Cuban President Raul Castro: US Must Lift Embargo And Give Back Guantanamo To Normalize Relations

[Judi Lynn]

Source: International Business Times

Cuban President Raul Castro: US Must Lift Embargo And Give Back Guantanamo To Normalize Relations
By Dennis Lynch @neato_itsdennis on January 28 2015 4:04 PM

Cuban President Raul Castro said Wednesday the U.S. must return the land at Guantanamo Bay, lift the crippling U.S. trade embargo and compensate Cuba for damages in order to reestablish a political and economic relationship between the two nations. Speaking at the opening of the Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) summit in Belén, Costa Rica, Castro said the “diplomatic rapprochement wouldn’t make any sense,” if the U.S. did not agree to those terms, according to the Associated Press. The 83-year-old president added that talks would fall apart if Washington tried to interfere in Cuban politics.

“Everything appears to indicate that the aim is to foment an artificial political opposition via economic, political and communicational means,” he said, according to Reuters. “If these problems are not resolved, this diplomatic rapprochement between Cuba and the United States would be meaningless.”

U.S. President Barack Obama announced he would seek to normalize relations in December. Castro agreed and was optimistic about the prospect. U.S. and Cuban officials held high-level talks last week in Havana.

The U.S. placed Cuba under an almost complete embargo in 1960 shortly after Cuban rebels led by Raul’s brother Fidel Castro overthrew a U.S.-backed regime led by Fulgencio Batista. It is the longest embargo in modern history and has devastated the Cuban economy. The Cuban Missile Crisis and dozens of other diplomatic rows nearly completely eroded relations between the nations.


Read more: http://www.ibtimes.com/cuban-president-raul-castro-us-must-lift-embargo-give-back-guantanamo-normalize-1798254

[George II]

1. That's unfortunate - I don't see any scenario in which the US gives back Guantanamo Bay

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

2. Isn't it only leased atm anyway?

I don't see any reason not to give that land back. I think it's the 'damages' part that sounds unlikely.

[Mika]

6. It is leased. Cuba can break the lease, if it chooses to.

Cuba has not taken receipt (has not cashed the checks) of US lease payments since the 1959 Cuban Revolution.

[EX500rider]

10. The lease was written so both parties have to agree to break it.

[Mika]

15. Care to show us the exact language that states that? Thanks.

Here's the lease ...

Lease to the United States by the Government of Cuba of Certain Areas of Land and Water for Naval or Coaling Stations in Guantanamo and Bahia Honda; July 2, 1903


Signed at Habana, July 2, 1903;
Approved by the President, October 2, 1903;
Ratified by the President of Cuba, August 17,1903;
Ratifications exchanged at Washington, October 6,1903
The United States of America and the Republic of Cuba, being desirous to conclude the conditions of the lease of areas of land and water for the establishment of naval or coaling stations in Guantanamo and Bahia Honda the Republic of Cuba made to the United States by the Agreement of February 16/23,1903, in fulfillment of the provisions of Article Seven of the Constitutional Appendix of the Republic of Cuba, have appointed their Plenipotentiaries to that end.-

The President of the United States of America, Herbert G. Squiers, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary in Havana.

And the President of the Republic of Cuba, Jose M. Garcia Montes, Secretary of Finance, and acting Secretary of State and Justice, who, after communicating to each other their respective full powers, found to be in due form, have agreed upon the following Articles;-

ARTICLE I

The United States of America agrees and covenants to pay to the Republic of Cuba the annual sum of two thousand dollars, in gold coin of the United States, as long as the former shall occupy and use said areas of land by virtue of said agreement.

All private lands and other real property within said areas shall be acquired forthwith by the Republic of Cuba.

The United States of America agrees to furnish to the Republic of Cuba the sums necessary for the purchase of said private lands and properties and such sums shall be accepted by the Republic of Cuba as advance payment on account of rental due by virtue of said Agreement.

ARTICLE II

The said areas shall be surveyed and their boundaries distinctly marked by permanent fences or inclosures.

The expenses of construction and maintenance of such fences or inclosures shall be borne by the United States.

ARTICLE III

The United States of America agrees that no person, partnership, or corporation shall be permitted to establish or maintain a commercial, industrial or other enterprise within said areas.

ARTICLE IV

Fugitives from justice charged with crimes or misdemeanors amenable to Cuban Law, taking refuge within said areas, shall be delivered up by the United States authorities on demand by duly authorized Cuban authorities.

On the other hand the Republic of Cuba agrees that fugitives from justice charged with crimes or misdemeanors amenable to United States law, committed within said areas, taking refuge in Cuban territory, shall on demand, be delivered up to duly authorized United States authorities.

ARTICLE V

Materials of all kinds, merchandise, stores and munitions of war imported into said areas for exclusive use and consumption therein, shall not be subject to payment of customs duties nor any other fees or charges and the vessels which may carry same shall not be subject to payment of port, tonnage, anchorage or other fees, except in case said vessels shall be discharged without the limits of said areas; and said vessels shall not be discharged without the limits of said areas otherwise than through a regular port of entry of the Republic of Cuba when both cargo and vessel shall be subject to all Cuban Customs laws and regulations and payment of corresponding duties and fees.

It is further agreed that such materials, merchandise, stores and munitions of war shall not be transported from said areas into Cuban territory.

ARTICLE VI

Except as provided in the preceding Article, vessels entering into or departing from the Bays of Guantanamo and Bahia Honda within the limits of Cuban territory shall be subject exclusively to Cuban laws and authorities and orders emanating from the latter in all that respects port police, Customs or Health, and authorities of the United States shall place no obstacle in the way of entrance and departure of said vessels except in case of a state of war.

ARTICLE VII

This lease shall be ratified and the ratifications shall be exchanged in the City of Washington within seven months from this date.

In witness whereof, We, the respective Plenipotentiaries, have signed this lease and hereunto affixed our Seals.

Done at Havana, in duplicate in English and Spanish this second day of July nineteen hundred and three.

JOSE M. GARCIA MONTES [SEAL]

H. G. SQUIERS [SEAL]

I, Theodore Roosevelt, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the foregoing lease, do hereby approve the same, by virtue of the authority conferred by the seventh of the provisions defining the relations which are to exist between the United States and Cuba, contained in the Act of Congress approved March 2, 1901, entitled "An Act making appropriation for the support of the Army for the fiscal year ending June 30,1902."

Washington, October 2, 1903.

THEODORE ROOSEVELT.

[EX500rider]

17. Article I

The United States of America agrees and covenants to pay to the Republic of Cuba the annual sum of two thousand dollars, in gold coin of the United States, as long as the former shall occupy and use said areas of land by virtue of said agreement.

[Mika]

20. And how does this prevent Cuba from terminating the lease?

The "virtue" of said "agreement" in 1903 is (or should be) null and voided by Cuba.

[EX500rider]

21. As written as long as the US makes payments it is in effect.

Cuba probably should have taken a closer look at it before signing.

[Mika]

25. Except that a lease may be terminated by the lessor.

The US didn't purchase the property.
A lease isn't permanent. The lessor has to make reparations to the lessee if a lease is terminated by the lessor - which isn't stipulated in the lease - but would be in the form of the annual payment.

[EX500rider]

43. "Except that a lease may be terminated by the lessor." if stipulated in the lease..

....which it is not. It was written opened ended.

[JackRiddler]

59. Spoken like a true imperialist or a false historian.

"Cuba" should have taken a closer look at it before signing it, you say.

In 1903, you say?

Are you a) completely ignorant of the history? Or are you b) smug about the imperialism?

Sorry if I'm not coming across as "nice." I don't think such statements deserve "nice" in response.

[Mika]

73. He's referring to the "gov't" that Teddy Roosevelt & his roughriders put in power.

I guess that Cuba should have looked more closely at the Platt Amendment also.

[EX500rider]

84. If the US was "Imperlists" in 1903 Cuba would have been a US state after we..

....kicked Spain out for them.

[happyslug]

75. If your position was true, Castro did that in 1959

The US sends the lease payments by check every year and except for one check, Cuba has refused to cash them, demanding the base be returned instead. The Checks are in a draw in the desk of the President of Cuba.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/08/17/idUSN17200921

How better can you say you want the lease to end? Castro can not use force to evict the US, and the US Courts will uphold what ever the executive does outside the US, thus the only thing Castro can do is NOT cash the checks.

[EX500rider]

88. The lease doesn't say they have to cash the checks.

Just that we have to send them.

[former9thward]

93. Cuba is certainly violating Article IV.

They have about a 100 American fugitives they refuse to send back.

[Mika]

108. The US is committing the same violation.

I'm sure you know that Posada and Bosch are famous and celebrated in Miami.

[Reter]

53. If they could break the lease by themselves, they would have decades ago

Cuba does not want us there.

[Orangepeel]

99. Yeah, they should just post an eviction notice on the door

I'm sure we'll be out in 30 days.

[George II]

19. It is leased, until "no longer necessary", which isn't very specific. We paid roughly $200 a year..

...for the first thirty years or so, and about $4000 after that. Only one check has ever been cashed.

[Judi Lynn]

60. True bullying at its finest. It was accomplished in 1903 with the "Provisional President."

From Wikipedia, a list of

Cuban perspectives on Guatanamo:[edit]

• The government of Cuba believes[6] that the base is a constant affront to its sovereignty
  the base was taken under duress
  
• the base is maintained under the threat of atomic force
  
• the US has demanded that we remove weapons operated by our friends, while we respect weapons operated by our enemies
  
• the base does not serve to protect Cuba but to threaten Cuba
  
• weapons are smuggled into Cuba through the base
  
• the land that belongs to Cuba is used to shelter criminals from justice, including murderers
  
• we shall regain the territory but not through force. we will wait and exercise those rights by the paths provided by International law
  
• the workers, who are employed at the base in "jobs" doing work contrary to the national interests, are paid in pesos, which are claims upon the wealth of Cuba, which the workers do nothing to enhance
  

Professor Alfred-Maurice de Zayas argues that there may be material or fundamental breaches of the lease, related to sovereignty, that cause it to be voidable ex nunc.[7]

The February 1903 lease, in Article II, states that the United States is allowed "generally to do any and all things necessary to fit the premises for use as coaling or naval stations only, and for no other purpose." The legality of the prison hinges upon whether the construction of a prison for the permanent arbitrary detention of people is necessary in order to fit the premises to the purpose of a naval (or coaling) station.

Contrary to frequent assertion that the lease is perpetual,[8] the lease for the Naval Base is for "the time required", a date not known at the time of the signing, but objectively related to changing circumstances. The Cuban Missile Crisis ended with a pledge from the United States not to invade Cuba, a partial restoration of the purpose of the lease, and of Article I of the 1934 Treaty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban%E2%80%93American_Treaty

(They liked the idea if "Provisional President" that for 3 years, from 1906 to 1909, President Taft made himself Cuba's "Provisional President." Hot damn!)

[flamingdem]

78. Great info for the thread

Very interesting!

I think the US must be on the way to giving up Guantanamo. I heard those that live there are aware change is coming. However, the US may try to get some concessions to have a continuing presence there. We shall see.

[QuestionAlways]

47. I lived in the US Virgin Islands and a normalization of relations with Cuba

was their worse nightmare (tourism). These demands are crazy on Cuba's part, since they have much more to gain than the US does in any normalization. No American President is going to return the land at Guantanamo Bay, lift the crippling U.S. trade embargo and compensate Cuba for damages in order to reestablish a political and economic relationship. Lift the embargo is no problem, except for the tourist industry in the Virgin Islands, since both sides gain rom it. But no US President wants to take the political heat for "giving away" Guantanamo Bay, or compensate Cuba for damages. Obama was courageous in proposing a normalization, but he is not crazy.

[marble falls]

61. ... or give up the Panama Canal, or turn its back on the Shah of Iran or turn over Subic Bay........

[happyslug]

116. The Panama Canal was subject to a 99 year lease....

And that lease was coming up when the treaty transferring the canal to Panama was negotiated. The US wanted to keep it, but except by claiming the right to do so by force of arms (Something FORBIDDEN by the UN Charter) the US had NO LEGAL GROUNDS TO HOLD ONTO THE CANAL. How can you hold other countries (The USSR at that time) to international law, if the US also opts for force over international law? Th answer is you can not and thus the US "gave away" the canal, as per the terms of the Treaty.

As to the Shah, he was toast by the time Khomeini returned to Iran. Khomeini had been sending tapes to Iran from his home in Paris for decades and had become popular among people who opposed the Shah. The Shah had used various methods of suppression to keep his own people down and that made him even more unpopular. Thus when Khomeini returned to Iran, it had become a choice Khomeini or the Shah and the people of Iran did NOT want the Shah.

The US wanted someone else to succeed the Shah, but no one else had any support among the people. The US Options were limited, the USSR still existed and any invasion if Iran would have been grounds for a Soviet intervention.

As to Subic Bay, when the volcano blew in the Philippines and cover Clark Field, Subic Bay became meaningless.

[FLPanhandle]

3. Either this is a negociating ploy or the deal is off

None of those things will happen

[freshwest]

23. Why not? The base was created in what has since been discredited, a war years ago.

Obama has always wanted to have GITMO closed. We don't need that piece of real estate, it's been bizarre that we held onto the land during the Cold War, and so on and on. Think of the boondoggle and cash that has been wasted there, along with our stature in the world.

After all the hysterical opposition to Obama closing the place down, it will finally occur without the approval of the RWNJs in Congress. They can't stop him doing it, they are outmanuevered.

I call this a win-win for this hemisphere to get this albratross from around our necks. The place isn't a money maker, it's a big sinkhole of taxpayer dollars. ICBMs and other weaponry make location not as important as it once was.

I don't think it takes any prestige from the USA to close the place down or give the land back. It doesn't set much of precedent, either, as we've given back military bases on foreign soil for some time. What disadvantage would keep it from ever happening?

I'd like to know, as I was informed by someone (maybe MADem, DevonRex or Hekate, but I may be in error) said our problem with Cuba sprang from the Cold War era and the nuke they planted on their soil to tareget the USA.

It was said to be an act of national suicide, thus proving the insanity and unreliability of the Castro regime. For we could have nuked them, but they insisted on keeping it until their sponsors, the USSR, took the thing away. They are still close with the Russians, no harm with that, quite normal, really.

But they pose no threat to the USA mainland, so if the objection is that closing the base would be bad for our security, I'd say our security against any return to insanity is the same as it was then, nukes and the capacity to deliver them. Some may have a visceral dislike of Cuba for that event so many years ago, but I don't think the younger folks care about it at all.

I'm not baiting or disagreeing, but looking to see your take on why it will never happen. We are living in a different era than the one I grew up in, and in an area very afraid of that nuke. But I never had anything against Cubans. I felt ALL 'the adults in the room' were crazy.

Disclaimer: Not a military person nor a world traveller.

[snappyturtle]

49. +1 If anything, I think closing Guantanamo will help us in the prestige dept. nt

[QuestionAlways]

51. See #47 above

[freshwest]

58. Sorry, for some reason I can't see #47. So that doesn't answer my question. Who posted it, or who

was it posted to in a subthread?

TIA. I hope it's not just ideology, I'm looking at this practically.

[FLPanhandle]

67. Giving up Gitmo is as much a political decision as practical one

By demanding it, the Cubans have boxed Obama in and he can't be perceived as weak and giving in to a "demand".

That would paint all Democrats as weak and won't be tolerated.

Most such negotiations take place privately, but by being so public and unyielding, the Cubans are effectively ending the relationship.

Then the whole "pay back damages" concept would never fly.

The Cubans aren't stupid and know these are not acceptable demands and by making them publicly, they are forcing Obama to say no.

[Mika]

74. The US rapprochement is a one way street. The US way, or the highway.

The Cubans in Cuba know it.

Silly Americans are all gaga over getting cigars and rum, somehow thinking that the US govt's travel ban for them has been lifted.

Cuba is just leveling the playing field of negotiations.

[FLPanhandle]

77. Cuba has more to gain than the US

And by being so public they are undermining their position not improving it.

[Mika]

82. Cuba's position is the goal full normalization - as it always has.

No Gitmo, no deal. No ending Helms-Burton, no deal. No ending the Cuban Adjustment Act, no deal.

American corporations have the most to gain. Think that Cubans don't know that?

[flamingdem]

76. The USA needs to give Guantanamo back

How can they justify otherwise, we're in a new era, or at least supposed to be.

On the other hand this may be about negotiations. If not the US diplomatic team and Kerry / Obama have made an error in this move.

[FLPanhandle]

79. This whole public demand means Kerry/Obama probably have made an error

And the Castro's are now going to embarrass them.

[flamingdem]

81. I support what they did but have always noticed how STUPID the USA is regarding Cuba

So they get what they deserve on this. I really hope they're not as stupid as they are looking right now.
They're making Castro look utterly ethical and Josefina Vidal is a genius by simply stating the truth.

There are no excuses for a poorly thought out political move, we've had over 50 years to get this going!!!

Regardless the cat's out of the bag. In five years Cuba will be liberated by the force of movement between Cuba and the USA, more specifically Havana-Miami.

[Sunlei]

121. I think this is the way Guantanamo will be closed without congress. Thanks to President O.

He said he would do what he could to close Guantanamo. He said he would 'act on his own'.

[Judi Lynn]

132. Hoping like hell you are right! n/t

[Adrahil]

111. I think we SHOULD turn Gitmo over to the Cubans....

... but it just ain't gonna happen as long as it's a "precondition."

The Cubans are shooting themselves in the foot here. I think Obama would like all those things (except damages, that will NEVER happen), but he can't be seen as giving up the store for nothing in return.

[FLPanhandle]

114. We should and would probably be wiling to behind closed doors over time

Most negotiations are done that way.

I'm not sure why Castro is make public demands like this other than to embarrass Kerry/Obama and stop the relationship thaw.

It's just not done.

[freshwest]

115. I think they have the right to ask for it to be returned. Also, it's not about national pride.

Or some kind of international strategy. It's the *right* thing to do as it's their land, not ours. Do you see my reasoning?

Doing what is right supercedes other considerations as long as no one else is harmed. That's where miserable compromises are made like Sophie's Choice.

We can't always do the best thing or the perfect thing, but I see no harm in giving the land back. Remove all the property brought there by the USA and turn the place over. I don't see how anything else would be the right thing to do, sans a true strategic reason.

Which by my reasoning (note my disclaimer earlier) there is no strategic value when ICBMs and naval vessels would do the same functions as could be done to protect Americans from any suicidal ideology.

Is there an undercurrent that I am missing here?

We've given back temporarily occupied and long-term bases by agreement on military bases around the world. We can live without this one. We're not at war with anyone down there and needing to keep an eye out on our neighbor.

Because opening the border (so to speak) means we are now friends, not enemies. That will leave a lot of leeway between both nations on how to move forward now.

[Adrahil]

123. That doesn't change reality.

Like I said, I think we SHOULD give up Gitmo. It doesn't really serve a useful purpose, other than serving as the location for an extra-Constitutional prison.

BUT, as long as it's a demand to just normalize relations, it won't be done.

As an opening negotiating position behind closed doors? Sure. But a public demand? Nope. Won't happen.

Sure, we HAVE left other foreign bases. But Gitmo is very different from all of them.

[LanternWaste]

107. Odd-- the same thing was said about simply opening better relations with Cuba, too.

Odd-- the same thing was said about simply opening better relations with Cuba, too. So many prophets, so many prophecies....

[BrotherIvan]

4. Shit's gettin real

[hack89]

5. Or we can wait a few years until both Castros are dead

and cut a deal with younger, more pragmatic leaders.

[Mika]

7. Love your staunch position and bravery.

Perfect. Just wait for the Castros to die.

[hack89]

22. The second generation of Chinese leaders embraced capitalism

revolutionary fervor usually disapates over time. No reason to think Cuba will be any different. We will see lots of incremental changes for the good over the next few years but it is hard to imagine any major changes until a new generation takes power.

[Mika]

26. The average age of the Cuban National Assembly is 49 yrs old.

The National Assembly of People's Power, constitutionally the "supreme organ of state power," warrants first consideration regarding leadership of the Cuban state. The average age of 614 Assembly delegates is 49. Women make up 45.25 percent of them. Over 35 percent are of African descent. Two National Assembly vice-presidents are women. So too are more than half the presidents of 16 provincial assembles. They make up 45 percent of provincial assembly delegates. Almost all provincial assembly presidents are younger than 50 years of age.

http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2014/whitney010914.html

[hack89]

29. Time will tell.

They have no real choice but to embrace America with the collapse of the Russian and Venezulan economies. They have not been self sufficient for decades - they will not shy away from reality if they are as smart as you say they are.

[Mika]

30. Cuba has always sought normalization.

Remember?

Nixon showed Castro the door ...

[hack89]

35. Don't blame them

they just need to accept that they cannot make unilateral demands and expect things to change. They have no leverage over us.

[Mika]

37. Who cannot make unilateral demands?

The Cuban govt's position is that if the US doesn't concede Guantanamo, the deal is off.

US corporations (that have bought US "democracy&quot are eager to get to Cuba - not sure how unilateral things really are.

[hack89]

39. The U.S. will not give up Gitmo without concessions

I doubt the Cuban government can turn back time and call the deal off. There is so much pent up demand in Cuba and so much hope for things to get better due to closer ties with America that the Cuban government will be playing with fire if they are perceived as being an obstacle to change.

[outside]

102. Spot on.

Cuba is a welfare state. First the USSR then Venezuelan oil money. Now their hands are out again for help. I say pack up and tell Raul that maybe he will have better luck with the next President.

Now I know why my Norwegian Cruise Line stock was down 4% today.

[Mika]

109. Cuba's per capita debt is 1/30th of the US's.

Your welfare state comments ring completely hollow, as far as Cuba is concerned.

[rhett o rick]

40. China embracing capitalism will be the death of the USofA. nm

[former9thward]

8. That has been American policy for 56 years.

Last edited Wed Jan 28, 2015, 08:30 PM - Edit history (1)

So far most American Presidents during that period have died waiting for that to happen.

[hack89]

24. Cuba has a lot more to gain than we do.

they are not self sufficient and never will be. With Russia and Venezula's economies going down the tubes, they have no one else to turn to but us. The Castros will never say that but I suspect a younger generation of Cuban leaders will not shy from reality.

[Mika]

27. Let us know when the US becomes "self sufficient".

The difference between Cuba and the US is the levels of credit the US has extended to it.

The approximate per capita (national) debt for the US is about $65K.
The approximate per capita (national) debt for Cuba is about $2K.

[hack89]

32. We can feed our population without imports. They can't

they are a poor country with crumbling infrastructure, an antiquated industrial base and an agricultural sector than can neither feed its people or provide significant exports.

[Mika]

36. Mission accomplished. That's what the US sanctions intended to do. Impoverish the people of Cuba.

Normalize relations, and we'll see much change.

[hack89]

38. Bringing Cuba into the global economy is paramount

hopefully they can learn from countries like Norway and Sweden and find a way to balance capitalism with a robust social safety network.

[rhett o rick]

46. We are an imperialistic country. We will do what makes money for our Oligarch Rulers.

If it fucks up Cuba, to bad so sad. That's capitalism. Look what the capitalists did to Haiti. Our capitalists could use Cuba's slave err I mean cheap labor.

[Mika]

50. I think its the opposite. Cuba doesn't have sweatshops making Nike shoes and Sony TVs.

Cuba doesn't participate in the new global economy as a cog in the wheel of the capitalist meatgrinders.

[rhett o rick]

52. And why do you think that is? nm

[Mika]

54. Cubans overwhelmingly rejected it in the late 50's.

And have been well educated since.


(FYI, I lived in Cuba and have family and many friends there. I visit often.)

[rhett o rick]

87. How do you get there? nm

[Mika]

112. I buy a ticket and fly out of Ft Lauderdale airport.

I fit into one of the legal US categories for Cuba travel.

I have family and many friends and professional associates there.

[rhett o rick]

117. My wife and I would like to visit someday. nm

[Sunlei]

122. can also fly to cuba from canada/mexico no passport is needed. people do this all the time.

[Mika]

124. FYI, if you don't qualify under the new regs, it is still illegal for you to go. eom

[Adrahil]

130. Nope, they don't make much of anything, and the average wage

Is like $20/ mo. It's a workers' paradise!

Sheesh....

[Mika]

131. And you were there when?

I'd love to hear about your personal experiences there.

[Owl]

9. Just do it.

[Demeter]

11. To give back Gitmo, US would have to disinter and dispose of all their murder victims

Frankly, I can't see that happening, either. Although I can see the US fleeing Cuba, and the Cubans unearthing bodies at Gitmo (and in the sea nearby) and having Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras documenting it....

[hughee99]

12. I don't see the US giving Guantanamo back any time soon, but the lifting of the embargo will

happen before too long.

[DeSwiss]

64. Oh yeah?

- If Cuba held out all this time they're not going to bend over for Wall Street because of some shiny presents under the tree. Wall Street is why they stole their home back from us to begin with!

And it ain't like they don't have other options now.

[hughee99]

80. You think Cuba will hold up normalized relations with one of the largest economies in the world

which happens to be right next door until they get this small piece of land back? It's a bargaining position, not a deal-breaker. In the end, the US will agree to give it up in 20-40 years or so, and that will be good enough.

[DeSwiss]

95. That's not ALL of what they said, nor I....

But since you phrase it that way, if they must, then yes.

- Like it was yesterday......

[EX500rider]

13. Did they mention the 6,000 American owned properties they seized? (and never paid for)

Because according to the 1996 Helms-Burton Act, they have to be resolved before any normalized relations can occur.

[Judi Lynn]

14. Did you mention compensation was offered decades ago and people in other countries,

like Canada, Europe, etc. already made agreement with the Cuban government and completed it then?

Did you mention that those in the US refused to accept, and were also advised if they took the offer they could be prosecuted for "Trading with the Enemy?"

Small oversight.

If anyone wants to learn more, it's easy to track down.

Settled agreements for compensation with all other owners were already made decades ago.

[EX500rider]

16. The payment was to be made in Cuban bonds—an idea that was not taken seriously by the United States

[Mika]

31. The payments made by Cuba were accepted by all other non-US entities.

Not sure what you're talking about. Care to clarify? Thanks.

[EX500rider]

41. Sure:

"Cuba’s revolutionary leader swiftly signed several laws nationalizing what was previously private property. Though the laws required the government to compensate the owners, the payment was to be made in Cuban bonds—an idea that was not taken seriously by the United States. Other countries that had holdings in Cuba—including Switzerland, Canada, Spain, and France—were more amenable to Castro’s terms, apparently convinced that there was no chance they’d ever get a better deal. But the Americans who had lost property wanted cash, and submitted official descriptions of what had been taken from them to the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission at the Department of Justice."

http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2014/04/18/cuba-you-owe-billion/jHAufRfQJ9Bx24TuzQyBNO/story.html

[Mika]

44. Thanks for the op/ed link.

[Judi Lynn]

45. So U.S. owners, like the George H. W. Bush relatives decided the arrangements taken by others

just weren't as lucrative as they wanted, so they REJECTED the offer.

That's a far cry from the Cuban government's stealing their land, as the other owners would concur.

[Mika]

56. They knew that the US long game plan was to impoverish Cuba. Of course they wanted cash.

When an entity abandons their properties, doesn't pay the taxes on it, it is reasonable that the government would use eminent domain to reclaim it for use. It happens in the US all the time.

[Judi Lynn]

66. That's accurate to the core. Glad you mentioned it. n/t

[EX500rider]

85. Just 'cause Cuba makes a offer doesn't mean we have to take.

Especially Cuban junk bonds.

[Judi Lynn]

55. You seem to have forgotten US-supported monster Fulgencio Batista took the Cuban Treasury

contents before bailing out of Cuba to avoid trial. How could you forget that so easily?

First you rave on about Cuba "stealing" US corporate "property" after everyone knows it offered compensation, after all the many other owners ACCEPTED compensation, then you crab that the US owners didn't get things in the form they desired, all the time knowing that US-supported dictator Batista pilfered the entire Cuban Treasury before heading for the hills.

Nice work if you can get it.

Here's a small entry from Wikipedia on the subject:

In a manner that antagonized the Cuban people, the U.S. government used its influence to advance the interests of and increase the profits of the private American companies, which "dominated the island's economy."[36] As a symbol of this relationship, ITT Corporation, an American-owned multinational telephone company, presented Batista with a Golden Telephone, as an "expression of gratitude" for the "excessive telephone rate increase" that Batista granted at the urging of the U.S. government.[36]

Earl T. Smith, former U.S. Ambassador to Cuba, testified to the U.S. Senate in 1960 that, "Until Castro, the U.S. was so overwhelmingly influential in Cuba that the American ambassador was the second most important man, sometimes even more important than the Cuban president."[47] In addition, nearly "all aid" from the U.S. to Batista's government was in the "form of weapons assistance," which "merely strengthened the Batista dictatorship" and "completely failed to advance the economic welfare of the Cuban people."[36] Such actions later "enabled Castro and the Communists to encourage the growing belief that America was indifferent to Cuban aspirations for a decent life."[36]

According to historian and author James S. Olson, the U.S. government essentially became a "co-conspirator" in the arrangement because of Batista's strong opposition to communism, which, in the rhetoric of the Cold War, seemed to maintain business stability and a pro-U.S. posture on the island.[5] Thus, in the view of Olson, "The U.S. government had no difficulty in dealing with him, even if he was a hopeless despot."[5] On October 6, 1960 Senator John F. Kennedy, in the midst of his campaign for the U.S. Presidency, described Batista's relationship with the U.S. government and criticized the Eisenhower administration for supporting him:

"Fulgencio Batista murdered 20,000 Cubans in seven years ... and he turned Democratic Cuba into a complete police state—destroying every individual liberty. Yet our aid to his regime, and the ineptness of our policies, enabled Batista to invoke the name of the United States in support of his reign of terror. Administration spokesmen publicly praised Batista—hailed him as a staunch ally and a good friend—at a time when Batista was murdering thousands, destroying the last vestiges of freedom, and stealing hundreds of millions of dollars from the Cuban people, and we failed to press for free elections."[36]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulgencio_Batista

Interesting snippet from the same source, something many of us, me included, never knew:

The United States supplied Batista with planes, ships, tanks, and the latest technology, such as napalm, which he used against the insurgency. However, in March 1958, the U.S. announced it would stop selling arms to the Cuban government.[63] Soon after, the U.S. imposed an arms embargo, further weakening the government's position,[64] although land owners and others who benefited from the government continued to support Batista.[25]

[center]~ ~ ~[/center]
That was only the SECOND time Batista swiped the Cuban Treasury. He had already done it once before before bailing in 1959:

Batista lost the 1944 presidential election to Grau San Martin's Autentico Party and with the millions stolen from the Cuban treasury retreated to his Florida Estate in 1950. Presidential elections in Cuba were scheduled for June 1952. The favorite candidate to win was Roberto Agramonte, Professor of Sociology in the University of Havana. Agramonte belonged to the Ortodox Party (Partido del Pueblo Ortodoxo). The Ortodoxos wanted a return to the original principles of the Autentico Party whose leaders were Presidents Grau San Martin (1944-1948) and Carlos Prio Socarras (1948-1952). (Fidel Castro was an active member of the Ortodoxo Party, whose leader Eduardo Chibas, in despair over the failure of the reform program and the corruption of Cuban institutions--in the midst of a radio program -- committed suicide, August 1951(

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/dolgoff/cubanrevolution/chapter6.html

[EX500rider]

86. "after everyone knows it offered compensation"

Except Cuban junk bonds aren't worth squat.

[Mika]

110. By the design of the country that refused payment.

Why would they accept bond when they knew that the plan was to impoverish Cuba and make any bond worthless.
You and they are making a tautological argument.

[EX500rider]

118. Cuban bonds would be next to worthless anyway.

And requiring a settlement be paid in cash is not unusual.

[rhett o rick]

48. And exactly who where those 6,000 Americans that "owned" property in Cuba?

Were they imperialists? There were a lot of British property owners in the USofA when the Revolutionaries thru them the hell out. Did they ever get compensated?

Cuba wanted freedom from imperialistic rule. I think we should respect that.

[former9thward]

94. The Treaty of Paris (1783) compensated the British property owners.

5. The Congress of the Confederation will "earnestly recommend" to state legislatures to recognize the rightful owners of all confiscated lands and "provide for the restitution of all estates, rights, and properties, which have been confiscated belonging to real British subjects" (Loyalists);

6. United States will prevent future confiscations of the property of Loyalists;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Paris_(1783)

The Jay Treaty of 1795 provided an additional 600,000 pounds to the British for compensation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Treaty

[rhett o rick]

103. Interesting thing about the 1%. When they gamble on stocks or derivitives or

land in foreign countries, they want to be compensated when they lose their bet. I bet those that owned property in Cuba were part of the imperialistic American aristocracy that were backing the dictator. We've been bullying Cuba for many decades. It's time to stop.

[former9thward]

105. Interesting trivia fact about Cuban compensation.

Office Depot, which did not even exist at the time of Cuba's revolution, holds the largest compensation claim. This is because of various corporate mergers and buyouts. Cuba Electric, which supplied 90% of Cuban electricity, had a $268 million claim and Office Depot ended up with ownership of the claim because of corporate mergers.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/12/22/obamas-cuba-shift-puts-spotlight-on-firms-asset-claims/?KEYWORDS=office+depot

[rhett o rick]

106. I don't think the USofA should use their bully powers to see that corporations like that

are "compensated".

[DeSwiss]

65. Unless they brought it with them, nobody owns shit on this planet.

- Nada. It belongs to all of us, in-common.

[EX500rider]

83. Cool...so you don't own your house then?

We do? Thanks for making the payments for us.

[DeSwiss]

96. ''Tibi non potest accipies tecum''

No, its me, the mortgage company and Etux who own it. One day in about two more years, then just me and the ol' Etux. And then probably Etux will sell it and see the world while I fertilize the flowers. And then like me, it recycles again. Until the next incarnation.

- Nope. Didn't bring it, can't take it.

And you're welcome, glad to be of help!!!!

[center]

O'Brien: “You are a slow learner, Winston."

Winston Smith: "How can I help it? How can I help but see what is in front of my eyes?
Two and two are four!"

O'Brien: "Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.”[/center]

[cstanleytech]

18. Cuba might be better off negotiating for the US to turn atleast part of Guantanamo

into a special economic zone to increase trade.

[Fred Sanders]

28. Negotiations will continue, much better a war of words than a.....war.

[Mika]

34. A war? Cuba's ANNUAL military budget = less than 4 hours US military budget.

The greatest legacy of Raul Castro ... de-miltarize the Cuban military.
Now, the Cuban defense forces are disaster mitigation specialists.

[cstanleytech]

42. Makes sense though I mean why have a large military when you are on an island that doesnt really

have any neighbors next door that are likely to invade you and you have limited resources and you are not part of a major global trade route?

[Judi Lynn]

57. No Cuban neighbors are likely to invade Cuba? Really? Does "Bay of Pigs"

and decades of attacks and assaults from Cuban "exiles" in Florida, who have boasted the US gov't knows about their activities, kidnappings, bombings, murders, etc. enter into that overview?

You may recall that many of these Cuban "exile" terrorists also have worked for the C.I.A, U.S. Military, etc. Some even working in VietNam, and quite a few involved in Iran-Contra, drug running, Operation Condor, throughout the Americas, assassinations, etc.

[cstanleytech]

63. Yes and since that stupidity they have not tried and why should they? Cuba doesnt hold any real

interest to the people who run the US except for Guantanamo and as long as Cuba doesnt do something like try to invite Russia or China to setup something like say a missile base the US isnt likely to take military action against Cuba.

[Judi Lynn]

69. If the people who run the U.S. have no interests in invading Cuba, why did Pres. Dwight Eisenhower

send military people and Cuban "exiles' to train in Central America?

Guatemala was an easy choice for the site to launch the invasion, since the U.S., intending to protect the interests of an enormous U.S. corporation operating there, United Fruit, had already overthrown the people's elected progressive President, Jacobo Arbenz, and had complete control of the country, in 1954, after blanketing our country in anti-Arbenz propaganda first to make the idea seem like a stroke of genius to the truly clueless American public.

No interest in invading Cuba. That is priceless.

If they got it back, they would probably return Cuba to its former status as an official Rest and Recreation area for U.S. Navy personnel.

[cstanleytech]

72. You are talking from decades ago but I am talking currently and currently barring anything

unforeseen happening the US just inst likely invade Cuba.

[former9thward]

127. I guess you have forgotten about Cuban military intervention overseas.

They were in the Congo, Bolivia, Eritrea, fought against Israel in the Yom Kippur war, they intervened on the side of Ethiopia in their war against Somalia, Angola, Namibia, Grenada, El Salvador, and Nicaragua.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Cuba

[Zorro]

129. Shame on you for bringing up those pesky facts!

Makes it very inconvenient to maintain the one-sided anti-US blather!

[libodem]

33. Plan!

[DeSwiss]

62. K&R

- Whoops. Let's try that again.




Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha..........

[Judi Lynn]

70. Yeowwwwch! Looks dangerous! n/t

[DeSwiss]

97. It's like those Clearinghouse Sweepstakes letters......

[center][font size=6]YOU'VE WON!!! YOU'VE WON!!! YOU'VE WON!!! YOU'VE WON!!! YOU'VE WON!!! [/font][/center]

And then.....

All you have to do to pickup your FABULOUS PRIZE is return the enclosed form within a couple of days along with your selection of 10 magazines -- FREE FOR THE 1ST YEAR!!! -- and a one time entry fee of $99.99 and the delivery of your first born male child!!

[center][font size=10]AND THAT'S ALL![/font][/center]

- What'd they expect? After all this time you know Fidel's laughing his butt off. I figure he's going to play this for all it's worth....

[JonLP24]

68. Sad to see the defense of sociopath imperialists n/t

[Judi Lynn]

71. Isn't it, though! Not so democratic. n/t

[EX500rider]

89. So sad to see the defense of communists dictators too.

[JonLP24]

90. How do you feel about US - Saudi Arabia relations?

Or Batista & the widening wealth gap?

After the pro capitalist guy was thrown out all this embargo, Bay of Pigs, and South American regime changes is why all this was done and you defend these actions. Do I have to mention the CIA teamed up with the Mafia?

"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes." - Smedley Butler

[EX500rider]

119. I didn't defend any actions.

I just pointed out that US law requires the matter of seized US properties has to be settled before relations can be normalized.

[Mika]

125. Jurisdiction is in Cuba.

The only way for what you say to happen, is for the POTUS to NOT waive Title III of Helms-Burton (every POTUS has waived Title III since its inception) AND for the US to take Cuba off of the terror state list.

[DeSwiss]

126. Yeah but sociopathic imperialists are much, much worse.

- And they have bad breath and lousy manners.

[EX500rider]

128. No when it comes to sociopaths the Stalin's and Mao's win the race by far.

[joshcryer]

91. Tough talk before the impending increased privatizations.

[Zorro]

92. Time for Obama to pull back and let Raul and Fidel stew for a while

[TheKentuckian]

98. Why? For having the audacity to ask us to give up our hub of villainy on their island?

The one we supposedly want to close?

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

100. Simple negotioation strategy

You ask for more than you want, so you may get what you need. This may be a ploy to help Obama close GITMO. The final agreement will probably have the US maintain its Naval base on Guantanamo, if it gets rid of the "terrorist" prison camp.

I'm not going to read much into this quite yet...

[no_hypocrisy]

101. Well, that's one way to close Guantanamo.

[Paladin]

104. The U.S. should accede to these demands, promptly.

Time to drag U.S.-Cuban relations into the 21st century. If it upsets the likes of Marco Rubio and the Miami exile crowd, all the better.

[Mika]

113. + infinity

[Sunlei]

120. Thats what I have always suggested, give back Guantanamo, get out. That land belongs to Cuba.

That's one way to close down Bushes house of torture!!