Cuba US: John Kerry reopens Havana embassy on historic trip

[Takhisis]

Cuba has suffered some issues lately. A portion of the Cuban budget was funded by gifted/low-price barrels of oil given/sold to them be Venezuela. The recent plunge of oil prices and implosion of Venezuela's economy led to Cuba reaching out to the US, which was more or less enough to get a friendly "sure why not".

You have to add to it that Kirchnerism is going down the drain so no free foodstuffs or coke-dollars for Cuba from Buenos Aires, and Brazil is probably going to get rid of Dilma sooner rather than later and their Petrobras is in deep trouble anyway so, out of the two biggest countries in the region, one can't be bothered to worry about Cuba and the other has too many headaches to subsidise them anyway.

The benefits would be increase ties between the country. Cuba is a beautiful country and pretty much right off the waters of the US, so there's no reason that Cuba couldn't benefit greatly from tourism. If Cuba and the US can hash out their differences even more, Cuba would benefit from private investment from the States.

The latter is more shaky, but I think the tourism is a solid bet. Cuba receives about three million tourists a year as is, a good chunk of them Canadians. I'm sure that more open ties could see the US match that number in fairly short time.

Tourism could be a good initial bet, and Cuba could have some extra income from decently-managed (by which, incidentally, I do not mean big-foreign-firm-owned) agriculture.
Are there any big fisheries around?

The rapproachement with Cuba mirrors that with Iran. Both are climbdowns from insupportable positions amounting to little more than sustained sulking from a childish superpower. In both cases popular movements deposed unpopular dictators, but at the height of the cold war the land of the free preferred to be cosy with the murderous, fascistic, dissident torturing dictators of the world (so long as their politics were on the right) than support anything that evenly vaguely resembled the left.

What exactly in the last 30 years has been the problem with Cuba or Iran? None that any sane outside observer can detect. The most serious objection that can be raised against either is Iran's support for Hezbollah - who kill a lot less civilians than the 'defence forces' of their opponents, who the US support even when they are reducing a densely populated city to rubble and killing thousands. The wailing about a nuclear programme is a decade out of date (the CIA acknowledge that Iran were only possibly working towards a weapons programme up until the biggest threat to Iran - Saddam Hussein - was removed by the US itself, whereupon Iran abandoned the project.) As for Cuba.. apart from (I think) a poor human rights record (nothing like as bad as certain key US allies' of course) I can't think of any reason at all for the US stance in recent decades.

Honestly, to me, this just looks like a return to sanity.

US doesn't back down from stupid positions negotiate with terrorists and there's a very powerful pro-Cuban exile lobby. Not as powerful as the pro-Israel lobby, I think, but powerful enough.

(…)Cuba isn't much of threat, but the US should have gotten more from them in return for recognition. I mean at the re-opening dissidents weren't allowed to be there, surely that should have sent alarm bells ringing.

Gotten more? Step by step. Now the Cubans can't back down unless they're given an excuse. There's no one to turn if they need substantial material support in their next bout of economic crisis. Soft power can actually win at times.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

As a side note in the circus...American politics.

As the candidate that has no choice but to comment on this Cuba business as if it were the most important thing to happen to America since the collapse of the Soviet Union...Marco Rubio...got hounded into talking about it today he came off sounding like an absolute whack job...even for a Republican presidential candidate. Total bombs and belligerence. I can't help but think that every other candidate immediately recognized this as a weakness, because it can't play well outside the relatively tiny 'Cuban expatriot hard liner' demographic.

 

[Sonereal]

You have to add to it that Kirchnerism is going down the drain so no free foodstuffs or coke-dollars for Cuba from Buenos Aires, and Brazil is probably going to get rid of Dilma sooner rather than later and their Petrobras is in deep trouble anyway so, out of the two biggest countries in the region, one can't be bothered to worry about Cuba and the other has too many headaches to subsidise them anyway.

I didn't know about the Argentina and Brazil stuff, but that sounds interesting so I should read up more on it.

Tourism could be a good initial bet, and Cuba could have some extra income from decently-managed (by which, incidentally, I do not mean big-foreign-firm-owned) agriculture.
Are there any big fisheries around?

According to this, fishing is a major industry for Cuba.

Large-scale fishing operations have been encouraged in recent decades, and that industry is now one of the largest in Latin America; Cuban fishing fleets operate from Greenland to Argentina. Livestock raising has also been highly developed.

Cuba is very rich in underutilized, untapped, resources overall. It can benefit from investment in a lot of industries beyond tourism, but I figured that tourism would be the "easiest" to get started with because I imagine mining and manufacturing are fairly capital intensive.

 

[Frank Sobotka]

So this mean that the United States government will cease their terrorist campaign against the Cuban government? Are they done in making Cuba an example of how powerful United States are in bullying their neighbors in the western hemisphere? Or is it a sign of the decline of US power in the region?

 

[Takhisis]

As a side note in the circus...American politics.

As the candidate that has no choice but to comment on this Cuba business as if it were the most important thing to happen to America since the collapse of the Soviet Union...Marco Rubio...got hounded into talking about it today he came off sounding like an absolute whack job...even for a Republican presidential candidate. Total bombs and belligerence. I can't help but think that every other candidate immediately recognized this as a weakness, because it can't play well outside the relatively tiny 'Cuban expatriot hard liner' demographic.

Good development. Of course, that comes from a country that sees Barack Obama as a leftwing politician and universal healthcare as Communism, but, as I said before, step by step.

I didn't know about the Argentina and Brazil stuff, but that sounds interesting so I should read up more on it.

Argentina will vote in one of three right-wing, conservative candidates who wouldn't be very friendly to the Venezuelan and Cuban stronkmen. The difference between them (regarding this issue) is how overt this would be.
Brazil… I don't know what Lula will do, prop up Dilma or let her fall. Given that his hands are dirty (same as most of his and her governments' officials, really), I don't know what he would do to save his rear end.

According to this, fishing is a major industry for Cuba.

Large-scale fishing operations have been encouraged in recent decades, and that industry is now one of the largest in Latin America; Cuban fishing fleets operate from Greenland to Argentina. Livestock raising has also been highly developed.

Cuba is very rich in underutilized, untapped, resources overall. It can benefit from investment in a lot of industries beyond tourism, but I figured that tourism would be the "easiest" to get started with because I imagine mining and manufacturing are fairly capital intensive.

So, sadly, there's no reason, really, why Cubans should be so poor. Eventually they'll have got rid of the Castroist quasi-monarchy, but meanwhile, they can be helped through means other than regime change.

So this mean that the United States government will cease their terrorist campaign against the Cuban government? Are they done in making Cuba an example of how powerful United States are in bullying their neighbors in the western hemisphere? Or is it a sign of the decline of US power in the region?

Decline? Far from it. They're just trying diplomacy for once, and since Obama doesn't have to bow to the pressures of a re-election campaign committee and pundits, he has more leeway. If the Repubs keep doing the same as Marco Rubio they'll just damage their own position.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Decline? Far from it. They're just trying diplomacy for once, and since Obama doesn't have to bow to the pressures of a re-election campaign committee and pundits, he has more leeway. If the Repubs keep doing the same as Marco Rubio they'll just damage their own position.

At first glance I think even the other Republicans are going to take the opportunity to throw Rubio under the bus on this one.

 

[Sonereal]

So, sadly, there's no reason, really, why Cubans should be so poor. Eventually they'll have got rid of the Castroist quasi-monarchy, but meanwhile, they can be helped through means other than regime change.

A lot of people, of course, are going to blame the US embargo, but the US embargo hadn't stopped the vast majority of the world from investing in Cuba should they wish. The reason why people don't want to invest in Cuba is because if the government comes knocking on your door, there is likely nothing you can do about it unless your country and Cuba have a treaty with a ISDS clause.

It is really no different from Venezuela, only Venezuela is a lot worse about it. The difference between the two is while Cuba is taking babysteps to opening up its markets to private enterprise, Venezuela continues to clamp down on, nationalize supermarkets, and pretend that the entire opposition is funded and backed by the US.

However, I don't think that the regime must go in order for reforms to be implemented. China has managed to walk a middle path between liberal democracy/liberal markets and typical authoritarian command economy. For the United States, the steps taken to open and develop ties with Cuba could be little different from opening relations with the PRC. Splits Cuba away from Venezuela and reap the economic benefits from trade.

 

[Frank Sobotka]

Decline? Far from it.

Have you been paying attention to current events during the past 5 or so years?

They're just trying diplomacy for once,

Or it can by that the majority of investment in Cuba is financed by Chinese capital, with Brazil in second place?

Did you know that there is a $4.7 billion deal for the construction of two hydroelectric dams in Argentina by a Chinese construction and engineering company? I know that has nothing to do with Cuba, but how does that do to US prestige in their backyard?

and since Obama doesn't have to bow to the pressures of a re-election campaign committee and pundits, he has more leeway.

Obama is a figurehead.

If the Repubs keep doing the same as Marco Rubio they'll just damage their own position.

Rubio is from Florida. Anything that has any relevance to US policy to Cuba, Floridian politicians in that state has the monopoly over the Cuban/Exile votes. Been like that since the mid 60s.

 

[Sonereal]

Or it can by that the majority of investment in Cuba is financed by Chinese capital, with Brazil in second place?

Or it could be because Cuba is a large untapped market?

I know that has nothing to do with Cuba, but how does that do to US prestige in their backyard?

Not...very much, it doesn't. Sorry? I understand that this thread started off as a Great American Satan circlejerk, but now we've calmed down and are trying to have a conversation of the benefits of developing and opening ties.

Now, and I want you to follow me on this one, sometimes, a company has money. With this money, it invests in something it thinks will turn a profit for itself. Now, if we lived in the world where only US companies are expected to invest in every single major project, nothing would get done!

So, the vast majority of people would look at the dam building in Argentina the same way they look at every major project not funded by a US company: as a major project not funded by a US company.

When a US company invests into a project in Europe, do we say that this damages German prestige? No, because that would be silly. That would be representative of an extremely gamified (of the Paradox variety) view of the world and relations between countries.

However, I do agree with you on one part. It has absolutely nothing to do with Cuba!

Obama is a figurehead.

For an extremely unique definition of figurehead, sure!

 

[Formaldehyde]

The rapproachement with Cuba mirrors that with Iran. Both are climbdowns from insupportable positions amounting to little more than sustained sulking from a childish superpower. In both cases popular movements deposed unpopular dictators, but at the height of the cold war the land of the free preferred to be cosy with the murderous, fascistic, dissident torturing dictators of the world (so long as their politics were on the right) than support anything that evenly vaguely resembled the left.

Indeed. Eventually the US will learn it can't go around bullying and intimidating countries that merely have different views of the world than their own. Countries which finally overthrew fascist puppet dictators which the US government inflicted upon them after overthrowing their sovereign governments for incredibly nonsensical reasons.

There is good reason why much of the world hates and despises the US government. Why we continue to be the victims of terrorist acts from the blowback from our incessant inept foreign policy decisions, hegemony, and imperialism.

 

[Oruc]

Those are too local to qualify as "imperialist" in my opinion. Imperialism, to me, is that strictly European (and derivatives) concept of "the other side of the planet owes us something." Squabbling with the neighbors is just part of life, it isn't the path to world domination.

So continous land empires get a free pass? The US meddling with Cuba wasn't imperialist at all then.

 

[red_elk]

So continous land empires get a free pass?

Yes

 

[Formaldehyde]

Of course not. The Monroe Doctrine was entirely within reason. They had to stop the evil imperialists somehow.

 

[Frank Sobotka]

Or it could be because Cuba is a large untapped market?

Pretty much.

Not...very much, it doesn't. Sorry? I understand that this thread started off as a Great American Satan circlejerk, but now we've calmed down and are trying to have a conversation of the benefits of developing and opening ties.

Now, and I want you to follow me on this one, sometimes, a company has money. With this money, it invests in something it thinks will turn a profit for itself. Now, if we lived in the world where only US companies are expected to invest in every single major project, nothing would get done!

So, the vast majority of people would look at the dam building in Argentina the same way they look at every major project not funded by a US company: as a major project not funded by a US company.

When a US company invests into a project in Europe, do we say that this damages German prestige? No, because that would be silly. That would be representative of an extremely gamified (of the Paradox variety) view of the world and relations between countries.

However, I do agree with you on one part. It has absolutely nothing to do with Cuba!

Yeah, I kinda went off the rails a little bit. Never mind me! lol

 

[Takhisis]

I didn't know about the Argentina and Brazil stuff, but that sounds interesting so I should read up more on it.

From today's demonstrations:

Spoiler :

Around 250 of the Brazilian Lower House's 513 members are in favour of impeachment. Dilma's walking on a tightrope.

At first glance I think even the other Republicans are going to take the opportunity to throw Rubio under the bus on this one.

I'm not sure. Many other Repub wannabe candidates are out to out-Trump Trump regarding all them foreigns.

A lot of people, of course, are going to blame the US embargo, but the US embargo hadn't stopped the vast majority of the world from investing in Cuba should they wish. The reason why people don't want to invest in Cuba is because if the government comes knocking on your door, there is likely nothing you can do about it unless your country and Cuba have a treaty with a ISDS clause.

It is really no different from Venezuela, only Venezuela is a lot worse about it. The difference between the two is while Cuba is taking babysteps to opening up its markets to private enterprise, Venezuela continues to clamp down on, nationalize supermarkets, and pretend that the entire opposition is funded and backed by the US.

However, I don't think that the regime must go in order for reforms to be implemented. China has managed to walk a middle path between liberal democracy/liberal markets and typical authoritarian command economy. For the United States, the steps taken to open and develop ties with Cuba could be little different from opening relations with the PRC. Splits Cuba away from Venezuela and reap the economic benefits from trade.

Venezuela will be either doing this very same process soon or just ditching the façade of representative democracy and declaring themselves a military-run narco-state, also relatively soon. Too early to know yet, but Cuba's slipping out of their grasp.

Have you been paying attention to current events during the past 5 or so years?

I have. The temporary shoal of cocaine-and-oil-funded populism has amanged to erode itself even faster than its showrunners themselves thought.

Yeah, I kinda went off the rails a little bit. Never mind me! lol

You're a new poster, you'll get better.

 

[Colonel]

Indeed. Eventually the US will learn it can't go around bullying and intimidating countries that merely have different views of the world than their own. Countries which finally overthrew fascist puppet dictators which the US government inflicted upon them after overthrowing their sovereign governments for incredibly nonsensical reasons.

There is good reason why much of the world hates and despises the US government. Why we continue to be the victims of terrorist acts from the blowback from our incessant inept foreign policy decisions, hegemony, and imperialism.

Realistically, the US can and will do whatever it wants. We are the world's only Superpower left. I will say the US has learned one easy lesson, much easier to support a dictator after his rise to power then try to install a new one. Terrorist action being the worst response to our foreign policy decisions can be handled easily. The reason current terrorist organizations are focusing overseas and trying to get individuals from the US to target us at home is because they can't launch an effective attack against the US home soil any longer. Very few countries are left that would willingly harbor terrorists because they know the Americans will come knocking if they do. Overall our foreign policy has been fairly effective and if all else fails we bomb them into submission.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It isn't realistic at all for a bully to think he can do whatever he wants unless he has no morals.

More people see the US "mainly negatively" than they do North Korea.



Gee, I wonder why.

So I hope you plan to have far more 9/11-style incidents in the future. That they "can be handled easily" in some sort of magical manner that hasn't worked so far.

 

[Colonel]

It isn't realistic at all for a bully to think he can do whatever he wants unless he has no morals.

More people see the US "mainly negatively" than they do North Korea.



Gee, I wonder why.

So I hope you plan to have far more 9/11-style incidents in the future. That they "can be handled easily" in some sort of magical manner that hasn't worked so far.

If you will notice we haven't had a major attack by organized terrorist organizations in the better part of a decade. This isn't because Jihadist decided to stay at home. We have effectively destroyed their war-fighting capability. Terrorists are left to lone wolf-style attacks with little if any support from multi-national terrorist organizations. Stopping terrorism entirely will never happen, but we have effectively limited its ability to conduct large-scale operations. As for the root cause of terrorist action, anyone who thinks strapping a bomb to themselves and blowing up a movie theater or turning an aircraft into a missle is simply sick and disgusting and they will be hunted down and ended like the animals they are. Those who support them are equally as evil and will be ended in kind. US policy has little to do with the twisted sense of religious lunacy these people have, and even if we reversed 60 years of American foreign policy these nut cases would still be doing the same things because they consider Westerners to be infidels.

 

[Formaldehyde]

What utter nonsense. You can pretend all that is factual, but it obviously isn't. That sounds like a combination of GWB's speech writer, an ad for the next Republican debate, and some of the usual Islamophobic rhetoric thrown in for good measure.

They don't hate our freedom. They don't hate us because we are "infidels". They hate our incessant meddling in their own affairs. They hate their family members being victims of "collateral damage" from our nonsensical wars and drone attacks. They hate our blind support of Israel no matter what atrocities they commit against Muslims.

The al Qaida are just the tip of the iceberg. We continue to foment hatred in much of the world and there will be more blowback as a direct result, just as 9/11 was a direct reaction to our troops being stationed in Saudi Arabia.

Our society is far too open to completely eliminate major attacks. It is only a matter of time before the next one.

 

[brennan]

You make 9/11 sound like an invasion. Huge shock it may have been, but it was essentially a few synchronised hijackings and required little organisation and no extensive support operations.