[News] 200 Years of US Interventionism - Cuba: the Weight of a Long History
Anti-Imperialist News
news at freedomarchives.org
Fri Feb 27 11:04:03 EST 2015
Weekend Edition Feb 27-Mar 01, 2015
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/02/27/cuba-the-weight-of-a-long-history/
*200 Years of US Interventionism*
Cuba: the Weight of a Long History
by MANUEL R. GÓMEZ
The U.S. and Cuba are meeting again this week for their second round of
normalization talks. When asked by the media what she expected from the
first round, Roberta Jacobson, the senior diplomat leading the U.S.
team, said that she was “not oblivious to the weight of history.” She
was right on target: There is a very long history that begins well
before the Revolution, deserves careful analysis, and will impact the talks.
As far back as 1809, Jefferson tried to purchase Cuba. In 1820 he went
further; he told Secretary of War J.C. Calhoun that the U.S. “ought, at
the first possible opportunity, to take Cuba.” As President, John Quincy
Adams predicted that Cuba would fall “like a ripening plum into the lap
of the union.” These are but two of many prominent examples of a
widespread ambition to annex Cuba, or at least to control its destiny,
from very early in U.S. history. After “the West,” Cuba figured as a
prominent second place in U.S. expansionist aims from the beginning of
the Republic.
In subsequent decades, support for annexing Cuba shifted tactically to
Southerners who saw Cuba as a potential new slave state, though
“manifest destiny” continued to be the fundamental driving force.
Presidents Polk, in 1848, and Pierce, in 1854, offered unsuccessfully to
buy Cuba. John Louis O’Sullivan, the newspaper editor who coined the
phrase “Manifest Destiny” in 1845, supported Cuba’s best known
“annexationist,” taking him to Polk’s White House in search of support
for his armed expeditions. And even Walt Whitman—no advocate of
slavery—wrote in 1871 that, “‘manifest destiny’ certainly points to the
speedy annexation of Cuba by the United States.”
President McKinley again unsuccessfully offered to buy Cuba in 1898,
shortly before declaring war on Spain. Only a year before, his
Undersecretary of War, I.C. Breckenridge, had reflected the
annexationist thinking in a memo arguing that: “We must impose a harsh
blockade so that hunger and its constant companion, disease, undermine
the peaceful population and decimate the Cuban Army….in order to annex
the Pearl of the Antilles [Cuba].” He meant the Cuban independence army,
who had all but defeated the Spanish well before Roosevelt with his
Rough Riders arrived to clean up. It was advocacy of a policy to starve
the Cuban population and its army, just to make sure that the U.S. alone
could determine the future of the island. The push for annexation
eventually failed, in no small part because its supporters realized that
Cubans would likely continue their war if the U.S. tried to impose it.
Yet those who favored annexation were able to impose the Platt Amendment
on the new Cuban Constitution in 1904, in effect granting the US the
right to intervene in Cuba for practically any reason the US saw fit.
Cuba’s independence was brutally truncated, and the U.S. intervened on
the island again in 1906, 1912, 1917 and 1920.
During the 1930’s and 40’s, the ambition to control Cuba’s destiny
continued—if somewhat more subtly and without troops. The U.S. sent
Sumner Welles as a special envoy to Cuba in the 1930’s to ensure that
the outcome of a populist insurrection against Gerardo Machado, then
Cuba’s dictator, did not steer the island away from U.S. tutelage. This
intervention gave rise to the U.S. support for Fulgencio Batista, which
lasted until his overthrow in 1959 by the Revolution. As our ambassador
to Cuba at the time, Earl T. Smith, asserted during a Senate hearing in
1960: “Until Castro, the U.S. was so overwhelmingly influential in Cuba
that the American ambassador was the second most important man,
sometimes even more important than the Cuban president.”
The ambition to control Cuba, in other words, already had a long and
complex history by the time of the victory of the Revolution in 1959.
The list of U.S. interventions seeking regime change that followed is
too long to detail here. The Bay of Pigs, assassination efforts,
hundreds of acts of sabotage and terrorism, and, of course, the embargo
since 1960. And what did the embargo seek? Well, President Eisenhower
said that “if the [Cuban people] are hungry they will throw Castro out,”
a view that President Kennedy reiterated when he asserted that the end
of the Revolution would come from “rising discomfort among hungry
Cubans.” Arguably, a policy with the same goal of maintaining Cuba as a
client state as the Breckenridge memo of half a century before. The
embargo was then codified in the so-called Torricelli and Helms-Burton
laws of 1992 and 1996, both supposedly granting the U.S. the right to
decide what kind of government the island could have, and laws that were
passed well after the Soviet Union had collapsed, the Cold War ended,
and Cuba had stopped its revolutionary activities in both Africa and
Latin America. In effect, these laws are modern versions of the Platt
Amendment, no longer “justified” even by the Cold War fig leaf.
So the history of U.S. policy towards Cuba shows a continuity that is
hard to deny. Even those who might disagree with this interpretation
should not find it hard to imagine how the Cuban government, and Cubans
as a whole, would react with profound skepticism and distrust of the
intentions of the most powerful country in the world, as reflected by
these kinds of pressures and policies for more than two centuries.
Beyond the immediate issues, such as the irrational listing of Cuba in
the list of countries that sponsor terrorism, Ms. Jacobson will
certainly have a very heavy weight of history to consider in her
discussions with her Cuban counterparts. If the President directs her,
however, she, on behalf of our country, will have a unique opportunity
to break clear from the interventionist thrust of our past
interventionist policies, and seek agreements that nurture common
interests and respect the obvious differences between the U.S. and the
island.
/*Manuel R. Gomez* is a Cuban-American public health professional who
resides in Washington, DC./
--
Freedom Archives 522 Valencia Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415
863.9977 www.freedomarchives.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20150227/6a0ed384/attachment.htm>
More information about the News
mailing list