It is no secret that the U.S. embargo on Cuba has remained inflexible for the past fifty years. However, at this time, it is clear that the situation on the island is changing. The question is, will U.S. policy change with the changes in Cuba?
by Glenn Withiam*
It is no secret that the U.S. embargo on Cuba has remained inflexible for the past fifty years. However, at this time, it is clear that the situation on the island is changing. The question is, will U.S. policy change with the changes in Cuba? A series of articles published in the November 2007 issue of the Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly debate this point: Should the American hospitality industry attempt to create a cultural bridge between the two nations?
Stating that American hospitality operators are the logical agents of policy change, Sergei Khrushchev, Tony L. Henthorne, and Michael S. LaTour suggest that both countries must rebuild trust in each other. For his part, Khrushchev has had unusual access to Cuban leader Fidel Castro. The situation on the island is confusing at the time of writing, except for the almost certain possibility that Castro will not resume his previous political role.
Khrushchev, Henthorne and LaTour recommend opening a door at this time. They believe U.S. chains could establish alliances with Cuban hospitality firms, and thus help them get the hard currency that is important to the country's economy. The article makes clear that any such arrangement would put Cuban interests in control of the alliance.
The attraction for U.S. operators is access to a large tourism market, advantaged in the Caribbean only by the Dominican Republic – a market that is currently within reach of all but them. Cuba has hosted alliances with international operators from other nations, particularly Spain.
The full proposal is found in "Cuba at the Crossroads: Can the U.S. Hotel Industry Help Shape a 'New Cuba'?", which can be read at no cost in chr.cornell.edu. Khrushchev works at Brown University; Henthorne at the University of Southern Mississippi, and LaTour at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Even if the U.S. embargo on Cuba ends, the authors argue that the two countries must work to overcome a legacy of mistrust.
And the embargo?
Three other observers contributed to this article. One of them was enthusiastic about ending the embargo. John M. Kirk of Dalhousie University argued that the continuation of Dalhousie University has had the main effect of excluding U.S. interests from a potentially lucrative market. However, James Macaulay of Mount Saint Vincent University insisted that caution be exercised. He wrote that even if the embargo ends, U.S. hotel operators could face a hostile environment on the island. The nation maintains a centralized economy, and alliances with U.S. administrators could jeopardize the financial position of Cuban hotel managers. Thus, it is possible that they did not accept the interests of the country.
Finally, Kenneth Backman of Clemson University noted that the U.S. embargo remains with no chance of ending in the first place. Even if that changes, he doesn't see that there is a good environment in Cuba to receive U.S. operators. In particular, it argues that Cuba would not want an additional drain of tourism revenue.
Khrushchev, Henthorne and LaTour rely on the personal effects of tourism to counteract all these negative factors. If they are right, one way to resume normal relations between the United States and Cuba would be what they call a "grassroots" effort. They see this beginning perhaps with additional travel by U.S. citizens to the island, who could come into contact with Cubans. This individual contact, they believe, could break the ice between the two nations. To this end, they urge U.S. interests to promote at least some de-clearances to the embargo.
*Glenn Withiam is director of publications at the Cornell Hotel Research Center.
