Really? Most economists and history itself would disagree.
Name three economists that would make that point.
History is an abstract concept and agrees with nobody. It is the consensus of opinion and that consensus may change with opinion. Remember "the victor writes the history".
What was pre-embargo Cuba like in the fifties?
By pre-embargo, I will infer you mean pre-Castro. It was a vibrant and diverse community of people working to achieve their own personal goals. It was wealthy and prosperous, as can be evidenced by the abundance of 1950's Packards, Hudsons, Chevrolets, etc. Some very fine vehicles that people could afford as befitting a prosperous nation. Those cars are a fine symbol of the nation itself. What was once beautiful and functional is now faded, worn and though serviceable, just a forelorn reminder that once people could aspire to more than simply a state issued sack of beans and rice.
You made my very point. The rest of the world is dealing with Cuba...just not us. If some of us got out of our cozy shells (looked at things from a more international perspective, rather than America right or wrong), I think we would readily agree that:
1) the embargo has outlived its' usefulness;
Not at all. The embargo serves a valid point. Cuba is a hostile communist nation 90 miles from the U.S. coast that has a history of alliances with th most vociferous anti-American nations. Cuba is still seeking alliances with Iran, North Korea and Venezuela, the nations that hate America the most. While Cuba has the right to treat with any nations it chooses, it is proper that the United States ensure that enemies of the United States are not financed with American finances. This really begs the question of why America doesn't embargo China, but China is not 90 miles off the coast.
2) Communism is all but dead (despite some rantings here); and,
Communism is very much alive in such places as Cuba, China, North Korea, Vietnam and Russia. Further, it is still a military threat in many places around the world, most notably Taiwan. It is imperative that the communist leadership in Cuba not attain the military/economic potential to harm the United States.
3) the very fact that we are the only country embargoing Cuba isolates us from those (the rest of the world) that do not.
And America is the only major nation 90 miles from Cuba. American policy vis-a-vis Cuba is very different from France's, for instance. France would like nothing more than to see th United States face threats, real or perceived, that takes American influence away from other international arenas in which France could otherwise play a lead role. This is the real reason France didn't join the latest Gulf War. France has been actively trying to form and lead a diplomatic coalition of nations whose aim is to a) reduce the influence of the U.S. in international affairs and b) give France a dominant role in international affairs as an alternative to the U.S. French foreign policy is nothing more than to oppose the U.S. regardless of the merits of U.S. policy. Go ahead, take France's lead on the Cuban issue and subvert America's best interests.
Rather than accepting the status quo, and allowing things to remain just because...I believe one needs to justify international policy...especially obsolete 45 year old ones that serve only to separate us from the rest of the world.
Justification for foreign policy need only be that it is in the best interest of the country holding that policy. In fact, that is the only justification. It is in America's best interest that Cuba remain weak and militarily ineffectual. American foreign policy should reflect that. And to the extent that Cuba's proximity poses a threat, so must be the extent of the policy.
It's here that I must add a few comments on negotiation and compromise, but I give Ayn Rand full credit for the intellectual basis of these comments. Compromise can only benefit evil (or wrong). If one party is right and the other is wrong, any compromise will only lead the right party to be less right. If freedom is right and communism is wrong, then only communism can benefit by causing freedom to compromise. Sorry if I've butchered Ms. Rand's thesis, but in negotiations with communist states, the U.S. should not compromise. Such compromise can only serve to strengthen the communist states and diminish the freedoms of the citizens that the negotiations aim to benefit. In my view, all free nations should be in detente with all communist nations until the communists collapse under the weight of their own repression. Even tacit acceptance of communism, never mind formalized compromise, strengthens the communists and dilutes America's commitment to human rights and freedom.
