Maybe a little off topic, but why the US are still so hostile against Cuba?
Is there any real reason or credible threat that the small island could damage the US?
It seems like US is holding the grudge way too long.
Is there any real reason or credible threat that the small island could damage the US?
It seems like US is holding the grudge way too long.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban-American_lobby#Political...
A hostile regime left on its own could become a major threat to the US economy by making traversal of those straits hazardous to US shipments. This is major commodities. Petrochemicals, agriculture, raw ore, fertilizer, etc.
There is always some political angle, but the adults in the room are generally aligned that Cuba needs to either be friendly or at least be impotent.
Cuba possess exactly 0 anti-shipping threat to the US. There is no feasible scenario where Cuba develops enough, with a population of 11 million, to become a military threat to the US. It could fire off a few missiles before the positions get destroyed, sure, but so could any nation with an SSK.
The reason for the enmity towards Cuba is nothing else than the Monroe Doctrine, and despite any appeals to "adulthood" which are thinly veiled appeals to paternalism, the Monroe Doctrine is interpreted better through an elementary schoolyard bully lens than through the eyes of the adults in the room - "if you're ij my class you can't be bestest friends with anybody else". It doesn't come with any consideration for anyone beyond the US and its not even about security, it's about dominance.
> Cuba possess exactly 0 anti-shipping threat to the US. There is no feasible scenario where Cuba develops enough, with a population of 11 million, to become a military threat to the US. It could fire off a few missiles before the positions get destroyed, sure, but so could any nation with an SSK.
> The reason for the enmity towards Cuba is nothing else than the Monroe Doctrine, and despite any appeals to "adulthood" which are thinly veiled appeals to paternalism, the Monroe Doctrine is interpreted better through an elementary schoolyard bully lens than through the eyes of the adults in the room - "if you're ij my class you can't be bestest friends with anybody else". It doesn't come with any consideration for anyone beyond the US and its not even about security, it's about dominance.
You're essentially claiming that the US is holding a multigenerational grudge rather than implementing some sort of strategic objective.
Can you help me understand why you believe this? Ideally with citations and without hostile language like "delusional"?
The purpose isn't defensive, it's agressive, and it obviously furthers US interests if having the most power possible fits your definition.
As for a citation, the Monroe doctrine is almost official.
We don't live in the golden age of piracy when privateers ruled the sees.
We live in the age of Cuba's ports being within the range of cruise missiles from Florida.
I think that argument depends on a fairly narrow, and largely private-property-centric model of "freedom".
I don't think it will be elections or free media that would unlock the Cuban embargo, but rather privatization.
But in any case, the idea is that embargoes are about compulsion and not about judgment.
You haven't paid much attention to US policy toward Latin America: favorable policy is driven by being a capitalism and pro-US geopolitical orientation together, not democracy.
> We were already moving toward Cuba under Obama and Cuba wasn’t showing any signs of privatizing.
Both Obama and Clinton made steps toward normalization; neither of those prices durable, and lots of Dems, even who agree on the policy, think those steps were bad politics that have hurt Dems, particularly in Florida. I think Biden would nevertheless be inclined to say least an initial opening toward an opening with Cuba in the event of a democratic transition. But domestic politics either going into or resulting from the outcome of the 2022 midterms might effect that significantly, especially in the event that a faction not favorable to the neoliberal capitalism and US geopolitical capitalism won, or seemed likely to win, in that democracy.
> especially in the event that a faction not favorable to the neoliberal capitalism and US geopolitical capitalism won, or seemed likely to win, in that democracy.
There's no real scenario in which Cuba becomes a democratic country but retains its hostile relationship with America. Any democratic revolution is going to be supported by the US because the US wants to ensure friendly relations with the new government for its own interests (e.g., trade). Moreover, even in the extremely unlikely event that democratic Cuba is hostile toward US interests, it's even more unlikely that they would stay that way because ordinary Cubans (like all 2nd world countries) want access to the 1st world lifestyle and the elite will want access to US markets, so internal pressure will favor more open trade with the US and even if the US is run by greedy capitalists (and I think it is to a large extent) it's in their interest to lift the embargo on a democratic Cuba.
Sometimes I feel US foreign policy is much too dependent on the whims of the current administration. Presidents should perhaps have Congress ratify/codify decisions with long-term implications, which would make it harder for the next administration to change?
This is how it works. Lets take the JCPOA as an example. That was the Obama era nuclear deal with Iran. Because of the voting situation in Congress there was no way to get it accepted there. What could have been ratified by Congress would not have been accepted by Iran. Therefore Obama signed the deal as an executive action. He couldn’t have done that if the deal would be bidding with long term implications, so they worded the deal such that the executive of the USA had to re-affirm their commitment to the deal periodically. Trump did re-affirm it at first but when it came up again the second time he refused.
In short: it works exactly as you say already. Obama just simply didn’t have the votes in Congress to push through a binding treaty.
[1] https://www.state.gov/cuba-internet-task-force-final-report/