Cuba santions

[ss3goku]

Does anybody besides me see a double standard being applied to Cuba? They don't have nukes, but N. Korea does and we have almost signed a Non agrression treaty with them. I think the sanctions should be taken off, sanctions have been proven to hurt the people, not those in power.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

The point of the sanctions is obviously not to weaken Castro's regime.

 

[Richard III]

An excellent question, since sanctions pose a real dilemma; on the one hand, sanctions allow you to have "moral sanctity" - e.g. "we're not trading with THOSE bastards," but clearly, as you say, hurt the very people we're supposedly trying to help.

I think a truly understudied area is the use of trade as a forceful ethical weapon; e.g. how do you use open trade to break down barriers and free a society, as opposed to using the passive technique which keeps the big powers consciences free at a terrible cost? IF there were a coherent strategy to use trade positively, I think I'd favor it over sanctions, and such a strategy should be created precisely because sanctions should be replaced with something that has less collateral damage.

R.III

 

[GrandAdmiral]

well no. it avoided all out war which was the alternative. they had nukes in the US's back yard. plus they don't want Cuba setting an example for neighbors to follow.

 

[PantheraTigris2]

It's not that we just have sanctions on Cuba - it's that we don't have diplomatic relations with them, period. We broke off diplomatic relations back in 1959.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

isn't that still a peacefull alternative to war?

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by GrandAdmiral
well no. it avoided all out war which was the alternative. they had nukes in the US's back yard. plus they don't want Cuba setting an example for neighbors to follow.

The sanctions predated the nukes in the backyard.

That said, your later point is valid, which is why a new model is needed. The reason people pursue sanctions is because it's a way to signal disapproval without resorting to arms. So, just as we're searching for ways to bomb "the right people" in wars without hurting "the wrong people," so too is it important, if one wants to end zero-trade style sanctions, to find something useful to replace them.

R.III

 

[jroa99]

Discuss the issue in Congress, negotiate with Cubans, relax some easy and not-so important aspects, wait for reforms, revoke the sanctions.

Pretty much.

Good Day...

 

[sysyphus]

Originally posted by Richard III
I think a truly understudied area is the use of trade as a forceful ethical weapon; e.g. how do you use open trade to break down barriers and free a society, as opposed to using the passive technique which keeps the big powers consciences free at a terrible cost? IF there were a coherent strategy to use trade positively, I think I'd favor it over sanctions, and such a strategy should be created precisely because sanctions should be replaced with something that has less collateral damage.

A good viewpoint, but on the other hand, trade can be used negatively as well...

For example, many in Canada worry about the effect of decriminalisation of marijuana on our trade with the US.

The USA hasn't come out with full blown retalitation, but has said that they will increase scrutiny at our border, which will have some degree of negative impact on trade between our two countries.

As a democratic nation, we have hinderance to forming our own policy. How do we combat this?

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by sysyphus
For example, many in Canada worry about the effect of decriminalisation of marijuana on our trade with the US.

The USA hasn't come out with full blown retalitation, but has said that they will increase scrutiny at our border, which will have some degree of negative impact on trade between our two countries.

As a democratic nation, we have hinderance to forming our own policy. How do we combat this?

The trouble with this is the flip side. The U.S. can quite rightly argue that OUR policy is creating a hinderance to them forming THEIR policy. That's the nature of having economic soveriegnty: everyone is entitled to have an opinion about how to protect it. An argument you and I as residents of the land of Naomi Klein, David Orchard and Maude Barlow are quite familiar with.

If you're arguing for pure free trade worldwide, well, let's have that conversation then.

 

[PantheraTigris2]

Given the history, and the ideological differences, three is no way the U.S. gov't will change it's policy on Cuba anytime soon. Now, if Castro dies, and there is a coup - and the new Cuban gov't is democratic, and friendly to the U.S., that would be different. It might happen, it might not.

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by PantheraTigris2
Given the history, and the ideological differences, three is no way the U.S. gov't will change it's policy on Cuba anytime soon. Now, if Castro dies, and there is a coup - and the new Cuban gov't is democratic, and friendly to the U.S., that would be different. It might happen, it might not.

Ok, but SHOULD it change its policy?

 

[PantheraTigris2]

MY question would be - *why* should it?

 

[sysyphus]

Because arguably, the policy hurts those that it's aiming to protect, and not (significantly) harming those it is aimed at.

 

[tonberry]

Originally posted by PantheraTigris2
Given the history, and the ideological differences, three is no way the U.S. gov't will change it's policy on Cuba anytime soon. Now, if Castro dies, and there is a coup - and the new Cuban gov't is democratic, and friendly to the U.S., that would be different. It might happen, it might not.

Just pointing the only condition that really matter

 

[sysyphus]

Originally posted by Richard III


The trouble with this is the flip side. The U.S. can quite rightly argue that OUR policy is creating a hinderance to them forming THEIR policy. That's the nature of having economic soveriegnty: everyone is entitled to have an opinion about how to protect it. An argument you and I as residents of the land of Naomi Klein, David Orchard and Maude Barlow are quite familiar with.

I think it's a weak argument that relaxed pot laws here will result in people taking it into the US, (in fact it probably result more likely that more Americans will bring it here.) but I do see your point. Either live in a bubble or live with other people's points of view. Kind of like how I've got to take my girlfriend's personal tatses into account when I make dinner now that we're living together.

Also makes a good argument that Canada needs to diversify its trade, but that's another thread entirely.

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by sysyphus
Because arguably, the policy hurts those that it's aiming to protect, and not (significantly) harming those it is aimed at.

...and because it's obvious the tactic doesn't work as anything but an expression of indignation; if it DID work, then, well, then, why is Castro still in power over FORTY YEARS after the sanctions started?

 

[Perfection]

Let's why don't we have sanctions agianst North Korea?

Hmmmm

BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANY DAMN TRADE WITH THEM!!!

Nonagression is a far cry from a trade relation!

 

[PantheraTigris2]

Originally posted by tonberry


Just pointing the only condition that really matter

Friendliness makes a difference, you know. As opposed to a government that chose it's national flag - to be a U.S. flag with flames on it, for example. If the new gov't wasn't friendly to us, fine - there's no requirement saying it has to be. But anyway, we will not have normal, friendly diplomatic relations with a communist dictatorship - and that is final. There is nothing to discuss.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

The only reason we still have sanctions against Cuba is because of the loud, vocal, voting Cubans in Florida. If you piss them off by appearing to be soft on Castro, you can pretty much kiss the state goodbye in an election.