US blockade of Cuba

[myata]

Just came back from a vacation in Cuba, had a blast of a time. No I won't idealize the country's system - the poverty and the lack of individual freedom are quite apparent everywhere if you care to look. Yet, it's not a legal cause for the longest economic blockade in the recent history.

The US has no case against Cuba, other than that it did not and does not do their liking. Yet it was involved directly, and in proxy, in the acts of sabotage of the same kind as what it likes to call another name (the t - word) when it's done by someone else against their interests. I was already quite sceptical about the whole "war on terror" affair, and having heard (and read) about US's involvment in Cuba, will from now on discard it from my attention as plain propaganda. Canada should have no part in it whatsoever and I'll vote for the first party that will officially drop the dumb thing.

Also, and until the blockade is withdrawn, I won't take any vacation in the US and will avoid buying their goods if another choice is available.

[M.Dancer]

Blocade is the wrong term. A blocade is an act of war and is enforced by warships. Commercial vessels that run blocades risk being sunk or siezed, their crews interned......

What the US has is an embargo.....

That being said, the US embargo, while itr sucks for the Cubans, helps Canada....as it gives us american free access to thier markets and beaches.....

[Liam]

I'm American and I have issues with the US embargo on Cuba. We don't have similar embargoes against equally oppressive regimes. The main reason the US holds on to the embargo is that the first president who does away with it can almost surely resign himself to losing 100% of the Cuban-American vote in Florida which, if 2000 and 2004 voting is any indicator, could firmly move Florida and her electoral votes firmly to the opposition party's column. In addition, ending the embargo would almost certainly cause the US domestic sugar market to collapse.

However, I will say that I do support the embargo for one reason: that the Castro regime has appropriated billions of dollars of personal property (homes, farms, factories, etc.) without fair compensation to the rightful owners. Ending the embargo would, in effect, isolate those people with rightful property claims against the Castro government.

If it were my place to negotiate, I would offer the following:

1. the US will end the embargo effective a set date

2. the US will open its banks, lending agencies, etc. to Cuba

3. the US will open its markets to certain Cuban products

4. the US will open a diplomatic post in Havana

5. the US will provide a set amount in technology infrastructure (computer systems, phone lines, satellite hook ups, etc.)

In exchange, I would ask for the following:

1. Cuba will either return appropriated private property or provide fair value reparations to those property owners

2. Cuba will allow an open and independent media (including open internet access to Cubans)

3. Cuba will not block the formation of opposing political parties and will allow such parties to parttake in local and national elections within 4 years

4. Cuba will open certain enterprises to western investment

5. Cuba will allow individual citizens to own real property (including a certain % of state-run enterprises) within 5 years.

[myata]

Blocade is the wrong term...

You must be right. Sorry, can't seem to change the topic now.

To Liam:

Sure, the issue of compensation is legitimate. I'm not in on the history of it, but surely rightful owners should be compensated for their loss - fairly. The question is, what should be considered as fair and how it's to be measured? Much of that accumulated wealth was under the corrupt marionette governments which finally pissed off its own population into a revolution. Or internationals which obtained resources for peanuts through corrupt governments or direct pressure.

Then, there's an issue of US (CIA) sponsored and supported sabotage - including explosions and multiple civilian casualties. Something we now call - er, forgot the word ? and declared a global war on. Shouldn't it be somehow / anyhow dealt with too?

Finally, I don't think it's up to the US to dictate other people what they shoud (and shouldn't) do in their own countries. Even if with best intentions - Iraq shows how quickly they may turn sour.

[DogOnPorch]

The question is, what should be considered as fair and how it's to be measured? Much of that accumulated wealth was under the corrupt marionette governments which finally pissed off its own population into a revolution.

Cuban governments pre-Castro were a lot of things...many bad...but they were not the US puppets that many seem to think they were. More under the "employment" of the Cosa Nostra (American Mafia) in Batista's case. If you recall the details, much of Batista's problems came initially not so much from the Communists but other rival political parties who waged a terror campaign in Cuba via the students (volitile lot). Cuba was starting to enjoy a higher standing of living as a whole due to the massive influx of 'private money' as well as tourists...which Batista concentrated on mainly. The FBI and the US Treasury were rather pissed that their 'non-existent' foe, the Cosa Nostra, was given free reign to make money in their Cuban hotels/casinos more or less tax-free.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

One-fifth of the people are against everything all the time.

---Robert Kennedy

[Liam]

...Sure, the issue of compensation is legitimate. I'm not in on the history of it, but surely rightful owners should be compensated for their loss - fairly. The question is, what should be considered as fair and how it's to be measured?...

Finally, I don't think it's up to the US to dictate other people what they shoud (and shouldn't) do in their own countries. Even if with best intentions - Iraq shows how quickly they may turn sour.

Regarding compensation, I think it would be fair to start with individual citizens of Cuba who owned land or homes or apartments or small businesses. It wouldn't be terribly difficult to assess the value in real terms of claims. I'm not naive in thinking they could all be paid quickly, but people who have claims should be given the right to come forth and begin the process of resolving the issues. The state could hand over pockets of land to former farmer, etc. That would be a relatively easy start.

Corporate interests... eh, that's getting messy. I'll admit I don't know what to do there.

Regarding drawing the nation-building in Iraq analogy, my proposal is not telling Cuba how to operate. They are free to say Yes and take the US aid, the economic infusion, the technological, medical, scientific infrastructure, etc. They are free to say No. I'm not demanding they change the structure of their government to mirror the US's, I wasn't even calling for the dismantling of the Communist Party. I was merely setting out some basic standards of the international community -- and in particular, rights enjoyed by peoples of every country in the western hemispere, with the exception of one country, Cuba -- to give people freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, freedom to own property and freedom to determine their own future.

My proposal is to approach Cuba at the table. Equal parties. You have an interest in our ability to give you economic growth. We in the west have an interest in making sure people live free lives. Let's make a deal. If the Cuban government doesn't want those things for its citizens, it can say No. I'd feel bad for its citizens, but I wouldn't lose much sleep, frankly.

[myata]

Regarding compensation, I think it would be fair to start with individual citizens of Cuba who owned land or homes or apartments or small businesses. It wouldn't be terribly difficult to assess the value in real terms of claims.

If it's not the foreign corporations, then why US should make it their business to take care of individual citizins who did not accept the results of revolution? At some point, the majority of Cuba has made choice to become communist (or socialitst, whatever). It may very well have been a wrong choice which they would correct in time. But how and why it's up to the US to tell them what to do? Sponsor terrorist activities and a direct invasion?

My proposal is to approach Cuba at the table. Equal parties. You have an interest in our ability to give you economic growth. We in the west have an interest in making sure people live free lives. Let's make a deal. If the Cuban government doesn't want those things for its citizens, it can say No. I'd feel bad for its citizens, but I wouldn't lose much sleep, frankly.

First of all, let's be frank and not hide under the broad and vague concept of the "West". What you're saying is, "you have to accept our rules to deal with us, or else". That's a profoundly wrong approach that US never fails to repeat in their foreign policies. Policies that may (and have) included terrorist like activities, support of brutal dictatorial regimes, overthrowing legitimate governments and so on. The same one which consistenly results blowbacks costing human lives. Including american lives. Will you say that one shouldn't lose much sleep over it either?

[jbg]

Cuba sits offshore, about 180 Trudeau Units from Florida. Of couse, we will, as a realistic matter, have something to say about the way they're governed.

[jdobbin]

Cuba sits offshore, about 180 Trudeau Units from Florida. Of couse, we will, as a realistic matter, have something to say about the way they're governed.

Perhaps you can invade.

I'm sure they have something of mass destruction.

[jbg]

Perhaps you can invade.

I'm sure they something of mass destruction.

Were it not for JFK's fecklessness we would have.

[Wilber]

Cuba sits offshore, about 180 Trudeau Units from Florida. Of couse, we will, as a realistic matter, have something to say about the way they're governed.

Perhaps not something you can expect the citizens of a country 0 Trudeau units north of you to take well.

[jbg]

Cuba sits offshore, about 180 Trudeau Units from Florida. Of couse, we will, as a realistic matter, have something to say about the way they're governed.

Perhaps not something you can expect the citizens of a country 0 Trudeau units north of you to take well.

The relationship is a little different.

[jdobbin]

Were it not for JFK's fecklessness we would have.

To what end though? Is there a government in waiting? Would the country be democratic? Would the United States face an insurgency afterwards?

The record on regime change has not been a great one.

[sunsettommy]

I thought only America has an embargo on Cuba.

The rest of the of the world does not.

Correct?

[sunsettommy]

Economic Embargo Timeline

http://www.historyofcuba.com/history/funfacts/embargo.htm

A long compilation written by J.A. Sierra

[sunsettommy]

Cuba sits offshore, about 180 Trudeau Units from Florida. Of couse, we will, as a realistic matter, have something to say about the way they're governed.

Certaintly we have had to put up with the fleeing Cubans over the decades.

A paradise they are running from.

[moderateamericain]

Cuba sits offshore, about 180 Trudeau Units from Florida. Of couse, we will, as a realistic matter, have something to say about the way they're governed.

Certaintly we have had to put up with the fleeing Cubans over the decades.

A paradise they are running from.

I just want the Cuban cigars, any Canadians wanna smuggle some back for me?!

[Wilber]

I just want the Cuban cigars, any Canadians wanna smuggle some back for me?!

We don't have to smuggle them. Come on up, you can buy them anywhere.

[moderateamericain]

Cuba sits offshore, about 180 Trudeau Units from Florida. Of couse, we will, as a realistic matter, have something to say about the way they're governed.

Certaintly we have had to put up with the fleeing Cubans over the decades.

A paradise they are running from.

I just want the Cuban cigars, any Canadians wanna smuggle some back for me?!

yeah but then i gotta get em back across the border >.<

[Liam]

If it's not the foreign corporations, then why US should make it their business to take care of individual citizins who did not accept the results of revolution? At some point, the majority of Cuba has made choice to become communist (or socialitst, whatever). It may very well have been a wrong choice which they would correct in time. But how and why it's up to the US to tell them what to do? Sponsor terrorist activities and a direct invasion?...

First of all, let's be frank and not hide under the broad and vague concept of the "West". What you're saying is, "you have to accept our rules to deal with us, or else". That's a profoundly wrong approach that US never fails to repeat in their foreign policies. Policies that may (and have) included terrorist like activities, support of brutal dictatorial regimes, overthrowing legitimate governments and so on. The same one which consistenly results blowbacks costing human lives. Including american lives. Will you say that one shouldn't lose much sleep over it either?

1. I included personal property rights because it is a valid grievance against a government that stole from its own citizens. I broached that topic soleley because I think a very important hallmark of a civilized nation is that it respects the integrity of its citizens. Why shoud we care about property rights? Because property rights are often a threshhold to greater civil liberties. In the case of Cuba, I believe giving people an ownership stake in their own land will open greater doors for them. I do not think it is an inherent US interest. It is a humanitarian and global interest. You should be ashamed if you think it is okay to void the property rights of those from whom Castro stole.

2. No. Cuba is free to trade among European nations, Canada, Japan. I was simply suggesting that if Cuba wanted access to US markets, capital, technology, it would not be unfair for the US to place conditions on those things. Conditions that would do nothing less than improve the lives, education, and opprtunities for everyday Cubans. Heck, if you've got the interests of Cubans deep in your heart, why aren't Candians and Swedes and Italians working to give them some civil rights and some dignity? Or does it suit your purpose more to have a cheap beach to lay about as long as you can sleep in a cushy hotel while millions of Cubans suffer rolling blackouts and limited rights?

Personally, I think people have more value than providing me good, cheap cigars and affordable rum drinks. I'd rather see Cubans get freedom and be free of the enormous political prison they live in and I'd be happy to see it happen even without the US' earning a thin dime off the deal. Sadly, I can't see anything you've said which makes me think you believe Cubans deserve more than the piddly bits they get from their oppressive government.

[Liam]

If it's not the foreign corporations, then why US should make it their business to take care of individual citizins who did not accept the results of revolution? At some point, the majority of Cuba has made choice to become communist (or socialitst, whatever). It may very well have been a wrong choice which they would correct in time. But how and why it's up to the US to tell them what to do? Sponsor terrorist activities and a direct invasion?

I didn't address one point. Whta makes you think the majority made its choice to become communist/socialist/whatever? Castro only decalerd his allegience to the communist way *after* he overthrew Batista. I personally have doubts that the majority would join the Soviet bloc willfully. But once Castro was in power and his intent declared, even those who were with him were trapped.

If the majority wants communism, then why has a communist country *never* allowed competition in the political process? If they have the winning argument, why don't they allow other voices to be heard?Truth is, they fear opposition because Communism is a loser's political philosophy. It does not work. Great in theory, inoperative in real life. Just ask your average Pole or Czech how quickly he or she wants to go back to Communism. I'm 1000% confident future Cubans will agree with me and disagree with you on this issue.

[DogOnPorch]

Strange CBC 'Front Page Challenge' from 1959 re: Cuba.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyuk5eCuvH0

-----------------------------------------

We're going to the greatest place on Earth...Tijuana!

---Krusty the Klown

[jbg]

If it's not the foreign corporations, then why US should make it their business to take care of individual citizins who did not accept the results of revolution? At some point, the majority of Cuba has made choice to become communist (or socialitst, whatever). It may very well have been a wrong choice which they would correct in time. But how and why it's up to the US to tell them what to do? Sponsor terrorist activities and a direct invasion?...

1. I included personal property rights because it is a valid grievance against a government that stole from its own citizens. I broached that topic soleley because I think a very important hallmark of a civilized nation is that it respects the integrity of its citizens. Why shoud we care about property rights? Because property rights are often a threshhold to greater civil liberties. In the case of Cuba, I believe giving people an ownership stake in their own land will open greater doors for them. I do not think it is an inherent US interest. It is a humanitarian and global interest. You should be ashamed if you think it is okay to void the property rights of those from whom Castro stole.

The question "(b)ut how and why it's up to the US to tell them what to do?," can also be answered by asking whether it's appropriate for countries that have made these decisions to then come knocking at the door of the West (usually via the UN rather than directly) after business and capital flees.

[myata]

because Communism is a loser's political philosophy. It does not work. Great in theory, inoperative in real life. Just ask your average Pole or Czech how quickly he or she wants to go back to Communism. I'm 1000% confident future Cubans will agree with me and disagree with you on this issue.

Is it really so hard to understand, Liam? The question is not whether or not Communism is a good philosophy or not.

Rather, why should US make it their business to teach others what to do, given their own not so stellar moral record in the matters? How many people (outside of US) do you think are there to take all those cermons on peace, democracy and liberty seriously? After Iraq, Chile and with Guantanamo in their backyard.

[myata]

The question "(b)ut how and why it's up to the US to tell them what to do?," can also be answered by asking whether it's appropriate for countries that have made these decisions to then come knocking at the door of the West (usually via the UN rather than directly) after business and capital flees.

I thought business was a voluntary contract between two parties? If someone desired to trade with Cuba (which is done by many others from Europe, Canada, Latin America, etc), why should the state intervene to prevent them from it? Is it, like, the last cry of democracy and liberty, etc, that's so ahead of its times that everybody else fails to understand?