The majority of the Cuban people support Castro. There is no effective political opposition… The only foreseeable means of alienating internal support is through disenchantment and disaffection and hardship… every possible means should be undertaken promptly to weaken the economic life of Cuba. If such a policy is adopted, it should be the result of a positive decision which would call forth a line of action which, while as adroit and inconspicuous as possible, makes the greatest inroads in denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government.

In his article, entitled “The Two Faces of Ronald Reagan,” Murray N. Rothbard explained that, in the 1980s, president Ronald Reagan treated the economic blockade against Cuba as a weapon of the Cold War. More specifically, Rothbard stated that:

Ronald Reagan’s thirst for confrontation is easy to document. His “solution” to the Afghanistan “crisis” — for the United States a crisis only because Jimmy Carter needed one — was the monumental and loony irrelevancy of throwing a tight blockade around… Cuba. As would-be President Reagan put it: “The Soviet Union owns Cuba, lock, stock, and barrel. We blockade it, now it’s a grave logistical problem for them…. We blockade Cuba, which could not afford that blockade, and we say to them: ‘Get your troops out of Afghanistan and we give up the blockade.’” A generous offer indeed. But Reagan is probably in favor of blockading Cuba anyway, in view of the alleged threat posed by the phantom brigade of Soviet troops stationed there.

Nonetheless, the embargo was never lifted following the collapse of the Soviet Union. To the contrary, it has been relentlessly maintained for decades by both the Democrats and Republicans, while being periodically strengthened and rarely eased. During this period, Cold War Era rhetoric was hardly ever employed by American officials when discussing Cuban policy, given the absence of the Soviet threat. That is to say, the justification for maintaining the embargo shifted away from preventing the spread of communism in American’s backyard to claiming that the sanctions are being used as a tool “to advance democracy and promote respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in Cuba,” even though the economic blockade itself is illiberal and constitutes a violation of freedoms and human rights.

Despite its lofty rhetoric, the current US government is not interested in advancing democracy, liberal values, free-trade, human rights, or any other humanitarian causes on the island, nor does it genuinely care about the interests of ordinary Cubans, or Americans for that matter. Rather, its real objective is to strengthen its interventionist and imperialist policies in order to further suffocate Cuba with the intent of overthrowing the government and gaining complete control over the island and its resources. Essentially, the Americans would like to return Cuba to the status of a vassal state, as existed before Fidel Castro (1926-2016) and his fellow revolutionaries toppled the repressive regime of Fulgencio Batista (1901-1973), one of the most brutal dictators in Latin American history who transformed Cuba into a police state from 1952 to 1959 with full US backing. Rothbard pointed out that “after virtually installing the dictator Batista in Cuba, the United States tried desperately to oust the Communist Castro regime, by actions ranging from the CIA-engineered Bay of Pigs invasion to CIA-Mafia attempts to assassinate Castro” (e.g., the CIA orchestrated a total of 638 assassination attempts on Fidel Castro during his lifetime).

Rothbard was opposed to all forms of financial or economic embargo. He also thought that American officials used lofty rhetoric about upholding democratic principles and values, and human rights in order to justify their economic sanctions. According to Rothbard, there is no evidence that “democracies must inevitably be peace-loving while dictatorships are inevitably warlike.” In For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, Rothbard sought to demonstrate the defects of democratic regimes when he argued that:

…the theoretical reason why focusing on democracy or dictatorship misses the point is that States—all States—rule their population and decide whether or not to make war. And all States, whether formally a democracy or dictatorship or some other brand of rule, are run by a ruling elite. Whether or not these elites, in any particular case, will make war upon another State is a function of a complex interweaving web of causes, including temperament of the rulers, the strength of their enemies, the inducements for war, public opinion…the only real difference between a democracy and a dictatorship on making war is that in the former more propaganda must be beamed at one’s subjects to engineer their approval…also the democratic State must be more hypocritical in using rhetoric designed to appeal to the values of the masses: justice, freedom, national interest, patriotism, world peace, etc. So in democratic States, the art of propagandizing their subjects must be a bit more sophisticated and refined. But this, as we have seen, is true of all governmental decisions, not just war or peace. For all governments—but especially democratic governments—must work hard at persuading their subjects that all of their deeds of oppression are really in their subjects’ best interests.

History has shown that democratically-elected American presidents have rarely hesitated to cooperate with and prop up despotic, repressive, and corrupt regimes that violated human rights and democratic principles, whenever it suited the interests and ambitions of the elite ruling classes in the West. Specific examples include supporting Pinochet in Chile, the Somoza regime in Nicaragua, Suharto in Indonesia, the Shah in Iran, and the repressive House of Saud in Saudi Arabia, just to name a few.

Rothbard pointed out that Washington intervenes “anywhere on the globe, even at some remote site that cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered a direct or even indirect threat to the lives and security of the American people.” Rothbard further explained that if there is a military dictator in a country, and:

…perhaps his subjects are tired of being exploited by him and his colleagues. The United States then becomes gravely concerned; articles by journalists friendly to the State Department or the Pentagon spread the alarm about what might happen to the “stability” of [this country and] its surrounding area if the dictator should be toppled. For it so happens that he is a “pro-American” or “pro-Western” dictator: that is, he is one of “ours” instead of “theirs.” Millions or even billions of dollars’ worth of military and economic aid are then rushed by the United States to prop up [this pro-American or pro-Western dictator.]

Rothbard believed that whenever the American government sustains an authoritarian regime with various forms of aid, there is a “continuing or intensified oppression of the American taxpayer,” in addition to the citizens of that dictatorial state. Rothbard claimed that anyone that supports:

…a libertarian foreign policy program for America must be to call upon the United States to abandon its policy of global interventionism: to withdraw immediately and completely, militarily and politically, from Asia, Europe, Latin America, the Middle East, from everywhere…the United States should dismantle its bases, withdraw its troops, stop its incessant political meddling, and abolish the CIA. It should also end all foreign aid—which is simply a device to coerce the American taxpayer into subsidizing American exports and favored foreign States, all in the name of “helping the starving peoples of the world.”

Rothbard insisted that American “foreign policy must…pursue peace instead of war; and it must advance individual American freedom.” Moreover, he advised the American government to “maintain a policy of strict political ‘isolation’ or neutrality everywhere.” This is because Rothbard defended “the libertarian policy of peaceful coexistence and nonintervention between States.” Thus, anybody that claims to be a libertarian would support lifting the American economic and financial embargo against Cuba and establishing free trade with the island, regardless of the fact that it is a socialist regime. In an interview with Jean Daniel in 1963, Fidel Castro made the following statement, which aligns well with Rothbard’s views on international relationships between the nations:

I ask only one thing: Leave us in peace to better our country’s economic situation, to put our planning into effect, to educate our young compañeros. This doesn’t mean we do not feel solidarity toward nations that are struggling and suffering… But it is up to those nations to decide what they want, and if they choose other regimes than ours, that isn’t our business… I ask nothing: neither dollars, nor assistance, nor diplomats, nor bankers, nor military men—nothing but peace, and to be accepted as we are! We are socialists, the United States is a capitalist nation, the Latin American countries will choose what they want. All the same, at a time when the United States is selling wheat to the Russians, Canada is trading with China, de Gaulle respects Ben Bella, why should it be impossible to make the Americans understand that socialism leads, not to hostility toward them, but to coexistence?

The world has seen immense progress and development in areas like science, technology, and economics, since the Cuban Socialist Revolution in 1959. At the same time, there has been very little advancement in the vision, ideas, views, and goals of the American stance towards Cuba, as successive US administrations have shown scant interest in facilitating a lasting and peaceful coexistence between the two countries. Instead, Washington has consistently and stubbornly employed tactics aimed at destabilizing and destroying the socialist regime in Cuba since the early days of the Revolution.

Even though the Castros are gone, Cubans continue to reject American imperialism and exploitation, because they desire existence as a sovereign nation without having to bow down to the dictates of a foreign power. Supporters of the economic blockade need to be made to realize that Cuba has the right to self-government and self-determination, regardless of whether or not the American government approves of the ideology of its regime.