Political Science

The trade embargo against Cuba was been codified into law, known as the Cuban Democracy Act. In theory, the United States would not trade with Cuba so as it continues to move towards democratization. In 1996, the US Congress passed a law, known as the Helms-Burton Act, which limited US citizens from engaging in business activities within the island. President Bill Clinton ended the practice of subsidizing US companies trading with Cuba.

These actions were ignored by the Cuban government, as important fiscal and monetary reforms were undertaken which did not involve trade terms with the United States. There was an emphasis on limited spending and privatization of the tourism industry. As such, although the trade embargo damaged the Cuban economy, the damage was seen as minimal and more or less insignificant.

In short, the trade embargo imposed by the United States against Cuba is not timely. As the Cuban economy recovered from the 1990 shock, it is inevitable that private investments would continue to rise, with or without US imports. Note that at present, the United States is the fifth largest exporter to Cuba (credit though is not allowed). This is an indication that economics rather than politics dictates long-run trade terms. From the perspective of the United States, the trade embargo would damage the US economy more than the Cuban economy because of the existing US trade deficit. It would be more preferable if the United States opens up potential markets overseas, Cuba included.

There is a second reason why the United States should lift the trade embargo against Cuba. If the initial condition for lifting the trade embargo is for Cuba to move towards democratization, then such condition must also apply to socialist countries with trade relations with the United States. This is a violation of the principle of rational equality.

Therefore, it is not seasonable for the United States to continue the trade embargo against Cuba.