Talk:Cuba–United States relations

Untitled
I've taken the page up to recent times. Which I consider the 90's 00's etc. This area needs some work. I believe the article should act as a gateway to the numerous individual articles on various points, so very brief mentions of incidents covered elsewhere would suffice. Editors get editing! --Zleitzen 22:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

In the absence of anymore work on this article - I'll make a list of the various pages which should be linked and mentioned in the recent relations area;


 * Guantanamo Bay Naval Base
 * Elián González
 * Brothers to the Rescue
 * Wet Feet/Dry Feet Policy
 * James Cason
 * Caleb McCarry
 * Michael E. Parmly

Cuba - United states issues
No mention of the ummm 'forced expulsion' or criminals by Fidel Castro, on boats/rafts aimed at Florida? Don't really know much about this issue, other than the beginning of scarface. So at least, a small mention should be made in here?
 * For that, see Mariel boatlift. Chris 02:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment about citing Yahoo and other news sites
Please stop citing Yahoo and other news sites. It is junk. It is better to take screen shoots of the news or use other type of self-archiving, since all the referred news are no longer available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.170.121.122 (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

that one section
it used un-reliable sources and speculation. I challenge the factual accuracy of the section. You can't just use any site as a source, and those Yahoo links are certainly not good sources (besides the fact that they are not accessible). You can't source a section on here-say from the news and un-reliable sources... And it is quite certainly a conspiracy theory. Contralya 20:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. Moorrests (talk) 19:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

First Sentence
"Cuba and the United States of America have had interest in one another since well before either of their independence movements." reads funny to me. The words "had interest in one another" makes it seem like they are people interested in dating. Is there some significance to this wording? or can it be changed?Dwayne Reed (talk) 05:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC) "Cuba and the United States of America have been partners since well before either of ther independance movements

Invasion of Grenada
Hi guys, is there any mention of 1983 Invasion of Grenada in this article? U.S. and Cuban forces physically came to blows in combat, killing each other and taking prisoners etc. I don't know much about this subject but would there be any objections to it being added? Ryan 4314  (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

propaganda is the wrong word here
"In 1961 Cuba resisted an armed invasion by about 1,500 CIA trained Cuban exiles at the Bay of Pigs.[20] President John F. Kennedy's complete assumption of responsibility for the venture, which provoked a popular reaction against the invaders, proved to be a further propaganda boost for the Cuban government."

Eisenhower really did start training these people to overthrow the government. America was in the end fully responsible. Whether this was justified or not, and allthough it is true that fidel castro uses propaganda to achieve his goals, this is truly based on fact. Unless there is some way he twisted the information, this should not be called propaganda, and in my opinion, calling this propaganda is propaganda itself.--CoincidentalBystander (talk) 05:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that "propaganda" is a fairly innocuous term. To me it does not mean that statements are false, or even twisted intentionally. It means that the the statement is made to advance one side of an argument, without any attempt to give a balanced view, because the other side is completely unreasonable. One cannot reason with them, only reckon with them. Or something like that ( Martin | talk • contribs 01:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC))

Succession Issues
Can you update the section "Succession Issues". Fidel is no longer in power and Raul is already in charge, so the strategy outlined by the CAFC to prevent a succession from Fidel to Raul is no longer valid.68.4.61.237 (t''alk) 22:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian
 * It seems to me that the section heading mischaracterizes the section. The heading was added in this edit, but the content of the section thus created addresses more than presidential succession. After looking at the wikilinked Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba article, which says that the mission of the commission was to report to the US president "with recommendations on developing a comprehensive program to: (1) 'Bring about a peaceful, near-term end to the dictatorship;', (2) 'Establish democratic institutions, ...'", I've boldly changed the header to U.S. vision for transition to democracy. I've also moved the current section header and associated material down a few paragraphs, changed it to read Presidential succession, and added a paragraph taken from the lede of the 2006–2008 Cuban transfer of presidential duties article. Feel free to improve on these changes. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

the statements about Fidel choosing not to stand for "reelection" and his brother's "election to the presidency are misleading. the fact is that the elections in Cuba are controlled entirely by the Communist party and do not allow free competition, or in fact any competition. someone unaware of this fact would be seriously misled by the statements mentioned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.220.166 (talk) 07:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

"knowingly traffics ..."
This edit attracted my attention. The question should not have been asked as it was, but a glance at the phrase in question ("... can be subjected to litigation ...", Huh? Is that quoted accurately?) led me to look further. The link to the cited supporting source didn't work for me, but I found this. Section 302 on page 31 of that says, in part, "[any person who] traffics in property which was confiscated by the Cuban Government on or after January 1, 1959, shall be liable to any United States national who owns the claim to such property for money damages in an amount equal to the sum of ...", which doesn't resemble the purported direct quote in the article very closely at all. I've redone the purported direct quote as a paraphrase, and reworded it. I left the word "knowingly" in because the definition of TRAFFICS in the source specifies "knowingly and intentionally". Also, I left the assertion about exclusion from U.S. entry (see Title IV in the source). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Cuban American Treaty
The text of the paragraph contains assertions that while common, are less than informative, and (I think) better handled in the full article. I am not going to modify the article here now, but want to paste the current text, with a few comments;

''It is leased to the US and only mutual agreement[citation needed] or US abandonment of the area can terminate the lease.

The text of the two 1903 documents do refer to the time period of the lease, but only in the following limited ways:
 * in the February 1903 document
 * line 2 (vague) "subject to terms to be agreed upon by the two ..."
 * ARTICLE I "for the time required for the purposes of coaling and naval stations"
 * ARTICLE III "during the period of the occupation by the United States"
 * in the July 1903 document
 * ARTICLE I "as long as the former shall occupy and use said areas"

and that is all there is in the 1903 documents about it. Hardly much of anything. Modification of an agreement, by mutual consent, hardly needs to be stated. If two parties agree to change an agreement that they have, who is going to stop them, and why?

So you can see that the original documents do have language to support the statements in the paragraph as to 1) mutual consent, and 2) abandonment, and these two mechanisms are repeated in the 1934 Treaty of Relations explicitly. However, a lease is a contract, and contracts can be terminated for other reasons: material or anticipatory breach, and a lawyer could probably specify in more detail what actions fall into those categories. However it should be self-evident that both parties need to, at least, abide by the terms of the lease for it to be considered valid, in force, and legally binding.

and the other sentence I am not happy with is

''The Cuban government strongly denounces the treaty on grounds[citation needed] that it violates article 52 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, titled "Coercion of a State by the threat or use of force". However, Article 4, titled "Non-retroactivity of the present Convention" of the same document states that Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties shall not be retroactively applied to any treaties made before itself.[60]''

I do not believe it is accurate (NPOV) to leave the impression that the Cuban government objects to the lease -only- on the basis of the Vienna Convention, which the article then goes on to dismiss as an invalid objection. The issue of duress is ... murky and problematic. But the Magna Carta was signed under duress, yet people cite it. ( Martin | talk • contribs 06:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC))

Extraneous f
There is an extraneous 'f' in the first section, but when I tried to remove it, something happened and the remaining text font size grew and it appeared to be in a box. So I reverted it. Someone more knowledgeable than me needs to fix it, because all I did was remove one character... or so I thought, anyway. 173.21.152.119 (talk) 00:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed the extraneous 'f'. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The (unconsciously) chosen narrative/ point of view seems/ is biased
The article generally takes the unreflected US narrative. E.g. there is no point in reality that supports point 3 and says "The Cuban people have to make a transition to a sort/ style of democracy which is approved by the U.S."

On the other hand the hundreds of assasination attempts and other conducted operations by the CIA are left out. Even if this is not easy to be neutrally supported - because media reports also follow an agenda - there can be a reference of these "to be proven" circumstances.

178.7.135.187 (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * AFICS, the article does not assert that "The Cuban people have to make a transition to a sort/ style of democracy which is approved by the U.S.". The U.S. vision for transition to democracy describes what it asserts to be that vision, but does not make a value judgement about it and does not assert that the Cuban people must accept it.


 * The article does mention and does link to the Cuban Project article, which contains info that you complain about being left out. Perhaps you believe that this should be given more summary style weight here. If so, this is the place to discuss that.


 * You raise a good point about "(unconsciously) chosen narrative". Perhaps this article ought to have a Cuban vision section to balance the U.S. vision section. That, of course, would require that one or more editors produce it. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Cuban Thaw
This seems unnecessary due to WP:RECENTISM. It can fit in the main article. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagree -- there is no scale of time across which the events which have already transpired are not already an independently substantial historical event. Remember that we have only yet seen one specific set of results, but the whole story of how we got from there to here is only now being let out in dribs and drabs. Remember as well, this is not simply between the US and Cuba, as the Vatican is involved as well. No reason resounds to rush to restrict a still-growing body of reporting. and we haven't event covered the barbs traded between Marco Rubio and Rand Paul.... DeistCosmos (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge if in ten years we find this is not a good summary content fork from this main article, we can rearrange then. Lacking the wisdom of age, this is as good of split as any. VQuakr (talk) 07:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose merge. Expand This is certainly a notable enough world event to warrant its own article. It should be fleshed out more, though. Juneau Mike (talk) 22:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep spinoff article per WP:NOTABILITY standards. Clearly a major event in relations between Cuba and the United States that will continue to develop in its own right. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

cashed one check
The text change from "accepted no checks" to "cashed one check". see here: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN17200921 logged on ( Martin | talk • contribs 01:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC))
 * Why are you putting this on the talk page? Add the citation. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

map
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cuba_USA_Locator_2.svg

why there's a ground zero sea in afghanistan's territory? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.25.148.64 (talk) 16:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * incomprehensible comment Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I believe what the user was trying to ask, is "On this map, why is Afghanistan the same color as water?" Which is a pretty fair question. Why does Afghanistan not exist on the map? You have the Black Sea, the Caspian Sea, and the Afghan Sea menaechmi (talk) 16:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ menaechmi (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Quote about Batista
There's a quote at the end of the section about US-Cuban relations that appears to be incorrect. The article reads: "...led U.S. State Department adviser William Wieland to lament that "I know Batista is considered by many as a son of a bitch... but American interests come first... at least he was our son of a bitch." I'm reasonably sure that phrase was originally said by FDR in regards to Somoza of Nicaragua. Has anyone verified that Wieland did say this in regards to Batista? Ivygibson96 (talk) 13:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

US-Cuba relations
Hello! I think it would be great to update the section about US-Cuba relations with what is currently happening under the Trump administration. The article I have posted below illustrates some of the negative impact of the current administration.

Kassandeli (talk) 01:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Cuba–United States relations
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Cuba–United States relations's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Ducassi": From Human rights in Cuba:  From Jesús Permuy:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Incorporating Biden administration sources
I think we need to add some text from some of these sources about relations during the Biden administration into the article. For more search Google News: "United States" "Biden" "Cuba" -wikipedia from Jan 1, 2021 to Today. (search URL) –– F ORMAL D UDE ( talk ) 04:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Statement by President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. on Continuing Crackdown in Cuba The White House
 * 2) How should Joe Biden respond to the Cuban uprising?. Economist
 * 3) ‘Communism is a failed system.’ In Florida, Democrats promote Biden’s stance on Cuba. Miami Herald
 * 4) Loud protest at White House aims to push Biden into taking action against Cuba NY Post
 * 5) Protesters Clash in Front of White House Over Cuba Crisis, Demand Biden Increase Pressure Newsweek
 * 6) Cuban Americans dissatisfied by Biden sanctions announcement Washington Examiner
 * 7) Biden's Cuba Conundrum Newsweek
 * 8) Biden orders review of remittances to Cuba CNN
 * 9) ‘Just the beginning’: US imposes new sanctions on Cuba Al Jezeera
 * 10) Biden administration imposes sanctions on Cuban officials following attacks on protesters Washington Post
 * I added a subsection. See diff. –– F ORMAL D UDE ( talk ) 05:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)