Looks like someone is not as eager for restored relations as we thought. :hmm:
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/u-s-cuba-relations/raul-castro-demands-return-guantanamo-bay-end-trade-embargo-n295886
Quote
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.
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?
These are negotiating ploys. No one should take them to heart.
Quote from: Josephus on January 29, 2015, 07:19:33 AM
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 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?
Quote from: Berkut on January 29, 2015, 08:24:08 AM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on January 29, 2015, 08:31:42 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 29, 2015, 08:24:08 AM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on January 29, 2015, 08:39:17 AM
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.
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?
Quote from: Berkut on January 29, 2015, 09:05:31 AM
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.
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?
Quote from: Berkut on January 29, 2015, 09:23:08 AM
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!
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 29, 2015, 08:16:56 AM
Quote from: Josephus on January 29, 2015, 07:19:33 AM
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.
Quote from: derspiess on January 29, 2015, 09:34:46 AM
The Republic of Cuba still exists.
A post office box in Miami doesn't count as a republic.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 29, 2015, 09:37:40 AM
Quote from: derspiess on January 29, 2015, 09:34:46 AM
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/
An end to the trade embargo simply makes sense - it is incoherent to have 'normalized relations' and maintain a trade embargo.
As for the rest ... what's Cuba's leverage to get compensation or a return of Guantanamo? Seems to me that whoever upthread said this was just negotiation tactics has it right.
My prediction: no compensation, lengthy "negotiations" over the status of Guantanamo, eventual return of the base when the US public gets used to the notion of cheap Cuban vacations and cigars and so it will not be too politically costly for the then-sitting President to hand it over as a cold-war relic.
Quote from: derspiess on January 29, 2015, 09:49:57 AM
Not what I was talking about, ya goof.
http://www.cubagob.cu/
:lol:
And the name on the door still says "United States of America", but as we all know, it's not
your "United States of America" anymore. :P
Quote from: grumbler on January 29, 2015, 08:58:22 AM
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.
They could also unilaterally cancel the lease, and pay "appropriate" compensation, whatever that would be . . .
Quote from: Malthus on January 29, 2015, 10:02:05 AM
As for the rest ... what's Cuba's leverage to get compensation or a return of Guantanamo?
I'm a little shaky on public intl law, but I do think a sovereign state retains the absolute right to expropriate property (including revocation of concessions or leases) subject to a good faith duty to compensate. The US does not dispute that Gitmo falls within Cuban territory. Thus once it recognizes the Cuban government, it will either have to go if Cuba says so, stay and violate international law, or negotiate some other solution with Cuba up front.
I agree it is a negotiation issue but one where the background principles do give Cuba some leverage.
Apparently the lease is worth about $5,000/year. So they could pay for, say, 100 years worth of compensation. Just cancelling all those checks stuffed in a drawer should cover most of it.
Quote from: Berkut on January 29, 2015, 10:35:22 AM
Apparently the lease is worth about $5,000/year. So they could pay for, say, 100 years worth of compensation. Just cancelling all those checks stuffed in a drawer should cover most of it.
That's the cost of the lease, not the value. There are all sorts of arguments that could be made or positions taken on this issue, but the big problem from the US side is that there is no bilateral investment treaty. Thus presumably calculation of compensation would follow domestic Cuban law, though perhaps as modified by some international norm or principle of good faith.
Someone with better knowledge re international public law should chime in.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 29, 2015, 10:27:27 AM
They could also unilaterally cancel the lease, and pay "appropriate" compensation, whatever that would be . . .
I'd accept a lifetime supply of Bolivar Belicosos Finos in compensation.
If they agree to take the prisoners, we should call it even.
One word, well more, about the notion that I keep seeing bandied about here and on TV and newspapers. "Cheap Cuban vacations."
There's this notion that Cuban vacations are cheaper than anywhere else and the resorts are dirty, cheap, cockroach infested places. As Bill Maher recently said, "stuck in the 60s."
As one who's been to Cuba, Mexico, Dominican Republic, it's important to clarify that the resorts in Cuba are comparable with resorts in both those two nations, in quality and prices. (at least in Canada).
They're what I call "working class vacation resorts." I've been to Granada, Aruba and Bahamas and those are all a step-above.
I'm going to Cuba at the end of Feb. and a 4+ resort where I stay costs close to $2000 for a week. There are pricer ones. There are cheaper ones. Same in Mexico or Dominican. I wouldn't stay in anything less than a 4star in either of these three places.
What would be interesting, once travel restrictions get lifted, is if Cuba aims higher, say to compete with Bahamas, or remain competitive with Mexico. Either way I'm sure Mexico isn't too thrilled about this.
I think that it would be very difficult for the US to show that it suffered a lot of harm from a Cuban revocation of the lease. Its value was mostly as an irritant to the Cuban government. Even the location of the prison there is a result of a failed attempt by the Bush administration to pretend the US Constitution doesn't apply to the U.S. President. Given that the President does gain his powers from the constitution, that prison could be located anywhere.
Quote from: Josephus on January 29, 2015, 11:01:31 AM
What would be interesting, once travel restrictions get lifted, is if Cuba aims higher, say to compete with Bahamas, or remain competitive with Mexico. Either way I'm sure Mexico isn't too thrilled about this.
Mexico's been losing American business since they've been chopping off more heads than ISIS down there; I think the biggest impact--as far as American tourism goes--will be felt in Puerto Rico.
You know who's chomping at the bit to get down there?
Gringo car enthusiasts trying to get down there to get into bidding wars, offering a Cuban family more money than they've seen in 25 years for their DeSoto.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 29, 2015, 11:15:48 AM
You know who's chomping at the bit to get down there? Gringo car enthusiasts trying to get down there to get into bidding wars, offering a Cuban family more money than they've seen in 25 years for their DeSoto.
Oh yeah, the reimport market is going to take off once the trade issues get cleared up. All the good stuff is way too old for the red tape on newer car imports, too.
Yes, car enthusiasts will love Havana.
Those cars are only 57 chevys on the outside though, old Russian ladas under the hood, but I guess that doesnt' matter so much.
But I hear Gitmo is a very important base for the US to project power to Central and South America. I say lets keep the base and fuck the commies, Interview style.
Quote from: Siege on January 29, 2015, 11:38:47 AM
But I hear Gitmo is a very important base for the US to project power to Central and South America. I say lets keep the base and fuck the commies, Interview style.
Are you saying we need a base a hundred miles off our shores to project power thousands of miles, instead of using one of the other bases on the mainland?
Quote from: Josephus on January 29, 2015, 11:01:31 AM
One word, well more, about the notion that I keep seeing bandied about here and on TV and newspapers. "Cheap Cuban vacations."
There's this notion that Cuban vacations are cheaper than anywhere else and the resorts are dirty, cheap, cockroach infested places. As Bill Maher recently said, "stuck in the 60s."
As one who's been to Cuba, Mexico, Dominican Republic, it's important to clarify that the resorts in Cuba are comparable with resorts in both those two nations, in quality and prices. (at least in Canada).
They're what I call "working class vacation resorts." I've been to Granada, Aruba and Bahamas and those are all a step-above.
I'm going to Cuba at the end of Feb. and a 4+ resort where I stay costs close to $2000 for a week. There are pricer ones. There are cheaper ones. Same in Mexico or Dominican. I wouldn't stay in anything less than a 4star in either of these three places.
What would be interesting, once travel restrictions get lifted, is if Cuba aims higher, say to compete with Bahamas, or remain competitive with Mexico. Either way I'm sure Mexico isn't too thrilled about this.
And a lot of these resorts are owned by Spaniards, thanks to the embargo. Yanks will be going all 1898 on our economic interests once it is lifted.
Quote from: frunk on January 29, 2015, 11:42:13 AM
Quote from: Siege on January 29, 2015, 11:38:47 AM
But I hear Gitmo is a very important base for the US to project power to Central and South America. I say lets keep the base and fuck the commies, Interview style.
Are you saying we need a base a hundred miles off our shores to project power thousands of miles, instead of using one of the other bases on the mainland?
Also there is a significant base in PR
Quote from: frunk on January 29, 2015, 11:42:13 AM
Quote from: Siege on January 29, 2015, 11:38:47 AM
But I hear Gitmo is a very important base for the US to project power to Central and South America. I say lets keep the base and fuck the commies, Interview style.
Are you saying we need a base a hundred miles off our shores to project power thousands of miles, instead of using one of the other bases on the mainland?
Like the one that is already on Key West.
Goddamn it, we signed a lease for a coaling station, we're going to keep a coaling station.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 29, 2015, 11:54:14 AM
Quote from: frunk on January 29, 2015, 11:42:13 AM
Quote from: Siege on January 29, 2015, 11:38:47 AM
But I hear Gitmo is a very important base for the US to project power to Central and South America. I say lets keep the base and fuck the commies, Interview style.
Are you saying we need a base a hundred miles off our shores to project power thousands of miles, instead of using one of the other bases on the mainland?
Also there is a significant base in PR
Exactly. I don't think geography is one of Siegey's strong points.
I think he is demanding compensation for the effects of the embargo, not for the Gitmo lease.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 29, 2015, 10:34:30 AM
Quote from: Malthus on January 29, 2015, 10:02:05 AM
As for the rest ... what's Cuba's leverage to get compensation or a return of Guantanamo?
I'm a little shaky on public intl law, but I do think a sovereign state retains the absolute right to expropriate property (including revocation of concessions or leases) subject to a good faith duty to compensate. The US does not dispute that Gitmo falls within Cuban territory. Thus once it recognizes the Cuban government, it will either have to go if Cuba says so, stay and violate international law, or negotiate some other solution with Cuba up front.
I agree it is a negotiation issue but one where the background principles do give Cuba some leverage.
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 ...
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 29, 2015, 12:13:15 PM
I think he is demanding compensation for the effects of the embargo, not for the Gitmo lease.
Yup - it is the US who will want compensation, for expropriation by Cuba of its lease.
Guantanamo is not owned by the US though, and the leasing treaty explicitly states that it remains Cuban sovereign territory.
At some level, I think that pretty much gives them the power to simply repudiate the treaty, and tell the US to call their bluff. Of course, that is basically what they did already, and the US pretty much said "That's nice, we aren't leaving, so nyah!"
I doubt Gitmo's cost in upkeep is worth any remaining operational value. And its "in-your-face-Fidel" value is waning fast.
Probably just best to pack up all the valuables and hand it over. No need for any undignified hand-over ceremony, or Vietnam helicopter escape. Just buck out and leave the Cubans to pick up the landmines and clean up the Jarhead poop (because you know the Marines would defecate on everything before leaving :P ).
Quote from: Berkut on January 29, 2015, 04:16:12 PM
Guantanamo is not owned by the US though, and the leasing treaty explicitly states that it remains Cuban sovereign territory.
At some level, I think that pretty much gives them the power to simply repudiate the treaty, and tell the US to call their bluff. Of course, that is basically what they did already, and the US pretty much said "That's nice, we aren't leaving, so nyah!"
Yes but the US also said we aren't leaving because you aren't the legit government and thus your lease termination is of no effect. Which de facto may the equivalent of "nyah" but with the fig leaf of legality.
Once there is normalization that fig leaf is gone. It would be different if there were some bona fide dispute over sovereignty but there isn't.
Quote from: Tonitrus on January 29, 2015, 04:19:54 PM
Just buck out and leave the Cubans to pick up the landmines and clean up the Jarhead poop (because you know the Marines would defecate on everything before leaving :P ).
I like that. Cubans on the other side wake up one morning and nobody's there. Just landmines and poop. Plus maybe some Korans with pee on them.
Quote from: Malthus on January 29, 2015, 04:13:56 PM
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.
Meh just end the embargo and economic interest will do the rest. The Cubans are in no position to make demands on us.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 29, 2015, 04:42:12 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 29, 2015, 04:13:56 PM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 29, 2015, 04:52:06 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 29, 2015, 04:42:12 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 29, 2015, 04:13:56 PM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 29, 2015, 04:52:06 PM
I think they can scrounge up 500 bucks to pay the estate of Meyer Lansky.
That's not going to do it Raz.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 29, 2015, 05:10:32 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 29, 2015, 04:52:06 PM
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?
Cuba would never pay a penny of compensation for the revolution so it hardly matters. Americans would sooner burn the Constitution.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 29, 2015, 05:23:00 PM
How would you come up with compensation?
Market rate for property seized at the time plus interest.
Fuck 'em.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 29, 2015, 05:32:33 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 29, 2015, 05:23:00 PM
How would you come up with compensation?
Market rate for property seized at the time plus interest.
Which would be greater than their GDP.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 29, 2015, 05:37:18 PM
Fuck 'em.
Yep.
Lift the embargo, it is stupid. But let's not pretend we're friends or anything.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 29, 2015, 05:32:33 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 29, 2015, 05:23:00 PM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 29, 2015, 06:27:39 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 29, 2015, 06:33:35 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 29, 2015, 06:27:39 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 29, 2015, 06:33:35 PM
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.
Quote from: Jacob on January 29, 2015, 06:53:25 PM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on January 29, 2015, 08:39:17 AMYeah, 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.
Quote from: Berkut on January 29, 2015, 09:05:31 AM
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.)
Quote from: Malthus on January 29, 2015, 04:12:19 PMExpropriating 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.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 29, 2015, 09:31:00 PM
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.
QuoteOn 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
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 29, 2015, 05:32:33 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 29, 2015, 05:23:00 PM
How would you come up with compensation?
Market rate for property seized at the time plus interest.
That's a fantasy.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 29, 2015, 09:37:58 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 29, 2015, 06:54:51 PM
Because the US is supposed to safeguard the interests of its citizens.
They're mostly all dead now.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 30, 2015, 04:18:50 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 29, 2015, 06:54:51 PM
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.
The ones who owned property in Cuba are dead. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 30, 2015, 04:45:02 AM
The ones who owned property in Cuba are dead. :rolleyes:
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. :rolleyes:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 29, 2015, 08:16:56 AM
Quote from: Josephus on January 29, 2015, 07:19:33 AM
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
So go ahead. What's stopping you?