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

[OttoVonBismarck]

Expropriating property owned by another sovereign state for defence purposes may be a little more tricky - or at least, that fact may muddy the legal waters somewhat, enough that it won't be obvious that the US is violating international laws. Not that a little violation would bother the US all that much.  Hell, consider what went on *inside* that base ...

If we just refused to leave Gitmo it'd rank as one of our more minor ongoing violations of international law, and would rank well behind many of the ongoing violations of international law Russia is perpetuating.

I would otherwise be surprised if a right to "exercise complete jurisdiction and control" as spelled out in a treaty, for an open-ended term ("as long as necessary") could just be neutralized in terms of international law. Many wars are ended over agreements to share aspects of land or resources, and if one side could just at will end these agreements I think it'd create a much more chaotic international system. For example it's not unheard of for a country to get in a peace treaty guarantees of fishery access or access to some natural resource, while accepting the other country as sovereign over the territory. If the sovereign state was always allowed to just ignore such agreements I'd find international law much more nonsensical than I already do.

[CountDeMoney]

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.

Whether we're seen in the wrong, well...its very existence still smacks of colonialism since we inserted it into their constitution, not to mention the negative impression Guantanamo now gives as an international symbol of torture and imprisonment.

On April 26, 2006, Timothy Zuniga-Brown, a State Department diplomat, sent an email to Thomas Gerth, a senior adviser to the State Department's Office of Cuban Affairs, asking him to confirm information and questions he was sent "regarding the status of the lease over Guantanamo." Zuniga-Brown — the bolding in the email is his — was concerned "some of the wording here sound[ed] a little loose":

Cuba's constitution, which was adopted in 1901, included what is called the Platt Amendment, legislation that established conditions for American intervention in Cuba and gave the United States the right to maintain a military base on the island in perpetuity. The lease contains several critical provisions relevant to whether U.S. courts have jurisdiction over the base. First, the lease gives the United States "complete jurisdiction and control" of that territory, saying merely that it "recognizes the continuance of the ultimate sovereignty of the Republic of Cuba." Secondly, the lease can only be terminated on the mutual consent of both parties. Even though Cuba has wanted to terminate the lease since the revolution of 1959, it is unable to do so without the consent of the United States. The lease actually provides for a miniscule rent, some two thousand dollars in gold (equivalent to about $4,085 a year in current U.S dollars), although the Cuban government has refused to accept any payment since 1959. The United States is technically in default, and has been for many years, because the lease provides that the base is to be used only for a coaling station.

Cool pics of the rent checks in the link--

https://news.vice.com/article/will-cuba-now-cash-55-years-worth-of-guantanamo-rent-checks

[jimmy olsen]

How would you come up with compensation?

Market rate for property seized at the time plus interest.

That's a fantasy.

[dps]

Further, if you start seeing Gitmo employees able to interact some with the local economy it would be a boon to Cuba as well

If that ever happens, the Cubans will demand that we not close Gitmo and give it back to them.

[Eddie Teach]

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

They're mostly all dead now.

[dps]

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

They're mostly all dead now.

I wasn't aware the US had been largely depopulated.  Glad my family and I survived it.  Looks like most of the rest of our US posters made it, too. 

[Eddie Teach]

The ones who owned property in Cuba are dead. 

[grumbler]

The ones who owned property in Cuba are dead. 

If they were entitled to compensation, so are their heirs.  I know you understand the concept of an estate and inheritance, so I don't know why you are pretending ignorance.

[rufweed]

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.

I wanna hump this post

[Admiral Yi]

So go ahead.  What's stopping you?