The U.S. Embargo of Cuba is the centerpiece of U.S. policy toward the communist-run government on the island. Like Castro, the embargo has endured for more than four decades. Critics see it as an arcane concept that should have been shelved when the Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Supporters see it as a testament of American commitment to punish Fidel Castro for his oppressive domestic policies that quash basic freedoms, prohibit private ownership of land or property, forbid almost all private enterprise and routinely jail political opponents, economists or journalists who disagree with the government. While supporters say the embargo is an important agent to promote democratic change inside the island, critics see it as Fidel Castro’s best excuse for his country’s problems.
Cuba is free to trade with the rest of the world, but its economy has been struggling, only now getting back to where it was before multi-billion dollar Soviet subsidies dried up. If the embargo were lifted, Cuba would be allowed to export things like cigars, sugar, nickel and cultural acts to the United States. And American tourists would be allowed to go to Cuba unrestricted.
Few U.S. foreign policies over the last century have been as consistent and steady as the U.S. embargo of Cuba. But with the Cold War over, China allowing entrepeneurship, and Latin America committed - if loosely - to democracy, some believe engagement would be a wiser choice. Should the embargo be preserved until there is meaningful change in Cuba, or should it be lifted by Congress?