Cuba-US: A Conflict from Long before the Revolution
Published in La Jornada
(Mexico) on 23 July 2015
by Ángel Guerra Cabrera (link to original)
(Mexico) on 23 July 2015
by Ángel Guerra Cabrera (link to original)
Translated from
by Tom Walker.
Edited by Ashley Pinamonti.
It is a time for well-deserved celebration of the re-establishment of diplomatic relations between Cuba and the United States and the now historic reopening of their respective embassies on July 20. It is a time for the emotion that millions of us feel, thinking about the single-star flag being raised up into the Washington sky from the hands of Bruno Rodríguez, Cuba’s minister of foreign affairs, and three soldiers of the homeland.
It is also a time not to be stingy with appreciation for President Barack Obama for his courageous break with the United States’ aggressive routine of more than half a century and for initiating a civilized dialogue with the greatest respect for Cuban sovereignty, but also a time to proclaim that without the heroic resistance of the Cuban people, the wise leadership of Fidel and Raúl Castro, and the support by all of Latin America and the Caribbean, this outcome would not have been possible. Furthermore, it is necessary to thank all those who have rowed so hard against the current in the United States to get to this point, including ordinary people as well as people from the religious, intellectual, political and business spheres. Additional recognition should be given to Russia and China for their friendship and solidarity with Cuba when their power was at its peak and multipolarity was becoming dominant, as well as to all of the governments that voted against the blockade in the United Nations for over 17 years.
It is important not to forget the historic context that gave rise to the existing disagreements between the two countries, some of them insurmountable as long as Cuba is flying the socialist flag, which I am sure it will be for the foreseeable future. We must always keep in mind that the conflict between Cuba and the United States did not begin with the Cuban Revolution, as the dominant communications, media and ideologues of the counterrevolution falsely claim, although after 1959 it undoubtedly acquired an intensity that had never before been seen.
The historic evidence clearly points to a determination on the part of the burghers of the 13 colonies, years before the American Revolution in 1776, to have control over and to annex the island. The result was that after the capture of Havana by the English in 1762, those who were most opposed to London’s withdrawal were the great merchants of the colonies to the north, whose prosperity was very dependent on the trade in Cuba’s abundant rum and molasses. Because of this, they sent hundreds of men to join the British troops who invaded the Cuban capital. This trend began to take shape at the beginning of the 19th century and, above all, after the proclamation of the Monroe Doctrine in 1823. Since that time, Washington has carried out numerous actions aimed at annexing the island. This was most clearly expressed in the military intervention of 1898, followed by another occupation and by countless acts of interference that didn’t stop until 1959.
Realizing that a real revolution had triumphed in Cuba and that its leaders, headed by Fidel, were not inclined to give up the country’s independence and sovereignty, the United States broke diplomatic relations with the island and embarked on what deserves to be described as an undeclared war. What else would you call a campaign of hundreds of terrorist actions, lasting until recent years? These actions include the failed Bay of Pigs invasion, numerous episodes of biological warfare, a series of destabilization plans, and, not to belabor the point, the blockade, which remains in place, although President Obama has discreetly relaxed it and has asked Congress to lift it.
Without this historical overview, it is not possible to understand the roots of the bilateral conflict, in which Washington, which continues to act in an expansionist and imperialistic way, has been the aggressor and to understand the nature of the two opponents. The people of Cuba, conversely, have always acted in defense of their right to independence, sovereignty and self-determination in the face of their neighbor’s aggressive behavior, which became much more deliberate and combative when the revolutionary government started to take measures to improve the living conditions of its citizens. This necessarily affected the interests of the big U.S. corporations and aroused fierce hostility from the United States.
It doesn’t have to be solely about the interests affected by the revolutionary measures. It is also about the fear that the example set by Cuba might be followed by other countries in the region that the U.S., until then, had considered to be its own back yard. The U.S. would never permit, and up to today hasn’t accepted, reforms that might undermine its hegemony, such as in the case of Venezuela.
It is also a time not to be stingy with appreciation for President Barack Obama for his courageous break with the United States’ aggressive routine of more than half a century and for initiating a civilized dialogue with the greatest respect for Cuban sovereignty, but also a time to proclaim that without the heroic resistance of the Cuban people, the wise leadership of Fidel and Raúl Castro, and the support by all of Latin America and the Caribbean, this outcome would not have been possible. Furthermore, it is necessary to thank all those who have rowed so hard against the current in the United States to get to this point, including ordinary people as well as people from the religious, intellectual, political and business spheres. Additional recognition should be given to Russia and China for their friendship and solidarity with Cuba when their power was at its peak and multipolarity was becoming dominant, as well as to all of the governments that voted against the blockade in the United Nations for over 17 years.
It is important not to forget the historic context that gave rise to the existing disagreements between the two countries, some of them insurmountable as long as Cuba is flying the socialist flag, which I am sure it will be for the foreseeable future. We must always keep in mind that the conflict between Cuba and the United States did not begin with the Cuban Revolution, as the dominant communications, media and ideologues of the counterrevolution falsely claim, although after 1959 it undoubtedly acquired an intensity that had never before been seen.
The historic evidence clearly points to a determination on the part of the burghers of the 13 colonies, years before the American Revolution in 1776, to have control over and to annex the island. The result was that after the capture of Havana by the English in 1762, those who were most opposed to London’s withdrawal were the great merchants of the colonies to the north, whose prosperity was very dependent on the trade in Cuba’s abundant rum and molasses. Because of this, they sent hundreds of men to join the British troops who invaded the Cuban capital. This trend began to take shape at the beginning of the 19th century and, above all, after the proclamation of the Monroe Doctrine in 1823. Since that time, Washington has carried out numerous actions aimed at annexing the island. This was most clearly expressed in the military intervention of 1898, followed by another occupation and by countless acts of interference that didn’t stop until 1959.
Realizing that a real revolution had triumphed in Cuba and that its leaders, headed by Fidel, were not inclined to give up the country’s independence and sovereignty, the United States broke diplomatic relations with the island and embarked on what deserves to be described as an undeclared war. What else would you call a campaign of hundreds of terrorist actions, lasting until recent years? These actions include the failed Bay of Pigs invasion, numerous episodes of biological warfare, a series of destabilization plans, and, not to belabor the point, the blockade, which remains in place, although President Obama has discreetly relaxed it and has asked Congress to lift it.
Without this historical overview, it is not possible to understand the roots of the bilateral conflict, in which Washington, which continues to act in an expansionist and imperialistic way, has been the aggressor and to understand the nature of the two opponents. The people of Cuba, conversely, have always acted in defense of their right to independence, sovereignty and self-determination in the face of their neighbor’s aggressive behavior, which became much more deliberate and combative when the revolutionary government started to take measures to improve the living conditions of its citizens. This necessarily affected the interests of the big U.S. corporations and aroused fierce hostility from the United States.
It doesn’t have to be solely about the interests affected by the revolutionary measures. It is also about the fear that the example set by Cuba might be followed by other countries in the region that the U.S., until then, had considered to be its own back yard. The U.S. would never permit, and up to today hasn’t accepted, reforms that might undermine its hegemony, such as in the case of Venezuela.