Home Games & Quizzes History & Society Science & Tech Biographies Animals & Nature Geography & Travel Arts & Culture Money Videos
History & Society
verifiedCite
While every effort has been made to follow citation style rules, there may be some discrepancies. Please refer to the appropriate style manual or other sources if you have any questions.
Select Citation Style

Pro and Con: Cuba Embargo

verifiedCite
While every effort has been made to follow citation style rules, there may be some discrepancies. Please refer to the appropriate style manual or other sources if you have any questions.
Select Citation Style
Three Cuban pesos bill mixing between dollar bills
© simonmayer—iStock/Getty Images Plus

To access extended pro and con arguments, sources, and discussion questions about whether the US should maintain its embargo against Cuba, go to ProCon.org.

Since the 1960s, the United States has imposed an embargo against Cuba, the Communist island nation 90 miles off the coast of Florida. The embargo, known among Cubans as “el bloqueo” or “the blockade,” consists of economic sanctions against Cuba and restrictions on Cuban travel and commerce for all people and companies under US jurisdiction.

The United States and Cuba have not always been at odds. In the late 1800s, the United States was purchasing 87% of Cuba’s exports and had control over its sugar industry. In the 1950s, Havana’s resorts and casinos were popular destinations for American tourists and celebrities such as Frank Sinatra and Ernest Hemingway. 

By Jan. 1, 1959, however, revolutionary Fidel Castro had overthrown the US-backed President Batista and established Cuba as the first Communist state in the Western Hemisphere. From 1959 to 1960, Castro seized $1.8 billion of US assets in Cuba, making it the largest uncompensated taking of American property by a foreign government in US history. Depending on how interest is calculated, claims on the seized assets range from $6.4 to $20.1 billion in 2012 dollars. The US government was also concerned about the threat posed by having a new Soviet ally so close to America’s shores. 

On Oct. 19, 1960, President Eisenhower signed a partial embargo on exports to Cuba, the first step towards the US policy that exists today. Eisenhower ended diplomatic relations with Cuba and closed the US embassy in Havana on Jan. 3, 1961, saying “There is a limit to what the United States in self-respect can endure. That limit has now been reached.” The former embassy building would later serve as the site of the US Interests Section (a de facto embassy) opened by President Carter in 1977.

President Kennedy approved a 1961 plan to train and arm Cuban exiles trying to overthrow Castro’s communist regime, but the Apr. 17, 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion failed when the Cuban military defeated the outnumbered US-backed forces. The situation became more dire when a US spy plane observed the Soviet Union shipping nuclear missiles to Cuba. On Feb. 3, 1962, President Kennedy signed Proclamation 3447 (effective date Feb. 7, 1962) to declare “an embargo upon all trade between the United States and Cuba.”

PRO

  • The United States should maintain the Cuba embargo because Cuba has not met the conditions required to lift it, and the US will look weak for lifting the sanctions.
  • The Cuban government has consistently responded to US attempts to soften the embargo with acts of aggression, raising concerns about what would happen if the sanctions were fully lifted.
  • The embargo enables the United States to apply pressure on the Cuban government to improve human rights.
  • Cuban-Americans support the embargo.
  • Cuba should be subject to sanctions because it is known to have repeatedly supported acts of terrorism.
  • Cuba has not demonstrated a willingness to negotiate in good faith with the United States.
  • Since there is virtually no private sector in Cuba, opening trade would only help the government, not regular Cuban citizens. And, the US is able to target the Cuban government with its embargo while still providing assistance to Cuban citizens.
  • The embargo should be maintained because open travel is insufficient to promote change in Cuba. Many democratic countries already allow travel to Cuba with no results.

CON

  • The United States should end the Cuba embargo because its 50-year policy has failed to achieve its goals, and Cuba does not pose a threat to the United States.
  • The embargo harms the US economy.
  • The embargo harms the people of Cuba, not the government as intended.
  • Promoting democracy by prohibiting Americans from traveling to Cuba is hypocritical. Most Americans want improved diplomatic ties and open travel and trade policies with Cuba.
  • Cuban-Americans and most of the world oppose the embargo, and maintaining it is detrimental to the reputation of the United States among the international community.
  • Free trade, not the isolation of an embargo, can promote democracy in Cuba. And, lifting the embargo would put pressure on Cuba to address problems that it had previously blamed on US sanctions.
  • The embargo prevents the people of Cuba from joining the digital age by cutting them off from technology, and restricts the electronic flow of information to the island.
  • The United States should not have different trading and travel policies for Cuba than for other countries with governments or policies it opposes.

This article was published on October 15, 2020, at Britannica’s ProCon.org, a nonpartisan issue-information source.