PREPARED FOR THE CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

Ending the Cuban Embargo:

A New Policy for a New Administration

Eli Glazier, Evan Kalikow and Laura Ross

12/14/2009

Table of Contents:

Executive Summary..................................................................................................3History of the Embargo..............................................................................................4Political Issues.........................................................................................................7Social Issues........................................................................................................... 9Economic Issues..................................................................................................... 12Policy Options........................................................................................................ 15Policy Implementation............................................................................................. 20Monitoring and Evaluation........................................................................................ 29Conclusion............................................................................................................. 31Appendix…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 33Recommended Readings………………………………………………………………………………………………………….37Works Cited………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………38

2

Executive Summary

    For the past five decades, the United States has had an embargo in place on the country

of Cuba. It was originally enacted during the height of the Cold War due to national security

concerns, as well as in an attempt to contain Communism and prevent its spread. Although

the Cold War ended twenty years ago, the embargo against Cuba still soldiers on today.

However, the current policy to maintain the embargo is outdated, irrelevant, and damaging

to the United States politically, socially, and economically.

    Politically, maintaining the embargo does not make sense. Internationally, countries in the

United Nations have overwhelmingly voted in favor of the United States ending the embargo

for decades. On the domestic front, Americans are becoming increasingly against the

continuation of the embargo, which suggests that a change in current embargo policy is in

order. On the social front, both Cuba and the United States are hurt by the embargo's

restrictive nature. Cuba has difficulty receiving tools and components for basic health care,

which could be easily obtained through trade with the United States. Additionally, the United

States cannot acquire medical breakthroughs pioneered in Cuba, leaving the health of the

American public at risk. However, it is perhaps the economic issues of the embargo that are

the most significant. Maintaining the embargo causes a significant financial strain for the

United States, and there are countless untapped markets and jobs that cannot be accessed

due to the embargo. Most notably, the travel industry between the United States and Cuba

does not exist under current policies. Opening up the borders between the two countries

would allow for the creation of a new travel industry, stimulating the economy and adding

new jobs.

3

    The most logical policy in regards to the Cuban embargo is to end it unconditionally. An

unconditional end would give the United States the power in relations with Cuba, for it would

not need to wait for Cuba to change in order to benefit from trade. In order to enact this

policy, three steps would need to be taken. First, the Helms-Burton Act, the Cuban

Democracy Act, and the Trading with the Enemy Act would need to be changed or repealed,

removing the legal authority of the embargo. Next, political relations with Cuba would need

to be normalized, including the establishment of an American embassy in Cuba, a rethinking

of Cuban migrant policy in the United States, and an official presidential visit to Cuba.

Finally, there will need to be a normalization socially and economically. This would entail the

natural establishment of businesses in each respective country, encouragement to

experience both Cuban and American cultures through travel, and various educational

programs, including study abroad programs, fellowships and scholarships.

    The United States policy in regards to Cuba has been largely ineffective since its inception

forty seven years ago. It is an outdated, obsolete policy that must not remain the same any

longer. Changing the American policy in regards to the Cuban embargo in the manner

described in this policy brief will greatly benefit the United States in a multitude of ways.

History of the Embargo

     Relations between the United States and Cuba originated at the end of the 19th century

as a result of the US victory in the Spanish-American War. After a period of US control, the

Platt Amendment granted Cuba a limited independence while maintaining U.S. hegemony

over the island, through stipulations that granted America the right to intervene in Cuban

affairs, if it was deemed necessary, as well the right to a permanent naval presence at

Guantanamo Bay (Suddath, 2009). The next fifty years in Cuban history were marked by

constant regime change and widespread corruption, resulting in a prevailing distrust of the

government amongst the people. A watershed moment in US-Cuban relations occurred when

4

Fulgencio Batista staged a coup and seized power in 1952, gaining the recognition of the

United States' government. This coup sparked an increase in revolutionary activity on the

island, which led to the imposition of martial law typified by open displays of brutality in

1953 ("Fidel Castro: People and Events", 2004). Amongst the angered revolutionaries tucked

between the mountainous terrain was the young Fidel Castro, a Cuban politician who would

eventually become the face of the nation. Castro mobilized a group of guerrilla fighters in

Mexico in 1955, where he met Ernesto "Che" Guevara, who would later become a

comandante in Castro's 26th of July Movement. The resulting Cuban Revolution, culminating

on January 1st, 1959, placed Castro in power. Initially, Castro and his regime appeared to

embrace a nationalist, rather than leftist, ideology and as such the United States was quick

to recognize the new government. However, the honeymoon period quickly screeched to a

halt as Fidel Castro developed a penchant for Marxist-type policies and established

diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union. In addition, following the implementation of

Marxist policies, the Castro government began expropriating US businesses and property.

Cuba began buying oil from the Soviet Union in 1960, but unfortunately for them, the only

refineries were owned by United States citizens that refused to refine it. This led to the

expropriation of all American oil refineries. Additionally, land owned by the United Fruit

Company was also taken. These were the major parties affected, but the Castro government

would eventually end up nationalizing the entire island, and banning private enterprise of all

kinds (MFF). The estimated worth of what was taken has been estimated at $1,851,057,358

(Cuban Claims). The outrage generated by this action led to the creation of partial trade

embargo in 1960.

    By the end of the Eisenhower administration in 1961, diplomatic ties with the nation were

severed and government approval was required for any travel to the island. Kennedy

continued and escalated US hostile policies toward Castro, most notably through the

disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961, and as retaliation Castro strengthened the

relationship between Havana, Cuba and Moscow, Russia. The partial embargo on trade with

5

Cuba that was put in place in 1960 was enlarged and made permanent by President John F.

Kennedy in February 1962, thus marking the official construction of the wall separating the

island from the United States that remains in place today (Weinmann, 2004). From that

point on, relations between the United States and Cuba began a downward spiral, as actions

such as Castro's encouragement of massive Cuban emigration to the United States in 1980

prompted further trade restrictions from Washington. In 1992, Congress passed the Cuban

Democracy Act, which limited currency transfer between exiled families and their relatives

at home, enacted a six-month ban from U.S. ports on any ship that docked in a Cuban

harbor, and imposed sanctions on any company that partook in trade with the nation

(Herrera, 2003). The embargo was further tightened by the Helms-Burton Act of 1996, which

allowed legal punishment against foreign entities who traded with Cuba (Suddath, 2009). By

the end of the 1990s, the embargo consisted of three central elements: trade restrictions,

travel restrictions and diplomatic isolation.

   Recent attitudes in Washington have taken a more pro-Cuba outlook, although little has

been done to translate this shift in opinion into legislative action. Before his departure from

office in 2000, President Bill Clinton signed the Trade Sanctions Reform Act, which removed

the limitation of food sales to Cuba that had been established in earlier legislation

(Weinmann, 2004). While Bush restricted travel regulations in 2004, he also approved

further relaxations of food and medical supply sales to Cuba in 2002. This may have been in

response to international opinion that the embargo constituted a significant human rights

violation. And most recently, President Obama lifted several of the most stringent

regulations on travel to Cuba, thereby allowing Cuban Americans to more easily maintain

relations with their Cuban relatives. Nevertheless, the centerpiece of US policy towards Cuba

remains the half-century old embargo, an outdated policy tenet that continues to impose

negative social, economic, and political outcomes on both the United States and Cuba.

6

Political Issues 

      The United States has suffered in its international standing as a result of its continued

embargo against Cuba. For the eighteenth consecutive year, the United Nations has

overwhelmingly voted for the United States to cease the embargo. Out of the 192 nations in

the United Nations, 187 voted in favor of lifting the embargo. Two nations - the Marshall

Islands and Micronesia - abstained from voting, and just three nations voted against ceasing

the embargo against Cuba: the United States, Israel, and Palau (UN, 2009).To see the recent

record of voting on the resolution, consult Table A. With such an overwhelming majority of

countries opposed to the embargo on Cuba, the United States has alienated itself from the

international community by continuing it. Ceasing the embargo would improve the

international presence of America and would encourage other countries to further interact

with the United States.

    The UN voting record demonstrates that the vast majority of nations in the global

community oppose the embargo and wish to isolate the United States in its use of the policy.

Politically, the United States has suffered in various ways from its inflexible stance on Cuba.

Its unwavering sanctions against the nation are the only such ones upheld in the

international community, leaving them isolated on the global stage. Moreover, the harsh

repercussions of the embargo on the availability of food and medical supplies in Cuba has

led to an international rebuke of the United States. Non-Governmental Organizations

advocating human rights, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have

condemned the United States' policy towards Cuba, while international organizations, such

as the United Nations and the Organization of American States, have punished the country

by taking away its seats on their human rights commissions (Weinmann, 2004). The fact

that the United States remains stubborn regarding its attitude towards Cuba, even in the

face of such opposition in the international community, reflects poorly upon the government

and on the nation as a whole.

7

    Even domestically, approximately sixty four percent of American citizens support the

United States government allowing citizens to travel to Cuba, while seventy one percent

favor opening diplomatic relations (Hornick, 2009). Polling done by WorldPublicOpinion.org

further illustrates this support for policy change. Sixty nine percent of those polled support

opening diplomatic relations between the two countries. Eighty two percent of Democrats

support opening relations. Fifty eight percent of Independents and fifty seven percent of

Republicans are also in support of the policy change (WPO.org, 2009). In light of how often

both sides of the aisle can agree on something, the consensus between the parties, at least

among the public, truly shows that the government has not adapted to what the pubic

wants, and its failure to change the policy in question goes against public opinion. Lifting the

embargo would therefore not only embrace the international community but would satisfy

the domestic population as well. By citing opinion polls and voting records such as these, we

hope to quantify the alienating effect the embargo has on the United States government.

Domestic opinion polls exemplify the schism in opinion found between the American public

and the administration, a schism that works to alienate the government from its people.

These are significant negative political effects that could be resolved via a change in policy.

Changing policy would satisfy the US population and the international community. 

Social Issues

    Additionally, the embargo on Cuba has affected the world in a cultural basis. Before the

embargo, Americans could freely travel to Cuba, and famous, esteemed authors such as

Ernest Hemingway lived in Cuba, where he would be influenced by their culture and write

The Old Man and The Sea (Suddath, 2009). Now, since Americans cannot freely travel to

Cuba (and vice versa), their cultures cannot meld nearly as easily, and the global community

8

has suffered as a result of this lost opportunity. Imagine if American writers, directors,

musicians, and artists could travel to Cuba and experience their unique culture. The

inspirational possibilities for this new mixture of cultures are endless, and the world as a

whole would benefit greatly from the melding of the two cultures. Moreover, if Cubans could

visit the United States and experience America's wide variety of cultures, landscapes, and

people, a similar enriching cultural and social phenomenon would result. Therefore, the

embargo against Cuba is hurting the collective global pool of social and cultural creativity.

    The embargo has also restricted the quality of medical care in Cuba due to the restriction

on exporting high-quality, cutting-edge medical technology to the island. According to an

article from Economic and Political Weekly, "the pressures exerted by the US Departments

of State and Trade on the suppliers of Cuba have concerned a wide range of goods

necessary for the health sector... The production capacities of vaccines conceived by Cuba

are hampered by the frequent lack of spare parts and of essential components that have to

be imported, as well as water treatment centres" (Herrera, 2003). As can be seen, the issue

of the embargo truly transcends politics and leftover Cold War hostilities. People's lives in

Cuba are unable to reach their full potential due to the nature of the outdated embargo,

which is a vital issue that should be addressed via changes in the United States' policy

towards the nation.

    One pressing point brought up by supporters of the embargo involves the national

security threat that Cuba poses. Most notably, there are concerns regarding Cuba's

capabilities to produce and use biological weapons and tactics. Frances Robles, a reporter

for the Miami Herald, had the following to say concerning Cuba's biological warfare

capabilities: "Cuba's advanced biotechnology industry is well-known, having produced

vaccines for hepatitis and meningitis B and exported them to dozens of countries around the

world. In 2002, John Bolton, then a top U.S. State Department official for arms control, said

Cuba 'has at least a limited offensive biological warfare research and development effort'"

9

(Robles, 2007).

    Additionally, the article quotes statements from Roberto Ortega, who was a Cuban army

colonel for ten years, who later defected to the United States in 2003. Ortega warned that

"[Cuba] can develop viruses and bacteria and dangerous sicknesses that are currently

unknown and difficult to diagnose...they don't need missiles or troops. They need four

agents, like the people from al Qaeda or the Taliban, who contaminate water, air

conditioning or heating systems." Furthermore, Ortega said Cuba could use these tactics ''to

blackmail the United States in case of an international incident" (Robles, 2007).

    Although these security concerns are pressing and certainly no laughing matter, it is

unlikely that the current trade and travel embargo against Cuba significantly affects the

effectiveness of these biological weapons. These biological attacks, as stated in the

aforementioned Miami Herald article, would be carried out through a small handful of

individuals from a terrorist organization, individuals that would likely be unable to enter the

United States legally, regardless of the status of the embargo (Robles, 2007). Furthermore,

as Roberto Ortega claimed, these biological factors of warfare would be used for extortion

purposes against the United States in the case of an incident such as an invasion (Robles,

2007). However, lifting the embargo would give Cuba no reason to attack the United States;

in fact, the economic prosperity gained by Cuba due to the end of the embargo's restrictions

would make them less likely to attack the United States than if the American embargo was

continuing to restrain Cuba. Thus, a change in American policy regarding the embargo would

improve national security by destroying the possible motives for a biological attack by Cuba.

    The embargo has also affected both the United States and Cuba socially, especially in

regards to medicine and health care. In his article "The Effects of the US 'Embargo' Against

Cuba," Rémy Herrera states many of the issues regarding the embargo and how it relates to

10

health care and health development: "The pressures exerted by the U.S. Departments of

State and Trade on the suppliers of Cuba have concerned a wide range of goods necessary

for the health sector ... and went as far as to prevent the free supply of food for new-born

babies and of equipment for unities of paediatric intensive care . The production capacities

of vaccines conceived by Cuba are hampered by the frequent lack of spare parts and of

essential components that have to be imported, as well as water treatment centres. This

embargo provokes today an unjustified suffering of the Cuban people. The shortages

affecting many medicines, which are not produced in Cuba, complicate the immediate and

complete implementation of the procedures of treatment of breast cancer, leukaemia,

cardiovascular or kidney diseases, and HIV for example" (Herrera, 2003). Thus, lifting the

embargo would allow Cuban citizens to produce medicine more easily and make health care

more readily available; additionally, it would allow the United States and Cuba to trade

medicine, improving the welfare of both nations through collaboration.

    To further quantify the impact the embargo has had on health in Cuba, Garfield and

Santanna assert that it cost Cuba 30% - 50% more to receive medical products from sources

other than the United States (Garfield and Santanna, 1997). Table B shows the specific

amount overpaid by Cuba to acquire medical supplies when the embargo was in full effect.

Furthermore, the embargo imposed negative consequences on the United States by

eliminating the availability of Cuban medical breakthroughs. For example, Cuba was one of

the first nations to develop a vaccine for meninggococcal disease, and while the information

about this vaccine was only a few hundred miles offshore from the US, doctors in the US

were not able to take advantage of it due to the embargo. Graphs A and B illustrate the

effect this had on the United States and Cuba, as Cuba experienced a severe decrease in the

number of meningococcal incidents while states in the US experienced a steady increase of

such cases (American Association for World Health, Denial of Food and Medicine: The Impact

of the U.S. Embargo on Health & Nutrition in Cuba,March 1997).

11

    While the restrictions of the embargo were loosened in 2000 to allow the sale of medical

supplies to Cuba, current policy restrictions have decreased the amount of medicinal exports

to the nation in recent years. Table C illustrates this phenomenon, demonstrating how the

amount of medical exports as a total percentage of United States exports to Cuba has

declined from .44% in 2004 to .17% in 2008 (Amnesty Report). So while changes in policy

have had some positive effect on the embargo's impact on Cuba, they have not been

sufficient to eliminate the many problems caused by the embargo and further changes are

still needed.

Economic Issues

     Although the social and political consequences of the embargo are not to be ignored, it is

perhaps the economic implications of the policy make the most pressing argument for its

termination. At the most general level, the United States' International Trade Commission

has estimated that the embargo costs us 1.2 billion dollars annually in lost sales and

revenue (Pepper, 2009). While this is an admittedly rather small portion of our nation's gross

domestic product, such a sum is not to be taken lightly, given the current economic

recession.

    When broken down into sectors, it is clear that farmers in the United States are those that

are most affected by the embargo. The Cuba Policy Foundation recently delved into the

amount of money that could be made by opening up Cuba to US agricultural exports. As it

stands, under the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (which

allows the sale of food and medicine to Cuba for humanitarian purposes), the United States

is the main provider of food to the island, selling $600 million in food to the island in 2007

(Weissert, 2008). Were the restrictions on food sales to be further relaxed, or were the

embargo to be lifted, the CPF estimates that this number could double to $1.24 billion. For a

12

more detailed breakdown of the effect of the embargo on the United States agriculture

industry, consult Table D of the appendix. The Foundation also estimate that exports to

Cuba could account for an additional $3.6 billion in economic output, with the creation of

31,262 jobs for American workers (Adcock and Rosson, 2001). Again, while these numbers

may not seem significant given the grand scheme of the American economy, it is important

to keep in mind that any increase in American revenue or American jobs is hard to come by

in the current economic situation. Each of those thirty-thousand plus jobs represents a new

opportunity for a struggling American family--and passing up on the opportunity to aid

thirty-thousand families would be a grave and immoral mistake.

    But the economic implications do not stop there. The embargo is preventing a booming

travel industry from emerging between the two nations. A study conducted by the University

of Colorado estimates that such an industry, by its fifth year of existence, would generate

almost two billion dollars per year and would create over twelve-thousand jobs for American

workers (Table E). Moreover, the American economy would not be the only entity to benefit

from such an industry. The Cuban economy would profit tremendously as well. Clearly, an

influx of American tourists would generate considerable economic profit and invoke the

expansion of their tourist industry, creating new jobs in the service sector. While recent

estimates are hard to come by, data from 2001 suggests that Cuba would receive upwards

of one billion dollars annually from the American tourist market (Jaffe and Soligo 2001). This

would represent a huge addition to their GDP, and such an economic augmentation would

greatly improve the standard of living across the island nation (Pepper, 2009). Given the

current administration's emphasis on employing a more internationalist perspective in

American Foreign Policy, the benefits to Cuba of lifting the embargo should be given

significant consideration when contemplating policy change.

    A further economic implication of the Cuban embargo stems from Cuba's recent discovery

of offshore oil fields. Several years ago, geologists revealed reports that estimated that five

13

to ten billion barrels of oil lie beneath the ocean off the shore of Cuba (Padgett, 2008). In

2006, the Cuban government began drilling for this oil, establishing drilling platforms a mere

60 miles from the Floridian coast. While the platforms lie on the internationally-established

border of the two nations, it is inevitable that the drilling process will naturally suck some oil

from the American side of border. However, since Florida law prohibits American companies

from drilling offshore, the United States can do nothing to prevent the drilling. Moreover,

due to the embargo, Americans are not even able to benefit from the valuable oil resources

that lie less than fifty miles from their shores. While Cuba is opening up auction to the

reserves to foreign nations, the American embargo on Cuba prevents companies in the

United States from placing bids. Were these companies able to access the oil reserves,

Americans would be able to cipher some of their gas consumption from the Middle Eastern

oil to Cuban oil, which would allow faster development and lower gas prices. Moreover,

American dependency on volatile oil-rich nations would be significantly lessened, which

would constitute a considerable improvement in national security (The Trumpet, 2006).

    A final economic issue to consider when discussing the Cuban embargo is the cost to the

American government of maintaining the embargo year after year. Although this cost is

difficult to quantify in a financial sense, it is nevertheless an important price to keep in mind

in terms of time and resources. The office responsible for enforcing the travel restrictions

imposed by the embargo is the Office of Foreign Assets Control in the Department of the

Treasury, the same department that is responsible for investigating Al-Qaeda's financial

trail. It has been estimated that this office spends over a quarter of its time tracking down

American citizens who illegally travel to Cuba, rather than expending those resources

towards reducing Al-Qaeda's operational capacity (Weinmann, 2004). The Cuban embargo is

assuming top priority in this office and many others over more pertinent threats--such as the

ever-present threat of terrorism. Such a draining of time and resources towards what can

only be considered an irrelevant policy is an enormous cost and severely weakens American

national security efforts.

14

Policy Options

Continue Embargo

    Clearly, one policy option would be for the administration to maintain the current stance

towards Cuba. This would entail a continuation of the embargo as it stands today, with no

additional loosening of restrictions or changes of policy tenets. The hopes in keeping the

current policy would be that the economic and political pressure on the Cuban government

would eventually result in the abandonment of Cuba's communist ideology and the

development of a free Cuban democracy. There are many who are nervous about having a

Communist country so close to our shores. Similar to Russia's preoccupation with its "near-

abroad", perhaps special rules apply in the United States' dealings with entities in its close

proximity. Continuing the embargo is the equivalent of laying siege against Cuba to

effectively starve them out, so that they change governments.

    However, the continuance of the embargo holds significant costs for the United States.

First off, the economic costs of the embargo are extremely high. Not only would a failure to

lift the embargo mean that the United States would continue to forgo billions of dollars in

potential revenue from travel and food sales but it would also mean that the US would

continue to waste significant resources in implementing the restrictions of the embargo

(Weinmann, 2004). Furthermore, its been clearly demonstrated that the embargo has had a

negative impact on the health situation in Cuba, which means that there is a moral and

ethical cost to continuing the embargo as well. Lastly, there has been considerable

international opposition to the embargo for almost the entirety of its existence. This

opposition has mounted in recent years, which has led to an increase in the debate over

relations between the United States and Cuba, as well as what policy actions should be

taken. Should the United States ignore these recent discussions and pushes for change, it

15

would illustrate the nation as a stubborn and egocentric nation which refuses to pay heed to

international opinion. Given other events in the past decade that have shown us in an elitist

light, it would be unwise to ignore the political ramifications of continuing the current policy.

Loosen Embargo Restrictions

    The past two administrations have taken small steps towards the loosening of embargo

restrictions. President Clinton eased stipulations regarding cash remittances to Cuba and

introduced direct charter flights to the island during the 1990s. He also loosened travel

restrictions so that individuals such as researchers and members of educational and

religious activities had greater access to the nation. The Bush administration took several

steps backwards by tightening restrictions on family visits and on payment terms for

agricultural exports to Cuba. However, they also eased travel restrictions by allowing

Americans to study in Cuba via structured academic programs (Sullivan, 2009).  

    The current administration could follow this approach and introduce new reductions in the

severity of the embargo policies. In fact, steps of this nature have already been taken, as

President Obama has lifted longstanding restrictions on family visits and cash remittances to

Cuba (Suddath, 2009). These policies are all quite necessary in helping our image, but do

not go far enough. Allowing family visits and other minor concessions of that nature appease

many, but do not change the policy enough. While further steps could be taken to loosen the

embargo, such as the allowance of UN entities in Cuba unrestricted access to US markets or

easier sales of food and medical supplies to the country, this policy option still has costs to

it. Most notably, it still reflects poorly upon the United States, as it is a stubborn insistence

on a policy that has been inefficient and unsuccessful for the past four decades.

Nevertheless, changes of this nature may be necessary to silence those in the international

community that call the embargo a human rights issue, due to the deprivation of resources

that results. Small policy changes that are still consistent with previous attitudes towards

16

Cuba do little to appease the world's image of our country as an arrogant and elitist country

that ignores international sentiments.

Remove Embargo Conditionally or Partially

    Steps could be taken to either remove some aspects of the embargo or to remove the

entire embargo under certain conditions. Under a partial removal of the embargo, travel

restrictions could be loosened, allowing people to travel between Cuba and the United

States freely. With this adjustment to the embargo, the trade restrictions between the two

countries would still be in place, but several problems with the embargo would be solved or

alleviated. Both the American and Cuban tourism industries would flourish with the influx of

new customers, and families with members in both countries could freely visit each other.

However, opening up the US-Cuban borders could make the smuggling of Cuban goods into

America (and vice versa) much easier, expanding the prevalence of a black market. Allowing

more people to cross from country to country could also be a threat to national security,

which is one of the biggest fears of proponents of the embargo (Holmes, 1995). This does

not constitute a very strong argument however. Movement between the countries would not

be without regulation. Cuba would be no more a threat to national security than any of the

other countries with which the United States interacts. The benefits of trade and travel

between Cuba and the United States far outweighs the potential harm that could be incurred

as a result of the smuggling that may or may not occur.

    Additionally, the United States could opt to lift the embargo under the condition that Cuba

makes an effort to become more democratic. Since the fundamental roots of the embargo,

as well as its continued persistence, are based on Cuba's lack of freedom domestically and

internationally (Holmes, 1995), ending the embargo on the condition that they become more

free and more in line with the rest of the world would be acceptable to current proponents of

the embargo. There are several issues with this plan of action, though. The United States

17

could be seen as a "bully" in the international community, pushing its enemies into

conforming with the US worldview. Moreover, this places the impetus entirely on Cuba. If

Cuba does not change its entire political system, then there is nothing more that the United

States can do, under this policy. America would not be able to reap any benefits of trade

with Cuba, and nothing would change. Castro uses the US embargo as a propaganda crutch,

and as the reason for all of Cuba's ills, so he is unlikely to do anything that would result in

the embargo's removal.

Remove Embargo Unconditionally

     At the extreme, the embargo could by removed without conditions. Removing the

embargo in this manner would be totally unilateral, without dependence on any Cuban

reciprocation. Doing so would admit the failure of the decades-old embargo, a risk that

many people are unwilling to take. On the other hand, lifting the embargo would show the

world that we have seen the error in our ways. Recent UN votes on the embargo clearly

show that the vast majority of the world wishes we bring an end to it (UN, 2009).

Additionally, the embargo smacks of hypocrisy that does not go unnoticed globally. Why

should Cuba be under embargo for having a communist regime while we do not embargo

other communist nations? It could be argued that China is a greater existential threat to the

safety and security of America than Cuba is, yet we trade with China, we allow China to hold

vast quantities of our currency. There is a disconnect between our policy towards Cuba and

our policy towards China. Surely if China is able to have diplomatic relations with the United

States that a lesser Communist country like Cuba should be able to as well?

     Furthermore, removing the embargo gives the United States all of the power. Just as

removing it conditionally gives Cuba the power to decide when to change, removing it

unconditionally would immediately allow the United States to benefit from trade with Cuba,

without being hamstrung in to waiting for Cuba to change its government. Furthermore, an

18

unconditional removal, and the resulting influx of American goods and tourists that would go

along with it, may allow the Cuban people to see what they have been missing out on by

remaining a Communist state, thus leading to grassroots political change that would

hopefully create a democratic Cuban state. Additionally, removing the embargo would take

away the foil that Castro has been blaming the economic stagnation of his country on since

its inception (Donahue). Going from blaming the United States embargo for everything to

having to justify Cuban policies in light of a new era of US openness towards Cuba will be

very difficult for the Castro government. He would either have to change his policy to create

economic opportunities, or change the system of government to create prosperity. Either

way, removing the embargo would be in the best interest of the United States economically

and politically, while also stimulating the tepid Cuban economy and possibly fostering

political change on the island.

Policy Implementation

Changing the Law

    In order to end the embargo on Cuba, the laws on US-Cuban relations must be changed.

Specifically, three main acts will need to be repealed: the Helms-Burton Act, the Cuban

Democracy Act, and the Trading with the Enemy Act. Additionally, the Foreign Aid Act and

the Export Administration Act would need to change in order for the United States embargo

against Cuba to end.

    The Helms-Burton Act (also known as the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act)

was passed in 1996 by President Clinton, and it strengthened the embargo against Cuba,

extending its effects to other countries that trade with Cuba (CNN, 1996) (United States.

Cong. House. Comm. on International Relations, 1996). By repealing Helms-Burton, the

19

embargo will be substantially weakened, and other foreign countries that trade with Cuba

will cease to be hurt by the embargo. A new proposed act to replace and repeal the Helms-

Burton Act could be entitled the "Cuban Economic Freedom Act."

    After the repealing of the Helms-Burton Act, the Cuban Democracy Act will need to be

annulled. This act, passed in 1992, prohibited travel to Cuba by US citizens; additionally, it

banned remittances from Americans to their families in Cuba (Treasury, 1992). This act's

cancellation will allow free travel to Cuba by all citizens. Replacing the Cuban Democracy

Act could be a new act by the name of the "Freedom to Travel Act."

    The Trading with the Enemy Act is the final law that would need to be changed, and it is

also the oldest. Passed in 1917, it allows the President to restrict trade against "enemy"

countries during times of war (Treasury, 1917). Despite the fact that the United States is

engaged in two wars in the Middle East, Cuba is the only country still affected by this act (Li,

2009). Most recently, North Korea was removed from the act in the middle of 2008, and it

could be argued that they are more of a threat to United States national security, due to

their nuclear weapons program than Cuba is (BBC, 2008). After the Trading with the Enemy

Act is changed to exclude Cuba, the United States embargo on Cuba will be significantly

weakened.

In order to repeal the Helms-Burton Act and the Cuban Democracy Act, new laws would

need to be passed in Congress that would negate the laws currently in place (United States

Constitution, Article I, Section 7). However, Cuba could be removed from the Trading with

the Enemy act by a simple executive order by the President, making it a much simpler law

to reverse (Treasury, 1917).

    Along with the Helms-Burton Act, the Cuban Democracy Act, and the Trading with the

Enemy Act, there are several other laws that would need to be changed in order to

20

effectively end the embargo against Cuba. Through passing the Foreign Aid Act in 1962, "the

United States Congress authorized the president of that country to establish and maintain 'a

total embargo on trade between the United States and Cuba'. It also prohibited the granting

of any aid to the government of Cuba" (Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and

financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba, 2009). It would be

necessary to repeal this act in order to legally end the embargo. A new act, called the

"Relations with Cuba Act", would in effect repeal the Foreign Aid Act and officially open up

relations between the United States and Cuba.

    In 1979, the Export Administration Act (EAA) was passed, giving the president power to

control exports, including limiting which countries with which the United States would trade

(Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the

United States of America against Cuba, 2009). The Export Administration Act would not

necessarily need to be repealed; however, an executive order to remove Cuba from the

EAA's control would need to be written.

     By repealing and reworking these current laws, the embargo against Cuba will cease to

have a legal backing, and the United States can begin to have diplomatic, political, social,

and economic relations with Cuba.

Normalization of Political Relations

    Upon the legal end of the embargo, many political steps must be taken in order to put the

US-Cuba relationship on equal footing with the American relationship with other countries.

First and foremost, the United States must establish an embassy in Cuba. The best location

for an embassy in Cuba would obviously be the capital of Havana. Currently, the only US

diplomatic presence in Cuba is through the Swiss Embassy in the form of the United States

Interests Section (USIS). The USIS is housed in the former US Embassy, so reestablishing the

21

embassy would essentially just involve changing its name. The Cuban government, similarly,

has a Cuban Interests Section at the Swiss Embassy in Washington D.C. The current chief of

the Interests Section is Jonathan Farrar. He fulfills the duties of an ambassador without the

title. In order to maintain continuity, he could be made the ambassador of the new US

Embassy. He would not even need to change offices. Finally establishing diplomatic relations

would be a necessary step in the implementation of any additional normalization policies. In

this new era of globalization, international relationships are more important than they have

ever been. Before, countries could isolate themselves and still be prosperous. Now, that is

not possible. Coexisting in the international arena, and cooperating on policies that benefit

everyone, is the new way forward for this globalized world. Isolation, even if only from one

country, is a policy that can only lead to failure as other nations will be sure to capitalize on

US absence at our expense. Revenue that they are receiving could have been ours. Thus,

normalizing relations, and the increased bonhomie that is surely to follow is in the American

best interest as it competes in the global economy in the 21st century.

      In addition to establishing an embassy, the US will need to change its policy on

accepting Cuban migrants, which is known colloquially as the "Wet Foot, Dry Foot" policy.

This policy, which encourages dangerous Cuban migration to US shores, unfairly gives

Cuban migrants preferential treatment in becoming legal permanent residents. This is an

unintended result of the Cuban Migration Act of 1995. The provisions of this Act sends

migrants that don't reach land back to Cuba, while allowing those that reach dry land to stay

in the United States. Cuba is the only country with which the US has a policy like this

(Wasem). Ending the embargo will necessitate a change in this policy to put it more in line

with US migration policy with the rest of the world under the Immigration Act of 1990. For

example, the US currently has a quota system for legal immigration that lets 675,000 people

per year legally emigrate to the United States, with a lottery program that enables a more

equitable distribution of visas (CBO). The current policy towards Cuba is a slap in the face to

all of those that legally wish to emigrate to the US from other countries. Cuban citizens that

22

intend to emigrate to the US, following an end to the embargo, should have to apply as

everyone else does. This would require a repeal of the Cuban Migration Act of 1995 by

Congress.

    Furthermore, after ending the embargo, the US president should make an official visit to

Cuba to restore the dialogue with the Cuban leadership. Raul Castro has expressed that he

is "not afraid" to meet with the US (AFP). If the President were to talk to Castro, he would be

the first since Calvin Coolidge in 1928 to visit the island, and the first ever to go on an

official visit (Coolidge was there to address the Conference of American States) (State). The

visit would be seen as an act of goodwill on the part of the US, and would be very symbolic

of a shift in US policy. In our troubled relationship with Cuba, symbolism can go a long way

towards repairing the bonds between our two nations. Additionally, it would hopefully lead to

a meaningful discourse on issues important to both the US and Cuba.

  An important part of this meaningful discourse should be about the status of the U.S. naval

base at Guantanamo Bay. Having been leased by the United States as a coaling station after

the Spanish-American War, it has effectively become one of America's territorial holdings.

Currently, the property is being used to hold suspects of terrorist actions from the US wars in

Afghanistan and Iraq. While there have been recent efforts on the part of the Obama

administration to move these prisoners, either to the American mainland to be charged with

crimes, or back to countries that would be willing to accept them, the reality is that the

United States will likely need the territory for some time. However, after the normalization of

relations between the two countries, its status as US property should be reviewed. While

there are many issues in the way of the United States simply returning the land to the

Cuban government, it should be done. The territory, due to its current use, has become

associated with torture and other illegal actions the world over. Giving it back to Cuba would

help the US image by disconnecting it from our foreign policy. Additionally, the benefits to

23

be gained from giving the territory back far outweigh its importance as a naval base. One of

the main things the United States stands to gain from normalizing relations, ending the

embargo, and returning Guantanamo Bay to Cuba is goodwill. In fact, giving Guantanamo

back to Cuba is more than symbolic goodwill, it is a gesture that ensures their territorial

integrity. To put the situation in context, our presence on Cuba is the same as if China had a

small outpost in Southern California. 

    Those who trumpet the territory's importance as a naval base must realize that in order to

welcome Cuba back into the fold, we must make sacrifices. Additionally, the base is located

300 miles from Miami. It may have been a strategic location when it was first leased from

Cuba, but it has certainly lost its significance in the modern era due to the proliferation of

nuclear missiles and other offensive weapons that render a base unnecessary. The United

States' lease on Guantanamo Bay requires that both parties agree to terminate it. If

Congress were to decide to cancel the lease, Cuba, it has to be believed, will be more than

willing to do the same. It does not stand to gain much by continuing the lease, considering

the US only pays the Cuban government approximately $4,085 a year for the land under the

agreement signed in 1934 (Global Security). 

    In addition to discussing the timetable for the return of Guantanamo Bay to the Cuban

government, a discussion needs to be held about the expropriation of US-owned companies

and land in Cuba following the rise of the Castro government. Americans who owned

businesses or property in Cuba that were expropriated should be compensated by the

Cuban government. In existence already is the US Foreign Claims Settlement Commission

(FCSC), which oversees the system of making claims against the government of Cuba for

expropriation. The FCSC website notes, "Although there are no funds currently available to

make payment on any American claims, the purpose of the Commission’s certifications will

be to serve as a basis for future negotiation of a claims settlement with the Government of

Cuba" (FCSC). What the FCSC has done creates a framework from which to negotiate with

24

the Cuban government. The issue at hand is too large to not discuss as soon as relations are

normalized. In heading in to the negotiations however, it is important to be realistic about

how much the US hopes to benefit. The expropriated land and businesses have become part

of the infrastructure of Cuba. It is unlikely that their ownership could easily revert back to

the previous owner without serious dislocations in the Cuban economy which the Castro

government is unlikely to agree to. Furthermore, in the current Cuban system of

government, privatization would not be politically feasible. Thus, it is more likely that

negotiations would result in monetary compensation for those affected by the expropriation.

How much money claimants will be compensated depends on how successful the

negotiations go. Whether or not they will receive compensation based on the year their

property was taken or what it would be worth today would need to be discussed. Whatever

is decided, it is unlikely that the claimants will receive all that they deserve. The Cuban GDP

is estimated at $108 billion (CIA). The estimated value of the claims, discussed earlier,

stands at $1,851,057,358. Paying the full value of the claims would cost Cuba approximately

1.7% of its GDP. This would be a huge shock to its economy, which makes it unlikely that the

full sum will be paid out at once. This does leave the possibility that the negotiators can

come to a decision about the creation of an annuity, that would pay out to the claimants

yearly. The expropriations are a major reason for the enmity between the two countries and

must be resolved as soon as possible. 

Social and Economic Normalization

  

    After dismantling the legal barrier separating us from Cuba and reestablishing political

relations, the final step in the implementation of policy change would be to bridge the

economic and cultural divide that is currently separating the two nations. Once the acts

comprising the embargo were repealed, United States companies would be allowed to trade

with and invest in Cuban companies. While no extraordinary measures would be taken to

25

facilitate economic relations between the two nations, it is almost certain that such ties

would appear and flourish naturally. Although Cuba would not be brought into any

outstanding agreements, such as DR-CAFTA, U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk would work

with the Trade Policy Review Group (TPRG) and the Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC) to

determine the best policy route to take in order to most effectively develop trade relations

between the U.S. and Cuba. As was discussed earlier, there are several prospective markets

that would develop between the two nations and generate substantial economic activity that

would be beneficial to both countries, most specifically the travel industry, the agriculture

industry and the potential oil reserves off the shore of Cuba. These areas would become the

cornerstone of the trade policy towards Cuba, as they represent the biggest economic

opportunities that lie between our shores.

    Apart from economic ties, it is important that the citizens of the United States and Cuba

are encouraged to experience the other's culture and society. After years of enmity and

distrust engendered by the hostile embargo policy, the government would need to foster

cultural relations. Recent polling data demonstrates that the American public would is

greatly in favor of developing such relations. A World Public Opinion poll conducted in April

of 2009 revealed that 70% of Americans think there should be the freedom to travel to and

from Cuba and that 75% believe it would be a good idea for US leaders to meet with Cuban

leaders (World Public Opinion, 2009). This clearly indicates a willingness and openness in the

minds of the American public to develop new relations with Cuba. On the Cuban side of

things, such public polling data is hard to come by, given the authoritarian nature of the

government. However, a Cuban Political Opinion Survey conducted by the International

Republican Institute in the spring of 2008 showed the Cuban people to be strongly in favor

of both economic and political changes in their country. 81.8% of those polled said they

would vote in favor of changing their current economic system to a free market system and

61.5% said they would vote in favor of changing their current political system to a

democratic multi-party system (International Republican Institute, 2008).  While these are

26

not opinions on the embargo per say, they are indicative of a public opinion in Cuba that

wants to see significant change in their nation, and it is likely that ending the embargo

would greatly facilitate that change.  Thus it is highly likely that both the American and and

Cuban populations would react quite favorably to the establishment of cultural and social

relations between the two countries.

    Such relations would most easily be constructed through study abroad and academic

exchange programs hosted at institutions in both nations. Currently, only American

University in Washington, D.C. offers a study abroad program in Cuba for its students. The

program, which offers courses such as  History of Cuba - The Evolution of Cuban Nationalism

and Introduction to Cuba: The Challenges of Contemporary Cuban Society, taught at the

University of Havana, facilitates cultural understanding of the island nation among its

students and should be emulated at various universities across the United States (AU

Abroad, 2009). Similarly, US colleges and universities should be encouraged to develop

exchange programs with Cuban institutions, allowing Cuban students to come to the US to

study for a semester. Allowing the youth of both nations to interact with the population of

the other country would be an effective way to catalyze cultural understanding and

dissemination. While ultimately, it would be up to each individual institution to develop and

implement these programs, members of the newly reestablished United States Embassy to

Cuba would develop and distribute contact information and other necessary materials to the

education abroad offices at major institutions to facilitate the establishment of the

exchanges.

    Finally, fellowship programs such as the Humphrey Fellows program and the Foreign

Fulbright Student program should be made available to Cubans who are pursuing higher

education. These programs establish exchanges between academic institutions and

educated individuals around the world. According to their respective websites, the

Humphrey fellows program "fosters a mutual exchange of knowledge and understanding

27

about issues of common concern in the United States and the Fellows’ home countries"

(Humphrey Fellows, 2007) while the Foreign Student Fulbright Program provides

international students "with the opportunity to observe each others’ political, economic and

cultural institutions, exchange ideas, and embark on joint ventures of importance to the

general welfare of the world’s inhabitants" (Foreign Student Fulbright, 2009). These

programs actively encourage cultural understanding and assimilation amongst the best and

the brightest students--those students who will become leaders in their countries in future

decades. The opening of the academic doors in both US and Cuba is the best way to

catalyze the bridging of the cultural divide that separates the two nations under the current

policy and to encourage a future of mutual trust and cooperation between the populations of

both countries.

Monitoring and Evaluation

    After lifting the Cuban embargo, several steps would be taken to continue to monitor and

evaluate the changing US-Cuban relations. To ensure that the political relations between the

countries remained positive and beneficial to both sides, a Cuban Relations Advisory

Committee would be established under the Department of State. This Committee would be

formed out of the Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba in the Department of State,

which was reconvened by Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice in 2005. The commission

presently works to offer recommendations in how to help Cuba adopt a democratic political

system (Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba, 2009). After the embargo would be

dismantled, the Commission would be renamed and would take on a slightly new mission.

While it would continue to identify means of hastening the establishment of a democratic

Cuba, it would also serve to oversee US-Cuban political relations. It would act independently

of the United States Embassy to Cuba and would conduct semi-regular surveys of the

embassy, in order to monitor the development of political relations. It would produce bi-

28

yearly reports that detailed how political relations had progressed during that time period,

with evaluations based on the number of significant meetings between political figures from

both countries and any agreements signed by the two nations. By combining the tasks of

monitoring the development of political relations and identifying routes to catalyze the

formation of a more free Cuba, the Committee would be most effective in ensuring that US-

Cuban relations remained positive and had a democratizing influence on the Cuban

government.

    Furthermore, the newly-formed economic bonds between the two countries will need to

be overseen to make sure that both sides are keeping to whatever agreement Ron Kirk and

the equivalent Cuban official decide on. Because we have not had an economic relationship

with Cuba for so long, a committee jointly chaired by representatives of the Departments of

Commerce and the Treasury will need to be established. This Committee on US-Cuban

Economic Relations would be tasked with enforcing the trade agreement that the US and

Cuba agreed upon. Additionally, it will be responsible for auditing those responsible for the

prevention of smuggling and the collection of the proper tariffs and duties. The committee

would be similar to the Cuban Relations Advisory Committee in that it would be chartered for

10 years, with the ability to renew its charter at that time. However, because the nature of

US-Cuban economic relations is likely to be very hectic early on, due to the tremendous

influx of US capital that is likely to occur upon the end of the embargo, the Committee

should issue semi-annual reports to keep Congress and the Executive branch abreast of the

changes going on, and the level of trade between the two countries.

    Oversight, in general, is necessary so the US government can ensure that our new

relationship with Cuba is as fair and equitable as possible.

29

Conclusion:

    The United States' embargo towards Cuba has been in place for forty-seven years, during

which time the world has changed dramatically. The fall of the Soviet Union meant the end

of Cold War tensions. The Middle East, rather than Eastern Europe, has become our primary

security concern, and our efforts have become concentrated on stopping the spread of

terrorism, rather than on stopping the spread of communism. In other words, many of the

original causes for the Cuban embargo have disappeared since its debut in the 1960s, and

yet the policy remains as an illogical tenet of our foreign policy.

    This brief has outlined several of the most pressing arguments for the elimination of the

Cuban embargo. It has proven to be a source of political tension, on both the domestic and

international stages. Public opinion has proven to be fiercely in favor of the lifting of the

embargo and the global community is almost unanimously opposed to the hostile policy. It

has also caused severe social strife in both nations, as trade restrictions have caused undue

pressure on medical supplies and research and travel restrictions have all but destroyed ties

between family members who find themselves on opposite sides of the border. And finally,

the embargo imposes considerable economic losses on both countries. Lost sales and

exports, the repression of a travel industry, and potential access to oil reserves all

contribute to billions of dollars in lost economic opportunities and the squandering of the

creation of tens of thousands of jobs.

    With such negative consequences arising as a result of the embargo, one must strongly

question why it remains in place. It has not accomplished its central objective--that is, the

establishment of a democratic regime in Cuba--and after nearly five decades of

ineffectiveness, it is almost certain that it will never accomplish such an objective. While the

30

issue of expropriations was undoubtedly important at the time of the enactment of the

policy, it is hardly relevant now and should not provide any compelling argument for the

maintenance of the embargo. Cuba's political system is also not a reason to keep the

embargo in place. In an era in which the United States maintains relations with other nations

that do not share our political values and ideals--China, for one--it is completely illogical to

prohibit such relations from developing between us and our neighbor country. To refuse to

acknowledge these many arguments against the embargo merely portrays the United States

as a stubborn nation unwilling to retract an unsuccessful policy. It is thus that we must

conclude that the time is now to construct a new policy towards Cuba, in order to set the

tone for a new, more successful decade of American Foreign Policy.

Appendix:

Table A:

Year Countries Against Embargo Countries For Embargo

2005 182 4

31

2006 183 4

2007 184 4

2008 185 3

2009 187 3

Source: (UN 2005-2009)http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2009/ga10877.doc.htmhttp://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/ga10772.doc.htmhttp://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/ga10649.doc.htmhttp://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/ga10529.doc.htmhttp://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2005/ga10417.doc.htm

Table B:

Table C:

US medicinal and pharmaceutical exports to Cuba from 2004 to 2008 (in US dollars)  

Categories Value 2004 Value 2005 Value 2006 Value 2007 Value 2008

32

Laboratory testing

instruments

30,000 8,000 7,000 0 0

Medicinal Equipment

468,000 396,000 753,000 366,000 295,000

Pharmaceutical Preparations

1,298,000 1,747,000 2,111,000 1,862,000 940,000

Combined Percentage of

total US exports to

Cuba

.44% .58% .84% .49% .17%

Source: US Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Statistics (www.census.gov)

Table D:

Source: Cuba Policy Foundation, Estimated Agricultural Economic Impacts of Expanded U.S. Tourism to Cuba, February 2003

Table E:

ScenarioYear One Total Income (millions)

Year One Total Jobs

Year Five Total Income (millions)

Year Five Total Jobs

End Travel Ban $8.5 86 $23.9 239

33

Allow US Carriers

$522.6 3,224 $1,695.6 10,749

Lift Embargo $545.6 3,797 $1,972.4 12,180Source: “Economic Benefits to the United States from Lifting the Ban on Travel to Cuba,” prepared by Ed Sanders and Patrick Long, University of Colorado at Boulder, for the Cuba Policy Foundation, Washington, DC, June 2002.

Graph A:

Graph B:

34

Recommended Reading:

"The Cuban Economic Embargo: Time for a New Approach?" by Thomas J. Donohue, The

35

Cato Institute. <http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5081&full=1>

"The Effects of the US ’Embargo’ Against Cuba" by Rémy Herrera, Alternatives. <http://www.alternatives.ca/eng/our-organisation/our-publications/analysis-and-articles/article/the-effects-of-the-us-embargo?lang=fr>.

"Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba". Report by Cuba on resolution 63/7 of the United Nations General Assembly. <http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N08/471/21/PDF/N0847121.pdf?OpenElement>.

"The Costs of the Embargo" by Margot Pepper, Dollars and Sense. <http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2009/0309pepper.html>.

"A Brief History of US-Cuba Relations" by Claire Suddath, Time.com. <http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1891359,00.html>.

Works Cited:

(2004). Fidel Castro: People and Events. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/castro/peopleevents/index.html

36

(2006). Cuban Oil to Break the US Embargo? The Trumpet (August 2006). <http://www.thetrumpet.com/?q=2670.1256.0.0>

"CNN - Clinton moves to punish Cuba - Feb. 27, 1996." CNN.com. 27 Feb. 1996. Web. <http://www.cnn.com/US/9602/cuba_shootdown/27/>.

"US to ease North Korea sanctions." BBC News. 26 June 2008. Web. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7476625.stm>.

Adcock, F. and C. Parr Rosson. (2002). Economic Impacts of U.S. Agricultural Exports to Cuba, a report for the Cuba Policy Foundation.  <http://www.cubafoundation.org/pdf/CPF-Release-AgStudy-0202.28.htm> 

AFP. "Cuba Not Afraid to Talk to US: Fidel Castro" (April 2009). <http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gX1rcLYA5bPxiPOH3QANiOjQ9caA>

AU Abroad. (2009). American University. <http://auabroad.american.edu/index.cfm?FuseAction=Programs.ViewProgram&Program_ID=10361&Type=O&sType=O>

CBO. "Immigration Policy in the United States" (February 2006). <http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=2&ved=0CBUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbo.gov%2Fdoc.cfm%3Findex%3D7051&ei=1JYIS4WBEtSzlAfNrKSFBA&usg=AFQjCNEUIoiE869eRLEi7mD7VorFoqaggQ&sig2=yu-P87DeZRErYBtwaVLAeA>

CIA Factbook. "Cuba" <https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cu.html>

Commission For Assistance to a Free Cuba. US Department of State (2009). <http://2006-2009.cafc.gov/index.htm>

Cuban Claims. "FAQ" <http://www.certifiedcubanclaims.org/faqs.htm>

Donohue, Thomas J. "The Cuban Economic Embargo: Time for a New Approach?" The Cato Institute (February 2000) <http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5081&full=1>

Falk, P (1996). Eyes on Cuba: US Business and the Embargo. Foreign Affairs, 75, 2, 14-19.

FCSC. "Cuban Claims Program" <http://www.justice.gov/fcsc/cubanclaims.htm>

Foreign Student Fulbright Program: About (2009). The Fulbright Foundation. <http://foreign.fulbrightonline.org/about.html>

37

Global Security. "Guantanamo Bay" <http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/guantanamo-bay.htm>

Herrera, R. (2003). US Embargo against Cuba: Urgent Need to Lift It. Economic and Political Weekly, 38, 41, 4310-4311.

Herrera, Rémy. "The Effects of the US ’Embargo’ Against Cuba." Alternatives. 7 Oct. 2003. <http://www.alternatives.ca/eng/our-organisation/our-publications/analysis-and-articles/article/the-effects-of-the-us-embargo?lang=fr>.

Holmes, Kim R. "Keep the Embargo on Cuba." The Heritage Foundation (1995). <http://www.heritage.org/research/latinamerica/CB14.cfm>.

Hornick, Ed. "Poll: Three-quarters favor relations with Cuba." CNN. 10 Apr. 2009. <http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/10/poll.cuba/>.

Humphrey Fellows: About the Program. (2007). The Hubert H. Humphrey Fellowship Program. <http://www.humphreyfellowship.org/page/97565/index.v3page>

International Republican Institute, Cuban Political Opinion Survey, March 14-April 12, 2008 <http://www.iri.org/lac/cuba/pdfs/2008%20June%205%20Survey%20of%20Cuban%20Public%20Opinion,%20March%2014-April%2012,%202008.pdf>

Jaffe, A. and Soligo, R. (2001).  The Potential for the U.S. Energy Sector in Cuba. A Report Commissioned by the Cuba Policy Foundation, Dec 2001. <http://www.cubafoundation.org/CPF-EnergyStudy.htm>

Li, Linda. "Talk is Cheap with North Korea, But Trade..." The American Prospect. 19 Nov . 2009. <http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=11&year=2009&base_name=talk_is_cheap_with_north_korea>.

MFF. "Kennedy and Cuba" Mary Farrell Foundation. <http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Kennedy_and_Cuba>

Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba. Rep. Report by Cuba on resolution 63/7 of the United Nations General Assembly. Oct. 2009. <http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N08/471/21/PDF/N0847121.pdf?OpenElement>.

Padgett, T. (2008). How Cuba's Oil Find Could Change the US Embargo. Time Magazine (October 2008). <http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1853252,00.html>

Pepper, M. "The Costs of the Embargo." Dollars and Sense. March/April 2009. <http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2009/0309pepper.html>.

Robles, Frances. "Cuba Has Biological Weapons" Frontpage Magazine (March 2007) <http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=25683>

State. "Calvin Coolidge" <http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/trvl/pres/12790.htm>

Suddath, C. (2009). A Brief History of US-Cuba Relations. Time.com. <http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1891359,00.html>.

Sullivan, M. (2009). Cuba: US Restrictions on Travel and Remittances. Congressional

38

Research Services. <http://www.lexisnexis.com/congcomp/getdoc?CRDC-ID=CRS-2009-FDT-1029>

United Nations. Department of Public Information. General Assembly, for Eighteenth Consecutive Year, Overwhelmingly Calls for End to United States Economic, Trade Embargo against Cuba. 28 Oct. 2009. Web. <http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2009/ga10877.doc.htm>.

United States. Cong. House. Comm. on International Relations. U.S. Government Printing Office. 104th Cong. HR 927.

United States of America. Treasury. Cuban Democracy Act. 1992.

United States of America. Treasury. Trading with the Enemy Act. 6 Oct. 1917.

USIS. "United States Interests Section" <http://havana.usint.gov/index.html>

Wasem, Ruth Ellen. "Cuban Migration Policy and Issues". Congressional Research Service (January 2006) <http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&ved=0CAwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdigital.library.unt.edu%2Fgovdocs%2Fcrs%2Fpermalink%2Fmeta-crs-9147%3A1&ei=-p4IS9mTGtGylAe76ZGxDA&usg=AFQjCNG48vxWLuFEH5liayPOEaOO_H5rEg&sig2=1u-mrlHFc5PiRP-aprM3AQ>

Weinmann, L. (2004). Washington's Irrational Cuba Policy. World Policy Journal, 21, 1, 22-31.

Weissert, W. "US still top food seller to Cuba and California now selling to Cuba" Havana Journal. 22 Jan 2008. <http://havanajournal.com/business/entry/us-still-top-food-seller-to-cuba-and-california-now-selling-to-cuba/

World Public Opinion.org, "Cuba Policy and US Public Opinion," (April 2009), <http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/apr09/Cuba_Apr09_packet.pdf>

39