Travel to Cuba: Warning, this post is long, for those of you with ADHD.
Americans are the freest people on the earth who cannot travel to Cuba.
That's a working title, because it's not 100% accurate. The laws are a bit iffy:
From wikipedia.
I first heard about this on the Colbert Report (the most truthy news source on television), and was just talking about it with friends the other day.
It has come up again because someone apparently inserted a clause loosening these restrictions in Obama's huge unread Stimulus Package (I think Steven King wrote it).
Here's an oversimplified history of Cuba (would be more accurate if I could travel there):
1800's: U.S. wants Cuba, a colony of Spain.
1898: U.S. gets Cuba
1959: Castro overthrows U.S. backed dicator, gets Cuba.
1959 - Present: The U.S. is a total jerk to Cuba.
Jewish pacifist and fellow loon Noam Chomsky has written extensively on the U.S. cuban embargo, calling it nothing less than "terrorism."
I'd like to punch him in his un-American face. If only he didn't wear glasses.
-
A history of Cuban-American relations clipped from Chomsky:
Source 1:
"Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams, both "founding fathers," spoke of the need to incorporate Cuba into the nascent U.S. empire. Jefferson wanted simply to annex it. But in those days they couldn't do it because an obstacle existed. And the obstacle at that time was England. The English fleet made it impossible for the United States to simply conquer and annex Cuba.
"The Batista dictatorship was overthrown in January 1959 by Castro's guerrilla forces. [Fulgencio Batista was a U.S. backed dictator]
Eisenhower's March 1960 plan called for the overthrow of Castro in favor of a regime "more devoted to the true interests of the Cuban people and more acceptable to the U.S.," including support for "military operation on the island" and "development of an adequate paramilitary force outside of Cuba." Intelligence reported that popular support for Castro was high, but the US would determine the "true interests of the Cuban people." The regime change was to be carried out "in such a manner as to avoid any appearance of U.S. intervention," because of the anticipated reaction in Latin America and the problems of doctrinal management at home.
Kennedy implemented a crushing embargo that could scarcely be endured by a small country that had become a "virtual colony" of the US in the sixty years following its "liberation" from Spain. He also ordered an intensification of the terrorist campaign: "He asked his brother, Attorney-General Robert Kennedy, to lead the top-level interagency group that oversaw Operation Mongoose, a program of paramilitary operations, economic warfare, and sabotage he launched in late 1961 to visit the 'terrors of the earth' on Fidel Castro and, more prosaically, to topple him."
"The national security pretext lost whatever shreds of credibility it might have had after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, though it was not until 1998 that US intelligence officially informed the country that Cuba no longer posed a threat to US national security. The Clinton administration, however, insisted that the military threat posed by Cuba be reduced to "negligible," but not completely removed. Even with this qualification, the intelligence assessment eliminated a danger that had been identified by the Mexican ambassador in 1961, when he rejected JFK's attempt to organize collective action against Cuba on the grounds that "if we publicly declare that Cuba is a threat to our security, forty million Mexicans will die laughing."
The simple fact is that Castro represents a successful defiance of the US, a negation of our whole hemispheric policy of almost a century and a half." To put it simply, Thomas Paterson writes, "Cuba, as symbol and reality, challenged U.S. hegemony in Latin America." International terrorism and economic warfare to bring about regime change are justified not by what Cuba does, but by its "very existence," its "successful defiance" of the proper master of the hemisphere. Defiance may justify even more violent actions, as in Serbia, as quietly conceded after the fact; or Iraq, as also recognized when pretexts had collapsed."
A recent, un-American perspective of the Cuban Embargo
Source 3:
"The actual reasons for the terror and economic warfare were explained clearly at the very outset: the goal was to cause “rising discomfort among hungry Cubans” so that they would overthrow the regime (Kennedy); to “bring about hunger, desperation, and overthrow of the government” (Eisenhower’s State Department). The threat of Cuba, as Kennedy’s Latin American advisor Arthur Schlesinger advised the incoming president, is that successful independent development there might stimulate others who suffer from similar problems to follow the same course, so that the system of US domination might unravel. The liberal Democratic administrations were outraged over Cuba’s “successful defiance” of US policies going back to the Monroe Doctrine, which was intended to ensure obedience to the US will in the hemisphere. To a substantial extent, US terror and economic warfare has achieved its actual goals, causing bitter suffering among Cubans, impeding economic development, and undermining moves towards more internal democracy. Exactly as intended.
It is one of the occasional illustrations of how state interests prevail over business interests; and the will of the population is as usual irrelevant."
Source 4:
"In the case of Cuba, the United States has done everything it can to drive them into the hands of the Russians -- to ensure that there is a maximum amount of internal repression and brutality inside Cuba to reduce the possibility that it could be a model for anyone else. But there is still this tremendously threatening development. While throughout the whole region that the United States supports and backs, you have torture, murder, starvation, slave labor, and so on and so forth, there is one little corner of Latin America that has actually come to match the standard of living of the United States, which is astonishing. This is the richest country in the world, by any possible measure. Cuba is one of the poorest countries in the world and it has approximately the same quality of life index, in terms of health and so on, that the United States has. That's really scary and that's an enemy. That's what they mean when they say, "We can't tolerate another Cuba." It is bad enough that there is one country that can serve as a model for this kind of development. Suppose there were two, suppose there were three. ... "
Obviously, it is considered totally illegitimate to help someone that the United States wants to destroy. The reasoning is simple: everything that the United States does is right, by definition. Therefore, anyone who interferes with what the United States does is, by definition, wrong."
Oh Chomsky. So long winded. With so many opinions outside of the ordinary political dialect that it makes both Liberals and Conservatives uncomfortable. How I love you.
That's a working title, because it's not 100% accurate. The laws are a bit iffy:
The restrictions on U.S. citizens traveling to Cuba lapsed on March 19, 1977;
President Jimmy Carter did not renew it and the regulation on spending U.S. dollars in Cuba was lifted shortly afterwards.
President Ronald Reagan reinstated the trade embargo on April 19, 1982. This has been modified subsequently with the present regulation, effective June 30, 2004,[3] being the Cuban Assets Control Regulations, 31 C.F.R. part 515.[4] The current regulation does not limit travel of US Citizens to Cuba per se, but it makes it illegal for US Citizens to have transactions (spend money or receive gifts) in Cuba under most circumstances without a US government Office of Foreign Assets Control issued license.[5]
President Jimmy Carter did not renew it and the regulation on spending U.S. dollars in Cuba was lifted shortly afterwards.
President Ronald Reagan reinstated the trade embargo on April 19, 1982. This has been modified subsequently with the present regulation, effective June 30, 2004,[3] being the Cuban Assets Control Regulations, 31 C.F.R. part 515.[4] The current regulation does not limit travel of US Citizens to Cuba per se, but it makes it illegal for US Citizens to have transactions (spend money or receive gifts) in Cuba under most circumstances without a US government Office of Foreign Assets Control issued license.[5]
From wikipedia.
I first heard about this on the Colbert Report (the most truthy news source on television), and was just talking about it with friends the other day.
It has come up again because someone apparently inserted a clause loosening these restrictions in Obama's huge unread Stimulus Package (I think Steven King wrote it).Here's an oversimplified history of Cuba (would be more accurate if I could travel there):
1800's: U.S. wants Cuba, a colony of Spain.
1898: U.S. gets Cuba
1959: Castro overthrows U.S. backed dicator, gets Cuba.
1959 - Present: The U.S. is a total jerk to Cuba.
Jewish pacifist and fellow loon Noam Chomsky has written extensively on the U.S. cuban embargo, calling it nothing less than "terrorism."
I'd like to punch him in his un-American face. If only he didn't wear glasses.-
Source 1:
"Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams, both "founding fathers," spoke of the need to incorporate Cuba into the nascent U.S. empire. Jefferson wanted simply to annex it. But in those days they couldn't do it because an obstacle existed. And the obstacle at that time was England. The English fleet made it impossible for the United States to simply conquer and annex Cuba.
The theory held by everyone at the time was that Cuba, following what John Quincy Adams called "the laws of political gravitation," would fall into our hands like a "ripe fruit." Let's wait for the fruit to ripen and fall into our hands. That was precisely why the United States was always against Cuba liberating itself from Spain. The United States exercised enormous pressure on Mexico, Colombia and others to prevent Cuba's liberation. [Simón] Bolivar [known as "the Liberator" for his leading role in South American independence from Spain] was all too aware of this and was very saddened by it. But from the U.S. point-of-view, its position made sense. If Cuba achieved its independence, it would not fall into its hands like ripe fruit. They were also very worried about democratic tendencies and liberation movements in Cuba, which aimed to liberate slaves and struggle for equality for Afro-Cubans, all of which was intolerable for the empire. Therefore, for various reasons, the United States was opposed, from the early 1800s, to the liberation of Cuba. It maintained this position until, at the end of the century, it in fact conquered Cuba and made it a colony, under the pretext of liberating it from Spain. And it effectively continued as a U.S. colony until the government of Fidel Castro came to power in 1959."
A recent American take on Castro and Cuba
"The Batista dictatorship was overthrown in January 1959 by Castro's guerrilla forces. [Fulgencio Batista was a U.S. backed dictator]
Eisenhower's March 1960 plan called for the overthrow of Castro in favor of a regime "more devoted to the true interests of the Cuban people and more acceptable to the U.S.," including support for "military operation on the island" and "development of an adequate paramilitary force outside of Cuba." Intelligence reported that popular support for Castro was high, but the US would determine the "true interests of the Cuban people." The regime change was to be carried out "in such a manner as to avoid any appearance of U.S. intervention," because of the anticipated reaction in Latin America and the problems of doctrinal management at home.
Kennedy implemented a crushing embargo that could scarcely be endured by a small country that had become a "virtual colony" of the US in the sixty years following its "liberation" from Spain. He also ordered an intensification of the terrorist campaign: "He asked his brother, Attorney-General Robert Kennedy, to lead the top-level interagency group that oversaw Operation Mongoose, a program of paramilitary operations, economic warfare, and sabotage he launched in late 1961 to visit the 'terrors of the earth' on Fidel Castro and, more prosaically, to topple him."
"The national security pretext lost whatever shreds of credibility it might have had after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, though it was not until 1998 that US intelligence officially informed the country that Cuba no longer posed a threat to US national security. The Clinton administration, however, insisted that the military threat posed by Cuba be reduced to "negligible," but not completely removed. Even with this qualification, the intelligence assessment eliminated a danger that had been identified by the Mexican ambassador in 1961, when he rejected JFK's attempt to organize collective action against Cuba on the grounds that "if we publicly declare that Cuba is a threat to our security, forty million Mexicans will die laughing."
The simple fact is that Castro represents a successful defiance of the US, a negation of our whole hemispheric policy of almost a century and a half." To put it simply, Thomas Paterson writes, "Cuba, as symbol and reality, challenged U.S. hegemony in Latin America." International terrorism and economic warfare to bring about regime change are justified not by what Cuba does, but by its "very existence," its "successful defiance" of the proper master of the hemisphere. Defiance may justify even more violent actions, as in Serbia, as quietly conceded after the fact; or Iraq, as also recognized when pretexts had collapsed."
A recent, un-American perspective of the Cuban Embargo"The actual reasons for the terror and economic warfare were explained clearly at the very outset: the goal was to cause “rising discomfort among hungry Cubans” so that they would overthrow the regime (Kennedy); to “bring about hunger, desperation, and overthrow of the government” (Eisenhower’s State Department). The threat of Cuba, as Kennedy’s Latin American advisor Arthur Schlesinger advised the incoming president, is that successful independent development there might stimulate others who suffer from similar problems to follow the same course, so that the system of US domination might unravel. The liberal Democratic administrations were outraged over Cuba’s “successful defiance” of US policies going back to the Monroe Doctrine, which was intended to ensure obedience to the US will in the hemisphere. To a substantial extent, US terror and economic warfare has achieved its actual goals, causing bitter suffering among Cubans, impeding economic development, and undermining moves towards more internal democracy. Exactly as intended.
It is one of the occasional illustrations of how state interests prevail over business interests; and the will of the population is as usual irrelevant."
Source 4:
"In the case of Cuba, the United States has done everything it can to drive them into the hands of the Russians -- to ensure that there is a maximum amount of internal repression and brutality inside Cuba to reduce the possibility that it could be a model for anyone else. But there is still this tremendously threatening development. While throughout the whole region that the United States supports and backs, you have torture, murder, starvation, slave labor, and so on and so forth, there is one little corner of Latin America that has actually come to match the standard of living of the United States, which is astonishing. This is the richest country in the world, by any possible measure. Cuba is one of the poorest countries in the world and it has approximately the same quality of life index, in terms of health and so on, that the United States has. That's really scary and that's an enemy. That's what they mean when they say, "We can't tolerate another Cuba." It is bad enough that there is one country that can serve as a model for this kind of development. Suppose there were two, suppose there were three. ... "
Obviously, it is considered totally illegitimate to help someone that the United States wants to destroy. The reasoning is simple: everything that the United States does is right, by definition. Therefore, anyone who interferes with what the United States does is, by definition, wrong."
Oh Chomsky. So long winded. With so many opinions outside of the ordinary political dialect that it makes both Liberals and Conservatives uncomfortable. How I love you.
Comments
Post a Comment