Iowa seen benefiting from normalized relations with Cuba

President Barack Obama announced yesterday that the U.S. would normalize relations with Cuba after about a year of secret negotiations involving Canada and Pope Francis. On hearing the news, my first thought was that when the Soviet Union collapsed, I would never have believed it would be another 23 years before this happened. My second thought was that expanded trade with Cuba would help Iowa’s economy. Matt Milner reported for the Ottumwa Courier that agricultural groups are bullish on the news. I’ve posted excerpts from his story after the jump. Key point:

A paper written in 2003 for Iowa State University’s Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, shortly after some restrictions were lifted, said Iowa could benefit more from increased Cuban trade than any other state aside from Arkansas and California.

I was surprised not to see more reaction to yesterday’s news from members of Iowa’s Congressional delegation. I know everyone’s gone home for the Christmas recess, but still–big news. I will update this post as needed.

Several possible presidential candidates commented on the new U.S. approach to Cuba. Senator Rand Paul was supportive, saying Obama’s decision was a “good idea” since the American embargo against Cuba “just hasn’t worked.” Republicans who bashed the president on this issue included former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, and Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has advocated normal relations with Cuba for some time.

UPDATE: Bleeding Heartland user cocinero posted Senator Chuck Grassley’s reaction in the comments.

From Matt Milner’s report for the Ottumwa Courier:

Bob Bowman said Iowa farmers stand to benefit, along with several other Iowa industries. And Bowman should know. He’s a DeWitt farmer, chairman of the Iowa Corn Promotion board and serves on the Corn Board of the National Corn Grower’s Association. He also has firsthand experience in Cuba.

“I was down there about five years ago along with Agriculture Secretary Bill Northey. They were begging us to expand trade. We couldn’t do that because of some of the restrictions our government placed on trade,” Bowman said. “This announcement, I’m excited. Iowa Corn is excited.”

It’s not just Bowman who is excited. Bob Stallman, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation, released a statement saying the bureau supports the decision to normalize relations.

“Improving trade relations between the U.S. and Cuba will expand access to a market of 11 million consumers for U.S. agriculture. That’s good for Cuba and good for America, too. We look forward to working closely with the administration on this issue.”

Why do farmers stand to gain so much? Cuba imports a large percentage of its food. That includes food from the U.S., which was allowed after some loosening of restrictions more than a decade ago.

A paper written in 2003 for Iowa State University’s Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, shortly after some restrictions were lifted, said Iowa could benefit more from increased Cuban trade than any other state aside from Arkansas and California.

And it’s not just crops. Bowman said Cuba needs agricultural equipment as well as equipment for raising livestock. That could boost businesses like Deere & Company, which has a major Iowa presence.

The U.S. – Cuba Trade and Economic Council, Inc., said corn was the third largest import from the U.S. in 2013, while soybeans came in fourth. In 2012, corn was second and soybeans third. Not all of that was used for human consumption. Animal feed is a major need for Cuba’s livestock. In both cases, though, Iowa produces what Cuba needs.

About the Author(s)

desmoinesdem

  • Grassley's reaction

    reported on KWWL

    “This policy change is a gift for the Cuban government that has done nothing to provide basic, fundamental human rights to the Cuban people. According to our own Department of State, the authoritarian regime led by the Castros for decades ‘has severely restricted fundamental freedoms, repressed political opponents, and violated human rights.’ Today’s announcement of eased economic and diplomatic relations is not a result of democratic or economic reforms or a newfound respect for human rights or religious freedom. This decision rewards a brutal regime without any significant commitment toward change for the oppressed Cuban people.”

Comments