Justifying Unjustifiable Actions
Since the year 1959, the Cuban people have been brutally subjected to a ruthless dictator who cares immensely about his personal well-being, but neglects the men, women, and children that he governs. Many citizens have fled their livelihoods or died trying to escape arrest, torture, and in some cases death. Therefore, considering the nature of the Cuban revolution in 1959 and the broken promises that have consistently occurred over time since then, it is morally correct and justified for the United States to continue the embargo on the communist nation until it shows a willingness to provide its citizens the necessities required for survival and the opportunity to obtain luxuries with hard work.
Beginning in the early 1950s, Fidel Castro, Raul Castro, and Che Guevara began rebelling against former Cuban leader Fulgencio Batista. After being jailed once, their rebellion was successful and they eventually overtook power, promising a new world full of prosperity and communism along the way. With Fidel Castro at the throne, any remaining “Batista supporters were jailed and executed, [and] Castro passed an agrarian reform act (which limited private land ownership), confiscated all foreign-owned investments, and established what would be a long-standing relationship with the Soviet Union” (Gall & Hobby 1-2). Castro’s agrarian reform act forced Cubans nationwide to become dependent on the government while Castro “seized $1.8 billion of US assets” (“ProCon.org”). Furthermore, Castro began consistently violating Cuban human rights. In Cuba, “Government control is strong. Members of neighborhood watch groups, Committees for the Defense of the Revolution, watch their neighbors and report on all nonconformist behavior to the government. In addition, special brigades of paramilitary agents have been formed to crack down on protesters” (Gall & Hobby 11). Such strict surveillance puts Cuban citizens on constant edge of being arrested. It also promotes an unhealthy living environment in the already troubled island nation. Castro’s actions regarding the passing of harmful legislature and the abuse of civil rights in his nation gave the United States plenty of reasons to issue the embargo in 1962. Prior to the Kennedy administration, “Eisenhower began ending diplomatic relations with Cuba and closed the US embassy in Havana on Jan. 3, 1961, saying ‘There is a limit to what the United States in self-respect can endure. That limit has now been reached.’” (“ProCon”). Eisenhower realized that America could not support communism or disrespect from a country so near in any manner. Furthermore, “President Kennedy notoriously, “ approved a… plan to train and arm Cuban exiles trying to overthrow Castro 's communist regime” (“ProCon”). However, this plan, the famous Bay of Pigs strategy, failed miserably. The failed operation then forced Kennedy to pay ransom for the prisoners captured by Castro’s fighters. It also forced Kennedy to enact the embargo to condemn Castro as well as Cuba’s communism. Supporters of the embargo on Cuba include many Cuban-Americans who fled the nation years ago along with those who aim to condemn communism, pressure the Cuban government into giving the Cuban people more civil rights, and prevent the spread of further corruption in the country. Currently, “The move to normalize U.S.-Cuban relations is still new and uncertain, but Cubans think change is around the …show more content…
According to the terms of the embargo, “Cuba must legalize all political activity, release all political prisoners, commit to free and fair elections in the transition to representative democracy, grant freedom to the press, respect internationally recognized human rights, and allow labor unions” (“ProCon.org”). If such fails to occur in Cuba, then supporters of the embargo argue that the embargo should not be lifted because the abolition of the embargo would portray the United States as weak. The action would also endanger the civil rights of Cubans to the highest degree. According to supporters, “The United States should not risk sending the message that it can be waited out or that seizing US property in foreign countries, as Castro did in Cuba when he took power, will be tolerated” (“ProCon.org”). If communist nations were to wait out an American embargo successfully, it would provide a faulty victory for communism as well as send a false message to socialist nations hoping to antagonize America on a world stage for condemning them in the
Since the year 1959, the Cuban people have been brutally subjected to a ruthless dictator who cares immensely about his personal well-being, but neglects the men, women, and children that he governs. Many citizens have fled their livelihoods or died trying to escape arrest, torture, and in some cases death. Therefore, considering the nature of the Cuban revolution in 1959 and the broken promises that have consistently occurred over time since then, it is morally correct and justified for the United States to continue the embargo on the communist nation until it shows a willingness to provide its citizens the necessities required for survival and the opportunity to obtain luxuries with hard work.
Beginning in the early 1950s, Fidel Castro, Raul Castro, and Che Guevara began rebelling against former Cuban leader Fulgencio Batista. After being jailed once, their rebellion was successful and they eventually overtook power, promising a new world full of prosperity and communism along the way. With Fidel Castro at the throne, any remaining “Batista supporters were jailed and executed, [and] Castro passed an agrarian reform act (which limited private land ownership), confiscated all foreign-owned investments, and established what would be a long-standing relationship with the Soviet Union” (Gall & Hobby 1-2). Castro’s agrarian reform act forced Cubans nationwide to become dependent on the government while Castro “seized $1.8 billion of US assets” (“ProCon.org”). Furthermore, Castro began consistently violating Cuban human rights. In Cuba, “Government control is strong. Members of neighborhood watch groups, Committees for the Defense of the Revolution, watch their neighbors and report on all nonconformist behavior to the government. In addition, special brigades of paramilitary agents have been formed to crack down on protesters” (Gall & Hobby 11). Such strict surveillance puts Cuban citizens on constant edge of being arrested. It also promotes an unhealthy living environment in the already troubled island nation. Castro’s actions regarding the passing of harmful legislature and the abuse of civil rights in his nation gave the United States plenty of reasons to issue the embargo in 1962. Prior to the Kennedy administration, “Eisenhower began ending diplomatic relations with Cuba and closed the US embassy in Havana on Jan. 3, 1961, saying ‘There is a limit to what the United States in self-respect can endure. That limit has now been reached.’” (“ProCon”). Eisenhower realized that America could not support communism or disrespect from a country so near in any manner. Furthermore, “President Kennedy notoriously, “ approved a… plan to train and arm Cuban exiles trying to overthrow Castro 's communist regime” (“ProCon”). However, this plan, the famous Bay of Pigs strategy, failed miserably. The failed operation then forced Kennedy to pay ransom for the prisoners captured by Castro’s fighters. It also forced Kennedy to enact the embargo to condemn Castro as well as Cuba’s communism. Supporters of the embargo on Cuba include many Cuban-Americans who fled the nation years ago along with those who aim to condemn communism, pressure the Cuban government into giving the Cuban people more civil rights, and prevent the spread of further corruption in the country. Currently, “The move to normalize U.S.-Cuban relations is still new and uncertain, but Cubans think change is around the …show more content…
According to the terms of the embargo, “Cuba must legalize all political activity, release all political prisoners, commit to free and fair elections in the transition to representative democracy, grant freedom to the press, respect internationally recognized human rights, and allow labor unions” (“ProCon.org”). If such fails to occur in Cuba, then supporters of the embargo argue that the embargo should not be lifted because the abolition of the embargo would portray the United States as weak. The action would also endanger the civil rights of Cubans to the highest degree. According to supporters, “The United States should not risk sending the message that it can be waited out or that seizing US property in foreign countries, as Castro did in Cuba when he took power, will be tolerated” (“ProCon.org”). If communist nations were to wait out an American embargo successfully, it would provide a faulty victory for communism as well as send a false message to socialist nations hoping to antagonize America on a world stage for condemning them in the