TO Donald Trump and those in Washington who believe pressure and punishment are the tools of diplomacy: hands off Cuba.
For more than six decades, the United States has tried to bend Cuba to its will through sanctions, isolation, and economic strangulation. The policy has endured multiple administrations and has become a habit rather than a strategy. It is time to say plainly what many around the world already know: the blockade has failed. Recent attempts to influence or take control of Cuba have primarily focused on economic pressure designed to force regime change, escalating significantly in early 2026 under a renewed approach from the Trump administration. These efforts aimed to destabilise the Cuban government by causing a total collapse of its energy and economic sectors.
The long-running US embargo against Cuba has not produced democracy, stability, or reconciliation. Instead, it has deepened hardship for ordinary Cubans while allowing Washington politicians to posture domestically. The policy persists not because it works, but because it is politically convenient.
American leaders frequently speak about freedom while denying a small neighbouring country the freedom to manage its own destiny. Cuba’s political and economic system, rooted in its version of socialism and shaped by its own history, may not resemble the American model. But sovereignty means a nation chooses its own path.
Many Americans are told that socialism is simply tyranny. The reality is more complex. Around the world, various forms of socialist policy coexist with democratic systems, mixed economies, and social welfare programs. Understanding that complexity would lead to a more intelligent foreign policy than reflexive hostility.
There is also a deeper geopolitical irony. The United States, the most powerful military state on earth, often behaves as if small nations on its doorstep are existential threats. History shows that overwhelming force does not automatically produce political success. Military might cannot substitute for diplomacy, respect, and patience.
If Washington truly believes in liberty, it should demonstrate that belief by ending the blockade, restoring normal relations, and allowing Cubans to shape their future without coercion. Engagement would do more for reform and mutual understanding than decades of punishment ever have.
The American public deserves honesty about foreign policy failures. Cuba deserves the space to determine its own course. And the world deserves a United States confident enough to replace pressure with dialogue.
The message is simple: end the blockade, normalise relations, and let Cubans decide their destiny. After all, they have rejected what the US has wished to impose all these years but failed.
Western Democracy Façade
Cuba maintains a single-party socialist system, actively rejecting Western-style liberal democracy, which it views as a threat to its sovereignty and socialist model. Cuba has shown no willingness to democratise along US-defined lines, viewing such demands as a failure to recognise the legitimacy of their revolution. The country operates under a single-party state where political opposition is not legally permitted. Cuban authorities tend to define democracy through socialised, state-controlled, and community-driven initiatives rather than political pluralism. The government prioritises state control over political and economic freedoms, resisting demands for multi-party elections, which are considered to be an attempt at regime change.
The government views pressure to democratise as a form of imperialism, often pointing to US-backed, forced political changes in other nations as justifications for retaining its system. Despite facing severe economic crises and internal pressure, the Cuban leadership maintains that its socialist, one-party structure is the appropriate model for the nation.
A Policy Rooted in the Cold War
The origins of the embargo lie in the aftermath of the Cuban Revolution of 1959, when revolutionary forces led by Fidel Castro overthrew the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista, a regime long supported by Washington.
When the revolutionary government nationalised foreign-owned industries, including many American corporations, the United States responded with economic retaliation. In 1962, President John F. Kennedy formally imposed a sweeping embargo, cutting off nearly all trade between the two countries.
Over the decades, the embargo hardened into one of the most comprehensive sanctions regimes in modern history. Laws such as the Cuban Democracy Act (1992) and the Helms–Burton Act (1996) extended their reach even further, penalising foreign companies that attempted to do business with Cuba. These measures internationalised the embargo, discouraging banks, shipping companies, and investors around the world from engaging with the island.
The Human Cost of Economic Warfare
Supporters of the blockade often portray it as a targeted political tool. In reality, its consequences have been felt most acutely by ordinary citizens.
Cuba has repeatedly documented the economic damage caused by the embargo, estimating cumulative losses in the hundreds of billions of dollars when adjusted for inflation and lost trade opportunities. Restrictions on banking transactions, shipping routes, and access to international finance have made even routine economic activity difficult.
The impact is particularly severe in the health sector. Cuba’s public healthcare system—widely respected in the developing world—has struggled to obtain medical equipment, pharmaceutical components, and specialized technology because many manufacturers are linked to US companies or rely on its patents.
During global crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic, these restrictions became even more controversial. Critics argued that maintaining such sanctions during a worldwide health emergency amounted to collective punishment.
Global Condemnation of the Embargo
Washington’s policy toward Cuba is increasingly isolated on the global stage. For more than three decades, the United Nations General Assembly has voted overwhelmingly to condemn the embargo.
Year after year, nearly every country in the world supports a resolution calling for its end. Only a handful of governments – primarily the United States and a small number of allies – have opposed the measure. These votes are largely symbolic, since the General Assembly lacks the power to enforce them. Yet they reflect a broad international consensus: the embargo is widely viewed as an outdated relic of Cold War politics.
Cuba’s contribution to the world also deserves recognition.
Despite its limited resources and the burden of sanctions, the island has repeatedly demonstrated remarkable international solidarity. Through the Henry Reeve International Medical Brigade, Cuban doctors and nurses have served in disaster zones and public health crises across the globe—from the Ebola epidemic in West Africa to earthquake-stricken Haiti, and during the global emergency of COVID-19. Tens of thousands of Cuban medical professionals have provided care in some of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable regions. This quiet humanitarian diplomacy stands in stark contrast to the punitive policies directed against Cuba. If anything, the world’s experience with Cuban medical solidarity should remind Washington that the island it seeks to punish has often been a lifeline to nations in distress.
The Brief Window of Engagement
There was a moment when change seemed possible. In 2014, President Barack Obama announced a historic effort to normalise relations with Cuba. Diplomatic ties were restored, travel restrictions were eased, and the two countries reopened embassies.
Obama acknowledged publicly that decades of isolation had failed to achieve their intended goals. Engagement, he argued, offered a more constructive path toward reform and dialogue.
But the policy shift proved fragile. Obama was a showy person, not a genuine justice-seeking President. Subsequent administrations reversed many of these measures, tightening sanctions once again and returning bilateral relations to a state of hostility. His initiative was bound to fall under the pressure of lobbies.
Path Forward
The persistence of the embargo raises a fundamental question: what purpose does it now serve?
If the goal was to overthrow Cuba’s political system, the policy has clearly failed. More than sixty years of economic pressure have not produced regime change. Instead, they have entrenched mistrust and hardened political positions on both sides.
If the goal was to promote democracy, the record is equally questionable. Isolation rarely encourages political openness. Engagement, cultural exchange, and economic cooperation are far more likely to create conditions conducive to reform.
Ending the embargo would not mean endorsing every aspect of Cuba’s political system. It would simply acknowledge a basic principle of international relations: sovereign nations must be allowed to determine their own future. The United States has normalised relations with many governments whose political systems differ sharply from its own. Applying a different standard to Cuba reveals the deeply political nature of the embargo.
Cuba’s Democratic Paradigm
Cuba operates under a unique, socialist, one-party system known as “people’s democracy” or “socialist democracy,” where the Communist Party of Cuba (PCC) is enshrined in the Constitution as the only legal political party. While elections are held for the National Assembly of People’s Power, they differ significantly from liberal, multi-party democracies.
The Cuban electoral system regarding candidates is characterised by a No Party Competition. The Communist Party of Cuba does not campaign, propose, or support candidates during the election process. Candidates are not elected on a party platform but as individuals. They are nominated at the grassroots level by neighbours (for municipal positions) or by commissions representing mass organisations.
Candidates do not run on personal political manifestos. Instead, in the weeks leading up to the election, candidates visit workplaces, neighbourhoods, and schools to hold meetings where they listen to concerns, questions, and complaints from the community. The only official “publicity” allowed for candidates is a short biography and a photo posted in the neighbourhood.
For the National Assembly, candidates are vetted by the National Candidacy Commission, and the number of candidates corresponds to the number of seats to be filled. To be elected, a candidate must receive more than 50% of the valid votes.
While proponents argue this system allows for direct, non-commercialised representation, critics and human rights organisations characterise it as an authoritarian, one-party system where political opposition is not permitted. These critiques – largely defined by Western sources- know no other system and, coming from the West, are racist and colonialist.
During a visit to Cuba, an American lectured a group of Cuban political analysts, saying: “You need at least a two-party system”. A Cuban retorted. “We reject the money-bag democracy of the US, controlled, as it is, by the money power of oligarchs and the Jewish lobby. Don’t sell us an outworn, failed and inoperable product. Don’t hard-sell. We’re not buying.”
In most traditional societies, Western democracy has proved disastrous. It’s time to ignore the West’s patronising and often counterproductive advice.
Time to End a Failed Policy
Six decades of sanctions have inflicted hardship without achieving their stated goals. They have strained families, restricted trade, and perpetuated a cycle of confrontation that belongs to another era. For Washington, the choice is clear. Continue a policy rooted in Cold War hostility, or embrace a future based on dialogue, respect, and cooperation.
Ending the blockade would not solve every problem facing Cuba. But it would remove a major obstacle to economic development and open the door to a more constructive relationship between the two neighbouring nations. After sixty years of pressure, the time has come for a different approach.
Hands off Cuba!
___________
Ranjan Solomon is a writer, researcher and activist based in Goa. He has worked in social movements since he was 19 years of age. The views expressed here are the author’s own and Clarion India does not necessarily share or subscribe to them. He can be contacted at ranjan.solomon@gmail.com
