The United States intervenes in Cuba

[Judi Lynn]

By David Brooks Last updated Jul 14, 2021

From La Jornada

The United States government immediately expressed its support for the anti-government protests taking place in Cuba due to the crisis in that country, but did not acknowledge that U.S. measures designed to suffocate the island’s economy, and which the international community just recently condemned for the 29th time at the UN, have that exact purpose. In other words, the measures are meant to generate that type of crisis, not to mention the millions of dollars that Washington dedicates to intervene in the internal affairs of Cuba, including promoting just these types of protests.

President Joe Biden expressed “our support for the Cuban people and their cry for freedom and relief from the tragic consequences of the pandemic and the decades of repression and economic suffering to which they have been subjected by Cuba’s authoritarian regime.” He added, “the Cuban people are acting with courage in claiming their fundamental and universal rights” and called for the “Cuban regime to listen to its people and attend to their needs in this vital moment instead of enriching itself.”

At a press conference, Secretary of State Antony Blinken commented that “tens of thousands” of Cubans took to the streets to “exercise their rights of peaceful assembly and express their perspectives … calling for freedom and human rights” and criticizing the “Cuban authoritarian regime for failing to meet the most basic needs of the people, including food and medicine.” He urged the Cuban government not to repress the protesters and allow these people to “determine their own future.”

Both statements, like several more of his subordinates in the administration, were notable for what they did not mention: that the policies of the six-decade embargo along with the more than 243 measures enacted during the Trump administration are designed exactly for that: to suffocate the Cuban economy and to cause shortages of food, fuel and medicine. Precisely because of their effects on the Cuban people, they were condemned by an overwhelming majority of the United Nations General Assembly on June 23, including almost all of Washington’s allies with the exception of Israel.

More:
https://progresoweekly.us/the-united-states-intervenes-in-cuba/

[rickyhall]

1. Has anybody noticed, it hasn't worked but it has hurt a lot of people for a very long time.

Seems a bit pointless to me.

[Judi Lynn]

2. Absolulely! Greedy power-mongers have been working on it in Washington since the 1800's.

Liberation or Domination:
American Intervention and the Occupation of Cuba, 1898-1902

Michael Pollock

Michael Pollock is a graduate student in history at Eastern Illinois University. A recent inductee into the Epsilon Mu
chapter of Phi Alpha Theta, and the 2003 Distinguished Graduate Student in History, Mr. Pollock wrote this article for
Dr. Roger Beck’s Imperialism class in the fall of 2002.

To change masters is not to be free. – Jose Marti, 1895

. . .


J.C. Breckinridge, U.S. Undersecretary of State, expressed his concerns about the Cuban people in a
memorandum to the Commander of the U.S. Army in December, 1897:

The inhabitants are generally indolent and apathetic. As for their learning they range from the most refined to
the most vulgar and abject. Its people are indifferent to religion, and the majority are therefore immoral and
simultaneously they have strong passions and are very sensual. Since they only possess a vague notion of what
is right and wrong, the people tend to seek pleasure not through work, but through violence . . . we must clean
up this country, even if this means using the methods Divine Providence used on the cities of Sodom and
Gomorrah.[19]

The Cuban military, poised for a final victory after thirty years of conflict, warned the United States that
intervention was neither necessary or desired. Marti had sounded the alarm in 1895 over replacing Spanish with
American hegemony. “Once the United States is in Cuba, who will get it out?”[20] General Antonio Maceo insisted
the Cuban military did not need American help. “We shall not ask for interference by the United States, we don’t need
that. We can end this war ourselves before the year is out.”[21] The Cuban legal counsel in Washington, D.C.,
Horatio S. Rubens, told the White House directly, “We will oppose any intervention which does not have for its
expressed and declared object the independence of Cuba.”[22] Rubens was particularly concerned that the United
States had continued to withhold recognition of the independence movement and he warned McKinley:

We must and will regard such intervention as nothing less than a declaration of war by the United States
against the Cuban revolutionists. If intervention shall take place on that basis, and the United States shall land
an armed force on Cuban soil, we shall treat that force as an enemy to be opposed, and, if possible,
expelled.[23]

On April 9, 1898, President McKinley asked for congressional permission to pacify the island of Cuba, and
made no mention of independence or the recognition of belligerents. He called for a neutral intervention to stop the
fighting and establish a stable government. The Joint Resolution of April 20 authorized military force, but in response
to Ruben’s concerns, included the Teller Amendment, disclaiming any American intention to exercise sovereignty over
the island beyond pacification.

More:
https://www.eiu.edu/historia/pollock%202003.pdf

~ ~ ~


The Breckenridge Memorandum
J.C. Breckenridge, U.S. Undersecretary of War in 1897, sent the following memo to the Commander of the U.S. Army, Lieutenant General Nelson A. Miles. The memo explains what is to be U.S. policy towards the Hawaiian islands, Puerto Rico and Cuba.


Department of War
Office of the Undersecretary
Washington D.C.

December 24, 1897

. . .

The island of Cuba, a larger territory, has a greater population density than Puerto Rico, although it is unevenly distributed. This population is made up of whites, blacks, Asians and people who are a mixture of these races. The inhabitants are generally indolent and apathetic. As for their learning, they range from the most refined to the most vulgar and abject. Its people are indifferent to religion, and the majority are therefore immoral and simultaneously they have strong passions and are very sensual. Since they only possess a vague notion of what is right and wrong, the people tend to seek pleasure not through work, but through violence. As a logical consequence of this lack of morality, there is a great disregard for life.

It is obvious that the immediate annexation of these disturbing elements into our own federation in such large numbers would be sheer madness, so before we do that we must clean up the country, even if this means using the methods Divine Providence used on the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.

We must destroy everything within our cannons’ range of fire. We must impose a harsh blockade so that hunger and its constant companion, disease, undermine the peaceful population and decimate the Cuban army. The allied army must be constantly engaged in reconnaissance and vanguard actions so that the Cuban army is irreparably caught between two fronts and is forced to undertake dangerous and desperate measures.

More:
http://www.historyofcuba.com/history/bmemo.htm

~ ~ ~

"IN THE BELLY OF THE BEAST"
LATIN AMERICAN STUDIES AND U.S.
INTERESTS ABROAD

Cliff Welch

While living in the United States in the 1880s, Jose Marti, the great Cuban writer
and revolutionary, coined the catchy phrase used in my title. By the time of Marti's
death in 1895, the United States had not yet become an imperial power in the
Caribbean and Latin America. But Marti had prematurely recognized how the U.S.
would later become like a beast gobbling up its neighbors to the south. "I know the
monster," he wrote, "because I have lived in its lair, and my sling is that of David."
Those of us who do research and teach about Latin America should remain ever
mindful of Marti's premonition. The heritage of the United States, coupled with its
economic and military power, often places its national interests in opposition to those
of its less powerful neighbors. We North American Latin Americanists are--like Marti-
-in the belly of the beast, and we should not forget how our position here can twist
our approach to Latin American Studies.

https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1263&context=gvr