What If We Had Befriended Cuba?

Why, a still harder currency – to wit, jineterismo! :smiley:

Thanks for asking.:wink:

For example, in 2008, we exported over $700m in goods to Cuba and imported $0 from.

We may be Cuba’s fifth largest trading ? but it ain’t partner.

Che’s offer was to have the US accept a one party socialist government friendly (but not formally allied) to the Soviet Union for some amount of cash. It is a ludicrous offer. I suspect it was made disingenuously. Did Che really think that Kennedy would go on TV and say, “We might not like Cuba a whole lot, but since we’re getting some money, we’re not going to make a big deal out of our communist neighbor to the south?” Does anyone think that Kennedy, Johnson, or anyone else could have made that case to the American people? For the US to turn its back on the containment doctrine at that point in time, simply for the money? Get real!

The offer not to formalize an alliance with the Soviet Union, but to continue to have a friendly relationship with them, was giving up NOTHING on the part of the Cuban government. AFAIK, Cuba may have signed a treaty of friendship with the USSR, as the Soviets signed with pretty much every anti-American country on the planet, but I’m not aware of any formal treaty alliance structure with the Soviets even after the rejection of this offer. Cuba was only making a concession of cash.

Che didn’t say that Cuba would reject Soviet military aid. That would have been a substantial concession. He didn’t say that Castro would stop efforts to promote revolution in other countries, only that it might be raised as a point of discussion later. He didn’t say that any issue relating to human rights would be seriously addressed. Che was giving up nothing at all, and asking a lot of the Kennedy government.

Again, I said that I don’t think our Cuba policy has worked at all. But to call this a serious offer in which both sides give up something important to them for the greater good is nonsense. It is often stated that diplomatic exchanges are the nicest possible way to tell someone else to go f*** themselves, and that is what Che was doing.

It is worth noting that the left-wing website that the memo is printed on portrays the conversation as evidence of a brave Cuban policy to protect its revolution against imperialist aggression, as opposed to an attempt to compromise with a superpower in the name of peace.

Again, Che was basically asking in the nicest way for the US to give Cuba everything it wanted, and for Cuba only to give up some lucre to the filthy capitalists. There are really only two ways I can read the offer: either a generously worded offer to the US to surrender its policy for essentially nothing in return; or an expression of a massive Marxist delusion that all the stupid capitalists would give up everything so long as some money made its way into the pockets of the American ruling class.

WTF did you get the above from this?

This not an ultimatum that Che drew up and was throwing in JFK’s face. It’s an informal conversation about suggested talking points. :smack:

From the memo. Money was the only meaningful concession that was offered. The others were meaningless. What kind of concession is not attacking Guantanamo? What kind of concession is not formalizing an alliance with the Soviets, knowing that the Soviets had been supplying arms and economic aid to Cuba for a year previous to this conversation? What kind of concession is it to promise to hold an election after a one-party state is established? What kind of concession is it to only raise the issue of talks later on Cuba exporting revolution?

Look, I’m not a hard-liner, Cuba is the root of all commie evil kind of guy. I’m just looking at this as a negotiation. Che essentially asked for an agreement that the US would not invade or harass Cuba any further. Considering US policy at the time, that would be a very substantive reversal of US policy. In general, in negotiations, if you want the other side to back way, way down from its position, one should at least bring something similarly big to the table for the discussions to proceed in good faith. Che brought nothing to the table. It’s like me offering to buy your house for $100, and then expecting you to take my offer seriously in order to continue negotiations.

Oh, please. This was not an informal conversation. It’s clear from the memo that the meeting was arranged, that Che did not make any distinction that he wasn’t speaking for the Cuban government, and that his offer was well organized and premeditated.

And I don’t mean this as a slight, but if you think that an “informal conversation” involves Che only telling Castro of the conversation, and the American interlocutor with links to the White House passing the message on to “interested officials” of the US government, then I just don’t think you are very familiar with diplomacy.

And as far as throwing things in JFK’s face, thanking the Americans for the Bay of Pigs and how its failure helped the revolution is the diplomatic equivalent of giving someone a finger and pissing in his martini.

Please. Tell. Me. Where. Money. Is. Mentioned. Even once. Earlier in the conversation, Che had said that the lack of hard currency to use to import food was a major problem. Didn’t sound like he was throwing it around.

Che did seek Goodwin out and did have some things to say which he had thought about a lot. Sooo?

Seems like perfectly reasonable exchange to me. The memo was declassified in '93 and made public in 96, 35 years after the fact. Just a private conversation.

Just the facts. Truth can be funny if you have a sense of humor.

This looks like an offer of money, or compensation at least:

“1. That they could not give back the expropriated properties–the factories and banks–but they could pay for them in trade.”

.

WTF?

The following is a response to lalenin from the French Cuban “apologist”, Lamrani Salim.

lalenin:

Salim:

lalenin:

Salim:

lalenin:

Salim:

lalenin:

Sallim:

lalenin:

Salim:

Here let me add a quote from one of my previous posts.

Just like our own Congress.

lalenin:

Sallim:

lalenin:

Salim:

lalenin:

Salim:

lalenin:

Salim:

lalenin:

Salim:

lalenin:

Salim:

lalenin:

Salim:

lalenin:

I’ll step in here for a moment. Well, condemning China and Saudi Arabia for their abuses doesn’t stop us from trading with them.

lalenin:

Yes, the USSR (which we left to Castro as the only alternative) was a perfect role model for democracy.

lalenin:

It’s even worse when you consider that Batista had our help including military aid.

lalenin:

Salim

With all due respect, your turn, lalenin

With all due respect to you, who is Salim? Is he a poster here? I am not about to get into a telegraph discussion with him. Your entire post pretty much consists of 'No it isn’t".

You’re going to have to get your story straight. Either Che was making a serious offer at rapprochement, and his message was to be taken seriously; or Che was talking BS and there was no serious offer for a modus vivendi. In the OP, you imply that the US missed an opportunity that the Cuban leadership presented to normalize relations. That means it must have been a serious offer, no?

Actually, you are right. I misread the part where Che offered to make restitution to the US for expropriated properties. Che offered to pay for it “through trade,” meaning that the US would have to drop the sugar embargo it had imposed earlier. So, in contrast to my earlier belief that the only thing Cuba was offering was money, it is in fact the case that Cuba was literally offering nothing to the US.

It wasn’t a private conversation. Che said he would talk to Castro about it, and Goodwin said he’d brief interested officials, which ended up being the President of the United States. Perhaps you cannot distinguish between “sensitive negotiations” and “shooting the bull at a cocktail party,” but something tells me that Goodwin wrote Secret memos to Kennedy relaying the knee-slapper about Harold MacMillan, a priest, and a rabbi?

Do you think Kennedy would laugh about it? Do you think Che would think Kennedy would laugh about it? Nonsense. The comments were designed to insult.

Finally, in the OP, you said that Kennedy’s rejection of Che’s offer drove Cuba into the arms of the USSR. You seem to be denying that Cuba and the Soviets had established substantial economic, political, and military ties well before this conversation took place. It isn’t as though Cuba was a member of the Non Aligned Movement prior to the missile crisis, this particular offer, or the Bay of Pigs. It is my guess that you’re making a philosophical/political defense of Cuba, not an argument based on historical facts.

Eh? Both Spain and the U.S. managed it for a very long time.

No it doesn’t.

Anyway, offering to compensate US investors for nationalized assets thru trade is not bribing them with cash and it’s a lot more fair than than these investors actually deserved.

OK. OK. OK. Castro’s a shit, Cuba’s AFU pure and simple and I don’t know what WTF I’ve been talking about.:smack:

But what if we had befriended Cuba?

The hell with it, I don’t really want to work this morning anyway. Here’s my response to Profesor Salim.

The communist party doesn’t have an electoral role? Really? So the head of the Cuban government, Raul Castro, is the second secretary of of PCC, and the former head of the Cuban government, Fidel, is the first secretary of the PCC, and the entire Council of Ministers also composes the hierarchy of the PCC, but the PCC has not role in the Cuban government? What an amazing coincidence!

A formality? Really? Don’t take my word for it, let’s listen to what Raul Castro himself said last year, as stated in this article.

"Raul Castro plans to lift restrictions on foreign travel for Cubans, allowing them to leave the country without permission from the authorities, it was reported Friday.

Residents will no longer need to obtain special permission to leave the island, or a legalized letter of invitation, the Spanish language newspaper El Pais said, citing sources close to the government.

The changes could take effect in the coming days or weeks and are a further sign Raul, who became president in February, plans to lift many of the restrictions which defined his brother Fidel’s rule.

Cubans have previously had to obtain a so-called “white card” to leave the island. The process can take months and there is no guarantee of success."

By the way, the restrictions have not been lifted.

Don’t take my word for it take a look at what Human Rights Watch has to say about desacato, or peligrosidad, or asociacion ilicita.

Of course, an no one in Cuba has ever fought against the Castros, right? Oh wait yes they have, but then those are just counter-revolutionary worms, correct?

No, none at all. Just a country run by whites for 50 years. Batista, by the way, was not white.

Oh please, not even the Cuban government stands by that line anymore. From the wiki article here.

“Beginning in November 1965, people already classified were summoned to the camps. They arrived by train, bus, truck and other police and military vehicles.[1] Social deviants such as homosexuals, vagrants, Jehovah’s Witnesses and other religious missionaries were imprisoned in these concentration camps, where they would be “reeducated”.[2]
“ Camps of forced labour were instituted with all speed to “correct” such deviations … Verbal and physical mistreatment, shaved heads, work from dawn to dusk, hammocks, dirt floors, scarce food … The camps became increasingly crowded as the methods of arrest became more expedient …”

"Fidel Castro’s violence against homosexuals reflected the idea of homosexuality as bourgeois decadence, and he denounced “maricones” (faggots) as “agents of imperialism”.[8] Castro explained his reasoning in a 1965 interview:

“ [H]omosexuals should not be allowed in positions where they are able to exert influence upon young people. In the conditions under which we live, because of the problems which our country is facing, we must inculcate your youth with the spirit of discipline, of struggle, of work… [W]e would never come to believe that a homosexual could embody the conditions and requirements of conduct that would enable us to consider him a true Revolutionary, a true Communist militant. A deviation of that nature clashes with the concept we have of what a militant Communist must be."

Wow, this profesor does not know how to use Google apparently.

From this article:

“Arenas eventually got out of Cuba in the 1980 Mariel Harbour exodus, when Castro decided to get rid of “antisocial” dissidents, criminals and homosexuals by allowing these “scum” to emigrate to the US.”

“With the advent of AIDS, the Cuban authorities initially cracked down hard, quarantining everyone with HIV in special sanatoria. But, by the early 1990s, the authorities felt compelled to adopt a more liberal approach, abandoning their detention policy – partly because it was costing too much! More significantly, Cuban health officials realised that they had to show greater tolerance towards the homosexual community in order to win their trust, confidence and support for safer sex.”

Really, almost half of the deputies don’t belong to the PCC? Does that mean the other half does? Is this the same PCC that plays no role in Cuba’s eleccions? And what does that have to do with the forced child labor I discussed in the quoted text? Don’t take my work for it, here’s an article from Juventud Rebelde, Cuba’s communist youth, UJC, newspaper discussing it.

It seems certain one of us has never lived in Cuba.

The profesor has a tendency to quote only selected passages. Even independent workers are member of the the CTC, Conferederacion de Trabajadores de Cuba, which is an organ of the PCC. The same PCC that has no role in Cuban eleccions.

Again with the selective quoting. 185 countries may vote, but the US is still Cuba’s largest importer of food, and Cuba’s 5th largest trading partner. So regardless of the vote the embargo seems to be mostly BS.

And of course, you have no problem with that, correct?

Are you suggesting that Castro became a dictator because the USSR made him do it?

What is nonsense? That dissent in Cuba is not punished? Profesor, you must send that urgent information to Amnesty International! It seems they are misinformed!

What to compare that to (say) Guatemala in '59? Rural southern Mexico?

All of Latin America (and most of Mississippi) sucked in '59.

For one thing, I’m pretty sure Barry Goldwater would have won the 1964 election. I don’t think many Americans at the time who would be thrilled with a politician telling them, “Yeah, they are commies, and yeah, the Soviets have nuclear weapons there, but really, we ought to be friends!”

Do you even understand what you’re talking about?

You think companies in Canada ship goods to Cuba, and are paid not in Candadian Dollars, but with sugar and cigars and prostitutes?

That’s not how it works. If Cuba wants goods produced in Canada, they purchase those goods using Canadian Dollars. If they are low on Canadian Dollars, they trade Euros or Pounds or US Dollars for Canadian Dollars.

Cuba gets hard currency like Euros or Canadian Dollars by selling goods and services in Europe, or to Europeans. So a European tourist comes to Cuba, spends Euros, and the Cuban government uses those Euros to import goods and services from Eurozone countries, or converts the Euros into other hard currencies.

The fact that Canada imports more from Cuba than it exports shouldn’t be too surprising, since if the US imports essentially nothing from Cuba and Cuba imports a great deal from the US, there has to be some mechanism for them to do so. And that mechanism is, they take Canadian dollars they earned from Canadian tourism and exports to Canada, and purchase US dollars, and use those US dollars to purchase US goods. Wow, Cuba now imports from the US but exports nothing! What a ripoff! Except, you know, that it isn’t. Because the guys who bought Canadian dollars from Cuba and gave them US dollars will now use those Canadian dollars to purchase Canadian goods/services. You see how that works?

A trade imbalance between two countries means nothing. A country that has a net trade imbalance is doing something unsustainable, because currency is flowing in/out of the country and goods and services are flowing out/in, and someday the people holding the currency will want goods and services in return. If the currency isn’t worth anything anymore, then they sold their goods and services for a pittance.

What if we had befriended Cuba?

That’s what I was looking for. Ok. Everybody back to work.

Whoo-hoo! I win! In your face, Salim, and anyone else not on this message board participating the the discussion by third parties or Ouija board!