• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Embargo? What Embargo?

U.S. tourism to Cuba declined in 2018 has been cause mainly by travel restrictions imposed by the Trump administration. Most U.S. tourist arrived in cruised ships avoiding to stay in hotels that are of limits since they are run by the regime military. Cruise arrivals spend little, while those staying in hotels spent much more. Drop in tourist revenues combine with reduce oil supplies from Venezuela are negatively affecting the economy.
 
John Bolton, Trump’s national security adviser, on November 2018 announced new sanctions planned against the Castroit regime that will include more than two dozen companies associated with the Castroit regime military, which would be added to the more than 100 that Americans are already banned from doing business with. Bolton said that the administration will take a hard line against Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua, calling it a “Troika of Tyranny.”
.
 
Remittances to Cuba diversify and heat up the payment channels
http://www.thehavanaconsultinggroup.com/en-/Articles/Article/63

3 March 2018, By Emilio Morales

The Cuban remittance market has been transformed rapidly in the last 8 years. At present, remittances to Cuba no longer fulfill only the traditional role of providing financial support that solves the problem of consumption of food, footwear and clothing of thousands of Cuban families, a very common occurrence in the period 1993-2008.

The evolution of the remittance market to Cuba, its transformation, diversification and growth has been directly influenced by market conditions in each of its stages. These conditions have been determined both by internal factors (market with many restrictions), and external factors affecting the Cuban economy (US embargo). The dynamics of the remittance market in Cuba has been and will continue to be very dependent on the state of the relationship between Cuba and the United States, as more than 90% of the Cuban remittance-sending diaspora is settled in the United States.

The evolution of remittances that arrive in Cuba can be divided into three stages framed by developments in the domestic market and the lifting of external restrictions by the US government.
Click link above for full article.
Many Cubans are dependent on money send by relatives abroad, mainly from the U.S., because the regime salaries average under $30 per month, barely enough to survive. This emotional blackmail has been very effective generating $3.57 billion in 2017.

In June 2017, the Trump Administration announced a partial rollback of U.S. engagement toward Cuba that included the elimination of individual people-to-people travel and restrictions on financial transactions with companies controlled by the Cuban military, intelligence, or security services or personnel. This policy would affect the sending of remittances to many people in Cuba. The restrictions on people-to-people travel and restrictions on transactions with the Cuban military (which keeps a number of hotels off limits to U.S. visitors), increase cruise ship arrivals (which bring in less revenue compared to land-based travelers), denying the regime millions of dollars in hard currency.

The Trump administration suspended the Hems-Burton Title III for only 45 day. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has warning traffickers about dealing in stolen U.S. properties by the Castroit regime. If title III is implemented, the economic consequences for the regime will be very serious.
 
Reasons to keep the embargo on Cuba’s Castro dictatorship: Part I of IV
Reasons to keep the embargo on Cuba's Castro dictatorship: Part I of IV | Babalu Blog

October 31, 2018 by Honored Guest

The first installment in a four part series written by Cuban American engineer Humberto (Bert) Corzo:

Reasons to keep the embargo on Cuba’s Castro dictatorship: Part I of IV

fidel-castro-1960.jpeg


In this article I analyze the arguments of lifting the Cuban Embargo, which are more rhetorical than real, answering each one of the specific considerations of those that support the end of it.

The book “Fidel Castro and Human Rights,” published by the “Editora Política” of the Castro regime in 1988, states in the introduction that it reflects the philosophical thought of Fidel Castro. The book is without doubt a “self-accusation,” where Castro affirms: “It is necessary to impose financial, economic and material restrictions to dictatorships, so that they will not take roots for long years… Diplomatic and moral measures do not work against dictatorships, because these make fun of the Governments and the population.” What better justification of the embargo than his own words.

Economic Embargo Timeline 1960-1979

Castro, on January 4, 1960, said that he hope relations with the U.S. would improve during 1960. On January 8 the Castro regime expropriated 70,000 acres of land owned by US sugar companies.

President Eisenhower publicly announced on January 26, 1960, that the United States would observe a policy of nonintervention, refrain from reprisals and respect Cuba’s right to undertake a social revolution. The same day Bonsal, U.S. Ambassador in Havana, asked the Argentinian ambassador Dr. Julio Amodeo to mediate between the U.S. and Castro. Amodeo met Castro and suggested an end to the campaign of insults and search for a way to solve the differences; in returned the U.S. offer assistance “in financing of the agrarian reform as well as other economic and social matters.”1 The next day President Dorticos announced the willingness of the Cuban government to resolve the differences with the U.S. diplomatically, and the campaign of insults ceased.

On February 13, 1960, the Castro regime signed a trade pact with the Soviet Union, by which the Soviets agreed to purchase 425,000 metric tons of sugar during the year1960, committed itself to buy a million tons a year during the next four years and the regime to buy Soviet crude oil and industrial machinery. It also granted a $100 million loan to the regime.2
Click link above for full article.
This seminal article about the Cuban Embargo by Humberto Corzo, analyses the incorrect arguments of lifting the embargo, answering very convincingly each one of the specific considerations of those that support the end of the embargo.

Part 1 of the article shows the “real” embargo timeline during the period 1960-1979. It is evident from the timeline that most of the time the U.S. government has been reacting to the Castroit regime actions.

When in January 8, 1960, the Castro regime expropriated land owned by US sugar companies, President Eisenhower respond was that the U.S. would refrain from reprisals and respect Cuba’s right to undertake a social revolution. U.S. administration offer assistance “in financing of the agrarian reform as well as other economic and social matters.”

Already on February 1960 Castro was on collusion with the Soviet Union to replace the U.S. economic ties with those of the Soviets.
 
On March 4, the French freighter La Coubre, crammed with tons of munitions blue up. Castro seized the occasion to blame the U.S. of sabotage saying at the funeral, “We are not affirming they have done so, because we do not have conclusive evidence…We have the right to think that we must look for the criminals among the interested ones”, creating an anti-American sentiment among the population, with the object to obtain political advantage. The U.S. Government denied the charge and blamed the catastrophe on careless handling of the munitions by Cuban dockworkers. According to reports, dockworkers at the site of the explosion were incline to believe the blast was caused by an accident (The Reader’s Digest, Volume 76, p. 153).
 
On March 4, the French freighter La Coubre, crammed with tons of munitions blue up. Castro seized the occasion to blame the U.S. of sabotage saying at the funeral, “We are not affirming they have done so, because we do not have conclusive evidence…We have the right to think that we must look for the criminals among the interested ones”, creating an anti-American sentiment among the population, with the object to obtain political advantage. The U.S. Government denied the charge and blamed the catastrophe on careless handling of the munitions by Cuban dockworkers. According to reports, dockworkers at the site of the explosion were incline to believe the blast was caused by an accident (The Reader’s Digest, Volume 76, p. 153).
Havana harbor regulations state that ships with explosives shall be moored in the center of the harbor and unloaded onto barges, not onto the dock. The harbor administrator Oms who knew the regulations was replaced by Taquechel, a member of the communist party, without knowledge of port administration, who left the ship, as ordered, to unload at the dock. Andrés Vázquez, Capitan of the Navy, who participated in the rescues of people, said that the order to unload the ship on the dock was given by Raul Castro. According to Empresa de la Marina de Guerra (Navy Company), the ship was loaded with “chemistry products” a lie of the Navy Company. (Voladura del La Coubre)

Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., historian and special assistance to President Kennedy, which visited Cuba in 1993 and 2002, and met with Fidel Castro, said he never found any information linking the CIA to La Coubre blast.

Fidel Castro used the explosion, due to an accident, indigenous sabotage, or sabotage by the regime, as a propaganda tool to arouse the Cuban people against the U.S.
 
On March 21, 1960, Che Guevara, on a TV program, said that the U.S. sugar quota is “economic slavery”, that it stimulate a single crop economy. The U.S. payed 5 cents per pound of sugar, two cents above the world market, a bonanza for the Cuban economy. The response of the U.S. administration was that if the sugar quota was “economic slavery”, the Cuban government should renounce it.

On June 16, 1960, Fidel Castro seizure 3 hotels owned by private U.S. companies, and on June 29, expropriated the Texaco Company, and in June 30 took over Esso and Shell companies. On July 3, the U.S. Senate passed a bill authorizing President Eisenhower to reduce the sugar quota in 1960, and on July 16, the Eisenhower administration, eliminated the balance of the sugar quota for that year in order to reduce dependence from a nation antagonistic to the U.S. Eisenhower, in his diary, wrote: “Have warned all to be alert to the Cuban reaction, because when dealing with a ‘little Hitler,’ anything can happen.” On July 10, the Soviet Union agree to buy the balance of the sugar quota eliminated by the U.S. at 4 cents per pound, one cent less than the 5 cent per pond payed by the U.S. Already in February the Soviet Union bought 425,000 metric tons of sugar and agree to buy a million tons a year during the next four years. Of course Che Guevara did not considered this new sugar quota to be an “economic slavery.”

On August 6, the Castro regime expropriated most of the properties of individuals and American companies, among those 36 sugar mills, and on September 17 the banks were expropriated, and on October 13 expropriated most of the properties owned by Cubans. Castro downplayed the effect of a U.S. trade embargo in the island economy, since the regime could obtain all it needed and wanted from the socialist countries. The U.S. response on October 19, was the establishment of partial trade embargo that excluded food, medicines and medical supplies. Castro in retaliation expropriated the rest of U.S. companies.

It is very clear from the timeline that Castro’s actions against the U.S., occasioned retaliatory reactions by the Eisenhower administration, which culminated in the establishment of a partial trade embargo.
 
Rabid anti-Communism aside, you still haven't answered my question; if the embargo isnt working, why keep it up?

Why is being against communism rabid? Communist have murdered vast numbers and impoverished even more.

Why not engage with the facts about Cuba that Sandokan has provided for us?
 
On January 2, 1961, a few days before President Kennedy inauguration, Castro decided that “in 48 hours the U.S. Embassy should not have here a single official more than we have in Washington, that is, eleven. These gentlemen have more than 300 officials here, of which 80 percent are spies.” The real number of U.S. officials in Havana was only 61.

In response to Castro’s ultimatum, Eisenhower said: “There is a limited to which the U.S. in self-respect can endure. That limit has now been reached.” The Eisenhower administration responded to the ultimatum by breaking diplomatic relations with the Castro regime.
 
The Eisenhower administration wanted to know if Castro would accept to engage in new opening talks. On March 17, 1960, Castro decided not to accept the offer, rejecting reconciliation with the U.S., the same day Eisenhower gave the CIA the green light for cover operation to train Cuban exiles. President Kennedy learned of the invasion plan and after consultations with his advisors, gave his consent for the CIA-planned invasion of Cuba to proceed.

The Bay of Pigs Invasion
Ref: The Bay of Pigs Invasion — Central Intelligence Agency

The original invasion plan called for two air strikes against Cuban air bases, one before the invasion and the other in the morning prior to the invasion to ensure that the regime aircrafts will not drop bombs on the brigade members during the invasion. An invasion force would disembark on the beaches of the city of Trinidad and paratroopers dropped in farther inland. Trinidad was chosen because existing anti-Castro rebels ‘campesinos’ (peasants) groups upraised in the Escambray Mountains near Trinidad and its good port facilities. The beachhead was easily defensible and if the brigade members need to execute a scape plan, they could join the rebels in the Escambray Mountains.

Kennedy wanted the operation to remain covert and asked the CIA to choose a new site for the invasion. A month before the invasion the landing location changed from Trinidad to the Bay of Pigs. The Escambray Mountains, the designated escape site, was 50 miles away through hostile territory. The bay was surrounded by the largest swamp in Cuba, making it physically impossible for any Cubans wanting to join the revolt to actually do so. The landing site has coral reefs that make very difficult to reach the shore, a poor location for an invasion.

On April 15, the first strike against Cuban air bases took placed and cause minor damage, but the next day Kennedy made the decision to cancel the air strikes set to destroy the remaining fleet of Cuban aircrafts. On April 17, Admiral Burke and Richard M. Bissell of the CIA met with Kennedy at the Oval Office. Bissell told the President that the invasion could take a favorable turn if he authorize sending aircrafts from the carrier. Burke concurred and ask permission to make air strikes. Kennedy said no, and that he would not commit U.S. forces to combat. Burke suggested sending a destroyer, and Kennedy said, “I don’t want the United States involved in this.” Burke replied, “But we are involved.” The fate of the brigade was sealed. Without direct air support, no artillery and no supplies, and completely outnumbered by Castro’s forces, the brigade was defeated. If Kennedy had agree to Bissell and Burke requests, the future could turn out different, but he decided not to salvage the invasion.
 
The Missile Crisis

On October 22, 1962, President Kennedy, on a TV speech, informed the American people that offensive missiles have been installed in Cuba. Kennedy demanded that the Soviets remove all offensive weapons from Cuba and impose a maritime blockade around the island. Khrushchev, aware of the devastation of a nuclear war, turned the ships back and agreed to remove the missiles in exchange for the U.S. agreeing not to invade the island.

Castro during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the closest the world had ever come to nuclear war, in October 26, 1962 wrote in his “Armageddon letter” to Khrushchev: “If the imperialists invade Cuba with the aim of occupying it, the dangers of their aggressive policy are so great that after such an invasion the Soviet Union must never allow the circumstances in which the imperialists could launch the first nuclear strike against it. I tell you this because I believe that the imperialists' aggressiveness makes them extremely dangerous, and that if they manage to carry out an invasion of Cuba -- a brutal act in violation of universal and moral law – then that would be the moment to eliminate this danger forever, in an act of the most legitimate self-defense. However harsh and terrible the solution, there would be no other.”

Castro, in his deep hatred against the United States, did not hesitate in asking for the launch of a preemptive nuclear attack on American targets. He didn’t care that the use of nuclear weapons would seal the death of millions of people in the United States and the Soviet Union, and wipe out the Cuban people from the face of the earth, without any regard for the consequences of his act in humankind.
 
Castro's regime New York terrorist plot

On November 17, 1962, three weeks after the Missile Crisis, Edgar Hoover's F.B.I. arrested three agents of the Castro regime on charges of plotting a vast campaign of sabotage in New York City and seized a cache of incendiary devices and 500 kilos of TNT explosives stored in the jewelry shop of one of the team’s members. Among their targets were oil refineries in New Jersey, New York retail stores like Macy’s and Bloomingdale, Manhattan Grand Central Station and the Statue of Liberty among others. The attack was planned to take effect the day after Thanksgiving. This terrorist plot stop by the FBI would have caused a holocaust worse than 9/11.
 
Movimiento de la Izquierda Revolucionaria (MIR)

A group of Venezuelans, members of the Movimiento de la Izquierda Revolucionaria (MIR), trained in Cuba, landed in the Venezuela coast in the State of Miranda. On November 4, 1963, a cache of weapons was discovered on a beach of the Paraguana Peninsula. Venezuela accused Castro of arming the terrorist group MIR for the “Operation Caracas”, with the object to launch an attack against the Capital to overthrow the government. The leaders of the terrorist group trained in Cuba were captured and their plan aborted.
 
On May 8, 1967 a dozen guerrillas, 8 Venezuelan and 4 Cubans landed in Venezuela on the beach of Machurucuto in order to train MIR guerrillas. The army of Venezuela found them the night of May 10, when a local fisherman warned local authorities of the landing. The battle lasted until the early hours of May 11. Two Cuban guerrillas were captured, 9 of the remaining were killed and one escaped. The Government of Venezuela denounced to the Organization of American States (OAS) the guerrilla action and broke relations with the Castro regime.
 
The Camarioca boatlift

The Camarioca boatlift was the first mass migration of Cubans to the U.S. and it was not the last. Since that time many Cubans rafters have perished trying to cross the Florida Strait in overcrowded and unseaworthy homemade rafts.

Between 1960 and August 1965 over 9,500 Cubans rafter arrived in Florida. Castro, in a speech on September 28, 1965, said: “It is not we who are opposed to the departure of those who want to go, but the imperialists.” He announced that to stop furtive exit of Cubans towards the U.S., “we could, for example, fix up the port of Camarioca in Matanzas, one of the closest points, so that to all who have relatives we could give a permit to come by ship.”

On October 3, President Lyndon Johnson responded to the exodus saying “I declare this afternoon to the people of Cuba that those who seek refuge here in America will find it. The dedication of America to our traditions as an asylum for the oppressed is going to be upheld.”15 Within a week Castro established restrictions on who couldn’t leave; youngsters of military age from 15 to 26 would not be allow to leave, nor would be children old enough to say they didn’t want to leave, and technicians until they could be replaces.

The Camarioca boatlift remained open until November 15, when to avoid the dangers of small boats traveling in open seas, secret negotiation between the U.S. and the Castro regime replaced the sea lift with the “Freedom Flights” using commercial aircrafts to transport the refugees safely. Close to 5,000 refugees came through Camarioca. The flights started on December 1, 1965, and lasted until August 31, 1971, when they were unilaterally cancelled by the Castro regime. The last flight took place April 5, 1973, when all those approved to leave, had left. During that period over 293,000 Cubans refugees were transported to the United States. Camarioca was the first boatlift crisis. By the end of 1974, around 640,200 Cubans had left the island and entered the U.S. The total estimate Cuba’s net migration had been calculated at 717,000.16

15. President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Remarks at the Signing of the Immigration Bill, Liberty Island, New York, October 3, 1965, LBJ Presidential Library.

16. Juan M. Clark, The Exodus from Revolutionary Cuba (1959-1974): A Sociological Analysis, University of Florida, 1975, Table 3, p. 74.
 
The Revolutionary Offensive

The “revolutionary offensive” launch by Fidel Castro on March, 1968, eliminated over 55,600 small private business of which 30% were closed. These small private business have been compensating for the inefficient performance of the state enterprises. In less than 10 years the Castroit regime has taken control of around 90% of all production, distribution and services, and land collectivization was one of the highest among the socialist countries. The reason for the offensive was to achieve total political and social control over the population by the nationalization of the economy. The effects on the island economy were devastating, of which it never recovered. This was the great leap backward.
 
The submarine base at Cienfuegos

On September 18, 1970, an intelligence report conclude that the Soviets were “establishing a support facility in Cienfuegos for naval operation in the Caribbean and the Atlantic.” The arrival of a nuclear submarine with nuclear missiles at Cienfuegos was a significant escalation of the Soviet navy in Cuba. The construction of a Soviet submarine base in Cienfuegos Bay was a clear violation of the 1962 missile crisis agreement. The Nixon administration, after private negotiations, on the ground that the base violated the 1962 agreement excluding the introduction of offensive nuclear weapons, the Soviet agree to halt the construction of the base but were allowed to make port calls in Cuba with theirs warships and submarines.
 
Kissinger secrets talks with Castro

In June 1974, Henry Kissinger, Secretary of State during President Richard Nixon administration, began secrets talks with the Castro regime. This was a great effort to normalize relations between the two countries. The discussion was held secretly during 18 month. Kissinger opinion was ““It is better to deal straight with Castro,” in an effort to achieve an opening with Cuba similar to the one with China. His approached to dealing with him was: “Behave chivalrously; do it like a big guy, not like a shyster. Let him know: We are moving in a new direction,… we’d like to synchronize; steps will be unilateral; reciprocity is necessary.” Those secrets talks led to the establishment of interest sections in Havana and Washington during the Carter administration. In 1975 Castro’s regime send troops to Angola, and that was the end of the secrets talks with Castro. That is what happens when you deal with a Machiavellian man like Castro.
 
Carter normalization of relations with Cuba

Carter, at a press conference in March 17, 1977, said that the removal of Cuban troops from Angola, is a welcome step toward normalizing relations. He proceeded to lift the travel ban restrictions and allowing direct flights to the island, cancelled reconnaissance overflies and allow Cuban boats to fish in U.S. territorial waters. The normalization of relations took place on September 1, 1977, with the U.S. opening an Interest Section in Havana and Cuba one in Washington. The interest sections functioned as de facto embassies.

On May 11, 1978, Katanga rebels, trained and armed by Cubans troops, invaded the Shaba Province of Zaire. On May 25, Carter said “It’s a joke to call Cuba nonaligned…. They act as a surrogate for the Soviet Union.” On October 23, Mig-23 were discovered in Cuba with the configuration of nuclear attacks aircrafts and Carter ordered the resumption of reconnaissance flights over the island. Castro said that they were used for defensive purposes only.

On October 1, 1979, Carter said: “Recently we have obtained evidence that a Soviet combat brigade has been in Cuba for several years. The presence of Soviet combat troops in Cuba is of serious concern to us…. During the last few years the Soviets have been increasing the delivery of military supplies to Cuba…. There is a special relationship between Cuba and the Soviet Union. The Cubans get their weapons free; other Soviet satellite countries have to pay for their military supplies…. The Soviet brigade is a manifestation of Moscow’s dominance of Cuba.”. After that bilateral relations deteriorated very fast, culminating with the Mariel Boatlift, which destroyed any improve of bilateral relations. Castro has long record of lying, he played Carter as a fool, making him believed that the normalization of relations was well intended.
 
Reasons to keep the embargo on Cuba’s Castro dictatorship: Part II of IV
Reasons to keep the embargo on Cuba's Castro dictatorship: Part II of IV | Babalu Blog

November 7, 2018 by Honored Guest

The second installment in a four part series written by Cuban American engineer Humberto (Bert) Corzo (see Part I):

Reasons to keep the embargo on Cuba’s Castro dictatorship: Part II of IV

Economic Embargo Timeline 1980-2017


On April 1, 1980, twelve Cubans traveling in a bus smashed through the gates of the Peruvian embassy with the purpose of seeking asylum. The guards protecting the embassy open fire and a guard was shot dead by the ricochet of a bullet. Castro demanded the return of the asylees, accusing them of been responsible for the death of the guard. The Peruvian Government refused, and Castro responded by withdrawing the guards protecting the embassy and radio Habana announced that the Cuban regime has decided to remove the guards from the Embassy. Within two days 10,834 Cubans entered into Embassy grounds and the regime sent back the guards to stop access to the Embassy. This was a major international embarrassment for Castro.

cubans-peruvian-embassy-1980.jpg

Cubans in the Peruvian Embassy in Havana, 1980

On April 20, 1980, Castro said that any Cuban who wished to immigrate to the United States could board a boat at the nearby port of Mariel. In April 21 the exodus to the U.S. started at the Mariel port. Castro said that those leaving were lumpen, delinquent and criminals, and released approximately 5,000 gays, jailed criminals and mentally ill inmates forcing them to leave with the refugees to validate his charges. Violent acts of repudiation, incited by the regime, took place against those leaving the island. The White House in June 7 stated that “Fidel Castro has very cynically thrown in several hundred hardened criminals from Cuban jails…. This action by the Cuban Government, in addition to its cynical and inhumane characteristics, is a direct and serious violation of international law.” The port of Mariel exodus was closed unilaterally by the Castro regime on September 26, 1980 after closed to 125,000 refugees had left for the U.S.26

This incident caused the stampede of 10,834 Cubans that fleeing from oppression, voted with their feet entering into the Embassy grounds, after Castro removed the guards protecting the Embassy. The social pressure became so great that Castro on April 20, announces that all Cubans wishing to emigrate to the U.S. are free to board boats at the port of Mariel. Cuban exiles in the U.S. hire boats to go to Cuba and rescue their relatives. A total of 125,000 Cubans fled the island and their arrival on the U.S. created problems for the Carter administration, forcing it to declare a state of emergency on some Florida counties.
Click link above for full article.
Part 2 of the article shows the “real” embargo timeline during the period 1980-2017. It is evident from the timeline that most of the time the U.S. government has been reacting to the Castroit regime actions.

The Peru Embassy crisis and the Mariel Boatlift

“On April 1, 1980, twelve Cubans traveling in a bus smashed through the gates of the Peruvian embassy with the purpose of seeking asylum.”

90

A Cuban soldier stands by a refugee ship at the port of Mariel on April 23, 1980, as the refugees aboard wait to sail for U.S., where they hope to start new lives. | Jacque Langevin/AP Photo

This incident caused the stampede of 10,834 Cubans that fleeing from oppression, voted with their feet entering into the Embassy grounds, after Castro removed the guards protecting the Embassy. The social pressure became so great that Castro on April 20, announces that all Cubans wishing to emigrate to the U.S. are free to board boats at the port of Mariel. Cuban exiles in the U.S. hire boats to go to Cuba and rescue their relatives. A total of 125,000 Cubans fled the island and their arrival on the U.S. created problems for the Carter administration, forcing it to declare a state of emergency on some Florida counties. The Castro regime released around 5,000 jailed criminals and mentally ill inmates, homosexual and prostitutes, forcing them to leave with the refugees. To validate his action Castro said that that the Cubans leaving the island were counter-revolutionaries who needed to be purged because they could never prove productive to the nation. The immigration crisis contributed to Carter losing the election to Ronald Reagan.
That's how devil pays those who served him well.
 
U.S.-Cuba Relations during the Reagan Administration

In January 1981 when Reagan assumed the presidency, he faced two problems pending from the Carter administration: the 2,500 criminals and mental patients in the U.S. that Castro expelled from Cuba during the Mariel boatlift, and the weapons sent from Cuba to Nicaragua bound for Central America Communists guerrillas. The Reagan administration proceeded with a diplomatic approach. It increased the exchange of sports, educational and cultural events. Vice President George Bush declared the administration opposition to the possibility by the CIA to arm the Cuban exiles paramilitary camps and their existence in south Florida to overthrow Castro.

The response by Castro in a speech on September 1981 to the conciliatory measures was to accuse the main nucleus of the Reagan administration of being fascist. On October 30, the U.S. launched a month long naval exercise in the Caribbean, and in November, before the end of the exercise, the Castro regime asked the Mexican government to arrange a meeting with the U.S. On November 23 Secretary of State Alexander Haig has a secreted meeting with Cuban Vice President Carlos Rafael Rodriguez in Mexico City. Both sides agreed to continue talks in the future to search for a solution to the problems between both countries
 
On March, 1982 Reagan sent General Vernon Walters to Havana for a five-hour meeting with Castro. Walters offered trade concessions in exchange for the repatriation of the Mariel undesirables and the termination of Cuban military shipments to Central America, but Castro rejected the proposition. The State Department re-imposed restrictions on travel to Cuba by American tourists and business trips, and allow the U.S.-Cuba fishing limits agreement to lapse. Castro responded by canceling the Coast Guard Agreement, which allowed joint cooperation against drug smugglers. Reagan said that “we don't have any dealings with Cuba. If they'd ever like to rejoin the civilized world, we'd be happy to help them. But not under the present circumstances.” The Castro regime rejected the possibility of reconciliation between both nations.
 
The Invasion of Grenada

On October 13, 1983, the Marxist Bernard Coard killed Prime Minister Maurice Bishop and established a military dictatorship. Protestors demonstrated again the military regime and clashed whit the army. Reagan Administration was worried by the Cubans troops stationed in the island of Grenada, which were building an airstrip in the airport capable of handling long range military aircrafts to transport weapons from Cuba to Central American communist guerrillas, and the safety of about 1,000 Americans in the island.

On October 25, 1983, about 2,000 U.S. troops invaded the island. Other Eastern Caribbean countries participated in the invasion force. Grenada was a member of that group before the 1983 coup. By November 3, the invasion was over and hostilities ended. Of the 722 Castro’s troops deployed in Grenada, 25 were killed, 59 wounded, and 638 captured. The Cuban captured were sent back to Cuba. Castro reaction was that Grenada is “an occupied and invaded country where we have nothing to do.” This was a cautionary message to Fidel Castro of how far he will be allow to go in support of communist guerrillas in Latin America.
 
The tugboat “13 de Marzo”

On July 13, 1994, the tugboat “13 de Marzo” fleeing from Cuba with 72 people on board, was attack with high pressure fire boat hoses, rammed and sunk in international waters by three tugboats of the Castro military regime, killing 37 people, among them eleven children.

The three pursuing vessels were modern, larger, and heavier Japanese tugboats made of steel, the “Polargo 2,” “Polargo 3,” and “Polargo 5.” The Cuban Port Authority under the MINIT control would never dare to mobilize three tug boats for this type of operation without Castro’s order.

Fidel Castro in his speech of August 5, 1994 praised Jesus Gonzales, the tug boat pilot in charge of the operation, for his "heroism" in the sinking of the tugboat. He decorated the guy with the “Hero of the Cuban Revolution" and made him a member of the communist party. So much for swift justice.

The massacre has been condemned by many international organizations, including the Pope who denounced the incident and expressed condolences to the victims.

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in October 1996 released a report about the sinking of the tug boat saying that “there was clear evidence that it was not an accident but a premeditated and intentional act.”
 
After sinking the “13 de Marzo”, the regime tugboats began circled round the survivors, creating a turbulence so they would draw and no one would be left alive to provide evidence of the massacre. All of a sudden they stopped and the survivors began to be rescued by the Coast Guard ship that had arrived before the ramming started and was simple observing the slaughter. The reason for this sudden change was the proximity to the scene of a Greek freighter in route to the port of Havana. The survivors believe that was the reason they were rescued.

When the fact became public, thanks to the crew of the Greek freighter, the Italian Divers Union offers their services, including equipment, to perform the rescue of the bodies, which was not authorized by the regime.

The “13 de Marzo” sinking was not an accident, was intentionally sunk due to the recurrent ramming by the other tugboats. They knew that children and women were on board.
 
Back
Top Bottom