Travel to Cuba low now – travel restrictions and economies prevent
Download 0.7 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Tourism promotes Democracy
- American Tourists in Cuba promote Democracy there
Lifting Solves - GeneralLifting the travel ban leads to Cuban democratizationLloyd 10 [Delia Lloyd, Politics Daily, 8/24/10, http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/24/ten-reasons-to-lift-the-cuba-embargo/] 2. It's good politics. Supporters of the trade embargo -- like Cuban-American Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) -- have long argued that easing the restrictions would only reward Castro for the regime's ongoing repression of political dissidents. We need to keep up the economic pressure on Cuba, so this logic goes, in order to keep pressure on the regime to do something about human rights. But there's a long-standing empirical relationship between trade and democracy. The usual logic put forth to explain this relationship is that trade creates an economically independent and politically aware middle class, which, in turn, presses for political reform. It's not clear that this argument actually holds up when subjected to close causal scrutiny (although the reverse does seem to be true -- i.e., democratic reform creates pressure for trade liberalization). Still, it's difficult to disagree with the proposition that by enabling visiting scholars and religious groups to stay in Cuba for up to two years (as the presidential order would allow) rather than a matter of weeks (as is currently the case) we'd be helping, not hurting, democracy in Cuba. First, easing the current travel restrictions would allow for far deeper linkages between non-governmental organizations from both countries, which some see as a powerful mechanism for democratic reform. Second, because American visitors would be staying on the island longer, scholars and activists alike would gain much better insight into where the pressure points for democracy actually exist. Tourism promotes DemocracyDoyle, Michael, 2011 (Michael Doyle is the Harold Brown Professor of U.S. Foreign and Security Policy, which is a three-fold appointment in the School of International and Public Affairs, the Department of Political Science, and the Law School. Since 2006, Doyle has been an individual member of the UN Democracy Fund, which was established in 2005 by the UN General Assembly to promote grass-roots democratization around the world. Doyle currently serves as the organization’s chairperson. He also co-directs the Center on Global Governance at Columbia Law School., “Promoting Democracy Is Not Imposing Democracy”, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-doyle/promoting-democracy-is-no_b_826574.html) Until Egypt, the promotion of democracy suffered under the fiasco of George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq, which gave a bad name to the promotion of democracy, the invasion's last and most desperate justification. But imposing democracy is not promoting democracy. And Egypt is not Iraq, in many more ways than the obvious. Remember the Bush administration began with a policy against nation-building that resonated with old-fashioned nationalism and isolationism. The terrorist attacks of 9/11 turned George W.'s prior rhetoric on its head, trumpeting a global campaign against authoritarianism. His practice, however, fell far short of his rhetoric. He applauded democracy but made very few hard choices in its favor, backing down from early efforts to push democracy in Egypt after Hamas won the elections in Palestine. He also made little actual investment in democracy in the very poor countries that were attempting a transition to democracy. Baghdad's political reality exposed the downside of imposing democracy as a way to expand the peace that democracies experience among themselves. But that failure was not the only reason for rejecting forced democratization. A century old tradition of ethical and practical lessons argued against it. For anyone committed to equal human dignity, democratic government means collective "self" government, not laws and regulations imposed by foreigners, however well-meaning. And forcing democracy from the outside tends not to work. Democracy is not only government "for" the people, it is also government "of" and "by" the people. Unless the people see themselves as a people and are prepared to pay taxes, defend their borders, and abide by majority rule, democracy is unsustainable. When even well-meaning foreigners seek to liberate a country whose people haven't been able to liberate themselves, they fall into one of three traps. Trap No. 1: the newly designated forces of freedom find that they cannot rule, and, as in Iraq, a civil war follows the liberating invasion. Trap No. 2: the new freedom faction finds that it can stay in power only with ongoing foreign support. So, rather than a free nation, it has become a cog in an imperial machine. Trap No. 3: the freedom faction learns that to stay in power it must govern as the previous dictators did, by force. The liberating invaders are thus responsible not only for the costs in lives and money of the invasion but for an invasion that has literally done no good, produced a civil war, a colony, or one more tyranny with a new ideological label attached. Iraq fell into the first trap, and no one can yet be sure it will avoid the second and third. No state should risk entering one of these intervention traps other than for overriding concerns, like vital national security after a war of self-defense or humanitarian rescue of a population facing genocide. Alarming as it was, the confusion last week in Washington as to whether the US should celebrate or guide the Egyptian revolution left Egyptians in charge. Democracy is best promoted peacefully. It spreads by good example, by incentives and assistance. Promoting democracy is done best when it is done indirectly through trade, investment, and foreign aid. All these can help develop and diversify societies, and diversified, growing societies tend, over the long run, to demand responsive governance. Among the most powerful "weapons" in the arsenal of promoting democracy internationally -- think of them as the genuine shock troops of democratization -- are students, tourists, and business investors. They build bridges to friends and associates overseas. They send a message of solidarity and opportunity to subjects who are prepared to take the risks of becoming active citizens. Building the institutions of the rule of law, a free press, and education also contributes, indirectly, to promoting sustainable democracy. Bilateral foreign aid can play a valuable role if it is carefully planned with local actors in the lead. Multilateral assistance, such as the UN Democracy Fund, is particularly useful because it frees the recipients from the taint of foreign control. And the informal "Community of Democracies" usefully serves as a kind of "trade" association, encouraging coordination and democracy promotion, without undermining local initiative or multilateral institutions. Democratic countries need not be passive, and they do need to be patient. Peaceful strategies offer the best chance for expanding the zone of peace among fellow democracies and reaping the internal benefits of democratization. American Tourists in Cuba promote Democracy thereKristof, Nicholas D, 2009 (Nicholas Donabet Kristof (born April 27, 1959) is an American journalist, author, op-ed columnist, and a winner of two Pulitzer Prizes. He has written an op-ed column for The New York Times since November 2001., “Invade Cuba — with tourists”, http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/invade-cuba-with-tourists/) It’s great that President Obama is easing curbs on family travel to Cuba, so that Cuban-Americans can visit Cuba freely and remit money to their relatives freely. That’s long overdue. But Obama should go much further and lift all travel restrictions on Cuba, and lift the trade embargo as well. Isolating Cuba has failed catastrophically — it has simply impoverished ordinary Cubans and prevented the normal processes that erode dictatorship. We’ve also given the Castro brothers a nationalist excuse for their own repression and economic incompetence. Think for a moment which are the countries that we have isolated the most in recent decades. That’s right — North Korea and Cuba. Those are exactly the same countries that have been most successful in preserving Communist dictatorships; we’ve inadvertently done a favor to Kim Jong Il and the Castros. It’s always the most isolated countries — you can add Turkmenistan to the list — that are most successful at resisting international pressure for pluralism, human rights and democracy, so it’s mystifying that we somehow think that isolating a bad regime is punishing it. It’s hard to think of an initiative toward Cuba that backfired more than the Bay of Pigs invasion. But suppose we invaded Cuba not with gunmen but with tourists — American tourists who reacted to Havana not with threats but with mirth (and outrage at the scratchy toilet paper). Unleash hordes of Americans complaining bitterly about the lack of wifi connections, or asking pointedly why the cars are so old and the buildings so dilapidated, and the Castros are in trouble. We need more interaction between Cubans and Americans, not less. So let’s hope that the relaxation on curbs toward Cuba is just a first step. For too many decades, we’ve simply been helping to keep Fidel in power. You agree? Download 0.7 Mb. Share with your friends:
|