The current Cuba policy of the US is part of an anachronistic global strategy that is counterproductive for US interests and destructive to the world’s nations. The US is losing economically, socially, and diplomatically from its embargo policy towards Cuba. Only a holistic rethinking of that strategy and role can change the relations to Cuba in a sustainable manner and prevent the US from failing in world leadership and losing it to other emerging competitors. US must become the most innovative, most knowledge based and highest productive place on earth, in order to maintain a leading role in the world in the second half of the twenty-first century (Gordon) and beyond.

By more than half a century the Cuban population has lived with the US- embargo policy which is not only limited to bilateral relations between Cuba and the USA but maintained on a multilateral level via the global threat of US sanctions towards governments and private entities who engage in circumventing the embargo. The total countable loss of this policy is estimated as more than $230 Billion to Cuba, a yearly loss of $100 Million to US companies, accompanied by huge diplomatic deprivations for the USA within the world community and an institutional and military effort that has to be financed in order to keep the embargo working (D. Griswold). 

The ideology of an overcome era, held alive by a marginal group mainly residing in southern Florida and its influential lobby organizations, who impose their own ideas as those of hundreds of millions of American citizens and even the world community, via the presence and the veto right of the US in the UN security council, are the reason for the disadvantageous policy the US is still following (House, 14). A change in the US foreign policy towards Cuba will not only open up a new age of US- Cuban relations, but necessitates a substantial paradigm shift of the US self understanding, because neither economical nor social, diplomatic or national security considerations can explain the still existent embargo.

The remainder of the article is organized as follows. Section two examines the US Cuban Embargo with specific attention to the dominating paradigm and resulting political as well as military strategy are presented in section 2.1. The discussion of the economic aspects of the embargo is provided in section 2.2. Section 2.3 comprises the social impact, while section 2.4 contains the diplomatic consequences of the embargo policy. Section 3 concludes with the final discussion and a glimpse on a positive future for both countries. 

According to Article 14 of the Constitution of the Republic of Cuba, Cuba is a socialist Republic based on socialist ownership of the state where the distribution of resources and responsibilities are organized according to the principle: ”From each according to his ability, to each according to his work.” Land, mines, or other productive resources cannot be in owned privately (Article 15) and the whole economy is lead according to a plan in order to strengthen the socialist system (Article 16). The leading force behind this unified aim of the whole society is the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of Cuba, which is “the organized vanguard of the Cuban nation”, that guides the nation in the construction of socialism with the final aim of communism (Article 5). At the same time, it supports other nations in the fight against imperialism (Article 12), by which the US and its allies are surely meant, and forces a unified struggle and cooperation with other countries building socialism (Article 12). 

These few examples are enough for deriving the US paradigm towards Cuba and in which sense antagonistic, i.e. incompatible, interests force the nations towards conflict, if peaceful cohabitation under every circumstance is not agreed upon bilaterally beforehand.

 Cuba and, until 1989, the whole Soviet Block, are ideologically and politically the direct counterpart of the US and its allies. The US is based on private ownership and capitalism and a liberal market economy. More than one political party is permitted and representative democracy in a republican sense is conducted. The communist movement perceives these features as oppressive and works for overthrowing it globally. On the contrary, communism is regarded suppressive by the US and its allies as well, and they try to overthrow it in the whole world.  The crux in this conflict is that these are not just any differing regimes, but the direct negation of each other. The consequent implementation of one of these means the direct abolition of the other. While China or other former socialist countries seem to be somewhere in the middle, they are already integrated quite well into the world market. As Article 12 of the Cuban Constitution manifests and the practices of Ernesto Che Guevara de la Serna, a former minister of Cuba and one of the leaders of the Cuban revolution and founder of the socialist, state show, socialist movements have international ambitions and are not constrained to single countries (Sinclair, X). Thus, the risk of a spreading movement in Latin America, the traditional influence zone of the US, even called US’s “Backyard”, and a possible global symbolism of even small leftwing revolutionary movements, is not just an issue of theoretical reasoning, but of practical political relevance to the US.

From these paradigmatic differences we are not far from conceiving the political, as well as military strategy of containment and destruction, the US has been conducting for the last sixty years towards Cuba as an ally of the Soviet Block. It is vital to comprehend that Cuba justifiably had been seen as a part of a global regime during the cold war and US-actions against Cuba cannot be comprehensively categorized, if it were seen as actions only against a single, even marginal Caribbean country. The whole fight against Cuba was a part of the political war against the socialist influence in the world. The policy of containment and Rollback was implemented across Latin America, Africa, Europe and Asia and as a part of that global strategy, in the Caribbean region as well, as the documents of Operation Condor show quite well (Lotta). The Embargo was one among many instruments for the containment of socialist ideas, but the most painful for the Cuban population as well (Gordon, 2). 

A tightening belt had been swung around Cuba over the years. The Embargo began with President Eisenhower´s Trading with the “Enemy Act” in 1961, via which economic sanctions could be imposed on Cuba. “The foreign Assistance Act” of 1961 banned all aids to communist countries (House, 7). In 1962 the transfer of goods between Cuba and the USA became prohibited (House, 8). Many detailed laws and acts followed in the same manner, whereas the “Cuban Democracy Act” (1992), also known as the Torricelli Law, imposed a new level of sanctions. It extended the embargo policy from a bilateral to a multilateral sphere. From then on neither good from any country in the world could be shipped into or via USA if it contained any amount of Cuban raw material or pre- manufactured items. Thus, companies from other countries were withheld from trade with Cuba if they sold their goods to the world’s largest national market. Even more intensifying extraterritorial US- jurisdiction was the “Libertad Act” (1996), also known as the Helms- Burton Act, which even prohibited the import of goods to the US if these ever crossed Cuban national territory in any way (Joy Gordon, 6). Cuba is also excluded from the international financial system and faces huge difficulties in banking, monetary transactions, credits or tourism , due to US- sanctioning (Suchlicki, 14-15).

As if these economic regulations weren't difficult enough, direct military actions against Cuba further aggravated the country. Among these are more than 600 assassination attempts against the former Cuban leader Fidel Castro (P. Oppmann) or the direct military intervention in the Bay of Pigs on April 17, 1961. Also the occupation of Cuban territory by the US in Guantanamo Bay is not only an aggression against Cuba, but also violates international law and the spirit of the United Nations, which the US is a part of.

As mentioned above, these US- actions and particular policies against the Republic of Cuba are quite well comprehensible in the atmosphere of a global war. The Cold War provided such an atmosphere and Cuba was part of a big chain. Today, the US harms itself and acts contradicting to its target, since formerly seemingly effective strategies might not remain effective in a changing political environment, as it will be shown in the next subsections. 

The US’s total economic loss of the embargo to Cuba is conservatively estimated to $230 Billion. For some politically active individuals these kinds of numbers seem to prove a successful policy of punishment (Gordon, 12). These individuals and group members argue, that indeed, the US has a loss due to missing trade with Cuba, but it were only a marginal and dispensable loss, compared to the huge gain expectable, when the socialist regime fell. Before we get a closer look to the amount US entrepreneurs loose due to the embargo and who the losers are in particular, we’ll have a glimpse on the groups profiting from the existent policy. 

The Bacardi Clan and Bacardi Company invest huge amounts in policymaking against the existent Cuban leadership (McGee). They did not only lose property with the fall of Fulgencio Batista y Zaldivar, the former US- sponsored dictator of Cuba, but a lot of political influence as well. Other exile groups, mainly residing in southern Florida and around Miami, scientists sponsored by Bacardi (S. McGee) and radical rightwing paramilitaries that are categorized as dangerous and even in the focus of the FBI for preparing military operations on US soil. The “Frente de Liberacion Nacional de Cuba” for example, are among the beneficiaries of the embargo policy. No matter how influential these networks are, they do not represent the will of the US- American majority. The vast majority of the US citizens want an end of the embargo policy benefit non-aggressive relations with member states and in particular with Cuba (Gordon, 14).  

The embargo against the Republic of Cuba costs economic entities in the US an estimated amount of $100 Million and more per year (Gordon, 7). Entities include harbors such as Port Everglades or Palm- Beach- Harbor, but also the Port of Pascagoula are among dozens of seaports, which declared officially to be interested in interaction with Cuba and would directly profit from the rise in trade (Gordon, 6). The oil and gas industry of the US is highly interested in exploring the resources in Matanzas in Cuba (Geiger). The lift of the embargo would mean a direct economic stimulus plan to tens of thousands of farmers in the southern US, who could sell their needed products to Cuba. Many companies preferred nickel, one of Cuba’s major export goods, sugar, tobacco and also rum of the brand Havana Club, to Bacardi Rum, which meant directly a loss to Bacardi Company, but a gain for US consumers, since rising competition is beneficial for consumers in a market economy (McGee). 

The Cuban market might indeed not be as significant to the US economy as other markets seemingly are, but not the absolute amount of money is key in the transaction with the Cuban market, but who in the US gains from the trade with Cuba. These are mainly farmers, the producing and manufacturing sectors, as well as laborers at the ports, who are dependent on direct trade. Huge companies might call the trade amount negligible, but the small economic entities named, cannot be thought on their own. These spend the money they earn and every dollar they get is spend more for consuming goods of other producers, which has a stimulating effect on the whole producing sector, than huge companies do with their earned money amounts, when paying these to some shareholders. Every dollar earned from the trade with Cuba, will have a much more multiplicative beneficial effect to the US economy, than the existing estimations might have been accounted for. 

But, what about other losses to the US due to the economic embargo? One of the most important losses is cultural exchange. The consumption of goods is not only a nutritive action, but also a cultural one. When a consumer in Cuba prefers Coca- Cola to another good, he does not only choose one taste over another, but also one lifestyle over another. Hence, the export of goods is not only a transaction of products, but also a transaction of thoughts, ideas and lifestyles, via the individuals who prefer the goods. Of course Cuban goods will also have an influence on the US, as cigars might have on consuming businessman, who will feel something particular, but in this respect Cuba is really marginal compared to the US. USA has global political and cultural influence and will flood Cuba with mass-products. The eleven million Cubans will dare to get more, as the citizens of the former German Democratic Republic did and will more and more let US lifestyle into their hearts. That is how the US can profit from the increase in economic transaction twofold. It will increase business and will come closer to its political aim with less effort. 

Peaceful relations to neighboring states have an intrinsic value on its own, as peace has in general. Peaceful social interaction is more preferable to the majority of citizens in a human society than aggression and war is. Beside this general truth, holidays spend in Cuba and thus, social interaction with the population of a neighboring country or free interaction with Cuban relatives, has a particular value to US- American citizens, as current figures show.  Since the partial lift of the embargo by the Obama administration the number of tourists from the US to Cuba tripled (Young). Alternatively, others argue that tourism does not have a positive influence on showing the superiority of the US lifestyle and social model by interaction with American tourists, since the employees the tourists meet on their tours are selected by the Cuban ministry of work and thus, US- American tourists have no cultural influence on the Cuban population (Young). 

That might be true by now, but what happens, when the number of tourists to Cuba increases by millions? Every US tourist is an ambassador of US- values, lifestyle, ideas and ethics. Not immediately, but in years and in masses it will have an influence on the Cubans and will work better for the political cause of overthrowing the regime, than any embargo. If you imprison somebody, you force him to stick together with those who share his destiny, no matter how much he doesn’t conform to the ideas of the others. Let him free and he’ll have a choice. Surely, people choose social models that let them consume and feel comfortable. The current policy hasn’t served the US- cause quite well, but a social opening towards Cuba is the US’ best friend and obviously also the Cubans’.

On the contrary to all official declarations of US officials, the current isolationist US policy has not isolated Cuba but the US itself within the world community (Gordon). Although the US has a veto right in the United Nations Security Council (Constitution of the Republic of Cuba), it has no extraordinary power in the General Assembly of the United Nations, where almost 200 nations are present. Thus, a more democratic picture of the world’s view on the US policy towards Cuba is reflected in the Assembly than in the Council. Cuba is supported by almost every nation in the Assembly in its goal of ending the US- embargo against itself. Even closest allies of the US, except Israel, more and more refused their support for the US embargo policy towards Cuba over the years and stayed either abstinent in the votes on Cuba embargo- related resolutions or directly voted in favor of Cuba’s position (House, 5). What could be a modern US’ position? How can it come out of the diplomatic corner and work towards its declared aim of a free Cuba in a US sense? 

The Soviet Union does not exist anymore, but the US foreign policy is partially still working with these anachronistic models and does not incorporate a multipolar world in its strategy. The best example is the Cuba case. While real competitors are out there waiting for the takeover of the word leadership in an economic and diplomatic sense, the US still struggles with self-created enemies in the neighborhood. China is diplomatically active and uses its economic power not for wars, as the US does, but creates friendships all over the world. While the US and the European powers, with all its instruments such as IMF and World Bank are seen as colonizing forces by the Africans, China is a welcomed power all over Africa. China spreads its political influence via its constructive support in building African nations (Poplak). It gains from a diplomacy of friendship and economic gain, while the US tries to impose its influence with huge and unbelievably costly weapons and destructive systems, thus, the instrument of fear. It might work for some years more, but at the latest of the second half of the twenty-first century, China will have taken over world leadership, if the US does not changes its paradigm towards the world and itself substantially. It will loose diplomatic, political and due to economic problems even military influence as the British Empire, the Spanish and Portuguese or the Romans did before. Nobody hated can stay in power forever, but the loved ones will, even after their death. 

As a part of this failing diplomatic strategy, Cuba is still seen as an enemy and not pragmatically treated as the Chinese do globally. The US should adopt the following philosophy:

No matter what you think or how you live, if we can live in peaceful coexistence and even trade with each other, you are not my enemy. 

My influence in the world will be spread with close ties, not with isolation. If I stay very close to you, you will take over what I think is a good life and I will benefit from what is beneficial for me economically and politically at the lowest cost, with highest gain.

With this philosophy the US would not only change its position towards Cuba or other leftist countries, but could save huge amounts of wasted military spending and invest these scarce resources in highly innovative technologies. 

Since the Cuba Embargo policy is a part of an anachronistic relict, the change in policy towards Cuba would necessitates a rethinking of the role the US wants to have in the world in the second half of the twenty-first century and beyond.

In this article it is argued that the US embargo policy towards Cuba is an outdated relict of the Cold War and acts as a part of a total failed global strategy counterproductively to US interests in many spheres. The US loses economic gain from the trade with Cuba,  isolates its population from social interaction and gain from tourism to Cuba and brings itself into a diplomatic isolated position. The aim of overthrowing the socialist regime in Cuba did not only fail, but cannot be successful due to a categorical failure in the US foreign policy strategy, partially influenced by marginal groups with partial interests towards Cuba. The continuation of the embargo against the intentions of the UN General Assembly resulted always in stronger protests and burdened the relations of the United States with other governments. The political objectives of the embargo were only partially achieved, most of which were not necessary with the end of the Cold War. The main intentions were not satisfactorily fulfilled in any way.

After 49 years of not having any diplomatic relationships. President Barack Obama lifted the restrictions on travel and money transfers from exiled Cubans to Cuba and allowed telecommunications services from US companies with and in Cuba. As a result of the normalization of the relations since 17 December 2014, further embargo eases were introduced.
