Get PJ Media on your Apple

Don’t End the Cuban Embargo

Ending the embargo wouldn't win a single Hispanic vote for the GOP.

by
Henry Gomez

Bio

June 21, 2013 - 12:08 am
Page 1 of 2  Next ->   View as Single Page

Michael Edghill proposes a novel but convoluted and factually challenged argument to end the United States’ embargo on Cuba’s Castro regime. Edghill begins his argument by highlighting the oft-repeated advice that the Republican Party needs to do a better job of appealing to Hispanics. I agree completely with this and have written extensively that the natural home for Hispanics is the GOP because of their family values, social conservatism, and entrepreneurialism. But then Mr. Edghill goes off the rails to use this as a justification for changing U.S. policy toward Cuba.

First he attacks the effectiveness of the embargo by stating the obvious — that it has not caused political change in Cuba. But he does not offer any evidence that its absence would cause political change. In fact, Edghill admits that “tourists and business interests from Europe and the rest of the Americas have sustained the Cuban economy.”

It’s important to keep in mind the fact that the Cuban economy is completely dominated by the state; in particular, the tourist sector is controlled by the Cuban Armed Forces, of which Raul Castro has been the head since the revolution that brought Fidel Castro to power. So how, exactly, would getting rid of the embargo hurt the existing status quo? The obvious answer is that it wouldn’t. In fact, it would provide a financial boon to Cuba’s oppressors.

The embargo has been extremely effective at one thing — preventing the United States from being ripped off by the Castro crime family. It’s worth remembering that the embargo was imposed when the Castros expropriated (that is to say, stole) $1.8 billion in American business assets. The same crooks are still in power, and only their word would assure us that future expropriations wouldn’t occur. Those of us who follow Cuban affairs closely have seen countless announcements of joint ventures with business interests from foreign countries made with much fanfare, but far less publicized are the announcements when the same investors pull out or are pushed out by Castro, Inc.

Protecting Americans from making foolhardy investments in Cuba is one thing, but the people who are truly protected by the embargo are the U.S. taxpayers. The reason why the Castros have made removing the embargo such a priority is that it stands in the way of Cuba getting trade credit. As it stands, the U.S. is one of Cuba’s largest trading partners, selling the country food, agricultural products, and medicine on a cash up-front basis. But the regime desperately wants credit. History is clear that the Castros are a bad credit risk.

The following is from the mission statement of the Export-Import Bank of the United States:

Ex-Im Bank does not compete with private sector lenders but provides export financing products that fill gaps in trade financing. We assume credit and country risks that the private sector is unable or unwilling to accept.

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (6)
All Comments   (6)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
We do get one thing out of Castro. We don't have to renegotiate the lease on Gitmo.
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
Reagen got the Berlin wall torn down and now Germany is again one nation.
If we tear the down the Cuban wall,it may very well be the end of Communism in Cuba
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
If I unserstand you, this is completely backwards. The Berlin Wall was to keep East Germans tfrom escaping to the West, not to keep American dollars out. If we imitate Reagan, we shouold restore the full embargo. And that goes for VietNam also.
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
Mr. Michael Edghill's 'reasoning' seems to run thus:

"The embargo hurts Cuba's economy. Therefore, it hurts Cubans. Therefore, Cubans must be against it. Cubans are Hispanic. Therefore, Hispanics are against it. Hispanics think we hate them. Therefore, if we are against something they hate, they will love us."

To call it simplistic is to do a disservice to the word. To call it sophomoric would be generous.
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
Racial horse-trading. Great. Buddy, you already lost this battle, you just don't know it.
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
What does this comment have to do with the article? He argued against what you said.
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
View All

One Trackback to “Don’t End the Cuban Embargo”