Cuba and the U.S.: A Patchy Blockade

DanS. · 08-19-2008, 01:26 PM

Cuba and the United States

Patchy blockade
Aug 14th 2008 | HAVANA
From The Economist print edition

The trade embargo that sometimes bites

FOR almost half a century, the United States has imposed a trade embargo against Cuba. And yet it sometimes seems barely visible. Across the island, American brands are ubiquitous. Tourists can order a Coca-Cola (made in Mexico) in state-run hotels. Computers running Microsoft software have appeared in the capital’s few electronics stores. A fleet of Ford tankers refuel aeroplanes at Havana’s airport. Taking advantage of an exemption introduced in 2000, American farmers have become Cuba’s biggest source of food imports, a cash trade worth $600m a year. No wonder that some Cubans wonder whether the “blockade” which the government blames for nearly all of Cuba’s problems might be some sort of Orwellian trick. “Does it really exist?” asks a medical student in Havana. “I don’t know what to believe anymore.”

But plenty of companies that deal with Cuba have recently been reminded that the embargo is real. Last month, the United States’ Treasury’s Office of Foreign Asset Control, which is responsible for enforcing it, fined Minxia, a Maryland-based subsidiary of China’s MinMetals Corporation, $1.2m for dealing in Cuban metals. Gate Gourmet, a Swiss-American group, was ordered to pay $600,000 because it supplies in-flight meals to Cuba’s national airline.

Although the embargo has manifestly failed in its objective of removing Fidel Castro’s communist regime, in 1996 it was tightened by the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act (better known, after the legislators who sponsored it, as Helms-Burton). This attempts to apply the embargo to foreign companies and individuals. Its extraterritorial pretension riles even many of America’s closest allies. It has notably been invoked to ban the directors of Sherritt, a Canadian firm which runs Cuba’s nickel mines, from entering the United States. (They included a former editor of The Economist). But in deference to those allies, the Act’s draconian Title III, which gives Americans who owned property in Cuba before the revolution the right to sue foreigners who now invest there, has been waived every six months, first by Bill Clinton and then by George Bush.

A tightening of America’s bank regulation after the terrorist attacks of 2001 has become a bigger impediment to those wanting to do business in Cuba. The United States considers Cuba, along with Iran, North Korea, Sudan and Syria, to be a “state sponsor of terrorism” (though without any recent plausible evidence). Whatever they might think of the Cuban embargo, banks around the world do not want to run afoul of antiterrorism laws.

In 2004 UBS, a Swiss bank, paid a $100m fine (without admitting any liability) for providing new banknotes to Cuba and Iran. In 2007 ING of the Netherlands, which once boasted that it was the first big bank to open an office in Cuba, abruptly closed there. This year, directors at the company which has exclusive rights to import Cuban cigars to Britain, were surprised to receive a letter from Lloyds TSB, their long-time bankers, suggesting that they take their business elsewhere.

Despite all the restrictions, plenty of international companies continue to operate in Cuba. InBev, a Belgian-Brazilian brewer that recently bought America’s biggest beer maker, Anheuser-Busch, for $52 billion, has a joint-venture with Cuba’s government which claims 40% of the island’s beer market. As a director of a European company with a big investment on the island puts it, the best strategy is to “try to stay under the radar and make damned sure you are here when the United States’ government finally sees sense.”

DanS. · 08-19-2008, 01:27 PM

You gotta wonder why the Embargo is never brought up to the Candidates.

aloysious · 08-19-2008, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DRS112

You gotta wonder why the Embargo is never brought up to the Candidates.

I do. Another (of many) reason I supported Ron Paul. He wasn't and isn't afraind to talk about it. The trade embargo is not only a joke, it's counterproductive. Why do we have it? Just to appease the Cuban Americans in Miami to get their vote, to win Florida in general elections?

DanS. · 08-19-2008, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aloysious

I do. Another (of many) reason I supported Ron Paul.

yeah...the whole embargo is so idiotic it's frustrating.

aloysious · 08-19-2008, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DRS112

yeah...the whole embargo is so idiotic it's frustrating.

Are we at war with Cuba? Gee, I hope we win. I'm sure the trade embargo will help us win. That'll show the world that we and only we stand up to Communists.

Good thing those damn Vietnamese cowarded down to us so we could lift our embargo on those commie pinkos!

Heretic · 08-19-2008, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DRS112

You gotta wonder why the Embargo is never brought up to the Candidates.

Maybe Cuba still has embargos aganist it because it didn't violate enough human rights or attempt to support genocide beyond its shores.

The communist government of China's human rights and war crimes violations are far more extensive than Cubas and yet they're in the most favored trading status.

That and the Cuban refugees have a stranglehold over Florida. I say if they're such patriots of a free Cuba they can paddle their asses back and fight for it [this time without our help]. Otherwise just give it up and say you're staying in the states and that Cuba is no longer your country.

CosmicRocker · 08-19-2008, 02:51 PM

It's becoming less and less important politically.
New generation Cubans don't have land in Cuba they were thrown off of.

Their ties are to Cuba culturally - but Castro, and the Embargo are old generation concerns - like Vietnam is here.

Cubans themselves are less and less important here.
They only make up about 10% of the Hispanic vote in Floriduh.

Heretic · 08-19-2008, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CosmicRocker

It's becoming less and less important politically.
New generation Cubans don't have land in Cuba they were thrown off of.

Their ties are to Cuba culturally - but Castro, and the Embargo are old generation concerns - like Vietnam is here.

Cubans themselves are less and less important here.
They only make up about 10% of the Hispanic vote in Floriduh.

But they still dictate Florida politics and, by extension, U.S. politics.

Every Cuban refugee who claims they're here yet trying to free Cuba are all, to a person, lying hypocrits.

CosmicRocker · 08-19-2008, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Heretic

But they still dictate Florida politics and, by extension, U.S. politics.

Every Cuban refugee who claims they're here yet trying to free Cuba are all, to a person, lying hypocrits.

no, Cubans do NOT dictate Florida politics.
They are vocal, but they have little influence in numbers or policy decisions.

Florida is SO diverse no one demographic or interest can control the message..

The embago is really old news, rarely if ever mentioned.

Heretic · 08-19-2008, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CosmicRocker

The embago is really old news, rarely if ever mentioned.

Well, think of it as a semipermeable membrane.

08-19-2008, 01:26 PM	#1 (permalink)
DanS. Administrator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,410 My Mood: Thanks: 141 Thanked 317 Times in 236 Posts	Cuba and the U.S.: A Patchy Blockade Cuba and the United States Patchy blockade Aug 14th 2008 \| HAVANA From The Economist print edition The trade embargo that sometimes bites FOR almost half a century, the United States has imposed a trade embargo against Cuba. And yet it sometimes seems barely visible. Across the island, American brands are ubiquitous. Tourists can order a Coca-Cola (made in Mexico) in state-run hotels. Computers running Microsoft software have appeared in the capital’s few electronics stores. A fleet of Ford tankers refuel aeroplanes at Havana’s airport. Taking advantage of an exemption introduced in 2000, American farmers have become Cuba’s biggest source of food imports, a cash trade worth $600m a year. No wonder that some Cubans wonder whether the “blockade” which the government blames for nearly all of Cuba’s problems might be some sort of Orwellian trick. “Does it really exist?” asks a medical student in Havana. “I don’t know what to believe anymore.” But plenty of companies that deal with Cuba have recently been reminded that the embargo is real. Last month, the United States’ Treasury’s Office of Foreign Asset Control, which is responsible for enforcing it, fined Minxia, a Maryland-based subsidiary of China’s MinMetals Corporation, $1.2m for dealing in Cuban metals. Gate Gourmet, a Swiss-American group, was ordered to pay $600,000 because it supplies in-flight meals to Cuba’s national airline. Although the embargo has manifestly failed in its objective of removing Fidel Castro’s communist regime, in 1996 it was tightened by the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act (better known, after the legislators who sponsored it, as Helms-Burton). This attempts to apply the embargo to foreign companies and individuals. Its extraterritorial pretension riles even many of America’s closest allies. It has notably been invoked to ban the directors of Sherritt, a Canadian firm which runs Cuba’s nickel mines, from entering the United States. (They included a former editor of The Economist). But in deference to those allies, the Act’s draconian Title III, which gives Americans who owned property in Cuba before the revolution the right to sue foreigners who now invest there, has been waived every six months, first by Bill Clinton and then by George Bush. A tightening of America’s bank regulation after the terrorist attacks of 2001 has become a bigger impediment to those wanting to do business in Cuba. The United States considers Cuba, along with Iran, North Korea, Sudan and Syria, to be a “state sponsor of terrorism” (though without any recent plausible evidence). Whatever they might think of the Cuban embargo, banks around the world do not want to run afoul of antiterrorism laws. In 2004 UBS, a Swiss bank, paid a $100m fine (without admitting any liability) for providing new banknotes to Cuba and Iran. In 2007 ING of the Netherlands, which once boasted that it was the first big bank to open an office in Cuba, abruptly closed there. This year, directors at the company which has exclusive rights to import Cuban cigars to Britain, were surprised to receive a letter from Lloyds TSB, their long-time bankers, suggesting that they take their business elsewhere. Despite all the restrictions, plenty of international companies continue to operate in Cuba. InBev, a Belgian-Brazilian brewer that recently bought America’s biggest beer maker, Anheuser-Busch, for $52 billion, has a joint-venture with Cuba’s government which claims 40% of the island’s beer market. As a director of a European company with a big investment on the island puts it, the best strategy is to “try to stay under the radar and make damned sure you are here when the United States’ government finally sees sense.”
	Top

08-19-2008, 01:27 PM	#2 (permalink)
DanS. Administrator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,410 My Mood: Thanks: 141 Thanked 317 Times in 236 Posts	You gotta wonder why the Embargo is never brought up to the Candidates.
	Top

08-19-2008, 02:51 PM	#7 (permalink)
CosmicRocker Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: lost in a lost world Posts: 8,036 My Mood: Thanks: 142 Thanked 108 Times in 86 Posts	It's becoming less and less important politically. New generation Cubans don't have land in Cuba they were thrown off of. Their ties are to Cuba culturally - but Castro, and the Embargo are old generation concerns - like Vietnam is here. Cubans themselves are less and less important here. They only make up about 10% of the Hispanic vote in Floriduh. __________________ Traveling Wilburys (l to r) Bob Dylan, Jeff Lynne, Tom Petty, George Harrison, Roy Orbison
	Top

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode