Slashdot Mirror


Cuba Calculates Cost of 54yr US Embargo At $1.1 Trillion

First time accepted submitter ltorvalds11 writes Cuba says its economy is suffering a "systematic worsening" due to a US embargo, the consequences of which Havana places at $1.1 trillion since Washington imposed the sanctions in 1960, taking into account the depreciation of the dollar against gold. "There is not, and there has not been in the world, such a terrorizing and vile violation of human rights of an entire people than the blockade that the US government has been leading against Cuba for 55 years," Cuban Deputy Foreign Minister Abelardo Moreno told reporters. He also blamed the embargo for the difficulties in accessing internet on the island, saying that the United States creates an obstacle for companies providing broadband services in Cuba. Additionally, he said that the area is one of the "most sensitive" to the embargo, with economic losses estimated at $34.2 million. It is also the sector that has fallen "victim of all kinds of attacks" by the US, as violations of the Cuban radio or electronic space "promote destabilization" of Cuban society, the report notes. The damage to Cuban foreign trade between April 2013 and June 2014 amounted to $3.9 billion, the report said. Without the embargo, Cuba could have earned $205.8 million selling products such as rum and cigars to US consumers. Barack Obama last week signed the one-year extension of the embargo on Cuba, based on the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, created to restrict trade with countries hostile to the U.S..

14 of 540 comments (clear)

  1. Ignorance is self-righteous posturing by src1138 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "There is not, and there has not been in the world, such a terrorizing and vile violation of human rights of an entire people than the blockade that the US government has been leading against Cuba for 55 years,"

    Ha ha ha ha! Funny guy. He needs to read a history book - or even a current weekly magazine.

    Abretardo Morono - pushing the limits of ignorant hyperbole!

  2. I don't get it by Torp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The righteous communists have a need to trade with the capitalist imperialists? Won't the ghost of Stalin provide for all?

    --
    I apologize for the lack of a signature.
    1. Re:I don't get it by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If Cuba had oil . . . the embargo would be over really fast.

      Cuban cigar smokers in the US don't have a PAC to push through changes. They're just not a big enough special interest group.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    2. Re:I don't get it by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think you understand how communism is supposed to work. Trade is desirable as long as the benefits are shared with the workers not just the private owners.

      How can you hate something you know so little about?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  3. $1.1 Trillion over 54 years... by NicBenjamin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Works to something like $20 Billion a year. That's a credible figure. We do $650 billion with Canada in a year, and Cuba ain't that much smaller.

    The problem with their argument is that whenever a US President tries to reduce tensions, they do something to ratchet them back up. For example, Obama was inaugurated in Jan of '09, announces easing the embargo by allowing families in the US to visit and send money more easily in April, and by December some poor schmuck (Alan Gross) is rotting in a Cuban jail for bringing computer equipment in for Jewish groups. It's true that if you're an evil dictatorship stopping your local people from doing that is not unreasonable, and it;s true our government paid for it, but it's also true that you could easily stop him seizing his computers and deporting his ass. Now if Obama ever does anything nice for Cuba (such as sticking his neck out on ending the embargo) people supporting the embargo strongly have a trump card: why would we trade with a country that is holding one of our guys in prison for the crime of helping people access the internet?

    It would cost them literally nothing to let this guy go, but they insist on keeping him in prison where he can only prevent them from accessing that $20 billion a year export market.

    Which means most independent observers have long concluded the Castros like the embargo, because it allows them to claim everything that is wrong with the country is Evil Foreign Gringo's fault. Which justifies things like arresting guys for bringing in computer equipment.

    1. Re:$1.1 Trillion over 54 years... by Xest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Right, but it's still an utterly stupid policy.

      If America had just allowed free trade with Cuba the inflow of US culture into the country would've long turned it into a pro-US state - it's the policy of isolation that's keeping it hostile in the first place.

      There's no way a country that small, and that close to the US could hold out as a communist nation in the face of unrestricted trade with the US - it'd become so utterly dependent on the US that it'd simply have no choice but to bow down to US wishes and culture.

      There are times where I do support the US (strikes against IS, stance on Ukraine) and there are times where I'll happily call it out as stupid (Iraq), this is one of those times where it's stupid, where the policy is wholly self-defeating, and where the only people that suffer from the policy are the largely innocent general populace of Cuba.

      The fall of the USSR was a prime opportunity to turn Cuba around, Russia facing bankruptcy withdrew almost all funding for Cuba and left it in the shit. Had the US taken that opportunity to drop restrictions, and normalise relations then Cuba would be as ex-USSR and as pro-USA as Poland is nowadays. Instead, the US continued it's bone-headed embargos such that now that Russia is becoming a resurgent pain in the ass Cuba is more than happy to take money to facilitate the reopening of the USSR's largest external listening base right off the coast of the US on Cuban soil.

      As foreign policy goes, the US' policy on Cuba is probably one of the single most stupid and short-sighted foreign policies there is.

    2. Re:$1.1 Trillion over 54 years... by Livius · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The purpose of the policy is not economic or ideological, it is to punish a country that chose to stop being an US colony and actually exercise the independence that was only supposed to be on paper.

      Cuba is hardly a model of economic progress or human rights, but that's not the reason.

      Very much like Iran.

  4. Re:RT.com? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, RT is about as reliable as Fox News. If you assume that everything said is complete lies and the few things that are true are extremely skewed then you are pretty close to the truth.
    With that said, the US embargo against Cuba has not exactly been beneficial to either of the nations. All this time since the cold war could have been spent bringing Cuba closer to the US. Just opening up a bit with regards to trading would have done a lot.
    A better Cuban economy would benefit the US (How about cheap manufacturing on Cuba instead of in China?) and having a trading partner that close instead of a potential enemy there is a pretty nice deal.
    In my opinion the stance US has towards Cuba is pretty retarded.

  5. Re:US is... by drfred79 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... a fucked up country full of paranoid war hawks and religious whack-jobs, that's about what you'd expect from america.

    Happy September 11th. If I wished to say those things about the United States I'd even be able to do so as a citizen. If you're an American then congratulations, you're in one of the only countries that you can do that. If you're not American I don't intend to stifle your freedom of speech, I just dare you to say that about you're own country.

  6. Re:RT.com? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think you will find that far fewer Ukrainians have died because of Rupert Murcoch.

  7. Re:RT.com? by silentcoder · · Score: 5, Insightful

    >Communists in power don't force people to drink vodka & eat borscht you sniveling coward, they confiscate all your belongings, outaw dissent & condemn people to hard prison or insane asylums without fair trials.

    No... that's what TYRANTS in power do. Just because we've had a lot of communist tyrants does not mean communism REQUIRES Tyrants (it doesn't) or that Tyrants are always communist (they aren't - in fact three of the worst tyrants of the 20th century were not - two were fascists [a form of capitalism] and one was a free market fundamentalist: Pinochet !)

    There are variations of communist philosophy that are forms of anarchism - such as Anton Pannekoek's "Council Communism", Robert Hahnel's Parecon, Noam Chomsky's brand of Anarcho-syndicalism or the kind of libertarian socialism practised in Andalusia (Southern Spain) during the first 20 years of the last century - and would probably still be there if the scale of the world wars hadn''t overwhelmed them and gotten all of Spain under a different tyrant (Franco) with yet another economic philosophy that was fairly unique (close enough to capitalism for Spain not to be targeted during the cold war, close enough to communism for the Russians not to target them either - somewhat like facism but not enough for either side to care).

    --
    Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  8. Re:RT.com? by dave420 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why is this +5? Yes, RT.com frequently publishes propaganda, but this story is available on any number of alternative news sites, and is based entirely on a report from the Cuban government itself. Unless you are suggesting RT.com has made the Cuban government write & publish this report, your comment is a fine example of an "ad hominem", and should be ignored as such.

  9. Re: RT.com? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wrong. Full blown communism requires tyrants. How else are you going to confiscate all the private property, and constantly suppress voluntary economic interactions?

  10. Re: RT.com? by VTBlue · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You mean like economic sanctions that prevent me from buying Cuban cigars in a voluntary economic transaction?

    *see what I did there?* :)