Why does Castro allow Guantanamo?

[Philosoraptor]

I'm just asking cause I don't get it. I've heard a few things, but I still don't get it.

[MADem]

1. We have a lease, there's nothing he can do about it

The agreement states: "Until the two Contracting Parties agree to the modification or abrogation of the stipulations of the agreement in regard to the lease to the United States of America of lands in Cuba for coaling and naval stations… the stipulations of that Agreement with regard to the naval station of Guantánamo shall continue in effect."

To the U.S. this means an "open-ended duration" that can only be terminated by mutual agreement. To Cuba it means that Guantánamo Bay is "occupied territory."
http://www.historyofcuba.com/history/funfacts/guantan.htm

[Sadie5]

9. open-ended duration?

The US seems rather fond of open ended contracts, don't they? They seem to leave tremendous wiggle room.

[The Deacon]

2. Brigades

of heavily-armed Marines on hair-trigger alert. He has no choice, we never abandoned the base after he took power. I sometimes wonder who we make the lease payments to, however.

[happyslug]

23. To a Swiss Bank Account for Castro refuses to take the money

Thus the money goes to a Swiss Bank Account to be held till either the US Pulls out or one of Castro's successor agrees to take the money.

[Judi Lynn]

26. He has never cashed the checks given. The amount is miniscule,

actually laughable, around $2,000.00, I think.

Here's a quick summary:

Notes on Guantánamo Bay
The first U.S. presence on Guantánamo Bay was a Marine battalion that camped there on June 10 1898, and the first American casualties of the Spanish-Cuban-American War were two marines killed there the following day.

Five years later, U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt signed an agreement with Cuba's new government, leasing the bay for 2,000 gold coins per year. The agreement was forced on the new Cuban government through the Platt Amendment, which gave the U.S. authority to interfere in Cuban affairs.

The Lease Agreement signed on February 16 1903, granted the U.S. "the right to use and occupy the waters adjacent to said areas of land and water… and generally to do any and all things necessary to fit the premises for use as coaling or naval stations only, and for no other purpose."

On July 2 1906, (just before the 2nd U.S. military intervention) a new lease was signed in Havana for Guantánamo Bay and Bahía Honda, for which the U.S. would pay $2,000 per year.
(snip)

Since 1959, the U.S. sends a check for the lease amount every year, but the Cuban government has never cashed them.
(snip)

http://www.historyofcuba.com/history/funfacts/guantan.htm

[Howardx]

3. what could he do about it?

n/t

[Judi Lynn]

28. Truly! It's not that hard to grasp. n/t

[lapfog_1]

4. Gitmo is American controlled

and was ceded to the US after the Spanish-American war.

[Philosoraptor]

6. But it's not Cuba, and it's not America right?

Sort of a twilight zoney place where anything goes.

[rman]

8. America has the bigger guns;

"might makes right".

[TX-RAT]

12. YEP

[Igel]

30. Well, it is Cuba;

but I don't know if Cuban laws can actually be applied there, since it's leased to another government.

It's between and betwixt, for sure. That's why they have the detainees there, and not elsewhere.

[atreides1]

5. Here you go

The U.S. government obtained a perpetual lease that began on February 23, 1903, from Tomás Estrada Palma, an American citizen, who became the first President of Cuba. The newly formed American protectorate incorporated the Platt Amendment in the Cuban Constitution. The Cuban-American Treaty held, among other things, that the United States, for the purposes of operating coaling and naval stations, has "complete jurisdiction and control" of the Guantánamo Bay, while the Republic of Cuba is recognized to retain ultimate sovereignty.

[Philosoraptor]

7. So Castro honors a 1903 treaty.

Weird. So it belongs to Cuba, I assume we pay Castro directly.

[htuttle]

11. We send Cuba 'rent' checks, but they've never cashed them

Cuba doesn't 'honor' the treaty voluntarily -- make no mistake, we hold Guantanamo essentially by (threat of) force. They've filed international protests against it over the years, but to no avail so far.

[Philosoraptor]

15. If no one cashed them, we should still have it in our accnt., right?

I mean, it'd show in the accnt., and if no one's using it, why continue to send checks?

[htuttle]

19. It's what's known as an 'Empty Gesture'

The 1903 treaty says we should send checks, so we do, whether or not they ever get cashed.

It's not a huge amount of money anyway -- I think it's about $4,000 (US) per year. There's been a lot of inflation since 1903...

[Canuckistanian]

20. Then Castro can say the US is not honoring their commitment

And it's a false show of bravado. Neither side will back down on this.

[Canuckistanian]

17. Castro keeps the checks in a drawer in his desk

He shows them to visitors and reporters who visit his office. He refuses to cash the checks.

[Philosoraptor]

18. It's good to be the master race.

Might makes right I guess.

[happyslug]

24. I heard it went to a Swiss bank Account in Cuba's Name.

But that could just be the bank the checks Castro shows is drawn from.

[Canuckistanian]

29. Castro makes a big deal about NOT cashing them

His way of saying that he can't be bought off. Not as if he's going to get rich cashing them. They're worth less than what an average citizen in Cuba makes in a year.

[Posteritatis]

38. What's weird about that?

There's rather older treaties, and vastly older diplomatic concepts, that the world still generally sticks to like glue.

[Vidar]

10. He's too smart to start a war he'd lose.

[TX-RAT]

13. True

[High Plains]

31. Sure makes me proud to be an American to know we can kick

the ass of a nation of 10 million. Empire is so sweet.

[Philosoraptor]

14. Maybe that's how he keeps his economy & country afloat.

That's got to be a huuuuge chunk of change. And isn't that SUPPORTING a communist country? Or at least doing business with it while claiming not to.

[Vidar]

21. Excellent point.

[Philosoraptor]

22. Let's see...$4,000 a year times 103 years, with compounded interest (?)

I'm terrible at math.

[happyslug]

25. Only Count from 1959 onward, Batista cashed them when he was Dictator.

[Philosoraptor]

16. Oh I know he'd never start a war with us, but,

He seems two faced to claim no connection to the evil U.S. and take our money, if he is, and if he isn't, why do we keep sending money, and to whom are we sending it?

[hogwyld]

32. Why would he lose???

Cuba has a population of over 11 million, while the U.S. has what, maybe a couple of brigades? He ALLOWS it because it's more valuable as a propaganda tool.

[Freedom_Aflaim]

34. Why would he win?

Its not a matter of how many people, but the size of your guns.

Plus the US would only be defending the base. Thats quite a bit different than occupying all of Cuba.

The US could kill 11 million people with the push of a button.

[Xithras]

36. It's not a matter of population.

Cuba is so close to the US that the defense of Guantanamo could be organized from the mainland. Fighters out of Florida would neutralize the Cuban AF quickly, and our ground attack fighters and bombers would pulverize any artillery and missile emplacements they put in place. The only force Castro could throw at the base would be human soldiers, and we learned way back in WWI that waves of humans vs. machine guns benefits nobody but the gravediggers.

Of course, Castro might have a bit more success if he took a page from Ghandi and left the military out of it. Imagine the chaos if a million Cubans approached the fences with wire cutters, took them down, and then occupied the base unarmed and without force. Tents on the runways, that sort of thing. What would we do? Machine gun a million civilians? That's an atrocity even PNAC couldn't ignore, and Bush isn't that stupid. Evict them? With those kinds of numbers, there's nothing stopping them from walking right in. The US has about 1.2 million regular and reserve soldiers on standby and spread around the world (I'm counting reservists). When you factor in that it takes 3-5 people to physically carry a resisting person, and that there will be NOTHING to stop ejected people from walking back in once the fences are down, it's simple math to see that we couldn't secure the island without violence if a million unarmed Cubans decided to occupy it. EVEN if we brought home every soldier in Korea, Japan, Germany, Iraq, Afghanistan, and every other combat zone we're involved in.

Castro would never allow it in the first place, of course. First, many Cubans don't particularly like Castro. They may not dislike his politics all that much, but Cubans regularly gripe about the mismanagement of their government and the fact that he has cemented himself into the top of it. Many, if not most, Cubans would prefer to see Castro replaced with a freely elected leader. Quite a few resent the fact that their Venezuelan allies are permitted to elect and maintain their leftist government, but they are denied the same opportunity. In fact, of all the left-leaning governments in North, Central, and South America, Cuba stands out as the only one that doesn't permit free elections for its highest office. Cubans know that, and most privately want to see that rectified at some point.

An unarmed occupation of Guantanamo presents two threats to Castro personally. First, there is the threat that the US could use it as a pretense to topple him. Everyone knows that you can't organize a million people in Cuba without Castro's blessing, and it's very likely that the US would respond by invading Havana to capture and/or kill Castro under the flag of "liberating" their land and returning "democracy" to the island. Castro wouldn't have worried about that 20 years ago, but he doesn't have the Soviets to back him up anymore and it is a genuine threat nowadays. But the second and LARGER threat to Castro comes from his own people. By creating such a large force and by showing the potential effect that a large, peaceful populist occupation can have, Castro runs a real risk that his people might become empowered to do the same thing to him. Cubans generally have little interest in setting up a free market capitalist society like we have here in the US, but he would be in real danger of being personally toppled in favor of a new system permitting the free election of a new Cuban leader. Just as we couldn't defend Guantanamo against a million unarmed occupiers, he would be unable to defend Havana against the same thing. Liberating Guantanamo would create a precedent he's not prepared to live with.

[Beelzebud]

27. Are you serious? Cross the Bush Crime Family?

[Freedom_Aflaim]

33. He has no choice

Castro really doesnt have a choice in this regard.

The US has a lease on the property for $2,000 a year set over 100 hundred years ago.

The US sends Cuba a check every year, however they do not cash it. However Castro did cash the very first check that was sent to his administration and the US government has used that as evidence that they have accepted the terms of the lease.

Castro rejects that the lease is valid, which brings us to the point of enforcement.

Castro says its invalid, the US says its valid. Now what?

There is nothing that Castro can do, regardless of the validity of the position on the lease. Attacking the base would be a futile and self-destructive move, which in the end would only threaten Castro's regime. The sad truth is the Cuba is no match for the United States militarily.

Its a classic case of "Might makes right".

[WI_DEM]

35. Not much he could do--even if tried to invade and take over

the US Military would beat that back without any problem and give Bush justification in ousting Castro and putting a US puppet in charge.

[rinsd]

37. Col. Jessup and his breakfast routine?

"I eat breakfast 300 yards from 4000 Cubans who are trained to kill me,"

[genie_weenie]

39. To all DUers. Please name me a piece of land ANYWHERE

in the world not taken by force. Even Tierra del Fuego and Easter Island have had armed conflicts prior to Wetsern involvement.

And that explains Gitmo. Of course, there have been 20th century legal arguments made to give the whole thing a pancea of legitimacy.