Human Rights in Cuba

Time To Change

Calendar
Waiting for help
Waiting for help

The winners of Cuba’s ‘new’
COMMENTARY by Jennifer M. Harris JANUARY 14, 2015, 4:37 PM EST

As the U.S. works to restore full diplomatic relations with Cuba,
farmers in the Southeastern U.S. may benefit most, says Jennifer M.
Harris, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

U.S. President Barack Obama’s recent move to normalize relations with
Cuba has been called ‘historic,’ ‘courageous’ and ‘a moral victory.’
Surely any deal so hailed must carry economic consequences of similar
magnitude. But that’s unlikely — and for the same reasons that America’s
economic against Cuba has for decades found slim policy
justification and even slimmer odds of removal.

Poorly designed sanctions tend to be easily circumvented: even with the
embargo in place, the U.S. is Cuba’s fifth largest trading partner, a
position it has held since 2007 (helped by the decision of U.S.
President George W. Bush to authorize the sale of agricultural products
in 2003). Further, the fact that Europe and Asia have not joined
America’s embargo means that any U.S. firm with the right finance and
infrastructure can easily navigate around the restrictions.

And easily circumvented bans, in turn, tend to be the most difficult to
remove. With such little discomfort felt by American industry, few, if
any, have lobbied to end it (stacked up, of course, against a highly
vocal Cuban expatriate community that, on balance, still falls reliably
in favor of maintaining, if not strengthening the ban).

That is not to say there aren’t real economic stakes to the recent
announcement. The current embargo policy inflicts billions in annual
losses on both the U.S. (by conservative estimates, around $1.2 billion
a year) and Cuban ($685 million a year) economies. The new policy will
reduce these costs substantially. More important than these headline
sums, however, are the sorts of winners created by the new measures.

For the U.S., most of the gains will be concentrated in agricultural and
telecommunications exports. The largest winners will be farmers in the
Southeastern United states, whose proximity to Cuba make their poultry,
fish, , and corn exports to Cuba especially competitive. As of 2006,
a full quarter of Alabama’s agricultural revenue came from exports to
Cuba, including sales of catfish, soybeans and poultry. The largest
relative gains may go to U.S. wheat and rice farmers: both trades have
slumped to zero in the past five years, as financing costs made U.S.
suppliers far more expensive than South American or Asian alternatives.
But with the new measures, “[w]e believe our market share [in Cuba]
could grow from its current level of zero to around 80% to 90%,” said
Alan Tracy, president of the U.S. Wheat Associates.

All told, it could result in 6,000 new U.S. jobs. And, underscoring the
irony that has characterized so much of the embargo and its
consequences, Florida— home to most of the vocal and fervent opposition
to the new changes— is likely to benefit economically more than any
other U.S. state.

The term “state” is used advisedly here. That is because the
single-biggest U.S. winner may be the nation’s capital. Indeed, the
largest source of benefits are likely to come in the form of reduced
federal enforcement costs of these sanctions: at least 10 different
agencies are responsible for enforcing different provisions of the
embargo, and according to the Government Accountability Office, the U.S.
government devotes hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of thousands
of man hours to administering the embargo each year. Over 70% of U.S.
Treasury Department inspections each year are centered on smuggled Cuban
goods, even though the agency administers more than 20 other trade bans.

For Cuba, the most significant aspects of normalizing relations with the
U.S. are changes to remittance allowances and restrictions. The
new measures build on earlier 2009 reforms—when President Obama ushered
in new rules allowing unlimited family visits to Cuba—extending the
categories of general licenses to a broader array of political,
humanitarian, educational, and commercial purposes. The new measures
also allow larger remittances— general donative remittances will now be
capped at $2000 per quarter, up from $500, while remittances “for
humanitarian projects, support for the Cuban people, and support for the
development of private businesses in Cuba will no longer require a
specific license,” according to the White House. Nor will remittance
forwarders require a specific license any longer.

All of this matters because, at roughly $5.1 billion, annual remittance
flows into Cuba overwhelmingly come from the U.S. In fact, remittances
total more than the four fastest growing sectors of the Cuban economy
combined. This differential is actually larger when one takes into
account that unlike substantial costs that go into processing sugar,
manufacturing drugs, and importing , remittances do not cost the
Cuban government or its broader economy anything to produce. As a
measure of just how critical U.S. remittances have become for the Cuban
economy, the Cuban government has begun estimating the costs of the
embargo primarily in terms of how it impacts remittance.

It seems there is nothing quite so powerful as scarcity to turn
communists into market-watching capitalists. The whole thing recalls
another episode of Cold War sanctions when, in the early 1960s at the
height of tensions, Soviet leader Nikita Khruschev found himself
inexplicably more capitalist than the United States. At the time, the
Soviet Union was working to develop its oil industry for strategic
reasons and in hope of selling oil and gas to the West for hard currency.

One of the production weaknesses involved wide-diameter steel pipes
needed to move oil from the wellhead to refineries and on to the point
of sale. Rather than selling large quantities of piping, the U.S.
orchestrated concerted opposition through its European and Asian
alliance systems. American capitalism was abandoning its own market
principles—“denying its own essential character by forgoing the
possibility of trade and profit-making,” historian Alan Dobson
explained. For the Soviets, this violated the order of things.
Exasperated, Khrushchev reportedly burst out to his advisors, “who the
hell do these capitalists think they are, to believe that they can go
around and not act like capitalists?”

There are other beneficiaries to the deal beyond the negotiating
parties. In Mexico, one of the two largest economies in Latin America,
economists are forecasting a favorable impact on businesses that have
been reluctant to invest in Cuba for fear of risking their ties to the
U.S. market. They also expect more Mexican tourists to travel to Cuba.
And a more economically integrated Cuba is a Cuba better able to
contribute its considerable talents to some of the world’s most
important fights: Cuba has sent large teams of doctors to Africa to
fight and has helped to mediate the decades-long conflict in
Colombia between the government and the FARC rebels. News of a deal
emerged in Colombia around the same time as news of the U.S- Cuba
breakthrough, as the FARC announced their cease-fire would last
indefinitely unless their guerrillas were attacked by security forces.

But again, the sums and individual winners, be they American, Cuban, or
otherwise, pale in comparison to what is arguably the deal’s largest
victory: which, to paraphrase Mr. Khruschev, is to help all of the good
capitalists act like capitalists — even, or perhaps especially, the most
ardent of last century’s communists.

Jennifer M. Harris is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign
Relations. Prior to joining the council, Jennifer was a member of the
policy planning staff at the U.S. Department of State responsible for
global markets, geo-economic issues, and energy security. Jennifer is
currently writing a book on the modern use of economic and financial
instruments as tools of statecraft.

Source: The winners of Cuba’s ‘new’ economy –
http://fortune.com/2015/01/14/the-winners-of-cubas-new-economy/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Zapata lives
Zapata lives
No place to live
No place to live