Why embargoes dont work

However, long term restrictions can be quite damaging and aggravate poverty and the standard of living for civilians. As a result of the negative effects of trade embargoes, domestic industries and producers often suffer a decline in their export markets and revenues, thereby threatening jobs and livelihoods. Countries that tend to overspecialize in certain commodities, goods and services may be most affected by these constraints as key sectors of the economy may be adversely impacted.

Given their level of development, poorer countries are often restricted to producing goods in the primary industry that may have relatively lower returns. Trade embargoes may lead to grave economic and geopolitical problems like retaliation, such as the Russian counter-embargo after the EU Energy embargo during the Russian annexation of Crimea.

This can result in an escalation in trade and price wars in the long run. Incidentally, the U. For instance, a U. Four years later, President Bill Clinton signed the Helms-Burton Act , which imposed sanctions on foreign companies that traded with Cuba. Companies that engage in transactions in U. But those provisions are disincentives for non-U. Fact check: Rep. Many Cubans and other opponents of the U. The claim that the U. The embargo prevents most American companies from doing business with Cuba and vice versa.

Although the embargo creates disincentives for other countries and companies to trade with Cuba, it does not compel them to cut economic ties with the island nation. Many countries, as well as some American companies, do business in Cuba.

Thank you for supporting our journalism. You can subscribe to our print edition, ad-free app or electronic newspaper replica here.

Moreover, "Europe, Asia ,and Latin America are increasing trade with and investment in Cuba," Bruce Jentleson, a Duke University professor and former senior adviser at the State Department, wrote in an email.

Cuba is in no sense a pariah state. The US government designated Cuba a state sponsor of terrorism in , which imposed financial penalties on the Cuban government. Though the US continues to label Cuba a terrorism sponsor, that's just transparently untrue. According to the State Department 's most recent annual review of terrorism worldwide, "there was no indication that the Cuban government provided weapons or paramilitary training to terrorist groups. And "throughout , the Government of Cuba supported and hosted negotiations between the FARC and the Government of Colombia aimed at brokering a peace agreement between the two.

Finally, it might make sense to keep the Cuba embargo if the American public supported harsh punishments for Cuba by overwhelming margins. But that's not true. Even Cuban-Americans, the group with the most reason to support the embargo, are becoming more open to ending the embargo. A Atlantic Council poll asked Americans nationwide about four key parts of the embargo: restrictions on US businesses working in Cuba, restricting US citizens's ability to spend dollars in Cuba, travel restrictions, and allowing Cubans to access US high-speed internet and telecom infrastructure.

In all four cases, a majority Americans supported relaxing restrictions on Cuba. The Atlantic Council poll also found bipartisan report for normal diplomatic relations with Cuba: 60 percent of Democrats and 52 percent of Republicans supported normalization. Cuban-Americans, historically the backbone of support for the embargo, appear to be changing their tune as well. A Florida International University poll's results are displayed in the below infographic: they find a majority of Cuban-Americans oppose maintaining the embargo.

Results of a poll of Cuban-Americans in Miami-Dade county. Florida International University. It's only one poll, of course, and historically Cuban-Americans have supported the embargo.

As times change, it looks like Cuban-American public opinion is changing too. Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment: to empower through understanding. Wood also cited the conflicts in Syria and Mali as further examples of why an arms treaty is desperately needed.

The U. General Assembly voted in December to relaunch negotiations this week on what could become the first global treaty to regulate trade for all conventional weapons - from tanks and attack helicopters to handguns and assault rifles - after a drafting conference in July collapsed because the United States, then Russia and China, wanted more time. The point of the treaty is to set standards for all cross-border transfers of any type of conventional weapon - light and heavy.

It also would set binding requirements for nations to review all cross-border arms contracts to ensure the munitions will not be used in human rights abuses, do not violate embargoes and are not illegally diverted.

British Foreign Office Minister Alistair Burt, in New York for the arms treaty negotiations, told reporters on Monday that London would prefer to have consensus on a treaty but did not want unanimity if that meant accepting a weak pact.