Copyright 2002 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Inc.
St.
Louis Post-Dispatch
May 25, 2002 Saturday Five Star Lift Edition
SECTION: EDITORIAL; Leonard Pitts Jr. Column; Pg. 30
LENGTH: 572 words
HEADLINE:
EMBARGO MAKES U.S. LOOK BLOCKHEADED
BYLINE: Leonard Pitts Jr. Copyright The Miami Herald
DATELINE: WASHINGTON
BODY:
Stupidity, I've heard it said, is defined as continuing to do the same
thing, but expecting a different result. In this, stupidity is different from
simple ignorance.
Let's say, for instance, that you have no idea how it
feels to bash your thumbnail with a hammer. So you do that and discover it to be
a tremendously unpleasant sensation. That's an act of ignorance. Now, let's say
you bash your thumb again. That's an act of stupidity; you had the information
but were unable or unwilling to process it, follow it to its logical conclusion.
Forty years later, the United States'
embargo against
Cuba feels a lot like that. Through nine American presidencies,
we have embraced it as a means of pressuring Fidel Castro's communist
dictatorship toward democratic reform. Or toppling it altogether. If we've made
any progress toward either goal, I must have missed it.
If there's the
scantest reason to believe change is coming anytime in the near future, I must
have missed that, too. Yet we cling to our policy with reflexive stubbornness.
Certainly, it's difficult to see where the
embargo has
yielded any strategic benefits for the United States. Lately, even its political
benefits are somewhat less than certain.
During the Cold War, of course,
support for the
embargo was a litmus test of sorts. No lawmaker
wanted to open himself or herself to the charge of being "soft" on communism. It
has also been observed that any president or candidate who was less than
enthusiastic about the
embargo risked alienating a vital voting
bloc, South Florida's Cuban exile community.
Not that political
expediency justifies failure to do the right thing, but the question is moot in
any case. The Cold War is over. And the exile community's support for the
embargo is anything but monolithic, as illustrated in a poll,
conducted in April, and reported last week by The Miami Herald.
The
survey, by the Miami firm of Bendixen & Associates, found that though 61
percent of the exile community wants the
embargo to continue,
52 percent believe it should no longer be the spear point of U.S. policy toward
the Castro government and ought to be replaced by other measures. Perhaps more
significantly, nearly half of those polled reported sending money to their
relatives in
Cuba, transactions that are said to pump as much
$
950 million a year into that nation's economy. Which would, at
a minimum, appear to undermine both the spirit and efficacy of the
embargo. So: Why? The issue is not whether the Castro
regime is a moral monstrosity. It is. But so was South Africa under apartheid.
So are China and Saudi Arabia now. Yet somehow, we've found ways to do business
with all of them. Indeed, we've used our relationships with those nations to
nudge them toward human rights reform.
No, that has not proven to be a
perfect solution, either. But at least there is movement, at least there is give
and take, at least there is an arena in which change could conceivably ferment.
We have none of those with
Cuba. Instead, we apparently
embargo primarily because we've always embargoed and can't
figure out how not to. We punish the Cuban people, punish our own exporters and
for what? The thing hasn't worked. Shows no prospect that it ever will. We've
spent 40 years doing the same thing and expecting a different result.
Apparently, we're ready to spend 40 more.
We can no longer claim
ignorance. And you know what's left.
LOAD-DATE: May 28,
2002