Fill out the brief form below for access to the free report.
In the Rush to Invest in Cuba, Principles Matter
President Barack Obama’s recent visit to Cuba, while promoted as ushering in a new era in U.S –Cuban relations, showed the same fault lines in American attitudes toward Cuba that have existed since 1959.
Some criticized the President for giving short shrift to human rights. Some paid lip service to human rights while playing up the purported successes of the Castros’ Cuba. Meanwhile American businesses are jockeying to stake their claims on what they hope will be a gold rush. Public opinion polling, including among Cuban-Americans, shows support for the administration’s rapprochement with Havana. America’s attitudes towards Cuba are evolving.
It remains to be seen if the administration’s decision to engage with Havana will indeed produce improvements in Cuba’s dismal human rights record. Dissidents and independent journalists continue to be routinely rounded up for daring to challenge the regime’s authority. The most recent Human Rights Report from the State Department and the Freedom in the World report from independent watchdog Freedom House continue to brand Cuba as a repressive dictatorship. Human Rights Watch and other groups say that human rights abuses have worsened in recent years.
Meanwhile, American businesses are eager to pounce on what they see as an untapped market. In just the last few weeks, airlines have bid for direct flights, hotel chains have announced new deals, and technology giants are promising to break down the state’s censorship and isolation. Even conservatives like Texas Gov. Greg Abbott have been leading trade missions to Cuba since the thaw began.
The Cuban government has encouraged foreign investment for years. European and Canadian businesses, among others, have made substantial investments, especially in the vital tourism sector. But Cuba accepts foreign investment only on its own terms. Businesses must hire candidates vetted by the state. Ordinary Cubans are barred access to some facilities, such as hotels. Wages are paid not to the employee, but rather to a state agency, which then in turn pays the employee a fraction of his nominal salary.
International business can and should be a force for good. They can improve the quality of life for their employees and for consumers. But how do we ensure that their interest in Cuba pays off for the people of Cuba and doesn’t prolong a decrepit regime’s grip on power?
One answer is to look back at the case of South Africa in the late 1970s. At that time, South Africa had large investments from multinational corporations, despite its apartheid policies that segregated and discriminated against the non-white population.
In 1977, Rev. Leon Sullivan, an African-American minister from Philadelphia, drafted a set of guidelines for foreign companies doing business in South Africa. The Sullivan Principles were widely adopted by multinationals operating in the country, and committed them to provide fair employment and equal treatment for all, regardless of race.
Those principles included calling upon companies to commit to offer equal pay for equal work, more training for black workers, and moving blacks into supervisory roles. He also wanted to improve the quality of life outside the workplace. The Sullivan Principles asked companies to promote policies that would lead to greater political and social justice.
His approach was seen as too slow-moving for some, but his principles were seen as a way to promote democracy and economic empowerment. At the time of his death, Brigalia Bam, a former activist with the World Council of Churches, explained that “We South Africans owe a lot to him.”
Later, the Sullivan Principles helped inspire Cuban dissident Gustavo Arcos Bergnes to develop a similar set of guidelines for foreign investment in Cuba in 1994. The Arcos Principles outline a set of standards to promote human rights and fair labor practices. These standards promote the rule of law, demand equal access for all Cubans, equal and independent hiring practices, and the establishment of free trade unions.
U.S. businesses can help improve the sad economic reality of most Cubans. But as they examine opportunities for trade and investment in Cuba, they should also seek to improve the human rights situation.
No matter the charms of investment in Cuba, the reality is that Cuba needs foreign investment far more than foreign investors need access to a poor society. Corporations, especially American firms that are eager to do well in Cuba should also ensure that they are doing good.
Lindsay Lloyd is the Deputy Director of the Human Freedom Initiative at the George W. Bush Institute, where he manages original research and programmatic efforts to advance freedom and democracy in the world. Lindsay currently leads the Bush Institute’s Freedom in North Korea project, which raises awareness of human rights violations in North Korea, proposes new policy solutions, and engages leaders to help improve the lives of the North Korean people. Lindsay is also responsible for managing the Freedom Collection, a multimedia archive that documents the stories of nonviolent freedom advocates from around the word.
Prior to joining the Bush Institute, Lindsay served for 16 years at the International Republican Institute (IRI), most recently as senior advisor for policy. Previously, he was IRI’s regional director for Europe and co-director of the regional program for Central and Eastern Europe, which was based in Slovakia. At IRI, Lindsay worked with candidates, elected officials, political parties, and civil society activists to develop lasting democratic institutions.
Before joining IRI, Lindsay worked for several members and the leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives, as political director for a political action committee, and for Jack Kemp’s 1988 presidential campaign. He graduated from Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service.Full Bio
Chinese Prisoner’s Death Holds a Message for Americans and China
Liu Xiaobo, China’s most prominent dissident and Nobel Peace Prize winner died this week. His death holds a message for Americans and for China.
Release of Chinese Political Prisoner a Timely Reminder to Support Freedom Advocates Abroad
More than half the world’s population still lives in countries where basic political rights and civil liberties are only partly respected, if at all.
Bringing Freedom to the Forefront of 21st Century Politics
Is the global liberal democratic order in danger? Purposefully constructed in the aftermath of World War II, this order -- and the American leadership that is central to its success --has contributed to securing peace and expanding prosperity in the United States and around the world. Today, that order appears to be dissolving. This crisis is not new or sudden; it has been mounting for several years. Global challenges like authoritarian capitalism, violent extremism, demographic pressures, and displaced populations have placed global freedom in decline. Fraying traditional alliances united by core values of freedom are increasingly weak to respond. It is alarming that the downdraft in democratic resilience over the past decade or more includes countries that have long been part of the consolidated democratic West. This is democratic deconsolidation. In much of the Western world, we see a rise in demagogic populism, illiberalism, nationalism, protectionism, and waning conf
The Importance of Speaking Truth to Tyrants
What the president of the United States says matters. Even during the realpolitik policies of détente under Richard Nixon, it was still clear that American policy was based on a set of core values. Nixon’s practical goals of reaching deals with America’s adversaries was never based on the “great chemistry” with himself or praising the Soviet or Communist Chinese leadership doing a “fantastic job.” When the president aligns himself with the autocrats and dictators, he aligns America with their oppression. He sends a message that corruption and brutality are not our concern. Contrast that with how Ronald Reagan defied much of world opinion in calling out the brutality of the Soviet system. Natan Sharansky, then a refusenik imprisoned in a Soviet gulag, later wrote for the Weekly Standard of his thoughts on Reagan’s pronouncement that the USSR was an evil empire: “It was the great, brilliant moment whe