During Cuban leader Fidel Castro’s near half-century in power, the revolutionary leader has witnessed the coming and going of ten U.S. Presidents, the splitting and reunification of Viet Nam, and the appointment of six Secretaries General of the United Nations. Given his lengthy reign and the rich legacy he leaves behind, speculation about a post-Castro Cuba is warranted.On July 31, Castro temporarily relinquished his leadership and transferred power to his brother Raúl while undergoing intestinal surgery; he has not since resumed control. The CIA has speculated that he suffers from Parkinson’s Disease while Time magazine recently reported on several sources saying that he has terminal cancer. Whether through old age, disease, or a combination of the two, many politicians and activists within the United States are already drafting plans to respond to Castro’s near certain death, where the most important of these political consequences may be the lifting of U.S. economic sanctions.

Yet Americans should not wait to lift trade sanctions, as the best interests for both Cuban and American citizens would involve their immediate cessation. This is not to say that Castro is unworthy of the United States’ scorn and disapproval. His record as a totalitarian dictator who stifles freedom of speech and who has imprisoned or executed thousands of political dissidents makes him among the most brutal leaders today. Currently, Amnesty International reports that there are 72 prisoners of conscience in Cuba alone, and almost all subjects of recent crackdowns, not the remnants of a supposedly stymied strongman.

Thus, it is also improper to fault the initial logic behind such an imposition of a trade embargo as well. In many senses, these decisions allow a government not only to label regimes as oppressive and perilous, but to also to prove one’s moral stand by sacrificing economic growth. With the desire for one’s declarations of standard decency and a general regard for human rights, sanctions can serve the political form of punishment for those that violate these universal and basic principles. Yet for all of these visions of integrity and virtue, there remains a great impedance to imposing such economic sanctions: they do not work.

Consider current U.S. sanctions against other countries: canceling trade with North Korea since 1950, sanctions with Cuba since 1962, and embargos against Iran since 1979. In the past year, North Korea developed and tested nuclear weapons, Cuba further stymied democratic policies, and Iran expanded their own nuclear proliferation and projected their anti-American rhetoric. Meanwhile, more recently implemented sanctions in Burma and Sudan appear to do nothing in their ever-exacerbating humanitarian crises. Previous sanctions in Yugoslavia and Iraq inevitably led to the use of military force that the very sanctions were supposed to prevent.

One reason that sanctions typically fail is the large level of disconnect between countries with severed ties. The citizens of totalitarian states are already isolated from all information that is not filtered by their governments, and further depravation by other states merely serves as a tool for their leaders to unleash waves of propaganda as excuses for their suffering and furthering their own maverick status.

If we want to enact real and positive changes within these regimes, we cannot simply ignore them and hope for something to happen; we must actively engage in the process of reform. This does not mean throwing out disingenuous rhetoric such as labeling nations as members of the “axis of evil,” for this only serves to fuel anti-American sentiments among the populous of their countries. Reform is brought about through the implementation of new strategies and constant communication. Simply calling nations “evil” does not require any analysis; moving beyond such pejorative terms does, and such effort is more likely to pay off than our relative inaction.

Towards the end of the Clinton Administration, this very facet was realized, and the label “rogue states,” used to classify radical countries, was replaced with “states of concern.” While this simple change in identification may seem trivial, the greater consequence of such a change was that there was no longer the resignation that these states were hopeless and permanently “evil,” but instead indicated a renewed willingness to find new and innovative ways towards negotiating with corrupt states. Unfortunately, this change in policy got little traction with a change in party with the next term in office.

Perhaps the most important reasons to end sanctions, however, are the grave humanitarian risks that ensue amongst the punished country’s citizens. These countries, without strong economies and with unskilled workforces, need even the import of the most basic of goods such as food in order to care for their citizens. With reduced trade, such actions inevitably lead to increased unemployment and loss of international investment. All of these factors combine to produce extreme suffering amongst the people who are not responsible for their dictator’s gross atrocities. In the first year of U.S. sanctions against Haiti alone, they experienced the loss of 250,000 export-related jobs. Such a blow to the poorest country in the western hemisphere is insurmountable, and the only ones who suffer are its citizens. Due to their deprivation, the hoi polloi are often shackled with even heavier chains that bind them in their oppressive state, making them less likely to overthrow their government and more likely to further buy into their state’s rhetoric looking for a scapegoat to their misfortune.

As such, active engagement towards autocratic states provides much more hope for rehabilitation than such drastic punitive measures. Engagement provides human interaction, a more open society, cultural exchange, and as a consequence raised expectations that can truly foster the spirit of freedom. The spread of influence in places such as the Philippines and Chile have led to their democracies, and the same influence is opening up new possibilities in China. Such support for democracy advocates such as Lech Walesa and Nelson Mandela for free governments in their respective nations have given added strength to their actions in addition to inspiring their followers towards forcing action to bring about a fair government. Perhaps throwing American support behind Cuban activist Oswaldo Payá, leader of the movement towards political and economic reform known as the Varela Project, will inspire his fellow citizens to join in as well.

Fidel Castro’s near imminent demise will not necessarily ensure a widespread revolution and return to democracy. Fifty years of a command central economy leaves very little experience towards a free market system, and the only free enterprise system that current exists in Cuba is the black market. Such a stranglehold in power by the current government coupled with the entire populous’ jobs directly dependent on the state create significant barriers to which revolution is by no means a given. As such, we should not bank on Castro’s death to institute reform, but begin such a process now, to foster the seeds of freedom.

There have been rare instances when harsh trade sanctions have worked, with the apartheid regime in South Africa a prime example. Yet the government of South Africa had unique characteristics such as the fact that they were already important trading partners, had a multi-party governmental system, and had sanctions imposed by most every developed nation (as opposed to unilateral sanctions). In light of the situation of current sanctions, more stringent measures such as humanitarian exemptions and an exit plan in order to have a clear strategy towards gaining one’s desired goal in a finite amount of time should be placed as well. The near impossibility of achieving these goals notes just how sparingly sanctions should be used, and how attractive alternatives soon become.

Our foreign policy should be designed with a clear purpose in mind, not just in order for the United States to maintain moral and ethical standards, but also to exact the very change we wish to see. Clearly, having only one tool at one’s disposal in dealing with countries puts one at a significant disadvantage. By expanding one’s arsenal, we can slowly build a foundation towards real change, with fewer disadvantages for all parties involved.