# Trump & Cuba **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 16, 2017, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-cuba/789150 "2017-06-16T23:55:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2017, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-cuba/789150/181 "2017-06-20T18:13:59Z")
Well I am personally arguing the realpolitik. I don’t feel like arguing to Bricker’s moral standpoint, just his realism. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2017, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-cuba/789150/182 "2017-06-20T18:25:56Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Obviously compensation for this theft is the most important factor to you. Is there any hypothetical potential benefit to the Cuban people that would outweigh this desire for compensation? Suppose there are two universes – one with my plan, and one with yours. And suppose they unfold in the following manner (relatively ideally for mine, and pessimistically for yours): > > My universe: A rapproachement with Cuba. Over the next 20 years, there is a significant improvement in the Cuban economy, due to US investment and tourism and trade. Some portion of this improvement actually benefits the Cuban people (in the same way it has for Chinese and Vietnamese people), and their quality and standards of living improve, on average. Due to interaction with American businesses and tourists, the Cuban people become far better informed, with much increased access to the internet. At some point in the decade or two after that, mass protests and unrest lead to Castro’s successor being killed or resigning, and after a few years of turmoil, a moderately democratic government emerges, roughly similar in quality and character to many of its neighbors (DR, Jamaica, Bahamas, etc.). The US applies pressure to Cuba to return stolen property, but due to lukewarm support in the US and very strong opposition in Cuba (and perhaps the international community as well) because of great anger at the US for the decades of embargo, the US eventually gives up this effort after a token apology or symbolic but otherwise meaningless statement by the new Cuban government. Within 50 years the Cuban people are as well off as the average Caribbean population, and the US has abandoned all efforts to get stolen property or compensation. The US economy and opportunity are slightly better than they would otherwise be due to another trading partner. Much fun is had by American tourists in Cuba. > > Your universe: Embargo continues. No improvement to the Cuban economy or quality of life. No significant changes to relations in any way. Castro’s successors are very Castro-like. In 50 years Cuba is still pretty much the same, but the US has not abandoned all efforts to get stolen property or compensation. US economy is slightly worse than in the other scenario. No fun is had by Americans in Cuba. > > Which universe between these two is preferable to you? I recognize that this is an idealized version of my preferred policy, but I’m asking you to choose between these two because I’m curious as to how much you value compensation for the stolen property versus the quality of Cuban lives over future decades and potential benefit the American economy. At what point would you abandon efforts to recover the stolen property (similar to a question of at what point do you think it was/is appropriate for Native Americans, black people, or other Americans to abandon efforts to recover stolen property/labor/opportunity/etc. from the US government)? At what point, if any, is an improvement of the lives of Americans and Cubans worth losing a chance at compensation for the stolen property, were there a choice between them? Your universe is preferable. My problem: I don’t agree your universe is the likely outcome of your policy. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2017, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-cuba/789150/183 "2017-06-20T18:29:32Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > It just pales in comparison to helping to bring peace and prosperity to the country. > > I don’t know about you, but if I worried about every 55 year old “legitimate grievance” in my life, it would drive me insane. I tend to let things go and look forward. I see. > [@The winds of change at the Supreme Court](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012/5): > > > [@](#): > > > > The life expectancy for Ginsburg is, it would seem, 5.57 more years. > > Assuming Trump stays in office, she only has to last another 3 years. Presidents can no longer appoint Supreme Court justices in the last 12 months in office. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2017, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-cuba/789150/184 "2017-06-20T18:38:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I see. Really? That’s the best you could find of me holding a grudge? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2017, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-cuba/789150/185 "2017-06-20T18:55:37Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > Really? That’s the best you could find of me holding a grudge? It was the first thing that came to mind. You failed to identify your grudge posts with the label, “THIS IS A GRUDGE,” frustrating my broader search efforts. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2017, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-cuba/789150/186 "2017-06-20T18:56:09Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > It’s not an analogy, which is rather the point. Going down analogy rabbit holes is dumb. Nationalizing after a revolution is not in some criminal code. We are talking about relations between sovereign states. I asked pretty clearly whether you thought economic sanctions were justified in another international relations case, knowing full well that people other than the leaders got hurt. Why don’t you want to answer the question? Sorry. Had something to attend to. To answer your question; In a world where every situation is exactly like every other, then yes, one would be required to treat Cuba and S.A. in the same fashion. But that’s not the world we live in and I think the crime of Apartheid is a far greater social wrong than the crime of nationalized property and lost investments due to a nation’s regime change 50+ years ago. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2017, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-cuba/789150/187 "2017-06-20T18:56:36Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Your universe is preferable. > > My problem: I don’t agree your universe is the likely outcome of your policy. Obviously. How convinced are you that Obama’s policy would have no benefit for the Cuban people? What makes Cuba different from Vietnam or China? Also, for how long will you support the embargo if nothing changes (e.g. if Castro’s successors are Castro clones)? At what point would you favor trying something new? ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2017, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-cuba/789150/188 "2017-06-20T18:57:59Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It was the first thing that came to mind. You failed to identify your grudge posts with the label, “THIS IS A GRUDGE,” frustrating my broader search efforts. I’ll admit I hold some grudges. So, I guess you win and we should cut off ties with Cuba. I wonder, though, whether the “victims” of Castro’s nationalism policies even care anymore half as much as you seem to. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2017, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-cuba/789150/189 "2017-06-20T21:15:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I have no idea what you read, or in what context you read it. > > But as it happens, ignorance is absolutely a defense. Crimes generally require advertance of the will: a guilty mind as well as a guilty act. Really? “_I am innocent because I had no idea that it was illegal to dump toxic waste into the river_” ? Seriously? If one proceeds with a major enterprise, there is such a thing as “due diligence”, which I suspect would be wholly applicable when dealing with foreign countries. If you break a law because you did not realize there was a law there, I believe that qualifies, at the very least, as negligence. You might not bear the full weight of the penalty, but if your behavior was flagrant, you still might. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2017, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-cuba/789150/190 "2017-06-20T23:28:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Unfortunately, the government is in such control there that even loosening the sanctions only benefits the upper echelon. The population remains suppressed and impoverished no matter what. Factually incorrect: increased trade helped the people, produced jobs, and brought in money. Cutting trade off again has already hurt small businesses and ordinary people – even before the cut-off fully takes effect. People have been cancelling vacations and businesses have been cutting off investment plans already, solely on the basis of the announcement. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2017, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-cuba/789150/191 "2017-06-21T00:20:51Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > Sorry. Had something to attend to. > > To answer your question; In a world where every situation is exactly like every other, then yes, one would be required to treat Cuba and S.A. in the same fashion. But that’s not the world we live in and I think the crime of Apartheid is a far greater social wrong than the crime of nationalized property and lost investments due to a nation’s regime change 50+ years ago. It wasn’t a “gotchya” question. I was just curious how firm a line in the sand your “don’t punish the country for the sins of the leaders” was. It’s fairr that it’s not chiseled into concrete. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2017, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-cuba/789150/192 "2017-06-21T03:11:28Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Factually incorrect: increased trade helped the people, produced jobs, and brought in money. Cutting trade off again has already hurt small businesses and ordinary people – even before the cut-off fully takes effect. People have been cancelling vacations and businesses have been cutting off investment plans already, solely on the basis of the announcement. Cites for these claims? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2017, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-cuba/789150/193 "2017-06-21T03:12:30Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Obviously. How convinced are you that Obama’s policy would have no benefit for the Cuban people? What makes Cuba different from Vietnam or China? > > Also, for how long will you support the embargo if nothing changes (e.g. if Castro’s successors are Castro clones)? At what point would you favor trying something new? I’d favor hanging on until no one named “Castro” is in charge. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2017, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-cuba/789150/194 "2017-06-21T05:01:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’d favor hanging on until no one named “Castro” is in charge. Why in the world would anyone characterise your position as a grudge. Lol. One other question: If the last Castro is out of office and the new guy offers the US 10 cents on the dollar for corporations’ claims and something more generous for Cuban American claimants, would that be enough for you or is a much harder bargain required? ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2017, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-cuba/789150/195 "2017-06-21T13:43:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Why? Why should we let it go? Cuba stole property, some of which still exists. Why should the country “let it go?” **Bricker** do you think Germans should be able to sueEastern European countries for loss of their property post-WWII? In any case, I’d strongly dispute your characterization of the Cuban government ‘stealing’ the property of rich Cubans or Cuban-Americans, for three reasons. 1. Compensation was offered, IIRC in government bonds, to people whose property was nationalized, although those offers were rescinded if the people in question chose to leave. Some rich industrialists were offered jobs managing the newly nationalized enterprises which they had formerly owned. There are cases of rich property owners whose properties were nationalized in the early 1960s, were compensated fairly well and didn’t have to work for the rest of their life (one of them became a famous poet, I forget her name). You can argue that the compensation was insuffiecient, you can’t really argue no compensation was offered. Cuban-Americans chose to leave the country and so they lost any chance at getting compensated. 2. Like the aforementioned Germans in WWII, the Cuban elite lost a war. Loss of property is one of the things that happens when you lose a war, or a revolution. 3. To talk about the nationalization of property as ‘theft’ presupposes that rich Cubans had a legitimate right to that prpoperty. I don’t view the distribution of income, wealth, and productive assets in pre-1959 Cuba as a particularly just one, so I don’t grant that they had any moral claims on that property. 4. In any case, even the most famous Doctor of your own church held that in cases of strong social necessity (to alleviate starvation, for example), the right to property is revocable. I think the state nationalizing property in order to alleviate severe social inequalities is a good example of that (and incidentally, such exceptions to the right to property were recognized in the constitutions of even a number of _capitalist_ Latin American states during the 1950s and 1960s). ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2017, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-cuba/789150/196 "2017-06-21T13:57:42Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’d favor hanging on until no one named “Castro” is in charge. Why does that matter? That really does make it sound like a grudge, not thoughtful opinion based on the positives outweighing the negatives or vice versa. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2017, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-cuba/789150/197 "2017-06-21T14:08:35Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Why in the world would anyone characterise your position as a grudge. Lol. > > One other question: If the last Castro is out of office and the new guy offers the US 10 cents on the dollar for corporations’ claims and something more generous for Cuban American claimants, would that be enough for you or is a much harder bargain required? That would be fine. There just has to be a recognition. Frankly, even an apology would suffice. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2017, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-cuba/789150/198 "2017-06-21T14:10:09Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Why does that matter? That really does make it sound like a grudge, not thoughtful opinion based on the positives outweighing the negatives or vice versa. I grant you it sounds that way. But it’s really more the fact that the Castros were the ones that orchestrated the theft, and while they remain in charge, it’s difficult to imagine a genuine Cuban renunciation of the theft. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2017, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-cuba/789150/199 "2017-06-21T14:37:40Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > **Bricker** do you think Germans should be able to sueEastern European countries for loss of their property post-WWII? No. > [@](#): > > In any case, I’d strongly dispute your characterization of the Cuban government ‘stealing’ the property of rich Cubans or Cuban-Americans, for three reasons. > > 1. Compensation was offered, IIRC in government bonds, to people whose property was nationalized, although those offers were rescinded if the people in question chose to leave. Some rich industrialists were offered jobs managing the newly nationalized enterprises which they had formerly owned. There are cases of rich property owners whose properties were nationalized in the early 1960s, were compensated fairly well and didn’t have to work for the rest of their life (one of them became a famous poet, I forget her name). You can argue that the compensation was insuffiecient, you can’t really argue no compensation was offered. Cuban-Americans chose to leave the country and so they lost any chance at getting compensated. Castro’s action violated the _Constitucion de la Republica de Cuba_ Art 24 and 87, which I argue was the correct law in force and not the illegal modification known as the _Ley fundamental de 1959_. But forget that – I acknowledge that he was the guy with the guns. The Agarian Reform Act passed in Cuba in 1959 converted all agricultural estates over five _caballerias_ into Castro-controlled farms. This dispossession affected not only “rich Cubans” but American owners as well. These were owners not able to take advantage of the compensation in play: they could not “choose to stay.” It is their losses I believe need recompense. > [@](#): > > 1. Like the aforementioned Germans in WWII, the Cuban elite lost a war. Loss of property is one of the things that happens when you lose a war, or a revolution. The American owners lost no war. > [@](#): > > 1. To talk about the nationalization of property as ‘theft’ presupposes that rich Cubans had a legitimate right to that prpoperty. I don’t view the distribution of income, wealth, and productive assets in pre-1959 Cuba as a particularly just one, so I don’t grant that they had any moral claims on that property. Then we disagree. That’s fine. I’m explaining why I regard the Trumpo move as a good one. I guess your viewpoint explains why you regard it as a bad one. > [@](#): > > 1. In any case, even the most famous Doctor of your own church held that in cases of strong social necessity (to alleviate starvation, for example), the right to property is revocable. I think the state nationalizing property in order to alleviate severe social inequalities is a good example of that (and incidentally, such exceptions to the right to property were recognized in the constitutions of even a number of _capitalist_ Latin American states during the 1950s and 1960s). Again I disagree that the “severe social inequality” justifies the theft in play here. I recognize you don’t agree, and thus have reached different conclusions than I did. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2017, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-cuba/789150/200 "2017-06-21T14:46:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I grant you it sounds that way. But it’s really more the fact that the Castros were the ones that orchestrated the theft, and while they remain in charge, it’s difficult to imagine a genuine Cuban renunciation of the theft. But you said earlier that you’d be okay with my strategy if you believed that it would actually significantly help the Cuban people (and the American people in a smaller way, presumably), at least if I understood you correctly, even if it meant the Castros or their ilk were still in charge (at least for a few decades). In that post, the Castros didn’t seem to be important to your analysis. How sure are you that your personal feelings aren’t throwing your analysis out of whack? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-cuba/789150.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-cuba/789150.md?page=11)