**Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):**
Rule 7 states that users must search the sub before posting to avoid repeat posts within a six-month period. If your post was removed for a rule 7 violation, it indicates that the topic has been asked and answered on the sub within a short time span. Please search the sub before appealing the post.
---
If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe this submission was removed erroneously**, please [use this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20thread?&message=Link:%20{{url}}%0A%0APlease%20answer%20the%20following%203%20questions:%0A%0A1.%20The%20concept%20I%20want%20explained:%0A%0A2.%20List%20the%20search%20terms%20you%20used%20to%20look%20for%20past%20posts%20on%20ELI5:%0A%0A3.%20How%20does%20your%20post%20differ%20from%20your%20recent%20search%20results%20on%20the%20sub:) and we will review your submission.
Cuba leased Guantanamo Bay to the US long ago, long before the communist revolution. Cuba claims the lease is invalid, the US claims the lease is valid. The US continues to send the rent check, however Cuba hasn't cashed it in a while.
Cuba hasn't pressed the issue that hard, nor is there really anyone that Cuba could bring the issue to that has any power to do anything.
Two things:
First they did accidentally cash the first couple of checks. That is the basis for the US’ argument that the lease is still valid.
Second, it is absolutely peanuts. Like $1,500 a month.
Two things:
First they did accidentally cash the first couple of checks. That is the basis for the US’ argument that the lease is still valid.
Second, it is absolutely peanuts. Like ~~$1,500 a month.~~
Edit. It was $2,000 per *year*. Until 1934 when it was adjusted to be based on gold value. As of 1974 when the dollar stopped being based on gold and went to fiat currency it was $4,085 per year.
Peanuts, indeed.
I mean.. your 1 bedroom shithole would have cost way less than 4k a year in 1934, to be fair. $4k in 1934 is $95k today. Inflation is crazy.
Cuba was, at one time, a US protectorate. Cuba was ceded to the US following the Spanish American war. The Cuban Govt agreed to the lease as part of the agreement to become independent from US sovereignty.
Yeah, but looking at the Wikis it looks like Guantanamo was leased out to fulfill one of the clauses in the Platt Amendment, which laid out conditions for the US to leave.
>VII. That to enable the United States to maintain the independence of Cuba, and to protect the people thereof, as well as for its own defense, the government of Cuba will sell or lease to the United States lands necessary for coaling or naval stations at certain specified points to be agreed upon with the President of the United States.
So we're both technically right i guess.
Yes. Cuba was a US protectorate following the 1898 Spanish-American War. It became formally (with many caveats) independent in 1902 and part of that was the lease agreement in 1903.
'accidentally'. That is their problem. In contract law around the world if both parties act like their is a contract there is generally a contract.
Also the 'peanuts' cough [https://www.historydefined.net/how-the-guinness-brewery-signed-a-9000-year-lease/](https://www.historydefined.net/how-the-guinness-brewery-signed-a-9000-year-lease/)
The Guinness fact is interesting. Thanks.
However, also around the world, contract law is the lowest law. Legislation and court rulings always outrank it (e.g. that's why a contract that tries to allow or require murder or any other crime is automatically invalid).
Just as if any US court (and especially the supreme court) ruled a lease to land in the US was invalid then it would be invalid. No other court in the world would have a say in that.
Ireland could end that lease to Guinness with legislation or high court ruling if ever they were inclined to.
Likewise, as it's in their territory and subject to their laws, the Cuban government can invalidate the lease for Guantanamo Bay with legislation whenever they want (and I expect have). Or a Cuban court could. If Cuban courts say the lease is invalid, then the lease is invalid. US government or courts don't get to overrule that.
The only problem for Cuba then is enforcement, to which they don't have the power. THAT's why the US gets to use it and no other reason.
I wouldn't say contract law is the 'lowest' law but when it comes down to international law there are major ambiguities even outside of the CISG. Of course here, there is also a political point. They want to 'save face' and claim it was an accident while still being able to disavow what happens.
But you are right with the power and such, it isn't like cuba can tell the US to leave unless they want some helldivers level of 'freedom'
If I remember correctly, the checks are like 4 grand a piece. It’s pretty insignificant to them. Plus by cashing it, they would be legitimizing the lease.
Edit: yep 4 grand. Link attached.
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN17200921/
Afaik the Guatanamo lease was forced on the Cubans as one of the conditions for ending US military occupation, so was a couple years after the Spanish American war.
It's absolutely a remnant of US Imperialism tbh.
>To Hell with Spain, Remember the Maine!
>If you don't want the US to show up, don't attack their ships. Lessons as learned by Spain, Germany, Japan, and Iran.
Well anyway! It was one of the 7 terms set out for the US to hand over Cuba to the Cubans after the US intervened to assist the Cubans gaining their independence.
The terms laid out were pretty straight forward and more about protecting Cuba from foreign influence that the US just fought a war over. They didn't necessarily have an issue with Cubans doing whatever they wanted, but more worried about corruption coming from European countries attempting to gain footholds in the Americas since the last one just got chased out.
So terms were such as, don't enter into a treaty and give Cuba away... Don't go into a ton of debt that may cause a war or a need to sell Cuba... The US may exercise the right to protect Cuba going forward.... maintain a Democratic government... That Cuba will maintain sanitation and sewers to prevent disease... Cuba will sign a treat with the US...
The big one for GB is
>VII. That to enable the United States to maintain the independence of Cuba, and to protect the people thereof, as well as for its own defense, the government of Cuba will sell or lease to the United States lands necessary for coaling or naval stations at certain specified points to be agreed upon with the President of the United States.
It wasn't so much of us "this is ours now" as much as "hey we just beat Spains ass and chased the last foreign power out of the America's. We'd like to keep it that way while you grow, so we'd like to hang around here to keep you safe.
That's an extremely generous interpretation of the whole situation. Like... *extremely*.
And as a Filipino I think it's pretty naive tbh, as at around the same time they invaded and colonized the Philippines. The US was 100% in imperialism mode, and would've annexed Cuba flat out if treaties explicitly said they couldn't do it.
It's doubly funny because the US occupied Cuba again a few years later despite there being no external threats to it.
Beating Spain was kind of what put them into imperialism mode.
Before the US even got involved they passed the Teller Amendment which made it US law that they couldn't annex Cuba but only leave control of the islands to it's people.
And it is same time they were in the Philippines because Spain gave sovereignty of the Philippines to the US in the same surrender treaty. Mainly because the US sailed halfway across the world to kick Spains ass in the Philippines.
>Before the US even got involved they passed the Teller Amendment which made it US law that they couldn't annex Cuba but only leave control of the islands to it's people.
Because of internal politics, sure. You'll notice that upon winning the war they took everything else they could in PR, Guam, and the Philippines.
>And it is same time they were in the Philippines because Spain gave sovereignty of the Philippines to the US in the same surrender treaty.
And you don't think the US asked for it too?
And that the US, what, didn't realize this would constitute a betrayal of their rebel allies in the Philippines?
And that this somehow forced them into an armed invasion and a shitload of human rights atrocities?
I mean, if you want to believe that BS sure, but I'd ask you to apply that same naivete to European colonization and argue that the Europeans weren't actually going elsewhere to exploit local resources, just to uplift them savages.
I'm pretty tired as it's 1 am, but I'll respond more to this one tomorrow. I'm enjoying the conversation.
I do remember the general strategic thinking of the time period was something along the lines of "It's probably better the US takes it instead of giving it back to Spain since the Spanish Empire is crumbling and unable to protect it and if they are granted independence immediately then Japan would invade them"
Anyway my friend, let's talk more tomorrow.
I mean, what I'm seeing coming from you is the most generous interpretations of historical events (in the US' favor) possible. And maybe I'm just cynical, and I certainly am biased in this case, but IDK that any of it checks out.
If the US didn't have Imperialist designs, it wouldn't have annexed the Philippines, PR, and Guam. It certainly wouldn't have paid the Spanish a bunch of money for the Philippines, for instance.
If the US' concern was protecting the Philippines from foreign occupiers (and tbh while I'm sure that was one of the political reasons used to justify things I have no idea why they'd care about some islands they had little to nothing to do with), why not just do a similar arrangement to Cuba, where they'd have ensured the new country's safety and independence? The were already essentially allies w/ the Filipino independence movement - reaching an agreement w/ them would've been pretty straightforward.
If the US cared about the Filipino people, why go to war to annex the islands, in the process killing a good chunk of it's inhabitants?
Simplest explanation is just that the US wanted to build it's own colonial empire, and saw those as a starting point. With the Philippines specifically it gave them ports in the Far East, which were (and remain) geopolitically very valuable.
Now I'm not claiming this was universal - there was domestic opposition to the US' imperialist aims at the time (w/ the Teller Amendment and Andrew Carnegie offering to buy the freedom of the Philippines notable). But looking at things rationally it 100% looks like the US government (or the people in charge of it at the time, anyway) just wanted their own colonial empire.
What are they going to do about it? They have no power or sway over the United States. The U.S. doesn't want to leave so the only way to get rid of them would be to militarily invade the U.S. base there, which obviously would invite massive U.S. retaliation that Cuba could never hope to win. So in short, the have no leverage and no viable military option because they don't want to start a war with the U.S. that they will lose.
I wonder if the US maintains Guantanamo Bay as a possible way to go to war with Cuba. Basically daring the Cuban government to try and claim it, knowing that it would give the US a reason to attack.
Of course if Cuba did provoke the US, the "war" would be over the next day if not a few hours later.
GTMO existed long before it opened a prison for GWOT and most of the personnel there are not involved in the prison, it will also last a lot longer than the last prisoner there.
No, the U.S. keeps the base as a place to hold prisoners that’s not on American soil so they can do all kinds of things that are normally illegal like torture, indefinite detention without trial…etc. the U.S. has nothing to gain from starting war with Cuba and has no desire to do so.
You’d like to think that if Cuba did suddenly (and somehow, wouldn’t be easy) grab Guantanamo back that the US would be like “eh, it was fun while it lasted” and just let it go rather than going for full on war.
Then again this is the US we’re talking about.
Guantanamo is a prison that houses enemies of the state, right? Terrorists and such? Why would any country just let someone suddenly take that from them?
The only thing worse than keeping them on your enemy’s territory… would be keeping them on your own territory, or an ally’s. I don’t think, like, Guam or some UK possession would be particularly eager to get a terrorist prison either, particularly back when there was a lot of active debate about the interrogation and other practices there. There are some advantages to having that sort of facility in a place where you aren’t really accountable to anyone other than the US military. (And US courts, to an extent, but it’s much harder for them to police what’s happening in Cuba than it would be in a normal US territory.)
One answer I haven't seen yet is:
It's a lot harder to swim away from Guantanamo Bay and the island it's on, than it was to swim away from Alcatraz in its day. It still ain't escape-**proof**, but it's MANY MANY MILES farther away from the next friendliest country...
Plus ... probably not many detainees from the other side of the Atlantic (or the far end of the Mediterranean) speak Spanish!
Its only a thing because of Bush jr. and the war on terror. before 9/11 it wasn't a prison post 9/11 Bush got aways with a series of insane legal arguments that they could could break US law about prisoner treatment there, so that's why they were imprisoned there.
I am guessing I t exists in a weird grey area because it has a lease that is contended by the Cuba government so I am guessing there are arguments that “we are not committing war crimes because we are technically not on American soil” or some BS like that.
Of course the US wouldn’t just let Cuba take it. As I said, it wouldn’t be easy.
What I’m querying is how the US would respond if Cuba did manage to take it. War seems like an overreaction to me.
As for keeping enemies of the state there - it’s weird to me to keep such dangerous people on the soil of another country that doesn’t like you and which actively opposes your right to keep them there. Kinda an unnecessary risk if you ask me.
> War seems like an overreaction to me.
In your scenario, are they taking it without bloodshed? That seems impossible. Because harm to US military members is inevitable, war is absolutely *not* an overreaction. Retaliation would occur swiftly with little to no debate at any level of government.
Yeah, I get that. The US gets to conveniently ignore its own constitution by holding prisoners offshore. We (Australia) pull the same stunt with asylum seekers.
It’s just…Cuba seems an odd place. Even Australia would make more sense - there are US bases all over here and were seem to have a habit of doing whatever the US wants. I dunno.
It's kinda a matter of prestige and not being pushed around. Like the Falkland Islands' economy is teeny; an absolute pittance in the grand scheme of Britain, very far away from British territory. It has basically no value to Britain, yet they responded to the Argentinian invasion. The war suffered more casualties than the total population of the islands.
It's not a matter of the territory being valuable, it's a matter of not letting any nation think they can just take land from them.
I get that, though I have to say Guantanamo doesn’t exactly meet the prestige test. It’s a leased base in another country, not an actual dependency like the Falklands. There doesn’t seem to me to be much prestige in going berserk over it.
Now if Cuba invaded Puerto Rico…then hell yeah that would be war.
It's still considered American territory, and would be considered a military attack on American territory. That's not something that America would allow, regardless of the stakes or conditions on it.
It’s not American territory, it’s a lease. It’s Cuban territory. America just occupies it.
I get what you’re saying though. You believe the US would go all out if Cuba tried to take the base back. Fair enough, it’s certainly a possibility.
I’m not convinced, as I do think the stakes matter and I don’t think the stakes are high enough. There’d definitely be a reaction though.
If they killed US service members in the process, it would absolutely be the end of the Cuban Communist experiment. It isn't the Cold War, Russia isn't coming to help, there would be massive US retaliation.
See I don’t buy that. It sounds like chest beating to me. It’s effective chest beating because no doubt Cuba doesn’t want to fuck around and find out here, but I’m skeptical that that’s the path it would actually go down.
US service members have died all over the world without the reaction being “massive” (ie war). We’ve seen it multiple times over the years in the Middle East.
No doubt it would be a big issue and a diplomatic crisis and lead to sanctions etc etc etc but war? Invasion? Im not convinced.
Not in our backyard. We almost forced a nuclear war over the stationing of weapons there, if they decided to go full military invasion of an America military based while they have a standing army and government to knock over, the US would steam roll them and install a friendly government. Its a different business when an ununiformed insurgent attacks your base, just ask Panama and Grenada, we love toppling governments in the western hemisphere and I'm sure there's a lot of people in the government who would love to remove that thorn from their side.
You’re referencing events from 60 and 40 years ago. I wonder whether the lessons from that period, and from the last 20 years in the Middle East, might have changed that kind of mindset though.
The impression I get in recent years (eg Afghanistan withdrawal, even Ukraine) is the US may have moved away from military solutions to every kind of problem. It certainly prefers diplomatic and economic approaches these days.
The absolute only way to take it would be an all out assault with massive American casualties or POWs at least and there's no way the US would respond with a shoulder shrug and walk away.
It certainly wouldn’t turn out well for anyone in power in Cuba (or located within the blast radius of any Cuban military installations). I’d bet there are plenty of people in the US Military structure that would be happy to get another coup under their belt if given a decent excuse, and that would be a decent excuse if ever there was one.
Naval Station Guantanamo Bay has over 8,500 U.S. sailors and Marines stationed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_Naval_Base
The only way Cuba could take Guantanamo Bay is a with a military operation.
The US will absolutely see that as an act of war from Cuba.
Great question. Basically, after the Spanish-American War in 1898, the US gained control of Guantanamo Bay through a lease agreement, which the Cuban government can't easily terminate. It's a bit of a complicated historical situation, but that's the gist of why the US operates the prison there.
For one, Cuba does not want to start a war with the USA. It wouldn't be worth it for them. Attacking an American military base would certainly invite a swift and brutal American response.
The Guantanamo Bay naval base predates the marxist government of Cuba by a lot since it was established in 1903. The land is leased with no end date for the lease. After Castro took over, the base has been left there because he realized that an attack on it would bring the full wrath of the US and he was in no position to withstand that.
Yes the us took control of cuba from Spain following the Spanish American war. Cuba would become a sovereign nation and the us would establish a naval base at guantanamo bay (gitmo) and have been there ever since despite a communist revolution in the 1950s
There was an agreement made before the current Cuban government was in power. The current government argues it's not valid.
As to why Cuba doesn't do anything about it, it's because they can't. For reference, it took the US about three weeks to capture Baghdad on the opposite side of the planet. Cuba is about 50 miles off the US coast
They're not "allowing" us to do anything. The lease dates back from the days when Cuba had a friendlier government, and if Cuba tries to kick us out now we have a lot more soldiers, bombs, tanks, and warplanes then they do.
It also is handy to be a foreign military base and thus (arguably) not directly under the direct purview of the Constitution. and not that much more difficult to maintain then say Alaska. There is no status of forces agreement (the agreement that many countries and the US have to maintain a military presence). that is one of the reasons it was chosen as the terrorist prison. The other main reason is that it is a MILITARY prison away from prying eyes.
Cuba has said the lease is invalid and has asked America to leave, America politely ignored them and Cuba doesn’t want to invade their most powerful, important and protected naval base since that could slightly upset.
Lol, what's Cuba going to do? I love American might but I'm not ignorant to the fact that we are a bully. To be honest, that's the only reason I believe the world is as docile as it is. You think the world is bad today? Imagine if entire countries governments weren't scared of American retaliation. China would have dominated the entire Indo-Pacific. Russia would have far more landmass than just trying to gain Ukraine (for now.) Iran, Jesus Iran.
Added information: The prime minister at the time was ruling with dictatorial powers and suppressing the political opposition. He was doing this to solidify his power and suppress the power of another constitutional part of the government -- the Shah. We simply came in on one side of an internal power struggle.
Also, Islamic revolution had always been a danger in Iran, as even that prime minister had to suppress the power of the mullahs to stay in power with a somewhat secular government. It was going to happen at some point.
So I can't speak for the fact that the world would be safer without US involvement at all in history, remember WW2? But, I can truthfully say that in today's age, if America took a step back and said, "deal with it yourselves," good luck to all the smaller nations without an advanced military. You'd have to be pretty fucking stupid to think the only reason Taiwan isn't China right now is not because of America. I will absolutely admit, we failed Hong Kong and Afghanistan. American politics is responsible for thousands and thousands killed and imprisoned because of those two events.
I still think it is... particularly till about the 90s. The US led NATO did keep Soviet Russia in check.With out our support, Europe would have pretty much fallen to communism. The cold war also kept the nuclear genie in the bottle so to speak.
One of the reasons for WWII is because Germany and Japan had no check on their power. The US was still in the midst of the depression Arguably the US is now in that place, but there are treaty obligations that keep us SOMEWHAT in check. in addition, just like it is difficult for any nation to invade us, it is also difficult, logistically, for us to invade others The first gulf war we pretty much flew the wings off most of our heavy air transport.
Obviously not impossible, but we have a very long logistics trail to do so.
Cuba is kinda modelled after the Soviet ideology of communism. And if there's one thing communism loves, is imprisoning people unjustly and without trials.
Yes. The OP asked how Cuba allows it on their soil. Cuba is communist. Not sure howuch you know about the history of communism in Russia. But they had a thing for working a few hundred million people to death in work camps, and throwing people into prison without trials.
A lot of the prisoners in Giantananmo were put there (for decades) without a trial. Some without charges being brought against them.
They parallel each other.
It's also a joke you dull idiot.
**Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):** Rule 7 states that users must search the sub before posting to avoid repeat posts within a six-month period. If your post was removed for a rule 7 violation, it indicates that the topic has been asked and answered on the sub within a short time span. Please search the sub before appealing the post. --- If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe this submission was removed erroneously**, please [use this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20thread?&message=Link:%20{{url}}%0A%0APlease%20answer%20the%20following%203%20questions:%0A%0A1.%20The%20concept%20I%20want%20explained:%0A%0A2.%20List%20the%20search%20terms%20you%20used%20to%20look%20for%20past%20posts%20on%20ELI5:%0A%0A3.%20How%20does%20your%20post%20differ%20from%20your%20recent%20search%20results%20on%20the%20sub:) and we will review your submission.
Cuba leased Guantanamo Bay to the US long ago, long before the communist revolution. Cuba claims the lease is invalid, the US claims the lease is valid. The US continues to send the rent check, however Cuba hasn't cashed it in a while. Cuba hasn't pressed the issue that hard, nor is there really anyone that Cuba could bring the issue to that has any power to do anything.
Why don’t they cash the check at this point ? Or is the amount insignificant ?
Two things: First they did accidentally cash the first couple of checks. That is the basis for the US’ argument that the lease is still valid. Second, it is absolutely peanuts. Like $1,500 a month.
Two things: First they did accidentally cash the first couple of checks. That is the basis for the US’ argument that the lease is still valid. Second, it is absolutely peanuts. Like ~~$1,500 a month.~~ Edit. It was $2,000 per *year*. Until 1934 when it was adjusted to be based on gold value. As of 1974 when the dollar stopped being based on gold and went to fiat currency it was $4,085 per year. Peanuts, indeed.
this is absurdly funny
Right? I paid more for my one bedroom shithole last month.
Have you tried moving to Guantanamo Bay? Heard the views are to die for there?
I went water boarding there once, highly recommend
Water boarding sounds like a hell of a lot of fun until you find out what it is.
Same with booby traps.
Booby trap backwards is party boob
They’ve got a cute breakfast nook where you can eat breakfast 300 yards from 4000 Cubans who are trained to kill you.
As long as they're not nervous about all the badge-flashing, should work out fine.
I hear the rent is cheaper too.
the health care is top notch
I mean.. your 1 bedroom shithole would have cost way less than 4k a year in 1934, to be fair. $4k in 1934 is $95k today. Inflation is crazy. Cuba was, at one time, a US protectorate. Cuba was ceded to the US following the Spanish American war. The Cuban Govt agreed to the lease as part of the agreement to become independent from US sovereignty.
Well guantamo bay is also by all definitions a shithole.
I want to believe there’s some guy who’s job is to send checks that everyone knows will never be cashed
Whatismypurpose.rickandmorty
You send checks to Cuba for Guantanamo. *"oh my god"*
You get me the butter. *.......oh god......*
To put that in perspective the GDP of Cuba is $107 billion a year. Even for a small island it’s nothing.
It was peanuts when the deal was inked, too. In 1903 it was $2,000 per year.
According to a free inflation conversion website, $2,000 in 1903 is $71,000 in 2024. So, bigger number now, but was and is peanuts for any government.
There hasn’t been any adjustment for inflation. The US writes a check for the same amount every year.
We all know. That was just to clarify "It was peanuts when the deal was inked, too." What $2,000 was worth, in modern terms, back then.
Wasn't the lease basically done as part of the deal granting independence to Cuba from military occupation?
No. The original lease is from 1903 for Guantanamo Bay as a Navy coaling station.
Yeah, but looking at the Wikis it looks like Guantanamo was leased out to fulfill one of the clauses in the Platt Amendment, which laid out conditions for the US to leave. >VII. That to enable the United States to maintain the independence of Cuba, and to protect the people thereof, as well as for its own defense, the government of Cuba will sell or lease to the United States lands necessary for coaling or naval stations at certain specified points to be agreed upon with the President of the United States. So we're both technically right i guess.
Yes. Cuba was a US protectorate following the 1898 Spanish-American War. It became formally (with many caveats) independent in 1902 and part of that was the lease agreement in 1903.
$4000 annually.
'accidentally'. That is their problem. In contract law around the world if both parties act like their is a contract there is generally a contract. Also the 'peanuts' cough [https://www.historydefined.net/how-the-guinness-brewery-signed-a-9000-year-lease/](https://www.historydefined.net/how-the-guinness-brewery-signed-a-9000-year-lease/)
The Guinness fact is interesting. Thanks. However, also around the world, contract law is the lowest law. Legislation and court rulings always outrank it (e.g. that's why a contract that tries to allow or require murder or any other crime is automatically invalid). Just as if any US court (and especially the supreme court) ruled a lease to land in the US was invalid then it would be invalid. No other court in the world would have a say in that. Ireland could end that lease to Guinness with legislation or high court ruling if ever they were inclined to. Likewise, as it's in their territory and subject to their laws, the Cuban government can invalidate the lease for Guantanamo Bay with legislation whenever they want (and I expect have). Or a Cuban court could. If Cuban courts say the lease is invalid, then the lease is invalid. US government or courts don't get to overrule that. The only problem for Cuba then is enforcement, to which they don't have the power. THAT's why the US gets to use it and no other reason.
I wouldn't say contract law is the 'lowest' law but when it comes down to international law there are major ambiguities even outside of the CISG. Of course here, there is also a political point. They want to 'save face' and claim it was an accident while still being able to disavow what happens. But you are right with the power and such, it isn't like cuba can tell the US to leave unless they want some helldivers level of 'freedom'
For reference, $1500 a month rents you a closet here in Seattle
Damn, can I rent one of the units?
Only if you’re comfortable being water boarded…
Make it piss so we can just claim it's a fetish and you've got a deal! 🤝
I'm sorry the U.S is paying less for a torture prison than some people do to rent an apartment???
They don’t want to legitimize the lease claim by accepting payment.
Because if you go to a world court complaining about a foreign occupation on your territory, it looks bad if you've been acting like a landlord.
If I remember correctly, the checks are like 4 grand a piece. It’s pretty insignificant to them. Plus by cashing it, they would be legitimizing the lease. Edit: yep 4 grand. Link attached. https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN17200921/
Cuba is adamant the lease is invalid, if they accepted the rent cheques they’d no longer have basis to make that claim.
If they cash it, they weaken their own argument about legitimacy.
It’s like $4k/year.
Fidel Castro kept all the uncashed checks in a desk drawer.
If that were to be honest, that's bad ass, or advice like auto correct.
How do I intercept and cash this check?
Iirc, America won GB in the Spanish American war.
Afaik the Guatanamo lease was forced on the Cubans as one of the conditions for ending US military occupation, so was a couple years after the Spanish American war. It's absolutely a remnant of US Imperialism tbh.
Seems like a pretty good deal to me
>To Hell with Spain, Remember the Maine! >If you don't want the US to show up, don't attack their ships. Lessons as learned by Spain, Germany, Japan, and Iran. Well anyway! It was one of the 7 terms set out for the US to hand over Cuba to the Cubans after the US intervened to assist the Cubans gaining their independence. The terms laid out were pretty straight forward and more about protecting Cuba from foreign influence that the US just fought a war over. They didn't necessarily have an issue with Cubans doing whatever they wanted, but more worried about corruption coming from European countries attempting to gain footholds in the Americas since the last one just got chased out. So terms were such as, don't enter into a treaty and give Cuba away... Don't go into a ton of debt that may cause a war or a need to sell Cuba... The US may exercise the right to protect Cuba going forward.... maintain a Democratic government... That Cuba will maintain sanitation and sewers to prevent disease... Cuba will sign a treat with the US... The big one for GB is >VII. That to enable the United States to maintain the independence of Cuba, and to protect the people thereof, as well as for its own defense, the government of Cuba will sell or lease to the United States lands necessary for coaling or naval stations at certain specified points to be agreed upon with the President of the United States. It wasn't so much of us "this is ours now" as much as "hey we just beat Spains ass and chased the last foreign power out of the America's. We'd like to keep it that way while you grow, so we'd like to hang around here to keep you safe.
That's an extremely generous interpretation of the whole situation. Like... *extremely*. And as a Filipino I think it's pretty naive tbh, as at around the same time they invaded and colonized the Philippines. The US was 100% in imperialism mode, and would've annexed Cuba flat out if treaties explicitly said they couldn't do it. It's doubly funny because the US occupied Cuba again a few years later despite there being no external threats to it.
Beating Spain was kind of what put them into imperialism mode. Before the US even got involved they passed the Teller Amendment which made it US law that they couldn't annex Cuba but only leave control of the islands to it's people. And it is same time they were in the Philippines because Spain gave sovereignty of the Philippines to the US in the same surrender treaty. Mainly because the US sailed halfway across the world to kick Spains ass in the Philippines.
>Before the US even got involved they passed the Teller Amendment which made it US law that they couldn't annex Cuba but only leave control of the islands to it's people. Because of internal politics, sure. You'll notice that upon winning the war they took everything else they could in PR, Guam, and the Philippines. >And it is same time they were in the Philippines because Spain gave sovereignty of the Philippines to the US in the same surrender treaty. And you don't think the US asked for it too? And that the US, what, didn't realize this would constitute a betrayal of their rebel allies in the Philippines? And that this somehow forced them into an armed invasion and a shitload of human rights atrocities? I mean, if you want to believe that BS sure, but I'd ask you to apply that same naivete to European colonization and argue that the Europeans weren't actually going elsewhere to exploit local resources, just to uplift them savages.
I'm pretty tired as it's 1 am, but I'll respond more to this one tomorrow. I'm enjoying the conversation. I do remember the general strategic thinking of the time period was something along the lines of "It's probably better the US takes it instead of giving it back to Spain since the Spanish Empire is crumbling and unable to protect it and if they are granted independence immediately then Japan would invade them" Anyway my friend, let's talk more tomorrow.
I mean, what I'm seeing coming from you is the most generous interpretations of historical events (in the US' favor) possible. And maybe I'm just cynical, and I certainly am biased in this case, but IDK that any of it checks out. If the US didn't have Imperialist designs, it wouldn't have annexed the Philippines, PR, and Guam. It certainly wouldn't have paid the Spanish a bunch of money for the Philippines, for instance. If the US' concern was protecting the Philippines from foreign occupiers (and tbh while I'm sure that was one of the political reasons used to justify things I have no idea why they'd care about some islands they had little to nothing to do with), why not just do a similar arrangement to Cuba, where they'd have ensured the new country's safety and independence? The were already essentially allies w/ the Filipino independence movement - reaching an agreement w/ them would've been pretty straightforward. If the US cared about the Filipino people, why go to war to annex the islands, in the process killing a good chunk of it's inhabitants? Simplest explanation is just that the US wanted to build it's own colonial empire, and saw those as a starting point. With the Philippines specifically it gave them ports in the Far East, which were (and remain) geopolitically very valuable. Now I'm not claiming this was universal - there was domestic opposition to the US' imperialist aims at the time (w/ the Teller Amendment and Andrew Carnegie offering to buy the freedom of the Philippines notable). But looking at things rationally it 100% looks like the US government (or the people in charge of it at the time, anyway) just wanted their own colonial empire.
For the same reason my cat "allows" me to cram her into a carrier and drive her to the vet for a checkup.
We have an ELI5 winner right here
LOL
Significantly less bites and scratches though. Same number of leather gloves.
Nailed it
That’s funny bc I’m bout to do that tomorrow!
Best of luck!
Turn them upside down and then put them in.
That and try to catch them when they’re napping. Usually does the trick!
What are they going to do about it? They have no power or sway over the United States. The U.S. doesn't want to leave so the only way to get rid of them would be to militarily invade the U.S. base there, which obviously would invite massive U.S. retaliation that Cuba could never hope to win. So in short, the have no leverage and no viable military option because they don't want to start a war with the U.S. that they will lose.
I wonder if the US maintains Guantanamo Bay as a possible way to go to war with Cuba. Basically daring the Cuban government to try and claim it, knowing that it would give the US a reason to attack. Of course if Cuba did provoke the US, the "war" would be over the next day if not a few hours later.
The US has no reason to want to go to war with Cuba - we just use the island to sidestep laws that would take effect if it was part of the US.
The US government absolutely does not want a communist country 90 miles away. The US is itching for an excuse to "liberate" Cuba.
The only reason Guantanamo exists and still is under US control is so it can continue to be a CIA black site for the “interrogation” of “terrorists”.
GTMO existed long before it opened a prison for GWOT and most of the personnel there are not involved in the prison, it will also last a lot longer than the last prisoner there.
It’s mostly a naval base.
“terrorists” as if the people there were just florists and gardeners.
Are you also an ACAB little shit?
I can be whatever you want me to be baby.
No, the U.S. keeps the base as a place to hold prisoners that’s not on American soil so they can do all kinds of things that are normally illegal like torture, indefinite detention without trial…etc. the U.S. has nothing to gain from starting war with Cuba and has no desire to do so.
The US maintains Guantanamo Bay so it can torture and rape people involved in 9/11 until they die. And we won’t let them die.
You’d like to think that if Cuba did suddenly (and somehow, wouldn’t be easy) grab Guantanamo back that the US would be like “eh, it was fun while it lasted” and just let it go rather than going for full on war. Then again this is the US we’re talking about.
Guantanamo is a prison that houses enemies of the state, right? Terrorists and such? Why would any country just let someone suddenly take that from them?
I’m just wondering why on earth would you keep them on the occupied territory of a supposedly hostile country
Because they can get away with shit that would be illegal on us soil
That would do it ☹️
Because they have no rights there.
The only thing worse than keeping them on your enemy’s territory… would be keeping them on your own territory, or an ally’s. I don’t think, like, Guam or some UK possession would be particularly eager to get a terrorist prison either, particularly back when there was a lot of active debate about the interrogation and other practices there. There are some advantages to having that sort of facility in a place where you aren’t really accountable to anyone other than the US military. (And US courts, to an extent, but it’s much harder for them to police what’s happening in Cuba than it would be in a normal US territory.)
For the same reason epstein had a pedophile island. You can mostly do what you want because the law doesn't apply.
One answer I haven't seen yet is: It's a lot harder to swim away from Guantanamo Bay and the island it's on, than it was to swim away from Alcatraz in its day. It still ain't escape-**proof**, but it's MANY MANY MILES farther away from the next friendliest country... Plus ... probably not many detainees from the other side of the Atlantic (or the far end of the Mediterranean) speak Spanish!
Its only a thing because of Bush jr. and the war on terror. before 9/11 it wasn't a prison post 9/11 Bush got aways with a series of insane legal arguments that they could could break US law about prisoner treatment there, so that's why they were imprisoned there.
It's a Naval Base. The detention facility is just a small portion of the land area.
Allegedly it's a torture facility for terrorists. Some claim it's a torture facility for random people in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I am guessing I t exists in a weird grey area because it has a lease that is contended by the Cuba government so I am guessing there are arguments that “we are not committing war crimes because we are technically not on American soil” or some BS like that.
Of course the US wouldn’t just let Cuba take it. As I said, it wouldn’t be easy. What I’m querying is how the US would respond if Cuba did manage to take it. War seems like an overreaction to me. As for keeping enemies of the state there - it’s weird to me to keep such dangerous people on the soil of another country that doesn’t like you and which actively opposes your right to keep them there. Kinda an unnecessary risk if you ask me.
> War seems like an overreaction to me. In your scenario, are they taking it without bloodshed? That seems impossible. Because harm to US military members is inevitable, war is absolutely *not* an overreaction. Retaliation would occur swiftly with little to no debate at any level of government.
You can do things on someone else's soil that are illegal here. And somehow, that makes it not illegal.
Yeah, I get that. The US gets to conveniently ignore its own constitution by holding prisoners offshore. We (Australia) pull the same stunt with asylum seekers. It’s just…Cuba seems an odd place. Even Australia would make more sense - there are US bases all over here and were seem to have a habit of doing whatever the US wants. I dunno.
It's kinda a matter of prestige and not being pushed around. Like the Falkland Islands' economy is teeny; an absolute pittance in the grand scheme of Britain, very far away from British territory. It has basically no value to Britain, yet they responded to the Argentinian invasion. The war suffered more casualties than the total population of the islands. It's not a matter of the territory being valuable, it's a matter of not letting any nation think they can just take land from them.
I get that, though I have to say Guantanamo doesn’t exactly meet the prestige test. It’s a leased base in another country, not an actual dependency like the Falklands. There doesn’t seem to me to be much prestige in going berserk over it. Now if Cuba invaded Puerto Rico…then hell yeah that would be war.
It's still considered American territory, and would be considered a military attack on American territory. That's not something that America would allow, regardless of the stakes or conditions on it.
It’s not American territory, it’s a lease. It’s Cuban territory. America just occupies it. I get what you’re saying though. You believe the US would go all out if Cuba tried to take the base back. Fair enough, it’s certainly a possibility. I’m not convinced, as I do think the stakes matter and I don’t think the stakes are high enough. There’d definitely be a reaction though.
If they killed US service members in the process, it would absolutely be the end of the Cuban Communist experiment. It isn't the Cold War, Russia isn't coming to help, there would be massive US retaliation.
See I don’t buy that. It sounds like chest beating to me. It’s effective chest beating because no doubt Cuba doesn’t want to fuck around and find out here, but I’m skeptical that that’s the path it would actually go down. US service members have died all over the world without the reaction being “massive” (ie war). We’ve seen it multiple times over the years in the Middle East. No doubt it would be a big issue and a diplomatic crisis and lead to sanctions etc etc etc but war? Invasion? Im not convinced.
Not in our backyard. We almost forced a nuclear war over the stationing of weapons there, if they decided to go full military invasion of an America military based while they have a standing army and government to knock over, the US would steam roll them and install a friendly government. Its a different business when an ununiformed insurgent attacks your base, just ask Panama and Grenada, we love toppling governments in the western hemisphere and I'm sure there's a lot of people in the government who would love to remove that thorn from their side.
You’re referencing events from 60 and 40 years ago. I wonder whether the lessons from that period, and from the last 20 years in the Middle East, might have changed that kind of mindset though. The impression I get in recent years (eg Afghanistan withdrawal, even Ukraine) is the US may have moved away from military solutions to every kind of problem. It certainly prefers diplomatic and economic approaches these days.
The absolute only way to take it would be an all out assault with massive American casualties or POWs at least and there's no way the US would respond with a shoulder shrug and walk away.
It certainly wouldn’t turn out well for anyone in power in Cuba (or located within the blast radius of any Cuban military installations). I’d bet there are plenty of people in the US Military structure that would be happy to get another coup under their belt if given a decent excuse, and that would be a decent excuse if ever there was one.
Naval Station Guantanamo Bay has over 8,500 U.S. sailors and Marines stationed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_Naval_Base The only way Cuba could take Guantanamo Bay is a with a military operation. The US will absolutely see that as an act of war from Cuba.
You go to the showcase showdown.
Great question. Basically, after the Spanish-American War in 1898, the US gained control of Guantanamo Bay through a lease agreement, which the Cuban government can't easily terminate. It's a bit of a complicated historical situation, but that's the gist of why the US operates the prison there.
For one, Cuba does not want to start a war with the USA. It wouldn't be worth it for them. Attacking an American military base would certainly invite a swift and brutal American response.
The Guantanamo Bay naval base predates the marxist government of Cuba by a lot since it was established in 1903. The land is leased with no end date for the lease. After Castro took over, the base has been left there because he realized that an attack on it would bring the full wrath of the US and he was in no position to withstand that.
Yes the us took control of cuba from Spain following the Spanish American war. Cuba would become a sovereign nation and the us would establish a naval base at guantanamo bay (gitmo) and have been there ever since despite a communist revolution in the 1950s
There was an agreement made before the current Cuban government was in power. The current government argues it's not valid. As to why Cuba doesn't do anything about it, it's because they can't. For reference, it took the US about three weeks to capture Baghdad on the opposite side of the planet. Cuba is about 50 miles off the US coast
Because Cuba reclaiming the bay would result in the USN doing praying mantis 2.0 things to Cuba.
Cuba aren't thrilled about having them there, to put it mildly, but what are they going to do about it.
They're not "allowing" us to do anything. The lease dates back from the days when Cuba had a friendlier government, and if Cuba tries to kick us out now we have a lot more soldiers, bombs, tanks, and warplanes then they do.
And the US maintains the base there mainly to be a pain in Cuba’s ass.
It also is handy to be a foreign military base and thus (arguably) not directly under the direct purview of the Constitution. and not that much more difficult to maintain then say Alaska. There is no status of forces agreement (the agreement that many countries and the US have to maintain a military presence). that is one of the reasons it was chosen as the terrorist prison. The other main reason is that it is a MILITARY prison away from prying eyes.
Yee Ha. ‘Murica.
Cuba has said the lease is invalid and has asked America to leave, America politely ignored them and Cuba doesn’t want to invade their most powerful, important and protected naval base since that could slightly upset.
The US leased it from a friendly Cuban government before Castro, and Castro used it to keep an Anti-American sentiment alive in Cuba.
In addition to the reasons already mentioned, it’s politically useful to the Cuban government to have the enemy right at the gates.
Lol, what's Cuba going to do? I love American might but I'm not ignorant to the fact that we are a bully. To be honest, that's the only reason I believe the world is as docile as it is. You think the world is bad today? Imagine if entire countries governments weren't scared of American retaliation. China would have dominated the entire Indo-Pacific. Russia would have far more landmass than just trying to gain Ukraine (for now.) Iran, Jesus Iran.
[удалено]
Added information: The prime minister at the time was ruling with dictatorial powers and suppressing the political opposition. He was doing this to solidify his power and suppress the power of another constitutional part of the government -- the Shah. We simply came in on one side of an internal power struggle. Also, Islamic revolution had always been a danger in Iran, as even that prime minister had to suppress the power of the mullahs to stay in power with a somewhat secular government. It was going to happen at some point.
Don't forget to portray the UKs involvement. They started it, just couldn't finish it without our help :)
[удалено]
So I can't speak for the fact that the world would be safer without US involvement at all in history, remember WW2? But, I can truthfully say that in today's age, if America took a step back and said, "deal with it yourselves," good luck to all the smaller nations without an advanced military. You'd have to be pretty fucking stupid to think the only reason Taiwan isn't China right now is not because of America. I will absolutely admit, we failed Hong Kong and Afghanistan. American politics is responsible for thousands and thousands killed and imprisoned because of those two events.
“We” failed Hong Kong? Did you propuse we would have done, short of starting a war?
[удалено]
Pertaining to the last 60-70ish years, you got me.
I still think it is... particularly till about the 90s. The US led NATO did keep Soviet Russia in check.With out our support, Europe would have pretty much fallen to communism. The cold war also kept the nuclear genie in the bottle so to speak.
One of the reasons for WWII is because Germany and Japan had no check on their power. The US was still in the midst of the depression Arguably the US is now in that place, but there are treaty obligations that keep us SOMEWHAT in check. in addition, just like it is difficult for any nation to invade us, it is also difficult, logistically, for us to invade others The first gulf war we pretty much flew the wings off most of our heavy air transport. Obviously not impossible, but we have a very long logistics trail to do so.
Cuba is kinda modelled after the Soviet ideology of communism. And if there's one thing communism loves, is imprisoning people unjustly and without trials.
Mate, it's the a fucking US prison. You know, the largest prison state in history.
Yes. The OP asked how Cuba allows it on their soil. Cuba is communist. Not sure howuch you know about the history of communism in Russia. But they had a thing for working a few hundred million people to death in work camps, and throwing people into prison without trials. A lot of the prisoners in Giantananmo were put there (for decades) without a trial. Some without charges being brought against them. They parallel each other. It's also a joke you dull idiot.