6 ms·

Maybe a little off topic, but why the US are still so hostile against Cuba? Is there any real reason or credible threat that the small island could damage the

by siscia 5y ago

Maybe a little off topic, but why the US are still so hostile against Cuba? Is there any real reason or credible threat that the small island could damage the US? It seems like US is holding the grudge way too long.

dogorman 5y ago
I think most American politicians wouldn't care, if not for many Cuban Americans still caring a great deal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban-American_lobby#Political_influence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban-American_lobby#Political...
blueblisters 5y ago
Didn't Obama try normalizing the relationship until Trump came along and decided to undo it? Same thing for Iran I guess? Sometimes I feel US foreign policy is much too dependent on the whims of the current administration. Presidents should perhaps have Congress ratify/codify decisions with long-term implications, which would make it harder for the next administration to change?
- krisoft 5y ago
  > Presidents should perhaps have Congress ratify/codify decisions with long-term implications, which would make it harder for the next administration to change? This is how it works. Lets take the JCPOA as an example. That was the Obama era nuclear deal with Iran. Because of the voting situation in Congress there was no way to get it accepted there. What could have been ratified by Congress would not have been accepted by Iran. Therefore Obama signed the deal as an executive action. He couldn’t have done that if the deal would be bidding with long term implications, so they worded the deal such that the executive of the USA had to re-affirm their commitment to the deal periodically. Trump did re-affirm it at first but when it came up again the second time he refused. In short: it works exactly as you say already. Obama just simply didn’t have the votes in Congress to push through a binding treaty.
- joecool1029 5y ago
  Everyone knows Cuba's a major political issue for Florida. Trump admin publicly signalled support for a new cable[1], but then it was apparently dropped. Biden administration so far has been quiet on the topic. Given that this should be an executive decision, I'm curious as to what FOIA requests would turn up. [1] https://www.state.gov/cuba-internet-task-force-final-report/ https://www.state.gov/cuba-internet-task-force-final-report/
dismalpedigree 5y ago
Cuba is a geographicly strategic location. It sits right in the middle of the Caribbean and makes up one side of each of the three choke points which allow shipping to/from the Gulf of Mexico US ports. A hostile regime left on its own could become a major threat to the US economy by making traversal of those straits hazardous to US shipments. This is major commodities. Petrochemicals, agriculture, raw ore, fertilizer, etc. There is always some political angle, but the adults in the room are generally aligned that Cuba needs to either be friendly or at least be impotent.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  This is actually delusional, I'm sorry. Cuba possess exactly 0 anti-shipping threat to the US. There is no feasible scenario where Cuba develops enough, with a population of 11 million, to become a military threat to the US. It could fire off a few missiles before the positions get destroyed, sure, but so could any nation with an SSK. The reason for the enmity towards Cuba is nothing else than the Monroe Doctrine, and despite any appeals to "adulthood" which are thinly veiled appeals to paternalism, the Monroe Doctrine is interpreted better through an elementary schoolyard bully lens than through the eyes of the adults in the room - "if you're ij my class you can't be bestest friends with anybody else". It doesn't come with any consideration for anyone beyond the US and its not even about security, it's about dominance.
  - eganist 5y ago
    > This is actually delusional, I'm sorry. > Cuba possess exactly 0 anti-shipping threat to the US. There is no feasible scenario where Cuba develops enough, with a population of 11 million, to become a military threat to the US. It could fire off a few missiles before the positions get destroyed, sure, but so could any nation with an SSK. > The reason for the enmity towards Cuba is nothing else than the Monroe Doctrine, and despite any appeals to "adulthood" which are thinly veiled appeals to paternalism, the Monroe Doctrine is interpreted better through an elementary schoolyard bully lens than through the eyes of the adults in the room - "if you're ij my class you can't be bestest friends with anybody else". It doesn't come with any consideration for anyone beyond the US and its not even about security, it's about dominance. You're essentially claiming that the US is holding a multigenerational grudge rather than implementing some sort of strategic objective. Can you help me understand why you believe this? Ideally with citations and without hostile language like "delusional"?
throwaway894345 5y ago
I think the US does not want to trade extensively with who they perceive to be an oppressive regime (and I share that perception, for transparency).
- cookie_monsta 5y ago
  Hmmmm, yeah except https://worldbeyondwar.org/50-oppressive-governments-supported-by-the-u-s-government/ https://worldbeyondwar.org/50-oppressive-governments-support...
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    US sanctions exist to compell countries to make steps toward freedom, they don’t indicate a ranking of countries by freedom. Consequently the US will lift or ease sanctions toward a country that is progressing and impose or increase sanctions towards countries that regress. Of course there are many other factors—if US trade with a country isn’t important to that country, then the US is not likely to impose sanctions in the first place. In other cases, the US may have strategic reasons for working with a given country (an ally against a worse evil). So we shouldn’t expect them to serve as an accurate ranking of countries’ human rights records—that’s not the intent; the goal is to encourage countries to improve or cooperate.
    - hakfoo 5y ago
      >US sanctions exist to compell countries to make steps toward freedom I think that argument depends on a fairly narrow, and largely private-property-centric model of "freedom". I don't think it will be elections or free media that would unlock the Cuban embargo, but rather privatization.
      - throwaway894345 5y ago
        I have a hard time imagining Cubs becoming democratic and the US not lifting the embargo. We were already moving toward Cuba under Obama and Cuba wasn’t showing any signs of privatizing. But in any case, the idea is that embargoes are about compulsion and not about judgment.

by siscia 5y ago

dogorman 5y ago

I think most American politicians wouldn't care, if not for many Cuban Americans still caring a great deal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban-American_lobby#Political_influence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban-American_lobby#Political...

blueblisters 5y ago

Didn't Obama try normalizing the relationship until Trump came along and decided to undo it? Same thing for Iran I guess? Sometimes I feel US foreign policy is much too dependent on the whims of the current administration. Presidents should perhaps have Congress ratify/codify decisions with long-term implications, which would make it harder for the next administration to change?

krisoft 5y ago
> Presidents should perhaps have Congress ratify/codify decisions with long-term implications, which would make it harder for the next administration to change? This is how it works. Lets take the JCPOA as an example. That was the Obama era nuclear deal with Iran. Because of the voting situation in Congress there was no way to get it accepted there. What could have been ratified by Congress would not have been accepted by Iran. Therefore Obama signed the deal as an executive action. He couldn’t have done that if the deal would be bidding with long term implications, so they worded the deal such that the executive of the USA had to re-affirm their commitment to the deal periodically. Trump did re-affirm it at first but when it came up again the second time he refused. In short: it works exactly as you say already. Obama just simply didn’t have the votes in Congress to push through a binding treaty.
joecool1029 5y ago
Everyone knows Cuba's a major political issue for Florida. Trump admin publicly signalled support for a new cable[1], but then it was apparently dropped. Biden administration so far has been quiet on the topic. Given that this should be an executive decision, I'm curious as to what FOIA requests would turn up. [1] https://www.state.gov/cuba-internet-task-force-final-report/ https://www.state.gov/cuba-internet-task-force-final-report/

dismalpedigree 5y ago

Cuba is a geographicly strategic location. It sits right in the middle of the Caribbean and makes up one side of each of the three choke points which allow shipping to/from the Gulf of Mexico US ports. A hostile regime left on its own could become a major threat to the US economy by making traversal of those straits hazardous to US shipments. This is major commodities. Petrochemicals, agriculture, raw ore, fertilizer, etc. There is always some political angle, but the adults in the room are generally aligned that Cuba needs to either be friendly or at least be impotent.

sudosysgen 5y ago
This is actually delusional, I'm sorry. Cuba possess exactly 0 anti-shipping threat to the US. There is no feasible scenario where Cuba develops enough, with a population of 11 million, to become a military threat to the US. It could fire off a few missiles before the positions get destroyed, sure, but so could any nation with an SSK. The reason for the enmity towards Cuba is nothing else than the Monroe Doctrine, and despite any appeals to "adulthood" which are thinly veiled appeals to paternalism, the Monroe Doctrine is interpreted better through an elementary schoolyard bully lens than through the eyes of the adults in the room - "if you're ij my class you can't be bestest friends with anybody else". It doesn't come with any consideration for anyone beyond the US and its not even about security, it's about dominance.
- eganist 5y ago
  > This is actually delusional, I'm sorry. > Cuba possess exactly 0 anti-shipping threat to the US. There is no feasible scenario where Cuba develops enough, with a population of 11 million, to become a military threat to the US. It could fire off a few missiles before the positions get destroyed, sure, but so could any nation with an SSK. > The reason for the enmity towards Cuba is nothing else than the Monroe Doctrine, and despite any appeals to "adulthood" which are thinly veiled appeals to paternalism, the Monroe Doctrine is interpreted better through an elementary schoolyard bully lens than through the eyes of the adults in the room - "if you're ij my class you can't be bestest friends with anybody else". It doesn't come with any consideration for anyone beyond the US and its not even about security, it's about dominance. You're essentially claiming that the US is holding a multigenerational grudge rather than implementing some sort of strategic objective. Can you help me understand why you believe this? Ideally with citations and without hostile language like "delusional"?

throwaway894345 5y ago

I think the US does not want to trade extensively with who they perceive to be an oppressive regime (and I share that perception, for transparency).

cookie_monsta 5y ago
Hmmmm, yeah except https://worldbeyondwar.org/50-oppressive-governments-supported-by-the-u-s-government/ https://worldbeyondwar.org/50-oppressive-governments-support...
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  US sanctions exist to compell countries to make steps toward freedom, they don’t indicate a ranking of countries by freedom. Consequently the US will lift or ease sanctions toward a country that is progressing and impose or increase sanctions towards countries that regress. Of course there are many other factors—if US trade with a country isn’t important to that country, then the US is not likely to impose sanctions in the first place. In other cases, the US may have strategic reasons for working with a given country (an ally against a worse evil). So we shouldn’t expect them to serve as an accurate ranking of countries’ human rights records—that’s not the intent; the goal is to encourage countries to improve or cooperate.
  - hakfoo 5y ago
    >US sanctions exist to compell countries to make steps toward freedom I think that argument depends on a fairly narrow, and largely private-property-centric model of "freedom". I don't think it will be elections or free media that would unlock the Cuban embargo, but rather privatization.
    - throwaway894345 5y ago
      I have a hard time imagining Cubs becoming democratic and the US not lifting the embargo. We were already moving toward Cuba under Obama and Cuba wasn’t showing any signs of privatizing. But in any case, the idea is that embargoes are about compulsion and not about judgment.