The United States' recent restoration of full diplomatic relations with Cuba marked the end of five decades of enmity.  Though the United States' long embargo against the Caribbean nation has not been lifted just yet, many political commentators seem to expect it will be soon despite continued opposition from some quarters.  For better or for worse, it is an embargo that has lasted throughout my entire lifetime, and to a certain extent it has dominated the way I think about Cuba as a nation.  The low points of the US-Cuba relationship occurred well before I was born, and as such I can't say as an American that I've ever really considered Cuba to be particularly threatening or dangerous.  I must confess that when I think of Cuba thoughts of universal health care, mass literacy, classic cars, and cigars come to my mind just as easily as recollections of political prisoners and harsh repression. A tyrannical and intolerant regime it has, to be sure...but there are plenty of those on our unfriendly green planet.   All in all, I've generally tended to think the embargo was hypocritical given that other countries which the US trades freely with (China being one obvious example) aren't exactly known for their respect for human rights either.  With detainee torture and mass surveillance being high profile aspects of American national policy in recent years, a cynical commentator might well wonder whether the old enemies don't actually have more in common than they have differences.  Still, if relations with Cuba are to be completely reset, it begs the question, "What was the point of it all?"  Was it all a waste?  Was nothing accomplished?       
  
Certainly, Cuba remains a Communist country that routinely imprisons critics of the government, notwithstanding the 53 political prisoners it recently agreed to release as part of its negotiations with the US.  It is no longer any sort of realistic military threat to the US, but then again it never really was in and of itself -- like so many other countries during the Cold War, Cuba was just another theater in the slow burning conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union.  Economic hard times and perhaps waning political idealism have made Cuba more likely to export doctors than violent revolution.  Although there is no question that Cuba has changed in recent years, having taken small steps to liberalize the economy and permitting (uneasily and inconsistently) Yoani Sanchez to continue to blog, my personal opinion is that Cuba has changed less than the world around it has changed.  Cuba is not a threat today primarily because the Soviet Union is no longer a threat.  Cuba is no longer an exporter of revolution primarily because it can no longer afford to be.  The epiphany desired by the US government for so many years has never occurred; Cuba has not really changed its ideology or its values over the years.  Thus, the restoration of relations and possible eventual lifting of embargo is, in my view, more a manifestation of a new American tolerance than an indication of any sudden Cuban surrender.

The embargo's fatal flaw is that it lasted too long.  The Castros' regime never collapsed or capitulated, but the embargo continued on and on, becoming more a permanent feature of American-Cuban relations than a potential bargaining chip.  It became institutionalized and monumentalized, a part of the scenery rather than an obstacle to be cleared away.  The greatest pity is that its ultimate legacy may be judged to be nothing more than unnecessary human suffering.  The effectiveness of economic sanctions in general is hotly debated, and I don't believe there are any universally acknowledged success stories.  Still, I think they must have their place because the one truly effective way a nation can express its displeasure with another nation is too horrible.  The other alternative is to do nothing and to just accept whatever happens in the world, but that is a policy that only rewards the violent and the rapacious.  That said, embargoes are probably too extreme and unwieldy a tool in most instances.  The piecemeal sanctions against Russia have seemingly had a large impact on the Russian economy in a short amount of time, but they could be easily reversed if Russia were willing to rethink its Ukrainian adventurism (alas, I'm not holding my breath).  Tariffs and quotas are primarily associated with economic protectionism, but I think they can also be interesting political tools to help sort out more minor disputes -- by using them, a baseline for trade can be established and commercial links between countries maintained, but there will always be present an underlying realization that the trade between the two countries could be increased, perhaps greatly so, if only political understanding could be achieved.  As I see it, economic sanctions can only encourage political change -- they, unlike wars or coups or assassinations, cannot directly effect change.  As such, I suspect their performance is always going to be somewhat disappointing.