BS: US Cuban ban & use of Guantanamo: explain

Subject: BS: US Cuban ban & use of Guantamo: explain
From: Will Fly
Date: 14 Jan 09 - 07:29 AM

Being fairly ignorant, I've wondered how the US Government reconciles its overall attitude to Cuba with its use of Cuban soil in the shape of Guantanamo Bay. Can someone enlighten me about to what appears to be conflicting foreign policy?

Subject: RE: BS: US Cuban ban & use of Guantamo: explain
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 14 Jan 09 - 10:13 AM

The US has a long-term lease on the Guantanamo location, growing out of the Spanish-American War. For that period, it is effectively a United States territory, for most purposes.

The political struggles of the US and the Cuban government are a totally separate matter.

The lease would be there without the political troubles. The political troubles would be there if the lease never existed.

Q.E.D.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: US Cuban ban & use of Guantanamo: explain
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 14 Jan 09 - 10:20 AM

We gave the Canal Zone back to Panama. I think we should give Guantanamo back to Cuba. And lift the embargo.

And I think Britain should give the Elgin marbles back to Greece, but that ain't gonna happen soon, either.

Subject: RE: BS: US Cuban ban & use of Guantanamo: explain
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 14 Jan 09 - 10:21 AM

We gave the Canal Zone back to Panama.

Yes, at the end of the lease.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: US Cuban ban & use of Guantanamo: explain
From: Wesley S
Date: 14 Jan 09 - 10:56 AM

I'm hoping the that prison at Guantanamo is closed soon but don't hold your breath on the naval base being turned back over to Cuba. The US will hold onto that until the bitter end. How much longer is the lease expected to last?

Subject: RE: BS: US Cuban ban & use of Guantanamo: explain
From: Peter T.
Date: 14 Jan 09 - 11:00 AM

The US and Cuba signed an agreement back in the 30s which they disagree about -- there has to be a mutual agreement to leave.

What is amusing is that the US sends a check to Cuba every year and the Cubans don't cash it. I wonder how much it must be?

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: US Cuban ban & use of Guantanamo: explain
From: jeffp
Date: 14 Jan 09 - 11:05 AM

The lease is "permanent," which is disputed by Cuba. The US pays their rent every year, but Cuba doesn't cash the checks, except for one year since the revolution. Cuba says that that was a mistake, but the US says that validates the lease.

Subject: RE: BS: US Cuban ban & use of Guantanamo: explain
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Jan 09 - 02:48 PM

Well, it's typical. The USA is the only great power that ever gets to have a military base on the soil of one of its official enemies. Can you imagine the Russians or the Chinese getting away with having such a base in Mexico? Or in Israel? Or in Canada?

No?

Well, of course not! The Russians are not God's official agent on this planet, and you must remember that. ;-) God's official agent here can do anything he wants, and the usual rules that would apply to others simply do not apply to him.

Subject: RE: BS: US Cuban ban & use of Guantanamo: explain
From: Rapparee
Date: 14 Jan 09 - 03:04 PM

I can easily imagine Britain having a base in Gibraltar when they were at war with Spain...or in France when they were at war with France...or in lots of other places.

By the way, don't forget that the US has a base in Goose Bay. That's from where one of our pincers will come from; the other will come from Alaska.

Subject: RE: BS: US Cuban ban & use of Guantanamo: explain
From: Rog Peek
Date: 14 Jan 09 - 03:15 PM

The majority of residents of Gibralter I understand wish to remain under UK rule. I wonder if a majority of Guantanamo's residents wish to remain under US rule?

Rog

Subject: RE: BS: US Cuban ban & use of Guantanamo: explain
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Jan 09 - 08:26 PM

A permanent lease isn't a lease, it's an annexation.

It seems likely that the continuing US occupation is in fact illegal, though maybe that's not the kind of thing that superpowers worry too much about - here is an extract from an article about the base in the San Francisco Chronicle (I found it via Wikipedia):

The 103-year-old agreement limits use of the Cuban territory to "coaling and naval purposes only," neither of which appears to cover the prison or tribunal operations. The agreement also expressly prohibits "commercial, industrial or other enterprise within said areas," but the U.S. base now sports a McDonald's, two Starbucks outlets, a Subway sandwich shop and other American concessions.

Such breaches of the treaty render it voidable, the Council on Hemispheric Affairs stated in its report urging the U.S. government to cease its use of Guantanamo against the host country's wishes.

Subject: RE: BS: US Cuban ban & use of Guantanamo: explain
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Jan 09 - 09:17 PM

Right. A "lease".

Which "lease" was forced upon them at the point of a bayonet after the illegal U.S. invasion of Cuba in 1898.

We'll smash down your doors, We don't bother to knock
We've done it before, so why all the shock?
We're the biggest and the toughest kids on the block
For were the cops of the world, boys
We're the cops of the world.

-Ochs

Subject: RE: BS: US Cuban ban & use of Guantanamo: explain
From: artbrooks
Date: 14 Jan 09 - 10:08 PM

It perhaps should be noted that the Council on Hemispheric Affairs is an entirely private organization.

Subject: RE: BS: US Cuban ban & use of Guantanamo: explain
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 14 Jan 09 - 10:10 PM

I checked the Wikipedia article Panama Canal Zone and it doesn't say anything about a lease.

Instead, it says the Torrijos-Carter Treaties ended US control of the zone, superseding the earlier Hay-Bunau Varilla Treaty, which had given the US occupancy rights "in perpetuity."

That treaty was known as "The Treaty No Panamanian Signed"—it's an interesting story.