Why is Cuba still taboo when we can go to Russia and China?

[Dorian Gray]

Just wondering, but it seems that the ban on all things Cuban stems from their communist ties with the USSR - but that's gone now, not to mention, you can travel to any of the former SSRs or former satellite nations with impunity.

What's up with that?

[Dumbledore]

Just wondering, but it seems that the ban on all things Cuban stems from their communist ties with the USSR - but that's gone now, not to mention, you can travel to any of the former SSRs or former satellite nations with impunity.

What's up with that?

Not quite sure how they still justify this stance. Maybe they are still hoping Cuba with fail without our support or tourists?

[ImaginalDisc]

Sorry, blame my asinine conservative family.

No, really. Blame the short-sighted bourgeois refugees from 1959 who were used to wealth, power, and prestige under the Batista regime, who had hot and cold running servants to serve their every whim in a tropical paradise as they lived well off of the labor of others. The Batista regime was incredibly corrupt, and the poor were completely disenfranchised. A revolution was inevitable, and the first flight of refugees to the US were adamant about using their US government connections to return Cuba to its previous state. To them, Castro is the only thing preventing them from returning to a Cuba precisely like the one they left.

Castro's rule is pretty awful, but the sad fact is the poor are better off in Cuba than they were before. The Cuba of my grandparent's generation was a Bochian mockery of justice and fairness. The most politically motivated and influential Cuban-Americans are the same fat cats who benefited from the Batista regime, and their politically conservative decedents. (My family worked to get the high school in their predominantly Wealthy Cuban-American suburb named "Ronald Regan Senior High," to resounding applause.) Plenty of younger Cuban-Americans want to end to embargo that is only hurting the Cuban people, but the older Cuban-Americans would rather gargle crushed glass than admit that time has passed, and things cannot return to the way they were.

This is the "Hispanic vote" the both parties cater to. Miami Cubans have risen to several high offices in the legislature and appointed executive offices, and their Borg-like adherence to a single issue makes it important to both parties that Castro remain persona non grata.

[Cleon]

Sorry, blame my asinine conservative family.

No, really. Blame the short-sighted bourgeois refugees from 1959 who were used to wealth, power, and prestige under the Batista regime, who had hot and cold running servants to serve their every whim in a tropical paradise as they lived well off of the labor of others. The Batista regime was incredibly corrupt, and the poor were completely disenfranchised. A revolution was inevitable, and the first flight of refugees to the US were adamant about using their US government connections to return Cuba to its previous state. To them, Castro is the only thing preventing them from returning to a Cuba precisely like the one they left.

Castro's rule is pretty awful, but the sad fact is the poor are better off in Cuba than they were before. The Cuba of my grandparent's generation was a Bochian mockery of justice and fairness. The most politically motivated and influential Cuban-Americans are the same fat cats who benefited from the Batista regime, and their politically conservative decedents. (My family worked to get the high school in their predominantly Wealthy Cuban-American suburb "Ronald Regan Senior High," to resounding applause.) Plenty of younger Cuban-Americans want to end to embargo that is only hurting the Cuban people, but the older Cuban-Americans would rather gargle crushed glass than admit that time has passed, and things cannot return to the way they were.

What he said.

[Zep]

...and when Castro finally pops his egalitarian clogs? If he hasn't already...

[Puppycow]

Sorry, blame my asinine conservative family.

No, really. Blame the short-sighted bourgeois refugees from 1959 who were used to wealth, power, and prestige under the Batista regime, who had hot and cold running servants to serve their every whim in a tropical paradise as they lived well off of the labor of others. The Batista regime was incredibly corrupt, and the poor were completely disenfranchised. A revolution was inevitable, and the first flight of refugees to the US were adamant about using their US government connections to return Cuba to its previous state. To them, Castro is the only thing preventing them from returning to a Cuba precisely like the one they left.

Castro's rule is pretty awful, but the sad fact is the poor are better off in Cuba than they were before. The Cuba of my grandparent's generation was a Bochian mockery of justice and fairness. The most politically motivated and influential Cuban-Americans are the same fat cats who benefited from the Batista regime, and their politically conservative decedents. (My family worked to get the high school in their predominantly Wealthy Cuban-American suburb named "Ronald Regan Senior High," to resounding applause.) Plenty of younger Cuban-Americans want to end to embargo that is only hurting the Cuban people, but the older Cuban-Americans would rather gargle crushed glass than admit that time has passed, and things cannot return to the way they were.

The is the "Hispanic vote" the both parties cater to. Miami Cubans have risen to several high offices in the legislature and appointed executive offices, and their Borg-like adherence to a single issue makes it important to both parties that Castro remain persona non grata.

That is true, the anti-Castro Cuban-Americans and conservatives are stubborn, but I suppose that it is equally true that Castro himself is equally stubborn and has not made any effort on his part to improve relations with the US.

Like with Israel, to most Americans, it's mostly off their radar screen, while those who really do care about the issue exert most of the influence. I guess it's simply a matter of waiting now for Castro and perhaps Raul to die so that the country can move on. It probably will be over within a decade.

[ImaginalDisc]

That is true, the anti-Castro Cuban-Americans and conservatives are stubborn, but I suppose that it is equally true that Castro himself is equally stubborn and has not made any effort on his part to improve relations with the US.

He traveled to the U.S., and President Eisenhower refused to speak with him. After decades of U.S. involvement in Cuban affairs, including manufacturing a war with Spain and insulting the rebels who assisted them, and propping up a criminal regime, Castro reached out and was not only dismissed, but attacked at the Bay of Pigs. Dictators commonly have a great capacity for grudges, unlike democratically elected politicians who can be remarkably magnanimous when the polls recommend it.

[Dumbledore]

Sorry, blame my asinine conservative family.

No, really. Blame the short-sighted bourgeois refugees from 1959 who were used to wealth, power, and prestige under the Batista regime, who had hot and cold running servants to serve their every whim in a tropical paradise as they lived well off of the labor of others. The Batista regime was incredibly corrupt, and the poor were completely disenfranchised. A revolution was inevitable, and the first flight of refugees to the US were adamant about using their US government connections to return Cuba to its previous state. To them, Castro is the only thing preventing them from returning to a Cuba precisely like the one they left.

Castro's rule is pretty awful, but the sad fact is the poor are better off in Cuba than they were before. The Cuba of my grandparent's generation was a Bochian mockery of justice and fairness. The most politically motivated and influential Cuban-Americans are the same fat cats who benefited from the Batista regime, and their politically conservative decedents. (My family worked to get the high school in their predominantly Wealthy Cuban-American suburb named "Ronald Regan Senior High," to resounding applause.) Plenty of younger Cuban-Americans want to end to embargo that is only hurting the Cuban people, but the older Cuban-Americans would rather gargle crushed glass than admit that time has passed, and things cannot return to the way they were.

This is the "Hispanic vote" the both parties cater to. Miami Cubans have risen to several high offices in the legislature and appointed executive offices, and their Borg-like adherence to a single issue makes it important to both parties that Castro remain persona non grata.

How informative, thanks for your post!!!!:D

[ponderingturtle]

Sorry, blame my asinine conservative family.

No, really. Blame the short-sighted bourgeois refugees from 1959 who were used to wealth, power, and prestige under the Batista regime, who had hot and cold running servants to serve their every whim in a tropical paradise as they lived well off of the labor of others. The Batista regime was incredibly corrupt, and the poor were completely disenfranchised. A revolution was inevitable, and the first flight of refugees to the US were adamant about using their US government connections to return Cuba to its previous state. To them, Castro is the only thing preventing them from returning to a Cuba precisely like the one they left.

Castro's rule is pretty awful, but the sad fact is the poor are better off in Cuba than they were before. The Cuba of my grandparent's generation was a Bochian mockery of justice and fairness. The most politically motivated and influential Cuban-Americans are the same fat cats who benefited from the Batista regime, and their politically conservative decedents. (My family worked to get the high school in their predominantly Wealthy Cuban-American suburb named "Ronald Regan Senior High," to resounding applause.) Plenty of younger Cuban-Americans want to end to embargo that is only hurting the Cuban people, but the older Cuban-Americans would rather gargle crushed glass than admit that time has passed, and things cannot return to the way they were.

This is the "Hispanic vote" the both parties cater to. Miami Cubans have risen to several high offices in the legislature and appointed executive offices, and their Borg-like adherence to a single issue makes it important to both parties that Castro remain persona non grata.

That seems to be most of it, added to it that this is an important swing state of florida.

Also they don't want the embargo of Cuba to prevent them from sending money to their families as well, so hurting Cubans in general is good, as long as they don't know them.

[Darth Rotor]

Sorry, blame my asinine conservative family.

No, really. Blame the short-sighted bourgeois refugees from 1959 who were used to wealth, power, and prestige under the Batista regime, who had hot and cold running servants to serve their every whim in a tropical paradise as they lived well off of the labor of others. The Batista regime was incredibly corrupt, and the poor were completely disenfranchised. A revolution was inevitable, and the first flight of refugees to the US were adamant about using their US government connections to return Cuba to its previous state. To them, Castro is the only thing preventing them from returning to a Cuba precisely like the one they left.

Castro's rule is pretty awful, but the sad fact is the poor are better off in Cuba than they were before. The Cuba of my grandparent's generation was a Bochian mockery of justice and fairness. The most politically motivated and influential Cuban-Americans are the same fat cats who benefited from the Batista regime, and their politically conservative decedents. (My family worked to get the high school in their predominantly Wealthy Cuban-American suburb named "Ronald Regan Senior High," to resounding applause.) Plenty of younger Cuban-Americans want to end to embargo that is only hurting the Cuban people, but the older Cuban-Americans would rather gargle crushed glass than admit that time has passed, and things cannot return to the way they were.

This is the "Hispanic vote" the both parties cater to. Miami Cubans have risen to several high offices in the legislature and appointed executive offices, and their Borg-like adherence to a single issue makes it important to both parties that Castro remain persona non grata.
Enjoyable summary, ID. *claps* I think the sugar industry in the US can be added to the Batistaleros in their narrow focus, and their associated lobbying in Congress. Not to summon shanek or anything, but one of the few things Janet Reno did that I applauded was stand down that sort of faction and return a boy to his father.

DR

[Cleon]

That is true, the anti-Castro Cuban-Americans and conservatives are stubborn, but I suppose that it is equally true that Castro himself is equally stubborn and has not made any effort on his part to improve relations with the US.

Er...Such as what? Cuba has been calling for normalization of relations for years, has offered to repay American companies for property nationalized during after the Revolution, and so on.

The US, in turn, has maintained this ridiculous travel ban and embargo for decades on end, has funded numerous destabilization efforts that range from the ridiculous (exploding cigar, anyone?) to half-assed invasion attempts to giving asylum to avowed terrorists.

Say what you will about Castro, but when it comes to US-Cuba relations I really don't think he bears much responsibility.

[Darth Rotor]

Say what you will about Castro, but when it comes to US-Cuba relations I really don't think he bears much responsibility.
Not since The Wall came down.

During the Cold War, his willingness to be a forward outpost for the Kremlin gave at least some reasonable justification, both strategically and politically, to diplomatic cold shouldering.

Since then, the major reason I see is to prevent a flood of immigrants from crossing the sea to Florida, and the usual suspects mentioned above. I get the impression that Cuban tourist industry potential is a threat to Puerto Rican tourism, in terms of competition, but can't nail down where a Puerto Rican lobbying effort has been part of the "seal off Cuba" effort.

DR

[ponderingturtle]

Er...Such as what? Cuba has been calling for normalization of relations for years, has offered to repay American companies for property nationalized during after the Revolution, and so on.

The US, in turn, has maintained this ridiculous travel ban and embargo for decades on end, has funded numerous destabilization efforts that range from the ridiculous (exploding cigar, anyone?) to half-assed invasion attempts to giving asylum to avowed terrorists.


I don't think they tried an exploding cigar, but I do know they tried a poison milkshake.

[Wolfman]

As to why there are ties with China, but not with Cuba, it is mostly politics.

The Cuban community in the U.S. has a very strong and influential powerbase, and by far the majority of those with power and influence in the U.S. are anti-Castro. Any American politician who made a move to cease the embargo on Cuba would lose a very significant portion of the vote, and would inevitably be painted as pro-Communist.

On the other hand, the Chinese community in the U.S. is mostly pro-trade; those who are strongly anti-China are very much a minority. Again, any politician who sought to create an embargo on China similar to that with Cuba would not only lose a very significant portion of the Chinese-American vote, they'd also lose the votes of the large number of American businesses doing business with China.

You can talk about human rights, freedom, and democracy all you want; in the end, it is just politics as useful, and those terms mean little or nothing except where they can be used as handy justifications for whatever policies best suit the needs of the gov't at the moment.

This is not intended as an overt criticism of the U.S. gov't or political system; every country in the world plays the same games.

[Crossbow]

Just wondering, but it seems that the ban on all things Cuban stems from their communist ties with the USSR - but that's gone now, not to mention, you can travel to any of the former SSRs or former satellite nations with impunity.

What's up with that?

Actually, it is not illegal for a US citizen to travel to Cuba.

However, since there are no direct transports between these two nations, one must go to some other country first (Mexico is real favorite), then go to Cuba from there.

[shecky]

I tend to dislike the notion that the US is somehow reciprocating Castro's unwillingness to improve relations. Why should the Cuban people be denied the benefits of increased trade by US tourists because of Castro? Even unilaterally opening up on the American side benefits both Americans who want to visit, and Cubans who see more tourists. It's the easiest way for the US to make Castro irrelevant.

[ImaginalDisc]

I tend to dislike the notion that the US is somehow reciprocating Castro's unwillingness to improve relations. Why should the Cuban people be denied the benefits of increased trade by US tourists because of Castro? Even unilaterally opening up on the American side benefits both Americans who want to visit, and Cubans who see more tourists. It's the easiest way for the US to make Castro irrelevant.

CUBA, SI! CASTRO, NO!
CUBA, SI! CASTRO, NO!
CUBA, SI! CASTRO, NO!
CUBA, SI! CASTRO, NO!
CUBA, SI! CASTRO, NO!

Bienvenidos a Miami.


Really. Didn't you know it's such a simple issue that one man is responsible for everything, and warrants all efforts to destroy him?

[Alt+F4]

I don't think they tried an exploding cigar, but I do know they tried a poison milkshake.

I believe the milkshake was supposed to make his beard fall out, thus prompting the Cubans to counter-revolution.

[Cleon]

Not since The Wall came down.

During the Cold War, his willingness to be a forward outpost for the Kremlin gave at least some reasonable justification, both strategically and politically, to diplomatic cold shouldering.

I can see how you'd see that, from a certain perspective.

However, I think that's somewhat myopic; Cuba didn't approach the Soviet Union until after the embargo was first implemented in 1960--and then it was only for bare necessities, like fuel. They didn't officially throw in with the USSR until after the Bay of Pigs invasion.

In other words--that "reasonable justification" puts the cart before the horse. US hostility began long before the USSR got involved. The Soviets were an excuse, not a reason.

(The American government's intervention in Cuba--to say nothing of the rest of Latin America--is a large part of why American politicos are met with eye-rolls and hysterical laughter when they start talking about "protecting democracy.")

[ImaginalDisc]

(The American government's intervention in Cuba--to say nothing of the rest of Latin America--is a large part of why American politicos are met with eye-rolls and hysterical laughter when they start talking about "protecting democracy.")

Panama, Manuel Noriega, Agusto Pinochet, the Spanish-American War, The Monroe Doctrine, yeah, we could be here all day if we started broaching the subject of the U.S. pissing all over South America.

That's why I frequently comment that the U.S. is a nice place to live, but a terrible neighbor to have.

[Cleon]

Actually, it is not illegal for a US citizen to travel to Cuba.

However, since there are no direct transports between these two nations, one must go to some other country first (Mexico is real favorite), then go to Cuba from there.

Au contraire--it is illegal for a US citizen to visit Cuba without permission from the US government.

Before the Helms-Burton Act, the embargo and travel ban were by way of Executive Order, not congressional legislation. Under that policy, US citizens could only travel to Cuba legally if they were acting as a journalist, student, or some such--and the needed documentation was pretty small. All you really needed was a letter from a publication saying you were going to write a story for them.


When the Helms-Burton Act was passed, the embargo/travel ban went from relatively-easy-to-get-around Executive Order to full-blown legislation. Since that time, it is a federal crime for a US citizen to travel to Cuba without a license from the Department of the Treasury.

Licenses are very difficult to get. You have to be a full-time journalist, students participating in a particular program of study that requires travel to Cuba, official government business, or professionals going to a specific conference. (Licenses are also granted to family members visiting their loved ones. Sometimes.) The licenses are difficult to get, and may be denied for any reason or no reason at all. This page (http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1097.html) talks about the various license requirements. (It's worth noting that even when you fulfill all the requirements, that's not a guarantee your license will be approved.)

[billydkid]

Cuban votes in Florida - that's it, the whole deal.

[Crossbow]

Au contraire--it is illegal for a US citizen to visit Cuba without permission from the US government.

Before the Helms-Burton Act, the embargo and travel ban were by way of Executive Order, not congressional legislation. Under that policy, US citizens could only travel to Cuba legally if they were acting as a journalist, student, or some such--and the needed documentation was pretty small. All you really needed was a letter from a publication saying you were going to write a story for them.


When the Helms-Burton Act was passed, the embargo/travel ban went from relatively-easy-to-get-around Executive Order to full-blown legislation. Since that time, it is a federal crime for a US citizen to travel to Cuba without a license from the Department of the Treasury.

Licenses are very difficult to get. You have to be a full-time journalist, students participating in a particular program of study that requires travel to Cuba, official government business, or professionals going to a specific conference. (Licenses are also granted to family members visiting their loved ones. Sometimes.) The licenses are difficult to get, and may be denied for any reason or no reason at all. This page (http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1097.html) talks about the various license requirements. (It's worth noting that even when you fulfill all the requirements, that's not a guarantee your license will be approved.)

Thanks much for the correction 'Cleon'! That was my mistake as I had forgotten about Helms-Burton.

Sorry about that! I tend to repress any memories that involve Jesse Helms.

[Cleon]

Thanks much for the correction 'Cleon'! That was my mistake as I had forgotten about Helms-Burton.

Sorry about that! I tend to repress any memories that involve Jesse Helms.

I don't blame you. :D

[Darth Rotor]

I can see how you'd see that, from a certain perspective.

However, I think that's somewhat myopic; Cuba didn't approach the Soviet Union until after the embargo was first implemented in 1960--and then it was only for bare necessities, like fuel. They didn't officially throw in with the USSR until after the Bay of Pigs invasion.

In other words--that "reasonable justification" puts the cart before the horse. US hostility began long before the USSR got involved. The Soviets were an excuse, not a reason.

(The American government's intervention in Cuba--to say nothing of the rest of Latin America--is a large part of why American politicos are met with eye-rolls and hysterical laughter when they start talking about "protecting democracy.")
Yeah, I guess Castro's decision to let the Soviets base missiles there in 1960's was just a lark. He gave the anti Castroleros an ammo dump of rationale for keeping the diplomatic shoulder cold. If you openly profess to be a Commiunist, and to be opposed to Imperialist America, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to believe you'll be met with less than a cordial response. All that said, I can see how dealing with his revolution, along a "Tito is someone one can sorta work with" approach, could have been another choice. Given US / Soviet tensions at the time of the Cuban revolution, the suspiscion of Castro was not unwarranted, and his compliticy in the missile crisis grist for the mill.

That still does not excuse post "wall down" policy. The Red Scare was over.

DR

[WildCat]

What he said.
I must re-examine my position, since for some reason I find myself agreeing with you and ID. ;)

[Cleon]

Yeah, I guess Castro's decision to let the Soviets base missiles there in 1960's was just a lark.

Much as I admire your attempt at sarcasm, the above doesn't contradict anything I said. The Soviets didn't start putting the missiles in until 1962.


He gave the anti Castroleros an ammo dump of rationale for keeping the diplomatic shoulder cold. If you openly profess to be a Commiunist, and to be opposed to Imperialist America, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to believe you'll be met with less than a cordial response. All that said, I can see how dealing with his revolution, along a "Tito is someone one can sorta work with" approach, could have been another choice. Given US / Soviet tensions at the time of the Cuban revolution, the suspiscion of Castro was not unwarranted, and his compliticy in the missile crisis grist for the mill.Again, you're ignoring the sequence of events. The Cubans didn't approach the USSR until after they'd been told off by Washington for the 10,000th time.

You can't fault Castro for turning to the Soviets if the US first refused to even deal with him--especially considering Washington's support of Batista in the first place.

[Darth Rotor]

Much as I admire your attempt at sarcasm, the above doesn't contradict anything I said. The Soviets didn't start putting the missiles in until 1962.
Letting them do that rather guaranteed more trouble with the US, or burning a bridge. In his defense, the Bay of Pigs was a hint and a half that things with Washington weren't going to get better very quickly.
Again, you're ignoring the sequence of events. The Cubans didn't approach the USSR until after they'd been told off by Washington for the 10,000th time.
I am ignoring nothing, and you seem to be failing to account for the geopolitical climate of the Cold War, inside of which this little drama played out. See above the Bay of Pigs as another marker Castro doubtless considered when looking to Washington.
You can't fault Castro for turning to the Soviets if the US first refused to even deal with him--especially considering Washington's support of Batista in the first place.
The Batista relationship and his overthrow is the same problem all dictators in Latin America had: once I am in charge, how do I deal with everyone? Had I been Fidel, and groping around for a way forward, I am pretty sure the Bay of Pigs would have suggested to me that I either need to get in the good with Washington one way or another, or find a big friend.

But of course, to use your terms, you ignored the Bay of Pigs in this discussion.

I find it curious that Castro's public proclamation of the revolution, his Anti American position documented as far back as the early 1950's, and his abrupt nationalization stunt after the US had recognized him is being overlooked by you. He wasn't a blank slate. He was already in bed with Kruzchev before the Bay of Pigs, which some argued was reason enough for the attempt to remove him. With him already a publicly outspoken "Anti American," he plays the "nationalize the industry card" and is getting chummy with Kruzchev.

But Ike is supposed to trust him? Maybe Ike is a bit smarter than you are, or, maybe Ike was set in his ways, or, maybe Ike was skeptical of leftist revolutionaries who nationalize industries.

Cleon, if you put yourself back in 1960, rather than now looking back, I don't think you'd find Ike's position inconsistent with the general American position during the Cold War. The proximity of Cuba was icing on the cake.

Castro took the rhetoric of a resistance movement and tried to apply it at the macro level, when he became Prime Minister, and it backfired on him. The people he needed to convince of his ability to be negotiated with were not convinced. So, he and Cuba pay the price. That's politics. Hubris.

That still doesn't explain the Post Wall Down attitude in Washington, beyond the Cuban lobby and the sugar lobby, and maybe the tourist lobby.

DR

[ImaginalDisc]

The Batista relationship and his overthrow is the same problem all dictators in Latin America had: once I am in charge, how do I deal with everyone? Had I been Fidel, and groping around for a way forward, I am pretty sure the Bay of Pigs would have suggested to me that I either need to get in the good with Washington one way or another, or find a big friend.

Whaaaaaaaa? Kennedy feigned ignorance of the entire Bay of Pigs operation, and canceled all air support and logistical support for it. If I were Castro I'd have taken it as a sign that the U.S. was pretending I don't exist.

I find it curious that Castro's public proclamation of the revolution, his Anti American position documented as far back as the early 1950's, and his abrupt nationalization stunt after the US had recognized himeing overlooked by you. He wasn't a blank slate.

Anyone litterate with a history book in the vicinity should understand why anti-U.S. sentiment would be widespread amoung the poor in Cuba.

He was already in bed with Kruzchev before the Bay of Pigs, which some argued was reason enough for the attempt to remove him.
[CITATION NEEDED]

With him already a publicly outspoken "Anti American," he plays the "nationalize the industry card" and is getting chummy with Kruzchev.

But Ike is supposed to trust him? Well, maybe Ike is a bit smarter than you are, or, maybe Ike was set in his ways, or, maybe Ike was skeptical of leftist revolutionaries who nationalize industries.

Cleon, if you put yourself back in 1960, rather than now looking back, I don't think you'd find Ike's position inconsistent with the general American position during the Cold War.

Cuba had been a U.S. playground, a vile and corrupt dictatorship that danced to the U.S. tune. It became a bloody, communist regime. Politically, it was likely impossibly for Ike to reach out to a communist country at all, given the severe anti-communist feelings in the American people at the time, international political realties aside.

[Cleon]

Letting them do that rather guaranteed more trouble with the US, or burning a bridge. In his defense, the Bay of Pigs was a hint and a half that things with Washington weren't going to get better very quickly.

As opposed to his previous 10 years of trying?

I'm mystified at the idea that, given US conduct in Latin America and Cuba specifically, that any blame can really be laid at Castro's feet. Yeah, he went to the Soviets, but only after getting the brush-off from Washington.


I am ignoring nothing, and you seem to be failing to account for the geopolitical climate of the Cold War, inside of which this little drama played out. See above the Bay of Pigs as another marker Castro doubtless considered when looking to Washington.

The Batista relationship and his overthrow is the same problem all dictators in Latin America had: once I am in charge, how do I deal with everyone? Had I been Fidel, and groping around for a way forward, I am pretty sure the Bay of Pigs would have suggested to me that I either need to get in the good with Washington one way or another, or find a big friend.

The Bay of Pigs was a clear message from Washington that they wanted their puppet back and nothing to do with Castro.

You don't make friends with the guy who just tried to beat the crap out of you.


But of course, to use your terms, you ignored the Bay of Pigs in this discussion.

Again, an admirable attempt at being snide, but you really need to leave it to the experts.

I brought up the Bay of Pigs before you did.


I find it curious that Castro's public proclamation of the revolution, his Anti American position documented as far back as the early 1950's, and his abrupt nationalization stunt after the US had recognized him. He was already in bed with Kruzchev before the Bay of Pigs, which some argued was reason enough for the attempt to remove him.

Several things wrong here:

First, Castro's "anti-American position" in the 1950s was mainly in regard to American support of the Batista regime. In fact, in his 1953 "History Will Absolve Me" speech (http://www.marxists.org/history/cuba/archive/castro/1953/10/16.htm), he actually spoke quite glowingly of American history and principles.

Second, the US first started the trade restrictions (the beginning of the embargo) in the summer of 1960. At that point, the Cubans approached the Soviets asking for help, and got a sugar-for-fuel deal. That was the limit of being "in bed with" Khruschev--it wasn't until after the Bay of Pigs invasion that military aid was involved.

Third, you're again dancing around the sequence of events by saying "[H]e was already in bed with Kruzchev before the Bay of Pigs, which some argued was reason enough for the attempt to remove him." As I pointed out, US attempts to destabilize the new government began before he was "in bed with Khruschev," and even through the Bay of Pigs invasion the limit of this relationship was trade. (Free trade! The horror!)


But Ike is supposed to trust him?

Trust? Who said anything about trust?

Ike is free to trust or distrust whoever he likes. But Washington was responsible for Washington's actions, and it doesn't make sense to blame them on Castro.

[Darth Rotor]

Whaaaaaaaa? Kennedy feigned ignorance of the entire Bay of Pigs operation, and canceled all air support and logistical support for it. If I were Castro I'd have taken it as a sign that the U.S. was pretending I don't exist.
That's rather silly. Kennedy was more than passingly familiar with Cuba, its leadeship, and all else.
Anyone litterate with a history book in the vicinity should understand why anti-U.S. sentiment would be widespread amoung the poor in Cuba.
Anti-US sentiment does not preclude making intelligent decisions at the national level. Growing from revolutionary into Prime Minister is a profound role change, one few caudillos handle well. If you rule by the mob's emotion, you get what you ask for: trouble.
[CITATION NEEDED]
Check Wikipedia. Easy.
On May 17, 1959, Castro signed into law the First Agrarian Reform, which limited landholdings to 993 acres (4 km²) per owner and forbade foreign land ownership.[40][41] Fidel Castro addresses delegates of the General Assembly of the United Nations in New York in 1960. As early as July 1959, Castro's intelligence chief Ramiro Valdés contacted the KGB in Mexico City.[42] Subsequently, the USSR sent over one hundred mostly Spanish speaking advisors, including Enrique Líster Forján, to organize the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution.

In February 1960, Cuba signed an agreement to buy oil from the USSR. When the U.S.-owned refineries in Cuba refused to process the oil, they were expropriated, and the United States broke off diplomatic relations with the Castro government soon afterward. To the concern of the Eisenhower administration, Cuba began to establish closer ties with the Soviet Union
See, it's that easy. (Obviously, there was a constant tit for tat dynamic involved, but if you are Cuba, and you are a neighbor of the US, you have to deal with that reality.) The Bay of Pigs can't have done other than drive him into marriage with someone, anyone, other than Washington. Putting myself in Fidel's shoes, it makes sense. If the Americans would try once, wouldn't they try again? Find a big friend. Oh, wait, I've already got one who is eager to be a better friend, a big friend with issues. Big, Cold War issues. You get nothing for free in this world, there are strings attached to more things than kites and tampons.
Cuba had been a U.S. playground, a vile and corrupt dictatorship that danced to the U.S. tune.
That is not in dispute. Finding Castro distasteful does not make me a fan of Batista, who was not exactly shy and retiring about his despotism.
It became a bloody, communist regime.
What a shame.

It might have been different if Fidel understood how to make a deal, rather than to scream his ideals. (And if Ike had perhaps tried another tact, or if JFK handn't been so insecure early in his administration.) It didn't have to turn out the way it did. But it didn't happen in isolation, as some of you all seem to pretend.
Politically, it was likely impossibly for Ike to reach out to a communist country at all, given the severe anti-communist feelings in the American people at the time, international political realties aside.
Yes indeed.

I am going to agree a bit with both you and Cleon, in terms of the lost opportunity. There was a narrow window, it seems to me looking back, where both Fidel and Ike had a chance to reach a tenuous accord. Opportunity lost, missed, or whatever.

Human history is littered with such missed chances. It's a people thing.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

As opposed to his previous 10 years of trying?
What kind of crap is this? He became PM in 1959. What ten years? He spent eight of those simply trying to get a seat at the table in Cuban politics.
Again, an admirable attempt at being snide, but you really need to leave it to the experts.

I brought up the Bay of Pigs before you did.
Not in our discussion, but I went back and looked, and you did bring it up earlier in another interchange.
First, Castro's "anti-American position" in the 1950s was mainly in regard to American support of the Batista regime. In fact, in his 1953 "History Will Absolve Me" speech (http://www.marxists.org/history/cuba/archive/castro/1953/10/16.htm), he actually spoke quite glowingly of American history and principles.
"I like America, it's just some Americans I can't stand." :rolleyes: Uh, huh, I've seen that line before. Hell, I see it all the time now.
Second, the US first started the trade restrictions (the beginning of the embargo) in the summer of 1960. At that point, the Cubans approached the Soviets asking for help, and got a sugar-for-fuel deal. That was the limit of being "in bed with" Khruschev--it wasn't until after the Bay of Pigs invasion that military aid was involved.
Sorry, first political blood drawn was "nationalizing" deal. US recognized his gov't, then he played that card. Then follow the bouncing ball.
Third, you're again dancing around the sequence of events by saying "[H]e was already in bed with Kruzchev before the Bay of Pigs, which some argued was reason enough for the attempt to remove him." As I pointed out, US attempts to destabilize the new government began before he was "in bed with Khruschev," and even through the Bay of Pigs invasion the limit of this relationship was trade. (Free trade! The horror!)
I guess the nationalization thing is being seen via hind sight. At the time, such moves were far more volatile than they have since become. See first blood, again.

IMO, Bay of Pigs actually happening had more to do with Kennedy's shortcomings as a president than much else. I found Schlesinger's commentary about that interesting. (Thousand Days)
Trust? Who said anything about trust?
If you want to cut a deal with a US President, a good first move isn't nationalizing industries owned by US businessmen. While the whole nationalizing deal has become more commonplace, at the time it was a guarantee to draw hate.
Ike is free to trust or distrust whoever he likes. But Washington was responsible for Washington's actions, and it doesn't make sense to blame them on Castro.
Aye. Likewise, Castro is responsible for his actions, and the nationalization move, particularly done so soon, was guaranteed to draw ice and hate from Washington.

See my other remark: you apply the mob's emotions to a policy decision, you are begging for trouble. Trouble he got.

(Funnily enough, if you fast forward to a few years ago, you can probably apply that same idea to the Iraq War. :p )

DR

[geni]

The rest of the world likes to have a holiday spot without any US tourists. I assume they will be working on figureing out how to keep UK tourists out as well.