Bishop Richard E. Pates of Des Moines, Chair of the Committee on International Justice and Peace, sent a letter yesterday to National Security Advisor Susan Rice asking that the US lift its embargo against Cuba:
We urge efforts to lift the U.S. embargo against Cuba so that greater support and assistance can flow to ordinary Cubans… Engagement will do more than isolation to advance human rights and alleviate human suffering…
It is long past due that the United States establishes full diplomatic relations with Cuba, withdraws all restrictions on travel to Cuba, rescinds terrorist designations aimed at Cuba, encourages trade that will benefit both nations, and facilitates cooperation in the areas of environmental protection, drug interdiction and scientific exchanges. More engagement will help the people of Cuba achieve greater freedom, human rights and religious liberty.
It is extremely rare that a government program, once begun, ever goes away. So it is with the decades-old Cuban embargo begun by (the Catholic!) JFK. There are certainly arguments for keeping the embargo, even from conservatives. These seem to be politically motivated with the intent of sending a stern message to the leaders of Cuba that we (or voters in Miami) do not approve of their totalitarian, Communist tendencies. This approach doesn’t seem to account for the effect of the embargo on the life of the average Cuban, however, a point that Bishop Pates (and the pastoral letter by the Cuban Bishops’ Conference which he references) makes clear.
There are plenty of (much better, IMHO) arguments for ending the embargo. too. A line from this post made me laugh, though:
It is long past time for the United States to end the embargo and influence Cuba, rather than threaten it.
It would be great if we stopped threatening Cuba, but I’m curious what we have to teach it. If it’s economic freedom, then the US is not the best teacher, at least since 2008. Our level of economic freedom has fallen from a rank of 5th in the world in 2007 to 17th in 2011 (most recent data).
Is economic freedom something that the Cubans should bother to learn? Judge for yourself:
Virtually without exception, these studies have found that countries with institutions and policies more consistent with economic freedom have higher investment rates, more rapid economic growth, higher income levels, and a more rapid reduction in poverty rates…
In the top quartile [of economically free countries], the average income of the poorest 10% was $10,556, compared to $932 in the bottom quartile in 2011 US(PPP) dollars. Interestingly, the average income of the poorest 10% in the most economically free nations is more than twice the overall average income in the least free nations. Life expectancy is 79.2 years in nations in the top quartile compared to 60.2 years in those in the bottom quartile. Political and civil liberties are considerably higher in economically free nations than in unfree nations.
I imagine Catholics would unanimously support a policy that promotes a higher income among the poor, a longer life expectancy, and political and civil liberties. Unfortunately, that policy is called “capitalism” and many Catholics see that as too extreme (I guess since it’s an “ism” and, you know, in all things moderation (even if moderation means accepting bits of socialism that reduce incomes of the poor, reduce life expectancies, reduce political and civil liberties, and historically reduce the number of people alive)). Kudos to Bishop Pates for standing up for all Cubans harmed by this ill-advised policy. The head of the Committee on International Justice and Peace recognizes the benefits that flow to ordinary people when “engagement” is used and “isolation” eschewed. The centuries of lessons by economists that free trade best promotes material well-being, especially of the poorest, is well-defended by this shepherd of the Church. If this is where the Church’s peace and justice movement is heading, sign me up. If only some of his brother bishops would likewise learn the lesson…