The Triangular Relationship: Harper—the US—Cuba
One of the major factors that influences Canada’s approach to Cuba is the relationship between the Harper government and that of the various US administrations. Since taking office in 2006 the two Conservative administrations of Stephen Harper have coexisted with two US Administrations, the last years of the Republican George W. Bush and the whole cycle of the Democrat Barack Obama. Some Canadian scholars observe a greater ideological and political affinity between the Harper government with Bush’s policies than with those of Obama.
It is well-known that US foreign policy during the Bush years was very assertive in consolidating American hegemony at the world stage. This approach is exemplified in the Bush doctrine, which, according to Charles Krauthammer, was based on unilateralism, the war on terror, the doctrine of pre-emptive war and the American mission to spread democracy throughout the world. Influenced by this context, the US policy towards Cuba during that period was particularly hostile, with the widening and deepening of the policy of pressures. As a matter of fact, during the years of the younger Bush’s administration, US-Cuba relations experienced one of its worst periods. Interestingly, Harper’s Cuba policy during his first three years that coincided with his Republican counterpart (2006-2008) and the beginning of the Obama’s mandate (2009) was characterized by an unusual anti-Cuban rhetoric that seemed
The Cuban Revolution was touchy topic for the United States and Cuba. America’s alienation of Cuba didn’t help when communism from the USSR was brewing over the revolution. When the revolution gained Castro as its leader, the worry and hatred from the United States was unbearable, especially when the Soviet Union landed in Cuba to interest Castro in its aid. The US’s fear of communism, Fidel Castro, and aid from the Soviet Union was significant because it changed the US’s political role in Cuba during the Cuban Revolution.
After it became officially globally acknowledged that Cuba was in fact a communist state and was being led through a dictatorship run by Castro, it did not take long before powerful enemies and essential allies were formed. The act of seizing all foreign land with none or very little compensation was received with great hostility amongst those who lost in their property through this process, and probably the reaction that had the biggest impact on Cuba’s economy was that of the US. Castro’s communistic policies did not of course help calm this resentment and also took part in leading to the establishment of trade embargos with Cuba from the US. This meant that Cuba would now lose a very valuable buyer of their precious sugar, [5] but they did however gain another one, a powerful nation that shared quite similar Marxist ideals and were quick to form an alliance with the Cubans, the USSR.
In 1959, Cubareceived 74 percent of its imports from the US, and the US received 65 percentof Cuba’s exports. On February 3, 1962, the United States imposed a fulltrade embargo on Cuba, completely ending any type of trade between the twocountries. This embargo remains in effect today, more than four decades later,and has grown ! to be a huge center of debate and controversy (DeVarona 8).Opponents to the embargo argue that the embargo does nothing more than hurt theCuban people, while proponents argue that the embargo places pressure on Castroto repair Cuba’s mismanaged and corrupt government. Both the supportersand the opponents of this embargo have strong arguments and evidence to supportthese
During the Cold War, relations between Cuba and the United States were icy. Cuba was allied with the USSR, America’s enemy, and was well within their sphere of influence. With events like the failed Bay of Pigs invasion and the Cuban Missile Crisis happening on their soil, Cuba was at the center of the Cold War. Between ideological differences and their alliance with Russia, Cuba became an enemy of America as well. It took the efforts of ten American presidents, six Popes, and countless other actors, but Cuba and America are finally in the process of normalizing relations. There is still work to be done, but the path is clear and the time is right. However, one cannot simply ignore the last fifty years. In that time, millions of lives were affected by the lack of social, economic, and political ties between the U.S. and Cuba. In this paper, I will analyze the last fifty years of U.S. - Cuban relations by looking at the involved actors, their means, and their values and interests through the lenses of two paradigms, realism and constructivism.
In the article, “Why Do We Still Have an Embargo of Cuba?” Patrick Haney explores the history of the embargo and the different factors which have maintained and tightened its restrictions over the past fifty years. The embargo consists of a ban on trade and commercial activity, a ban on travel, a policy on how Cuban exiles can enter the U.S., and media broadcasting to the island. These once-executive orders now codified into law by the Helms-Burton Act, have become a politically charged topic which wins and loses elections, spawned influential interest groups, and powerful political action committees.
Before the Spanish the US had no political reasons of interest to become engaged in conflict within the Caribbean region. To draw attention to their campaigns, US politicians, like Albert J. Beveridge, began to declare that it was America’s God given right to go to Cuba and take control; although this was not the
When Fidel Castro took over Cuba by means of a revolution, he quickly established his government as the first openly Communist government in the western hemisphere. He petitioned the Soviet Union for aid, which was cheerfully given him. These events went against our current policies, as well as the Monroe Doctrine, which established us as the police force of the western hemisphere. Ninety miles away from the greatest bastion of Capitalism was now residing its greatest foe. This tense situation was brought to a boiling point by the arrival of
The United States is known for being one of the greatest and strongest countries in the world looking at past events and in this day and age. What might strike some people as shocking is that the U.S. would not be as strong without close ties with other countries or allies. Examples would be France, England, and Canada, plus many more. What people don’t talk about is the U.S.’s rivals or countries that the U.S. has had trouble with in the past leading up to now. One of the most renowned countries is only ninety miles away from the southern tip of Florida and that is Cuba. Cuba is known for the fantastic beaches, some of the most well-known baseball players around, and, of course, Cuban cigars and rum. But, the past with Cuba is not as bright as the U.S. wants it to be because of historical events such as the embargo, the Bay of Pigs, and the Cuban missile crisis during World War II that caused the two countries to separate as allies and close tied nations. Over the past year the U.S. and Cuba have been trying to put the past behind them and have diplomatic and cultural relations once again.
The relationship between the United States of America and Latin America nations has been turbulent since the beginning of colonization. The United States had withheld a sense of superiority since its inception. Their view of Pan-Americanism is only shared by them; Canada and most Latin American nations do not share this view. They viewed Latin America’s struggle for independence as a necessity, but did not pledge their assistance until it coincided with American interests and objectives in the area. The author mentions Latin America’s one-crop economy, but they do not emphasize the role the US played in their economies or how much they were involved in their own politics. Recent events, in regards to Cuba, have made certain parts of the chapter
While the Cold War does not mark a significant distinction from US involvement in Latin America pre-Cold War, the inclusion of ideology in US foreign policy decisions did mark a change in attitudes and focus. While US policy can be described as rational to a certain point, the Cuban dilemma caused an irrational fear in US foreign policy makers to avoid a second-Cuba. The fear of a “second Cuba” can be seen in the various interventions by the US in Latin America during this period.
Cuba is the country best known for being at the center of the Cold War conflict between the U.S. and Russia because of the Cuban Missile Crisis. The Soviet Union’s strategy, and the anticipated U.S. response to the Russian strategy, is described in an October 19, 1962 telegram from Andrei Gromyko, Russia’s Foreign Minister, to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union [Virtual Archive]. The Central Committee was the highest organization within communist Russia. Gromyko seems to have written the telegram to inform the Central Committee that the Russian strategy in aligning itself with Cuba seemed to be working. In the telegram Gromyko expressed his belief that “a USA military adventure against Cuba is almost impossible to imagine” because of “assurances given to us that the USA has no plans for in Cuba (which undeniably commits them in many respects)” (Gromyko). Instead, Gromyko believed that the U.S. efforts would be to try weakening Cuba by obstructing its economy, thinking that over the long term Russia would not be able to continue supporting Cuba with foreign aid in order to offset U.S. economic sanctions against Cuba (Gromyko).
John Diefenbaker’s actions during the Cold War in the early 1960’s laid the ground work for Canada’s close relationship with Cuba that continues today. Diefenbaker refused to cut off ties with Cuba, angering the United States President, John F. Kennedy. Diefenbaker did not support the United States further than their NATO commitment, and did not send any troops to the Bay of Pigs Invasion. John Diefenbaker refused to give support to the United States during the Cuban Missile Crisis, causing a rift between Canada and the United States. Without John Diefenbaker’s work during the Cold War, Pierre Trudeau never would have been able to visit Cuba and form a close bond with Fidel Castro. It is due to John Diefenbaker’s efforts that Cuba gets along with Canada.
The United States did not just put sanctions on Cuba after Castro came to power but also was trying to exert it’s power over the country when Batista was in power. The US wanted Batista to give up his leadership of the country so a new government could take over but the State Department was unsure how to go about accomplishing this since there wasn’t enough information to show what group could lead the Cuban people. These decisions that were made follow, albeit loosely, along the line of two decision models we have studied: the Presidential model and the Administrative Model.
Castro’s involvement with the foreign and domestic politics during the early Cold War period greatly influenced the outcome of the Cuban Revolution. Without the actions taken by foreign powers like the United States and Russia, some events on the domestic front may have had very different results. It is important to understand how every nation’s foreign policies can influence more than just one other nation, and this was especially true for Cuba. It was this mix and chain of events which produced the communist Cuba that we are familiar with today.
In 1940 to 1944, communist Fulgencio Batista withheld power as the president of Cuba and then from 1952 to 1959, United States backed dictator until fleeing Cuba because of Fidel Castro’s 26th of July Movement. Socialist Fidel Castro governed the Republic of Cuba as Prime Minister from 1959 to 1976 and then as President from 1976 to 2008. Fidel Castro’s intent was to provide Cuba with an honest democratic government by diminishing the corrupt way in which the country was run, the large role the United States played in the running of Cuba as well as the poor treatment & the living conditions of the lower class.