US-Cuba Trade : No Cash No Chicken

[mprach024]

1 hour ago, El Presidente said:

Get out of the way and enable Cubans to have a better life.

     Unlimited remittances

     Unlimited travel.

     Fast forward communications technologies.

    Finance and manage belt and road projects.

    Dedicated Cuban privateer support programs/business/finance/information sites.

With no one left to blame, the Cuban govt will fall in a decade

Not disagreeing with you (and Ken below) on this.  The point I was making was there’s no incentive for the American govt to roll that dice.  Like I mentioned in my earlier post, this is political poison.  Obama got thrashed for warming relations, which is Biden isn’t touching it.  The resolution will have to start in Cuba, not the other way around.  Right or wrong.  I’m just stating reality.
 

55 minutes ago, Ken Gargett said:

the 'threatened our national security' card has been played for decades. i think that ship sailed so long ago

We aren’t scared of the Cuban military.  Don’t be silly.  We are scared of who they may invite in next, or conspire with next.  They were quite naughty and got caught doing the unthinkable.  Remember we aren’t holding a grudge against a country with new leadership for transgressions of past administrations, this is the same regime.  Fidel may be gone, but his brother is still First Secretary and most powerful man in Cuba. 

[Ken Gargett]

10 hours ago, mprach024 said:

We aren’t scared of the Cuban military.  Don’t be silly.  We are scared of who they may invite in next, or conspire with next.  They were quite naughty and got caught doing the unthinkable.  Remember we aren’t holding a grudge against a country with new leadership for transgressions of past administrations, this is the same regime.  Fidel may be gone, but his brother is still First Secretary and most powerful man in Cuba. 

sure, understand that but these days, 'inviting in'? hardly the same as 60 years ago. now, nations hardly need to leave home. can do a lot of damage with buttons. unless a nation decides it wants to go to a full scale war with the states, and i am not thinking that many will be lining up, no nation is going to be sending fully armed ships to cuba. plus they don't need to. missiles today...

and in fairness to cuba, that soviet threat died in 1989. more than 30 years ago. no one has stepped in, during that time. it is not a legit argument and i don't think many in the States are even making it. 

 

i should have added that i fully agree re the political poison comments. sad to say that it is definitely so. until that changes, suffer the cuban people. 

[Nino]

On 2/20/2021 at 11:59 PM, El Presidente said:

I am all for it 

However If that is the measure we are going to use, then let the US apply the rule  to mainland Chinese banks, Saudi financial institutions, all despot nations who criminalise homosexuality, all those nations who turn a blind eye to the genital mutilation of  young women in the name of purity. 

The hypocrisy is sickening. 

Fully agreed. That is how it should be but not how it is.

I believe it was Count Metternich ( or maybe it was Kissinger ) who said nations don't have morals, they have interests ...

Not even Germany with a Saint Mother Theresa chancellor and a "Christian Democrat" gvmt has halted arms deals to Turkey or Saudi Arabia or "development aid" to Cuba or Nicaragua and now we are getting natural gas dependent from Russia against the will of other European countries and the US.

 

On 2/21/2021 at 2:52 AM, Ken Gargett said:

i'm a bit late to this thread and nothing i would ever say would suggest that i think that the cuban govt has been horrendous to their people and obviously bear some blame but 'no outside countries'? give me a break. what a load of rubbish. a 60 year embargo has had no impact or effect? try again. 

as rob says, monumental hypocrisy. 

 

without arguing with what you say, as i understand that and with the way things played out, the US put themselves in that position and had little choices but the thing that makes this absurd is that castro would have loved good relations with the US after taking power but it was the US which was not interested. sending fidel straight to the russians. and then it was all a bit too late and the world still has this mess. that does not put it all on the US and i know they wanted to support the US business interests but they were backing a brutal dictatorship. had their diplomacy at the time been a bit more nimble, they could have had an ally and kept russia/communism out of the region - something i would suggest they would have preferred than backing a few corrupt politicians. 

Ken, I know you want the best for the Cuban people - but : by "outside countries" I would take not just the Cuban gvmt to court but also the Soviet Union and the US.

As to your assertion that it was the US that pushed Fidel into Soviet arms I strongly disagree.

Both Fidel and Raul were socialists/communists before the revolution ( Raul had a KGB case officer ) and their stated goal was socialism, something they hid quite well but that was obvious.

I always laugh at the famous Fidel interview in the Sierra Maestra - stopped counting lies after the first 3 in the first sentence - and how the US public swallowed it whole. The great manipulator.
I believe that we should evaluate it from his words and the state of Cuba today :

 

PS : And another big applause for the Great Manipulator - back in 1959 the US was in a feeding frenzy loving the guy :

PPS : Here is a good docu that shows Fidel was leaning to communism back in 1952.

And agreed on the brutal dictatorship of Batista, but if he was a bloodthirsty torturer and dictator - what do the mass killings of thousands at La Cabaña by Che on orders of Fidel & Raul tell us about them ? Batista could have shot Fidel and his band after the arrest at the Moncada barracks attack, instead he put them in jail and released them after a short time.

But back to the embargo question - it is similar to the question what came first, egg or chicken ?
Had Fidel not nationalized ALL companies and seized ALL assets ( and let's not forget that the majority were Cuban ) the embargo would not make sense, you are right. But I can understand how people feel whose parents and grandparents were robbed of their livelihoods.
And that was Fidel's first move, then came all the other moves by the super powers that brought the world to the brink of nuclear destruction ( and it was Che who wanted to pull the nuclear trigger, not JFK ) ....

 

On 2/21/2021 at 6:30 AM, mprach024 said:

 

Like I said before, it’ll end when the Cubans decide.  Whether that’s the Cuban government changing policies and welcoming free trade and capitalistic views, or the Cuban people through a revolution.  It’s sad that’s the options, but that’s the required terms of change, and that’s been communicated since the beginning.  The ball has been in the Cubans court this whole time.  It’s a bad situation with no easy way to fix, especially  with no one leading the charge on either side of the fence, Americans nor are there Cubans.

I 100% agree and have been saying myself that Cuba is either to implode or explode, but it should be the Cuban people who decide their future and only them.

There was a great chance when Obama extended a hand but was arrogantly kicked by Fidel.
Don't think that will be repeated anytime ...

[Fuzz]

With the way China has been spreading its influence through their belt and road initiative, I'm surprised the US is not trying to improve US-Cuba relations quickly, before China plants their flag there.

 

[Ryan]

1 hour ago, Fuzz said:

With the way China has been spreading its influence through their belt and road initiative, I'm surprised the US is not trying to improve US-Cuba relations quickly, before China plants their flag there.

 

That has already started. For a few years now, if you put on the TV in the afternoon in Cuba you'll see Chinese made shows teaching mandarin to Cuban kids. Simple stuff.

[SpecialK]

2 hours ago, Ryan said:

That has already started. For a few years now, if you put on the TV in the afternoon in Cuba you'll see Chinese made shows teaching mandarin to Cuban kids. Simple stuff.

the Chinese are already entrenched in panama running the canal which is vital to all of the worlds shipping interest. But they have been there since Roosevelt started the dig in the early 1900's most likely in the labor force... 

Case and point, I was born there and lived there till I was 9.. we have a family Aroz con Pollo  recipe that starts with marinating chicken in soy sauce overnight and the heavy use of  cabbage in the recipe... 

[Kevin48438]

I hope this is all friendly banter, as I highly doubt we’ll solve the problem here.  In that spirit I offer the following:

The mafia was hardly the only enterprise investing in Cuba in the 50’s.   It may be the most salacious and thus headline worthy, but there were many others. 

The land and property wasn’t returned to “the Cubans.”   It was assumed by Castro and the party.

While Batista was a &@!$, Castro wasn’t/isn’t the best solution.  Or even one at all.  

I generally support the idea of the embargo as an imperfect option, but would also love to change to a better one.  

What is a better one?
 

 

[mprach024]

14 minutes ago, Kevin48438 said:

 

I hope this is all friendly banter

 

There’s been lots of disagreements but all respectful and in the spirit of a good discussion of opposite feelings.  This is how every thread should be.  

[Ken Gargett]

12 hours ago, nino said:

Ken, I know you want the best for the Cuban people - but : by "outside countries" I would take not just the Cuban gvmt to court but also the Soviet Union and the US.

As to your assertion that it was the US that pushed Fidel into Soviet arms I strongly disagree.

Both Fidel and Raul were socialists/communists before the revolution ( Raul had a KGB case officer ) and their stated goal was socialism, something they hid quite well but that was obvious.

I always laugh at the famous Fidel interview in the Sierra Maestra - stopped counting lies after the first 3 in the first sentence - and how the US public swallowed it whole. The great manipulator.
I believe that we should evaluate it from his words and the state of Cuba today :

 

And agreed on the brutal dictatorship of Batista, but if he was a bloodthirsty torturer and dictator - what do the mass killings of thousands at La Cabaña by Che on orders of Fidel & Raul tell us about them ? Batista could have shot Fidel and his band after the arrest at the Moncada barracks attack, instead he put them in jail and released them after a short time.

But back to the embargo question - it is similar to the question what came first, egg or chicken ?
Had Fidel not nationalized ALL companies and seized ALL assets ( and let's not forget that the majority were Cuban ) the embargo would not make sense, you are right. But I can understand how people feel whose parents and grandparents were robbed of their livelihoods.
And that was Fidel's first move, then came all the other moves by the super powers that brought the world to the brink of nuclear destruction ( and it was Che who wanted to pull the nuclear trigger, not JFK ) ....

nino, suspect we are pretty much aligned on most things but i really do think that with hindsight, the US might have been able to have fidel on side from the start, but in reality, after he overthrew their man in cuba, it was never going to happen. i'm not as convinced as you that they were as committed to the soviets in the very early days as yourself - i think che probably was but he seems to me to be the most war-hungry of the lot (he seems to have been close to a raving loon and it is beyond comprehension that so many have him as some paragon of peace. there is a wonderful book which i currently have packed away but by a couple of authors - one is the US prof naftali, i think - and i think another is possibly a soviet professor - which i think was called 'a hell of a gamble'? they look  at the missile crisis from the records of DC, Moscow and Havana and it is a brilliant book. seemed almost everyone spent the entire crisis trying to work out how they could walk the thing back without destroying the world. except che who was trying to convince the soviets and fidel to press the button. fidel comes across as infinitely more reasonable - at least back then. but it seems we are as one on che).

all that said, and while i do think fidel was more reasonable in the early days, it does not forgive what he became and what he did. no argument from me on that. 

batista was a corrupt horror (i suspect that if he did not think fidel and his band were nothing more than a joke, he most certainly would have had them shot). sadly, castro ended up just a different form of dictator. certainly no better. i do think he probably had more lofty ideals back in the fifties but as so often happens, they not only fell short but to retain power, they become what he originally opposed. none of that is intended as a defence.

i think he probably had some form of local socialism in mind, which he was not going to label as such - i don't see him as a communist from day one; that came later - which he naively thought could co-exist with America. but good intentions so often fail and he'll be judged by his entire record, not just the revolution. 

as for fidel telling lies, nino, please! a politician/leader telling lies? say it isn't so! sure, some are worse than others but has there ever been a politician who has not lied? i was watching ken burns' history of the vietnam war recently and there is a section where nixon sabotages peace talks which were to be held just before the 68 election, because he believed that if they were successful, he had less chance of winning. and then is on tape, his own tapes, blatantly lying to johnson about this, denying it. johnson knew he had done this but did nothing about it himself. to me, nixon's actions were nothing short of treason. how many more americans (and australians, vietnamese and so on) died because of nixon's actions and lies? today with fact checkers, we see how often politicians and leaders lie. some more than others but they all do it. fidel was hardly on his pat. are lies like those of nixon any worse than any of fidel's? both are truly appalling. 

as for nationalisation, that is something i detest. an appalling action in almost every case. not to defend castro on it, as it is something i think reprehensible, but i am not sure how he thought he could get his country back without it. and it was support for this which was a large part of why the people backed him. he did have a plan of sorts, as i mentioned above, to try and repay those who lost property/businesses (whether he would have used the money to repay is another issue and i have huge doubts - i suspect like all politicians, he would have found another use for that money), but it was kyboshed by the americans. 

i can understand the anger of those who lost property, even after 60 years, i have no doubt it still burns. on a much more minor scale, we had a family member who everyone was close to. she stole, not strictly from us but from the family. there has never been contact since then. no idea if she is even alive. and no interest. forty years ago. it is certainly not something that festers every day but any mention of her is immediately dismissed. she is still held in contempt. and that must be a tiny fraction of what many feel after what castro did. but i am not really sure what one does about that. i don't think that there is any good answer for all. 

but the embargo was about regime change. 

all of this just shows how interlinked and how complex all this is. part of the problem is that those who might be able to do something about it, or at least work towards that, really don't seem to be interested, or at least have it as a high priority. 

 

6 hours ago, Kevin48438 said:

I hope this is all friendly banter, as I highly doubt we’ll solve the problem here.  In that spirit I offer the following:

The mafia was hardly the only enterprise investing in Cuba in the 50’s.   It may be the most salacious and thus headline worthy, but there were many others. 

The land and property wasn’t returned to “the Cubans.”   It was assumed by Castro and the party.

While Batista was a &@!$, Castro wasn’t/isn’t the best solution.  Or even one at all.  

I generally support the idea of the embargo as an imperfect option, but would also love to change to a better one.  

What is a better one?
 

 

i don't necessarily think of all this as friendly banter. more a really interesting debate. but either is fine. 

fully agree re the mafia and other enterprises, about castro not returning property and batista and castro being two versions of a disaster. i suspect castro had good intentions but they very quickly disappeared. 

a better option than the embargo? for me, given that after sixty years the embargo has obviously been an utter failure on every level, i'd suggest no embargo. can't be worse. and yes, that is horribly simplistic but it is surely worth a go. 

[mprach024]

8 minutes ago, Ken Gargett said:

for me, given that after sixty years the embargo has obviously been an utter failure

I agree with you here....but to those in a position to change it....who was it a disaster for?  The USA?  We are doing fine.  Not belittling the Cuban people at all, but look at from the politicians point of view who could enact change.  Nothing has happened in decades in regards to threats involving Cuba.  Where’s the support from the Cubans who are here?

12 minutes ago, Ken Gargett said:

i don't necessarily think of all this as friendly banter. more a really interesting debate. but either is fine. 

Agree 100%, very interesting, some great points of view on both sides

 

18 minutes ago, Ken Gargett said:

i'm not as convinced as you that they were as committed to the soviets in the very early days as yourself

I think if you do some Google searches you’ll find some of the historians accounts.  This was pretty much always his plan.  He showed his cards early with nationalization when DDE was still president.  The missile crisis and Bay of Pigs happened well after that under Kennedy.

[Ken Gargett]

9 minutes ago, mprach024 said:

I think if you do some Google searches you’ll find some of the historians accounts.  This was pretty much always his plan.  He showed his cards early with nationalization when DDE was still president.  The missile crisis and Bay of Pigs happened well after that under Kennedy.

the nationalisation was late 60, so a few months before JFK was elected. i have wondered whether he hoped that the US might step up and assist before that, but that would have been hugely naive. so too, any suggestion that the americans would walk back their support for batista. was not going to happen though i suspect the idealistic castro may have hoped so. 

to be fair to JFK, bay of pigs was lined up under eisenhower and kennedy had it dumped on him. he probably should have stopped it but i suspect he was new, young and did not see it as the time or issue on which to draw a line with his military. the missile crisis is a different matter, and had we not had the bay of pigs debacle, JFK may not have stood up so well at that time. but that is speculation. 

[Bijan]

3 minutes ago, Ken Gargett said:

the nationalisation was late 60

US property was August 1960 no?

[Ken Gargett]

Just now, Bijan said:

US property was August 1960 no?

i believe so. so late-ish 60. 

[Bijan]

Just now, Ken Gargett said:

i believe so. so late-ish 60. 

Oh sorry misread your original statement as late 60s ???

[mprach024]

4 minutes ago, Ken Gargett said:

i believe so. so late-ish 60. 

He started with plantations in the summer of 59, 4 months after declaring himself President

[Nino]

10 hours ago, Ken Gargett said:

as for fidel telling lies, nino, please! a politician/leader telling lies? say it isn't so! sure, some are worse than others but has there ever been a politician who has not lied?

 

Thanks @Ken Gargett for the good laugh - Absolutely a true Mantra we can all agree on !

??

[NSXCIGAR]

On 2/20/2021 at 6:00 PM, mprach024 said:

Cuba could end that embargo tomorrow if they wanted it.

Exactly--the regime doesn't want it to end. The great irony is that it's become a tremendous propaganda tool to maintain power.

The most devastating thing the US could do to the regime is eliminate the embargo. IMO, it's the only way to get any kind of actual regime change. Unfortunately, as it is, it's a stalemate and the regime has no problem maintaining the status quo. They've got it down to a science. When things get bad lighten up. When things get better, crack back down. They've been able to avoid mass starvation somehow and no one freezes to death there like in the Soviet Union. 

I just don't know where these protest songs and movements lead. Everyone knows the regime sucks but I don't think they know what the alternative is. Cuba has never really been free or independent. They have no concept of western freedoms or enlightenment principles. They need the education and exposure that ending the embargo could provide. It's going to have to be a full cultural revolution from the inside out. 

[Nino]

4 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Exactly--the regime doesn't want it to end. The great irony is that it's become a tremendous propaganda tool to maintain power.

The most devastating thing the US could do to the regime is eliminate the embargo. IMO, it's the only way to get any kind of actual regime change. Unfortunately, as it is, it's a stalemate and the regime has no problem maintaining the status quo. They've got it down to a science. When things get bad lighten up. When things get better, crack back down. They've been able to avoid mass starvation somehow and no one freezes to death there like in the Soviet Union. 

 

Spot on - the so-called embargo is Cuba's greatest publicity victory in the world stage.

And correct, everytime that the US wanted to thaw relations with Cuba from Carter on it was Cuba that blocked the initative, with the Mariel crisis, the shootdown of the Florida plane etc ... while at the same "releasing pressure from the pot" by allowing mass emigration ( a huge business for the Cuban regime btw ... )

[Trapper99]

On 2/21/2021 at 12:42 PM, mprach024 said:

There’s been lots of disagreements but all respectful and in the spirit of a good discussion of opposite feelings.  This is how every thread should be.  

Exactly. I have no knowledgeable input on this subject, but it was nice to read respectable debating, void of personal insults.

[dgixxer252525]

Cuba had a roughly 4 billion dollar per year cash cow in the Soviet Union throughout the 70s and 80s and nothing changed. People were still hungry, still being beaten, and still living in crappy houses. The leadership however grew wealthier and wealthier year after year...

I like that some are calling this a debate or a friendly chat...it's neither. There is no debating the issue. It's pretty clear cut to people who know what they are looking at. Whatever business is done with the Cuban govt, will not be to the benefit of the everyday Cuban people (outside of the tourist areas)...it will however be to the benefit of the leadership. 

The people didn't benefit in the 70s and 80s from the billions in Soviet aid and they didn't benefit in the 90s-00s with Chavez money...end the embargo and hope third time's a charm? Nah

[Bijan]

23 minutes ago, dgixxer252525 said:

Cuba had a roughly 4 billion dollar per year cash cow in the Soviet Union throughout the 70s and 80s and nothing changed. People were still hungry, still being beaten, and still living in crappy houses. The leadership however grew wealthier and wealthier year after year...

I like that some are calling this a debate or a friendly chat...it's neither. There is no debating the issue. It's pretty clear cut to people who know what they are looking at. Whatever business is done with the Cuban govt, will not be to the benefit of the everyday Cuban people (outside of the tourist areas)...it will however be to the benefit of the leadership. 

The people didn't benefit in the 70s and 80s from the billions in Soviet aid and they didn't benefit in the 90s-00s with Chavez money...end the embargo and hope third time's a charm? Nah

I mean the Soviet money was essentially subsidies to support communism and one can honestly believe that free trade and American investment would have a different effect than subsidies and handouts from a Soviet state.

And even in that case the withdrawal of all that Soviet money probably did hurt ordinary Cubans and the real economy.

[dgixxer252525]

32 minutes ago, Bijan said:

I mean the Soviet money was essentially subsidies to support communism and one can honestly believe that free trade and American investment would have a different effect than subsidies and handouts from a Soviet state.

And even in that case the withdrawal of all that Soviet money probably did hurt ordinary Cubans and the real economy.

I can see how one could believe that...and yes they entered into the "special period" after the SU collapsed...

[mprach024]

38 minutes ago, Bijan said:

I mean the Soviet money was essentially subsidies to support communism and one can honestly believe that free trade and American investment would have a different effect than subsidies and handouts from a Soviet state.

This is all predicated on if the Cuban government was open to free trade and capitalism.  Which they weren’t/aren’t, so this logic is a hypothetical of a hypothetical.  There would be no embargo if they weren’t a communist dictatorship.  Since they are, American investment wouldn’t go to the people and independent businesses, it would continue to fund the nation state.

[Bijan]

23 minutes ago, mprach024 said:

This is all predicated on if the Cuban government was open to free trade and capitalism.  Which they weren’t/aren’t, so this logic is a hypothetical of a hypothetical.  There would be no embargo if they weren’t a communist dictatorship.  Since they are, American investment wouldn’t go to the people and independent businesses, it would continue to fund the nation state.

True. But there was at least one major American hotel chain that had got a stake in a Cuban hotel with the relaxing of things I believe. Probably better that way than the reverse but yes I agree.

I mean China is an example. Trade with the west has benefitted China with lots of billionaires and a large middle class but also hasn't weakened the communist party.

On the other hand sanctions against Iraq before the war while crippling the economy didn't weaken Saddam's state but probably made people more dependent on it for daily life.

So my take is sanctions/embargoes don't change regimes. Getting rid of them doesn't change regimes either. But the people economy are better off without them.

[mprach024]

Just now, Bijan said:

Trade with the west has benefitted China with lots of billionaires and a large middle class but also hasn't weakened the communist party.

Yes exactly!  You just proved the point.  China chose to open its markets to capitalistic investment, and it’s seen a boom in money ever since.  Cuba has not done that, hence they are broke. It’s on Cuba to change the situation.