Tag: Permanent Court of Arbitration

U.S. House Approves Impediments to U.S.-Cuba Reconciliation

In early June the U.S. House of Representatives approved two appropriations bills that contain impediments to U.S.-Cuba reconciliation. Both of these sets of impediments are the handiwork of Cuban-American Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart (Rep., FL), a fierce opponent of such reconciliation and a member of the House Committee on Appropriations.

Commerce Department Appropriations Act, FY 2016[1]

On June 3, the House, by a vote of 242-183, approved the Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations bill for FY 2016 (H.R. 2578) to fund the Department of Commerce, the Department of Justice, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Science Foundation and other related agencies. The bill contains $51.4 billon in total discretionary funding.

The Committee’s press release about this action said nothing about a provision that prohibits U.S. exports to the Cuban military. That is Section 540 (pp. 97-98 of the 98-page bill), which states as follows:

  • “(a) No funds made available in this Act may be used to facilitate, permit, license, or promote exports to the Cuban military or intelligence service or to any officer of the Cuban military or intelligence service, or an immediate family member thereof.
  • (b) This section does not apply to exports of goods permitted under the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.).
  • (c) In this section—(1) the term ‘‘Cuban military or intelligence service’’ includes, but is not limited to, the Ministry of the Revolutionary Armed Forces, and the Ministry of the Interior, of Cuba, and any subsidiary of either such Ministry; and (2) the term ‘‘immediate family member’’ means a spouse, sibling, son, daughter, parent, grandparent, grandchild, aunt, uncle, niece, or nephew.”

Representative Sam Farr (Dem, CA) on June 3 made a motion to delete this provision, but it was defeated, 153-273. He argued that section 540 would apply so broadly with its definitions that it would constrain trade with Cuba. He said, “It hurts American businesses, and it hurts Cubans. Let’s stop living in the past.”

Section 540 and the defeated amendment were prominent in Congressman Diaz-Balart’s press release about the House’s passage of this bill. He said, “I strongly support . . . the provision that prohibits exports to the Cuban military. I firmly opposed the [defeated] amendment which would have stripped that common sense provision.”

The provision (Section 540), Diaz-Balart asserted, “ensures that exports to Cuba accomplish precisely that goal [of U.S. goods reaching the Cuban people].  Certainly the supporting of the Cuban people must not include channeling goods to the Cuban military and intelligence service that oppress them through arbitrary arrests, violence, intimidation, and unjust imprisonments.”

Moreover, according to Diaz-Balart, the Cuban military “engages in illegal weapons smuggling, subverts democratic institutions in Venezuela, and assists foreign terrorist organizations and other rogue regimes such as North Korea.  Furthermore, The Florida Congressman asserts, “several Members of the Cuban military remain under indictment for the murder of innocent U.S. citizens. Exports delivered to the Cuban military will do nothing to benefit the Cuban people, but can only directly fund the oppressive arm of the Castro dictatorship that remains a malevolent actor on the world stage.”

Diaz-Balart’s fellow Cuban-American Republican colleague from Florida, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, another strong opponent of U.S.-Cuba reconciliation, issued a similar statement.

Another provision of the bill (Section 528) prohibits construction or modifying U.S. facilities to accommodate transferred Guantanamo detainees. A motion to delete this provision by Representative Jerry Nadler (Dem., NY) was defeated by a voice vote.

Transportation Department Appropriations Act, FY2016 [2]

The House on June 9, by a 216-210 vote, passed the FY 2016 appropriations bill for the Departments of Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and related agencies (H.R.2577). According to the House Appropriations Committee, it allocates $55.3 billion targeted at transportation, infrastructure and housing programs of national need and significance.

An earlier post quoted sections 193 and 414 of the bill that barred air or maritime travel to Cuba if they used property that had been expropriated without compensation by the Cuban government.[3]

During a June 4 debate on this bill the House defeated, 176-247, an amendment offered by Representative Barbara Lee (Dem., CA), to delete these two sections that adversely would affect the impact of the new regulations issued by the Department of Commerce this January to expand travel. Lee argued theses provisions were “wrong for diplomacy . . .[and] patently anti-business.”

Another supporter of this amendment was Representative Mark Sanford (Rep., SC), the author of a bill to expand U.S. travel to Cuba (H.R.664), who argued that travel to Cuba should not be equated with supporting the Castro regime.

This Cuba provision is also the work of Representative Diaz-Balart, who said on June 4 that the Obama administration was wrong to lift the travel restrictions, saying that the flights would land at an airport that was partly owned by American interests when it was seized by the Castro government.“What you are saying is, ‘It’s O.K. to do business on property that was stolen from Americans.’ ” However, he added, “supporting the Cuban people does not include . . . facilitating the unlawful use of stolen properties that were illegally confiscated from Americans.”[4]

Diaz-Balart’s fellow Cuban-American Republican colleague from Florida, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen issued a similar statement.

The White House has threatened to veto the bill, in part because of this Cuba-related provision.

Conclusion

The congressional Republicans apparently have decided to ignore the desires of a majority of the American people and of Cuban-Americans, as demonstrated by numerous public opinion polls, to have improved relations with Cuba and as discussed in posts on February 12 and 17. Instead, the congressional Republicans apparently have hitched their wagon to the hysterical voices of their Cuban-American members. I deplore this defiance of public opinion.

 

The congressional Republicans also apparently have forgotten the 1964 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court regarding Cuba’s expropriation of property, Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino , 376 U.S. 398 (1964). There the court decided that the judicially-created act of state doctrine prevented U.S. courts from adjudicating a claim that the Cuban expropriation violated international law. According to the Court, ”the Judicial Branch will not examine the validity of a taking of property within its own territory by a foreign sovereign government, extant and recognized by this country at the time of suit, in the absence of a treaty or other unambiguous agreement regarding controlling legal principles, even if the complaint alleges that the taking violates customary international law.”[5]

Important to that conclusion in Sabbatino was the Court’s opinion that at least in 1964, “There are few if any issues in international law today on which opinion seems to be so divided as the limitations on a state’s power to expropriate the property of aliens. There is, of course, authority, in international judicial and arbitral decisions, in the expressions of national governments, and among commentators for the view that a taking is improper under international law if it is not for a public purpose, is discriminatory, or is without provision for prompt, adequate, and effective compensation.”

However, according to the Court in Sabbatino, “Communist countries, although they have in fact provided a degree of compensation after diplomatic efforts, commonly recognize no obligation on the part of the taking country. Certain representatives of the newly independent and underdeveloped countries have questioned whether rules of state responsibility toward aliens can bind nations that have not consented to them, and it is argued that the traditionally articulated standards governing expropriation of property reflect ‘imperialist’ interests, and are inappropriate to the circumstances of emergent states. The disagreement as to relevant international law standards reflects an even more basic divergence between the national interests of capital importing and capital exporting nations, and between the social ideologies of those countries that favor state control of a considerable portion of the means of production and those that adhere to a free enterprise system. It is difficult to imagine the courts of this country embarking on adjudication in an area which touches more sensitively the practical and ideological goals of the various members of the community of nations.”

I also deplore the congressional Republican tactic of attaching their out-of-touch Cuba prescriptions to appropriations bills and thereby risking partial government shutdowns if the President vetoes such measures.

The U.S. should be doing all it can to advance the cause of U.S.-Cuba reconciliation. Unfortunately the Republicans’ shrill rhetoric about the Cuban expropriation of U.S. property without compensation and its insertion of provisions on the subject into appropriations bills do nothing whatsoever to advance the Administration’s existing efforts to engage Cuba in negotiations about compensation for such expropriation and, if necessary, to litigate such U.S. claims before the Permanent Court of Arbitration.

In the meantime, supporters of U.S.-Cuba reconciliation should urge their Senators to seek to delete the previously mentioned Cuba provisions in these appropriations bills. Senators’ contact information is available on the Internet.

=============================================================

[1] This section of the post is based upon the following: House Appropriations Comm., Press Release: House Passes Fiscal Year 2016 Commerce, Justice, Science Bill (June 3, 2015); H.R.2578: A Bill Making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and for other purposes (May 27, 2015); House Appropriations Comm., Report on H.R.2578 (No. 114-130) (May 27, 2015); Library of Congress, THOMAS, H.Amdt.308 to H.R.2578 [Farr amendment] (June 3, 2015); Library of Congress, THOMAS, H.Amdt.306 to H.R.2578 [Nadler amendment]; Marcos & Shabad, House passes fourth ’16 appropriations bill, The Hill (June 3, 2015); Marcos, House votes to block exports to Cuban military, The Hill (June 3, 2015); Diaz-Balart, Press Release: U.S. Resources Must Not Be Funneled through Castro’s Regime’s Military and Intelligence Services (June 3, 2015); Ros-Lehtinen, Press Release: House of Reps. Overwhelmingly Votes to Oppose Farr Amendment and Supports Not Doing Business with the Cuban Military and Cuban Intelligence Service (June 3, 2015).

[2] This section of the post is based upon the following: House Appropriations Comm., Press Release: Fiscal Year 2016 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Bill Passes House (June 9, 2015); Library of Congress, THOMAS, H.R.2577; Library of Congress, THOMAS, H.Amdt.404 to H.R. 2577 [Lee amendment]; Marcos & Shabad, House passes funding for transportation, housing, The Hill (June 9, 2015); Assoc. Press, House GOP Measure Would Cut Amtrak by $242M, N.Y. Times (June 9, 2015); Assoc. Press, G.O.P.-Led House Votes to Keep Curbs on American Travel to Cuba, N.Y. Times (June 4, 2015);Taylor, Republican-Led House votes against easing travel to Cuba, Wash. Post (June 4, 2015); Marcos, House rejects easing Cuba travel restrictions, The Hill (June 4, 2015); Diaz-Balart, Press Release: Historic, Bipartisan Votes in House Reject President Obama’s Policy of Appeasement of the Castro Regime (June 4, 2015); Ros-Lehtinen, Press Release: House of Representatives Stands Up For U.S. Citizens and Defeats Lee Amendment That Would Have Condoned Cuban Trafficking in Confiscated American Property (June 4, 2015).

[3] There also are two pending stand-alone bills (S.1388 and H.R.2466) that would limit U.S.-Cuba reconciliation because of the unresolved U.S. claims for compensation for expropriated property, as discussed in a prior post.

[4] The June 9 Diaz-Balart press release on the House adoption of “the Diaz-Balart bill” was focused on the bill’s prioritization of “the nation’s infrastructure and housing needs.” It also reiterated his trumpeting of the bill’s provisions about Cuba: “The common sense provisions in the bill, which prohibit new flights to Cuba and deny licenses to marine vessels that use property confiscated from Americans, further core American values and safeguard the property rights of Americans.  We must not permit the exploitation of properties stolen by the Castro regime, which is expressly prohibited in U.S. law.”

 

[5] The opinion of the Court in Sabbatino was written by Mr. Justice John Marshall Harlan, II and was joined by Chief Justice Earl Warren and Justices Black, Douglas, Clark, Brennan, Stewart and Goldberg. Mr. Justice White dissented on the ground that the act of state doctrine should not apply and that the U.S. courts should resolve the case on the merits. The Supreme Court’s decision was criticized in Congress, which passed the so-called Second Hickenlooper Amendment (or Sabbatino Amendment) that provided that U.S. courts are not to apply the Act of State Doctrine as a bar against hearing cases of expropriation by a foreign sovereign unless the Executive requests that the courts consider the Act of State Doctrine because foreign policy interests may be damaged by judicial interference. The Amendment was retroactive and subsequently was found constitutional by the district court and the complaint in Sabbatino was dismissed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Update on Proposed U.S. Legislation Opposing U.S.-Cuba Reconciliation  

A prior post reviewed the pending bills in this Session of Congress that support U.S.-Cuba reconciliation. Now we look at the 16 pending bills and resolutions opposing U.S.-Cuba reconciliation, all but two of which have had no substantive action taken by either chamber. Details on these measures are available on the Library of Congress’ THOMAS website.

Three of them—H.R.1782, S.1388 and H.R.2466—seek to impose preconditions for seeking normalization of diplomatic relations with Cuba and thereby attack a major premise of the Administration’s current efforts regarding Cuba: for over 50 years the U.S. has failed to obtain Cuban reforms through imposing preconditions and sanctions.

The other 13 pending measures are less threatening to the Administration’s ongoing efforts to normalize relations with Cuba.

Improved Cuban Human Rights as Precondition for Reconciliation

The major premise of the Administration’s new approach to Cuba is attacked by H.R.1782 “Cuba Human Rights Act of 2015” authored by Rep. Christopher Smith (Rep., NJ) with 12 cosponsors. Until Cuba ceases violating the human rights of its citizens, the bill, among other things, would prohibit any changes in the U.S. relationship with Cuba and require the U.S. to oppose Cuban membership on the U.N. Human Rights Council. The bill was referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, which in turn referred it to its subcommittees on the Western Hemisphere and on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights and International Organizations. No substantive action on the bill has been taken by that Committee and said subcommittees.

Less intrusive on the Administration’s approach to Cuba on human rights is S.Res.152 “A resolution recognizing threats to freedom of the press and expression around the world and reaffirming freedom of the press as a priority in efforts of the United States Government to promote democracy and good governance.” It condemns actions around the world that suppress freedom of the press and reaffirms the centrality of freedom of the press to U.S. efforts to support democracy, mitigate conflict, and promote good governance. A preamble references a Freedom House report that ranked Cuba as one of the countries having the worst obstacles to access, limits on content, and violations of user rights among countries and territories rated by Freedom House as “Not Free.” More recently the Committee to Protect Journalists leveled another criticism of press freedom in Cuba. The resolution was offered by Senator Robert Casey, Jr. (Dem., PA) and was referred to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, which has not yet taken any action on the matter.

Plan for Resolving U.S. Claims for Expropriated Property as                          Precondition for Reconciliation

Two pending bills relate to Cuba’s expropriation of property of U.S. nationals without compensation in violation of international law. Resolution of U.S. claims for money damages for such acts clearly is an important subject for direct discussions with the Cuban government in the first instance. As discussed in a prior post, those claims are currently estimated to total at least $7.0 billion.

Although I am not privy to how the U.S. Government intends to proceed on such claims, that prior post anticipated an inability to resolve these claims through direct negotiations and, therefore, suggested that the U.S. submit such claims to the Permanent Court of Arbitration along with all other U.S. claims for money damages against the Cuban government and that Cuba similarly submit all of its claims for money damages against the U.S. government. Moreover, that prior post pointed out that any consideration of U.S. claims for money damages against the Cuban government has to recognize that Cuba does not have the financial resources to pay a large sum of money.

S.1388: “A bill to require the President to submit a plan for resolving all outstanding claims relating to property confiscated by the Government of Cuba before taking action to ease restrictions on travel to or trade with Cuba, and for other purposes.” This bill legitimately recognizes that such claims are important for the U.S. and need to be resolved, but in this blogger’s opinion, this bill unwisely makes a plan for resolution a precondition for proceeding with reconciliation. On the other hand, the bill does not require actual resolution of the claims as a precondition so maybe the bill is not as threatening to reconciliation as might first appear. The bill is authored by Senators Marco Rubio (Rep., FL) and David Vitter (Rep., LA) with 11 cosponsors. It was introduced on May 19th and referred to the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, which has not taken any action on the bill. Senator Rubio, however, referred to this bill at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing about Cuba on May 20th.

The companion bill in the House with the same title is H.R.2466 introduced on May 20th by Rep. Thomas Rooney (Rep., FL) with no cosponsors. It was referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, which has not yet taken any action on the bill.

 Limits on Certain Trademarks Expropriated by Cuba

Cuba’s expropriation of property owned by U.S. nationals without compensation, in some instances, included trademarks. Therefore, such trademarks need to be included in the previously mentioned U.S. claims against Cuba.

This subject is addressed by S.757 “No Stolen Trademarks Honored in America Act, ” which would prohibit U.S. courts from recognizing, enforcing, or otherwise validating, under certain circumstances, any assertion of rights by a designated Cuban national of a mark, trade name, or commercial name that was used in connection with a business or assets that were confiscated by the Cuban government. The bill is authored by Senator Bill Nelson (Dem., FL) with 2 cosponsors and was referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, which has not taken any action on the bill.

The companion bill with the same title in the House (H.R.1627) was authored by Rep. Darrell Issa (Rep., CA) with 10 cosponsors. It was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, which in turn referred the bill to its Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet.  Neither that Committee nor the Subcommittee has taken any action on the bill.

These bills on trademarks are less troublesome, in this blogger’s opinion, and could provide an interim measure of relief until resolution of the U.S. claims for expropriated property.

 Seeking Extradition of U.S. Fugitives from Cuba

Two pending congressional measures relate to fugitives from U.S. justice in Cuba. The U.S.’ seeking Cuba’s extradition of them has been recognized by the Obama Administration as an important subject for negotiations with Cuba. Indeed, some such discussions already have occurred, and further discussions are to take place. However, as discussed in a prior post, existing extradition treaties between the U.S. and Cuba provide each country the right to not grant extradition if it determines that the offense in the other country is of a “political character,” and Cuba has invoked that provision to deny previous U.S. requests for extradition of some of the most notorious U.S. fugitives.

H.R.2189 “ Walter Patterson and Werner Foerster Justice and Extradition Act” was authored by Rep. Christopher Smith (Rep., NJ) with 3 cosponsors. It would require the president to submit an annual report to Congress regarding U.S. efforts to obtain extradition of fugitives from U.S. justice. One of the proposed findings of the bill states, “The refusal of Cuba to extradite or otherwise render Joanne Chesimard, an escaped convict who fled to Cuba after killing Werner Foerster, New Jersey State Trooper, is a deplorable example of a failure to extradite or otherwise render, and has caused ongoing suffering and stress to Mr. Foerster’s surviving family and friends.” The bill was referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, which has not taken any action on the bill.

H.Res.181 “Calling for the immediate extradition or rendering to the United States of convicted felon William Morales and all other fugitives from justice who are receiving safe harbor in Cuba in order to escape prosecution or confinement for criminal offenses committed in the United States.” It was authored by Rep. Peter King (Rep., NY) with 15 cosponsors and was referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, which in turn referred the bill to the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere. Neither body has taken any action on the proposed resolution.

The above bill (H.R. 2189) does not interfere with the Administration’s efforts to pursue reconciliation with Cuba as the bill implicitly recognizes that the U.S. may seek, but not compel, extradition. A prior post reported that the U.S. has made several requests over the years for the extradition of Joanne Chesimard (a/k/a Assata Shakur) and that Cuba had rejected such requests on the ground that her offenses in the U.S. were of a “political character.” Anticipating that Cuba would continue to reject such requests, the prior post recommended submitting disputes over extradition to the Permanent Court of Arbitration. The proposed resolution is merely a call by Congress for such extradition.

 Various Measures Regarding U.S. Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

As discussed in a prior post, the U.S. has leased Guantanamo Bay from Cuba since 1903, and since September 11, 2001, one of the U.S. uses of that territory has been to house, interrogate and make adjudications of detainees from other countries. Since President Obama took office in 2009, he has sought to end the use of Guantanamo Bay for such detentions. Moreover, Cuba has made it known that it wants to have the U.S. leave Guantanamo Bay and return the territory to Cuba. Another prior post examined whether Cuba had a legal right to terminate the lease and recommended submission of any unresolved conflicts over this territory to the Permanent Court of Arbitration.

There has been considerable congressional opposition to ending the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay and to ending the lease and returning the territory to Cuba. This is seen in the following six pending measures in this Session of Congress.

  1. Ban on U.S. Abandoning Lease of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This is the intent of H.R.654 “Naval Station Guantanamo Bay Protection Act” authored by Rep. David Jolly (Rep., FL) with 56 cosponsors. It would bar the U.S. from modifying, terminating, abandoning, or transferring said lease. It was referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, which has not taken any action on the bill. This bill would limit the Administration’s discretion in negotiations over Guantanamo with Cuba, including obtaining a new lease with significantly higher rental fees.
  2. Ban on Transferring Guantanamo Bay Detainees to Other U.S. Facilities. Senator Kelly Ayotte (Rep., NH) with 27 cosponsors submitted S.165: “Detaining Terrorists to Protect America Act of 2015.” It was referred to the Senate Committee on Armed Services, which on February 12th approved the bill with an amendment in the nature of a substitute that would prohibit (i) the construction or modification of any U.S. facility to house certain individuals detained in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as of October 1, 2009; (ii) the transfer or release of certain detainees at Guantanamo Bay to other U.S. facilities and foreign countries; and (iii) judicial review of certain claims by said detainees. On 23rd February it was placed on the Senate’s Legislative Calendar.
  3. The companion bill with the same title in the House (H.R.401) was authored by Rep. Jackie Walorski (Rep., IN) with 38 cosponsors. It was referred to the House Committee on Armed Services, which has not taken any action on the bill.

Neither of these bills about transfer of detainees would have direct adverse effects on U.S. reconciliation efforts although it could complicate any negotiations over Guantanamo with Cuba.

  1. Ban on Aid to Certain Countries That Accept Transfer of Guantanamo Bay Detainees. S.778: “Guantanamo Bay Recidivism Prevention Act of 2015” would prohibit certain assistance for five years to a foreign country if: (1) the country received an individual who was released or transferred from Guantanamo Bay on or after February 1, 2015; and (2) after the date of such release or transfer, the individual is included in a report of individuals confirmed or suspected of returning to terrorist activities. The bill is authored by Senator Tom Cotton (Rep., AR) with 4 cosponsors and was referred to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, which has not taken any action on the bill.
  1. The companion bill in the House (H.R.1689) “To prohibit the provision of certain foreign assistance to countries receiving certain detainees transferred from United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba” was authored by Rep. Ron DeSantis (Rep., FL) with 6 cosponsors. It was referred to the House Committee on foreign Affairs, which has not taken any action on the bill. Neither of these bills about foreign assistance would adversely affect U.S. negotiations with Cuba.
  1. Fund for Constructing and Improving Guantanamo Bay Detention Facilities. S.Con.Res.11 establishes the congressional budget for the federal government for FY 2016. S.Amdt.664 to this Concurrent Resolution was offered by Senator Tom Cotton (Rep., AR) to establish a reserve fund for constructing or improving detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay. On March 27th this amendment was ruled out of order.

Continuation of Radio Marti and Television Marti.

H.R.2323 “United States International Communications Reform Act of 2015” would reform the U.S. government agencies responsible for international communications, but in section 124(b) would not affect Radio Marti and Television Marti. The bill was offered by Rep. Edward Royce (Rep., CA) with 14 cosponsors. It was referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, which on May 21st reported it with amendments to the full House.

This bill could be a minor irritant on advancing reconciliation as Cuba consistently has objected to these services.

 Imposing Sanctions on North Korea.

This is the subject of H.R.204 “North Korea Sanctions and Diplomatic Nonrecognition Act of 2015,” which was authored by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Rep., FL) with 17 cosponsors and was referred to the House committees on Ways and Means and on Foreign Affairs, the latter of which referred the bill to its Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific. No action on the bill has been taken by either committee or by the subcommittee.

This bill is mentioned here for two reasons. First, Rep. Ros-Lehtinen, a Cuban-American, is a vigorous opponent of U.S.-Cuba reconciliation and conceivably would find ways to use the bill to oppose U.S.-Cuba reconciliation. Second, the bill’s proposed findings refer to the U.S. Treasury Department and the U.N. Security Council’s imposition of sanctions on North Korean shipping companies for attempting to import a concealed shipment of arms and related material from Cuba and to the U.S. telling the Security Council that Cuba had participated in a “cynical, outrageous and illegal attempt” to circumvent U.N. sanctions and had made “false claims” about the shipment.

Conclusion

U.S. citizens who support U.S.-Cuba reconciliation should contact their Senators and representatives in Congress to urge them to oppose the above measures, especially those–H.R.1782, S.1388 and H.R.2466— that would impose preconditions for such reconciliation.

A subsequent post will examine pending authorization and appropriation measures that relate to Cuba.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Old Cuban Court Judgment for Money Damages Against the U.S. Government  

A previous post reviewed the various damage claims that Cuba and the U.S. have against each other and recommended that all of them be submitted to a joint proceeding before the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague in the Netherlands.

One of those claims is Cuba’s claim for alleged damages resulting from the U.S. embargo or blockade of Cuba, which at the last session of the U.N. General Assembly in October 2014 amounted to $1.1 trillion, according to Cuba’s Foreign Minister.

On May 15, 2015, Granma, Cuba’s official newspaper, inexplicably ran an article about a judgment rendered by a Cuban court (the Civil and Administrative Court of Law at the Havana Provincial People’s Court) on such a claim fifteen years earlier, on May 5, 2000. This was in a lawsuit filed by eight of Cuba’s social and mass organizations (CTC, ANAP, FMC, FEU, FEEM, OPJM, CDR and ACRC) and was after a trial from February 28 through March 10, 2000.

The judgment on May 5, 2000, for these alleged damages was $ 64 billion, representing loss of markets for Cuban exports and loss of Cuba’s main suppliers; investments for the conversion of production facilities; increased costs of transportation to and from more-distant markets and suppliers; increased costs of carrying larger inventories of supplies to protect against supply interruptions; reduced purchases of Cuban goods by U.S. citizens and companies; increased costs associated with outdated equipment; and increased costs of alternative financing and frozen Cuban assets in the U.S.

In the same case the Cuban court also rendered a judgment against the U.S. for another $54 billion of alleged damages resulting from alleged U.S. efforts to subvert Cuba’s government, including Cuba’s costs of countering such efforts, of mobilizing Cuba’s military and of combatting U.S. alleged “biological warfare.”

I assume that this Cuban court judgment was in a lawsuit in which the U.S. did not appear and thus was what in U.S. law is called a default judgment. This judgment, I believe, would be irrelevant in the suggested arbitration of various damage claims by the Permanent Court of Arbitration as would any default judgments rendered against Cuba by any U.S. courts.

Interestingly a search of articles about Cuba in the New York Times from March 1 through May 30, 2000, did not reveal any articles about this Cuban lawsuit. Instead, there were many articles in this period about the battles in U.S. courts and public opinion over whether a six-year-old Cuban boy, Elian Gonzalez, who was in Florida after being rescued at sea should be returned to his Father in Cuba. This controversy was resolved on June 28, 2000, when he was returned to his Father.

On May 18, 2015, Elian, now 21 years old and a student of Industrial Engineering at the University of Matanzas, Cuba, was in the news again when he said to a U.S. journalist that if he could visit anywhere, it would be the U.S. to “give my love to (the) American people.”

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Resolution of U.S. and Cuba’s Damage Claims   

The United States has damage claims against Cuba and visa versa. This post will review those claims and propose a method for resolving them.

U.S. Claims

Cuba’s Expropriation of Property of U.S. Nationals. [1]

According to a U.S. Government report, “in 1959 and 1960 . . . the Government of Cuba after the Castro regime came into power . . . effectively seized and took into state ownership most of the property in that country owned by the [U.S.] and its nationals, with the exception of the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay. No provision was made by the Cuban Government for the payment of compensation for such property as required under the generally accepted rules of international law.” (Cuba, however, has paid similar claims by Canada, France, Spain and Switzerland.) [2]

In response, a federal statute, the Cuba Claims Act, was enacted in 1964 to amend the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949 to grant the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of the United States (FCSC), a quasi-judicial, independent agency within the U.S. Department of Justice, jurisdiction to receive and determine in accordance, with applicable substantive law, including international law, the amount and validity of certain claims by U.S. nationals of the against the Government of Cuba.

The covered claims for this purpose were those arising since January 1, 1959, for (a) “losses resulting from the nationalization expropriation, intervention or other taking of, or special measures directed against, property including any rights or interests therein owned wholly or partially, directly or indirectly at the time by nationals of the [U.S.];” (b) debts for merchandise furnished or services rendered by U.S. nationals; and (c) disability or death of U.S. nationals resulting from actions taken by, or under the authority of, the Government of Cuba since January 1, 1959.

The statute, however, did not provide for the payment of claims against the Government of Cuba, but only for the Commission to determine the validity and amounts of such claims. After its determinations, the Commission certified its findings to the Secretary of State for possible use in future negotiations with the Government of Cuba.

In signing the statute on October 16, 1964, President Lyndon Johnson said: “The Castro regime has appropriated over $1 billion worth of property of [U.S.] nationals in total disregard for their rights. These unlawful seizures violated every standard by which the nationals of the free world conduct their affairs. I am confident that the Cuban people will not always be compelled to suffer under Communist rule-that one day they will achieve freedom and democracy. I am also confident that it will be possible to settle claims of American nationals whose property has been wrongfully taken from them.”[3]

The Commission had two programs for such claims against the Cuban government, resulting in the total submission of 8,821 claims and the Commission’s determinations that 5,913 were valid with a total principal value of $1,902,202,285 (or $1.9 billion) plus 6% per annum from the date of the loss. Although 90% of these claims were filed by individuals, the largest ones are by corporations: Cuba Electric (owned by Americans),  $ 268 million; IT&T, $131 million; and Exxon, $71 million.

Recent commentaries suggest that with interest the claims now total nearly $7 billion. [4]

Default Judgment Against Cuba for Deaths of U.S. Pilots Over International Waters

A prior post about “The Cuban Five” mentioned that Cuban military planes in 1996 shot down two U.S. private planes over international waters near Cuba and killed three of their pilots and that a U.S. federal court entered a default judgment of $187 million against the Government of Cuba for their deaths. That judgment plus interest remains unpaid.

Other Claims.

Any and all other claims for damages by the U.S. against Cuba should also be included and resolved as part of any dispute-resolution procedure.

 Cuba Claims

Alleged Damages from U.S. Embargo (Blockade) of Cuba [5]

At the October 2014 session of the U.N. General Assembly, Cuba offered a resolution condemning the U.S. embargo (blockade), which overwhelmingly was approved. Speaking for the resolution, Cuba’s Foreign Minister, Bruno Gonzalez Parrilla, alleged that Cuba was damaged by the embargo and that the damages totaled $1.1 trillion.

The U.S. diplomat at the session obviously disagreed. The diplomat argued that Cuba’s economic difficulties were due to its own policies and that it would not thrive until it committed itself to a free and fair market, allowed unfettered access to information, opened its state-run monopolies and adopted sound economic policies.

Unpaid Rent for Use of Guantanamo Bay.

A prior post mentioned that Cuba for the last 56 years has not cashed the U.S. checks for the annual rent of $4,085 for Guantanamo Bay. This amounts to at least $228,760 for those years plus interest. If Cuba alleges that the annual unpaid rent should be a higher figure, then the total claim obviously would be higher.

Other Claims.

If there are any other damage claims by Cuba against the U.S., then it is fair to believe they will be asserted.

Conclusion

These claims, in my opinion, will not be resolved in negotiations between the two countries. I, therefore, suggest that the parties agree to submit all of their damage claims against each other for resolution to the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague in the Netherlands under its Arbitration Rules 2012 before a panel of three or five arbitrators. A prior post made this recommendation for the expropriation claims,

My experience as a lawyer who handled business disputes in U.S. courts and in international arbitrations leads me to believe that arbitration is the appropriate way to resolve these claims by the two governments. The Permanent Court of Arbitration was established in the late 19th century to resolve disputes between governments. It would be a third-party, neutral administrator of the proceedings and the arbitrators who would be selected would also be neutral. Finally it has an existing set of arbitration rules and procedures.

A 2007 study commissioned by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) proposed a treaty or a U.S. presidential executive order to establish a bilateral arbitration tribunal that would be empowered to issue an award compelling Cuba to pay money or to provide tax benefits or other incentives for new investment. This proposal like the one just proposed by this blogger advocates having a neutral third-party decide the outcome of these claims, but it adds the necessity of preparing and agreeing to the composition and rules of a new ad hoc tribunal. [6]

Everyone recognizes that Cuba does not have the financial resources to pay any large claim like the one for expropriation of U.S. nationals’ property in 1959-1960 so any substantial monetary recovery would have to come from a determination that the U.S. was liable to Cuba for damages for the embargo. Otherwise, there would have to be some settlement of the larger expropriation claims with tax or other incentives for entering into new business ventures on the island.

============================================

[1] This section of the post is based upon the Commission’s website’s description of the agency, an overview of the two Cuba programs, a final report on the first program, copies of what it terms “lead decisions” in the programs, decisions on all the claims and a spreadsheet listing all of those claims and their amounts.

[2] Creighton Univ. School of Law & Dep’t of Political Science, Report on the Resolution of Outstanding Property Claims Between Cuba and the United States (2007).

[3] Johnson Signs Bill To Aid Americans In Claims on Cuba, N.Y. Times (Mar. 18, 1964); Gordon, The Cuba Claims Act: Progress In the Development of a Viable Valuation Process in the FCSC, 13 Santa Clara Lawyer 624 (1973).

[4] Assoc. Press, Run From Cuba, Americans Cling to Claims for Seized Property, N.Y. Times (Mar. 30, 2015); Assoc. Press, Who Claims What Property Seized in Cuba? Facts and Figures, N.Y. Times (Mar. 28, 2015); Glovin & Olocunnipa, Cuba Property Claims, Yielding Pennies, May Spur Talks, BloombergBusiness (Dec. 22, 2014). There is a Cuba Claim Owners Association.

[5] U.N. Press Release, As General Assembly Demands End to Cuba Blockage for Twenty-Third Consecutive Year, Country’s Foreign Minister Cites Losses Exceeding $1 Trillion (Oct. 28, 2014).

[6] Ayuso, Expropriations, the other outstanding debt in Cuba, El Pais (Jan. 4, 2015); Creighton Univ. School of Law & Dep’t of Political Science, Report on the Resolution of Outstanding Property Claims Between Cuba and the United States (2007).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Resolution of Issues Regarding Cuba-U.S. Lease of Guantanamo Bay

Since the December 17, 2014, announcement of rapprochement, Cuba has voiced at least three demands or issues regarding its lease of Guantanamo Bay to the U.S. The most serious one is ending the lease and returning this territory to complete Cuban control. The second is the U.S.’ paying for use of the territory since the Cuban Revolution’s takeover of the island in 1959. The third is Cuba’s objection to the U.S.’ establishing and maintaining a prison for detainees after 9/11 and to the U.S.’ alleged mistreatment and torture of those detainees.

Understanding these issues requires an examination of (a) the Cuban war for independence, 1895-1898, and the Spanish-American War of 1898; (b) the terms of seven documents relating to the lease, all of which predate the Cuban Revolution; and (c) the position of the Revolutionary government toward these documents and the lease. [1] In conclusion, this post will discuss methods for resolving these issues.

Before all of that, here are maps and photographs of Guantanamo Bay.

Guant map1

guantanamo.bay

 

 

 

 

Gitmo look west

_245513_us_base_guantanamo300

 

 

 

The Cuban War for Independence and the Spanish-American War [2]

In 1895 Cubans started a revolt or war of independence from Spain, which responded with ferocity, launching its “reconcentrado” campaign that herded 300,000 Cubans into re-concentration camps. Spain’s tactics infuriated many Americans, who began to raise money and even fight on the side of the Cuban nationalists while American businesses with economic interests on the island were worried about the safety of their investments. U.S. President William McKinley wanted an end to the Cuban-Spanish conflict, but demanded that Spain act responsibly and humanely and that any settlement be acceptable to Cuban nationals.

In November 1897, an amicable resolution appeared possible when the Spanish granted the Cubans limited autonomy and closed the re-concentration camps. But after pro-Spanish demonstrators rioted in Havana in January 1898 to protest Spain’s more conciliatory policies, McKinley ordered the U.S. battleship Maine to Havana to protect American citizens and property and to demonstrate that the U.S. still valued Spain’s friendship.

With the Maine safely moored in Spanish waters, the Spanish-American relationship was jolted by the publication in a New York newspaper of a letter by the Spanish minister to the U.S. describing McKinley as “weak and a bidder for the admirations of the crowd” and revealing that the Spanish were not negotiating in good faith with the U.S. Americans saw the letter as an attack on both McKinley’s and the nation’s honor. The American public’s anger only intensified following an explosion on the Maine and its sinking on February 15, 1898, in Havana Harbor, killing 266 crew members. The Navy, on March 21, reported that an external explosion, presumably from a Spanish mine, had destroyed the ship.

With diplomatic initiatives exhausted and the American public wanting an end to the Cuban crisis, McKinley, in mid-April 1898, asked Congress for authority to intervene in Cuba, which it granted. Spain soon broke relations with the U.S., and the U.S. blockaded Cuba’s ports. On April 23, Spain declared war on the U.S. Two days later the U.S. did likewise with the Teller amendment committing the U.S. to the independence of Cuba once the war had ended, disclaiming “any disposition or intention to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction or control over said island, except for the pacification thereof.”

What became known as the Spanish-American War lasted only a little over three months with U.S. victories in Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines ending in a cease fire on August 12, 1898. Under the Paris Peace Treaty of December 10, 1898, the U.S. obtained Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippine Islands while Spain renounced its claim to Cuba, which remained under U.S. military occupation until 1902.

Thereafter, Cuba would be a de facto U.S. protectorate until 1934.

The Lease of Guantanamo Bay

The first five of the seven documents relating to the Guantanamo lease were created during the period that Cuba was a de facto protectorate of the U.S.

  1. Act of Congress (March 2, 1901). On this date, President McKinley signed an Act of Congress that included what was called “the Platt Amendment,” which authorized the U.S. President “to leave the government and control of the island of Cuba to its people so soon as a government shall have been established in said island under a constitution which, either as a part thereof or in an ordinance appended thereto, shall define the future relations of the United States with Cuba, [and shall include the following: provisions]:
  • “I. That the government of Cuba shall never enter into any treaty or other compact with any foreign power or powers which will impair or tend to impair the independence of Cuba, nor in any manner authorize or permit any foreign power or powers to obtain by colonization or for military or naval purposes or otherwise, lodgement in or control over any portion of said island.”
  • “III. That the government of Cuba consents that the [U.S.] may exercise the right to intervene for the preservation of Cuban independence, the maintenance of a government adequate for the protection of life, property, and individual liberty, and for discharging the obligations with respect to Cuba imposed by the treaty of Paris on the [U.S.], now to be assumed and undertaken by the government of Cuba.”
  • “”VII. That to enable the [U.S.] to maintain the independence of Cuba, and to protect the people thereof, as well as for its own defense, the government of Cuba will sell or lease to the [U.S.] lands necessary for coaling or naval stations at certain specified points to be agreed upon with the President of the United States.”
  1. Constitution of Cuba (May 20, 1902). On this date, the Constitution of the Republic of Cuba was promulgated, and Article VII of its Appendix provided: “To enable the [U.S.] to maintain the independence of Cuba, and to protect the people thereof, as well as for its own defense, the Cuban Government will sell or lease to the [U.S.] the lands necessary for coaling or naval stations, at certain specified points, to be agreed upon with the President of the United States.”
  1. U.S.-Cuba Agreement (February 23, 1903). Pursuant to the just mentioned Cuban constitutional provision, on February 23, 1903, the U.S. and Cuba entered into the “Agreement . . . for the Lease of Lands for Coaling and Naval stations.” Its Article I stated that Cuba “hereby leases to the United States, for the time required for the purposes of coaling and naval stations, the following described areas of land and water [Guantanamo Bay and Bahia Honda] [3] situated in the Island of Cuba”

This Agreement’s Article II stated, “The grant of the foregoing Article shall include the right to use and occupy the waters adjacent to said areas of land and water, and to improve and deepen the entrances thereto and the anchorages therein, and generally to do any and all things necessary to fit the premises for use as coaling or naval stations only, and for no other purpose.” (Emphasis added.)

This Agreement concluded in Article III, whereby the U.S. “recognizes the continuance of the ultimate sovereignty of the Republic of Cuba over the above described areas of land and water, on the other hand the Republic of Cuba consents that during the period of the occupation by the [U.S.] of said areas under the terms of this agreement the [U.S.] shall exercise complete jurisdiction and control over and within said areas.”

Unlike most leases, this agreement did not set forth a set period of time for the lease or the compensation or rent to be paid.

  1. Treaty between the United States of America and Cuba (May 22, 1903). This treaty in Article I states, “The Government of Cuba shall never enter into any treaty or other compact with any foreign power or powers which will impair or tend to impair the independence of Cuba, nor in any manner authorize or permit any foreign power or powers to obtain by colonization or for military or naval purposes, or otherwise, lodgment in or control over any portion of said island.”

Article III provides, “The Government of Cuba consents that the United States may exercise the right to intervene for the preservation of Cuban independence, the maintenance of a government adequate for the protection of life, property, and individual liberty, and for discharging the obligations with respect to Cuba imposed by the Treaty of Paris on the United States, now to be assumed and undertaken by the Government of Cuba.”

Article VII adds, “To enable the United States to maintain the independence of Cuba, and to protect the people thereof, as well as for its own defense, the Government of Cuba will sell or lease to the United States lands necessary for coaling or naval stations, at certain specified points, to be agreed upon with the President of the United States.”

  1. Lease of Certain Areas of Land and Water for Naval or Coaling Stations in Guantanamo and Bahia Honda (July 2, 1903). This instrument details additional terms of the lease in seven articles. Its Article I specified the compensation that the U.S. would pay to Cuba for the leased territories: “the annual sum of two thousand dollars, in gold coin of the United States, as long as the former shall occupy and use said areas of land by virtue of said agreement.” Under Article II, the U.S. agreed “that no person, partnership, or corporation shall be permitted to establish or maintain a commercial, industrial or other enterprise within said areas.”

There still was no set period of time for the lease of the territory.

On November 12, 1903, Guantánamo Bay Outer Harbor passed into U.S. hands “without any formality” and was “effected in a quiet manner.”

  1. Treaty between United States of America and Cuba (May 29, 1934). By 1934 there had been changes in the overall relationship between the two countries. The U.S., pursuing President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “good neighbor” policy, proposed to nullify the previously mentioned May 22, 1903, U.S.-Cuba Treaty. Cuba had become increasingly upset with the earlier treaty’s Platt Amendment granting the U.S. the right to intervene in Cuba, and Cuba welcomed the idea of nullifying the 1903 treaty. Negotiations to that end proceeded quickly; and a new Cuban-American Treaty of Relations was signed on May 29, 1934, and after rapid ratifications by both states it entered into force on June 9, 1934. This effectively ended the U.S. de facto protectorate of Cuba.

The 1934 treaty in Article II also stated: “All the acts effected in Cuba by the [U.S.] during its military occupation of the island, up to May 20,1902, the date on which the Republic of Cuba was established, have been ratified and held as valid; and all the rights legally acquired by virtue of those acts shall be maintained and protected.”

Article III added the following language with respect to the naval station at Guantánamo Bay: “The supplementary agreement in regard to naval or coaling station signed between the two Governments on July 2, 1903, also shall continue in effect in the same form and on the same conditions with respect to the naval station at Guantánamo. So long as the United States of America shall not abandon the said naval station of Guantánamo or the two Governments shall not agree to a modification of its present limits, the station shall continue to have the territory it now has, with the limits that it has on the date of the signature of the present Treaty.”

The implication of Article III is that the U.S. at any time can walk away from the lease at Guantánamo (abandon the base), but the Cubans can never revoke the lease.

  1. Change in Amount of Rent (1938). Although the source document has not been located, secondary sources say the annual rent for Guantanamo was changed in 1938 to $4,085 (U.S. Dollars), which was the 1938 equivalent of $2,000 in U.S. gold coins. That term has never been changed. Indeed, the U.S. documents transmitting the annual rent checks in that amount for 2011, 2012 and 2013 merely refer to the July 2, 1903, Lease while stating the amount of $4,085 was “computed in the manner of which the government of Cuba has been advised in connection with previous rental payments.” [4]

Cuba’s Revolutionary Government’s Positions Regarding the Lease

Soon after the Cuban Revolution took over the government in January 1959, it started calling for the U.S. to get out of Guantanamo. Over time Cuba set out four different, and sometimes contradictory, legal arguments for invalidating the lease. Even though some international law experts thought Cuba had a good argument for such invalidation: rebus sic stantibus (fundamental change of circumstances), [5] Cuba never instituted legal proceedings to that end. In addition, while the U.S.S.R. still existed and was a major Cuban ally, the Soviets argued that the lease was an “unequal treaty,” but that legal theory was not embraced by the U.S. and most Western nations.

In addition, Cuba has refused to cash the annual U.S. checks for $4,085 made out to the “Treasurer General of the Republic” (a position that ceased to exist after the Revolution). One such check, however, was cashed in the early days of the Revolution, Cuba says, due to confusion. (Many years ago during a televised interview, Fidel Castro opened a desk drawer in his office to show the collection of uncashed checks.)

At least by 2004, Cuba accepted the lease as valid while asserting that control over Guantanamo “will eventually revert to Cuba because of the nature of the arrangement, ad defined by its domestic law, which prohibits perpetual leases. For example, in 2004, Cuba’s Foreign Ministry stated the arrangement “does not grant a perpetual right but a temporary one over that part of our territory, by which, in due course, as a just right of our people, the illegally occupied territory of Guantanamo should be returned by peaceful means to Cuba.” In short, said Cuba, the lease is valid, but U.S. occupation of the territory is illegal. This argument is ridiculous, in the opinion of this blogger, a retired U.S. lawyer.

There have been at least two U.S. responses to these Cuban arguments of invalidity of the lease. First, under the international legal principle of pacta sunt servanda (the contract is the law between the parties), the lease remained a valid agreement between the two states and Cuba has a legal obligation to adhere to agreements previously entered into despite a change in governments. [6] Second, the revolutionary government’s acceptance of at least one of the annual rent checks was an admission of the lease’s validity or a waiver of Cuba’s objections thereto.

Conclusion

As a retired U.S. lawyer, without doing any legal research, I see potential issues of lease invalidity due to (a) possible undue influence or coercion by the U.S. in establishing the terms of the original lease in 1903 and the modifications in 1934 and 1938; [7] and (b) the U.S. use of Guantanamo possibly exceeding the uses permitted by the lease. Any such claim, however, would be potentially subject, at least in a domestic legal dispute, to the affirmative defenses of waiver, estoppel, ratification, laches and statute of limitations. [8]

The argument for invalidity based on the U.S. use of Guantanamo has been rejected by Professor Strauss. He notes that the lease permits the use of Guantanamo as a “naval station,” which is a term created by the U.S. to allow its Navy to determine the range of activities that could occur at such a “station” and which has been used for fewer functions than a full naval base and more recently as a full naval base. As a result, says Strauss, the limitation on use is “largely meaningless in a practical sense.”

In any event, if Cuba now were to assert a right to terminate the lease, over U.S. objection, then I suggest that such a claim should be submitted to a panel of three arbitrators at the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague under its existing Arbitration Rules. Presumably the U.S. in addition to resisting the claim would have a contingent counterclaim (in the event of an arbitration award of termination) for reimbursement for the value of U.S. improvements to the territory.

Such an arbitration proceeding should also include any Cuban claim for compensation for the U.S. use of Guantanamo for 66 years (1960-2015). If, however, such a claims is only for the $4,085 annual rent established in 1938 for a total of $269,610 (without interest), then the claim should be resolved quickly by the U.S. paying the amount of the claim. If, however, the claim is for a higher amount based upon some theory to void the $4,085 figure and instead use a larger amount of alleged fair market value, then presumably such a claim would be contested by the U.S. and a proper claim for arbitration.

Of course, at any time the two parties could negotiate a new lease of Guantanamo, presumably for a specific term of years, with a right of renewal, at a higher and annually adjustable rent. Such a new lease could also impose limits on U.S. use of the territory such as prohibition of the operation of a prison or detention facility.

====================================================

[1] An excellent overall discussion of the U.S. lease of Guantanamo is contained in Strauss, Cuba and State Responsibility for Human Rights at Guantanamo, 37 So. Ill. Univ. L.J. 533, 533-36 (2013).  See also Notes on Guantanamo Bay; Wikipedia, Guantanamo Bay Navy Base.

[2] This brief summary of the two wars is based on American President: William McKinley: Foreign Affairs, Miller Center, Univ. Virginia.

[3] Bahia Honda was never used by the U.S. and reverted to Cuban control.

[4] Boadle, Castro: Cuba not cashing US Guantanamo rent checks, Reuters (Aug. 17, 2007); Shiffer, Annual rent for Girmo Naval Base: $4,085, payable to Cuba, StarTribune (Oct. 10, 2014) (contains U.S. transmittal advices for rental checks for 2011, 2012 and 2013).

[5] The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties that entered into force on January 20, 1980, sets forth “the codification and progressive development of the law of treaties,” which are “international agreement[s] concluded between States in written form and governed by international law.” (Preamble & Art. 2(1)(a).) Its Article 62 recognizes a “fundamental change of circumstances” as a ground for “terminating or withdrawing from” a treaty and defines the conditions for such a ground. Cuba is a party to the treaty, and although the U.S. is not, the State Department has said that this Convention “is already generally recognized as the authoritative guide to current treaty law and practice.” (David Weissbrodt, Fionnuala Ni Aolain, Joan Fitzpatrick, Frank Newman, International Human Rights: Law, Policy, and Process at 127-28 (4th ed. LexisNexis 2009).)

[6] The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties notes that “the principles of free consent and of good faith and pacta sunt servanda are universally recognized” and its Article 26 under the heading “Pacta sunt servanda” states, “Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith.”

[7] The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties in Article 52 provides, “A treaty is void if its conclusion has been procured by the threat or use of force in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations.”

[8] The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides in Article 45 that a “State may no longer invoke [breach by the other party or fundamental change of circumstances] if, after becoming aware of the facts: (a) it shall have expressly agreed that the treaty is valid or remains in force or continues in operation . . .; or (b) it must by reason of its conduct be considered as having acquiesced in the validity of the treaty or its maintenance in force or in operation . . . .”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Issues Regarding Cuba and U.S. Extradition of the Other’s Fugitives

Another issue for U.S.-Cuba reconciliation is whether Cuba will extradite to the U.S. fugitives from U.S. criminal prosecution and whether the U.S. will do likewise for any fugitives from Cuban authorities who are in the U.S.

The U.S.-Cuba Extradition Treaty

This issue appears to be governed by the “Treaty between the United States and Cuba for the mutual extradition of fugitives from justice,” which entered into force on March 2, 1905. [1]

Under this treaty, as amended, each country shall grant extradition of persons covered by Article I for crimes covered by Article II, as amended and expanded by Articles I and II of the Additional Extradition Treaty between the parties, which entered into force on June 18, 1926 (44 Stat. 2392; TS 737).

The persons covered by Article I are “persons who, having been charged as principals, accomplices or accessories with or convicted of any crimes or offenses specified in the following article, and committed within the jurisdiction of one of the high contracting parties, shall seek an asylum or be found within the territories of the other: Provided that this shall only be done upon such evidence of criminality as, according to the laws of the place where the fugitive or person so charged shall be found, would justify his or her apprehension and commitment for trial if the crime or offense had been there committed.”  However, under Article V of the treaty, “Neither of the contracting parties shall be bound to deliver up its own citizens under the stipulations of this Treaty.”

The long list of crimes covered by Article II, as amended, includes the following: (1) “Murder, comprehending the offenses expressed in the Penal Code of Cuba as assassination, parricide, infanticide and poisoning; manslaughter, when voluntary; the attempt to commit any of these crimes.” (2) “Arson.” and (3) “Robbery, defined to be the act of feloniously and forcibly taking from the person of another money, goods, documents, or other property, by violence or putting him in fear; burglary; housebreaking and shopbreaking.”

Under Article VI of the original treaty, however, the requested country is not obligated to extradite someone when the offense is of “a political character.” The exact language of this provision states, “A fugitive criminal shall not be surrendered if the offense in respect of which his surrender is demanded be of a political character, or if it is proved that the requisition for his surrender has, in fact, been made with a view to try or punish him for an offense of a political character.” (Emphasis added.) [2]

The only limitation on this exception is in Article VI itself, which states, “An attempt against the life of the head of a foreign government or against that of any member of his family when such attempt comprises the act either of murder, assassination, or poisoning, shall not be considered a political offense or an act connected with such an offense.” (Emphasis added.)

Moreover, Article VI states, “If any question shall arise as to whether a case comes within the provisions of this article [VI], the decision of the authorities of the government on which the demand for surrender is made, or which may have granted the extradition shall be final. (emphasis added.) [3]

To have a better understanding of this treaty, it would be useful to see all documents regarding (a) the negotiation of the treaty in 1904-1905 and its amendment in 1926; and  (c) previous U.S. and Cuban requests for extradition.

U.S. International Extradition Practice

Being unfamiliar with extradition generally or with treaties on the subject specifically, I was surprised by the provisions about “political offenses” in the U.S.-Cuba extradition treaty, I wondered if they were sui generis and how they have been interpreted in practice.

Research indicated that they are not sui generis. This is at least the conclusion based upon a report for Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001 submitted to the Congress by the U.S. Department of State. It stated, in part, “A similarly widely adopted exception is that extradition is not required where the crime at issue is a “political offense” (a term which can cover treason, sedition or other crime against the state without the elements of any ordinary crime, or which under U.S. law can cover ordinary crimes committed incidental to or in furtherance of a violent political uprising such as a war, revolution or rebellion, especially when such crimes do not target civilian victims).”

That report to Congress also stated that U.S. extradition “treaties typically provide that extradition may be denied if the request is found to be politically motivated.  Some of our treaties provide that extradition may be denied if the request was made for the primary purpose of prosecuting or punishing the person sought on account of race, religion, nationality or political opinion.”

Research, however, did not disclose the rationale for such typical provisions although I could understand that a country making a request for extradition for a “political offense”  could not reasonably be expected to have an unbiased view on the legitimacy of its request while the requested country, if acting in good faith, could be expected to act more objectively and dispassionately. Nor have I uncovered sources explaining how such provisions have been interpreted and used in practice. I solicit comments that shed light on these issues.

Moreover, the U.S.-Cuba extradition treaty treaty by itself does not prohibit the requested country from granting a request for extradition that might be viewed as “political” or from reversing a prior determination by the requested country to reject a request on that ground. The requested country’s own laws, however, may prohibit such actions.

U.S. Fugitives in Cuba

According to U.S. Department of State annual reports purportedly justifying the designation of Cuba as a “State Sponsor of Terrorism,” there have been or still are over 70 individuals living in Cuba who are fugitives from criminal charges in U.S. relating to violent acts in the 1970’s purportedly committed to advance political causes. Pursuant to a 2005 Cuban government statement, however, these U.S. reports also say no additional U.S. fugitives have been permitted on the island and in a few instances Cuba has extradited such fugitives to the U.S.

However, a U.S. newspaper recently asserted, “The U.S. has no idea how many fugitives Cuba’s harboring,” And on January 23, 2015, U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (Rep., FL) and two other Republican Senators (David Vitter (LA) and Ted Cruz (TX)) asked the F.B.I. to submit a complete list of such fugitives with copies of their U.S. indictments.

In any event, one of the most notable U.S. fugitives still on the island is JoAnne Chesimard (a/k/a Assata Shakur), a political radical and former member of the Black Panther Party and the militant Black Liberation Army, who in 1979 broke out of a New Jersey prison where she was serving a life sentence for assault, armed robbery and aiding and abetting the murder of a New Jersey state trooper. After hiding in the New York area, she fled to Cuba in 1984, where she was granted political asylum that same year and has lived ever since. According to her U.S. attorney, she “has maintained from the time she was arrested that she was a victim of a counter intelligence program by the FBI and that she was stopped on the New Jersey turnpike as result of her being targeted by FBI.”

After the December 17, 2014, announcement of the U.S.-Cuba accord, New Jersey’s Governor, Chris Christie, and law enforcement officials expressed their desire for her extradition to the U.S.

Cuba, however, has rejected previous U.S. requests for her extradition on the ground that Cuba had determined she was being sought on “political” grounds and, therefore, had decided to grant her asylum. In addition, there are also some indications that Chesimard/Shakur has been granted Cuban citizenship, which would provide Cuba with another reason under the treaty to deny a U.S. request for her extradition. It would be useful to know the details of all prior U.S. requests for her extradition.

After the December 17th accord, Josefina Vidal said, “every nation has sovereign and legitimate rights to grant political asylum to people it considers to have been persecuted. … That’s a legitimate right. We’ve explained to the U.S. government in the past that there are some people living in Cuba to whom Cuba has legitimately granted political asylum.”  Presumably this statement includes Chesimard/Shakur.

Cuban Fugitives in U.S.

Less is known about Cuban fugitives in the U.S., but they could include Cubans who fled to the U.S. after the Revolution of 1959, especially those who allegedly took part in organizing the failed 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion.

At the top of this list probably is Luis Posada Carriles, the alleged mastermind behind the bombing of a Cuban airliner, who entered the US in 2005. in 2011, he was put on trial in El Paso, Texas, for allegedly lying to U.S. immigration authorities about how he got into the country and his alleged participation in terrorist attacks, but he was acquitted of those charges.

Recently Josefina Vidal said, “We’ve reminded the U.S. government that in its country they’ve given shelter to dozens and dozens of Cuban citizens. Some of them accused of horrible crimes, some accused of terrorism, murder and kidnapping, and in every case the U.S. government has decided to welcome them.”

Proposed Means for Resolving Extradition Issues

Here is my suggestion for resolving outstanding extradition issues.

First, by a certain date the countries should exchange complete lists of suspected fugitives in the other country with requests for extradition.

Second, by another certain date the countries should exchange responses to the lists of suspected fugitives indicating whether they are alive and in the country and whether they will be extradited and if not, why not. In addition, these documents should include names of other fugitives in their countries that were not on the original lists.

Third, by another date certain, the countries should exchange statements indicating whether they object to any refusals to extradite and why.

Fourth, by another date certain, the countries should exchange responses to objections to refusals to extradite with reasons why they are still pursing the requests.

Fifth, on a date certain the countries should meet to determine whether they can resolve  any disputes over refusals to extradite.

Sixth, by a date certain, the countries would submit any remaining disputes over extradition to an arbitration panel of one or three arbitrators at the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague in the Netherlands for an award that the countries, in advance, agree to implement and enforce.

===================================================

[1] Recently there have been frequent assertions in the press that there is no extradition treaty between the two countries. And after December17th, Josefina Vidal, the Cuban official in charge of the current negotiations with the U.S., asserted, “There’s no extradition treaty in effect between Cuba and the U.S.” Those statements seem erroneous. Such a treaty has never been revoked and is still on the U.S. list of extradition treaties in force. However, there are some reports that after the Cuban Revolution of 1959, the U.S. ceased to honor the treaty.

[2] The Spanish language version of this sentence does not appear to be significantly different. It states:  “No será entregado el criminal fugitivo si el delito con respecto al cual se solicita su entrega es de carácter político, ó si se preuba que la reclamación de su entrega se ha formulado en realidad con el objecto de enjuiciarlo ó castigarlo por un delito de carácter polìtico.” However, the preamble to the 1926 Additional Extradition Treaty says the original treaty was signed on April 6, 1904, and the Protocol amending the Spanish text of that treaty was signed on December 6, 1904.  I have not been able to find that Protocol, but would like to know whether it concerns this sentence or the other sentence in Article VI mentioned above.

[3] The Spanish language version of this sentence does not appear to be significantly different. It states, “Cuando surgiere alguna duda respecto á si son aplicables á un caso dado las disposícíones de este artículo, lo que resolvieren las Autoridades del Govierno á quien se pidiere la entrega ó que hubiese accedido  á la extradición, será definitivo.”

[4] Report on International Extradition Submitted to the Congress Pursuant to Section 211 of the Admiral James W. Nance and Meg Donovan Foreign Relations Reauthorization Act, Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001 (Public Law 106-113).

Cuba’s Perspective on This Week’s U.S.-Cuba Diplomatic Meetings in Havana

As mentioned in another post, the U.S. and Cuba will hold diplomatic meetings in Havana on January 21 and 22, 2014.

According to Granma, Cuba’s official and only newspaper, an unnamed source at Cuba’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that Cuba “is going to these meetings with the constructive spirit to sustain a respectful dialogue, based on sovereign equality and reciprocity, without undermining national independence and self-determination of the Cuban people.”

“We should not pretend that everything is solved in one meeting,” the source said. “Normalization is a much longer and complex process where you have to address issues of interest to both parties.”

Migration Issues

On January 21st, the focus will be migration, and the unnamed source said Cuba will report on “the progress of the measures taken in January 2013 to update the Cuban immigration policy and its impact on the flow of people between the two countries,” and the two countries will discuss ways to confront “illegal immigration, smuggling and document fraud.”

In addition, Cuba will express “its deep concern at the continuing [U.S.] policy of ‘wet foot/dry foot’ and the Cuban Adjustment Act, which is the main stimulus to illegal emigration.” Cuba also will complain about the U.S. policy “to grant parole [to] Cuban professionals and health technicians to abandon their mission in third countries.”

Normalization Issues

On January 22nd the focus will be the many issues surrounding the December 17th decision of the two countries to re-establish diplomatic relations. As previously mentioned, Assistant Secretary of State Roberta Jacobson will lead the U.S. delegation at this session.[1]

The unnamed Cuban source said there would be discussion about certain levels of existing coordination in dealing with illegal immigration, including border troops and the coastguard; drug interdiction; oil spills; and search and rescue in case of air and maritime accidents. They also “are beginning to talk about monitoring earthquakes.”

Cuba will “reiterate the proposal made last year by U.S. government to hold a respectful dialogue on the basis of reciprocity with regard to the exercise of human rights.” The source promised “a dialogue on a reciprocal basis and on an equal footing” regarding human rights. Cuba has “legitimate concerns about the exercise of human rights in the [U.S.],” including controversies over police shootings and killings of black men in Ferguson Missouri and New York City, which are “situations that do not happen in [Cuba].” The source says his country welcomes the U.S. to meet “with the recognized organizations that make up a vibrant civil society in Cuba: students, women, farmers, professionals, disabled, unions, among others.” [2]

According to this source, Cuba will emphasize “the restoration of diplomatic relations and the opening of embassies in both capitals should be based on the principles of international law enshrined in the United Nations Charter and the Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic Relations and Consular Relations.”

“Compliance with these documents, to which both countries are signatories, means mutual respect for political and economic system of each country and to avoid any interference in the internal affairs of our nations. These principles are essentially sovereign equality, the settlement of disputes by peaceful means, refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, as well as equal rights, self-determination of peoples and non-intervention in matters which are domestic jurisdiction of states.”

In this context, Cuba will raise the following issues:

  • Solving the inability of the Cuban Interests Section in Washington, D.C. to obtain banking services;
  • Ending the U.S. designation of Cuba as a “State Sponsor or Terrorism;”
  • Ending the U.S. blockade [or embargo] of Cuba and providing Cuba with “compensation for damages for a policy that has been in place for over 50 years.” (At the U.N. General Assembly meeting in October 2014, Cuba claimed that the damages were $1.1 trillion.)

These issues, the source admitted, obviously cannot be resolved at the one-day meeting this week.

Reactions

I agree that certain U.S. laws relating to Cubans’ ability to gain legal immigration status in the U.S. need to be changed if there is to be full normalization and reconciliation. This includes the so-called “wet foot/dry foot” policy whereby a Cuban who is on U.S. land is entitled to such legal status, but if a Cuban is apprehended by U.S. authorities on the high seas, he is not so entitled. So too the U.S. program for granting immigration parole to Cuban professional medical personnel needs to be ended, as recommended by a New York Times editorial and by this blogger last November. (Whether these changes may be done by the President’s executive order or whether it takes congressional action has not been investigated by this blogger.)

The U.S. repeatedly has insisted that issues of Cuban human rights and civil society need to be addressed, and the Cuban Foreign Ministry spokesperson said his country was prepared to do that so long as Cuba’s concerns about human rights in the U.S. are addressed. I agree that there should be mutuality in any such discussion.

I also agree that the restoration of normal diplomatic relations needs to be based on what should be the following noncontroversial principles of the U.N. Charter and the Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic and Consular Relations:

  • The U.N. Charter provides that it is “based on the principle of sovereign equality of all its members” (Art. 2(1)), that “[a]ll Members shall settle their disputes by peaceful means” (Art. 2(3)) and that “[a]ll Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the [U.N.]” (Art. 2(4)).
  • The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations provides that “The establishment of diplomatic relations between States, and of permanent diplomatic missions, takes place by mutual consent” (Art. 2) and sets forth many details on the agreed-upon ways of implementing such relations. There are 190 states that are parties to this treaty, including Cuba and the U.S.
  • Similarly the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations says “The establishment of consular relations between States takes place by mutual consent” (Art. 2(1)) and provides many details on the agreed-upon ways of implementing such relations. There are 177 parties to this treaty, including Cuba and the U.S.

Other points of agreement with the Cuban spokesperson are enabling the Cuban Interests Section in Washington, D.C. to obtain banking services in the U.S.; ending the U.S. designation of Cuba as a “State Sponsor of Terrorism;”[3] and ending the U.S. embargo of Cuba.[4] As discussed in an earlier post, the U.S. already has started the process under U.S. law for rescinding the unjustified “State Sponsor of Terrorism” designation, and I anticipate that this summer there will be such a rescission. President Obama already has decided that the embargo should end, but that requires congressional action, and the process for doing just that has commenced and will not be politically easy to accomplish

The issue of compensation, if any, for Cuba for its alleged damages of $1.1 trillion from the embargo, however, is another matter.[5] This is but one of several damage claims that need to be resolved. Others include U.S. compensation to Cuba for the U.S. use of Guantanamo Bay for at least the last 56 years; [6] Cuba’s compensating U.S. interests for expropriation of their property after 1959; and Cuba’s paying a December 1997 default judgment by a U.S. district court for $197 million (plus interest) for the deaths of three of the four pilots in the February 1966 Cuban shooting down of a private “Brothers to the Rescue” plane over international waters.

One way to resolve these claims would be an agreement by the two countries to submit all of these disputes to the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague in the Netherlands, which was established by a multilateral treaty, to which both Cuba and the U.S. are parties. Other ways would be the two countries creating a special claims commission to hear and resolve all of these claims or agreeing to settle all or some of the claims.

Resolving these competing claims, however, has to recognize the economic reality, in my judgment, that Cuba does not have the financial resources to pay any large amount of money. Therefore, compensating U.S. interests for expropriation of their property in Cuba, as I see it, would have to come out of any U.S. compensation of Cuba for its claims.

What do all of these points mean for the timing of full restoration of diplomatic relations? Cuba seems to be saying that ending the embargo and the “State Sponsor of Terrorism” designation have to happen first before restoring full diplomatic relations. In the best of all possible worlds from the U.S. perspective that would be sometime this summer. An agreement on how to resolve the damage claims would be another important accomplishment that should, in my judgment, lead to the restoration of diplomatic relations and perhaps that could happen this year, but the actual resolution of the damage claims would take several years to happen absent a settlement of the claims, which seems unlikely.

In the meantime, the parties could and should agree to a process for the restoring of diplomatic relations.

======================================================================

[1] Today Senator Robert Menendez (Dem., NJ), a Cuban-American and the Ranking Member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, sent a letter to Jacobson, saying “it is imperative” that she demand “unconditional freedom of the [previously released] 53 political prisoners and demand an end to politically motivated arrests of peaceful democracy and human rights activists.” (Emphasis added.) Menendez also urged pressing “Cuba on a commitment to permit visits to all prisons and prisoners by the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross and to begin to demand action on fugitives from U.S. justice and American citizen compensation claims for property nationalized by the Cuban government in past decades.” The U.S., according to Menendez, “must prioritize the interests of American citizens and businesses that have suffered at the hands of the Castro regime before providing additional economic and political concessions to a government that remains hostile to U.S. interests.”

[2] The Washington Post reports that on Friday Jacobson will host a breakfast meeting with Cuban civil society representatives, human rights activists and political dissidents before she returns to Washington.

[3] Prior posts have articulated the statutory process for rescission and why the Designation should be rescinded.

[4] Prior posts have stated why the embargo should be ended, a conclusion also endorsed by New York Times editorial in October 2014.

[5] From my experience as a litigator of business disputes, I anticipate that any such damage claim would be subjected to rigorous examination and rebuttal by the U.S., including the undoubted U.S. argument that all or some of the alleged damages were not caused by the embargo, but rather by Cuban economic ineptitude. Of course, the U.S. would probably argue that the major premise of Cuba’s claim—the illegality of the embargo—is invalid despite the U.N. General Assembly’s condemning the embargo by overwhelming margins for 23 consecutive years. (I have not examined the merits of this legal issue.)

[6] Cuba’s original February 23, 1903, and July 2, 1903, lease of Guantanamo Bay to the U.S. for a naval coaling station called for annual rent of $2,000 in gold coin, but this was changed to $4,085 in U.S. Dollars (the gold equivalent at the time) in a treaty of May 29, 1934. After the Cuban Revolution’s assuming power on January 1, 1959, the Cuban Government has refused to cash all of the U.S. annual checks for that amount except for one that was cashed by mistake. Although the fair market value of the lease for the last 56 years has not been determined, there could be no legitimate argument that it is not substantially in excess of $4,085. Other potential issues are (a) whether the original lease of 1903 and the 1934 amendment are subject to a claim that they are invalid because of alleged duress or undue influence by the U.S. when Cuba was a de facto U.S. protectorate; (b) whether the lease should be terminated with Cuba paying for the improvements made by the U.S.; or (c) whether there should be a new lease of this land to the U.S. under totally different conditions.

Andrew Carnegie’s Quest for Peace

Andrew Carnegie
Andrew Carnegie

 

Andrew Carnegie (November 25, 1835 – August 11, 1919) was a Scottish-American industrialist who led the enormous expansion of the American steel industry in the late 19th century.[1] He also was one of the highest profile philanthropist of his era who had given away almost 90 percent of his large fortune to charities and foundations by the time of his death.[2]

 

Carnegie also was a pacifist at heart, and starting in 1903 devoted significant time and money to promoting peaceful resolution of international disputes, especially by arbitration pursuant to treaties.

Hague Peace Palace
Hague             Peace Palace

He helped to create the Palace of Peace at the Hague in the Netherlands with his 1903 formation of a Dutch foundation and his funding of the Palace’s construction that was completed in 1913. It initially was the site for the Permanent Court of Arbitration, which was established in 1899 and which now is an intergovernmental organization with 115 member states that provides dispute-resolution services for various combinations of states, state entities, intergovernmental organizations, and private parties.[3] From 1922 to 1946 it also was the site for the Permanent Court of International Justice of the League of Nations and since 1946 the International Court of Justice, the principal judicial organ of the United Nations.

Carnegie also funded the construction of the headquarters building for the Pan-American Union (later the main building for the Organization of American States) in Washington, D.C. and the building for the Central American Court of Justice in Costa Rica.

In 1910 he funded the establishment of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, whose trustees were charged to use the fund to “hasten the abolition of international war, the foulest blot upon our civilization.” The Endowment is still operating today with its headquarters in Washington, D.C. Now it describes itself as “a unique global network of policy research centers in Russia, China, Europe, the Middle East, and the [U.S.]. Our mission . . . is to advance the cause of peace through analysis and development of fresh policy ideas and direct engagement and collaboration with decision makers in government, business, and civil society. Working together, our centers bring the inestimable benefit of multiple national viewpoints to bilateral, regional, and global issues.”

Carnegie Hall
Carnegie Hall

Another activity Carnegie organized to promote peace was the April 1907 National Arbitration and Peace Congress at Carnegie Hall in New York City. The Hall, as its name suggests, was another Carnegie-financed project that opened in 1891 in Midtown Manhattan.[4]

The Congress with over 1,200 registered delegates was described as the “greatest gathering ever held in advocacy for the abolition of war as a means of settling national disputes.”

Carnegie himself, of course, gave a major speech at the Congress that in retrospect can be seen as an outline of the United Nations created after World War II. Carnegie said, “[W]e are met to urge the speedy removal of the foulest stain that remains to disgrace humanity, since slavery was abolished—the killing of man by man in battle as a mode of settling international disputes.” He also expressed his support for “the League of Peace idea—the formation of an International Police, never for aggression, always for protection to the peace of the civilized world. . . . “ States should agree “that no nation shall be permitted to disturb the peace.” Before use of the international police, there should be a proclamation of “non-intercourse [“sanctions” in our parlance] with the offending nation.”

President Theodore Roosevelt did not attend the Congress, but sent a letter that embraced its purpose. It said, “[I]t is our bounden duty to work for peace, yet it is even more our duty to work for righteousness and justice.” Moreover, the President stated,“[T]here can be at this time a very large increase in the classes of cases which [could ] . . .be arbitrated, and . . .provision can be made for greater facility and certainty of arbitration. I hope to see adopted a general arbitration treaty.” Roosevelt added that  the Hague court [of Arbitration] should be greatly increased in power and permanency.”

On the other hand, Roosevelt cautioned the delegates to not insist “upon the impossible [and thereby] put off the day when the possible can be accomplished.” “[G]eneral disarmament would do harm and not good if it left the civilized and peace-loving peoples . . . unable to check the other peoples who have no such standards.” Indeed, according to the President, “[T]here are few more mischievous things than the custom of uttering or applauding sentiments which represent mere oratory, and which are not, and cannot be, and have not been, translated from words into deeds.”

The Congress adopted resolutions endorsing international peace and international law; calling for permanency for the Hague Court of Arbitration open to all nations; the adoption of a general international arbitration treaty; the creation of a committee to investigate international disputes and attempt to mediate them before the parties resort to war; the establishment of the neutrality of personal property at sea; and limitations on armaments. [5]

Baron de Constant de Rebecque & Andrew Carnegie
Baron de Constant de Rebecque &     Andrew Carnegie

At the end of the Congress Carnegie was presented with the French Cross of the Legion of Honor by France’s Baron de Constant de Rebecque (nee Paul Henri Benjamin Balluet), a member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration and the 1909 winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. The Baron praised Carnegie for “his interest and energy in behalf of the peace movement” and for being “a good citizen of the whole world.”

According to the New York Times, Europeans were not interested in, or impressed by, this Congress. First, they did not have “a large number of peace propagandists.” Instead their prevailing view was that “universal, permanent peace is a long way off” and that the major issue was the practical one of adopting an agreement on the manner in which wars should be conducted. Second, many Europeans believe that U.S. policies regarding the Western Hemisphere threaten world peace, especially with respect to Germany’s interests in that part of the world. Indeed, The Times of London called Carnegie “an ardent but ill-informed amateur” and had “rushed in where sagacious statesmen fear to tread.” Another European critic said Carnegie should “endow a chair of contemporary history for his own instruction.”

Carnegie Mansion
Carnegie Mansion

Preceding the Congress, Carnegie hosted a large dinner at his beautiful mansion at Fifth Avenue and 91st Street in New York City to celebrate industrial peace in the U.S. and the upcoming Congress. In attendance were 100 “sons of toil” or workers’ representatives; prominent merchants; manufacturers’ executives; bankers; leaders of universities and other educational institutions; church leaders; publishers and editors; lawyers; and railroad executives, including William C. Brown, then Senior Vice President of the New York Central Railroad (and my maternal great-great uncle).[6]

===============================================

[1] This post is based in substantial part on Chapter XXIII (“The Quest for Peace, 1901-1910”) in Joseph F. Wall’s Andrew Carnegie (Oxford Univ. Press 1970), which won the 1971 Bancroft Prize for best book about history of the Americas (or diplomacy). Professor Wall was a revered History Professor at my alma mater, Grinnell College, and I was fortunate to have known him and learned from him.

[2] One of Carnegie’s philanthropic endeavors was funding the establishment of public libraries throughout the U.S. and other countries. My mother was the Librarian at the Carnegie Library in Perry, Iowa, and I studied at Grinnell College’s Carnegie Library during my first two student years.

[3] I have had two “contacts” with the Permanent Court of Arbitration. First, a Minnesota company had suggested arbitration of its claim against my client, an Asian manufacturer, under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. Because my client and I did not believe that there was a valid arbitration clause and the claimant had not appointed the first arbitrator, we did not appoint a second arbitrator and then were surprised to receive a letter from the Permanent Court designating an appointing authority to appoint a second arbitrator. There eventually was a three-person arbitration panel that issued an award in favor of my client. Second, I have researched the life and career of Edward Burnham Burling, a fellow Grinnell alumnus (Class of 1890), whose gift funded the College’s library (the Burling Library) that replaced its Carnegie Library. Burling was the co-founder of the eminent Washington, D.C. law firm of Covington & Burling and represented the Kingdom of Norway against the U.S. over expropriation of shipping contracts during World War I with the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 1922 issuing an award in favor of Norway. Writing blog posts about Burling and the Norway case are on my list of future posts.

[4] This account of the Congress is based upon Andrew Carnegie’s Plea for Peace, N. Y. Times (April 7, 1907); Stead Recommends a Peace Pilgrimage, N. Y. Times (April 8, 1907); Frenchmen Arrive for Peace Congress, N. Y. Times (April 9, 1907); Prelude to Peace Congress To-Night, N. Y. Times (April 14, 1907); Women’s Part in Peace, N. Y. Times (April 14, 1907); War Talk Opens Peace Congress, N. Y. Times (April 15, 1907); The Afternoon Session, N. Y. times (April 16, 1907); Editorial, Peace on Earth, N. Y. Times (April 16, 1907); Peace Conference Not All Harmony, N. Y. Times (April 17, 1907); Honor Carnegie Friend of Peace, N. Y. Times (April 17, 1907); Editorial, Peace Congress Resolutions, N. Y. Times (April 18, 1907); Editorial, Peace Congress Sequels, N. Y. Times (April 21, 1907); Europe Is Amused at Peace Congress, N. Y. Times (April 21, 1907); Proceedings of the National Arbitration and Peace Congress, New York, April 14th to 17th, 1907 (1907).

[5] Roosevelt became a hero for Carnegie, but Roosevelt never liked Carnegie.

[6] Unique Party Carnegie Host, N. Y. Times (April 6, 1907). About one week before this special dinner, Carnegie, after a luncheon meeting with President Roosevelt at the White House, made a statement supporting the President’s policies regarding the railroads. The Carnegie Mansion now is the home for the Cooper Hewitt, Smithsonian Design Museum.