I don’t believe I’ve ever said one thing about the basis on which a private citizen should rate and analyze their government’s actions.
Make sure you post your credentials for interpreting Catholic dogma when you bring up this thread in the future.
I’m still curious to hear whether Bricker believes it serves justice to punish the thief’s family, friends & countrymen even after the thief’s death.
Did you oppose the South African sanctions because it punished the family, friends and countrymen of the Apartheidists? Some people did, just curious if you are one of them.
There is no traction now for returning “our property.” It’s been over 50 years. A plan that will bring “prosperity to the island and better outcomes for its people” if a hell of a lot better than trying to keep people isolated and impoverished so we can continuing crying about getting “our property” back. Are you really more interested in holding a 55 year old grudge then trying to make things better?
So now we’ve got two working analogies with respect to Cuba sanctions:
- Bricker’s thief analogy.
- CarnalK’s Apartheid S.A. analogy.
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?
When sanctions are used against nations, this is an inevitable result.
And even punishing a thief can have collateral consequences:
JUDGE: Mr. Guevera, having previously found you guilty of possession of stolen property, I sentence you to six years in prison.
MRS. GUEVERA: Judge! I know I’m not supposed to speak, but please let me say something! Yes, Ernesto did a bad thing, but if you send him to jail for six years, who will feed his family? Who will help pay for the rent? We are being punished too!
JUDGE: Gosh, I never realized. That does seem unfair. OK, probation.
So the answer to your question: I don’t favor it, but recognize that sometimes it happens. And CarnalK raises a good thought experiment with respect to the divestiture movement in protest of South Africa’s apartheid, or the Don’t Buy Thai campaign intended to bring about changes in sex tourism laws. Those certainly punished the citizenry as a whole; I don’t think either was invalid as a result.
Why is it a “grudge?” When did it lose the gravitas of being a legitimate grievance?
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?
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.
Though you should note that the current favourite choice of government sanction, i.e. targeting specific individuals’ assets and transactions, that are intended to avoid the distasteful part of economic sanctions are impossible thanks to a 50 year total embargo. No rich Cuban government friendlies have American bank accounts to seize. But I still think it’s a useful thought experiment.
I guess I would ask you Bricker, who do you think has more bargaining power with Cuba? America because it is big and close or Europe because they have money flowing into the country.
So…apparently we are still crying for Office Depot’s losses then?
So, we could settle for a token amount (the expense of one weekend of presidential golfing) or we could let the matter drop and let bygones be bygones.
It’s not like the USA has always made things right for things we fucked up over the years. (sometimes we do, sometimes we don’t)
Letting the matter drop is how every other nation got ten cents on the dollar. America has been holding out for full compensation, afaik. Expecting a poor nation to either hand back 60% of its land or $7 billion to foreigners is so insane, I am honestly baffled that Bricker holds to it.
Another question for you Bricker regarding another quote from the article I linked.
Can you imagine, post Castro-regime & imagining a democracy, Cubans voting in a government that would hand over 75% of arable land to foreign companies? Can you imagine yourself as a Cuban casting such a vote?
Should we also investigate how US interests obtained such a large share of Cuban property to start with? As long as we’re righting past wrongs, I guess we should.
Plus we are supposed to cry for sugar growers here. The same ones who ran slavery -esque plantations during the Batista era and now get the government to impose tarriffs to keep their profits high. A protection few other farmers get in this nation.
We’re suppose to cry for these companies?!