Published in collaboration wth Belly of the Beast Cuba
A few weeks ago, an article in The Economist declaring Cuba an “increasingly miserable country” highlighted how the anti-Cuba propaganda machine glosses over the biggest part of the story and perpetuates itself through the U.S. news media. As the Economist was selling false narratives, UN Special Rapporteur Alena Douhan released a report on the impacts of the embargo on Cuba three days after the Economist’s article. This perfectly timed statement pushed back at the Economist’s narrative, along with the many other recent news stories that ignore the economic blockade of Cuba.
“For more than 60 years, the United States has maintained a broad regime of economic, commercial, and financial restrictions against Cuba, the longest-running policy of unilateral sanctions in U.S. foreign relations,” Douhan said. “As a result of this sanctions regime, generations of Cubans have lived under unilateral coercive measures, which have shaped the country’s economic and social landscape.”
While the Economist article immediately delves into the costs of goods and the difficulties of Cuban life, the unnamed author wrote nearly 1700 words only to gloss over what created myriad issues for Cubans. The sanctions were only mentioned once, with the author saying, “Few Cubans seem to blame America’s embargo (‘the blockade,’ as officials call it) for their plight, though clearly it adds to it. When I talk to Cubans, the opposite is true about the embargo, with many being aware and even explaining how it adversely impacts their daily lives.
The Economist’s analysis is flawed, primarily because it overlooks the reality that the embargo is the primary cause of nearly every major issue on the island. While the article mentions that the “burdens of daily life are excruciatingly hard to bear,” as it talks about high prices, stagnant wages, and infrastructure issues, it again overlooks the lack of access due to the United States’ unilateral oppressive measures.
Cuba faces a lack of funding and investment from international sources. The island nation has no access to loans from international banks due to heavily restrictive sanctions, which the Economist conveniently failed to mention. Additionally, the article discusses issues with private businesses in Cuba, blaming the government’s fears of private enterprise, a baseless claim. The author does so by overlooking how private businesses, much like the government, cannot secure financing and private investment from outside sources, complicating matters.
While the article mentions that private enterprise accounts for 55% of the retail trade, the author downplays how the Cuban government has facilitated that growth so much that it outweighs the state. The author then follows that statement with duplicitous commentary, saying, “The government seems unable to make up its mind whether merely to tolerate private business or to encourage it,” making it seem as though the author was wrestling with reality.
With sanctions from various agencies such as the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), the Department of State, and the Department of Commerce, alongside various pieces of legislation and Executive Orders, the embargo impacts everything in Cuba. When the author mentioned the struggles with public transportation services on the island, the omission of the embargo ignores how increasingly difficult it is to purchase parts for everything from its trash collection services and public transportation to maintaining its power grid.
Another issue the Economist ignores is just how much the sanctions are impacting Cuba’s highly regarded healthcare system, leading to medical supply and medicine shortages. The Economist omits these details, glazing over the embargo as if it’s simply a Cuban government talking point. The article also ignores the vast majority of countries in the United Nations that have condemned the U.S. war on Cuba for more than 30 years.
The situation in Cuba has been made worse by two Trump administrations driven by hardline policies and a Biden administration that refused to help until the last days of his presidency, allowing Trump to reverse course immediately upon entering office in January. With Rubio at the helm of the Department of State, I expected to see more restrictive measures that articles like the Economist’s will help bolster and justify.
“On January 31, I approved the re-creation of the Cuba Restricted List, which prohibits certain transactions with companies under the control of, or acting for or on behalf of, the repressive Cuban military, intelligence, or security services or personnel,” said Secretary Rubio in early February. “The State Department is re-issuing the Cuba Restricted List to deny resources to the very branches of the Cuban regime that directly oppress and surveil the Cuban people while controlling large swaths of the country’s economy,” continued Rubio. “In addition to restoring the entities that were on the list until the final week of the previous administration, we are adding Orbit, S.A., a remittance-processing company operating for or on behalf of the Cuban military.”
The Economist attempts to villainize and solely blame the Cuban government for everything wrong on the island. While the Cuban government regularly accepts blame for many of the country’s problems, the author does so without addressing that Cuba stands as one of the most heavily sanctioned countries in the world. The sanctions making up the embargo on Cuba are extensive. To gain a more comprehensive understanding of the U.S. war on Cuba, you don’t have to look far, and talking to Cubans will tell you a lot more than any Economist article.
While the world unites in condemning the U.S.’s actions against millions of Cubans, the Economist seems to find more value in toeing the hardliner position often heard from Cuban American voices, such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Senator Ted Cruz, and Republican Florida Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar. By ignoring what is arguably the most important part of the story, the Economist is spreading nothing short of misinformation.
For the author at The Economist to omit such glaring details, the article suggests the United States is innocent in all of this, and that Cuba is simply a failed state. The truth is, if it were, the U.S. wouldn’t be so invested in oppressing an entire nation. What people in power loathe about Cuba is its revolutionary style of governance that puts its people first, regardless of whether they are rich or poor. It’s the antithesis of the United States.
Full UN Special Rapporteur Report
I’m an independent journalist digging deeper into the stories you see or don’t see on the news. Find my work at Unicorn Riot, The Antagonist Magazine, Latino Rebels, Orinoco Tribune, and more. I’m also on TikTok, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Mastodon, and Threads. To support my work, consider becoming a paid subscriber or making a donation via Venmo, PayPal, or Cash App.
The 30-year campaign against Cuba has not succeeded. The USA 0 Cuba 30
What I find so disgusting about the hypocrisy here is that the very things that have been done to other countries for decades in the name of “freedom,” is ramping up again with the same tired ass rhetoric from the 80s. And unfortunately for us here in the US, it has now turned inward. The tyranny of foreign policy is now the tyranny of domestic policy.