The Cuban Embargo is Anti-Freedom

Cubans are the most visible group that is negatively affected by the embargo, however, they are not the only ones. It is often overlooked that people within the United States suffer also; they have had their rights limited and choices made for them. The Cuban embargo is nothing more than restrictions on people doing business within the United States. In many cases the embargo has prevented potential business ventures from taking form and limited the competition in the marketplace. For example, if Cuba offered the best quality sugar at the best price most people would want to buy their sugar from a Cuban company. However, the decision has already been made for these individuals. They will not be able to buy Cuban sugar and will be forced to pay a higher price for lower quality sugar elsewhere. Free people should be free to determine who they wish to associate with and who they do not wish to associate with. If this means that someone want to buy goods from Cuba they should be able to do so. If someone has an objection to trading with Cuba, then they can decide not to do business or associate with Cuba. However, that person has no right to force others to not associate with Cubans or use the State as a weapon to push this agenda. How can the United States government expect to transition Cuba to a freer nation by removing freedoms from people within its own borders?

The stated goal of the Cuban embargo is to peacefully transition Cuba from a nation with a communist government to one of a democratic government. However, over fifty years from the inception of the United States’ embargo on Cuba, this goal has not been met. In fact, the embargo has been counterproductive to bringing any amount of freedom to the Cuban people. If the United States government truly wants Cuba to become a freer nation, the best thing that can be done is to lead by example and show what a free country looks like. When the Cuban embargo was enacted the result was less freedom for people within the United States. This is exactly opposite of what a government advocating freedom should be doing. Free and open trade encourages growth and promotes peace. Any restrictions placed on trade hinders economic growth and make conflict more of a possibility. An example of this is seen with the United States’ relations with China. The United States maintains trade with the communist nation of China while they use communism as the reason for the Cuban embargo. Through trade and communication with the United States and other capitalistic nations, China has become economically freer in many ways. Additionally, war with China is not likely to happen since they are a large trading partner of the United States. All the while, Cuba has not become freer or more capitalistic because they cannot engage in free trade and communication with many capitalistic nations. What might China look like today if the United States had an isolationist foreign policy toward them?