The Embargo Debate Has Plenty Of Volume

The United States and Cuba have found one resource that remains abundantly available in their relationship: amplification.

At the United Nations on Tuesday, U.S. Ambassador Mike Waltz argued against the annual resolution condemning the American embargo. Members of Cuba's delegation pounded their table and demanded a point of order. Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez approached the front and called Waltz a liar. Waltz responded by invoking America and telling him to back up.

The Associated Press reports the exchange as part of an escalating campaign to influence Wednesday's vote. Diplomacy had reached the stage where both sides could be heard very clearly and the practical problem was no closer to being solved.

The vote concerns a nonbinding resolution. It cannot by itself lift the embargo, but it records international opinion. Versions of the measure have received overwhelming support for 34 years. Last year's tally was 165 in favour, seven opposed and 12 abstaining. The U.S. mission has a challenging persuasion job. Raising the volume does not turn seven votes into an overwhelming majority.

Outside the chamber, the consequences are less theatrical. AP reports that Trump's January threat of tariffs against countries supplying oil to Cuba effectively cut off fuel to the island. Widespread outages affect cooking, water supplies, telephone service and the internet. Cuba was already suffering serious economic and financial problems; the pressure campaign has intensified them.

A family trying to cook dinner does not get to substitute a forceful point of order for electricity.

The administration wants changes to Cuba's political system. U.S. officials have held events with dissidents and former prisoners to highlight allegations of government repression. Those concerns deserve scrutiny. Criticising a policy that deprives households of fuel does not require giving Cuba's government a certificate of good conduct.

It requires asking how the mechanism is supposed to reach the stated goal. Economic pain experienced by the population is not automatically political freedom delivered to it. A government can announce maximum pressure much more easily than it can demonstrate who bears that pressure and what they gain from it.

Cuban officials also argue that Washington demands openness to private investment while adding sanctions that obstruct that opening. That is their criticism, not proof that every Cuban economic failure comes from abroad. It is nonetheless a contradiction the U.S. should be able to answer without pointing to the size of its microphone.

The confrontation also risks replacing the policy discussion with a clip about who looked tougher. Rodríguez's outburst does not restore power. Waltz's reply does not establish that the sanctions will produce the promised political changes. Both are easier to circulate than an honest account of the tradeoffs.

Wednesday's resolution will provide another recorded judgment from the member states. The households living through outages will still need a working stove, water and a way to contact one another.

The microphones at the United Nations appear to be functioning perfectly. It would be nice if that were the relevant infrastructure.