Change on Cuba Policy
Obama administration announced some steps today to begin moving our Cuba policy in a more sensible direction:
– Lift all restrictions on transactions related to the travel of family members to Cuba.
– Remove restrictions on remittances to family members in Cuba.
– Authorize U.S. telecommunications network providers to enter into agreements to establish fiber-optic cable and satellite telecommunications facilities linking the United States and Cuba.
– License U.S. telecommunications service providers to enter into roaming service agreements with Cuba’s telecommunications service providers.
– License U.S. satellite radio and satellite television service providers to engage in transactions necessary to provide services to customers in Cuba.
– License persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction to activate and pay U.S. and third-country service providers for telecommunications, satellite radio and satellite television services provided to individuals in Cuba.
– Authorize the donation of certain consumer telecommunication devices without a license.
– Add certain humanitarian items to the list of items eligible for export through licensing exceptions.
What they’ve done here, pretty clearly, is tightly target those measures where a clear case can be made that relaxing restrictions does much more to weaken the regime than anything else. That’s clever politics and probably a smart start. But the plain fact of the matter is that the whole embargo is based on faulty logic. Making the Cuban population as poor as possible isn’t going to bring democracy to the island, and the idea that a more prosperous Cuba could somehow become so prosperous as to pose a security threat to the United States is ridiculous. A Communist economy running without subsidies from the USSR is bound to be pretty poor no matter what, but there’s no reason for us to contribute to the situation.
21 Responses to “Change on Cuba Policy”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
April 13th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
I almost don’t believe it.
Thank you Barack Obama.
Yes, let’s go all the way. But thank you for at least moving.
April 13th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
I think the reasoning in favor of the sanctions on Cuba is no longer about Cuba itself as opposed to sending a message to other potential dictators in Latin America.
April 13th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Re: A Communist economy running without subsidies from the USSR is bound to be pretty poor no matter what, but there’s no reason for us to contribute to the situation.
Yugoslavia seemed to do remarkably well.
Re: I think the reasoning in favor of the sanctions on Cuba is no longer about Cuba itself as opposed to sending a message to other potential dictators in Latin America.
If by “dictators” you mean “people who want their economy to be run for the people and not for rich oligarchs” then you are correct.
April 13th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
I wonder if keeping the travel ban in place for “non-family members” violates equal protection. By what constitutional logic can (to pick a name at random) Matt Yglesias have a right to travel to a country when I am restricted from travelling to that same country?
April 13th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Are these actions all within the various executive departments, or do they need an act of congress to go into effect?
April 13th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Got to agree with Rob Mac – How is this policy change not a violation of the 14th amendment? Some few US citizens can travel to Cuba simply by virtue of ancestry, but not the vast majority of US citizens.
April 13th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
I don’t think this would violate the equal protection clause because it’s not base on race, per se. So the law would probably be subjected to rational basis scrutiny, which pretty much means any old reason will do. It’s an interesting case, though.
April 13th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Well, it’s based on nationality, if not “race”. I seem to recall from Con Law that nationality is a class that gets intermediate scrutiny for discriminatory laws. Is this right?
April 13th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
nbt, that gave me pause, too. You’re correct: nationality is a protected class, but what nationality is being discriminated against, here? I think it’s arguable that everyone in consideration here are U.S. citizens: either U.S. citizens with Cuban relatives or U.S. citizens with no Cuban relatives. So one nationality isn’t being discriminated against. But it gets really close to both race and nationality. Very interesting.
April 13th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
I don’t think “nationality” in this sense means citizenship. If it did then that would render equal protection meaningless. Otherwise, you’d be free to pass laws that discriminate against Italian Americans, for example, so long as they discriminated only against US citizens. Also, the winning Bush v. Gore argument was an equal protection argument that had nothing to do with race, nationality, or any other such classification. Sure, the Supreme Court said their reasoning would not apply to future cases, but no one buys that.
April 13th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Rob Mac,
I agree with you, more or less. I was (not very clearly) setting out another category – citzenship. Analytically, I lump race and nationality together (maybe incorrectly?). I don’t think this rule change does implicate race or nationality because I could conceive of many Cuban Americans who are similarly situated with non-Cuban Americans, i.e., they don’t have Cuban relatives. It’s not an exclusion based on race or nationality, but on current family ties to a specific country. By no means an easy case, I concede.
April 13th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
It’s worth noting that perhaps Obama made such a small, calculated change to set up exactly this type of challenge. “The courts made me change the Cuba policy!”
April 13th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
This is colossally absurd analysis. Consider the assumptions underlying the analysis:
“But the plain fact of the matter is that the whole embargo is based on faulty logic. Making the Cuban population as poor as possible isn’t going to bring democracy to the island, and the idea that a more prosperous Cuba could somehow become so prosperous as to pose a security threat to the United States is ridiculous.”
Thanks, Matt, for displaying a total internalization of imperialist values. What if “making the Cuban population was poor as possible” WAS “going to bring democracy to the island”? Is it the right of the US to determine when to inflict collective punishment on a civilian population, based on our determination of whether it is or isn’t going to bring “democracy”? Because I can think of a word that involves hurting a civilian population in order to effect political change. That word is terrorism.
You go on to note, “A Communist economy running without subsidies from the USSR is bound to be pretty poor no matter what, but there’s no reason for us to contribute to the situation.”
As opposed to Haiti, right, which has had the privilege of US tutelage for the last 90 years or so and where the population is literally starving to death?
Or perhaps we can consider what would happen if we embargo were lifted, and what would happen to Cuba’s economy if it were no longer artificially cut-off from its natural trading partner. Relevant questions, I think, although the answers may not be to your liking.
Quick guessing game: define “Communist economy” with resorting to the label, “Cuba.” Define capitalist economy without resorting to the phrase, “The USA.” When you’ve caught up, shoot me an e-mail, and hopefully I won’t be dead of old age by then.
Jewbonics
April 13th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
nbt, that gave me pause, too. You’re correct: nationality is a protected class, but what nationality is being discriminated against, here?
I think the proper term is “national origin” not “nationality.” And IIRC from ConLaw, national origin would indeed be a strict scrutiny class for equal protection purposes. Would be interesting to see if the new regulation gets a challenge.
April 13th, 2009 at 7:13 pm
It’s not an exclusion based on race or nationality, but on current family ties to a specific country.
Good point. In theory I suppose you could be, say, a full-blooded Swedish-American with a relative who moved to Cuba — and became a Cuban citizen — thirty years ago. Thus you’d be eligible to take a Cuban vacation despite the fact that you don’t have a drop of Cuban blood. In practice, of course, the viciously oppressed non-Cuban-American classification will be denied this privilege.
April 13th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
Wealthy enough to pose a security threat has never been a concern regarding Cuba.
If Cuba had twice the per-capita income and wealth of the United States, Cuba still wouldn’t be a security threat to the US.
Wealthy enough that countries don’t learn the lesson, you don’t fuck with the US, maybe.
There really has never been a more rational reason for the US to be sanctioning Cuba than teaching a lesson – especially since, but even before, the end of Communism.
Obama is moving in the right direction though. Better than Clinton did and better than Hillary would have done. My support for Obama is vindicated.
April 13th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
By what constitutional logic can (to pick a name at random) Matt Yglesias have a right to travel to a country when I am restricted from travelling to that same country?
National security.
This has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions.
April 14th, 2009 at 8:54 am
True, but a more prosperous Cuba could certainly have attempted to intervene in, say, Haiti (after all, Cuban troops were once sent as far as Angola). There’s certainly been plenty of opportunity given Haiti’s chaotic shape.
April 14th, 2009 at 10:19 am
Scott P.,
A Haiti run under Cuban tutelage could hardly be more f*cked up than the actually existing, American-influenced Haiti, now could it?
This goes for all of Cuba’s clients in Central and South America- the Sandinistas were morally superior to their adversairies by a LONG shot, as were the Salvadoran guerrillas.
April 14th, 2009 at 11:33 am
Actual dictators in China and Saudi Arabia need no worry.
April 18th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
[...] myglesias added an interesting post today on Matthew Yglesias » Change on Cuba PolicyHere’s a small readingThank you Barack Obama. Yes, let’s go all the way. But thank you for at least moving. Moral Panicker Says: April 13th, 2009 at 4:15 pm. I think the reasoning in favor of the sanctions on Cuba is no longer about Cuba itself as opposed to … Analytically, I lump race and nationality together (maybe incorrectly?). I don’t think this rule change does implicate race or nationality because I could conceive of many Cuban Americans who are similarly situated with non-Cuban … [...]