And just the other day the media was telling us how prosperous and successful Cuba is after they developed their own vaccine. If that was true, why in a period of days are there now “widespread anti government protest”? Also, why do people feel the need to flee the island on boats?
Because they can't make enough of them. How long did it take between the end of Phase 3 trials and you getting your first dose?
Beyond that, Cuba's economy is in shambles as there is no tourism to make money from and as covid restrictions are incredibly strict while cases are increasing.
If you've never had the chance to live as an average citizen in an average developing country it's hard to understand, but actually fleeing on boats is really not uncommon. Where I'm from people that can't even swim take discarded water bottles, stuff them under their t-shirts, and swim 40km to richer countries, for purely economic reasons.
When you don't have enough money for a plane ticket, you don't have the choice, and it's a lot more common in the world than you think. Cuba doesn't even have emigration rates that are out of the norm for poor countries close to rich countries.
Cuba isn't in shambles because it's a developing country, it's in shambles because of it's communistic repressive regime.
Cuba's government sends doctors to other countries for the money while ignoring their own citizens.
Just as Venezuela's collapse was due to Maduro's communistic regime and led to the influx of immigrants to the US, Cuba suffered the same fate since the Castro regime.
Yes people from poverty stricken countries do sometimes flee to richer countries for a better life, but oppressive regimes cause fleeing on a massive scale.
Look at what's causing the poverty. Is it developing and getting better, or is it oppressed by a corrupt government and getting worst.
-- edit for other's saying it's the embargo's fault --
The sanctions are in place because of their human rights violations. We cannot condone their corrupt government.
With truly democratic elections and a capitalistic system they'd allow their citizens to gain wealth without taxing them into poverty and they'd also gain sanction relief because they allowed the freedom to pursue happiness.
Lots of communism apologizing in this thread. Pointing the finger at the embargo like the regime always does, while pointing it away from the human rights violations.
Cuba fell because of communism.
Venezuela fell because of communism.
Both were economic powerhouses in the region before.
Most of the valuable agricultural land that Castro nationalized was owned by US businesses.
The people working the land did not own the land.
The US businesses ended up owning the land because of the Spanish American War.
Perhaps. I've lived in capitalist developing countries that were even poorer - hence people stuffing water bottles in their shirt - so I can't honestly conclude that it is the reason.
You're taking way too much of a good faith reading that comment. There's way more nuance than "communism bad," though it is very true that sanctions and the Castros and their cronies have both done great harm to Cuba.
Cuba has been in shambles since, at the very least, Batista came to power in a CIA-backed coup with monetary help from organized crime. After his government was overthrown all of that money dried up and the sanctions imposed (with no attempt at diplomacy) have choked the country out until this day. Yes, what little money comes in is siphoned off by the crooked Castro government, but there's a lot more to the history of Cuba and Latin America than "communism bad."
It's not a 'Blockade', which would normally mean someone trying to stop anyone/anything from entering or leaving.
US Embargo against Cuba would surely be a drag on even a 'regular capitalist economy' - but at they same time they'd do just fine with it. They can trade anything with any of the other 180 nations of the world. Most prosperous nations don't trade that-that much with the US.
And if they were open and fair, there'd be no embargo.
Stop defending this murderous regime there are no excuses for them.
Not really. Other countries with "regular capitalist economies" if there is such a thing have been scared shitless of an embargo and every single one has seen economic disaster.
The key to the embargo are two measures, the exclusion of Cuba from the global financial system, and the restriction on ships that docked in Cuba. Because of these, trade with Cuba from other countries is severely restricted.
It's the same situation as the Iranian embargo, just even worse. As you can see in Iran even in capitalist countries it causes untold economic disruption.
There would 1000% be a blockade even if Cuba became capitalist as long as it was opposed to US geopolitical interests. The US trades with endless murderous dictators and even traded with the USSR, the determining factor of the embargo is the Monroe doctrine, not anything else. Ever since 1776 Cuba has been struggling with escaping the American sphere of influence.
The problem is that a country the U.S. embargoes isn't free to trade with all other countries since the U.S. prohibits any company that does business with the embargoed country from doing business in the U.S. The size of the U.S. economy being as large as it is makes a U.S. embargo effectively a global embargo.
> since the U.S. prohibits any company that does business with the embargoed country from doing business in the U.S.
That is not true in this case, or even in general.
Canada trades with Cuba, but is not restricted from trading with the United States.
For example, you can freely purchase Cuban cigars in Canada.
Another example: the U.S. had an embargo against Iran for many years, but that didn't stop Siemens in Germany from selling them uranium centrifuges, nor did it result in a U.S. embargo against Germany.
Edit: here's a Canadian government site encouraging Canadian companies to do business with Cuba.
Reality is more complicated. Generally in order to trade with Cuba or Iran you do have to use financial instruments to insulate yourself.
Siemens did not sell centrifuges to Iran when it was during the full embargo. It did so earlier. Even then, sales of this equipment to Iran are done with coordination with the EU that does the footwork to insure the companies and avoid sanctions.
Because you're the one making the claim. You claimed that you need "financial instruments" to "insulate" yourself. Do you have an example of this or not?
> It's well documented that the US has secondary sanctions on Cuba
1) That's about private lawsuits, not government sanctions, "secondary" or otherwise.
2) It only applies to people who directly traffic in confiscated U.S. property, not to generic trade with Cuba.
3) No one has ever successfully pressed a claim or collected any compensation under that statute.
I’m mistaken. The best I could find in support of my claim was this in Wikipedia:
The Helms-Burton Act has been the target of criticism from Canadian and European governments in particular, who object to what they say is the extraterritorial pretensions of a piece of legislation aimed at punishing non-U.S. corporations and non-U.S. investors who have economic interests in Cuba. In the House of Commons of Canada, Helms-Burton was mocked by the introduction of the Godfrey-Milliken Bill, which called for the return of property of United Empire Loyalists seized by the American government as a result of the American Revolution (the bill never became law).
I don’t know the exact mechanism but I believe our sanctions cause more than just a pain for American companies doing business with Cuba.
Here is a better source, but you were right, the US allows for the lawsuit of anyone that deals with Cuba effectively. The Canadian government as well as the EU do have programs to counterbalance the effects of these sanctions though.
The trade embargo has much to do with this. Is there a prosperous country that the U.S. has embargoed for an extensive period of time. I suppose at one point Iran might have qualified but that would be because of oil. Nations that are largely excluded from the world market won't be prosperous is the main takeaway.
Is (nominal) communism to blame for the rise of China?
Cuba trades with Venezuela, China, Spain, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, and the Netherlands.
The rise of China is due to the economic reforms [0] launched in the late 70s by Deng Xiaoping and continued by his successors:
The Communist Party authorities carried out the market reforms in two stages. The first stage, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, involved the de-collectivization of agriculture, the opening up of the country to foreign investment, and permission for entrepreneurs to start businesses. However, a large percentage of industries remained state-owned. The second stage of reform, in the late 1980s and 1990s, involved the privatization and contracting out of much state-owned industry. The 1985 lifting of price controls[11] was a major reform, and the lifting of protectionist policies and regulations soon followed, although state monopolies in sectors such as banking and petroleum remained. In 2001, China joined the World Trade Organization (WTO). The private sector grew remarkably, accounting for as much as 70 percent of China's gross domestic product by 2005.[12] From 1978 until 2013, unprecedented growth occurred, with the economy increasing by 9.5% a year.
Yes, I know this. I was employing the same logic as the person I responded to. Namely, that since Cuba is a failure then it must be communism's fault. I just reversed things a bit. I was pointing out that simplistic reasoning is not sufficient to explain complex geopolitical situations.
That is certainly true, yet at the same time setting up free markets to get investment from capitalist nations is a Communist technique since 1922. Deng Xiaoping himself admitted that his reforms were inspired by Lenin setting up the same system in the USSR.
So in the end I think neither of you are really wrong.
For both, the purpose was not only to get foreign investment, but to improve internal economic efficiency, since collectivization and central planning were lethally inefficient [1][2].
Certainly, internal economic efficiency was also an important factor. Lenin rapidly realized that central planning is an incredibly difficult task and that allowing markets allows for more efficiency. However, Stalin disagreed as he wanted faster heavy industry development than markets would allow.
Indeed. Stalin effectively ended the NEP in 1929, eliminating private ownership of farmland and collectivizing agriculture under state control. By 1931, he had reimposed state control over all industry and commerce [0][1]. And thus came the Soviet famines of 1932-1933 [2][3][4].
Yes, this is made worse by the fact that Lenin previously tried to do what Stalin did and found that access to reliable data was a major issue, but Stalin still went through with it, partly because he expected war and partly because he thought he could do it better. This wasn't something we should give the benefit to Stalin for but in retrospect WW2 may have taken a turn for the worse in the opposite case.
Consider the saying "People don't leave jobs, they leave bosses." Sure, you're getting a new job, not just leaving an old one. But what they're really doing is leaving that jerk of a boss.
In the same way, you can be "going to America", or you can be "escaping from Cuba". Same thing in terms of actions, but not at all the same in terms of motive.
I don't exactly follow. When my family emigrated from an impoverished North African nation, we were escaping poverty and dysfunction just as much as we were going to richer countries.
Sure, it can be both at once. But it doesn't have to be.
Let's say I'm in Venezuela, and I'm tired of the "Maduro diet", i.e., borderline starvation. I'll go to Colombia or Brazil, or Guyana. Or I'll go through Colombia to Panama or Peru or Ecuador. Any of the above. I'm leaving Venezuela more than I'm going to somewhere.
In contrast, consider the caravans that show up at the southern US border. They're often from Honduras. But the people in them didn't stop at Guatemala or Belize or Mexico. No, they're coming to the US, not just leaving Honduras.
I really don't follow. The incentive is the same. You want to go from a poorer place to a richer place. You obviously don't want to go to a place where your economic situation won't improve.
No, not the same thing at all. Forcibly stopping your citizens from leaving your country altogether is not the same thing as another country stopping them from entering theirs.
Communist countries have historically implemented strict emigration policies [0]. For example, East Germany famously had a policy of mass-murdering citizens who tried to escape to the West [1].
That's a step in the right direction, if true. Do you have a source for it? This older article [0] says:
President Raul Castro said the regime will still decide who can renew or obtain passports. The government will protect "human capital" in its decision-making, and travel can be denied for "national security reasons."
Those deemed necessary to the Cuba socialist revolution — professionals such as doctors, scientists and engineers — can be prevented from departing. The "national security" clause worries some opposition figures.
It also appears that a Cuban passport is ~5 months of salary for a Cuban, which is a limiting factor in expatriating. I would be curious what a crowdsourced effort to fund passports and travel out of Cuba does to the government's posture and position on Cuban's leaving the country.
Yes, that is it. It is certainly not perfect yet, but controls on who can obtain passports are sadly the norm in the entire world. And indeed the price of the plane ticket stays the most significant hurdle.
Actually, not granting passports to people that are in dire need economically is fairly common, South Korea does it for example and so do a few African countries. Crucially it's not as bad as the previous system because you know of this complication before you make the choice of studying for these professions. It really sucks, but sadly it's more common than it should be.
> fairly common, South Korea does it for example and so do a few African countries
Source? To prevent goalpost-moving, the restrictions we're referring to are:
The government will protect "human capital" in its decision-making, and travel can be denied for "national security reasons."
Those deemed necessary to the Cuba socialist revolution — professionals such as doctors, scientists and engineers — can be prevented from departing.
If you were ever in such a situation, you'd know that by far the biggest limiting factor is actually the cost of the plane ticket and the visa. There isn't much of a distinction between both. Cuba fully ended exit visas 8 years ago.
Cuba is only a 'developing economy' because of Castro's oppression. Otherwise, it should probably be above Brazil and Argentina in terms of standard of living.
It would be the highest in central/south America alongside Chile.
Nature maagazine had a bit on their vaccine here [1]. It's not unreasonable or 'bad journalism' at the same time, it's biased towards them with no hard questions, making excuses, and soft-balling them questions on the embargo etc. and finally it doesn't address or put into context the overwhelmingly negative outcomes which are a result of the regimes power.
Perhaps it would have been, perhaps it wouldn't. There is no way to know, most likely it would have reverted towards the norm. Cuba has always been in very dire situations politically, I see no reason why Castro wouldn't have been replaced by someone else and then someone else etc...
As far as the embargo I don't think you can really separate it. Countries with more oppressive dictatorships have been able to develop economically if given the chance to trade.
Castro is a ruthless despotic killer. The entire economy is under his thumb, most of the prosperous larger scale enterprises are run by the Army. He purposely forbade minor economic activity (i.e. shops, trades) that would normally form 1/2 of the entire economic base. Some of this has loosened up.
You can't blame a blockade for not having mechanics available to fix cars when being a mechanic is defacto outlawed.
If Cuban were an open economy, even with crappy authoritarian leadership and and embargo, it would probably prosper.
Trading with other nations has some 'essential' aspects, but mostly it's not necessary, it's just advantageous. And there's no reason to have to trade with any one nation, generally.
Cuba might need very specific equipment from in order to advance some parts of the economy - for example, many factories need equipment only made in Germany as one example, the same thing applies to US sourcing. This would be acquired through intermediaries.
But by and large, trade would come in commodities, tourism etc. none of which is 'essential' between US and Cuba.
Not having the US to trade with is a drag, but anything that Cuba would actually need (i.e. specialized tech) would be purchased through intermediaries.
Definitely foreign direct investment and tourism would hamper things, but not by some kind of existential amount.
Castro Inc. is 100% the problem there, that people continue to defend them in some way is astonishing and shameful frankly.
'Mechanic' is a euphemism for small businesses which were banned up until recently [1][2], with an increasing level of opening from 2013-2017 since when there have been clamp downs of various kinds.
It's pretty sad that people are defending Castro Inc.
I believe that hatred for one's local political opponents transcends any material reality which is why Castro still gets so much indirect support in the West. Or let's just say 'lack of condemnation' or 'redirection of blame'.
In this way, the 'points' that Leftist/Rightists can glean over their opponents, they will use by seriously distorting the facts over some 'example' entity like Cuba.
The ability to rise above that to me is the 'litmus test' for ideological inanity vs. true good faith reasoning.
So many people don't want to admit that Castro Inc. is a vile authoritarian murderous regime, an so they'll do quite a lot to cover that up, by highlighting the few supposed positives, and rarely covering the negatives.
This is the 'red flag' of intellectual failure and I pretty much ignore anything these people have to say, much like I don't have any time for people that think that Donald Trump is some kind of 'Glorious Businessman' and can't fathom that what he does on TV is just made up.
Castro was (now Castro Inc.) a tyrant in the most obvious and classical sense it's clear as day.
They are free not to trade with the US if they wish to trade with Cuba. And these clauses only cover property that was illegally stolen by the Castro regime. Selling stolen property is always a crime, no matter where.
Castro annihilated the land-owning middle class in the first years of his premiership [1], using the same playbook as Lenin wrt the Kulaks after the October revolution [2]: do away with the financially and thus politically independent asap.
Cuba consistently required Soviet subsidies to survive through the end of the 20th century [3]. That's all gone now.
More accurately, Cuba traded with the Soviet Union and received food in exchange for its exports. I don't think Cuba was ever fully self-sufficient in food before, either.
Other than that you are correct about land reform in Cuba.
I don't see what's your point, that the US should invade Cuba against the will of their residents and incorporate it as the 52nd state so that eventually 50 years later the kids of the current generation may be favourable to it?
Now you're just shifting goal posts into absurdity and dodging the central point of the previous response, which isn't that the U.S should invade Cuba because of its awful, repressive, impoverishing government, but that despite all sorts of excuses for how Cuba was "saved" from U.S exploitation by the Castro regime, that regime still mismanaged it terribly in fundamental ways. Had the Cubans stuck to the sort of government that existed before Castro 8and it definitely was a corrupt, repressive government as well), they'd still have been better off by now due to evolving economic changes and entry into the wider open markets of the world.
The only ones to claim that it worked were the state owned media, regime and regime-controlled hospitals.
There's a pretty good chance it either doesn't work and the regime is trying to save face or that they copied a western vaccine and are trying to replicate it. They need US dollars from tourism so they have to get the population vaccinated as soon as possible or else the food shortages will get even worse.
I think this is fairly unlikely. If that was the case, Cuba wouldn't be negotiating with Vietnam to manufacture it. I think it's almost certain that it is an effective vaccine.
Conan O'Brian and his bullshit "Everything is great in Haiti!" stunt seriously should have convinced even the most trusting that yes, the media, from "news" to entertainment, is lying.
Yes, well known journalist Conan O'Brien is who I seek when I am forming my opinions on geopolitics
Also I'm guessing the purpose of the Conan piece was to 1) rebuke Trump for calling it a shithole - rude, unproductive, and should be below the station of the POTUS - and also help drive tourism, which I'm assuming is the nation's main source of income, by showing a fancy resort, as opposed to what's usually shown on news; a destitute country leveled by natural disasters seemingly yearly. Not on Conan to show the other side of the resort.
No sarcasm: can you point me to a mainstream news outlet referred to Cuba as prosperous? Both things can be true; Cuba successfully developed it's own vaccine, which is impressive for a country is said to be economically far worse off than most of the Caribbean. It's not on journalists to bring up the plight of Cubans in an article where the subject matter is totally unrelated to the issues of food shortages. You'll be hard pressed to find any mention of cutting of social welfare programs, food deserts, lack of jobs, or a failing school system in an article about weekend shooting numbers in Chicago's South Side because that's not germane to the stats.
Certainly things are and have been bad in Cuba for a very long time. Much of the country is destitute and it's notable that the people demonstrate against the gov't over (amongst other things) food shortages, which had been endemic to life in Cuba since Castro came into power. A well-known joke in Cuba goes like this: "What were the first 3 sacrifices to the revolution? Breakfast, lunch, & dinner."
Vaccine research isn’t food. Cuba is good at vaccine research. They are not good at producing food or material goods, and living standards have taken a further hit during the pandemic as tourism fell off.
It shouldn’t be hard to separate simple ideas. Communist countries were usually good at some things even though bad at most. The soviets produced good research, sports, film, and artistic talent. And atrocious living standards.
The Americans did it better on their home turf by targeting and banning specific hashtags and I guess location check-ins. They also have an advantage over the Cubans because they nicely outsourced all this to private entities like Facebook/Google/Twitter. I'm talking about the whole Trump election bruhaha and the accompanying Capitol protests (conveniently and almost immediately labeled as an "insurrection").
There are instances where government agencies have shut down communications during protests (e.g. BART). But I’m not aware of any US government orders shutting down internet access on Jan. 6. Care to share some sources?
I think they refer to private companies using moderation tools to prevent communication, coordination and encouragement of riots and insurrection that effectively achieved what other governments by blocking access to apps or forcing the moderation.
Depending on your ideology, it may be a good thing that the companies did it by themselves without requiring government force to do it, but I think the argument that these are similar actions in their purpose and effect is fairly accurate.
No, your comparison is not accurate; the most dangerous insurrectionists' communication means were not disrupted. They were mainly using platforms that weren't moderating them and made key plans using end to end encryption and direct messaging. Only a total Internet shutdown would disrupt that. And forcing a private company to facilitate violence to keep a defeated president in office against its will would itself be totalitarian.
Not really, the most powerful tool of the insurrectionists were definitely mass-media. The attempt was to draw sympathy amongst politically receptive groups and to amass numbers, not to have a small but very well organized group conduct a coup.
As far as common-carrier mandates being totalitarian, as I said, that's just one ideological viewpoints. Most European countries were quite shocked that the US allowed Trump to be banned.
He said the U.S. government didn't have to because Twitter, Facebook and Google (and AWS, when it shut down Twitter competitor Parler) did it on their behalf.
End the embargo on Cuba. Support the Cuban Revolution. If Cuba is missing material goods, it is because the US government has been strangling them for decades by shutting them out of the system of international trade.
During the early pandemic, Cuba has sent doctors to Italy when the US did nearly nothing. They have produced their own vaccine candidate on a tiny island nation. Imagine what they could do if we lifted the embargo and they could flourish.
Don't be too confident that the protests are not simply right-wing Cubans eager to take back their lands, casinos, and slaves. I'm sure the pandemic has put pressure on the people and government however.
The main thing Cuba has done to anger the US government is violate the Monroe Doctrine, which states that the US should control everything in its backyard. The Cuban people took matters into their own hand and charted a different course. We should not seek to interfere in their affairs.
Cuba experiences shortages because the economy is in shambles. Australia is far from its trading partners, yet it remains rich. Distance from rich trading partners is not the problem here.
Cuba is closer to rich trading partners (like the EU) than the Australia is to its rich trading partners (like the USA). Each also has poorer trading partners nearby (SE Asian countries and Central American countries respectively).
What happens to a company that wants to do business with Cuba, and the United States. I'm not 100% certain, but I have a sneaking suspicion that in order to get access to the sweet little money piggies that is US consumers, you gotta swear not to do business with dirty terrorists and commies.
Maybe that's not how it works, but boy I'd be shocked.
No, it's not normal. If you live in America all the land you may own and all its proceeds was stolen, obtained fraudulously, or obtained under duress. This is the case in almost every country on earth. You're not required to give it back because for better or for worse governments are considered sovereign, except for Cuba when that's convenient to US geopolitical goals.
> historians have been unable to find any evidence that Columbus was genocidal, or had any particular ill-will towards the Native Americans that he encountered.
Even the Spanish thought Columbus was genocidal enough to arrested, chained, and shipped back to Spain for judgement.
Not according to historians [0]. The definition of genocide is [1]:
genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group
From [0]:
Witnesses testified that his brief government of Hispaniola was marked by routine cruelty not only to the native Taínos but also to Spaniards who defied or mocked him.
Columbus wanted living and multiplying subjects to tax and govern. He was not interested in depopulating newly acquired territories.
The act was signed in 1996 and prosecution was suspended before any suit was over. Lawsuit have started in 2019 which are still ongoing.
This law has had a chilling effect ever since it was signed. It's sélective enforcement makes it worse, not better, as it allows the USG to privately threaten entities whenever most convenient.
It's not even the only way that secondary sanctions can be exacted. The US can also effect force on foreign corporations by threatening to sanction their US suppliers.
And that comes with significant pain to major companies many of which don't bother. The reason why all of these coubtries are in Canada or the EU is because those are the two jurisdiction where the government has laws to compel you to trade with Cuba and insure you against US secondary sanctions.
I completely agree that access to the US market would be extremely convenient for Cuba, but my point, and the reason for the comparison to Australia is to show that the USA is not what has caused Cuba's dismal state.
The USA has not been trying very hard since JFK was president. Each successive president has done less and less, and Cuba’s leadership has actively sabotaged every attempt at normalization.
No, they have not. Normalization actually did happen until Trump took office, and meanwhile Cuba has allowed for greater economic and political freedom.
Among many issues with this comment, you've misstated the Monroe Doctrine. Starting in 1823, the USA let it be known that foreign powers shouldn't interfere in North or South America.
Why would we support a revolution that has only served to make their leaders rich while making the people suffer? same happened with Venezuela with the direct intervention of the Cuban regime. It needs to end and I hope to live enough to see it end both in Cuba and my home country.
I'm not sure, but the person you're replying to might be implying that the CIA is busy online "raising awareness" and by that they sarcastically mean that the CIA is conducting an online misinformation campaign to discredit the people on the ground protesting.
If they had true agency the US would drop the sanctions and let them do as they please. Unfortunately the US loves to have a finger in every pie, and blaming the local population isn't the answer.
Embargo bad doesn't make Cuban government good and the Cuban people can rally against both.
The embargo is not responsible for Cuba's repression of the press, their repression of political dissent, their single party political system, the unchanging leaders from 1959 to 2018, or of Cuba's government own mismanagement of things.
No one is talking about blaming the Cubans for their woes. We're talking about the right and capacity of the Cuban people to rally against their own government if they wish.
While I share your concerns for democracy in Cuba there is likely still majority or close to majority support for the government and far from majority support for the embargo, so I think that by far the best way to support the agency of the Cuban people is to allow greater economic freedom, not to encourage potentially unpopular and certainly massively destructive military action.
What's the alternative? I don't understand the end goal there. What can be done except military action that will help, given that we accept that economic pressure doesn't help on the balance?
Please don't accuse me of being a bot just because my unstated priors are different from your unstated priors. It's really poor for the conversation and for every interlocutor.
> in Cuba there is likely still majority or close to majority support for the government
This is quite an assumption, and if it's true, it's only because those who disagreed with the regime have already been killed or leapt into the ocean to perish or prosper in Miami
While there was large emigration historically out of Cuba of people that disagree with the governments, there were very far from enough people killed during the revolution or later to significantly improve those numbers.
It's not an assumption, there are polls with approval ratings for various political figures from even western institutions that show that approval ratings 40-60 are the norm. It's possible that the approval has decreased due to the crisis, but that's not unique to Cuba and if it is maintained it's plausible for the president to change.
> How condescending do you have to be to attribute any act of dissent from Cubans towards their own government as an act of interference from the USA?
GP didn't attribute any dissent to the CIA, they insinuated that the CIA would be expected to actively exploit any dissent as a propaganda opportunity.
It's interesting to see what's happening in Cuba when, thanks to the pandemic, foreign tourism grinds to a halt.
The Castro regime just can't cope without having USD coming in the country via the state owned resorts. Starvation, riots, empty stores and people risking it all on makeshift rafts just so they can land somewhere better and send remittances to their family still stuck on the island so they can buy medicine.
These protests might finally be the start of a true Cuban revolution where the island will propel itself forward toward prosperity.
I'm not as hopeful as you are. I shared your hope but recent revolutions as well as history have shown that the most likely result of a revolution is things becoming even worse.
Cuba has been slowly but surely allowing more democracy and more economic freedom. I think that by far the best outcome for Cuban residents is for this process to continue peacefully without the massive destruction as well as the definitive end of the embargo.
No, it could not. The real standard for ending the embargo is aligning with American geopolitical goals.
The US doesn't embargo undemocratic states, it embargoes geopolitical enemies. That's the one and only standard. The US is quite happy to trade with undemocratic states if they do align with US interests though.
> The current regime could end the embargo right away by choosing a democratic future.
Not if a basically Communist (or otherwise ideologically oe geopolitically unacceptable to the US, but that's the most likely example in this case) regime won democratically, as the US has shown time and again (and also shown that right-wing authoritarian-capitalist anti-democratic regimes are not ideologically unacceptable, and are tolerable if willing to geopolitically align with the US.)
Why do they need the communist party? Democracies can do far better jobs for example Norway, Sweden, Germany, Singapore etc. And if the embargo is the only problem, why then the Communist Party does not step down? It is not like they wanted to import capitalist goods like Coca Cola, iPhones, Nike etc.
Communist party likes the embargo.
All of those examples you listed rely on a the global south to keep their lifestyles going.
Embargos aren't just for "capitalist goods". "Communism" isn't against trade. There are some raw materials that a country the size of Cuba can never get without meaningful trade.
What does my account age have to do with anything I've said?
Congrats you noticed my name is green, now stick to the discussion, don't attack me.
We shouldn't condone Cuba's regime by allowing trade and enriching them further without getting something for the people of Cuba in regards to liberty.
Cuban officials say the cargo carrier of Colombia-based Avianca Airlines declined to carry the aid to Cuba because its major shareholder is a U.S.-based company subject to the trade embargo on Cuba.
> The US threatens to sanction any country doing business with Cuba.
No, it threatens to impose legal liability on any company doing business in Cuba using expropriated property. Which is a bad enough policy that it doesn't require exaggeration.
The embargo is an excuse, Cuba has leeched from Venezuela's oil boom in the last 2 decades only to remain as poor as always, and also destroying Venezuela, leveling to the same disaster as the island. The people close to the regime are living the life of course.
163 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 160 ms ] threadBeyond that, Cuba's economy is in shambles as there is no tourism to make money from and as covid restrictions are incredibly strict while cases are increasing.
If you've never had the chance to live as an average citizen in an average developing country it's hard to understand, but actually fleeing on boats is really not uncommon. Where I'm from people that can't even swim take discarded water bottles, stuff them under their t-shirts, and swim 40km to richer countries, for purely economic reasons.
When you don't have enough money for a plane ticket, you don't have the choice, and it's a lot more common in the world than you think. Cuba doesn't even have emigration rates that are out of the norm for poor countries close to rich countries.
Cuba's government sends doctors to other countries for the money while ignoring their own citizens.
Just as Venezuela's collapse was due to Maduro's communistic regime and led to the influx of immigrants to the US, Cuba suffered the same fate since the Castro regime.
Yes people from poverty stricken countries do sometimes flee to richer countries for a better life, but oppressive regimes cause fleeing on a massive scale.
Look at what's causing the poverty. Is it developing and getting better, or is it oppressed by a corrupt government and getting worst.
-- edit for other's saying it's the embargo's fault --
The sanctions are in place because of their human rights violations. We cannot condone their corrupt government.
With truly democratic elections and a capitalistic system they'd allow their citizens to gain wealth without taxing them into poverty and they'd also gain sanction relief because they allowed the freedom to pursue happiness.
Lots of communism apologizing in this thread. Pointing the finger at the embargo like the regime always does, while pointing it away from the human rights violations.
Cuba fell because of communism.
Venezuela fell because of communism.
Both were economic powerhouses in the region before.
Sanctions came after the fact.
Human rights violations: https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2020/country-chapters/cuba
Cuba sanctions: https://www.state.gov/cuba-sanctions/
Are you suggesting JFK had an ulterior motive?
The regime can end the sanctions at any time: simply allow for democracy and return the stolen property. It's that simple.
That they would prefer their people risking their lives on rafts and starving should tell us all something about the Castros.
US Embargo against Cuba would surely be a drag on even a 'regular capitalist economy' - but at they same time they'd do just fine with it. They can trade anything with any of the other 180 nations of the world. Most prosperous nations don't trade that-that much with the US.
And if they were open and fair, there'd be no embargo.
Stop defending this murderous regime there are no excuses for them.
The key to the embargo are two measures, the exclusion of Cuba from the global financial system, and the restriction on ships that docked in Cuba. Because of these, trade with Cuba from other countries is severely restricted.
It's the same situation as the Iranian embargo, just even worse. As you can see in Iran even in capitalist countries it causes untold economic disruption.
There would 1000% be a blockade even if Cuba became capitalist as long as it was opposed to US geopolitical interests. The US trades with endless murderous dictators and even traded with the USSR, the determining factor of the embargo is the Monroe doctrine, not anything else. Ever since 1776 Cuba has been struggling with escaping the American sphere of influence.
That is not true in this case, or even in general.
Canada trades with Cuba, but is not restricted from trading with the United States.
For example, you can freely purchase Cuban cigars in Canada.
Another example: the U.S. had an embargo against Iran for many years, but that didn't stop Siemens in Germany from selling them uranium centrifuges, nor did it result in a U.S. embargo against Germany.
Edit: here's a Canadian government site encouraging Canadian companies to do business with Cuba.
https://www.tradecommissioner.gc.ca/cuba/index.aspx?lang=eng
Siemens did not sell centrifuges to Iran when it was during the full embargo. It did so earlier. Even then, sales of this equipment to Iran are done with coordination with the EU that does the footwork to insure the companies and avoid sanctions.
The Canadian government will in effect compensate you for these secondary sanctions though.
Because you're the one making the claim. You claimed that you need "financial instruments" to "insulate" yourself. Do you have an example of this or not?
> It's well documented that the US has secondary sanctions on Cuba
1) That's about private lawsuits, not government sanctions, "secondary" or otherwise. 2) It only applies to people who directly traffic in confiscated U.S. property, not to generic trade with Cuba. 3) No one has ever successfully pressed a claim or collected any compensation under that statute.
The Helms-Burton Act has been the target of criticism from Canadian and European governments in particular, who object to what they say is the extraterritorial pretensions of a piece of legislation aimed at punishing non-U.S. corporations and non-U.S. investors who have economic interests in Cuba. In the House of Commons of Canada, Helms-Burton was mocked by the introduction of the Godfrey-Milliken Bill, which called for the return of property of United Empire Loyalists seized by the American government as a result of the American Revolution (the bill never became law).
I don’t know the exact mechanism but I believe our sanctions cause more than just a pain for American companies doing business with Cuba.
https://www.eversheds-sutherland.com/global/en/what/articles...
Is (nominal) communism to blame for the rise of China?
The rise of China is due to the economic reforms [0] launched in the late 70s by Deng Xiaoping and continued by his successors:
The Communist Party authorities carried out the market reforms in two stages. The first stage, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, involved the de-collectivization of agriculture, the opening up of the country to foreign investment, and permission for entrepreneurs to start businesses. However, a large percentage of industries remained state-owned. The second stage of reform, in the late 1980s and 1990s, involved the privatization and contracting out of much state-owned industry. The 1985 lifting of price controls[11] was a major reform, and the lifting of protectionist policies and regulations soon followed, although state monopolies in sectors such as banking and petroleum remained. In 2001, China joined the World Trade Organization (WTO). The private sector grew remarkably, accounting for as much as 70 percent of China's gross domestic product by 2005.[12] From 1978 until 2013, unprecedented growth occurred, with the economy increasing by 9.5% a year.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_economic_reform
So in the end I think neither of you are really wrong.
For both, the purpose was not only to get foreign investment, but to improve internal economic efficiency, since collectivization and central planning were lethally inefficient [1][2].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine
[0] https://www.britannica.com/event/New-Economic-Policy-Soviet-...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivization_in_the_Soviet...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1932%E2%80%93...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazakh_famine_of_1931%E2%80%93...
To escape a country, or to enter a country? The example you gave is the latter. Do you have any examples of the former?
Consider the saying "People don't leave jobs, they leave bosses." Sure, you're getting a new job, not just leaving an old one. But what they're really doing is leaving that jerk of a boss.
In the same way, you can be "going to America", or you can be "escaping from Cuba". Same thing in terms of actions, but not at all the same in terms of motive.
Let's say I'm in Venezuela, and I'm tired of the "Maduro diet", i.e., borderline starvation. I'll go to Colombia or Brazil, or Guyana. Or I'll go through Colombia to Panama or Peru or Ecuador. Any of the above. I'm leaving Venezuela more than I'm going to somewhere.
In contrast, consider the caravans that show up at the southern US border. They're often from Honduras. But the people in them didn't stop at Guatemala or Belize or Mexico. No, they're coming to the US, not just leaving Honduras.
No, not the same thing at all. Forcibly stopping your citizens from leaving your country altogether is not the same thing as another country stopping them from entering theirs.
Communist countries have historically implemented strict emigration policies [0]. For example, East Germany famously had a policy of mass-murdering citizens who tried to escape to the West [1].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emigration_from_the_Eastern_Bl...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schießbefehl
That's a step in the right direction, if true. Do you have a source for it? This older article [0] says:
President Raul Castro said the regime will still decide who can renew or obtain passports. The government will protect "human capital" in its decision-making, and travel can be denied for "national security reasons."
Those deemed necessary to the Cuba socialist revolution — professionals such as doctors, scientists and engineers — can be prevented from departing. The "national security" clause worries some opposition figures.
[0] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2012/11/11/cuba-ex...
That's an understatement.
> controls on who can obtain passports are sadly the norm in the entire world
These restrictions are far from "the norm in the entire world".
Source? To prevent goalpost-moving, the restrictions we're referring to are:
The government will protect "human capital" in its decision-making, and travel can be denied for "national security reasons." Those deemed necessary to the Cuba socialist revolution — professionals such as doctors, scientists and engineers — can be prevented from departing.
Do you have a source for that? This [0] suggests otherwise.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27813742
It would be the highest in central/south America alongside Chile.
Nature maagazine had a bit on their vaccine here [1]. It's not unreasonable or 'bad journalism' at the same time, it's biased towards them with no hard questions, making excuses, and soft-balling them questions on the embargo etc. and finally it doesn't address or put into context the overwhelmingly negative outcomes which are a result of the regimes power.
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01126-4
As far as the embargo I don't think you can really separate it. Countries with more oppressive dictatorships have been able to develop economically if given the chance to trade.
Castro is a ruthless despotic killer. The entire economy is under his thumb, most of the prosperous larger scale enterprises are run by the Army. He purposely forbade minor economic activity (i.e. shops, trades) that would normally form 1/2 of the entire economic base. Some of this has loosened up.
You can't blame a blockade for not having mechanics available to fix cars when being a mechanic is defacto outlawed.
If Cuban were an open economy, even with crappy authoritarian leadership and and embargo, it would probably prosper.
Trading with other nations has some 'essential' aspects, but mostly it's not necessary, it's just advantageous. And there's no reason to have to trade with any one nation, generally.
Cuba might need very specific equipment from in order to advance some parts of the economy - for example, many factories need equipment only made in Germany as one example, the same thing applies to US sourcing. This would be acquired through intermediaries.
But by and large, trade would come in commodities, tourism etc. none of which is 'essential' between US and Cuba.
Not having the US to trade with is a drag, but anything that Cuba would actually need (i.e. specialized tech) would be purchased through intermediaries.
Definitely foreign direct investment and tourism would hamper things, but not by some kind of existential amount.
Castro Inc. is 100% the problem there, that people continue to defend them in some way is astonishing and shameful frankly.
I think I know what case you're referring to, I think you're misrepresenting it.
It's pretty sad that people are defending Castro Inc.
I believe that hatred for one's local political opponents transcends any material reality which is why Castro still gets so much indirect support in the West. Or let's just say 'lack of condemnation' or 'redirection of blame'.
In this way, the 'points' that Leftist/Rightists can glean over their opponents, they will use by seriously distorting the facts over some 'example' entity like Cuba.
The ability to rise above that to me is the 'litmus test' for ideological inanity vs. true good faith reasoning.
So many people don't want to admit that Castro Inc. is a vile authoritarian murderous regime, an so they'll do quite a lot to cover that up, by highlighting the few supposed positives, and rarely covering the negatives.
This is the 'red flag' of intellectual failure and I pretty much ignore anything these people have to say, much like I don't have any time for people that think that Donald Trump is some kind of 'Glorious Businessman' and can't fathom that what he does on TV is just made up.
Castro was (now Castro Inc.) a tyrant in the most obvious and classical sense it's clear as day.
[1] https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/07/15/the-end-of-cubas-entrep...
[2] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-36375807
And yes in practice. Cuba trades with China, Spain, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands.
https://oec.world/en/profile/country/cub
Cuba consistently required Soviet subsidies to survive through the end of the 20th century [3]. That's all gone now.
[1] http://revolutions.truman.edu/cuba/aboutme.htm
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dekulakization
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Period
Other than that you are correct about land reform in Cuba.
The agricultural workers almost all lived in shacks without power or plumbing.
There's a reason Castro was so popular at the time.
In exchange, Castro offered long term bonds, but I don't think anyone accepted.
Pretty sure if you offered Hawaiians and Cubans the possibility to switch places, many Cubans would want to do it, but not many Hawaiians!
Or because they don't work.
The only ones to claim that it worked were the state owned media, regime and regime-controlled hospitals.
There's a pretty good chance it either doesn't work and the regime is trying to save face or that they copied a western vaccine and are trying to replicate it. They need US dollars from tourism so they have to get the population vaccinated as soon as possible or else the food shortages will get even worse.
Also I'm guessing the purpose of the Conan piece was to 1) rebuke Trump for calling it a shithole - rude, unproductive, and should be below the station of the POTUS - and also help drive tourism, which I'm assuming is the nation's main source of income, by showing a fancy resort, as opposed to what's usually shown on news; a destitute country leveled by natural disasters seemingly yearly. Not on Conan to show the other side of the resort.
Certainly things are and have been bad in Cuba for a very long time. Much of the country is destitute and it's notable that the people demonstrate against the gov't over (amongst other things) food shortages, which had been endemic to life in Cuba since Castro came into power. A well-known joke in Cuba goes like this: "What were the first 3 sacrifices to the revolution? Breakfast, lunch, & dinner."
The propaganda hit MSN, Nature, NYTimes, and many other media outlets and those hit social media (FB, HN, Reddit, etc.)
https://www.msn.com/en-xl/news/other/cubas-covid-vaccine-riv...
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01126-4
Really easy to see: https://search.brave.com/search?q=Cuba%27s+COVID+vaccine+riv...
edit: I see the top comment was flagged and deleted.
It violated no rules and was simply pointing out the propaganda that hit the media that I listed above.
Sad state of discourse on this site, regardless of who is moderating, dang or the users who abuse flagging.
It shouldn’t be hard to separate simple ideas. Communist countries were usually good at some things even though bad at most. The soviets produced good research, sports, film, and artistic talent. And atrocious living standards.
Depending on your ideology, it may be a good thing that the companies did it by themselves without requiring government force to do it, but I think the argument that these are similar actions in their purpose and effect is fairly accurate.
As far as common-carrier mandates being totalitarian, as I said, that's just one ideological viewpoints. Most European countries were quite shocked that the US allowed Trump to be banned.
During the early pandemic, Cuba has sent doctors to Italy when the US did nearly nothing. They have produced their own vaccine candidate on a tiny island nation. Imagine what they could do if we lifted the embargo and they could flourish.
Don't be too confident that the protests are not simply right-wing Cubans eager to take back their lands, casinos, and slaves. I'm sure the pandemic has put pressure on the people and government however.
The main thing Cuba has done to anger the US government is violate the Monroe Doctrine, which states that the US should control everything in its backyard. The Cuban people took matters into their own hand and charted a different course. We should not seek to interfere in their affairs.
https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2020/10/unite...
https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/...
"WARNING: TOUR PACKAGES FOR SCUBA DIVING, BICYCLING, HUNTING, FISHING, HIKING OR OTHER TOURIST TRAVEL IN CUBA ARE ILLEGAL"
https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/126/cubatrav.pdf (from the previous page)
Maybe that's not how it works, but boy I'd be shocked.
The Canadian government and the EU have programs to mitigate that liability but it's still there.
It's illegal anywhere to profit or sell stolen goods. Why not simply return the property to it's owners?
where to begin?
> historians have been unable to find any evidence that Columbus was genocidal, or had any particular ill-will towards the Native Americans that he encountered.
Even the Spanish thought Columbus was genocidal enough to arrested, chained, and shipped back to Spain for judgement.
genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group
From [0]:
Witnesses testified that his brief government of Hispaniola was marked by routine cruelty not only to the native Taínos but also to Spaniards who defied or mocked him.
Columbus wanted living and multiplying subjects to tax and govern. He was not interested in depopulating newly acquired territories.
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-chr...
[1] https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml
Also, since 2019? What about the previous 60 years?
This law has had a chilling effect ever since it was signed. It's sélective enforcement makes it worse, not better, as it allows the USG to privately threaten entities whenever most convenient.
It's not even the only way that secondary sanctions can be exacted. The US can also effect force on foreign corporations by threatening to sanction their US suppliers.
No, they don't. Canada, Spain, Netherlands, Germany, and Italy are among Cuba's top trade partners.
https://oec.world/en/profile/country/cub
Source?
> The reason why all of these coubtries are in Canada or the EU is
But they're not all in Canada or the EU. Brazil, Mexico, China, and Russia are also among its top trade partners.
> those are the two jurisdiction where the government has laws to compel you to trade with Cuba
?
I don't understand why you think Cuba's shortages have nothing to do with the US threatening anyone who trades with Cuba.
The USA is blockading Cuba? This is news to me! There are regular flights from Canada to Cuba via US airspace, and many Americans take the trip!
Nonsense. [citation needed]
That's a lie. Cuba trades with China, Spain, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, and the Netherlands.
They are free to trade with anyone else. There's 180+ countries that have absolutely no sanctions against them.
> They have produced their own vaccine candidate
That, according to the state media, the only legal media on the island, works. Wouldn't trust it too much...
Why should anyone support a Communist regime that over a million Cubans have risked (and sometimes lost) their lives trying to escape?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Cuba
Do Cubans have no agency of their own? No free will? No intelligence to determine for themselves whether their own political system suits them or not?
Do you think that Cubans who don't agree with your political beliefs are too stupid to know better or corrupt and bought?
I might be wrong though.
The embargo is not responsible for Cuba's repression of the press, their repression of political dissent, their single party political system, the unchanging leaders from 1959 to 2018, or of Cuba's government own mismanagement of things.
No one is talking about blaming the Cubans for their woes. We're talking about the right and capacity of the Cuban people to rally against their own government if they wish.
I feel like I'm talking to automated talking points bots.
Please don't accuse me of being a bot just because my unstated priors are different from your unstated priors. It's really poor for the conversation and for every interlocutor.
This is quite an assumption, and if it's true, it's only because those who disagreed with the regime have already been killed or leapt into the ocean to perish or prosper in Miami
It's not an assumption, there are polls with approval ratings for various political figures from even western institutions that show that approval ratings 40-60 are the norm. It's possible that the approval has decreased due to the crisis, but that's not unique to Cuba and if it is maintained it's plausible for the president to change.
GP didn't attribute any dissent to the CIA, they insinuated that the CIA would be expected to actively exploit any dissent as a propaganda opportunity.
The Castro regime just can't cope without having USD coming in the country via the state owned resorts. Starvation, riots, empty stores and people risking it all on makeshift rafts just so they can land somewhere better and send remittances to their family still stuck on the island so they can buy medicine.
These protests might finally be the start of a true Cuban revolution where the island will propel itself forward toward prosperity.
Cuba has been slowly but surely allowing more democracy and more economic freedom. I think that by far the best outcome for Cuban residents is for this process to continue peacefully without the massive destruction as well as the definitive end of the embargo.
The US doesn't embargo undemocratic states, it embargoes geopolitical enemies. That's the one and only standard. The US is quite happy to trade with undemocratic states if they do align with US interests though.
Not if a basically Communist (or otherwise ideologically oe geopolitically unacceptable to the US, but that's the most likely example in this case) regime won democratically, as the US has shown time and again (and also shown that right-wing authoritarian-capitalist anti-democratic regimes are not ideologically unacceptable, and are tolerable if willing to geopolitically align with the US.)
Embargos aren't just for "capitalist goods". "Communism" isn't against trade. There are some raw materials that a country the size of Cuba can never get without meaningful trade.
The US is a massive economic force basically pushing Cuba to adopt a political model that the US wants.
I bet you haven't, because they'll all tell you they escaped because the oppressive regime, not because of poverty.
The sanctions are there for the same reasons we have sanctions against North Korea, trading with murderous regimes is condoning their actions.
Listen to the protests and the Cuban people, you may learn something.
Hint: they're chanting "freedom", not "relieve sanctions". They're protesting their government, not ours.
But please tell me more how the Cuban people are uninformed and you understand the conflict better.
And yes I have. Cuba's regime is shit - the embargo is also shit.
America's argument with Cuba would work better if they weren't suffocating them.
Congrats you noticed my name is green, now stick to the discussion, don't attack me.
We shouldn't condone Cuba's regime by allowing trade and enriching them further without getting something for the people of Cuba in regards to liberty.
No, they don't. Canada, right next door, has a vast amount of trade with Cuba. No "threats" are in play.
You're wrong.
Cuban officials say the cargo carrier of Colombia-based Avianca Airlines declined to carry the aid to Cuba because its major shareholder is a U.S.-based company subject to the trade embargo on Cuba.
https://oec.world/en/profile/country/cub
That's a lie. Cuba trades with China, Spain, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, and the Netherlands.
No, it threatens to impose legal liability on any company doing business in Cuba using expropriated property. Which is a bad enough policy that it doesn't require exaggeration.
https://blowback.show/
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/blowback-p...