Since the Cuban Revolution prevailed in 1959, the American government has employed a wide variety of tactics in an effort to destabilize and destroy Cuba’s socialist regime. They have included continuously strengthening the economic embargo, funding Cuban exiles to organize terrorist attacks and sabotage on the island, an actual invasion at the Bay of Pigs in 1961, assassination attempts (e.g., it is claimed that the CIA made a total of 638 assassination attempts against Fidel Castro in his lifetime), and chemical and biological warfare.
During the Cold War Era (1947-1991), when the worldwide collapse of communism was not anticipated, Washington consistently maintained that regime change was a prerequisite for lifting the economic embargo on Cuba. During that period, American leaders were genuinely afraid that communism could spread throughout the American continent if left unchecked. This was evident in 1960, when senator John F. Kennedy stated that Fidel Castro’s “anti-American and pro-Communist messages are carried in books and newspapers shipped to every corner of the hemisphere – often concealed in diplomatic pouches – and handed out together with Soviet propaganda by the Cuban embassies.” He also claimed that “Presna Latina, Latin America’s largest news agency, controlled from Havana,” attacks “the United States and the leaders of every Latin American democracy.” According to Kennedy:
Castro’s campaign has met with success in almost every country – in Brazil, where both Presidential candidates found it politically expedient to appeal to pro-Castro and anti-American elements in the electorate – in Mexico, where anti-American riots followed pressure on a pro-Castro spokesman – in Guatemala, where Castro-equipped revolutionaries are a real menace – in Uruguay, where a general strike was threatened if Castro was not supported at the San Jose Conference.
In fact, Senator Kennedy was worried about “the Iron Curtain” advancing to American’s “front yard,” as he stated:
…international communism was becoming a moving force behind Mr. Castro and the revolution – that our interest and the interests of freedom were in danger – that a new Soviet satellite was in the making.
Murray N. Rothbard disagreed with these kinds of claims about the international spread of communism. Instead, he was of the view that Americans did not have to fear communism, or Cuban socialism for that matter. He explained “Marxism-Leninism itself believes that a victory of communism is inevitable—not on the wings of outside force, but rather from accumulating tensions and ‘contradictions’ within each society.” Accordingly, Rothbard stated that:
Marxism-Leninism considers internal revolution (or, in the current “Eurocommunist” version, democratic change) for installing communism to be inevitable. At the same time, it holds any coercive external imposition of communism to be at best suspect, and at worst disruptive and counterproductive of genuine organic social change.
In other words, Rothbard thought that “any idea of ‘exporting’ communism to other countries on the backs of the Soviet military is totally contradictory to Marxist-Leninist theory.” Accordingly, he asserted that “the case for an imminent Soviet threat to the United States” was very weak. Moreover, Rothbard pointed out that if Americans “carefully examine the facts,” they will “find that the most commonly feared threat to peace—the Communist bloc—has been fairly scrupulous about not committing military aggression.” On that note, he stated that:
All the Communist successes since the end of World War II have been through internal Communist rebellions. Korea itself was a civil war, and there is even there considerable evidence that it was begun by the South. Russia did not intervene directly in that war, and China intervened not only after the United States did, but only when our troops reached her borders… In brief, the Russian military menace is for the most part a bogey; the Commies are probably truthful in their assertion that their arming is meant in defense.
Preventing the spread of socialism or communism in America’s backyard was not the only pretext that Washington relied on to justify its economic blockade of Cuba. It also frequently employed lofty rhetoric about human rights violations. For example, when Fidel Castro was in power, the American government alleged that “the acts of the Castro government, including systematic human rights violations, are a threat to international peace.” Thus, American officials often claim that sanctions are among the tools that they use “to advance democracy and promote respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in Cuba,” even as the financial and economic blockade relies on illiberal and anti-democratic measures and violates the rights and liberties of ordinary Cubans. Murray Rothbard rejected this kind of propaganda. In fact, he thought that there is a “lack of correlation between degrees of internal freedom in a country and its external aggressiveness,” regardless of whether it is democratic or a dictatorship. On this matter, Rothbard specifically stated that:
…some States have proved themselves perfectly capable of allowing a considerable degree of freedom internally while making aggressive war abroad; other States have shown themselves capable of totalitarian rule internally while pursuing a pacific foreign policy. The examples of Uganda, Albania, China, Great Britain, etc., apply equally well in this comparison.
Rothbard was of the belief that an empirical and historical investigation would conclude that “a democratic and relatively far freer United States has been more aggressive and imperialistic in foreign affairs than a relatively totalitarian Russia or China.” Rothbard was broadly opposed to the American government’s interventions around the world, arguing that:
In the name of “national self-determination” and “collective security” against aggression, the American government has consistently pursued a goal and a policy of world domination and of the forcible suppression of any rebellion against the status quo anywhere in the world. In the name of combatting “aggression” everywhere—of being the world’s “policeman”—it has itself become a great and continuing aggressor.
Although the American government cites pretexts like preventing the spread of communism, achieving democratic principles and respecting human rights whenever it strengthens the embargo, in reality, these measures have always been aimed at isolating Cuba from free international trade. That said, Rothbard argued that “isolationism is not a principle for free-market” systems. In fact, he was fundamentally opposed to isolationist policies on the premise that free trade benefits all participating nations. Accordingly, he criticized Reagan’s policies of “throwing a tight blockade around.”
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, both the Democrats and Republicans have maintained and strengthened the economic blockade against Cuba. Rothbard suggested that there is a feature of “split-personality of the conservatives” when it comes to the issue of imposing the embargo on Cuba (or any other nation). More specifically, he stated that “many to the right of center are off on a schizophrenic pursuit of both liberty and collectivism.” Rothbard elaborated that:
…conservatives call for free trade and free enterprise, yet also clamor for absolute embargoes on trade with Communist nations. Have they forgotten that both parties to free exchange benefit from trade? For our government or any others to prohibit trade is a vicious example of socialistic policy; it injures the Communist countries to be sure; it also injures us.
Based on Rothbard’s views, the US government should recognize the sovereignty of socialist Cuba and lift the embargo in order to establish a system of free exchange between the two nations. For him, “recognition simply means recognizing the physical existence of a state—it is an act of sanity, not an act of praise.” During the Cold War Era, Rothbard persisted that free trade would not only “help break down the iron curtain, but would benefit anti-Communist nations as well as Communist.”
Ultimately, Washington has been unable to persuade the vast majority of countries that its long and agonizing economic and financial blockade against Cuba would eventually bring about the transition to a free-market system. This is evidenced by the results of the UN General Assembly’s annual vote criticizing the impacts of the American embargo on Cuba and calling for it to be lifted. For the last 33 consecutive years, nearly all nations, with the notable exceptions of the US and Israel, have consistently expressed the opinion that the American blockade infringes upon the sovereignty of Cuba, violates the rights and freedoms of its citizens, and has devastating effects on the daily lives of ordinary Cubans, as well as the development of its economy.
