Last month, US President Barack Obama said that he would abolish the embargo against Cuba that has existed for more than half a century. His comments led to a heated debate in the US.
In 1959, during the Cold War, Fidel Castro overthrew the US-backed regime, leading to the establishment of a new, communist government. From that time on, the US has always felt rather uneasy about Cuba, and wanted the Castro government gone.
Then-US president John F. Kennedy signed the embargo into law in 1962, implementing an economic and financial blockade and placing an embargo on trade and individuals’ movements, except under special circumstances. The Cuban Missile Crisis later that year served only to reinforce US suspicions toward Cuba.
The US embargo of Cuba is purely ideological in nature. However, this year, the world is celebrating the 25th anniversary of the bringing down of the Berlin Wall. It has been a long time since Cold War global geopolitics has dominated international relations.
Internationally, the UN General Assembly has proposed castigating the US on several occasions since 1992 over the blockade. This was proposed again last year, and the proposal garnered 188 votes, with only the US and its ally Israel voting against. There are several reasons why the international community is so overwhelmingly opposed to the US’ continued economic blockade of Cuba.
For a start, it is no longer in line with prevailing political and economic thinking within the post-Cold War period. More importantly, in this increasingly globalized world, the US embargo on its tiny neighbor is creating serious economic hardship for Cubans.
Nevertheless, Obama’s new approach has attracted quite a lot of opposition, the strongest objections coming from the older generation of Cuban exiles and immigrants in the US. They have spent their lives opposing the Castros’ administration, and find the idea of waking up one morning to find that the much-maligned Cuba has turned into a friend overnight hard to conceive.
In the same way, there are many voices within the US Republican Party, ideologically opposed to communism, saying that the Castro administration remains an authoritarian regime, and that to abolish the embargo now would only extend the Castros’ hold on power.
This last reason is preposterous. The US has transplanted or supported many military, despotic regimes around the world, simply because it has been in its own economic interests to do so, and also because those regimes have promised to oppose communism. And compared to the Cuban government, which has at least done much to improve the standards of living, healthcare and education of its people, these US-supported military dictatorships have proven to be some of the worst human rights offenders.
The US should put an end to this artifact of the Cold War as soon as possible. This will not only will give Americans true freedom, making good on the message that accompanies their new passports — “With your US passport, the World is Yours” — it will also give Cubans access to the resources they should have access to, as well as the chance to engage with the world. After all, the Cold War has been over now for a quarter of a century.
Chi Chun-chieh is a professor in the Department of Ethnic Relations and Cultures at National Dong Hwa University.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry