Suppose the British set up a military base in an American colony in 1750, and as part of Cornwallis' surrender in the revolution, signed a treaty with the new United States to keep the base for an annual payment. Now suppose the U.S eventually got sick of foreign troops on their soil, and asked the interlopers to leave, which they refused. Regularly. Would you consider this an issue of national sovereignty? So consider Guantanamo, in Cuba. The same situation applies. Seized by the U.S. while Cuba was a colony, and held in accordance by treaty with the new national government for some needy foreign exchange, and now an unwelcome presence. The only thing that guarantees its continued existence is the strength of the US military. It seems to me that it serves no real purpose other than a reminder to Cubans that Castro is not strong enough to expel the US from Cuban soil. Ignoring local concerns because of the existence of a treaty signed after the Spanish American War is a "head in the sand" attitude (besides, we have no problem with tossing other treaties when it suits us.) The U.S. is mindful of their bases in other countries like the Philippines and Okinawa, and would move on if asked to leave. But not Cuba. Why? (Please don't offer up reasons such as the present government not being legitimate. Was Batista legitimate?) Peace.
Are there "local concerns"? The only thing I have heard about this is that Castro wants the base gone, which is understandable, but that doesn't mean that the local people have a problem with it. I would say that the US is unwilling to move from Cuba because it still considers Castro an enemy. They want a base there to keep an eye on him, I think. There are currently strong restrictions on trade with Cuba and on travel there from the US. To my knowledge, such restrictions do not exist for Japan or the Philippines. If you had any hope that the US would close the base in Guantanamo anytime soon, I would say that the base is likely to stay open for awhile as a convenient place to keep prisoners from the "War on Terrorism."
Looking from an aspect of a Strategist, Bases are usually placed out from a country on island and in surrounding countries as forward outposts to relay information if there was trouble. Amittedly over the years humans as a society are trying to prove that they deserve their place on a civilization ladder. As most of the time we have siad for many years we are civilized and then quite happily disproved that we are. Originally such bases would have been placed due to the whole "They won't show us what they are doing, they must be up to something" policies, with the dawning of the internet these policies are having to be re-written as more and more people have the ability to find out about things and discuss things across the globe. The only reason I see for keeping any bases around the globe would be to help defeat drug smuggling, crime rings and possibly illegal immigration. Globally there should of been something drawn up with the use of hte UN many years ago.
Hmmmmm I wonder if the people of the United States would mind if Castro opened a base on US soil? Somehow I think that the majority of the population would have serious issues with it. Shouldn't it go both ways? If the US is using the base for reasons of spying, shouldn't it be allowed to go both ways? But that would just be impractical and stupid wouldn't it? I'm sure the US Government has a more tactical way of spying on Cuba than from an old base which in the views of many should now be made redundant. And the fact that there are such strong restrictions on Cuba, I dont think that the locals would want to have a base belonging to the government that enforces those restrictions on their land. They, like anyone else, would consider it an intrusion and an insult considering the relations between the US and Cuba. I agree with you Goofyfish that the US keeps the base open as a show of strength. After all, the best way to defeat your enemy is to make them fear you so that they know they have no chance of winning. How unfortunate that one should imposes restrictions on another because it does not agree with their government structure. In doing so they are only making the people of that country suffer. But I suppose that is moving away from the current thread. Have a nice day nowPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Guantanamo The fact that this base has been the main fuel to local economy for many years has nothing to do with it then? I doubt that Fidel Castro wishes to send an end to that which helps to sustain, and emply, local people, local cubans.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
bells says, in part "I agree with you Goofyfish that the US keeps the base open as a show of strength. After all, the best way to defeat your enemy is to make them fear you so that they know they have no chance of winning. The US does not need a base on Cuba as a show of strength. Only seventy miles away is the Naval base at key West. bells, "How unfortunate that one should imposes restrictions on another because it does not agree with their government structure. In doing so they are only making the people of that country suffer." The base at Guantanamo provides a boost to the Cuban economy, sorely needed. The people suffer less because of its presence. Guantanamo will provide an even bigger boost to the Cuban economy when relations with the US are restored, the base closed as a military entity, and the hotels, resorts, and casinos are erected by the various Atlantic City/Las Vegas interests.
Guantanamo definately isn't Pearl Harbor. I think the Cuban gov't like it there because it is a great big place for them to spy on, they've gathered fairly "easy" intelligence from Guantanamo by setting up miles of survalence owned by their military.
Curly1 I am not so sure that Castro is even all that interested?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
What about the embargo? I must protest. Currently the United States enforces an embargo against Cuba so severe that if an American leaves the country (say to Canada) and then travels to Cuba, they can be arrested for violating the embargo. The fact that the base makes such an economic contribution to the economy would only point to the fact that the base is also part of the reason that economic contribution is so significant. During the Clinton administration there was talk of easing the embargo, though I recall it was in response to the Elian Episode. Were I Castro, I would prefer unfettered trade as an economic stimulus to the presence of foreign invaders. Think about it: even Congressmen go abroad to get hold of Cuban cigars. And that is a felony. And, yes, I've been so privileged as to smoke a Cuban. The quality of those cigars alone is enough to provide massive economic stimulation if only the market ninety-five miles to the north was open to them. Do we realize that we're still punishing Cuba for the Soviets? And the Soviets are done. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
American hate of Cuba/Castro As an Englishman, I cannot understand the failure of successive American governments to come to terms with the fact that Cuba exists, has and will exist and that the American intransigence towards Castro is directly tracable back to the Bay of Pigs fiasco. This "bloodied" the US nose and the US have never forgiven Castro. In this day and age it would be seen as a massive gesture for America to finally recognise the Cuban state for what it is and let normal relationships be resumed. Just because Castro is a "communist" should not detract from the fact that they are a neighbour of the USA and should be treated as an equal. The USA did not enforce such an embargo on Marshal Tito when he took control of Yugoslavia - in fact, the USA funded his regime. The current situation suggests a "You can't play with my ball" childish American attitude. A lot of conflicts and terrorist activities in the World and mainly in the Americas would simply not have happened if America had wiped its nose, said sorry, and resumed normal relationships with this island nation.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Red Devil, Isn't it obvious why we were more favorable to Tito? He represented a problem for Soviet Communism. Castro, on the other hand, represents a problem for us. Furthermore, just because we are "nice" to some slave states does not establish a principle that one should be nice to slave states. Does Guantanamo help the local economy? I wasn't aware of this.
Bagman OK forget the comparison between Yugoslavia and Cuba; the USA should still normalise relations between themselves and Cuba. Yes regarding the Base; many Cubans work there - at what wage level I do not know. Whats a "slave state"?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Red Devil, quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OK forget the comparison between Yugoslavia and Cuba; the USA should still normalise relations between themselves and Cuba. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You haven't explained why. You've merely given your opinion of why we haven't normalized them - we're being "childish" - and I see no reason to suppose that your opinion is right. Cuba is a massive human rights violator. The United States is trying to exert pressure on Cuba to change this. That's all. You may wish to argue that every government that is in actual control of a territory for some period of time ought to receive diplomatic recognition as the government of that territory, regardless of its legitimacy in any other sense, but you have not made that argument. In case you do, you'll have to give some justification or explanation, since you shouldn't assume that we here are experts on diplomacy. You'll also have to explain how the existing diplomatic relationship between the US and Cuba is not adequate. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes regarding the Base; many Cubans work there - at what wage level I do not know. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I must say, I was hoping for a better explanation than that! As far as I can tell, there are 11 Cuban citizens working at Guantanamo. Is that what you call "many"? I didn't even think you were talking about workers. With "boost to the Cuban economy...sorely needed," I thought you might be talking about some purchasing of goods and services that I didn't know about, but from what I can tell, there isn't any. Even for water, Guantanamo has been self-sufficient since 1964, desalinating sea water. I also thought you might be claiming that Jamaicans and Filipinos who might be working there were Cubans, but I'm not sure if any still are working there, nor that they live off-base if they are. All the sources I've looked at say that there are fewer than 20 Cubans, i.e., various numbers, depending on which date I look at, beginning about 1997; the latest is 11. These are people who were hired before Castro took power and have yet to retire. I also thought you might be claiming that pay, even for 11 people, plus pensions, were so great as to boost the local economy. That might be true, but I can't find pension figures for a large number of retirees. I can only find a few examples. One recently retired Teofilo Harris, who began work there in 1939, receives a pension of $1,000/month, which is about 100 times the average Cuban wage. However, since the Cuban government confiscates wages at tourist places, I have no guarantee that they are not doing the same or similar to some of the Guantanamo retirees. If they are, this would destroy your claim that the boost was to the __local__ region. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whats a "slave state"? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I can't define it precisely, but clearly some regimes enslave their people, and Cuba's is one that does. Cubans can't oppose the government; they can't go to college unless they are ideologically approved; they can't leave, in general; almost all the means of production are owned by the state; children are taken from parents for long periods; the Cuban constitution says that children belong to the state; there are political prisoners, and they are very badly treated; no one knows how many are executed; the labor movement is completely under control of the government; Cuba is the only country in Latin America where freedom of the press is not recognized by law; the government controls all print and electronic media; Los Angeles writer Matt Welch recently noted that his website, for which he pays $25/month, has more readers than Cuba has non-government people with Internet access; the Cuban government regulary shuts down clandestine, private libraries; in November 1999, the government destroyed hundreds of books donated by Spain; children are required to participate in political activities; they are heavily indoctrinated; there is no academic freedom; college students are assigned their majors by the government; These practices are usual or even universal in Communist regimes. In general, I would call Communist regimes slave states. By the way, what do you mean by saying that we should treat Cuba as an "equal"? Clearly Cuba is not an equal of ours, so why should we treat her as one? Anyway, what would it mean, in your usage, to treat her as an equal? You speak as if it were obvious to all that you were right, and all you had to do was to issue a censurious reminder of continued failure to do what was right. This __might__ be appropriate for a relatively uncontroversial topic, such as failure to clean up trash on the streets in America or Britain, but it's not appropriate for this topic - it's entirely disrespectful of the fact that there are opponents of your position.
Bagman Whats your problem? I gave only an "opinion" if you don't like it - tough!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I'm halfway on sanctions against Cuba. Sanctions against them being communist are hypocritical. China is a communist country and there are definatley no sanctions against them. Cuba however is on the state sponsoring terrorist list from the Deparment of State, and Castro has a pretty poor human rights record. In that case there should be full sanctions until Cuba renounces terrorism completely, then lighter sanctions should be placed until the gov't betters their human rights record. Is that reasonable?
Well, Cuba's human rights record isn't great, but to be honest it's not that bad. In most attempts (admittedly next to impossible) to rank countries on human rights abuses, Cuba performs reasonably well, or at least the US is fully trading with, and in many cases actually giving aid to, countries with far worse human rights records than Cuba. For example: Turkey, China, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Indonesia, Colombia and the Phillipines to name a few. In fact, in the Guardian newspaper's human rights abuses worst 100, Cuba is only two places above the US: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Tables/4_col_tables/0,5737,258330,00.html You can argue about the justice of that all you want, but I think the point is that the US may claim it is continuing to impose sanctions in Cuba because of its human rights record, but given the kind of people the US is prepared to do business with I don't think we can take this at face value. Human rights is a cloak hiding the real reason. As for terrorism, can anyone name a Cuban sponsored terrorist outrage? Without trawling through archives on the net? A bit of a red herring I think. History and the Florida Cuban population has a lot to do with it. Cuba sanctions are simply spiteful I would say. No doubt you all disagree.
An Idea Whose Time Has Passed If we can lift the embargo against Vietnam, extend most favored nation treatment to China and negotiate with North Korea, why can we not show some flexibility toward Cuba? The embargo was established for perfectly logical reasons. The process began in the summer of 1960 when the Cuban government ordered two U.S. oil companies, Standard and Texaco, to refine Soviet crude oil at their Cuban refineries, rather than the oil they had been bringing in from their own sources. Not surprisingly, they refused. Also to no one's surprise, the Cuban response, on July 1 of that year, was to nationalize both companies' holdings in Cuba. A few days later, the United States retaliated by cutting the Cuban sugar quota, and that led, in August, to Cuba's nationalization of virtually all U.S. property on the island. By the end of 1960, this tit-for-tat process had produced an embargo on trade between the countries--one that was expanded to include, by 1962, even food and medicine, and trade between Cuba and U.S. subsidiaries overseas. 1) To punish Cuba for having nationalized our properties without compensation, and perhaps even to force it into a compensation agreement. 2) To raise the costs to the Soviets, and to the Cubans, of maintaining their alliance and pursuing policies detrimental to U.S. interests. 3) To reduce the resources Cuba could pour into assistance to revolutionary movements, especially in Latin America. None of these objectives was irrational or idle. They were, after all, formulated against the backdrop of the Cold War and Fidel Castro's vows to turn the Andes into the “Sierra Maestra of Latin America;” i.e., to spark revolution throughout the southern hemisphere. To defend themselves, the Latin American governments--the targets of this outward thrusting on Castro's part--stood with us and entered into a multilateral trade embargo against the island. Our policy toward Cuba in those years, then, was not an isolated one; rather, the Organization of American States (OAS) as a whole endorsed it. But times changed. The lifting of the embargo would help the economies of both Cuba and the USA. It would also help prompt gradual reform of the Cuba. Lifting the embargo would in no way help Castro, rather, it would force him to begin to accept free market principles. The embargo is a vindictive, petty and anachronistic hang over from the cold war. It has clearly failed in its stated purpose -- to force the Castro dictatorship to liberalize its politics or force Fidel Castro. There is no evidence to suggest the embargo has helped the people of Cuba at all, but there is substantial evidence to suggest that it may actually be hurting many of them. Paraphrasing those politicians who supported our trade with China it makes sense to engage Cuba economically and diplomatically press for political changes. As an American I am embarrassed that we are still engaged in the primitive practice of putting economic sanctions on any country with which we cannot agree politically. Embargos merely give more power to leaders and inhibits progress. History shows that when people are more independent financially from their government, ideas flourish and with those new ideas, change can be brought about. What about Orlando Bosch? Conspired to bomb an airliner in 1976, killing all passengers and crew… oh wait a second… my bad. He was an American terrorist, trained by the C.I.A. at Ft. Benning, GA. Never mind. Peace. --- Edit: misspelled "nationalization" ---
This all started back during Teddy Roosevelt's presidency witha little territory known as Panama. Heck we even built a riveresque structure to shuffle our navy through. From then on we have adopted the policy, don't conquer the nations, take the little places that are significant. We had ample opportunity to conquer Mexico, but this idea was thrown out at the notion that foreigners would be given the vote. It is a simple fact of US policy that we take unoccupied sections of our enemies territory and leave the nation alone.
I think the sanctions should be lifted, only if Castro pledges to make some democratic reform in his country, or fix problems of HIS doing. In a few years he'll be dead, and Cuba will likely be a much more democratic country.
Curly1 Yes. I think the USA should swallow its pride, talk to Castro - I think they will be pleasantly surprised about the outcome. Reforms have to start somewhere - why not the USA holding its hand out? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
