Robert Voorhees

History 467
Dr. Lohse
December 10, 2015
Justifications for Restrictive Cuban Policies
Since its inception in 1959, the Cuban revolutionary government of Fidel and Raul Castro
has imposed drastic security measures to ensure the survival of their regime. These policies,
incited by economic, political, and terrorist-like hostility from the United States, included severe
limitations on civil rights, barriers on free speech, intolerance to dissidence, and state control of
the media as well as the procedural exile or execution of anyone deemed a potential threat to the
revolution. Many, including a large percentage of American foreign-policy makers, almost every
United States President since 1959, and vast amounts of Cuban exiles, see these policies only as
horrendous failures of the revolutionary regime, and argue that Castros Cuba is solely
responsible for the implementation and continuation of such measures. These critics of the
revolutionary government then cite these transgressions as validation to continue their siege
tactics, denying any culpability of the consequences of their policies. However, as journalist
Keith Bollender explains through his book Cuba Under Siege, while the Cuban government is
not entirely free of blame for these harsh restrictions, Castros policies have primarily come as a
response to the United States policy of aggression, and, therefore, the actions of Cuba over the
past several decades are, at least partially, justified.
Throughout his analysis of the Cuban situation, one of Bollenders central arguments is
that Cuban restrictions are validated partly because of the hostile American economic policy in
regards to Cuba, both before and after the Castros revolution. Before the 1959 revolution
occurred, Bollender highlights how the United States built an economic environment on the
island that negatively impacted the Cuban people, which put the revolutionary regime at a

disadvantage for achieving social progress before Castro had even assumed power. He explains
that with the passing of the Platt Amendment in 1903, an opportunity arose for American capital
to exercise near complete authority of the island (Bollender, 45), basically allowing the U.S. to
exploit the small nation for American gain at the expense of the Cuban people. And although
Cuba did have a relatively high GDP compared to other Latin American nations, the economic
policies of the United States caused massive amounts of poverty, as well as increasing problems
of malnourishment, illiteracy, and healthcare (Bollender, 45-46). So even prior to the transfer of
power to the revolutionary regime in 1959, American interference facilitated the creation of an
environment unfit for social progress.
To then make matters worse, following the Cuban revolution of 1959, the United States
instilled and continues to maintain a severe economic embargo in 1960 on an already faltering
Cuban society. As Castro himself explains, on top of having 600,000 unemployed, on top of
having a production per capita of 300 pesos, on top of having one fifth of the hospitals we need,
of the schools we need and of the most basic things we need, on top of all that, if we do
something to get rid of all that, they threaten to starve us (Bollender, 52). With the embargo in
place, Cubas ability to make social progress was and continues to be severely limited. For
example, an effective healthcare system for all Cuban citizens was a prominent aim of the
revolution and would serve as a glowing example of social progress being made. But with great
detriment to Cuban healthcare, the embargo has had a negative multiplier effect ( Bollender,
87) on the nations system, increasing the costs and difficulties of acquiring needed medicines
and equipment. So simply, the social advancements and expansion of civil rights that the United
States so often demand are nearly impossible under the very economic conditions that the U.S.
themselves have produced.

But while the economic policies of the United States have certainly intensified the
confining measures seen in Cuba that have prohibited prospective social progress, Bollenders
primary argument for his claim that Cuban restrictions and lack of advancements are justified is
the strategic maintenance of violent aggression imposed by the United States, which was
aggravated after the long-feared revolution on the island in 1959. As he articulates, The
development of siege mentality was accelerated from early 1960 to the Bay of Pigs invasion in
April 1961 with the introduction of one of the most violent aspects of American policy
terrorism, which was executed by counterrevolutionaries with the backing of the American
government both directly and indirectly (Bollender, 53). These terrorist acts came in the form of
both attempted and successful assassinations, bombings, strafings by aircraft, and various
sabotages, as well as more direct interventions like the aforementioned Bay of Pigs operation
(Bollender, 53-54). Such incidents sparked true fear for Castro and his compatriots for the
survival of their regime, which had faced increasingly fierce opposition from their northern
neighbor. Consequently, Bollender argues, Castro had no other alternative but to implement rigid
limitations and restrictions, as such policies were the most effective way to thwart future acts
(Bollender, 54).
Almost instantly, the United States government became highly critical of the constricting
practices that were unfolding on the Latin American island, and seemed surprised at the path the
state had taken. But Bollender asserts that this was simply the common response for a country
facing belligerent opposition. After a severe attack or violation, Bollender explicates, states often
attempt to preserve strength of resistance through solidarity, which is typically accomplished
by instituting confining social/political policies that restrict civil right expressions of speech,
free press, assembly, and dissidence (Bollender, 1-2). To further illustrate his point, Bollender

compares Cubas situation to the similarly restrictive response from the United States
government after the devastating September 11th attacks in 2001, which had facilitated the
radicalization of society and development of a sense of siege (Bollender, 3). Like Cuba,
following the crisis, the United States not only pushed for nationwide unity that fostered
intolerance to opposing viewpoints (Bollender, 6), but also implemented numerous state
surveillance programs under the Patriot and Homeland Security Acts, which led to Americans
civil rights being eroded incrementally (Bollender, 5). So despite the frequent criticisms of
the Cuban restrictions in the late 20th century, Bollender exposes how most of Castros policies
were merely typical responses for any nation under attack, and therefore should have been
expected in light of constant American aggression.
Ordinarily, after the threat has subsided, restrictive policies that were implemented during
times of severe distress are evaluated, and are typically reversed or amended in order to expand
civil rights that were previously limited. Recalling the restrictive American policies after 9/11
Bollender explains that, American political institutions examined where civil liberty violations
went too far and refocused on the countrys democratic tradition, most importantly the return of
those rights (Bollender, 12). However, he acknowledges an important condition for this reexamination of security measures to occur peace time (Bollender, 12). Therefore, the plight
of the Cuban people and their restrictions distinguishes itself from the American situation
following 9/11 because the siege mentality that incited their limiting policies never dwindled,
and still persists since the onset of their revolution. Bollender identifies that, unlike the United
States, The small revolutionary government has faced nonstop hostility from the worlds most
powerful nation since the early moths of 1959 (Bollender, 14), meaning Cuba has simply
never had the opportunity to scrutinize their restraining policies and reverse their more radical

measures. Therefore, the constant calls from the United States for Cuba to diminish their harsh
internal security laws and make substantial social advancements are unwarranted, as it is the
maintenance of their own aggression that makes such change impossible.
To give critics of Castro and his revolutionary regime some credit, Bollender does
concede that the hostile American opposition is not necessarily responsible for all of Cubas
detrimental and restrictive policies. For example, Cuba targeted artists and dissidents during a
period deemed the Grey Years, where political orthodoxy trumped artistic expression, and
further describes how Cuba prompted the internment of gays and nonconformists in the harsh
UMAP rehabilitation camps (Bollender, 35), neither of which can be fully blamed on the United
States. Bollender further admits many of [Cubas] economic structures have not entirely been
influenced by siege, and describes how The elusive if not impossible search for equality has
led to economic rationing and a compromise with a quality in products (Bollender, 34). And
finally, intense travel restrictions were initially justified to prevent members of the oppressive
Batista regime from escaping, but now lack any rationalization to maintain, only continued
because it became part of the status quo (Bollender, 164). But while these few arguments that
the United States government often vocalizes indeed carry some weight, the critics that assert
such claims often neglect to address the larger picture, denying any consequences that may have
come as a result of American policies. Even current U.S. President Barack Obama recently
lamented the lack of forward progress in Cuba, claiming We havent seen those changes in a
realistic way yet (Bollender, 26), without acknowledging his own countrys role in the
difficulties Cuba.
With hostilities between Cuba and the United States persisting for over 50 years, many
people, including prominent U.S. foreign-policy makers and Cuban exiles, continue to deny any

responsibility of the United States in the implementation of the revolutionary regimes restrictive
security measures. But as Keith Bollender explains in Cuba Under Siege, these policies were
simply the natural response to increasingly antagonistic aggression from the U.S., and, combined
with the economic conditions imposed by the United States, the continuation of this hostility
since 1959 has effectively prevented any potential social advancements or loosening of these
restrictions. But with current U.S. President Barack Obamas newest policies aimed at improving
economic and diplomatic relations and Raul Castros commitment to a reform, perhaps Cuba will
be able to chart a new course toward prosperity.