In an address to the UN General Assembly in September, Argentina's president issued a ringing defense of freedom . |
ARGENTINA'S PRESIDENT Javier Milei, an outspoken champion of free markets and human liberty, proved his bona fides again last week. He dismissed Foreign Minister Diana Mondino after Argentina voted in the United Nations to condemn the US economic embargo on Cuba. The vote was 187-2 — only Israel stood with the United States — and it marked the 32d time that the General Assembly had denounced an American policy initiated by John F. Kennedy.
It isn't often that a foreign minister gets sacked for aligning with the views of nearly every government on earth. Then again, it isn't often that a country elects a president like Milei, who is prepared to stand against the world if that is what freedom and morality require. And when it comes to Cuba and the US embargo, what freedom and morality require is that censure be directed at the most entrenched dictatorship in the Western Hemisphere — not at the nation that for decades has provided safe haven to millions of refugees fleeing that Caribbean tyranny.
Mondino cannot say she wasn't on notice. Milei's address to the General Assembly in September was a ringing declaration that the defense of liberty worldwide would henceforth be a pillar of his country's foreign policy. "From this day on," he asserted, "know that the Argentine Republic will abandon the position of historical neutrality that characterized us and will be at the forefront of the struggle in defense of freedom." He chastised the world body for allowing "bloody dictatorships such as Cuba and Venezuela to join the Human Rights Council." If Argentina's foreign minister didn't get the message, she wasn't paying attention.
Milei is not given to euphemisms nor does he pander to conventional wisdom. During his campaign for president last year, one of his catchphrases was "¡Viva la libertad, carajo!" Translation: "Long live freedom, damn it!"
The restoration of freedom in Cuba will never be a UN priority. But even if it were, abolishing the US embargo is not the way to accomplish it. Recent history made that emphatically clear.
When President Barack Obama announced in 2014 that he would normalize relations with the regime in Havana, he claimed the rapprochement would uphold America's "commitment to liberty and democracy" and result "in making the lives of ordinary Cubans a little bit easier, more free, more prosperous." More engagement was the best way to advance freedom and human rights for Cuba's people, said Obama. "This is what change looks like."
It wasn't.
Following the Obama demarche, Havana's harassment of dissidents intensified. There was a crackdown on churches and religious groups. Human rights activists and protesters were soon being arrested at a higher rate than ever. Lifting restrictions on US trade with Cuba, in other words, made life worse for ordinary Cubans. Why? Because, among other reasons, the Cuban government owns or controls nearly every major enterprise in the country. Authorizing more business with Cuba meant putting more wealth into the regime's coffers. By making the dictatorship richer, Obama only made it stronger.
For decades, politicians, journalists, and think tankers have parroted claims that the US embargo is responsible for Cuba's misery and that if only it were repealed, the island would experience such a wave of tourism, consumer goods, and democratic influence that Havana's communist fortifications would collapse.
But if commerce could have toppled the regime, it would have already done so. The US embargo, after all, doesn't prevent the export of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of goods to Cuba each year. Indeed, the United States in recent years has been one of Cuba's largest sources of imports. And in any case, Cuba has always been free to trade with the rest of the world.
What the embargo prevents is not American business with Cuba but American business with Cuba on credit. US producers may export agricultural commodities to Cuba, as long as they are paid in cash. But they are barred from federal credit guarantees and other varieties of corporate welfare. The embargo is not rooted in vindictiveness. It was a response to the fact that after imposing communism on the island, Fidel Castro nationalized — that is, stole — American refineries, sugar mills, power generators, banks, and other properties worth billions of dollars.
I have previously mentioned my visit in 2002 to Oswaldo Payá, the courageous founder of Cuba's Christian Liberation Movement and, at the time, Cuba's foremost human rights dissident. When I asked him whether the US embargo should be scrapped, he replied: "Tiende tu mano a Cuba, pero primero pide que le desaten las manos a los cubanos." Extend your hands to Cuba — but first untie the hands of the Cuban people.
It is shameful that the UN would stand with the dictators in Havana rather than the nation that has done more for the freedom of Cuba's people than any other. It is doubly shameful that those voting in favor of the resolution included the former communist satrapies of Eastern Europe that were liberated when the US triumphed in the Cold War.
To his credit, Milei doesn't care how many governments Argentina must oppose to defend liberty. "Our country is categorically opposed to the Cuban dictatorship and ... condemns all regimes that perpetuate the violation of human rights and individual freedoms," he said last week. His previous foreign minister might not have gotten the message. Her successor won't make that mistake.
Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe.
-- ## --
Follow Jeff Jacoby on X (aka Twitter).
Discuss his columns on Facebook.
Want to read something different? Sign up for "Arguable," Jeff Jacoby's free weekly email newsletter.