Cuba Embargo
Pros and Cons
Video exploring critical thinking and how it leads to great citizen involvement
Should the United States Maintain Its Embargo against Cuba?
Cuba Embargo
February 7, 2012 marked the 50th anniversary of the ongoing US embargo against Cuba, an island nation 90 miles off the coast of Florida. The embargo, known among Cubans as "el bloqueo" or "the blockade," consists of economic sanctions against Cuba and restrictions on Cuban travel and commerce for all people and companies under US jurisdiction.

Proponents of the embargo argue that Cuba has not met the US conditions for lifting the embargo, including transitioning to democracy and improving human rights. They say that backing down without getting concessions from the Castro regime will make the United States appear weak, and that only the Cuban elite would benefit from open trade.

Opponents of the Cuba embargo argue that it should be lifted because the failed policy is a Cold War relic and has clearly not achieved its goals. They say the sanctions harm the US economy and Cuban citizens, and prevent opportunities to promote change and democracy in Cuba. They say the embargo hurts international opinion of the United States. Read more...

Did You Know?

Pro & Con Arguments

Top Pro & Con Quotes


Video Gallery

Cuba Embargo is a nonpartisan, nonprofit website that presents research, studies, and pro and con statements on whether the United States should maintain its embargo against Cuba.
Did You Know?
  1. President John F. Kennedy sent his press secretary to buy 1,200 Cuban cigars the night before he signed the embargo in Feb. 1962. [38]

  2. Estimates place the cost of the Cuban embargo to the US economy between $1.2 and $4.84 billion annually. A 2010 study by Texas A&M University calculated that 6,000 American jobs could be created by lifting the embargo. [19, 20]

  3. There were an estimated total of 6,602 political detentions in Cuba in 2012, which is among the world's highest on a per capita basis. [84, 86]

  4. The United Nations has denounced the US embargo against Cuba for 22 straight years. The vote against the embargo was 188-2 in 2013, with only Israel supporting the United States. [88]

  5. The United States began exporting food to Cuba following a devastating hurricane in 2001 and is now the island's second-largest food supplier. Annual food sales to Cuba peaked at $710 million in 2008. [51]

  6. The US policy on Cuban migration is known as "wet foot/dry foot" because if a Cuban is interdicted at sea ("wet foot"), she will be returned to Cuba, but if she manages to reach land ("dry foot"), she will be permitted to stay in the United States. [82]
Donate to

Teacher Survey
Pro & Con Arguments: "Should the United States Maintain Its Embargo against Cuba?"
PRO Cuba Embargo

  1. The United States should maintain the Cuba embargo because Cuba has not met the conditions required to lift it. Proclamation 3447 signed by President Kennedy on Feb. 3, 1962, established the embargo against Cuba to reduce "the threat posed by its alignment with the communist powers." [35] The embargo was strengthened by the 1992 Cuban Democracy Act [6], and the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Libertad) Act of 1996 (also known as Helms-Burton) [49] which specified conditions for terminating the embargo. According to US law, Cuba must legalize all political activity, release all political prisoners, commit to free and fair elections in the transition to representative democracy, grant freedom to the press, respect internationally recognized human rights, and allow labor unions. Since Cuba has not met these conditions, the embargo should not be lifted.

  2. Ending the embargo before the Cuban government meets the conditions specified by US law would make the United States look weak. Lifting the sanctions unilaterally would be an act of appeasement that could embolden Cuba to join forces with other countries such as Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia, China, and Iran to promote anti-American sentiments or socialism in the Western Hemisphere. [1] The United States should not risk sending the message that it can be waited out or that seizing US property in foreign countries, as Castro did in Cuba when he took power, will be tolerated. [59]

  3. The Cuban government has consistently responded to US attempts to soften the embargo with acts of aggression, raising concerns about what would happen if the sanctions were fully lifted. President Carter tried to normalize relations with Cuba by opening the US Interests Section (a de facto embassy) in Havana in 1977. Fidel Castro then orchestrated the Mariel Boatlift, which sent 125,000 emigrants (including criminals and mentally ill people) to the United States. [27, 28, 29] In 2003, President George W. Bush began to ease restrictions for visiting family members in Cuba, but tightened the rules in 2004 in response to Cuba's crackdown against political dissidents. [4] President Obama relaxed the US travel policy in 2009 to allow unlimited travel to Cuba to visit family members. [8] That same year, the Cuban government arrested an American aid worker and sentenced him to 15 years in prison. [81]

  4. The embargo enables the United States to apply pressure on the Cuban government to improve human rights. Several international organizations have written about the long history of human rights abuses and repression in Cuba. At least 4,123 people were detained for political reasons in 2011, and an estimated 6,602 political detentions occurred in 2012. [7, 86] The Congressional Research Service reported that there are an estimated 65,000 to 70,000 prisoners incarcerated in Cuba as of May 2012 (although the Cuban government reports 57,337 prisoners) - among the highest in the world on a per capita basis. [7, 4] The freedom of expression and right to assemble are severely restricted by the government. The 1996 Helms-Burton Act stated that the United States has a "moral obligation" to promote human rights in keeping with the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the embargo is a bargaining tool. [49]

  5. Since there is virtually no private sector in Cuba, opening trade would only help the government, not regular Cuban citizens. The 90% state-owned economy ensures that the Cuban government and military would reap the gains of open trade with the United States, not private citizens. [3] Foreign companies operating in Cuba are required to hire workers through the state; wages are converted into local currency and devalued at a ratio of 24:1, so a $500 wage becomes a $21 paycheck. A Cuban worker was quoted as having said, "In Cuba, it's a great myth that we live off the state. In fact, it's the state that lives off of us." [64]

  6. The United States is able to target the Cuban government with its embargo while still providing assistance to Cuban citizens. US policy allows people to visit family members and send money to relatives in Cuba, and also permits travel for humanitarian and educational reasons. Over one billion dollars in remittances (money transferred from abroad) are sent to Cuban families each year, mostly from relatives in the United States. [4] Congress has given USAID a total budget of $197 million between 2001 and 2012 to promote democracy and human rights in Cuba. [4]

  7. The uncertainty over who will succeed Raúl Castro makes it unwise for the United States to change its policy before a new leader is in place. An aging Fidel Castro yielded power to his younger brother Raúl for health reasons, but Raúl is also over 80 years old and there are questions about how much longer the Castros will remain in charge of Cuba. John Hughes, Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter and former President of the American Society of Newspapers, stated: "The worst scenario would be the emergence of an Army strongman who plunges the country into martial rule." [21] The embargo will be a necessary bargaining chip when a new leader takes power.

  8. The majority of Cuban Americans, the people who understand the situation best, support the embargo. US Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, a Cuban American, and long-time proponent of the embargo, wrote in a press release, "In addition to imposing economic pressure on the Castro regime and holding it accountable for actions against U.S. interests, the embargo is a moral stance against the brutal dictatorship. Over the last 50 years, the embargo has served as a constant form of solidarity with the Cuban people." [5] In 1991, 87% of Cuban Americans in Miami supported the embargo, and as of 2011, 53% still support maintaining it. [25, 26]

  9. Cuba should be subject to sanctions because it is known to have repeatedly supported acts of terrorism. Cuba has been on the US "State Sponsors of Terrorism" list since 1982. [9] The US State Department consistently finds evidence of Cuba's involvement in promoting violence, giving terrorists a safe haven, and harboring US fugitives. Members of the Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA), a terrorist organization that operates in Spain, live in Cuba. [10] Black Panther activist and convicted murderer Joanne Chesimard, known as Assata Shakur, is one of 90 or more criminals who fled the United States and received political asylum in Cuba. [75] In 1996, Castro's military shot down two American civilian aircrafts, killing four people. [22] Cuba is believed to have supported armed insurgencies in Latin America and Africa. [4]

  10. Cuba has not demonstrated a willingness to negotiate in good faith with the United States. President Barack Obama stated in a Sep. 28, 2011 "Open for Questions” roundtable, "Now, what we've tried to do is to send a signal that we are open to a new relationship with Cuba… [W]e have to see a signal back from the Cuban government... in order for us to be fully engaged with them. And so far, at least, what we haven't seen is the kind of genuine spirit of transformation inside of Cuba that would justify us eliminating the embargo." [11] Fidel Castro responded the following day by calling Obama "stupid" and saying, "Many things will change in Cuba, but they will change through our efforts and in spite of the United States. Perhaps that empire will fall first." [75]

  11. The embargo should be maintained because open travel is insufficient to promote change in Cuba; many democratic countries already allow travel to Cuba with no results. Lifting all travel restrictions to Cuba would not lead to improved conditions or the spread of democracy. More than 2.7 million people from around the world visited Cuba in 2011, including more tourists from Canada than any other country. [14] Despite the steady flow of tourism from western countries, the Cuban government still maintains total control over its people. Most Cuban nationals are banned from tourist areas such as resorts and beaches, so there would be limited contact with US citizens vacationing there. [63, 59]
CON Cuba Embargo

  1. The United States should end the Cuba embargo because its 50-year policy has failed to achieve its goals. Feb. 7, 2012 marked the 50th anniversary of the embargo, and the goal of forcing Cuba to adopt a representative democracy still has not been achieved. Fidel Castro resigned his presidency in 2008, and abdicated his role as the leader of Cuba's communist party in 2011 due to illness. His brother Raúl then stepped in to take his place. [65, 66] If 50 years of sanctions have not toppled the Castro regime, there is no reason to think the embargo will ever work.

  2. The embargo is a relic of Cold War Era thinking and is unnecessary because Cuba does not pose a threat to the United States. Cuba's relationship with the Soviet Union during the Cold War raised concerns about US national security, but that era is long over. The USSR dissolved in 1991, and American foreign policy has adapted to the change in most aspects apart from the embargo. [67, 68] The US Defense Intelligence Agency released a report in 1998 stating "Cuba does not pose a significant military threat to the U.S. or to other countries in the region." [22] The embargo can no longer be justified by the fear of Communism spreading throughout the Western Hemisphere.

  3. The embargo harms the US economy. The US Chamber of Commerce opposes the embargo, saying that it costs the United States $1.2 billion annually in lost sales of exports. [19] A study by the Cuba Policy Foundation, a nonprofit founded by former US diplomats, estimated that the annual cost to the US economy could be as high as $4.84 billion in agricultural exports and related economic output. "If the embargo were lifted, the average American farmer would feel a difference in his or her life within two to three years," the study's author said. [20] A Mar. 2010 study by Texas A&M University calculated that removing the restrictions on agricultural exports and travel to Cuba could create as many as 6,000 jobs in the US. [19]

  4. The embargo harms the people of Cuba, not the government as intended. Cubans are denied access to technology, medicine, affordable food, and other goods that could be available to them if the United States lifted the embargo. A report by the American Association for World Health found that doctors in Cuba have access to less than 50% of the drugs on the world market, and that food shortages led to a 33% drop in caloric intake between 1989 and 1993. The report stated, "it is our expert medical opinion that the US embargo has caused a significant rise in suffering-and even deaths-in Cuba." [24] Amnesty International reported in 2011 that "treatments for children and young people with bone cancer... [and] antiretroviral drugs used to treat children with HIV/AIDS" were not readily available with the embargo in place because "they were commercialized under US patents." [79]

  5. The United States should not have different trading and travel policies for Cuba than for other countries with governments or policies it opposes. The United States trades with China, Venezuela, and Vietnam despite their records of human rights violations. President George W. Bush lifted trade sanctions on North Korea in 2008 even amidst concerns about that nation's desire to develop nuclear weapons. [60] Americans are permitted to travel to other communist countries, nations known for human rights violations, and even places on the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. [52] Citizens may go to countries like Burma, Iran, and North Korea if given a visa, so there is no justification for singling Cuba as the one nation in the world that is off limits. [78]

  6. It is hypocritical for the US government to promote democracy by prohibiting Americans from traveling there. It is hypocritical to restrict American rights as a means of forcing another country to embrace freedom. It is also hypocritical to demand that Cuba adopt a representative democracy given the long history of US support for brutal dictatorships in countries that favor American interests, such as Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and Augusto Pinochet in Chile. [72] The United States even backed Cuban dictator General Batista (who was overthrown by Fidel Castro), someone known to have killed, tortured, and imprisoned political dissenters, because he was friendly to American interests. [73] Furthermore, the US has a higher per capita incarceration rate than Cuba, about 716 prisoners per 100,000 people compared to an estimated 510 per 100,000 in Cuba, so concerns about the number of prisoners there is hypocritical. [87]

  7. Most Americans want improved diplomatic ties and open travel and trade policies with Cuba. A 2012 opinion poll of more than 1,000 US adults found that 62% of respondents thought the United States should re-establish diplomatic relations with Cuba, while only one in four was against it. Among Americans surveyed, 57% think that the travel ban to Cuba should be lifted, while only 27% think the ban should remain. Regarding the trade embargo, 51% of Americans want to open trade with Cuba, compared to 29% who do not. [2]

  8. Cuban Americans, the people who understand the situation best, think the embargo is not working. More than 80% of Cuban Americans surveyed in 2011 said the embargo has worked not very well or not at all. [25, 26] Even though President Obama eased restrictions related to Cuba in 2009, his support among Cuban Americans in Florida increased from a third of the community in 2008 to more than half in the 2012 presidential election. [55]

  9. Free trade, not the isolation of an embargo, can promote democracy in Cuba. Former Illinois Governor George Ryan (R) said, "I think we ought to treat Cuba like we do any other country in the world... our biggest commodity is democracy, and we ought to be spreading that any place we can. And what made this country great is free trade." [80] An influx of US tourists and businesses would expose the sheltered island to our culture and freedoms, and weaken the Castro regime's control over information coming into the country. Trading with China led to economic reforms that brought 100 million people above the poverty line and improved access to health care and education across the country. [76]

  10. Lifting the embargo would put pressure on Cuba to address problems that it had previously blamed on US sanctions. Cuban officials have not been forced to take responsibility for problems such as a failing health care system, lack of access to medicine, the decline of the sugar industry, decrepit plumbing systems, and water pollution because they use the embargo as a scapegoat. The Cuban Minister of Foreign Affairs reportedly blamed the embargo for a total of $1.66 billion in damage to the Cuban economy. [12] President Bill Clinton said in a 2000 interview, "[S]ometimes I think [Fidel Castro] doesn't want the embargo lifted... because as long as he can blame the United States, then he doesn't have to answer to his own people for the failures of his economic policy." [77]

  11. Most of the world opposes the embargo, and maintaining it is detrimental to the reputation of the United States among the international community. The United Nations has formally denounced the US embargo on Cuba every year since 1991. In 2013, 188 countries in the UN General Assembly voted to condemn the US policy; only Israel sided with the United States. [13] [88] American allies, such as Canada, Britain, Italy, Mexico, and France are the leading suppliers of tourists to Cuba. [14] The US sanctions make the US look stubborn and childish in the eyes of the world. During his Mar. 2012 visit to the island, Pope Benedict XVI said the embargo "unfairly burdens" the Cuban people. [18]

  12. The embargo prevents the people of Cuba from joining the digital age by cutting them off from technology, and restricts the electronic flow of information to the island. Fewer than one in four Cubans accessed the internet in 2011. Maintaining the embargo gives the Cuban government an excuse for not building a better technological infrastructure and prevents foreign companies from expanding internet access to Cubans. [15] Some US companies have blocked access to their sites in Cuba for fear of breaching the embargo. Microsoft, for example, has disabled access to Messenger, a chat program, since 2009. [16] A Google spokesperson said the company blocks Cuban access to its Earth, Toolbar, and Analytics programs because "As a US company, we comply with US export controls and trade sanctions that limit us from offering certain services in certain countries." [17]
Comment Comment
Background: "Should the United States Maintain Its Embargo against Cuba?"

(Click to enlarge image)
Fidel Castro on the Jan. 26, 1959 cover of TIME magazine, shortly after he took control of Cuba.
Source: (accessed Dec. 17, 2012)
February 7, 2012 marked the 50th anniversary of the ongoing US embargo against Cuba, an island nation 90 miles off the coast of Florida. The embargo, known among Cubans as "el bloqueo" or "the blockade," consists of economic sanctions against Cuba and restrictions on Cuban travel and commerce for all people and companies under US jurisdiction. [69]

Proponents of the embargo argue that Cuba has not met the US conditions for lifting the embargo, including transitioning to democracy and improving human rights. They say that backing down without getting concessions from the Castro regime will make the United States appear weak, and that only the Cuban elite would benefit from open trade.

Opponents of the Cuba embargo argue that it should be lifted because the failed policy is a Cold War relic and has clearly not achieved its goals. They say the sanctions harm the US economy and Cuban citizens, and prevent opportunities to promote change and democracy in Cuba. They say the embargo hurts international opinion of the United States.

History of US-Cuba Relations, 1800s to 1980s

The United States and Cuba have not always been at odds. In the late 1800s, the United States was purchasing 87% of Cuba's exports and had control over its sugar industry. [30] In the 1950s, Havana's resorts and casinos were popular destinations for American tourists and celebrities such as Frank Sinatra and Ernest Hemingway. [31] By Jan. 1, 1959, however, revolutionary Fidel Castro had overthrown the US-backed President Batista and established Cuba as the first Communist state in the Western Hemisphere. [32] From 1959 to 1960, Castro seized $1.8 billion of US assets in Cuba, making it the largest uncompensated taking of American property by a foreign government in US history. Depending on how interest is calculated, claims on the seized assets range from $6.4 to $20.1 billion in 2012 dollars. [85] The US government was also concerned about the threat posed by having a new Soviet ally so close to America's shores. [30] On Oct. 19, 1960, President Eisenhower signed a partial embargo on exports to Cuba, the first step towards the US policy that exists today. [70, 71] Eisenhower ended diplomatic relations with Cuba and closed the US embassy in Havana on Jan. 3, 1961, saying "There is a limit to what the United States in self-respect can endure. That limit has now been reached." The former embassy building would later serve as the site of the US Interests Section (a de facto embassy) opened by President Carter in 1977. [83]

(Click to enlarge image)
Presdient John F. Kennedy smoking a cigar.
Source: "JFK Cigar - From The Raleigh Degeer Amyx Collection - John F. Kennedy," (accessed Dec. 17, 2012)

President Kennedy approved a 1961 plan to train and arm Cuban exiles trying to overthrow Castro's communist regime, but the Apr. 17, 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion failed when the Cuban military defeated the outnumbered US-backed forces. [33] The situation became more dire when a US spy plane observed the Soviet Union shipping nuclear missiles to Cuba.

On Feb. 3, 1962, President Kennedy signed Proclamation 3447 (effective date Feb. 7, 1962) to declare "an embargo upon all trade between the United States and Cuba." [35] The night before he signed the embargo, JFK sent his Press Secretary, Pierre Salinger, to procure as many Cuban cigars as he could find. Salinger returned with a stash of 1,200 Petit Upmann cigars.[38]

The Cuban Missile Crisis, period of negotiations from Oct. 15-28, 1962, eventually ended in an agreement for the USSR to remove its weapons from Cuba. President Kennedy later estimated the 50/50 odds of the United States launching a nuclear attack on the island nation as "between 1 in 3 and even," demonstrating how close the countries came to going to war. [34]

On Feb. 8, 1963, the United States prohibited travel to Cuba [37] and in July of that year the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (CACR) [36] were issued as a comprehensive economic sanction outlawing financial transactions with Cuba. [4] The regulations also prohibit the purchase or importation of any merchandise of Cuban origin, with the exception of "information or information materials" (such as publications, recorded music, and certain artwork). [69]

In 1977, US President Jimmy Carter showed signs of attempting to thaw relations by opening the US Interests Section in Havana [39] and authorizing secret talks wtih Cuba. [40] Proponents of the embargo note that instead of reciprocating with goodwill, Castro authorized the 1980 Mariel Boatlift, in which 125,000 Cubans, including nearly 2,500 prisoners and mentally ill patients, were sent to Florida, reportedly to ease the Cuban food shortages, get rid of people who criticized his regime, and embarrass the United States which took in the refugees. [41]

Supporters of the embargo received further ammunition when the US State Department added Cuba to the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism in 1982, reportedly because of its support for communist rebels in Africa and Latin America. Syria, Iran, and Sudan are the other three countries on the list. [9] Critics of the terrorist labeling, including US Army retired Brigadier General John Adams, said that the designation has no justification and undermines US credibility in the international community. [42]

(Click to enlarge image)
Cuban refugees who fled during the Mariel boatlift arriving in Key West on Apr. 23, 1980 on a shrimp boat named Big Babe.
Source: "Week in Review," New York Times website, Jan. 16, 2005

Congressional and Presidential Changes to US Policy, 1990s to 2000s

The 1992 Cuban Democracy Act and the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996 (aka Helms-Burton Act) strengthened the economic embargo. [6, 49] The bills prohibited US foreign subsidiaries (a company controlled by a company based in another country) from trading with Cuba, restricted remittances (money sent as a gift) to prevent the Cuban government from accessing US currency, and allowed sanctions against companies that invested in property seized from Americans during the communist revolution. [48] Both laws were condemned by US allies such as Canada, United Kingdom, Mexico, and France. [50] Despite the embargo, Cuba managed to keep its economy afloat with $3 billion in annual aid from the USSR. [43, 44] When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, so did its financial assistance to Cuba, which caused the economy in the island nation to decline by 35-50% between 1989 and 1993. [4] The Cuban government was able to stop the descent and promote economic growth by allowing limited tourism and foreign investment in 1994. [4, 45]

In 1995, President Clinton signed an executive order that lifted some travel restrictions and allowed a Western Union office to open in Havana, which infuriated Cuban-American leaders such as US Rep. Bob Menendez (D-NJ). [46, 47] Clinton said that Menendez called him "every two or three days to be harder on Castro." That pressure prevented him from taking a stronger stance against the embargo, despite his ardent belief that the sanctions should be lifted. Historian Taylor Branch recalled a conversation with President Clinton: "He confided on tape that the embargo was a foolish, pandering failure. It had allowed Castro to demonize the United States for decades... The president said anybody 'with half a brain' could see the embargo was counterproductive." [47] The Clinton administration also dealt with the issue of immigration to the United States by brokering the May 1995 "Cuban Migration Agreement," which led to a policy known as "wet foot/dry foot." Cubans interdicted at sea ("wet foot") will be returned to Cuba unless they cite fear of persecution, while those who are able to reach the shore ("dry foot") would be permitted to remain in the United States. [82]

(Click to enlarge image)
Classic cars are common in Cuba because American manufacturers could not export there following the embargo, and until 2011, most Cubans were only allowed to buy cars that were on the road before 1959.
Source: Graham Campbell,, June 28, 2006
Following the devastating Hurricane Michelle in 2001, the United States and Cuba formed a reluctant agreement allowing US companies to sell food to Cuba for humanitarian reasons. The US government required Castro to pay upfront in cash and despite Castro's disinclination to allow American imports, the United States soon became Cuba's number one food supplier and sales peaked at $710 million in 2008. [51]

The George W. Bush administration added new, harsher restrictions to the embargo and increased penalties for violating them to up to 10 years in prison and $1 million in fines. [52] Even the usually pro-embargo Cuban American community wanted to return to pre-2004 rules that allowed them more freedom to visit their families in Cuba or send money to help those relatives. [52]

In 2008, prolonged illness forced Fidel Castro to step down officially as president of Cuba and allow his brother to take his place. Raúl Castro initially showed signs of wanting to implement economic reforms that would be the first step towards normalizing relations with the United States, but a series of hurricanes in 2008 damaged Cuba's leading industries and took attention away from political reforms. [51]

Cuban Policy Under the Obama Administration

As a senator in 2004, President Obama stated his opposition to the US policy on Cuba, saying "The Cuban embargo has failed to provide the sorts of rising standards of living, and has squeezed the innocents in Cuba and utterly failed to overthrow Castro, who has now been there since I was born. It is now time to acknowledge that that particular policy has failed." [53] In 2011, although President Obama made strides in easing the Cuban embargo, most significantly by lifting restrictions on travel and sending remittances in 2011, he actually defended maintaining the blockade. [56] "[W]e have to see a signal back from the Cuban government that it is following through on releasing political prisoners, on providing people their basic human rights, in order for us to be fully engaged with them," he stated. "And so far, at least, what we haven't seen is the kind of genuine spirit of transformation inside of Cuba that would justify us eliminating the embargo..." [54]

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton alleged that the Castro regime has sabotaged US attempts to improve relations between the two countries. She said, "It is my personal belief that the Castros do not want to see an end to the embargo and do not want to see normalization with the United States, because they would lose all of their excuses for what hasn't happened in Cuba in the last 50 years." [57]

(Click to enlarge image)
Political cartoon about the Cuba embargo.
Source: Carlos Latuff, (accessed Dec. 17, 2012)

In 2013, the United Nations passed a resolution condemning the embargo for the 22nd consecutive year. The vote was 188-2, with only Israel supporting the US policy. [88] In 2012 Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez spoke to the UN General Assembly about "the inhumane, failed and anachronistic policy of 11 successive US administrations." [13] US Ambassador to the UN Ronald Godard defended the sanctions as a tool to "encourage respect for… human rights and basic freedoms." Godard argued that the United States was helping the people of Cuba by sending $2 billion in family remittances and $352 million in agricultural, medical, and humanitarian products in 2011. He also noted that the Cuban government committed more than 4,000 "short-term, politically motivated detentions" in 2011, a number surpassed in 2012. [58]

Fidel Castro, in his late 80s, is reportedly very ill and his younger brother Raúl Castro is also over 80 years old. Raúl was re-elected in Feb. 2013, at which time he announced that he would step down in 2018. [89] Some people hoped that a new regime would make the reforms necessary to repeal the blockade, while others looked for President Obama to end the embargo regardless of Cuba's actions.

On Dec. 17, 2014, President Obama announced a restoration of full diplomatic relations with Cuba for the first time since 1961. A deal between the United States and Cuba was brokered during 18 months of secret talks hosted by Canada, with a final meeting hosted by Pope Francis at the Vatican. Although the US embargo remains in effect and ordinary tourism by Americans is still prohibited, the United States will ease travel and remittance restrictions, release three Cuban spies, and open an embassy in Havana.

For its part, Cuba agreed to release 53 Cubans identified by the United States as political prisoners, as well as American contractor Alan Gross and an unnamed intelligence agent who had been imprisoned for nearly 20 years. A White House official said, "This is being done because we believe the policy of the past has not worked and we believe the best way to bring democracy and prosperity to Cuba is through a different kind of policy." US Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) opposed the move, saying, "This is going to do absolutely nothing to further human rights and democracy in Cuba. But it potentially goes a long way in providing the economic lift that the Castro regime needs to become permanent fixtures in Cuba for generations to come." [90]
Video Gallery

CNBC interviews Mauricio Claver-Carone (pro) and Daniel Griswold (con) about keeping the embargo.
Source: Common Sense Capitalism, "Time to End the Cuban Embargo?,", Aug. 21, 2010
The history of the Cuban embargo is explained.
Source: destinationcb, "The Cuban Embargo: Then and Now,", May 22, 2009

Ambassador to Cuba Ronald D. Godard, US Senior Area Advisor for Western Hemisphere Affairs, explains the US position on the Cuba Embargo to the United Nations.
Source: US Department of State, "Ambassador Godard Explains Vote on the Cuba Embargo ,", Oct. 25, 2011
Report details United Nations actions on the US embargo against Cuba.
Source: ABC News, "US Under Pressure to Lift Economic Embargo on Cuba,", Nov. 13, 2012
Notices for Cuba Embargo and Other Information (archived after 30 days)

2/6/2015 Educators in 5,758 schools have used Our free resources have been used by teachers, librarians, and administrators in all 50 US states and 73 countries. The breakdown is 1,529 elementary and middle schools (26.6%), 2,911 high schools (50.5%), and 1,318 colleges and universities (22.9%). A big thank you to educators around the world for helping us spread the word about critical thinking!

2/3/2015 - Governments That Have Used – research has now been used by 24 international governments, inter-governmental organizations, dependencies, and areas of special sovereignty. Recent additions include Germany, Spain, and the United Nations.

Archived Notices (archived after 30 days)

Last updated on 12/19/2014 4:37:44 PM PST

DONATE - Donate to - DONATE
Visit the community on:

© 2014, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit     |   233 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200, Santa Monica, CA 90401    |    Tel: 310-451-9596