Posted by
Andrews on Tuesday, April 21, 2009 11:09:37 AM
In the debate over relations with Cuba and Venezuela many have asked conservatives "Why was it OK for Nixon to go to China?" Let me correct a seeming misunderstanding here. It is the same mistake the left makes when throwing Bush's actions in the fact of conservatives. Nixon was no conservative. He was a Republican, but both his normalization of relations with China and his closing of the "gold window" were completely inconsistent with conservatism, as were his price controls, and much else that he did. So what Nixon did was not the action of a conservative.
Now, on to China and Cuba and Venezuela.
Let me state I am of two minds. Our original blockade of Cuba was completely valid, as Cuba was a threat, being a client state of the Soviet Union. Any actions we could take to reduce the threat was justified. Cuba is not, at the moment, a threat to the US, though it is possible it could turn into one by allying with China, or perhaps Iran, and once again threatening to host missiles close to our shores. But until it does so, I can see an argument for removing the blockade, though I am of two minds about it.
Having said that,
I wonder why the left is so eager to do so. These same people wanted to blockade South Africa over simple segregation, but they want to open relations with a nation which imprisons those with AIDS, imprisons librarians and dissidents, imprisons homosexuals, and otherwise violates most norms of civilized society? It seems the left should be in the forefront of blockading Cuba. But as Cuba is a communist nation, they get the "multiculturalism exception", the same one which allows Moslems to be as homophobic as they want, and oppress women, while still not facing criticism.
As I said, as a libertarian type, I am of two minds about trade sanctions against nations. I can see stopping trade when a nation is at war with the US, or is sponsoring groups inimical tot eh US, or even when not actively at war is a threat tot he US. I can also see restricting trade in munitions and other dangerous items to potentially hostile powers, or those who would sell them to the same. But I have a problem with using trade embargo to enforce human rights standards on other nations. First, because I would not want other nations to embargo us until we live up to their idea of "human rights" (in many cases a quite socialist term). Second, because there simply is no justification to deny trade simply because citizens are not treated well.
It is the same problem I have
with retaliatory tariffs, just because a nation has the "unfair advantage" (which is a dubious advantage at best*) of slave labor, there is no reason to cut off trade. If US citizens see an advantage to trading with a nation with a "bad" human rights record, and that nation is no threat to the US, then there is no rational way to justify cutting off trade to that nation.
Having said all that, I can also argue, and will argue quite strongly, that Cuba
IS a threat at the present. With Venezuela trying to export revolution throughout South America, and Cuba being her ally, I think it is justifiable right now to deny whatever trade the government sees fit to both nations. As communist, anti-American regimes within this hemisphere present a threat to our security, I have no problem cutting off one or both from trade.
And thus I have no objection to maintaining the blockade against Cuba. In fact, I think this may be the worst possible time to remove the blockade, as Cuba is in rather dire straits and could easily see a counter revolution with the passing of the Castro brothers. However, should we loosen restrictions, even provide "aid", we could easily end up propping up the next generation of rulers (likely Chavez puppets, given Chavez's dominant position at the moment), and prolong the threat on our southern border.
------------------------------------------------------------
* If slave labor is such a huge economic advantage, the South not the North would have been industrialized, and the Ottoman Empire and tsarist Russia would have been industrial giants, while Britain would have foundered as a backwater. The fact is slaves are remarkably inefficient, requiring considerable supervision to produce trivial output. Though many dictators think slavery is "cheap labor", when you look at the pathetic output and count the supervision required, slaves are actually more expensive than free labor. But that is the topic of a future post.