Recent articles continue to claim that the Cuban embargo has been a failure. How, exactly, has it been a failure?
The Castro regime is still there, of course. However, the end of the regime was never the intent of the embargo. It is frustrating to hear this argument rehashed.
Have the embargo and other economic sanctions prevented the regime from doing more extensive damage to the United States and its allies throughout the world? I believe the answer is a resounding Yes. One can only guess the additional damage Castro could have caused if it had been left with open access to credit and hard currency.
Have economic sanctions forced Cuba to accept remittances sent from family members living abroad? Absolutely. Does anyone truly believe that remittances have been tolerated by the regime because of a sense of benevolence? The only reason they were allowed is because the regime needed the hard currency.
The regime is going through a change in generation, true.
That we must try to empower the Cuban people and encourage them economically and politically is also true.
But to achieve this, President Obama did not need to travel to Cuba with his family like he was headed to the Caribbean on Spring Break. His visit was downright dangerous.
Will his next visit be with Syria’s Bashar Assad?
Certainly many of those in our community who support the current approach honestly believe in what they are doing. I would urge them to take a step back and revisit the lessons of history.
Appeasement with these types of regimes does not work. It did not work for Chamberlain with Hitler.
It did not work with Stalin and subsequent Soviet leaders. More recently, it has not worked with the Assad regime and it will not work with Castro and his henchmen.
Domingo R. Moreira,