Castro’s Camouflage and the Sanctions on Cuba

Thirty-seven years to the date April 20th, 2017, Fidel Castro enacted the policy of the Mariel boatlift, in which he’d allow Cubans seeking to emigrate to the United States to do so by departing at Mariel. This number would eventually eclipse 125,000 people seeking asylum and refuge from Cuba, and the regime in which at one point they felt represented or directly opposed their own viewpoints. The first wave of Cuban exiles being the extremely wealthy, in direct opposition to Fidel Castro’s regime for a race-less society, and a single-class economy, government, and social order. The ultimatum being set at you’re with the revolution or you’re not, this encouraged former supporters of the now ousted Batista, to seek refuge in the United States.

In the article, “Why Do We Still Have an Embargo of Cuba?” Patrick Haney explores the history of the embargo and the different factors which have maintained and tightened its restrictions over the past fifty years. The embargo consists of a ban on trade and commercial activity, a ban on travel, a policy on how Cuban exiles can enter the U.S., and media broadcasting to the island. These once-executive orders now codified into law by the Helms-Burton Act, have become a politically charged topic which wins and loses elections, spawned influential interest groups, and powerful political action committees.

One of the most controversial and widely debatable issues that have been discussed extensively in international legislation for several decades is the Helms-Burton Act. The main controversy surrounding the Helms-Burton Act is the resistance from the Cuban government regarding the features of the legislation. The resistance is a clear demonstration of the legality of property claims despite of the passage of time. Throughout history, rarely has an initiative by the American government to enforce its political opinion on economies of other countries generated much anger like the 1996 Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity or Helms-Burton Act. Even though President Clinton initially opposed the legislation, it was enacted after the downing of two planes by Cuban Air Force that were flown by members of an anti-Castro organization in America. The enactment of this legislation resulted in the America's Cuban Conundrum whose main issues are addressed in this article.

When Fidel Castro took over Cuba by means of a revolution, he quickly established his government as the first openly Communist government in the western hemisphere. He petitioned the Soviet Union for aid, which was cheerfully given him. These events went against our current policies, as well as the Monroe Doctrine, which established us as the police force of the western hemisphere. Ninety miles away from the greatest bastion of Capitalism was now residing its greatest foe. This tense situation was brought to a boiling point by the arrival of

This article details the history of the Cuban embargo, tracing its evolution as a tool of retaliation for the seizure of American property, as a weapon in the Cold War against the Soviet Union and its Cuban allies, and finally as an instrument of American policy for the promotion of democracy and human rights. The article then examines the actual impact of the embargo on human rights in Cuba today and highlights the contradiction between the embargo’s avowed political purpose and legal rationale-the promotion of human rights-and its actual consequences, which are harmful to human rights generally. The article suggests that, by harming Cubans ' economic, social, educational, cultural, and family rights, the embargo violates basic norms widely

At first glance, Cuba is a paradise, surrounded by green landscapes and shimmering oceans, yet internally the fight for power takes over the country. In the 19th century, many Cuban’s wanted to be in power, although all for different reasons. Fulgencio Batista was known as a dictator, seen as the enemy by many, but an ally to the United States. On the other hand, Fidel Castro was fighting against Batista -- opposing everything Batista fought for. These two leaders were conflicting, both in their goals for the country of Cuba, and their allies.

Inconsistency underlies the logic of the United States sanctions against Cuba. The relevance of the pre-1990 objectives of the embargo became obsolete with the end of the cold war. However, the so called “Cuban Democracy Act” came up with a new objective of bringing freedom and democracy to the people of Cuba. The act demands Cuba to establish electoral democracy. Put it in other words, the act asks Cuba to permit the establishment of multi-party system, conduct periodic elections, permit freedom of press, and build democratic institutions which guarantee the protection of the human and democratic rights of the people. These objectives by themselves are noble ideas worth fighting for and promoting all over the world. Yet, the problem with the “Cuban Democracy Act” is it proposes to strengthen the economic sanctions against Cuba to bring about these ends. This requirement levied upon Cuba contradicts the basis of the United States relations with other countries around the world. Countries like China and Saudi Arabia don’t have electoral democracy whatsoever, moreover they are more brutal than the Castro regime in Cuba. However, they enjoy the status of most favored nation in their relation with the United States (Griffin 171). Thus, the question is what is the logical foundation for the

In 1959, Fidel Castro was still figuring out how to align Cuba, and what Cuba’s role in the world would be. By late fall of 1959, the Eisenhower administration felt that the US could never “do business with the Castro Government on a basis which could be termed even reasonably satisfactory.” Castro had already “indulged in anti-American propaganda, nationalized U.S. property, proclaimed Cuba's neutralism, and worked with Cuban Communists.” By March 1960, Eisenhower had approved of a plan for the overthrow of Castro. By May 1960, Cuba officially aligned itself with the Soviet Union, and received assistance from the USSR to resist the United States. The failed Bay of Pigs invasion occurred in April 1961, several months prior to Belgrade. A little over a year following the Belgrade Conference saw the Cuban Missile Crisis unfold. Cuba saw the USSR’s actions in this crisis as acting against Cuban interests, and Cuba began to deemphasize relations with the USSR and create closer ties with the NAM countries. While undeniably a controversial candidate for non-alignment, many of Cuba’s values were closer to the NAM’s basic principles. The Non-Aligned countries believed in strengthening their independence by pushing back on economic and political colonialism, and bridging the gulf between the wealthy and poorer nations of the planet. They were in full support of Cuba’s stance, even supporting Cuban frustration with the US base on

In the heat of the Cold War, communism has spread its influence across the world and the United States stand fearing the worse from the Soviet Union. The United States’ objective was to expand the sovereignty of capitalism, but this was in the way of the USSR’s plan to overthrow capitalism entirely. With this struggle to keep their intentions active, the Cold War is primarily about who can be able to control the end results of World War II. Now the fear was creeping up among the U.S., with the events of the Korean War and the tension between the free enterprise versus the socialist. So while the Cold War continued to advance, the corruption of Cuba caused by General Fulgencio Batista, elected president of Cuba who has dictated the Cuban

It must be noted that the America’s security interests in the Caribbean include maintaining friendly states. The realist theory of international relations shows that the new policy takes care of America’s national security interests because it is only through reconsidering its relations with Cuba can the United States truly keep its southern border free of any hostile military power. Nevertheless, beyond the rhetoric, the United States can only hope that the Caribbean and Latin America will contribute to its efforts to encourage Cuba to democratize its governance and modernize its economy. Mexico, Chile, Uruguay, Costa Rica, Jamaica, and Peru are the potential partners in this regard. From the foregoing, it should be apparent that the resumption of diplomatic relations with Cuba is for the most part informed by the need to protect America’s interests, confirming the realist assumption that the state serves as the rational sovereign actor in pursuing its self-interest with the goal of ensuring its security and

Recently, the relationship between Cuba and the United States has been a leading story in the news. It has been reported that the U.S. government is heading towards normalization with the tiny island country. This is in contrast to the history of the two countries. Beginning directly after the communist revolution in Cuba, which began in the late 1950’s, the two countries halted all diplomatic relations. Additionally, the conditions in Cuba worsened, and the economy crashed. Since 1980, hundreds of thousands have left due to the horrible circumstances. Led by Fidel Castro, the communist revolution in Cuba has been a failure because the standard of living collapsed and continues to fall behind other countries.

In order to advance in this development, governmental regulation must be set in place as well as, the political and social system, without intrusion. In a press release, Raul Castro Ruiz stated, “We will never accept the imposition of any condition that is harmful to the sovereignty and the dignity of our Homeland” (Cubaminrex, 2016). The result of these meetings is a “four packages of regulations” announced by the US government to relax some aspects of sanctions against Cuba. These agreements are planned by the economic, commercial and financial blockade unilaterally planned by Washington since 1961 (Cubaminrex, 2016). The island of Cuba accepts the new affiliations with the United States, through the process of negotiations, openness, and patience. The undisputed conflict had ceased, the current embargo lifts shaped a dissimilarity in both Cuba and the United States. The embargo has been in progress even before Fidel came into power. The United States embargo against Cuba has been imposed since the 1960s when president Batista was in

The dispute between the U.S and Cuba dates back more than two centuries. Centuries within which some say conflict primarily arose due to the United States’ attempts to exercise and impose its governing concepts upon Cuba; ignoring the islands own right to independence and sovereignty (Hernandez, 2008). Following relentless turmoil, in the year 1960 the United States broke off relations with Cuba and imposed a trade embargo-a ban on trade. Most recently, President Obama issued the restoration of full diplomatic relations with Cuba, relations of which have been non existent now for a little over the half century that the embargo has been in place (Baker, 2014). This restoration of relations will now allow for the U.S exportation of telecommunications and goods, as well as permit expanded travel for Americans and open banking relations between the nations (Spetalnick & Hughes, 2015). I believe this ultimate policy shift could do one of two things, potentially help the seemingly socio-economically stagnant Island of Cuba globalize or destroy its sovereignty and exploit its members. Thus I raise the question of: will having the United States of America restore ties with Cuba serve to benefit the Caribbean Island?

Jon Lee Anderson’s, “Cuba and America: The End of an Estrangement” is an article written in favor of the normalization of relations between Cuba and the United States of America. Anderson begins with suggesting that US-Cuba relations are out of date by providing details of the two countries past history of conflict. Secondly, the author states that Cuba has abandoned most of its uncompromising positions and is better prepared for restoring relations with the US than ever before. Lastly, it is mentioned that US President Barak Obama has the intentions to restore relations and has publically denounced the 1962 embargo with Cuba- a grand gesture in hopes of normalizing relations.

For almost five decades, Communist revolutionary Fidel Castro ruled over the island country of Cuba and bedeviled United States presidents who viewed his regime as oppressive and a threat to freedom in the Western world. Under his leadership, Castro made a Caribbean country of 11 million people a major player in modern 20th century politics and became an icon for revolutionaries in Latin America and around the world. As news broke of Castro’s death on Friday night, leaders from around the globe offered both condolences and criticisms of Castro and his legacy. The famously bearded leader prided his contributions to health, education, and welfare—commitments he made to the people of Cuba when he