Talk:United States embargo against Cuba/Archive 1

Archive 1

Opening comments

The title "Cuban embargo" suggests the embargo is by Cuba against someone else when the opposite is the case. Also, given that the article is about the US embargo there's no reason not to have the US in the title (no other countries are embargoing Cuba). AndyL 21:41, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)carl

in congress

I'm a political vasectomy reporter in DC and have actually covered the recent attempts by Congress to lift the embargo (unsuccessful). I'd be glad to contribute an informational section on recent happenings in Congress. Katefan0 23:42, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

• • added. Katefan0 00:17, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

direct contradiction

This article states that there was no compensation offered for nationalized properties. The History of Cuba article directly contradicts this as compensation was offered:

"In compensation the Cuban government offered to pay the landholders based on the tax assessment values for the land."

This statement is acurate and the statement in the article is not.

• There is another contradiction. Towards the end, the article states that there is a ban against American citizens travelling to Cuba because George W. Bush has repeatedly vetoed attempts by Congress to relax restrictions on that nation. But in the section on "Embargo", it is stated that since 30 June 2004 there is no ban on such travel per se. ChrisWinter 21:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• As I understand it, there is no ban on travel per se, but there is such a restrictive ban on spending money there as to effectively constitute a travel ban, except for those who are (for example) guests of the Cuban government. It is definitely an effective ban on tourism and, unlike earlier U.S. administrations, the Bush administration has routinely been investigating to find and prosecute violators. - 19:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion from COTW nomination

These comments were posted to Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week while this article was nominated there. Gentgeen 15:23, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

• A very contentious issue in U.S. forign relations doesn't even have a stub. This title might not be the best, feel free to suggest others. Gentgeen 07:46, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Is "against" the most common preposition used? maybe "on", "of" or "towards" may be better--Confuzion 11:38, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • "Of" is the much more common one for every reference I have ever heard. - Taxman 04:02, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
      • Google Test:
        • "U.S. embargo against Cuba": 3,740 hits
        • "U.S. embargo on Cuba": 2,770 hits
        • "U.S. embargo of Cuba": 1,910 hits
        • "U.S. embargo toward Cuba": 8 hits
        • "U.S. embargo towards Cuba": 16 hits
        • ""Cuban embargo": 12,000 hits

[[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 04:26, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

I support the simpler Cuban embargo with the other topics as redirects. - Davodd 19:44, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

Support that as a title. Do any other nations have an embargo of Cuba? If so, the article could also deal with them. Warofdreams 14:06, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• This timeline of votes in the UN General Assembly shows pretty clearly what other nations think of the embargo. You might think from the voting that Israel supports it, but this report by the Cato Institute says that Israel is one of the embargo's most active subverters. (Note that the Marshall Islands, which supplied the only other supporting vote, are formally associated with the U.S.) Fpahl 21:05, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I would also support that title. It's less likely to promote edit warring. - Taxman 17:38, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

• I disagree. The embargo is perpetrated by the US. To call it a Cuban embargo IMO expresses a US-centric view. I doubt that it would occur to a Cuban to call it a Cuban embargo. While the shorter expression "Cuban embargo" is of course often used as a shorthand, especially inside the US, the above Google statistics are misleading (no criticism intended -- thanks for producing them!). Compare:

  "US embargo" Cuba: 30,400 hits

  "US trade embargo" Cuba: 7,200 hits

  "US economic embargo" Cuba: 3,320 hits

  "US economic sanctions" Cuba: 2,850 hits

Of course we should redirect "Cuban embargo" to the page, but IMO using this as a title would be POV. Fpahl 21:05, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Following WP convention, it should be "U.S." instead of "US" since Americans use the periods. :-) Davodd 23:32, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder :-). I follow that convention on article pages, but I would have thought that I can write how I'm used to on a talk page? BTW, it's people from the U.S. who use the periods. ;-) Fpahl 08:41, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Support what Fpahl said about the title. It is a U.S. led embargo of Cuba and should be titled as such. Oska 07:46, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

The title "Cuban embargo" suggests that Cuba has imposed an embargo when the opposite is the case. AndyL 21:38, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• There's a small article under Helms-Burton Act that we could use. The articles on Cuba and Fidel Castro refer to the embargo only in passing. Fpahl 09:53, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Should U.S. embargo against Cuba be a redirect to Helms-Burton Act with that article expanded? Filiocht 09:32, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • no. The Helms-Burton Act became law in 1996, while the US embargo dates back to the 1960s. Gentgeen 10:48, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• A list of external links that we can use in the article:

  A timeline of votes by the UN General Assembly

  A 2001 report by the Cato Institute

  A timeline of the embargo

  • How about U.S.-Cuban Embargo? NeoJustin 02:41, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
    • No. That implies incorrectly that the embargo is bilateral. Shorne 17:00, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• When I voted this was at 40+ before the listed requisite date. Now the date gets moved to the right and the vote requirement pushed up again, even though it already passed. That seems very odd. — RJH 23:05, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • It is not the number of votes required for the article to be selected as COTW, but rather the number of votes required for the nomination to avoid being pruned, and the date when that number of votes is required. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:35, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wait...let me get this straight. Because "Cuban Embargo" gets more hits, it's a more neutral and accurate article title? Who was the ignorant little moron who thought of that? Using fewer words to bring up more site searches is a good use in Google. So unless you think we should name the Michael Jackson article on his criminal case involving child molestator "Michael Jackson child molesting" then you need to deal with what NEUTRALITY actually is. 121.221.193.3 (talk) 11:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Harlequin

End moved comments

Article name

See the discussion above: where should this article live? I think we should use "United States" rather than "U.S.", and "against" seems more appropriate than "on", "of" or "toward(s)", which would produce United States embargo against Cuba. Whichever we use, the title should be consistent with the lead paragraph. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:51, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree, too many articles are using US in their title rather than the appropriate expansion--ZayZayEM 02:50, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cuban American

I made a start on a Cuban American article, which I think is closely linked to this subject. There's a lot more that could be said... -- RJH 17:31, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Biilboard

Do we have a photo of the billboard in Havana facing the U.S. interests section? That would be a great illustration for this article. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:25, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Support

The article mentions twice that a lot of support for the embargo comes from the Cuban American community. Can anyone please explain why? It makes sense that those who came to the U.S. would be those least happy under Castro's rule and thus most opposed to him. At the same time it seems like the economic embargo would cause hardship for friends and relatives back in Cuba. Isomorphic 14:34, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Cuban American community is led by the older generation of anti-Castroites who left Cuba shortly after 1959 and established an anti-Castro movement in Miami supporting (and participating) in attempts to overthrow Castro such as the Bay of Pigs. There is evidence that more recent economic (rather than political) refugees from Cuba are less supportive of the embargo or, at least, are more likely to circumvent it by trying to send money and goods to their families etc but despite possibly being less supportive they are not vocal in opposition to the Cuban American leadership for a variety of reasons such as fear of ostricism by the community etc. AndyL 14:52, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In support of what AndyL said, older Cuban-Americans tend to be extremely hard-line. But the younger generation of Cuban-Americans (many born here of refugee parents) care much less about sticking it to Castro, presumably because they never lived under his rule. Katefan0 15:57, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Well, neither did the older ones, because most of them already left shortly after he came to power, right? DirkvdM July 2, 2005 06:01 (UTC)

The older, conservative leadership of the Miami-based Cubans is very organized, very anti-Castro, and very hardline: so much so that in the Miami area it can be physically dangerous to voice dissenting opinons. There is a lot more openly expressed variety in the views of the Cubans in Greater New York. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:20, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Who does the Cuban Embargo hurt or help?

I was raised in South America as well as in North America. I understand some of the perspectives of the Latin culture, the American Culture and the Cuban in the US culture as well as the Cuban in the Island of Cuba culture. But I am still puzzle if we in North America understand who does the embargo help or hurt? on who is trying to benefit from this embargo...I live in Miami for more than 20 years and I happen to socialize mostly with Cubans, Cuban Americans and American Cubans and their answer is that it hurts Fidel, but then some Cubans from Miami turn around set up a tire maker company in China and sell to Cuba (The Island)...and they sit on top of the Cuban American National Foundation...and if you say anything about it..they will brand you and expose you as a Communist..! does that make you wonder??? By the way one of the strongest PAC's in DC is the CANF.

Well there is a criticism that the embargo benefits Castro by giving him something to rally the people around and against. Shouldn't be difficult to find analysts who have been quoted saying that and putting it in the criticism question. AndyL 19:58, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

entering the words: embargo helps castro returns a number of hits. such as http://www.lib.niu.edu/ipo/ii991146.html AndyL 20:04, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How can official trade with the US be possible under the embargo? Does this only take the form of 'aid', like selling medical stuff? And does it amount to anything (relative to the total economies of the US and Cuba respectively)? DirkvdM July 2, 2005 06:05 (UTC)

Pieces of the embargo have been chipped away in the last decade or so.The US currently engages in some limited trade with Cuba on a cash and carry basis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.169.20 (talk • contribs) 2 Nov 2005

It would be interesting if this article presented arguments against the foregone conclusion the U.S. embargo truly has a negative effect on Cuba. Given my personal exposure to Cuba, the only discernible effect is that which its totalitarian government wishes to impose on its citizens. Since no other country in the world blocks trade with Cuba, there is logically no reason it cannot receive all the medical, humanitarian, agricultural, technological supplies it wishes to purchase. The U.S. economy accounts for approximately 20% of the global economy, which means 80% of the world's economy is free to trade with Cuba. The reality in Cuba bears this out:

Every Cuban household was recently given Chinese refrigerators to ensure more energy efficiency. I personally witnessed crates with medical equipment from Germany at a Havana hospital. The streets are filled with automobiles such as Toyota, Peugeot, Renault, Citroen, Hyundai (and even some BMW and Mercedes). Oil companies such as Total from France have marketing & selling operations in Cuba. Banks such as BBVA from Spain have operations in Cuba. Global hotel chains such as Melia and Barcelo dominate the island's substantial supply of hotel rooms for tourists. Cubana de Aviacion has Airbus airplanes (as well as Russian airplanes). I bought several Cuban movies burned on DVD's made in Mexico. This is merely a small sample of evidence that Cuba is able to trade as much as it is able to do so with the rest of the world’s economy.

I wonder if people making the argument that it is a foregone conclusion the U.S. embargo is cruel have actually ever been to Cuba or approached the subject with an open mind to analyze the situation. The integrity of this article depends on further analysis and presentation of facts showing all the possibilities Cuba has for meeting its needs.Pibe eric (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Problematic recent paragraph cut

There may be material here worth getting into the article, but not in this state, so I've brought this over here for discussion.

Some Americans are perplexed by the criticism; they point out that every other country in the world is free to trade with Cuba. Also, some see Cuba as a bad neighbor, or even a rogue state. Cuba has been named as an "outpost of tyranny" by the Bush administration. As the United States government agreed to rule out military intervention the end of the Cuban Missle Crisis, Americans feel they must use economic means to bring liberal democracy to Cuba.

1. "Some Americans are perplexed...they...": Some Americans...they... is pure weasel-words here. Who? Cite. Otherwise, this is just smuggled-in POV
2. "Cuba has been named as an 'outpost of tyranny' by the Bush administration." This just reiterates, in the criticisms section, part of the argument for the embargo.
3. "Americans feel". Beyond weasel words. Suggests national unanimity.
4. liberal in liberal democracy is linked to Neoconservatism in the United States. This seems an inappropriate link. Specifically neoconservative democracy under the guise of liberal democracy?

Jmabel | Talk 02:22, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Cuban brandy?

... rich and powerful men are often shown to have their own personal stock of Cuban brandy and cigars.... Surely, that has to be rum. There may be Cuban brandy, but it's the rum (made from sugar-cane) that's famous. I've changed that, but if I'm wrong feel free to revert. DirkvdM 14:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

• I'm sure you're right. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:49, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

I agree the Rum is famous, However the Rich and Powerful men bit sounds naff anyway. --130.36.75.21 09:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The Soviet Union and unrealistic trade-prices

The article states: "The Soviet Union again stepped in by offering Cuba unrealistic trade-prices, mainly for the sugar they bought and oil they sold them." I'm removing this POV reference, data doesn't support the trade prices being unrealistic. Compared to US preferential contract agreements, they were actually far more realistic. Whereas the US always offered more than its markets would support to countries under preferential sugar agreements, the USSR consistently met the contractual prices which it agreed to, usually within one percent of the decided contract price. --Erik Garrison 03:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The oil prices certainly were unrealistic by all accounts... AnonMoos 01:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Helms Burton Act of 1996

The cause of such legislation to further enforce the trade embargo happened on Feb. 25, 1996, when Cuban air force jets shot down a civilan plane with 12 Cuban Americans, all killed while going to Cuba on a humanitarian relief airlift. I'm suprised the article failed to mention that, because the plane shotdown caused uproar in the U.S. government and the Cuban exile community. --207.200.116.131 15:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

For anyone working on this and trying to follow it through: the details of the shooting down of the plane can be found at Brothers to the Rescue. I would not describe the previous paragraph as a particularly accurate characterization of Brothers to the Rescue or a balanced account of what happened on that date. Not that I endorse what the Cubans did, but the case is nowhere near this clearcut. But I think it is correct that it should be mentioned here, because it was a factor in Helms-Burton, and undercut Clinton's efforts at rapprochement with Castro. - Jmabel | Talk 04:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Why, ever, would a military not shoot down an illegal aircraft that refused to surrender or attempt to land and kept heading for a major Cuban city to "land" in the height of a international power struggle? 121.221.193.3 (talk) 11:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Harlequin

Impact of Council Regulation (No 2271/96)

I would like to see support for the statement that law passed by the European Parliament in 1996 making it illegal for EU citizens to obey the Helms-Burton act "virtually eliminated any weight the act had over EU citizens". Lawyer2b 12:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it like the Canadian law against Helms-Burton - generally ignored and never applied ? - Beardo 12:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Category

I see this was recently moved from Category:History of Cuba to Category:Cuban Revolution. I'm not sure that is appropriate: after all, the embargo, in one form or another, has now lasted for over a third of the total history of Cuba as a country independent of Spain. I tend to think of the Revolution as the active fighting in the late 1950s and maybe down as far as about 1968. After that, Cuba is a Communist state, but not a state in a process of ongoing revolution. - Jmabel | Talk 00:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

A lot of articles were moved to that category. Even the Mariel Boatlift is now categorised under Category:Cuban Revolution! I guess the user who did it was trying to break down the history of Cuba articles into eras and couldn't think of a better name. Any suggestions? --Zleitzen 03:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of "Revolution" in its broadest sense. Not just the rebellion and change of government, but the continuing control of the country by those who profess to be adhering to the revolution, as well as continuing opposition to it. Much like the Mexican Revolution that began in 1911, with warfare continuing into the late 1920s, might be thought of as having continued on until the PRI lost complete power--only recently. Thanks Hmains 03:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm racking my brains for a better term to cover historical events post '59 and am struggling. Perhaps the articles that specifically refer to the Cuban revolution 53-59 could be Category:Cuban Revolution - and after that could be called Category:Revolutionary Cuba I don't know? I'd need to look at how the history of other nations are divided - which is usually no help at all when compared to frustratingly anomalous Cuba  :) --Zleitzen 04:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Another problem is that although on wikipedia we use the term Cuban revolution to mean the ousting of Batista - the rebellion against Machado in the 1930s and even the wars against the Spanish were also called revolutions and the participants revolutionaries. Sorry to muddy the waters.--Zleitzen 04:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

What about "Castro-era Cuba"? - Jmabel | Talk 06:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The US articles are categorised by date, see Category: History of the United States (1988–present). Perhaps the best approach would be to do the same and have Category: History of Cuba (1950–present)?--Zleitzen 03:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Incomplete thoughts in Criticism

I have a problem with this sentence:

"Left-wing and more radical critics of U.S. policy toward Cuba, including Noam Chomsky, argue that the embargo was put in place to prevent Castro's socialist program from succeeding and serving as a model for other Latin American countries, thus having a domino effect."

This seems to be an incomplete thought - their argument that the purpose of the embargo is to impede the socialist cuban state doesnt elaborate to say why they thought either this purpose or the actions taken to meet this purpose are invalid. Can someone add this or clairify the position?

Also, these two statements need to be merged in some way:

"... The embargo may even be seen as counterproductive since it allows the Cuban government to blame the US for every problem in Cuba. ... Some conservative critics argue that the embargo actually helps Castro more than it hurts him by giving him a scapegoat he can use to blame for all of Cuba's problems, as well as hiding from the Cuban population the economic fruits of capitalist democracy."

Mleinart 07:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree on the potential for merging the latter. As for the former, I don't think we need to hammer everything in with a mallet, the point seems perfectly clear. - Jmabel | Talk 01:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

A former Prime Minister of Spain has written that the embargo is Castro's greatest ally, as it perpetuates the regime and, if lifted, Castro would lose his presidency in three months. (from my embargo file when I was writing this article) Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 13:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Present level of U.S. exports of food to Cuba

Food has been rationed in Cuba since 1962 . However, food exports of food and related materials from the U.S to Cuba $ (US)340,433,442 in 2006. El Jigue 3-18-07208.65.188.149 20:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

"Tobacco" plants photo

I am a cuban, and I am almost (to be polite, but I am sure) the plants in the photo are NOT of tobacco. This is not the end of the world but looks innacurate.

Those plants are not tobacco. I removed the picture. I'm not sure if the text of the caption should be added to the article: "In the new millennium, the US Dept. of Justice modified its original embargo on Cuban products to allow importation of a limited amount of Cuban cigars when returning from a licensed trip to Cuba. Effective 2007, however, the United States has once again made it illegal for US nationals to purchase or consume Cuban cigars, in Cuba, or elsewhere, whether licensed or not." 70.249.215.65 03:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Disappeared and Assassinated

I don't know about the mention of disappeared and assassinated. Castro probably killed and "disappeared" lots of people, but the article cited as proof doesn't have anything to do with the embargo. Most of the "numerous" cases (29) happened after the embargo started (I saw 2 before), the entire article is based on another article (a book by some Armando fellow), and no mention is given to any source documents. I think the passage belongs to the article about Cuban human rights. --200.222.30.9 18:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

point of picture?

I don't see the point of having the "Bush=fascist" billboard picture at the top of the article. It is irrelevant to the embargo itself, and serves more as propaganda than as explanation. 75.116.147.179 09:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, as much as people (Cuban, American or otherwise) might hate Bush, it has absolutely nothing to do with the embargo, anyone opposes deleting that picture? --200.222.30.9 01:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

confiscated vs nationalized

So, a couple people are editing back and forth about whether the term used should be "confiscated" or "nationalized". The edit summaries are encouraging discussion on this page, but I don't see such a discussion (even from the editor pushing use of the discussion page...)

It seems pretty clear to me that both terms have a connotation of a bias in one direction or another. "Confiscated" is probably the worse of the two, but not by much. I'd suggest checking a thesaurus to find a word with more neutral connotations. Some ideas from thesaurus.com include "sieze" or something to the effect of "assume ownership of". In fact, I'm going to go change it to the latter myself. I'd suggest that neither of the two editors revert back to their original version. Simple reversion may result in protection or other methods to prevent edit warring. If you've got another idea, going forward, then go ahead and try something else. But make sure it's something else, please. I have no personal interest in this matter, other than an interest in seeing this somewhat uncivil edit war cease.

Thanks! kmccoy (talk) 01:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I had not initiated the discussion on the talk page because I did not feel it incumbent upon me, since I was simply reverting it back to the text that was there prior to Ejército Rojo 1950's edits. I have no problem with the usage of "seize" to address the government's confiscation of properties or something like "expropriated" for that matter; however, I do object too using "assume ownership of" because it is ambiguous. It does not address the question of how the government "assume ownership of" the properties. Did it do so through legal means or did it take them all in one fell swoop without a basis in the law?

As I understand it, nationalisation is legal under international law, provided some form of reasonable compensation is paid. I also believe the Castro government did originally propose some form of staged compensation to US interests which was rejected by the US government demanding full immediate payment - something that the Castro government did not have the funds to do (partly because the US assisted Batista in stealing $450 million of Cuban money when he fled the country, but that's another story). Also, it should be mentioned that US claims for compensation for Cubans who fled the country after the 1959 and later became US citizens has no basis in international law; only US companies and US citizens who owned Cuban property at the time of the revolution have any valid claim in that respect. In fact, this should probably be included in the article as it should surely be mentioned that many of the claims the US makes for compensation for Cubans who became US citizens since 1959 have no legal validity. BarryNL (talk) 10:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I also have a moral objection to such ambiguous. If we make that change, to hide the fact that the government confiscated the properties of its citizens without any basis in the law, then we must do the same in all cases. For instance, when we address the question of whether the Nazis stole Jewish properties or not, we would have to hide the fact that they did by saying that they simply "assumed ownership of" them. Freedomwarrior 01:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

If you direct people to the talk page, you should be there yourself. It just seems logical.

I don't know whether or not the seizures were legal. I suspect that, like many things involving near-recent history, especially when related to a country about which feelings still run high, the situation is far more complex than simply "legal" or "illegal", and that people in favor of each answer can find plenty of facts to support their argument and discredit the other. (Please don't, by the way. Arguing what is "true" is really not what this page is for.) I think it's better to find words which remain neutral, and let the reader examine the complexities for themselves. Among the differences between this situation and that of the Nazis is that very few people seriously argue that the actions of the Nazis were justified, whereas it seems that there is more disagreement on the Cuban situation. No harm is done in leaving the wording neutral (I disagree with it being categorized as "ambiguous") and allowing the reader to decide for themself whether the actions were legal or not, or something in between. kmccoy (talk) 02:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

There are many people who believe that the actions of the Nazis were as justified as those of the Cuban government (for instance, the Iranian government, which denies that the Holocaust even took place and has promised to wipe Israel off the face of the earth). As such, I don't think it makes much sense to look at the numbers in determining whether something is just or not.

Regardless, while I prefer more explicit wording, I do believe that the facts speak for themselves in this case, and that the double meaning of the word "expropriate," which alerts a reader to the possibility of wrong action on the part of the government, will readers to come to an informed conclusion on this question. Best, Freedomwarrior 03:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Freedomwarrior, puh-lease, that Iran-bashing was pretty non-sequitorial, being anti-semite doesn't necessarily means that loony Iranian guy thinks Hitler was justified into stealing the jews' stuff. Anyways, the nazis took the jews' stuff and put it in the coffers of the State, benefitting no one else, for no good reason other than because they were jews, and the nazis generally like money. Castro, rightly or wrongly, thought that American corporations had no right to own land in Cuba while many Cubans were poor and landless, so he took them and put Cuban people working at them. Which is completely different. I'm in for "expopriated", it has neither a good nor a bad connotation. --200.222.30.9 23:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd go with "uncompensated nationalization", as the term is more precise (they were taken without pay, but under a very precise theory of communism), and less biased, as one side would be happy about "nationalization", and the other about the perceived unfairness of "uncompensated". Gabiteodoru (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Title III Renewal

This line in the article is confusing to me... This waiver must be renewed every six months and it has traditionally been. It was renewed for the last time July 17, 2006,[6] therefore the suspension of this provision will remain effective for, at least, another six months following that date. -- Does this mean the act is no longer in effect? If it is, it isn't made clear, I looked for info on google but couldn't find any... Thanks! Robert Beck 18:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

In accurate comparison between Cuba and Vietnam

The statement in the criticisms section, “some supporters of the embargo who would point out that none of the countries (i.e., Vietnam) confiscated U.S. properties,” is partially false. While it is true that some supporters would say Vietnam did not confiscate U.S. properties, it is false because Vietnam DID in fact confiscate U.S. and French property. Some examples of U.S. property include: Coca Cola

Parsons and Whittemore

Brothers Company

Fitzgerald, Frances. Fire in the Lake: The Vietnamese and the Americans in Vietnam, Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1972. This book discusses some of the problems that business executives encountered in Vietnam.

If others agree that Vietnam DID in fact confiscate U.S. property, the question becomes should the statement be removed, or do we leave the statement noting that it is false, or do we implement some other change. Oneofshibumi 20:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Missile Crisis paragraph

I guess the first mention of Cuban Missile Crisis should be removed:

Following the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy imposed travel restrictions on 1963 February 8, and the Cuban Assets Control Regulations were issued on 1963 July 8, under the Trading with the Enemy Act in response to Cubans hosting Soviet nuclear weapons, which led to the Cuban Missile Crisis.

This doesn't make sense imho Sevcsik (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The embargo worked

It should probably be added that the embargo worked in the end, as Castro stepped down from power. JayKeaton (talk) 08:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily. He stepped down, but put his brother Raul Castro in charge in his place. I think the American Government's intention with the embargo is to end the rule of the Communist Party of Cuba and have western-style democracy. Once that happens, or the Cuban government decides to give in to whatever demands the American Government has, i think the embargo will end. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 01:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It's also pretty ridiculous to assert that the embargo is what caused Fidel to step down and hand power to Raul - Fidel got sick. Furthermore, the original intention of the embargo was ambiguous - it was partially motivated by desires to change the nature of Cuba's government, but it also aimed to interfere with the USSR's ability to use Cuba as a hegemonic center against the US - a goal which is no longer relevant today. Seb144 (talk) 08:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I saw prostitution as a result of people beeing very poor, if you think poverty changes goverments, think twice.

Shame on the people who decide that others can not be free. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.107.161.119 (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Criticism Section?

There should be a separate section for modern criticism - as it is, the history just flows into lists of various groups who have criticized the embargo. It seems less organized this way.

I'm going to go ahead and create the section. This will require rearranging a few statements.

Seb144 (talk) 08:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Opening line

"Since the turn of the century, a law has been passed in the United States of America that restricts entry to anyone who has visited Cuba. This stops the individual from entering USA territory for another 15 years."

Turn of the century is an Ambiguous statement-- the turn of which century?

Is this applicable to just American Citizens or anyone; applicable to Business or Tourism as well? and can we cite it?

It's my first post but i cannot find any reference to this 15 year rule under a normal search... Sesty (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Who supports the embargo, and why?

Reading this article, you get the impression that no one makes any arguments in support of the embargo. Obviously, that can't be the case, as the embargo has been renewed continually for decades. Right now our only discussion of the why of the embargo is a long criticism section. I think it would be very helpful to the article to name some of the supporters and quote or summarize their arguments, to shed light on its continued existence.

—Steven G. Johnson (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent point, and one that won't get addressed. This article is so slanted as to be utterly useless, except maybe as a Fidel Castro propaganda lesson. Simplemines (talk) 12:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

This article contains uncited non-NPOV assertions:

Castro after seizing power in Cuba constantly stressed the degree of American investment in Cuba. What he did not mention and the Cuban Government does not allow to be mentioned today is how that investment changed Cuba. The country's moribund economy under Spain bloomed in the new free market environment. Incomes rose and Cuba developed for the first time in its history a substantial and prosperous middle class. In little more than half a century, Cuba became not only the most prosperous Caribbean island country, but one of the most prosperous countries in all of Latin America. The era from independence (1902) to Castro's revolution (1959) was the most prosperous in Cuban history measured in terms of per-capita income and other key economic indicators.

This is obviously an anti-Castro partisan position in tone. It makes use of extremely vague and non-sourced assertions about the Cuban economy in doing so. Can someone knowledgeable about this topic 1) add citations and elaborate upon the vague economic claims; and 2) rewrite it from a neutral point of view? Kwertii (talk) 23:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Obama Policy on Embargo?

The main reason the embargo hasn't been lifted in recent years is Bush's veto threats. But now that Bush is on his way out in a little less than two months, is it possible that Congress could bring back the idea of lifting the ban? Or are there more important things going on? Pepperpop11 (talk) 04:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, does anyone know what Obama thinks about Cuba and the embargo?

He is in favour of lifting the embargo but only if Cuba releases all political prisoners, although he may not adhere to this since there is considerable pressure to lift the embargo. [1] Copana2002 (talk) 03:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

So you mean like Guantanamo Bay? Pepperpop11 (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe he today said that it would be lifted. This is important if true. Zazaban (talk) 02:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

So why didn't other countries trade with Cuba??

There's no reason why other countries didn't pick up the slack from the US embargo. Why didn't other countries trade with Cuba?

This is a fairly basic question, one I would've thought that this article would've easily addressed, yet this obvious issue isn't even discussed. We hear about how JFK got 1,200 of his favorite cigars out of Cuba before the embargo took place (??!!), but nothing about how any other country in the world could've traded with Cuba.

Anyone want to take a crack at this? Simplemines (talk) 12:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the article? The US would have banned many nations and foreign corporations from trading within the United States if they also trades with Cuba. 121.221.193.3 (talk) 12:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Harlequin

This is a false assertion the US would have "banned many nations and foreign corporations". There is no evidence of this. The Spanish bank BBVA recently purchased a US bank (Compass) and also operates in Cuba. Hotel chains Melia and Barcelo have properties in the US. Automobiles such as Toyota, Hyundai, BMW and Mercedes are on Cuban streets just as they are in the US. Most airlines that land in Cuba also land in the US, and the state-owned Cubana de Aviacion has Airbus A320's, just as do many US airlines. The Frech oil company Total has hundreds of retail gas stations in US territories Puerto Rico and US Virgin Islands, as well as exploration sites in Alaska and Gulf of Mexico -- as well as operations in Cuba.Pibe eric (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the reasons why other countries and non-US companies don't trade with Cuba should indeed be mentioned. As I understand it, the main reason that other countries have often not traded with Cuba is simply US pressure. For companies it is more complex; in the case of complex products such as cars, aircraft, medical equipment, etc., even though these might be manufactured by non-US companies they often contain substantial US materials and parts and so cannot be sold to Cuba. Shipping is also an issue - a ship which touches a Cuban port cannot touch a US port for six months which makes trade difficult. Furthermore, there are the legal issues for companies with interests in Cuban property which the US applies a claim to; additionally, the US making a backdated claim for any Cuban who manages to make it to US soil creates a time-bomb effect for companies investing in Cuba. BarryNL (talk) 10:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Why not create a sections with is own title ? I think this section is very important and different of the others. The positions of global internatial politic, is different than personals positions of some peoples.

Here is some data that could by add.

UN resolutions ask to stopping the embargo. votes

Year	Date	Yes	Against	Abstention	country against
1992	24 Novembre	59	2	71	USA, Israël
1993	3 Novembre	88	4	57	USA, Israël, Albanie, Paraguay
1994	26 Octobre	101	2	48	USA, Israël
1995	2 Novembre	117	3	38	USA, Israël, Ouzbékistan
1996	12 Novembre	138	3	25	USA, Israël, Ouzbékistan
1997	Octobre	143	3	17	USA, Israël, Ouzbékistan
1998	Octobre	157	2	12	USA, Israël
1999	Novembre	155	2	8	USA, Israël
2000	Novembre	167	3	4	USA, Israël, Îles Marshall
2001	Novembre	167	3	3	USA, Israël, Îles Marshall
2002	Novembre	173	3	4	USA, Israël, Îles Marshall
2003	Novembre	179	3	2	USA, Israël, Îles Marshall
2004	Octobre	179	4	1	USA, Israël, Îles Marshall, Palau
2005	Novembre	182	4	1	USA, Israël, Îles Marshall, Palau

Nifrou (talk) 23:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

U.S. Lifts Almost All Curbs on Family Visits to Cuba

The Washington Post reported: "The Treasury Department formally lifted nearly all U.S. restrictions on family travel to Cuba on Thursday, along with limits on how much money families can send to relatives on the island. The department also eased regulations prohibiting U.S. telecommunications and satellite linkages between the United States and Cuba and licensing requirements for visitors engaged in agricultural and medical sales... The amendments expanded the definition of 'close relatives' -- previously limited to parents, spouses and children -- and said there would be 'no limits' on the frequency or duration of their visits to Cuba. Virtually all restrictions on money sent to Cuban family members were lifted." This information is notable, and it should be in the article. I cannot add it myself because I have been topic banned. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Travel Embargo section

"US restrictions are routinely disregarded by Canadian and European tourists who continue to flock to the island for its unique culture, well-known beauty, sun-drenched beaches, and currently-renowned sex trade."

1. Should not "US" be "U.S"?

2. Is it accurate to say that Canadians and Europeans "disregard" U.S. restrictions when the restrictions are aimed at "....all U.S. citizens and permanent residents wherever they are located, all people and organizations physically located in the United States, and all branches and subsidiaries of U.S. organizations throughout the world." In my mind, at least, Canadians and Europeans are don't fit into any of the above categories because they are, by definition, not Americans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.67.103.105 (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Lead

The lead included the words "mental, physical, and emotional" to describe the embargo. It's not completely clear to me what this is supposed to mean (embargo offers no definitions apart from the economic), but it seems to be an effort to inspire pathos. At any rate, the article doesn't go on to elaborate on what a mental, physical, or emotional embargo would be, much less how it applies to Cuba. It's my understanding that the lead section is supposed to summarize and introduce the article. I decided to "be bold" instead of just raising the question here. Lupusrex (talk) 04:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

What it is actually?

I don't see a single section that tell us what can be actually trade with Cuba, why some companies do trade with them, the the six months of banning in the US for ships that touch Cuba, or why otheer countries don't trade with them. I read a little about all of those issues here in the discussion tab. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paranoidhuman (talk • contribs) 12:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Under History

under the history section it reads; "A U.S. arms embargo had been in force since March 1960 when armed conflict broke out in Cuba between rebels and the Fulgencio Batista government."

I'm not sure if the original writer of that intended to but this makes it sound like fighting started between the rebels and Batistas army in March 1960. But any amount of reading into the subject will show that the granma landed in 1956 and Batista fled on 01/01/59. So this error needs to be fixed due to inaccuracy.Slipoutside (talk) 23:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, it says that the brown sugar quota was "reduced by 700 000 tons". This is misleading and inaccurate. The quota was reduced to 700 000 tons by the Eisenhower Administration. I´m changing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.55.139.212 (talk) 01:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I´m a young Cuban citizen, and I´ve lived my whole life under the U.S blockade against my country. I´ve seen my people suffer for not having acces to the basics stuff anyone in the world could have such as food, clothes, shoes, medicines, etc. Just because 50 years ago the most powerful country ever existed argued with our tiny country for not doing what they wanted us to do. U.S considere themselves as the guardians of freedom and human rights on western hemispher. But among history they have shown, not only with Cuba, they have no commitment with those concepts: they invaded Panama, Grenade, tried to invade Cuba in early 60´s, they have an ilegal naval base in Guantánamo Bay, the commitment and prooved FULL support to all Latinamerican dictatorialships regimes such as Pinochet, Somoza, Duvalier, Batista, Trujillo and others, their "crusade against terrorism" (God almighty!!!!! What a big lie! All in front of us, they are laughing in our faces with speeches of morality and good will.) Things have changed, now Cuban-American citizens can come everytime they want to, they can send stuff and money to their families. But the real blockade lies beneath an ocean of legal issues, and the negative of the head of the Cuban Exile to effort to normalize the relationships between Cuba and U.S, because if the blokcade falls down they won´t have acces to the profits of the dirty work they have been doing since 1959 against Cuba, offering money for killing revolutionary dirigents, try creating intern riots or encouraging a constant agresive attitude against Cuba by other countries. I really hope things could change, first with dialog in equal conditions, and then a real commitment with developing a normal relationship without injerency. The road is long....

(Sorry for grammar errors) Xaviqba89 (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I hope things change also. Cuba is beautiful and its people are warm and friendly, as I myself have verified. However, the buildings are falling apart due to no mechanism to build new ones (who wants to do it?). Cuba's policy of not letting families directly buy and sell homes is just being changed now, after 50 years of it ruining the country. Everybody admits it was a mistake, but why did it take you 50 years to admit a mistake? It was obvious to anybody with eyes. In La Habana, the thriving street markets of other south American countries are almost nonexistant, due to Cuba's government policies that cause the same loss of incentive to do anything. Marti would be horified by today's Cuba. This is not due to U.S. blockade, this is no incentive for people to start businesses

Xaviquba, please remember that while the US was seeking to support South American regimes friendly to it, Cuba was seeking to topple the same regimes, and in both cases the good of the people of the countries was not foremost on anybody's minds (I will not pretend the US has been perfect, here). But in the many of the countries you mention, today in 2011 the economies are going well and the people are happy about their prospects of the future. In Cuba, we see the same sitation of the "dictatorships" you complain of: in Cuba the Castro family is rich and has yachts, and the Cuban people are still poor! So what is the difference? The Pinochet you speak of is gone and in his place is democracy and the richest country in South America. Che Guevara did not help do that. The U.S. did not prevent that. Chile did it for itself, with no help from Cuba.

You can continue to blame the U.S. for Cuba's problems, but the fact is that Cuba nationalized not only U.S. businesses, but those of many other countries as well, and nobody is happy with Cuba. Why would they deal with you ever again, having been stolen from? You want foreign investment money but to retain perfect control: have you not learned that the two do not go together anywhere else in the world? People with money will go elsewhere, and if you had money, you would not take that deal either. EVERY business in the rest of the world would like to take money but give away no control, but the universe does not work that way, and no socialist decree can make it work that way (anymore than you can legislate new houses to be built without paying anybody to do it).

In any case, we're all happy that Raul is liberalizing the economy some, and what we really hope is that Cubans will rid yourselves of your socialist beliefs, which too often amount to the idea that what's Cuba's is Cuba's, and what is Castro's is Castro's, and everybody else is expected to share. Sorry, but nobody is going to play that game witn you. SBHarris 00:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

1st Source: therealcuba.com

This website is not an accurate source for anything. It's complete propaganda and has no credibility whatsoever which leads me to believe that whomever would quote this website has no credibility either, or the capacity to write a fair and balanced encyclopedia article.

Exactly, only what is reported by the Cuban government should be used as a reliable source (that seems to be the status quo here on wikipedia). I mean using therealcuba.com website as a source is just as ridiculous as using Jewish testimonies to describe the holocaust- it is clearly biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.62.149.240 (talk) 21:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

UN GA resolutions

The article states that "The United Nations General Assembly has condemned the embargo as a violation of international law every year since 1992. Israel routinely joins the U.S. in voting against the resolution as has Palau every year since 2004 to 2008. On October 26, 2010, for the 19th time, the United Nations condemned the embargo, 192 to 2 with 3 abstentions." This statement, which should have been easy to confirm, is referenced by a non-English-language source. Having gone over several of these resolutions I have come across no wording that suggest either condemnation or violation of international law (for example, see [2]). The resolutions, whose phrasing is almost identical, call upon and urge member states to refrain from participating in the embargo, they do not condemn it in any way or suggest that it is illegal.--84.108.213.97 (talk) 06:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

stats need to be updated: majority no longer "favors" continuing embargo

see this link... http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/04/poll-majority-favors-ending-cuba-embargo.php (article, which cites the following poll: http://www.gallup.com/poll/117829/Americans-Steady-Backing-Friendlier-Cuba-Relations.aspx ) the poll (gallup) is more recent than the one currently cited and it contradicts that poll's message because the balance has swung the other way. chomsky and other academics have been citing this information (majority support for lifting the embargo in the US) for some time now. 96.232.167.73 (talk) 14:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The polling statistics in the section "Polling data and public opinion" do not match their corresponding references. 74.201.7.111 (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

vandalism or typo?

This edit changed a "Cuba" into "Cub", but also changed a 1962 into 1963. It's either a vandalism, or the first change is a typo and the second one genuine. --Lohoris (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Change.org petition?

The external links section has a link to a change.org petition.

Very inappropriate for an encyclopedia. --Lacarids (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Deleted. --Lacarids (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

"Hotels.com", "Booking.com" etc: are they all part of this embargo?

I'm searching online for hotels in Havana. I always try the above two sites for hotel rooms abroad. Neither of them, however, have any hotels in Cuba on their sites. Is this part of this utterly stupid and petty embargo by the United States of America, or is there a rational reason for it? 89.101.41.216 (talk) 04:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Might be time for past tense

President Obama has announced he will authorize limited commerce between the United States and Cuba: [3] -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Obama has loosened the embargo but only Congress can end it. Rmhermen (talk) 18:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Embargo extended till 2012

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/09/13/presidential-memorandum-trading-enemy-act 66.222.140.88 (talk) 02:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

In other words, till after the 2012 election. Florida counts. After that, anything goes. SBHarris 22:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's a better source: http://www.thewire.com/global/2011/09/obama-quietly-renews-us-embargo-cuba/42430/

Obviously, the prediction was wrong. It was actually wrong in three ways: (a) this is an annual renewal, and thus good only through September 2012, before the mid-term election, not after; (b) President Obama renewed this in September 2012, 2013, and 2014; and, most importantly, as the article points out, there are six separate laws being used for the embargo. The annual (September) determination affects only one of these six. In other words, the President does not have the power to unilaterally end the embargo, contrary to the heading of this section. Still, it would be newsworthy if President Obama, in September 2015, were to decline to renew the annual determination. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Original research

Hello,

I removed the sentence "Rationing and shortages[4] of food and consumer goods exist in Cuba, but it is possible that the Cuban economy may have been "throttled" by "collectivist central planning",[5] rather than by the embargo." from the introduction, believing it to be original research, and I was reverted.

First of all, the first reference doesn't mention the embargo in relation to the economy. The second reference doesn't support the claim that the sentence implies. The claim of "throttling" by the "collectivist central planning" is attributed to "some in Miami", hardly a credible source. Although the offending sentence says that "the Cuban economy may have been 'throttled' by 'collectivist central planning', rather than by the embargo", The Economist article doesn't support the "rather". In fact, it does criticize Cuba's economic policies, but also criticizes the embargo because "it limits Cuban-Americans to being providers of remittances", and calls a provision of the Helms–Burton law (which is part of the embargo) "a pointless piece of bullying".

This sentence is exactly a case of synthesis, defined as "[combining] material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". As such I think I was justified in removing it. InverseHypercube (talk) 01:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, but is there a way you can incorporate at least the first reference, the one to the BBC, somewhere in the article? Michaelmalak (talk) 02:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how the BBC article would be relevant, since it barely mentions the embargo. Could you please clarify? Certainly if there's credible articles discussing the economic situation of Cuba and how much of it is due to the embargo, they should be incorporated. InverseHypercube (talk) 03:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The embargo vs. rationing question is interesting, and should be included. I'm no expert on Cuba (and only got here when I was surprised to learn that Diana Nyed's 1978 swim was legal), so I don't feel qualified to incorporate it into the article. A quick Google turned up this reference: http://books.google.com/books?id=E8--DGl65hwC&pg=PA48&lpg=PA48&dq=cuba+embargo+without+rationing&source=bl&ots=idJ5Z7LP4L&sig=mKQ_PX2omf4l9UXbN5bVWtvwQeM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=D-bAUrKsAqLbyQH_5oHQCw&ved=0CEUQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=cuba%20embargo%20without%20rationing&f=false

"The ration card was imposed as a further method - another tool to control the people. It was not needed as a result of the embargo, as Castro claimed..."

There could even be an entire section on rationing, how it is implemented, and whether it is necessary. Most mainstream news sources assume it's necessary as a result of the embargo, but there are other opinions out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelmalak (talk • contribs) 03:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

hello ΊΌὪὭ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.234.193.101 (talk) 19:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

"In 2009, U.S. polling indicated 51% in favor of ending the embargo vs. 36% to continue it.[citation needed]" This unsupported claim has been in need of a citation for a year and a half. By now, it's subject to deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.19.202.59 (talk) 21:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on United States embargo against Cuba. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060922050213/http://www.state.gov/p/wha/ci/14776.htm to http://www.state.gov/p/wha/ci/14776.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100614221449/http://www.google.com:80/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gF7Gi6EybIy2e1PvOBnntJoJu_dwD9G8I8U05 to http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gF7Gi6EybIy2e1PvOBnntJoJu_dwD9G8I8U05
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100613033011/http://democracyinamericas.org:80/cubacentral/news-story/letter-members-cubas-civil-society-us-congress to http://www.democracyinamericas.org/cubacentral/news-story/letter-members-cubas-civil-society-us-congress

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States embargo against Cuba. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.http://archive.is/KlHx to http://www.state.gov/www/regions/wha/cuba/democ_act_1945.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:58, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on United States embargo against Cuba. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141218093615/https://ijsbergmagazine.com/international/article/14183-un-nouveau-chapitre-souvre-entre-les-etats-unis-et-cuba/ to https://ijsbergmagazine.com/international/article/14183-un-nouveau-chapitre-souvre-entre-les-etats-unis-et-cuba/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/023/86/IMG/NR002386.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/711/00/IMG/NR071100.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N94/600/51/PDF/N9460051.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N95/256/76/PDF/N9525676.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N96/774/91/PDF/N9677491.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N97/775/75/PDF/N9777575.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N98/774/91/PDF/N9877491.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N99/775/45/PDF/N9977545.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N00/560/59/PDF/N0056059.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N01/475/62/PDF/N0147562.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/538/55/PDF/N0253855.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N03/453/33/PDF/N0345333.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N04/476/86/PDF/N0447686.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N05/488/26/PDF/N0548826.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N06/495/09/PDF/N0649509.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N07/463/95/PDF/N0746395.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N08/471/21/PDF/N0847121.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101123011652/http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org:80/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N09/462/19/PDF/N0946219.pdf? to http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N09/462/19/PDF/N0946219.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N10/512/90/PDF/N1051290.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N11/459/18/PDF/N1145918.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/67/4
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091103140840/http://www.counterpunch.org:80/landau10302009.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/landau10302009.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Effects/Impacts on Cuba

Despite a few brief sections, this article seems to heavily lean towards more of a discussion on how the United States was impacted by the embargo. It would be interesting to see some more long-term/short-term economic effects the embargo had on Cuba as well as how Cuba's government has dealt with the United States embargo against the country. Abloom18 (talk) 02:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I am thinking about adding to the sub-section, "Impacts of the embargo." Here is a list of some of my sources I am thinking about using/drawing information from. Any thoughts?

Caraway, Rose. “Post-Embargo Cuba: Economic Implications and the Future of Socialism.” The University of Texas at Austin, 2004, 30.

COHA. “U.S. Embargo against Cuba under Growing Siege.” Accessed February 21, 2017. http://www.coha.org/cuba-embargo-under-growing-siege/.

Pepper, Margot. “The Costs of the Embargo | Dollars & Sense.” Economic news and analysis. Dollars & Sense, 2017. http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2009/0309pepper.html.

U.S. Department of State. “Cuba Sanctions.” Archive. U.S. Department of State, 2017. https://www.state.gov/e/eb/tfs/spi/cuba/.

U.S. International Trade Commission. The Economic Impact of U.S. Sanctions With Respect to Cuba. 332–413. Washington, DC: U.S. International Trade Commission, 2001. https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub3398.pdf.

Abloom18 (talk) 09:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

These are some good ideas to broaden coverage of how the embargo has affected Cuba's economy. You might also look for some academic research like Joy Gordon's "Economic Sanctions as Negative Development: The Case of Cuba" Journal of International Development (May 2016) or Richard Garfield and Sarah Santana's "The Impact of the Economic Crisis and the US Embargo on Health in Cuba" American Journal of Public Health (1997). I found some good sources that might help expand your article using the "America: History and Life" database. Katherine.Holt (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Be bold in your edits! Hammersbach (talk) 13:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)