The most succinct arguments against U.S. government limits on remittances from Cuban Americans to family members on the island is that the humanitarian benefits outweigh the value of any financial gain the dictatorship earns from the transactions; and remittances provide a modicum of relief for Cubans, especially in the wake of the disaster brought by hurricanes Gustav and Ike.
Manuel Tellechea and Phil Peters, two Cuba bloggers who I think share little in common except that I link to both of their sites, expanded on the arguments this past week:
Tellechea, like me, isn't bothered if the dictatorship skims off 20 or more cents of every dollar in remittances, if it means the remainder goes to Cubans doing all they can to survive:
In the struggle to give Cubans some measure of control over their own lives, remittances are essential. Without them the Cuban people are literally at Castro's mercy and hence completely without hope.Although they are still as greedy as robber barons, and will certainly capitalize on any opportunity to exploit the suffering of their countrymen, the money sent as remittances to their victims will not benefit the Castros as much as it will benefit the Cuban people, who have nothing.
In his post, Peters exposes the senseless amorality of the limits on remittances:
Readers have commented that disaster relief is usually provided, and is best provided by large agencies with experience and logistical capacity. That’s true. But should direct family aid be precluded just because governments and big agencies may be at work?U.S. regulations limit visits to once every three years, limit remittances to $100 per household per month, and restrict the content of gift parcels to food, medicine, medical supplies and equipment, receive-only radios, and batteries for radios. (In 2004, these items were dropped from the list of permitted items: clothing, personal hygiene items, seeds, fishing equipment, soap-making equipment, and veterinary medicine and supplies. The Federal Register notice explained that gift parcels “decrease the burden on the Cuban regime to provide for the basic needs of its people.”) On top of all that, visits, remittances, and parcels may be sent to immediate family only.
How does this affect the situation today?
It means that a Cuban American who visited his mother last year in Holguin and wants to locate her now and look after her, can’t do so because his visit was too recent, and he has to wait until 2010. It means that a woman who has heard from her brother in Ciego de Avila that his house is intact but his refrigerator is destroyed, cannot send the money to buy a new one, because it would exceed the limit on remittances. It means that in the case of a family in Pinar del Rio whose house was flattened and garden wrecked, their relatives cannot send seeds and new clothes, because those items are now banned. It means that two men in Hialeah who want to draw on their savings to go to Cuba, buy supplies however they can, and put a new roof on their aunt’s house, cannot do so. The aunt is not immediate family, and the visit is not allowed.
You get the idea.
It may be that direct family aid would address only one percent of Cubans’ needs today. But even if it reaches a small percent of Cuban familes, it would resolve the lion’s share of their needs, and it would reduce the burden on the relief agencies that are the only option for everyone else. Why stand in the way of that?
I'm generally in favor of the American embargo, such as it is. But limits on remittances and travel by Cuban Americans with family on the island should not be part of the sanctions. They will not help bring down the dictatorship, and as long as they are in place — especially after the destruction brought by the hurricanes — they only add to the suffering and tragedy of the Cuban people.
Recent Comments