Does the US have outstanding claims against the current Cuban government that leaves the embargo in place?
Was there an end state or goal to the embargo?
Does the Cuban government restrict trade with the US or any other countries?
Was there an end state or goal to the embargo?
Does the Cuban government restrict trade with the US or any other countries?
The Gulf of Mexico is of enormous strategic importance to America. Control of Cuba could blockade New Orleans and thus the Mississippi. I think the embargo has far outlived its usefulness. But keeping the island out of foreign hands is a legitimate geopolitical priority for D.C.
When it was initiated, it was to kick the Soviets out. Presently, it signals how seriously D.C. takes the issue. (Cuba is presently allying with Beijing [1].)
I don't think we should embargo or even sanction non-violent actors. (Threatening to blockade the port of New Orleans would be tantamount to a violent threat.) But the history of Havana's actions explains the embargo's origin. Havana's mismanagement of the Cuban economy explains why there isn't a material incentive to prioritize reversal.
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/08/politics/cuba-china-spying-fa...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_...
Like many actions taken by nation states it mostly resulted in the opposite of the intended effect. Cuba became closely aligned with the Soviet Union because of the sanctions which have been widely regarded as complete policy failure.
People who consider the future.
For a few minutes, maybe, before whoever attempted to use control of Cuba for that purpose ceased to exist, along with all of the facilities they were using for that purpose.
The US military may fail at constructing stable democratic regimes on the far side of the globe, but obliterating someone doing that from Cuba wouldn't be a challenge.
> But keeping the island out of foreign hands is a legitimate geopolitical priority for D.C.
Its a foreign country. Unless the US invades and annexes it, whatever hands its in are going to continue to be foreign.
Fair enough. Out of an adversary's hands.
In practice, the issue is really "the communist government of Cuba still exists."
> Eisenhower's government refused to export oil to the island
I did a hunt for a cite to support this claim, but did not find one. I searched national archives for executive orders [0, 1] and didn't find anything. The Wikipedia pages that have statements like "In June 1960 a key incident occurred: Eisenhower's government refused to export oil to the island" [2] and "This nationalization of property resulted partially from U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower's decision to cancel all oil exports to Cuba." [3] are curiously lacking in a citation.
I wish I still had my copy of The Prize which I recall had excellent footnotes and references.
0. https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/e...
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_executive_actions_by_D...
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_...
There's also the outstanding issue of political prisoners and open, free elections.
I think America would happily release claims on the property is prisoners were released and free elections held.
Canada also refuses to extradite people to places with the death penalty unless they promise not to use it, but extradites to usa all the time.
1. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2021/07/the-us-diplom...
Add on top of this the difficulty the US has passing any legislation whatsoever, and you've got a whole mess on your hands.
And I almost forgot that the accused would likely be facing charges in an individual state, which adds another layer to the mess, wherein the state likely has the sovereignty to execute one of its residents regardless of any international agreements that the Executive branch of the federal government makes.