Five Reasons Why We Fight Against the US Embargo on Cuba

Since its inception, the US embargo on Cuba has been a frequent target of criticism for not just the American, but the global left, and progressive-minded people generally. In effect for over 60 years, it is a major economic factor in Cuba, not a surprise considering the US’s proximity and economic size. Originally imposed in response to the Cuban Revolution’s nationalization of US-owned properties without compensation, primarily in the mining, tourism, sugar, and fruit industries, the embargo has cost Cuba over $130 billion (as of 2018) according to the UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. It prevents nearly all trade between the two countries, as well as heavily restricting travel by Americans to and from the country. 

This article is not intended to give a full history of its causes and consequences, nor to defend the embargo as unjustified in opposing the “Castro regime,” which would no doubt be unneeded for Rebel Youth readers. This article will, however, explain five not immediately apparent aspects of the embargo which will illustrate for new comrades why the YCL/LJC makes opposing the embargo one of its major activities. For old comrades, it will hopefully expand your understanding of the consequences of the embargo, and supply useful points of reference in bringing anti-embargo politics to your unions and mass organizations.

1. The embargo prevents Cuba from trading with other countries. 

Not only does the embargo prevent direct trade between the US and Cuba, but trade between Cuba and other countries as well. It is for this reason that the embargo is commonly called “el bloqueo” (the blockade), despite not being a formal military blockade. Any company seeking to conduct trade with Cuba must have zero assets in the US, including through subsidiaries, or risk their American assets being seized or forfeited for violating the embargo. Due to its much greater size, most companies avoid these risks and trade with the US instead. Despite the existence of the embargo, Cuba does conduct international trade with other countries, including US allies; however, companies based in or that do business with the US do risk American sanctions by doing so.

For example, the European Union opposed the Helms-Burton Act of 1996, which strengthened the embargo, because of its extraterritorial enforcement of the embargo and policing of allied states’ trade. The EU eventually dropped its legal challenge to the bill in 1998 in favor of negotiating a separate solution. However, in 2019, in the Declaration by the High Representative on behalf of the EU on the full activation of the Helms-Burton (LIBERTAD) Act by the United States, the EU called the Helms-Burton Act’s reactivation under the Trump administration, “a breach of the commitments undertaken in the EU-US agreements of 1997 and 1998,” and reiterated that the EU considers “the extra-territorial application of unilateral restrictive measures to be contrary to international law.”

Even companies that do not do business with the US may find their executives banned from entering the country, further discouraging any prospective with Cuba. For example, in 1996, the State Department banned top executives of the Sherritt International mining company (seven Canadians, two Britons, and their immediate families) from travelling to the US due to their conducting business with Cuba. More recently, in 2019, Meliá Hotels International CEO Gabriel Escarrer was banned from visiting the US as part of Donald Trump’s tightening of the embargo. Again, both of these companies do no business with the United States.

The embargo’s restrictions also apply to maritime shipping, as ships docking at Cuban ports are not allowed to dock at U.S. ports for six months, again severely limiting the amount of business companies and countries willing to do business with Cuba to the exclusion of the massive US market.

As a final example, any products exported to Cuba must consist of less than 10% content originating in the US, another aspect of the embargo the US enforces extraterritorially. This limit was raised to 25% during the Obama administration, but re-tightened during the Trump administration. The Biden administration has not reversed the above Trump administration decisions, and has in fact introduced new sanctions on Cuba since 2021.

The embargo not only harms Cuba, but also other countries. For example, some of Cuba’s medical advancements, such as in diabetes treatment and cancer prevention, are made more difficult to export and be used in other countries due to the obstacle of not using American or US-related companies or shipping.

2. Tourist and academic trips are still banned by the US government

The embargo initially banned American travel to Cuba until 1977, and Jimmy Carter did not renew the ban, giving Americans a brief opportunity to legally travel to the country as tourists. This was short lived, however, as President Reagan renewed the ban in 1982. While the embargo does not directly ban Americans from traveling to Cuba as tourists, it does prevent them from spending any money without a special license from the Office of Foreign Assets Control, including basics like travel taxes and fees. This makes tourism de-facto impossible, even for specific reasons, such as academic trips.

3. The United Nations General Assembly has overwhelmingly condemned the embargo every year since 1992. 

After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (COMECON) in 1991, Cuba faced dire circumstances in regard to trade and economic support. Still, the US did not relent with the embargo, and actually increased its severity with the “Cuban Democracy Act” of 1992, banning trade with Cuba by foreign subsidiaries of U.S. businesses, preventing Cuban ships from docking in U.S. ports, and banning remittances from family members. In the words of the introducer of the bill, Democratic Congressperson Robert Torricelli, the bill was intended to “wreak havoc on the island.”

Every year since then, the UNGA has voted by near-unanimous consent to condemn the embargo. At the last vote in November 2023, the final tally was 187 to two (the US and Israel), with just one abstention. Even close US allies, such as Canada, Saudi Arabia, and the UK consistently vote to condemn the embargo. In 2011, the UNGA stated it reaffirmed “the sovereign equality of States, non-intervention in their internal affairs and freedom of trade and navigation as paramount to the conduct of international affairs.” The US has declined to abide by these conditions.

4. The embargo is widely condemned by organizations that are otherwise deeply critical of the Cuban government

Amnesty International, which constantly campaigns for the release of Cuban “prisoners of conscience,” calls for “the lifting of the US embargo,” and criticizes its “impact on economic and social rights” in the country [1]. 

Human Rights Watch, which calls the Cuban government “repress[ive]” and accuses it of using “arbitrary detention to harass and intimidate critics” also called the Obama administration relaxing of travel restrictions (later reversed) “a step forward.” It also states the embargo “for decades has failed to improve human rights in Cuba and caused considerable harm for the Cuban people” (https://www.hrw.org/news/2011/01/19/cuba-step-forward-us-travel-regulations).

As a final example, there is the Organization of American States, which suspended Cuba’s membership under US pressure from 1962 to 2009 (and in which Cuba still declines to participate due to its general dominance by and general serving of US interests). The 2011 annual report of its Inter-American Commission on Human Rights reiterates, “the IACHR’s position is still that economic sanctions have an impact on the Cuban people’s human rights, and therefore urges that the embargo be lifted” (https://www.oas.org/en/iachr/docs/annual/2011/Chap4Cuba.doc) 

These organizations as a whole are far from sympathetic to the Cuban government and are certainly no communist propagandists. Still, they can see the plain intentions and effects of the embargo, to cause suffering among Cubans that will cause them to revolt against the government. However, it has by their own admission done the opposite. In the words of Human Rights Watch, “the US embargo continues to provide the Cuban government with an excuse for its problems.” Even if one opposes the Cuban government, therefore, one should oppose to embargo for fostering anti-American sentiment and support for the government in its struggle against US imperialism.

5. But it has exceptions for food and medicine … or does it?

A 1997 study by the American Association for World Health (“The Impact of the U.S. Embargo on Health and Nutrition in Cuba) and a 1996 article in The Lancet (“Role of the USA in shortage of food and medicine in Cuba”), one of the world’s most prestigious medical journals, both show that while the Cuban Democracy Act was amended to officially allow export of food and medicines it remains highly restricted in practice. This sentiment is echoed by further papers in the American Journal of Public Health (The impact of the economic crisis and the US embargo on health in Cuba.”) and Annals of Internal Medicine (“Effect of the U.S. Embargo and Economic Decline on Health in Cuba”). 

The American Association for World Health states that “a humanitarian catastrophe has been averted only because the Cuban government has maintained a high level of budgetary support for a healthcare system designed to deliver primary and preventive healthcare to all of its citizens.” It also found that travel restrictions embedded in the embargo have limited the amount of medical information that flows into Cuba from the United States, which is again detrimental due to the scale of the US. Dr Michèle Barry states in his 2000 paper from Annals of Internal Medicine, “With the demise of subsidized trade, the absence of aid from the former Soviet Union, and the progressive tightening of U.S. sanctions, Cuba’s model health care system has become threatened by serious shortages of medical supplies.”

Furthermore, in the words of the aforementioned Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, “the Cuban Democracy Act contains such exemptions [for food and medicine], however the [IACHR] has been informed that the bureaucratic and other requirements which have to be met in relation to those exemptions (i.e. on-site verification) render them virtually unattainable.”

As Nigel D. White, professor of public international law at the University of Nottingham states in his book, The Cuban Embargo under International Law, “Although the licensing of sales of medicines and medical supplies to Cuba was clearly permitted for the first time under the 1992 Act, thereby creating a humanitarian exception on paper, the system of licence application has deterred US companies from applying given the rejection of numerous applications on the grounds that the proposed exports would be ‘detrimental to U.S. foreign policy interests’. The aforementioned Cuban Democracy Act is what prohibits ships from loading or unloading in US ports for six months after delivering cargo to Cuba, which also contributes to the low number of deliveries of medical equipment to Cuba. Overall, it is clear that this exception is more a matter of appearances, rather than respect for human life. Despite the embargo’s proven ineffectiveness over the past 60 years, the US continues to punish Cuba for pushing off its yoke. Thus, our fight against the embargo by the Canadian state’s closest ally continues.

As part of our international solidarity efforts, the YCL/LJC has been active in sending medical supplies of particular need in Cuba. As part of the Canadian Network on Cuba’s (of which the YCL/LJC is a member organization) latest such campaign, we helped raise funds to send millions of syringes and PPE items to Cuba.