Cuba has survived 66 years of US-led embargoes. Will Trump’s blockade break it now?

After toppling Venezuela’s leader earlier this year, the Trump administration has turned its sights on Cuba. The near-total blockade of the island is now posing the greatest challenge to the government since the Cuban missile crisis in 1962.

Cuba is quickly running out of oil, creating a dire political and economic crisis for the island’s 11 million residents.

US President Donald Trump’s embargo has prevented any oil tankers from reaching the island for months. A ship carrying Russian fuel is now reportedly on the way to the island to attempt to break the blockade, but the US has seized other ships that have previously tried.

The Trump administration has also threatened tariffs on any nation that tries to send Cuba fuel, putting Latin American leaders in an uncomfortable position. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has called out the embargo as “very unfair”, but she’s been careful not to antagonise Trump by putting an emphasis on the Cuban “people”, not the government.

This is not the first time the US has isolated Cuba, or coerced Latin American leaders to take part. Cuba has been under a US embargo for the past 66 years, which has stunted its economy and caused widespread human suffering.

The island has always found a way to get by, but can it survive this new round of American pressure?

Animosity grows in the 1950s

The Cuban Revolution caught the United States by surprise in 1959. During the Cold War, the US had supported dictatorships in Latin America, such as Cuba’s Fulgencio Batista, with political, financial and military support, creating widespread anti-US activism across the region.

After coming to power, revolutionary leader Fidel Castro instituted modest reforms to land tenure and infrastructure to support the impoverished people. Then-US President Dwight Eisenhower opposed these moves because of their impact on US commercial interests on the island. This opposition turned into a US embargo of Cuban sugar imports in 1960.

In response, Castro looked to the Soviets as an export alternative. Eisenhower retaliated by refusing to ship oil to Cuba, leading Castro to sign an oil deal with the Soviets and eventually nationalise American and British refineries. In 1961, Castro declared his adherence to “Marxism-Leninism”.

Castro and Cuba were hugely popular throughout Latin America. When the Cuban military defeated the CIA-trained force of exiled Cuban fighters at the Bay of Pigs in 1961, Castro was lauded for standing up to the US, though few knew of the military and intelligence support coming from the Soviets.

And when President John F. Kennedy began the campaign to remove Cuba from the Organisation of American States (OAS) in 1961, most Latin American democracies moved to block it.

To bring those leaders to his side, Kennedy used a carrot-and-stick approach. He proposed an “alliance for progress” to meet the “basic needs of the [Latin] American people for homes, work and land, health and schools”. But his government also passed the Foreign Assistance Act, which established a total blockade of the island and prohibited US aid to any country providing assistance to Cuba.

The OAS removed Cuba as a member the following year and, in 1964, voted to embargo all trade to Cuba, except food and medicine.

Life under the embargo

The embargo prevented Cuba from reaching the modern technological age. Instead, it existed in socialist bubble, emphasising the care of its people over economic development.

Nonetheless, Cuba’s Cold War economic growth was comparable to its neighbours. In 1970, the nominal GDP per capita for Cuba was US$645 (A$900), slightly lower than Mexico and about double the Dominican Republic. By 1990, it was US$2,565 (A$3,600), about 80% of Mexico’s and more than triple the Dominican Republic’s.

Cuba was not industrialised, but the country did reach full literacy before any other Latin American nation and extended health care to all Cubans. Cuba then exported its teachers and doctors throughout Latin America, and beyond.

However, life on the island was still difficult, especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

With no clear replacement for Soviet imports and subsidies, the economy began to buckle. From 1990 to 1994 (a time known as the “Special Period”), food production decreased by 40%, leading to food rationing, malnutrition and other health issues.

Protests broke out across the island in 1994 and some 35,000 Cubans fled on boats for Florida.

Cuba and the US after the Cold War

However, the end of the Cold War brought newfound sympathy and assistance from Cuba’s neighbours. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, for example, provided Cuba with oil in exchange for Cuban doctors.

Then, in 2009, the OAS voted to readmit Cuba and allow for regional trade and tourism again.

US President Barack Obama followed suit in 2014, saying the US embargo of Cuba had “failed”.

His administration then initiated what would become known as the “Cuban thaw”. Then-President Raul Castro visited Washington in 2015 and, the following year, Obama became the first US president to visit Cuba since 1928.

Obama did not end the embargo, but he did open the door to US tourism, providing a lifeline for Cuba’s economy.

Why is Trump punishing the island again?

Now, Trump is reimposing the Cold War-era embargo on the island and ramping up the pressure on President Miguel Díaz-Canel’s government.

The White House claims Cuba presents an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to the United States, saying the island is cooperating with “dangerous adversaries” on intelligence activities, chief among them Russia and China.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has condemned Trump’s embargo, saying “we do not accept anything like this”.

If Russian oil makes it to Cuba, more aid could follow. If that eventuates, the US will have invited Russia into its backyard again, laying the foundation for another Cold War-style stalemate, with the Cuban people once more trapped in the middle.

James Trapani does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.