We should lift the economic embargo. The odds are favorable that this might subtly undermine the current Cuban dictatorship? Am I certain that this will occur? Nope, but who ever promised you a risk free existence? One cannot forevermore study every issue. In the long run, as Lord Keynes once said, we are all dead.

I have visited Cuba and only read limited accounts of the few visitors who have been allowed into North Korea. Based on this information I believe the level of freedom in each place is many degrees apart. While Castro would love for all tourists to only visit "quarrantined" beach resorts, the truth is that many visitors spend a lot of time in Havana. There is a high level of mixing between tourists and natives all over the city, with the enforcement of controls on tourists being similar to under-age drinking control in college (i.e. don't ask, don't tell). Increasing the level of tourism will increase the mixing and make it still harder for the regime to exert any control over most Cubans.

I don't think that this will be a silver bullet for regime change, but it would also be a mistake to think that it will have no impact on Cuba. A good portion of the accomodation and meals available in Havana is from privately owned operations in people's houses. While I am sure this is monitored by the state, it seems to point towards the re-emergence of the Cuban middle class.

And while Cubans on the street are somewhat apprehensive of doing business (i.e. selling Cigars and Rum) with tourists in public, they have no problem talking with tourists in public parks (and will not hesitate to slip you into a local bar for a drink and a half price sale of some local goods). I don't think more tourists to talk to will change the regime, but it will certainly allow news of the world which differs from Castro's view (not that information is a huge problem for Cubans today).

It just seems that increased trade (especially tourism) will go a long way towards integration of Cuba into the western world, and that any lumping together of Cuba and a place like North Korea or Sadaam's Iraq in terms of control of the public is a bit strained.

Good commentary (all). To which I would add one question: what is the constitutionality of our govt's prohibition on citizens going ANYWHERE? We can go to war zones, we can go to China, or Burma; we can (I believe) go to N. Korea. We go to Cuba, we run the risk of being put in jail. This alone is enough for me to question the policy.

I'm confused. Is there really mass famine in Cuba? I've never heard of this anywhere else.

Timely (as in now) and comprehensive planning across the federal government for the time when Castro dies is far more important than what we do about the travel or trade embargoes against Cuba now. There is no evidence that either American tourists or American soybeans will change anything fundamental about Cuba's government, but Castro's death certainly will, and whatever that change is will have implications for the United States in many areas.

I cannot get to excited about the "whither embargo" debate because I just don't think how the question is decided is that important.

I've never liked the idea of the American government telling me where I can and can't travel so I contemplated taking a trip to Cuba last year via Mexico. I ended up not going, but I'm not aware of American tourists being restricted to segmented economic zones there. From the somewhat limited research I did I was under the impression that tourists were pretty much free to travel wherever they liked within Cuba.

Dan: Good analysis!

I have long favored lifting the embargo as it only punishes the Cuban People, it helps Castro.

It is time a president tells the Cuban population in Florida that it can no longer dictate foreign policy towards Cuba.

Once again, the "real" story get's missed. It's not about whether or not we should ease up the embargo or not. Castro is a real-honest-to-goodness torturing secret-police tyrannical rights-abusing dictator. Give him the Glasnost and Peristroika treatment.

I find it ironic however that some of the same people who are advocating using engagement to undermine Castro, were so damn adamant about either supporting sanctions on Hussein or the absolute taboo of engaging with Iraq.

What it is about is it's about President Bush using a cheap shot at Castro to try to bolster his falling tough-guy and man-in-charge image. It's also about the Rebellion in the Ranks of the Republicans who are sick and tired of covering for the President and him not being able to *deliver* and then embaressing them. That's what it's about.

The only people who should be supporting a cuban embargo are the anti-globalization crowd. Lucky Cubans, being spared the depredations of international capital.

Daniel,

I don't suppose any consideration of the impact of the embargo on the Cuban people down the years - that is whether it had compounded the damage done by Castro, further impoverishing a third (second?) world country - might enter into our discussion of this matter?

Don't Western Europeans travel to Cuba? Has this engagement had a positive effect?

(I'm not trying to be rhetorical here, just asking.)