• U.S.

WILL A TIGHTER EMBARGO REALLY BRING DOWN CASTRO?

5 minute read
J.F.O. Mcallister/Washington

An old communist saw holds that capitalists will gladly sell the rope that can be used to hang them. Fidel Castro is trying to adapt that maxim to secure a financial lifeline from the U.S. It is an article of faith in Havana that if only Washington would lift the 33-year-old trade embargo, a vast infusion of American cash would rescue Cuba’s economy. Last summer Castro tried to force the Clinton Administration into negotiations about improving ties by allowing more than 33,000 Cubans to flee the island for the U.S. The ploy did not work; the U.S. still holds 28,000 rafters in legal limbo, most at Guantanamo, and has resolutely kept the subsequent talks fixed on matters of migration.

Now Castro seems to hope he can crack the embargo with the help of American business. He has seen how its lobbying opened up U.S. relations with Marxist regimes in the Soviet Union, China, Vietnam and even North Korea; a trade mission headed by retired admiral Elmo Zumwalt and his son is visiting Pyongyang this week. So Castro is promising Yankee investors they will make a lot of money in Cuba if they will pressure Washington to end the blockade. He has made some modest gestures in recent months to underscore his appetite for American investment: shaking the hand of Vice President Al Gore in Mexico last December, allowing improved phone service to the U.S. Ricardo Alarcon, president of Cuba’s National Assembly and a key Castro adviser, wields a small stick: “If the U.S. does not re-evaluate the embargo, its policy will become less relevant” as countries like Canada, Mexico and Spain provide the economic links Cuba seeks and reap the profits.

If Castro has a game plan of sorts, so has Clinton: keep Cuban migrants at home and Castro bottled up. Two weeks ago, the U.S. began sending 7,500 rafters temporarily housed in Panama to Guantanamo to fulfill a pledge that they would not stay more than six months. The Cubans, who rioted in December, were angry at being returned to the island they had fled. “We are political pawns,” said Alberto Lujardo as he walked off the plane at Guantanamo. “We’ve been betrayed by the U.S. government and by the communist government of Cuba.”

If Clinton ever had hopes he could warm up relations with Cuba, they are gone now that Republicans control Capitol Hill. Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Jesse Helms and other powerful lawmakers are convinced that Castro is on the verge of collapse and should be squeezed even harder to precipitate his downfall. Last week they introduced legislation that would intensify the embargo, and it stands a good chance of passing intact. Clinton officials were caught unawares by the new bill, which would punish foreign companies doing business with Cuba. Among its provisos: Americans whose property was expropriated by Cuba could sue any foreign companies that now own it; company officers and shareholders would be denied visas to enter the U.S.; American banks would be barred from making loans to these companies. Another provision would deduct from U.S. aid to Russia the amount paid to Cuba by Russia–about $200 million–to operate its electronic listening post at Cienfuegos, which it claims is crucial to monitoring arms-control treaties.

Facing harsh odds for re-election, Clinton cannot afford to offend Florida voters by opposing the measure. Indeed, the Administration showed its toughness last week when the State Department forbade Cuba’s U.N. ambassador to attend a national prayer breakfast in Washington. But these diplomats know that Helms’ bill will buy the U.S. considerable trouble with good friends that are among Cuba’s leading foreign investors.

Most U.S. allies regard the embargo as a useless obsession that has failed to bring Castro down for three decades. Last October the U.N. General Assembly recommended an end to the embargo by a vote of 101 to 2; only Israel joined the U.S. in saying no. “Why should the U.S. maintain economic sanctions against Castro if it is willing to trade with Hanoi and Beijing?” asks a European diplomat. A senior Clinton official can only reply, “History matters.” The Administration, he says, “probably wouldn’t seek to create an embargo if it didn’t already exist. But there’s been one for a long time, and to get rid of it now would send a message that Castro should be legitimized.”

The Helms bill may hurt the U.S. more than Castro. Gary Jarmin, head of the new, conservative U.S.-Cuba Foundation, argues that Helms’ bill will only help Castro score anti-American propaganda points. Echoing the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, he argues that “a massive infusion of capital and contacts will have the best chance of encouraging reform.” At the worst, tightening the embargo might provoke a bloody revolution that would not serve Washington’s interest in a peaceful transition, says Gillian Gunn, director of the Cuba Project at Georgetown University. Most likely, the bill will not affect Cuba much at all. “The standard of living has already collapsed by 50%, but the repressive apparatus remains efficient and loyal,” she argues. For 36 years, dissident Cubans have calculated that their chances of reaching the U.S. on a raft are better than those of unseating Fidel. If a tighter embargo does crank up the pressure on Cuba, the exodus might only intensify.

–With reporting by Cathy Booth/Havana and Mark Thompson/Guantanamo

More Must-Reads from TIME

Contact us at letters@time.com