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

[Valmy]

Yup - it is the US who will want compensation, for expropriation by Cuba of its lease.

The bigger deal is the property that wasn't compensated when Fidel came to power.

I think they can scrounge up 500 bucks to pay the estate of Meyer Lansky.

Not that they would.

[Admiral Yi]

I think they can scrounge up 500 bucks to pay the estate of Meyer Lansky.

That's not going to do it Raz.

[Razgovory]

I think they can scrounge up 500 bucks to pay the estate of Meyer Lansky.

That's not going to do it Raz.

How would you come up with compensation?

[Valmy]

Cuba would never pay a penny of compensation for the revolution so it hardly matters.  Americans would sooner burn the Constitution.

[Admiral Yi]

How would you come up with compensation?

Market rate for property seized at the time plus interest.

[Ed Anger]

Fuck 'em.

[derspiess]

How would you come up with compensation?

Market rate for property seized at the time plus interest.

Which would be greater than their GDP.

[Valmy]

Fuck 'em.

Yep.

Lift the embargo, it is stupid.  But let's not pretend we're friends or anything.

[Razgovory]

How would you come up with compensation?

Market rate for property seized at the time plus interest.

I got a better one.  Let's base it on property taxes and make it negatable if the property was used to commit crimes.  For instance, bribery.

[Admiral Yi]

I got a better one.  Let's base it on property taxes and make it negatable if the property was used to commit crimes.  For instance, bribery.

The property tax thing is Nicaragua; don't know if it works for Cuba.  And if it does, it still goes against international law.

The bribery comment suggests that you and other posters (such as mongers) are operating under the assumption that The Godfather II is a historical document.  My understanding is that the majority of seized property was agricultural land bought and paid for by individual US citizens shortly after Cuban independence.

[Razgovory]

I got a better one.  Let's base it on property taxes and make it negatable if the property was used to commit crimes.  For instance, bribery.

The property tax thing is Nicaragua; don't know if it works for Cuba.  And if it does, it still goes against international law.

The bribery comment suggests that you and other posters (such as mongers) are operating under the assumption that The Godfather II is a historical document.  My understanding is that the majority of seized property was agricultural land bought and paid for by individual US citizens shortly after Cuban independence.

My assumption is that Cuba was in South America and was ruled by a corrupt dictator.  We shouldn't reward criminal behavior and tax dodging.  That just punishes all the honest people.  If that means Standard Oil of New Jersey doesn't get anything back for greasing palms, well that's a tragedy.

[Jacob]

The bribery comment suggests that you and other posters (such as mongers) are operating under the assumption that The Godfather II is a historical document.  My understanding is that the majority of seized property was agricultural land bought and paid for by individual US citizens shortly after Cuban independence.

What's the rationale for demanding Cuba pay restitution for expropriated property?

I mean, I understand why the previous owners of the property would demand it, but I'm not sure why the US should make that an important part of negotiations.

[Admiral Yi]

What's the rationale for demanding Cuba pay restitution for expropriated property?

I mean, I understand why the previous owners of the property would demand it, but I'm not sure why the US should make that an important part of negotiations.

Because the US is supposed to safeguard the interests of its citizens.

[OttoVonBismarck]

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.

The argument that "that State doesn't exist anymore" is pretty questionable. Just because you have new leadership or even a new constitution is not typically enough to, at least by international norms, terminate all treaties previously signed unilaterally and be in the right. Being in the right on such matters is essentially subjective, but I speak as to what would be internationally regarded as "in the right." So basically what the "collection of nations" as a whole would generally believe. France doesn't wash away all previous treaties every time it starts a new Republic (the current one isn't even as old as Castro.)

So where come is a lease in perpetuity that I reckon the international community would find valid. I agree that a sovereign State has some right to terminate such a thing--it's called force majeure, and if Raul wants to try and take it it'll be interesting to see how it plays out for him. When a country has its troops in occupation of a piece of land, both sides have to either agree to end that situation or fight about it. In some situations the occupier is in the wrong in terms of international norms, sometimes not. In this case I think it's pretty clear we wouldn't be seen in the wrong.

[OttoVonBismarck]

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?

There's a difference between "no formal diplomatic relationship" which is what we have with countries like North Korea, Iran, and Cuba, and "friends" which is what Ireland or Iceland would be (countries we are not allied with but are very friendly with--countries like Canada or Britain I'd rank a higher status of "ally.")

We're just working to getting to "normal" relations with Cuba. That means establishment of embassies, a more normal channel of communications, probably acceptance of certain types of treaties most countries that have any level of relationship with each other have and etc. There's a lot of things that will have to happen before they are normalized, and I frankly don't think handing over Gitmo is one of them. An end to the embargo (which will be a tough one, because while Obama can neuter the embargo he cannot end it without Congress), removal of Cuba from the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism and a few other nice gestures and hand shakes and maybe some promotion of some sort of economic development or trade with Cuba would probably get us there. Lots of sticking points would remain in the relationship, but we have normalized diplomatic relations with Venezuela but lots of sticking points between us. That's a normal thing.

If Raul genuinely won't normalize relations without evicting us from Gitmo (again, I think that's not his real position) then I doubt we'll normalize relations. Years down the road after relations are normalized I could see it being changed form a perpetual to some long-term (say 99 years, a popular number for some reason in these situations) lease, and one that pays the Cubans millions per year instead of $4k/year. Further, if you start seeing Gitmo employees able to interact some with the local economy it would be a boon to Cuba as well (a base that is essentially a fortress into which none leave or enter by land has little economic benefit for the host country.)