Raul Castro Demands Return of Guantanamo Bay, End of Trade Embargo

[jimmy olsen]

Looks like someone is not as eager for restored relations as we thought. 

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/u-s-cuba-relations/raul-castro-demands-return-guantanamo-bay-end-trade-embargo-n295886

Raul Castro Demands Return of Guantanamo Bay, End of Trade Embargo


By Alastair Jamieson

Cuban President Raul Castro has demanded that the United States hand back its Guantanamo Bay military base before full diplomatic relations between the countries can be restored.

Castro also asked for a complete lifting of the decades-old trade embargo and for compensation for its effects, saying that without these changes the recent diplomatic thaw "wouldn't make any sense."

President Barack Obama pledged earlier this month that the White House would move quickly to restore ties with Havana, scrapping a slew of travel and economic restrictions with immediate effect and dispatching a U.S. delegation to Cuba for a first round of historic talks.

Already on the agenda are the re-establishment of regular, scheduled commercial flights, the establishment of formal embassies in Havana and Washington and the removal of Cuba from the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism — a step the United States says it will consider. The Americans, meanwhile, want to make sure Cubans have freer access to the Internet.

However, Castro made further demands during the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States summit on Costa Rica on Wednesday.

"The re-establishment of diplomatic relations is the start of a process of normalizing bilateral relations, but this will not be possible while the blockade still exists, while they don't give back the territory illegally occupied by the Guantanamo naval base," Castro told delegates.

He demanded that the U.S. end the transmission of anti-Castro radio and television broadcasts and deliver "just compensation to our people for the human and economic damage that they're suffered."

The U.S. established the Guantanamo base in 1903, and the current Cuban government has been demanding the land's return since the 1959 revolution that brought it to power.

The Obama administration has pledged to close the high-security prison at the facility, and has been transferring terror detainees to their own countries.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

[Josephus]

He's right about that without lifting the embargo, these overtures don't make any sense.

Guantanamo can be debated. I'm not really sure what the agreement was. I think Cuba technically rents it out to the U.S. Can they end the agreement?

[grumbler]

These are negotiating ploys.  No one should take them to heart.

[CountDeMoney]

Guantanamo can be debated. I'm not really sure what the agreement was. I think Cuba technically rents it out to the U.S. Can they end the agreement?

The Republic of Cuba rents it out to the United States, as per the Treaty of Paris and the Platt Amendment.  Unfortunately the Republic of Cuba no longer exists, and El Jefe Maximo does not recognize this particular diplomatic agreement.
Also just as unfortunate, the United States does not recognize the legitimacy of the Castro government, so it continues to churn out a monthly rent check of $4,085 (as great a bargain now as it was in 1898) to the Republic of Cuba.  Which in turn does not get cashed.

It's all pretty much a microcosm of the entire childishness of the US-Cuban relationship.

[Berkut]

I would think that if we recognize the government of Cuba as legitimate, then we have to also recognize their right to terminate any such agreement. Gitmo wasn't ceded to the US, right?

[grumbler]

I would think that if we recognize the government of Cuba as legitimate, then we have to also recognize their right to terminate any such agreement. Gitmo wasn't ceded to the US, right?

The legitimate Cuban government can only legitimately terminate the agreement in accordance with the agreement, or by negotiating a new agreement.  I believe that the US lease was in perpetuity.

[Berkut]

I would think that if we recognize the government of Cuba as legitimate, then we have to also recognize their right to terminate any such agreement. Gitmo wasn't ceded to the US, right?

The legitimate Cuban government can only legitimately terminate the agreement in accordance with the agreement, or by negotiating a new agreement.  I believe that the US lease was in perpetuity.

Yeah, I suppose.

A "lease in perpetuity" kind of flies in the face of basic sovereignty though. You can say "Well, then they should not have signed it..." but I think they have a reasonably legitimate point that "they" did not sign it, a state that no longer exists signed it, and they are repudiating it.

All something to negotiate over, but fundamentally I don't disagree with the idea that a sovereign nation has the right to unilaterally (if necessary) terminate agreements involving control over their own territory under circumstances like this...that is not a desirable step to be taken, but one that I think the US should consider when it comes to being willing to negotiate. At the end of the day, a recognized Cuban government that we are friends with ought to have the right to just say "Yeah, the Gitmo base has to go if you cannot convince us to maintain the deal...".

Otherwise, are we saying that a deal, no matter how transparently bad, is binding forever as long as you can convince some patsy government to make it? I don't think we would stand for that.

[grumbler]

Yeah, I suppose.

A "lease in perpetuity" kind of flies in the face of basic sovereignty though. You can say "Well, then they should not have signed it..." but I think they have a reasonably legitimate point that "they" did not sign it, a state that no longer exists signed it, and they are repudiating it.

All something to negotiate over, but fundamentally I don't disagree with the idea that a sovereign nation has the right to unilaterally (if necessary) terminate agreements involving control over their own territory under circumstances like this...that is not a desirable step to be taken, but one that I think the US should consider when it comes to being willing to negotiate. At the end of the day, a recognized Cuban government that we are friends with ought to have the right to just say "Yeah, the Gitmo base has to go if you cannot convince us to maintain the deal...".

Otherwise, are we saying that a deal, no matter how transparently bad, is binding forever as long as you can convince some patsy government to make it? I don't think we would stand for that.

Well, the Castro regime did declare itself to be the successor state to the Batista regime, so as to gain control over Cuban-government-owned property and assets. It is true that they declared themselves to be only taking over assets, and not debts, but that's not the way succession of government works.

Now, they are perfectly within their rights to refuse to normalize relations until the US relinquishes control over Gitmo, and are not being unreasonable in so demanding.  However, the argument that *they* didn't sign the treaty is bullshit; they'd do better to argue that  the treaty was signed under duress, and challenge its validity that way.

[Berkut]

Yeah, I can see that. If you want to be considered a legitimate government, you have to take on the responsibilities of the previous governments, for the most part. You don't necessarily have to agree with them, and you can certainly even repudiate them, but pretending like they no longer exist is pretty much bullshit. But then, so much if international treaty law is kind of bullshit anyway, it mostly comes down to "What can you get away with?"

My point is more a matter of if we want to have normal, friendly relations with Cuba, we should treat them like a normal friend at some level. At least, that is where we should be aiming, in any case.

And that means two things, I think, when it comes to Gitmo:

1. We wouldn't really force a friend to host our naval base if they didn't want us there, and
2. If we really are their friends, doesn't us having a naval base there help them? If so, can we not leverage that?

[grumbler]

Yeah, I can see that. If you want to be considered a legitimate government, you have to take on the responsibilities of the previous governments, for the most part. You don't necessarily have to agree with them, and you can certainly even repudiate them, but pretending like they no longer exist is pretty much bullshit. But then, so much if international treaty law is kind of bullshit anyway, it mostly comes down to "What can you get away with?"

My point is more a matter of if we want to have normal, friendly relations with Cuba, we should treat them like a normal friend at some level. At least, that is where we should be aiming, in any case.

And that means two things, I think, when it comes to Gitmo:

1. We wouldn't really force a friend to host our naval base if they didn't want us there, and
2. If we really are their friends, doesn't us having a naval base there help them? If so, can we not leverage that?

I'm not sure that countries ever are "friends."  I certainly don't advocate foreign policies based on "who is our 'friend.'"

Nevertheless, i agree with the thrust of your argument, which is that it isn't in US interests to maintain an expensive presence in a base whose host country doesn't desire such a presence.  Gitmo is maintained purely, insofar as I can tell, to stick a finger in the eye of the Castro regime.  If eye-poking is no longer our goal, we should get rid of the base.  Not because Cuba is our friend, but because of the unwisdom of spending money to be pointlessly offensive.

[Berkut]

Is Gitmo useful to the US (I mean, other than as a place to store prisoners we don't know what to do with) as a naval base?

[grumbler]

Is Gitmo useful to the US (I mean, other than as a place to store prisoners we don't know what to do with) as a naval base?

No.  It was a valuable coaling station, but US ships haven't burned coal for several years now.

The last use of it as a naval station was when Fleet Training Group Guantanamo was based out of there, until maybe the mid-1980s.  Atlantic Fleet ships going through refresher training (a very through training and qualification regime post-overhaul and before deployment) were basically exiled there (anchored out, no liberty) until they passed.  There was no deadline for passage - ships stayed there until they qualified.  That was a lot of incentive to qualify!

[derspiess]

Guantanamo can be debated. I'm not really sure what the agreement was. I think Cuba technically rents it out to the U.S. Can they end the agreement?

The Republic of Cuba rents it out to the United States, as per the Treaty of Paris and the Platt Amendment.  Unfortunately the Republic of Cuba no longer exists, and El Jefe Maximo does not recognize this particular diplomatic agreement.
Also just as unfortunate, the United States does not recognize the legitimacy of the Castro government, so it continues to churn out a monthly rent check of $4,085 (as great a bargain now as it was in 1898) to the Republic of Cuba.  Which in turn does not get cashed.

It's all pretty much a microcosm of the entire childishness of the US-Cuban relationship.

The Republic of Cuba still exists.

[CountDeMoney]

The Republic of Cuba still exists.

A post office box in Miami doesn't count as a republic.

[derspiess]

The Republic of Cuba still exists.

A post office box in Miami doesn't count as a republic.

Not what I was talking about, ya goof.

http://www.cubagob.cu/