Mar 222008

Mark Milke, writing for the Calgary Herald, tells how Castroism took one of the wealthiest countries in Latin America, and turned it into one of the poorest. He doesn’t expect much to change under Raul.

He notes one of the old explanations we tend to get from the left:

Some will point to the U.S. trade embargo as the source of Cuba’s economic ills. I agree. It’s a significant reason for Cuba’s poverty, that and the Communist system itself — and both should end.

I, too, agree that the U.S. trade embargo should end. The remaining good reasons for having it went away in the early 90s.

But here’s a question. How come politicians of the left want to blame the U.S. embargo for Cuba’s poverty, yet are eager to emasculate NAFTA? On the one hand they want to cut off trade with other countries, because they think it will make us prosperous. On the other they say Cuba’s lack of trade with us has made the country poor.

Even if they subscribe to the ridiculous notion that the benefits of trade are a one-way street, helping our Latin American neighbors but hurting us, why is it only Cuba they want to help? What do they think will happen if we reduce trade with Mexico?

  • Scott

    The approach that would be best in all cases is UFT for the Americas, not just a crude approximation like NAFTA.

  • Reticulator

    What is UFT? Unlimited free trade? I could go for that.