5 ms·

> What should the US do about Cuban connectivity? Um, nothing? I don't mean this from a sense of "who cares?" but more from a sense of "let Cubans figure out w

> What should the US do about Cuban connectivity? Um, nothing? I don't mean this from a sense of "who cares?" but more from a sense of "let Cubans figure out what works for them". If they ask for help, provide it. But don't go interfering unnecessarily where interference is not particularly asked for. I suspect that the world would be a much different place if we'd followed that dictum in the first place.

hcentelles 11y ago
It seems like google is in Cuba right now, talking about this: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/google-testing-the-waters-in-cuba-118974.html http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/google-testing-the-wat...
x5n1 11y ago
There are tons of capitalists the most notable being Carlos Slim, who will solve Cuba's internet connectivity problems in no time. This shit at this point is trivial. It's a question of cost. I am sure they will figure something out for their tiny Island nation.
- OneMoreIdol 11y ago
  Carlos Slim can't solve anything in Cuba. The problem with Cuba's connectivity is not the economic embargo nor is it technology (Chinese companies can supply everything needed for that). The problem is entirely political and cultural. The regime is already on thin ice, as over 2 million Cubans have access to the state-controlled internet (like clubs or through cafes) or a cell phone.
- jahnu 11y ago
  > tiny Island nation. It's not actually tiny. A little larger in area and population than Michigan. Only 7 US states are larger or more populous. For a more international comparison it's about the same size as Bulgaria but has a lot more people.
  - evilduck 11y ago
    I mean, by comparison to the entire U.S., Michigan's non-water area is only 2.5% of the overall U.S. Relativistically and logistically speaking, it's a tiny amount of land to cover with internet.
onion2k 11y ago
If they ask for help, provide it. But don't go interfering unnecessarily where interference is not particularly asked for. Except the US still has a number of trade embargoes in place with Cuba, so while they could ask for help it's possible the people they ask would be legally bound to say no. Lifting decades old sanctions that hurt both Cuba and the US (in hundreds of millions of dollars in lost export trade) would be something the US could, and should, do. A trade embargo with a country on grounds of it being ideologically different falls under "interfering unnecessarily" in my opinion.
- metasean 11y ago
  Steps are actively being made in to lift the trade embargoes - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_Cuba#Reestablishment_of_diplomatic_relations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_...
- humanrebar 11y ago
  > A trade embargo with a country on grounds of it being ideologically different falls under "interfering unnecessarily" in my opinion. That sort of hand waving does a disservice to history. Initially the embargo was enacted because Cuba nationalized industries without providing fair compensation (a). It's true that the embargoes have been more ideological since then, but the ideology is that fairly basic human rights (life, liberty, free speech) should be respected (b). All that being said, the Castros are pretty entrenched. Maybe healthier interaction with Cuba would promote human rights faster. But you don't have to make straw man assertions to make that point. a) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_Cuba https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_... b) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Cuba#Political_executions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Cuba#Political...
  - vidarh 11y ago
    The nationalisations that caused the first trade embargo followed hostile moves from the Eisenhower administration by e.g. reducing trade quotas and through the refusal of an American owned refinery to sell to the Cuban government. The rest of the nationalisation followed as a retaliation against the that trade embargo. Basically Eisenhower shot himself in the foot by first rebuffing early advances by Castro that sent Castro head first into the arms of the Soviets, and then it just got worse from that. It had nothing to do with ideology on either side, but with money and power.
mangecoeur 11y ago
Agreed... let them figure things out their own way.
hurin 11y ago
Yeah except the US basically ruined Cuba's economy with sanctions for what 50+ years? And another ~25 after there was no more soviet threat - just to stick it to the damn unrepentant commies. Because forcing the rest (majority) of the populace to experience economic hardship for dozens of years is really an admirable foreign policy.
- ArkyBeagle 11y ago
  Given conditions, what else could have realistically be done? Post Bay of Pigs, things were gonna be hostile ( and Fidel Castro fed politically on the dischord ). Cuba sort of wanted to be offline. The Revolution timed with Eisenhower's departure, so Kennedy set the tone. Bay of Pigs was a busted op; there is long term blowback from those. Might be worth gaining a little perspective on the Caribbean in general - James Michener's "Caribbean" is quite good , an easy and entertaining read and sketches out the basic historical framework. We don't think of the historical significance of any of the climes which were once Spanish holdings enough in English speaking cultures, IMO. Of particular interest is the effect of the uprising in Haiti, which we still feel today. Also, I am somewhat surprised Canada didn't jump on trade with Cuba - ten years ago, vacations there were advertised in Montreal. The Canadian embassy in Cuba never closed nor did the Cuban embassy in Canada.
  - hurin 11y ago
    Yes, but the last 25 years, for what? Unlike North Korea or China (our major economic partner) Cuba has neither a greater record of human rights abuses nor Nuclear weapons. Edit: I'm not arguing Castro is not bad, but as far as dictators goes he is probably a lesser evil; as it stands US Foreign policy has done nothing to displace Castro* but a great deal to oppress the Cuban populace. *(although we did displace a number of democratically elected governments in other Latin American nations) -
    - ArkyBeagle 11y ago
      I won't disagree, but Castro used animus against the Yanqui for political gain for forever. Over the last 25 years, it may be that the Florida based Cuban expat political bloc alone was enough to set that in stone.
pjc50 11y ago
Given that the US has handicapped Cuban economic development for half a century with an aggressive embargo, it's a bit late for noninterference.
vidarh 11y ago
> I suspect that the world would be a much different place if we'd followed that dictum in the first place. Especially the "if they ask for help". Castro toured the US and asked for help after the revolution. The US administration slammed the door in his face. So he went to the Soviets, who welcomed him with open arms.
sehugg 11y ago
I think we already tried to do something when we deployed the "secret Cuban Twitter": http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-26872866 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-26872866

hcentelles 11y ago

It seems like google is in Cuba right now, talking about this: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/google-testing-the-waters-in-cuba-118974.html http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/google-testing-the-wat...

x5n1 11y ago

There are tons of capitalists the most notable being Carlos Slim, who will solve Cuba's internet connectivity problems in no time. This shit at this point is trivial. It's a question of cost. I am sure they will figure something out for their tiny Island nation.

OneMoreIdol 11y ago
Carlos Slim can't solve anything in Cuba. The problem with Cuba's connectivity is not the economic embargo nor is it technology (Chinese companies can supply everything needed for that). The problem is entirely political and cultural. The regime is already on thin ice, as over 2 million Cubans have access to the state-controlled internet (like clubs or through cafes) or a cell phone.
jahnu 11y ago
> tiny Island nation. It's not actually tiny. A little larger in area and population than Michigan. Only 7 US states are larger or more populous. For a more international comparison it's about the same size as Bulgaria but has a lot more people.
- evilduck 11y ago
  I mean, by comparison to the entire U.S., Michigan's non-water area is only 2.5% of the overall U.S. Relativistically and logistically speaking, it's a tiny amount of land to cover with internet.

onion2k 11y ago

If they ask for help, provide it. But don't go interfering unnecessarily where interference is not particularly asked for. Except the US still has a number of trade embargoes in place with Cuba, so while they could ask for help it's possible the people they ask would be legally bound to say no. Lifting decades old sanctions that hurt both Cuba and the US (in hundreds of millions of dollars in lost export trade) would be something the US could, and should, do. A trade embargo with a country on grounds of it being ideologically different falls under "interfering unnecessarily" in my opinion.

metasean 11y ago
Steps are actively being made in to lift the trade embargoes - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_Cuba#Reestablishment_of_diplomatic_relations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_...
humanrebar 11y ago
> A trade embargo with a country on grounds of it being ideologically different falls under "interfering unnecessarily" in my opinion. That sort of hand waving does a disservice to history. Initially the embargo was enacted because Cuba nationalized industries without providing fair compensation (a). It's true that the embargoes have been more ideological since then, but the ideology is that fairly basic human rights (life, liberty, free speech) should be respected (b). All that being said, the Castros are pretty entrenched. Maybe healthier interaction with Cuba would promote human rights faster. But you don't have to make straw man assertions to make that point. a) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_Cuba https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_... b) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Cuba#Political_executions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Cuba#Political...
- vidarh 11y ago
  The nationalisations that caused the first trade embargo followed hostile moves from the Eisenhower administration by e.g. reducing trade quotas and through the refusal of an American owned refinery to sell to the Cuban government. The rest of the nationalisation followed as a retaliation against the that trade embargo. Basically Eisenhower shot himself in the foot by first rebuffing early advances by Castro that sent Castro head first into the arms of the Soviets, and then it just got worse from that. It had nothing to do with ideology on either side, but with money and power.

mangecoeur 11y ago

Agreed... let them figure things out their own way.

hurin 11y ago

Yeah except the US basically ruined Cuba's economy with sanctions for what 50+ years? And another ~25 after there was no more soviet threat - just to stick it to the damn unrepentant commies. Because forcing the rest (majority) of the populace to experience economic hardship for dozens of years is really an admirable foreign policy.

ArkyBeagle 11y ago
Given conditions, what else could have realistically be done? Post Bay of Pigs, things were gonna be hostile ( and Fidel Castro fed politically on the dischord ). Cuba sort of wanted to be offline. The Revolution timed with Eisenhower's departure, so Kennedy set the tone. Bay of Pigs was a busted op; there is long term blowback from those. Might be worth gaining a little perspective on the Caribbean in general - James Michener's "Caribbean" is quite good , an easy and entertaining read and sketches out the basic historical framework. We don't think of the historical significance of any of the climes which were once Spanish holdings enough in English speaking cultures, IMO. Of particular interest is the effect of the uprising in Haiti, which we still feel today. Also, I am somewhat surprised Canada didn't jump on trade with Cuba - ten years ago, vacations there were advertised in Montreal. The Canadian embassy in Cuba never closed nor did the Cuban embassy in Canada.
- hurin 11y ago
  Yes, but the last 25 years, for what? Unlike North Korea or China (our major economic partner) Cuba has neither a greater record of human rights abuses nor Nuclear weapons. Edit: I'm not arguing Castro is not bad, but as far as dictators goes he is probably a lesser evil; as it stands US Foreign policy has done nothing to displace Castro* but a great deal to oppress the Cuban populace. *(although we did displace a number of democratically elected governments in other Latin American nations) -
  - ArkyBeagle 11y ago
    I won't disagree, but Castro used animus against the Yanqui for political gain for forever. Over the last 25 years, it may be that the Florida based Cuban expat political bloc alone was enough to set that in stone.

pjc50 11y ago

Given that the US has handicapped Cuban economic development for half a century with an aggressive embargo, it's a bit late for noninterference.

vidarh 11y ago

> I suspect that the world would be a much different place if we'd followed that dictum in the first place. Especially the "if they ask for help". Castro toured the US and asked for help after the revolution. The US administration slammed the door in his face. So he went to the Soviets, who welcomed him with open arms.

sehugg 11y ago

I think we already tried to do something when we deployed the "secret Cuban Twitter": http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-26872866 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-26872866