I think it’s impossible to come up with a tourism program that helps only the Cuban people, and makes sure no $$ get into the hands of the government. The question is, do we care if the government makes some money, too, as long as our policy helps the Cuban people? We can try and minimize the money filtering up to the government, but that’s about it. In the meantime, there are other incentives we can offer the government to get them to return US property. There is no telling if those incentives will work (I doubt they will), but we can be pretty damn sure the current policy won’t, so why not help out the people if we can?
You find this a legitimate and worthwhile methodology to evaluate change? If the change is a good idea it would have been done already; ergo, the change is a bad idea?
Ah, yes. The “some of my best friends are Cuban” argument. Compelling.
Do you believe the endgame of current US/Cuba relations is for America to keep trying things until Cuba returns “our property”?
I’ve got an idea: use a strategy (engagement and trade) that resulted in a more prosperous and open society for other countries like China and Vietnam, which benefited their people and harmed leaders who, like Castro, want a closed off and poor society, while helping leaders who want a more open and prosperous society, even if those leaders are also flawed (if not as bad as Castro).
Why is your plan better?
I oppose Bricker’s policy because it helps the Castro brothers (and their ilk) and hurts the Cuban people. Bricker, I’m sure you disagree, but how does your preferred policy harm the Castro brothers? Don’t you agree that a poor and uninformed society is easier to oppress?
So a Bay of Pigs II would be your way of dealing with the problem?
The thing is, even if every member of the Castro regime died overnight of natural causes and we woke to a shining Western style Democratic Cuba, there’s no way in hell they are electing a government that will hand away billions of dollars worth of assets to Coca Cola et al. The only rational explanation for the continued embargo is to serve as a warning to other countries. Which is why countries never again nationalized American assets. Except for example Venezuela.
One of the more bizarre things I encountered when I was a Revolutionary War Reenactor was Canadian reenactors who were the descendants of Tories.
Tories, as some of you may know, were supporters of the British Crown during the American Revolution. It did not end well for them and many of them had their property taken by the US government. This was not Crown property, but those of colonial citizens.
So anyway, it was a bit of a suprise to enoucnter these GGGGGGreat Grandsons of the Tories.
But it was an outright shock to hear them still be furious about the property seizure, especially given that 225 yeras had passed. But there they were, angry as fuck about some field near Shamokin, PA that the US government took and sold.
I could only laugh. It was just so stupid to hold that kind of attitude over something so long ago and pretty much was avoidable: most of Philadelphia was a Tory town yet had few seizures.
So if you are going to hide your bullying international policy towards a single small country behind the skirts of some property seized from thuggish mobsters who were a major part of the problem with the previous regime and was done over 50 years ago I think you are making excuses.
OK, so looking at what are the biggest property claims on Cuba:
So, #1 is the Cuban Electrical Company, which is now ownedby…Ofice Depot?. What are we talking about here? A bucnh of power plants that probably haven’t seen an upgrade in 50 years, and the ones that did see it were the Soviet Union’s lessser efforts. Sure.
4 of the bext 5 claims are sugar companies, who in my eyes are little more than protectionist scumbags running what amounts to the closest thing to plantation slavery we have in the USA these days. How about they can have that money when they pay for what their lobbying efforts have meant for consumer sugar prices in the USA?
After that it is a lot of oil companies and mining companies. I really have a hard time getting worked up about their losses. I also wonder how much they were part of the problem during the Batista regime?
I think most people are probably missing the point that this is just 45’s opening offer in the negotiations he wants to provoke. That long ago appropriated property that will never be returned to its previous owners will be milked for all it’s rhetorical worth to aid those who Trump probably already has lined up to be its future beneficiaries.
The US government has historically taken on such a role from time to time. One of the most notable examples was when the US sought to recover the assets of the British Petroleum – not even American but an ally-based company – from the democratic government of Iran. That turned out ever so well.
Too late for ETA:
Make no mistake, he wants to “open up” Cuba, for sure. It’s just a matter of him getting a say about the particulars so that the right people get a piece of the action and he gets the credit.
Well of course he wants to open up Cuba, we already know he tried as a businessman to sneak around the embargo. From what I’ve seen so far, this “rollback” of the Obama initiatives is mostly cosmetic so as to please some rubes with another campaign promise accomplished. Still an asinine move but hopefully not too damaging.
How Donald Trump’s Company Violated the United States Embargo Against Cuba
(emphasis in red added)
I read the entire linked article.
I did not see any support for that portion of the claim.
Did you? Let me be clear that I have have zero doubt that Trump would not have shirked from doing such a thing. But where is the evidence that he knew?
What if he did not know? Is that less bad? Not knowing would make him an incompetent manager. I mean, I thought I read somewhere that ignorance is no defense, or something like that.
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.
Now, are you asking me if it’s possible Trump was an incompetent manager?
Um. . . . BWAHAHAHAHA!!!
Answer: Yes. Yes, it’s just barely possible.
Still avoiding my questions, Bricker. I’ve got to say that I can’t ever remember you dodging me like this. I’m not exactly asking hard questions - just asking for reasons why your plan is better than mine, and how your plan hurts the Castro brothers and their ilk (when it seems to me to have helped them stay in power).
His corporation knew, that’s good enough for me. We aren’t in a court of law determining what penalties to impose on which individuals for breaking the embargo. If you want to bend over backwards to give Trump the benefit of the doubt, that’s your problem. Since you are disputing a claim in the article, your question is best directed at the editors of NewsWeek.
OK, let me take another run at it.
There seems to be general agreement that economic sanctions hurt a country, yes? I mean – they are sanctions, after all.
So my plan certainly hurts Cuba, the nation-state.
This is better than NOT hurting Cuba, the nation-state. Cuba stole American property and retains it to this day. The sanctions are intended to punish Cuba.
That’s why my plan is better.
“Good enough for you?” This means what? Trump can’t count on your vote now?
I kinda thought he had already lost your vote. “Good enough for you” to do what?
“It’s good enough for me” in that I am rather convinced that Trump is not truly a supporter of the embargo. BTW, rereading the article, an unnamed former executive is at least one source for the bit you put in red: