Americas view

Why don't you stand up for the rule of law -- as passed by the US Congress -- rather than apparently taking the idea that "might makes right". In a democracy the minority willingly accepts laws passed by the majority and -- if it doesn't like them -- waits until there is a new majority to change the law. Too bad The Economist doesn't agree with this point of view.

Why should the US government tell citizens where they can and cannot travel?

The embargo plays well into the Castros' narrative of why Cuba needs "the revolution" and why it needs them. One of the worst things the US could do to Raul is get rid of the embargo.

It won't matter anyway the embargo has too many holes. Even the simple humanitarian act of increasing funds trasfer will erode the 'keep everyone poor' principals of Castro. Once Cuba and the US puts this nonsense behind, Cuba will awake to find most Americans don't know/care about Cuba too much, and they have a lot in common.

Furthermore, I'm fairly confident this is just the transitory phase towards reconciliation. The worst part is these same jerks who bay for the embargo will be the first ones cashing in on any break in the embargo. The main dispute between the Castro government and the US government is between the capitalist class which left, and did just fine in the States, and Castro. The losers are the Cuban and American people.

To gdchandler

I do agree with your point in principal though. Its a gutless move, if anyone feels that the embargo should end they should stand up and say it. Executive power shouldn't be used to subvert congress.

The American embargo against Castro's Cuba has been successful as a tool to highlight the illegitimate nature of that regime. It is a moral factor of destabilization, nothing else. While it is in force, in spite of certain holes, the provisional character of the Cuban revolution is being underscored, as well as the hopes for a radical change. The only embargo in need to be lifted is that of Castro against his own people.

Opening up trade with Cuba would probably manage to create a few jobs at no cost. If it did anything to undermine the Cuban regime we would have seen more effects of this by now. Speaking generally, trade and exposure to outside ideas tends to do more actual damage to an authoritarian regime than largely symbolic actions by the US.

@gdchandler

At this moment, according to most polls, 46% of Americans support the embargo and 40% oppose it. So there is no clear majority. Any Anti-Cuba legislation is actually not even hear by majority of the population but is pushed through the halls of power due to the Cuban emigrants.

Hmmm... allowing Cuban imports from the new private businesses would be a powerful incentive and boost for economic reform in Cuba. Although as a practical matter it might be hard to distinguish "private" from "a thin veneer on state-run business".

I respect The Economist greatly and find it to be a voice of reasoned analysis in a medium that has largely become sensationalistic and arrogant. But The Economist didn't quite get this situation right.
First of all, it wasn't the 1992 Cuban Democracy Act that codified the sanctions discussed. Rather it was the 1996 Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act. And it isn't an "assumption" that the only way to end the embargo is through a vote in Congress; that's what was written into the law. It's too bad that the Cuban government has not been receptive to that option, just as they were not receptive to offers of American aid after the devastating hurricanes of a few years ago.
As to the assertion that Mr. Obama has "punched some significant holes in the embargo", allowing telecommunications companies to provide data and mobile-phone services and lifting restrictions on remittances that Cuban-Americans can send and the number of visits they can make are actions that are specifically permitted by the 1992 Cuban Democracy Act.
And I really have to wonder what the benefit of removing such restrictions would be to the Cuban people, as opposed to their repressive government. Most every country in the world, including Canada, the EU and Latin American, already freely trade and travel to Cuba and that has not done anything to help Cubans remove the yoke of repression they under under. As a matter of fact, those brave Cubans that dare confront that tyranny express support for the restrictions The Economist argues should be removed. Let's face it; removing many of these restrictions would just make Cuba another cheap place for American students to party over spring break with little benefit to the emancipation of the local population. As for the trade restrictions, the United States still ranks as one of Cuba's five largest trading partners, largely for food and medical products. So tell me again how horrible we Americans have been to Cuba and why making changes are so warranted?