Impacts of Embargo

 Analysis and Synthesis Assignment
Miami, it’s the place many call home, many recognize it for its variety of ethnicities and many know it has a place where most Cubans come looking for a new home. Thirty -four percent of the population of Miami is made up of Cubans, this city has so much history when it come to Cuba from the freedom tower to the 90 miles of Key West buoy almost everyone knows a little about Cuba. Since 1960 the Unites States has put an embargo on
the island which bands and economical transaction with the island. Many argue that the embargo should be lifted and other argues it would be a mistake to remove it. In the article “Obama Should End the Embargo on Cuba” argues the point of view that the embargo should be lifted and the second article “Responding to The NYT editorial “End the US Embargo on Cuba” argues that the New York Times is wrong for publishing an article with such opinion because lifting the embargo would be a mistake. This paper analyzes both points of views of each author presented in the articles whether the embargo is a positive or negative impact on the island.
“Obama should end the embargo on Cuba” is the main argument presented by the New York Times. The article states that for more than fifty years the United States has not had any relations with Cuba therefore, “shifting politics in the United States and changing policies in Cuba make it politically feasible to re-establish formal diplomatic relations and dismantle the senseless embargo”. The Castro regime believes that the embargo has kept the Cuban people from shortcomings of economic goods and from the rest of the world.  The article mentions that the United States should also end the embargo because the generation of people who did support it are dying off and a new generation is arising, a generation that would like to see the embargo taken off. “A recent poll found that a slight majority of Cuban-Americans in Miami now oppose the embargo. A significant majority of them favor restoring diplomatic ties”. The Obama administration not only has considered taking the embargo but back in 2009 they made it easier for Cubans in the United States to send allowances and allowing more to travel there.
To end the embargo completely Congress would need to approve it but according to the New York Times Obama can make some changes on his own.  Such as “lift caps on remittances, allow Americans to finance private Cuban businesses and expand opportunities for travel to the island.” The article not only argues how lifting the embargo can benefit Cuba but also the U.S according to the article “American companies that are interested in developing the island’s telecommunications network but remain wary of the legal and political risks.” It would also allow the United States to expand and deepen cooperation in areas where the our country and Cuba already manage to work collaboratively like managing migration flow, oceanic patrolling and oil rig safety.
The second article takes more of a different approach towards the embargo. The articles title is very clear on what its about its response towards the New York Times article and this article is in favor of the embargo. Clive Rudd Fernandez the author the of the second article doesn’t mine the topic that the New York Times presented but argues the arguments offered were “poor arguments” and “unconvincing”.  The author mentions that the first reason presented by the New York Times is an implicit message because they are just stating that if Obama was to make policy changed dealing with Cuba his ratings will rise and that is not a concrete argument according to Fernandez. He also argues that the first article contradicts itself stating, ““a devastated economy has forced [the government in] Cuba to make reforms” and “over the decades, it became clear to many American policy makers that the embargo was an utter failure”. The embargo was placed in order for Cuba to make changes therefore the author states that for the New York Times to say that it was a failure on behalf of the U.S when in reality the embargo is doing exactly what the U.S wanted.
Another clear contradiction is that Fernandez states in his article is that “the editor is stating that “for the first time in more than 50 years, shifting politics in the United States and changing policies in Cuba make it politically feasible to re-establish formal diplomatic relations and dismantle the senseless embargo”. Fernandez mention that Alan Gross has been unjustly imprisoned in Cuba for nearly five years and that “the authoritarian government still harasses and detains dissidents that those reason state very clearly nothing has really changed in Cuba. He also mentions that it would be absurd to remove Cuba from the list that sponsors terrorist because “Cuba is a closed society where the government persecutes and imprisons investigative journalism; therefore we could assume a statement like this is at least unfounded. On top of that, the Cuban government has gone on record supporting Bashar al Assad in Syria, Hamas in Gaza and various people in power in Iran over the years.” He finishes his article that if President Obama was to make policy changes just to raise his ratings he reminds him of President Clinton and Carter who also tried to do something similar to get rating and their plans turned into mayhem.
As a Cuban immigrant who came to this country when I was only nine months my parents, grand parents and uncle came to the U.S running from religious persecution and hopes of having a better life. The second articles in my opinion presents more concrete information rather than were the New York Times contradicts itself more than once.