The 60 years of U.S. hostility towards Cuba (with the two-year respite (2014-2016) under President Obama) have left many important unresolved issues. Here is at least a partial list of those issues:
- U.S. ending embargo (blockade) of Cuba?
- U.S. response to Cuba’s claims for alleged damages from embargo & other acts?
- U.S. closing its detention facility at Guantanamo Bay?
- U.S. paying Cuba for use of Guantanamo Bay, 1960— ?
- U.S. returning Guantanamo Bay to Cuba or entering into new lease of territory?
- Cuba paying U.S. persons for expropriated property, 1959-60?
- U.S. ending unilateral “democracy promotion” activities in Cuba?
- Mutual extradition of the other’s criminal suspects & convicts?
- Cuba improving human rights?
- U.S. & Cuba resolving responsibility for medical problems of U.S. diplomats in Cuba, 2016-??
- U.S. ending or modifying U.S. ban on transactions with certain Cuban entities on the State Department’s “Cuba Restricted List”?
- U.S. possible restoration of parole for Cuban medical professionals?
- U.S. possible allowance of lawsuits for expropriated Cuban property?
- U.S. possible re-designation of Cuba as a “state sponsor of terrorism” due to Cuban military aid to Venezuela?
- U.S. possible adoption of other U.S. hostile acts against Cuba proposed by President Trump, National Security Advisor Bolton, Secretary of State Pompeo, Senator Rubio, et al.?
Many of these issues were discussed in the meetings of the two countries in 2015-17 although the substance of the discussions have not been publicly disclosed.
If I were President with a supportive Congress, I would work for the following comprehensive bilateral resolution:of these issues:
- U.S. ends embargo (blockade) of Cuba;
- U.S. ends unilateral “democracy promotion” efforts in Cuba;
- U.S. closes detention facility at Guantanamo Bay;
- U.S. pays Cuba for its use of Guantanamo Bay, 1960 to date;
- U.S. and Cuba enter into new lease of Guantanamo Bay at fair market value rental;
- U.S. pays Cuba for alleged damages caused by U.S. embargo (blockade);
- Cuba agrees to pay fair market value, with interest, to U.S. owners of expropriated property (potentially with funds provided by U.S. paying Cuba for past use of Guantanamo Bay; for future use of Guantanamo Bay under new lease; and for alleged damages caused by U.S. embargo (blockade));
- U.S. abolishes Title III of Helms-Burton Act allowing U.S. owners of expropriated property to sue persons trafficking in property owned by U.S. persons that were expropriated by Cuba (1959-60);
- U.S. agrees not to reintroduce parole for Cuban professional medical personnel;
- U.S. agrees not to re-designate Cuba as “state sponsor of terrorism;”
- U.S. and Cuba enter into new agreement on mutual extraditions;
- U.S. and Cuba agree on bilateral ways to improve Cuban human rights and Internet access; and
- U.S. and Cuba resolve issues regarding medical problems of US diplomats in Cuba (2016-??).
The proposal to have the U.S. use some or all of its payments to Cuba for Guantanamo usage and alleged Cuban damages from the embargo for the U.S. to pay for the U.S. claims for Cuba’s expropriations is based on the painful realization that Cuba does not have the resources to pay for any significant portion of these U.S. claims.
Cuba repeatedly has asserted that the U.S. use of Guantanamo Bay is an illegal occupation and the property should be returned to Cuba. Because of the U.S. argument to legally have occupied the territory under the 1903 lease and because of U.S. current national security concerns, however, the U.S. would not and should not agree to this Cuban proposal, especially since Cuba is developing closer relationships with Russia and China, which potentially could occupy Guantanamo to enhance their threats to the U.S.
Failure to reach agreement on any of these issues may well result in narrowing the issues, and any unresolved issues should be submitted to a binding international arbitration at the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague in the Netherlands. Based on this blogger’s experience as a corporate litigator in U.S. courts, I note that many cases like the one proposed for arbitration of the Cuban and U.S. claims frequently are settled before they go to trial.
One example of narrowing the issues is Cuba’s recognition with other countries that it has an international legal obligation to pay for expropriated property, which is the major premise of the U.S. claims for expropriated property. That would leave important, subsidiary issues: are the claimants valid owners of the Cuban properties; what were the fair market values of the properties at the time of expropriation; and what is a fair rate of interest on the claims?
I invite anyone with other ideas for a comprehensive bilateral resolution of outstanding issues or objections to my proposed resolution to share them in reasoned comments to this post.