European cash almost solely lines Castro's pockets because of the way the dictator has fashioned the terms of engagement. Foreign companies must establish joint ventures with the Cuban government, with a cut of the profits going to Castro. But the despot nets more cash from the labor arrangement: Workers are not employed by foreign companies; they are rented.
Companies pay Castro's machine approximately $1,000 per month per worker, in hard cash. The regime, in turn, shells out less than $20 - per month - to each worker, in pesos. In other words, 98 percent of all wages paid by foreign companies in Cuba are funneled straight to Castro.
Because Castro has been denied American cash from such joint ventures and for several other reasons, the embargo has worked, even if it hasn't dethroned him. The embargo has put Castro in a box, and has robbed him of resources to fund his extracurricular activities. As a senior administration official noted, "If Castro has to spend $40 million on food, that's $40 million he's not spending to develop biological weapons."
Despite the morally despicable conditions for joint ventures, a large number of Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill are pressing for engagement with Castro. In fairness, many simply don't understand that the communist dictatorship relies on foreign cash for its very existence, but ignorance should not be an excuse for ignorant policy.
Bush's speech may pave the way for expunging Congress's blissful ignorance, and likely will be cheered on Capitol Hill in the long run.***
I'm amazed at those joint venture terms. I wouldn't have believed how starkly bad they were, but I've read the same thing from more than one source.
Tell me, do the Cuban workers hit up the European employers for more money when they're "rented"? I can't see how anyone could survive on $20 a month, even in Cuba with a minimalist cost of living.
D