2X 250 word analysis

Griswold, Daniel (2009). "The US Embargo of Cuba Is a Failure." Cato Institute. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10295&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CatoRecentOpeds+%28Cato+Recent+Op-eds%29

This article explains the many ways that the U.S. embargo against Cuba is a failure while still maintaining a pro-American stance on the issue. Written in June 2009, Griswold was suggesting that since Obama was looking at the issue that the embargo might finally be lifted. According to Griswold, the embargo has been a failure because it has not changed the political stance of Cuba and has only added fuel to Castro's campaign, that the reason why the island is impoverished is because of the embargo, but Griswold suggests that it is because of Castro's Caribbean-style socialism. Although he does not say that the embargo is suppressing basic human rights for people in Cuba, he does say that with the embargo, American rights are being violated by restricting travel and trade with Cuba, that the American farmer/trader has lost billions of dollars not trading with Cuba.
With that said, Griswold brings up the fact that since some restrictions of trade had been lifted in 2000, Cuba has gone from zero trade to trading over $691 million in 2008. With that in mind, and with revenue from the other Caribbean, that if they were to spend an average of 2.8% of their GDP on farm exports and such, that we can be raking in nearly $2 billion per year from Cuba. Griswold also suggests that be allowing trade and travel, American-Cuban relations will improve, and eventually democracy will overcome. Although I do not agree with some of what he has to say, Griswold, ignorant as he may seem, has some good points that the average American can understand.

Groombridge, Mark A.(2001) "Missing the Target: The Failure of the Helms-Burton Act." CATO Institute. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6601/print

Groombridge argues that the Helms-Burton Act, established in March of 1996, has done nothing but hinder world relations and provide Castro with an excuse for his failing economy. The act hinders world relations by fining outside foreign companies for trading with Cuba. It is legally and practically flawed because the U.S. Is one of the only countries that does not have claims in Cuba, which in turn increases U.S property claims in Cuba to $6 billion to $100 billion. In short, America has no right to place this act on Cuba because it undermines sovereignty on a foreign country and undermines the President's decision to deal with foreign matters by making it a weapon for Congress. Because the U.s. Has no formal diplomatic relations with Cuba, it allows U.S. Courts to try non-U.s. Citizens on matters in which they have no business being in. On hindering world relations, by fining other countries for trading with Cuba, U.S. Look like a bully and very petty. Although it claims this act is allowable under the national security exemption to the U.S. World Trade Organization commitments, this act is difficult to validate because Cuba poses no threat to national security. Politically speaking, this act did not promote democracy in Cuba as promises, but provided Castro a scapegoat for his failing economy. During the publication of this article, George W. Bush had an opportunity to remove this act and improve Canadian and European relations, but since this was probably written before 9/11/2001, the act was probably forgotten for a while and did not get repealed.