbean island; after being excited every time,

Obama announced news regarding Cuba or after seeing improvements between the two

countries live on television; after visiting Cuba and staying there for a month to experience

it’s magic hands-on while doing field research; after talking to experts, teachers, regular

people, and everybody else I could possibly ask about their opinion and experience; after

listening to a vast number of fascinating stories about the revolution, the special period of life

under the Castro regime and life under the embargo from various different point of views;

after digesting all that information, sifting and sorting and picking the most important parts in

order to be able to focus on ‘just’ the effects of the embargo, I am finally about to finish my

research with this conclusion.

My thesis began with a description of all of the necessary steps for a fruitful analysis of the

subject matter, in order to be able to answer the following research questions:

• What are the effects of the U.S. embargo against Cuba?

• Has the U.S. embargo been successful?

For this purpose, the chosen method is qualitative document analysis, in addition to expert

interviews. Understanding multiple positions, outlooks, and opinions from different angles is

what makes a research project unique, interesting, and of high quality. That is exactly what

lays the groundwork for this investigation.

81

In search of a suitable theoretical background, I chose structural realism according to

Kenneth Waltz. It refers to the belief that the structure of the international system is the

driving force behind states behaving aggressively. It is the cause of states engaging in security

competition. Due to the fact that the U.S. sanction against Cuba began during the Cold War,

during which Cuba had established close ties with the Soviet Union, this relationship is one

plausible theoretical explanation for the United States embargo against Cuba. Furthermore, I

chose to engage with an additional theoretical approach since structural realism explains the

motives behind the embargo, but does not provide the right theoretical framework for the

embargo itself. Joseph Nye’s definition of the term “power” in the form of hard, soft, and

smart power, as well as the theory of the power of sanctions, perfectly explained what I was

looking for, and is therefore included in the theoretical structure of this thesis.

Moreover, I also engaged with legal aspects of the U.S. embargo against Cuba and focused on

its extraterritorial jurisdiction. After establishing the right foundation to enable an

understanding of the possible reasons for the power and the outcomes of the sanctions, I

explained the severe effects the U.S. embargo has had on Cuba, on the economic, political,

and social levels. To support that analysis, I enclosed brief descriptions of reactions from

various international organizations, other states, and important allies to Cuba.

82

What are the effects of the U.S. embargo against Cuba?

The effects of the U.S. embargo against Cuba literally stretch from anything to everything. Its

effects on the public and the private sector, on health and education, on development in every

aspect, are severe. One may argue that the American policy can’t be blamed for everything

that is wrong or bad in Cuba. However, the American policy has really left irreparable traces

in Havana. The extraterritoriality of the embargo clearly makes trade with other countries

nearly impossible. If the economy of a country suffers, there is no way to avoid the citizens

suffering too. On a daily basis, Cubans experience a completely different kind of suffering

than other people of the western world - who just read about recessions and tough times - can

even imagine. I am not saying that there are no economic problems within first-world

countries, nor that there is no poverty or need to help, but there is a difference between cases

where there is the possibility of improvement or not.

In the western world, one is able to move freely, to express oneself freely, and to strive to

achieve every possibility. Everything is possible, simply because there is freedom. When one

talks to Cubans and really tries to understand their message, the sadness in their eyes is

undeniable. I witnessed a very unique mix of pride, anger, frustration, and sturdiness. Cuban

people love their country and are very proud of their leader, who gave them free education,

and who made it possible for families to rise from modest, uneducated and working class to

reputable doctors within three generations. Cubans are very proud of their cultural

background, always emphasizing their mixed races and openness to every religion and sexual

orientation. These characteristics are remarkable in every way.

On the other hand, however, Cubans were always stumped for an answer when I asked the

question: “who is responsible for your limitations?” First, they would always say “the United

States, embargoing us” but, in almost the same breath, they would express their desire to

move to Miami where “everything is much better”. The same would happen when asked

about the Castro regime. Moreover, Cubans claim to be very friendly, open, and honest; and I

am sure that the majority is—among themselves. Experiencing Cuba as a foreigner is very

different. Kindness, openness, and honesty need to be ‘bought’ with a few CUC. Jealousy and

resentment often stand in the way of friendships between Cubans and their foreign guests, and

even though Cubans are not to blame for simply being human and having needs and wants,

that behavior is a clear effect of the failed American policy against Cuba.

83

Shutting a country off for more than 50 years does have its effects, and those effects go deep.

Again, this is not to say that the Castro regime has not done its part in leading the situation to

where it is now, but sanctioning Cuba until the “bitter end” is not helping either. The effects

of the U.S. embargo against Cuba have left that country beyond repair, and Cubans have been

left traumatized.

During my time in Cuba, I also experienced a surprisingly positive effect of the embargo.

Since the country has not been able to fully participate in the western, materialistic, fame-

driven, celebrity-obsessed social development, focusing on consumption and physical

appearance, the women in Cuba were the most self-confident women I have ever met. There

are no billboards featuring women in swimwear, no advertisements for anti-age creams, no

vegan-smoothie-enthusiasm, and finally, there is simply no comparison of average women

with unrealistic or impossible beauty standards in the form of ideal weights or appearances.

Even though this is changing, due to the fact that the Internet is now accessible to most of

Cuba’s citizens, and that Cuba’s social development is catching up with that of its neighbors,

it is still remarkable to experience a world where every woman is beautiful and desirable just

as she is.

84

Has the U.S. Embargo been successful?

The U.S. embargo against Cuba has failed miserably. The initial goal of the sanctions was to

bring down the Castro regime in Cuba. This never happened. The Castros are still ruling,

quite successfully, to this day. Some Americans argue that once the sanctions against Cuba

are lifted, loans and grants will be expected, and that this would be against their desire not to

support the Castro regime. The United States does not have to support or approve of the

Cuban government, especially since Cuba is a sovereign country, but, from a human rights

perspective, it should simply help the country’s people and give them a chance to develop and

grow. Political issues should be dealt with between governments, and not spread onto the

street.

This research is important in order to raise awareness of the harm political decisions can

cause to civilians. Politics, in theory, seem reasonable and understandable. Political decisions,

when based on theories, seem justifiable. But theory and real politics are birds of two

different colors. The result of embargoing a country for half a century in order to demonstrate

power - with the intention of overthrowing the government of that same sovereign country -

is the suffering of the civilian population. Again, in theory, that effect is mostly described as a

possible side effect, when in reality it is the worst outcome for a country’s population.

Further research on this subject matter is definitely required, especially since the U.S.

embargo against Cuba is the longest standing embargo ever held against a country. Even

though there are several books and articles which address the economic and political facts,

there is much left to be said when it comes to the social effects of the U.S. embargo against

Cuba. It is hard to get the measure of the social suffering due to the embargo, and, in my

opinion, this issue needs much more attention since it is Cuba’s society which has to develop

in order for the country to prosper.

The process of conducting this research has been full of expectations, surprises, wonderful

encounters and great conversations. It broadened my perspective in every way. Especially as a

political scientist, I learned to understand the depth of policies, opinion, and democracy.

Additionally, I learned to understand that education is undoubtedly the answer to almost

everything. When it comes to Cuba, as stated, it’s not all just rum and cigars.

85

86

13. BIBLIOGRAPHY

LITERATURE

• Baldwin, A. David (1985): Economic Statecraft. Princeton University Press.

• Beyer, Cornelia (2011): Hegemony, Equilibrium and Counterpower – a synthetic approach. Published in: Realism and World Politics – edited by Ken Booth.

• Blechman; Kaplan (1978): Force Without War. Brookings Institution, Washington

DC.

• Brown; Ainley (2005): Understanding International Relations. Third Edition. Palgrave

Macmillan.

• Cline, Ray S. (1977): World Power Assessment. Boulder, CO, Westview Press.

• Colangelo, Anthony J. (2012): Spatial Legality. Published in: Northwestern

University Law Review. Vol.107, No.1.

• Deudney, Daniel (2011): Anarchy and Violence Interdependence. Published in:

Realism and World Politics – edited by Ken Booth.

• Doebbler, Curtis F. (2007): The Principle of Non-Discrimination in International

Law. CD Publishing.

• Gottemoeller, Rose (2007): The Evolution of Sanctions in Practice and Theory.

Published in; Survival 49, no.4.

• Korab-Karpowicz, Julian (2013): Political Realism in International Relations.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

• Lamrani, Salim (2013): The Economic War Against Cuba. A Historical and Legal

Perspective on the U.S. Blockade. Monthly Review Press, New York.

• Law, John (2009): Seeing like a survey. Cultural Sociology, 3 (2).

• Molina Garcia, Jesus M. (2005): La economia cubana desde el siglo XVI al XX. Del

colonialismo al socialismo con mercado. Published in: Comision Economica Para

America Latina y el Caribe, Feb.2005.

• Neuss, Jobst Joachim (1989): Handelsembargo zwischen Völkerrecht und IPR,

München.

• Nye, Jospeh (2011): The Future of Power. PublicAffairs, New York. • Nye, Jospeh (2015): Is the American Century over? Polity Press.

• Paul; Clarke; Grill (2010): Victory Has a Thousand Fathers: Sources of Success in

Counterinsurgency. RAND/ National Defense Research Institute. Washington, DC.

87

• Perez; Ponce Suarez (2006): Incidencias del bloqueo del gobierno de los Estados

Unidos en las bibliotecas cubanas: 2001-2005. Jose Marti Library.

• Ress, Hans-Konrad (1999): Das Handelsembargo. Völker-, europa- und außenwirtschaftliche Rahmenbedinungen, Praxis und Entschädigung. Heidelberg.

• Slaughter, Anne-Marie (2011): International Relations, Principal Theories. Published in: Wolfrum, R. (Ed.) Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Oxford University Press.

• Sprankling, John G. (2014): The International Law of Property. Oxford University

Press.

• Tannenwald, Nina (2005): Stigmatizing the Bomb: Origins of the Nuclear Taboo.

Published in: International Security 29, no. 4.

• White, Nigel D. (2015): The Cuban Embargo under International Law. El Bloqueo.

Routledge, New York.

• Williams, Micheal C. (2011): The politics of theory: Waltz, realism and democracy.

Published in: Realism and World Politics by Ken Booth.

ONLINE SOURCES

• https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/1/issue/1/enforcing-international-law - accessed on 14/03/2016

• http://www.britannica.com/topic/embargo-international-law - accessed on 14/03/2016

• http://www.cafc.gov/documents/organization/68166.pdf. - accessed on 15/02/2016 • http://www.capitolhillcubans.com/2014/10/must-read-are-cuba-and-brazil-

partners.html - accessed on 23/10/2016

• http://www.cfr.org/cuba/us-cuba-relations/p11113 - accessed on 20/09/2016 • http://www.cidh.oas.org/Basicos/French/q.Chartepercent20OEA.htm - accessed on

15/02/2016 • http://www.cubavsbloqueo.cu/Default.aspx?tabid=68. - accessed on 12/02/2016 • http://www.distancefromto.net - accessed on 23/03/2016 • http://www.fletcherforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Gordon_36-1.pdf • http://gsi.nist.gov/global/docs/Omnibus.pdf - accessed on 15/02/2016 • http://www.infoplease.com/country/cuba.html - accessed on 24/01/2016

• http://www.latimes.com/world/brazil/la-fg-ff-cuba-mariel-20150217-story.html -

accessed on 23/10/2016

• http://www.lonelyplanet.com/cuba/things-to-do/cuba-s-architectural-highlights-

accessed on 24/01/2016

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4DU69GhIJQ - accessed on 23/10/2016

• http://nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/R40089.pdf - accessed on 12/02/2016

88

• http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=58824#axzz1PMB9WbnC - accessed on 12/02/2016

• http://www.reuters.com/article/us-cuba-brazil-idUSKCN0Y32T7 - accessed on 23/10/2016

• http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cuba-idUSKCN0ZN1EF - accessed on 23/10/2016

• www.senate.gov/-baucus/Press/04/05/2004506C41.html. • www.state.gov/t/pm/rls/rm/128752.htm - accessed on 12/05/2016 • http://www.state.gov/www/regions/wha/cuba/democ_act_1992.html - accessed on

14/05/2016 • http://www.thefreedictionary.com/elite - accessed on 23/04/2016 • https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/12/17/statement-president-cuba-

policy-changes - accessed on 15/02/2016 DICTIONARY

• Blockade – Miriam Webster Dictionary 2015 • Boykott – Oxford Dictionary 2015

• Embargo - Oxford Dictionary 2015 • Jurisdiction – Oxford Dictionary 2015

• Sanction – Oxford Dictionary 2015

NEWS PAPER ARTICLES

• Associated Press, April 20, 2004.

• El Pais, February 24, 2004. • Financial Times, May 10, 2004. • Granma, May 3, 2011.

• International Herald Tribune, January 9, 2005. • New England Journal of Medicine, December 23, 2004. • New York Times, May 11, 1977.

• New York Times, June 3, 1977. • New York Times, July 15, 1992. • Sunday Times, May 23, 2010. • The Guardian, October 27, 2015

• The Huffington Post, May 5, 2015.

• Washington Post, April 17, 2009.

89

OTHER SOURCES

• American Association for World Health (1997): “Denial of Food and Medicine:

The Impact of the U.S. Embargo on Health and Nutrition in Cuba”.

• Amnesty International (2009): “The US Embargo against Cuba: It’s impact on Economic and Social Rights”.

• Central Intelligence Agency (1998): NSC Briefing: Cuba January 6 1959, «Freedom

of Information Act case no.CSI-1998-00005».

• EU Statement (2015): United Nations General Assembly “US Embargo against Cuba“.

• UN General Assembly (1970) : “Résolutions adoptées sur les rapports de la sixiéme commission“, UN, 25th session.

• UN Resolution (1970): “2625 (XXV) Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among states in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations“.

• United Nations Resolution 68/8 (2014) “ Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba”.

• U.S. Department of the Treasury (2004): “OFAC Civil Penalties Enforcement Information“.

• U.S. Department of the Treasury (2004): “OFAC Civil Penalties Enforcement Information“.

90

91

Abstract

“It`s not all just rum and cigars“

The effects of the U.S. Embargo against Cuba

Having visited Cuba in April, 2015, just a few months after United States President Barack

Obama and Cuban President Raul Castro decided to re-establish diplomatic relations, which

lead to the removal of Cuba from the list of countries that support terrorism, I decided that I

wanted to engage further with the effects of that famous embargo and explore the actual

consequences that Cuban people have to live with on a daily basis.

This thesis is based on field research and document analysis. The theoretical framework

includes, structural realism after Kenneth Waltz as well as the definition of power after

Joseph Nye. This research is important to raise awareness of the harm political decisions can

cause to civilians. I concluded, that the effects of the American policy against Cuba stretch

from anything to everything and have a tremendous effect on Cubas economic, political and

social level.

92

Abstract in German

“It’s not all just rum and cigars“

The Auswirkungen des U.S. Embargos gegen Kuba

Nur einige Monate nachdem der Amerikanische Präsident Barack Obama verkündete, Kuba

von der Liste der Terrorismus unterstützdenden Staaten zu streichen und eine diplomatische

Beziehung wiederherzustellen, reiste ich im April 2015 nach Kuba. Ich entschied mich, mich

mehr mit den Auswirkungen der U.S. Amerikanischen Sanktionen zu beschäftigen und die

Folgen für das tägliche Leben der Kubaner zu erforschen. Das benötigte Material wurde durch

Feldarbeit und Dokumentanalyse gesammelt. Diese Arbeit beruht auf der theoretischen

Grundlage des strukturellen Realismus nach Kenneth Waltz, sowie der Definition von Macht

nach Joseph Nye. Die Relevanz dieser Untersuchung liegt in der Beschäftigung mit den

Auswirkungen von politischen Entscheidungen auf die Zivilbevölkerung. Ich habe

festgestellt, dass die Auswirkungen des U.S. Embargos gegen Kuba sich in allen Facetten

wiederspiegeln und heftige Folgen im Bereich der Wirtschafts-, Politik- und

Sozialentwicklung haben.