World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Why does the US have a base in Guantanamo Bay, anyway? I thought the government of Cuba has protested it for literally half a century?
I guess it's for the same reason why the US embargo of Cuba has seen mass condemnation in the UN General Assembly for more than 30 years without result...
Might makes right?
Because of a 1903 lease agreement with no end date which the post-revolutionary government has not gone back on so far. They protest it, but they have yet to actually say the terms have changed. And they also have a backlog of U.S. money waiting for them when they wish to renegotiate. Don't underestimate the PR boost having a U.S. naval base on Cuban soil gives to the Cuban government the same way having North Korea and South Korea share a border is good propaganda for both countries.
Um are you sure? Because everything I read says they don't want it but the US won't leave.
Yes, again, they protest it but also refuse to renegotiate it.
This is a good example of geopolitics.
I never understood how slavery could stand for so long... But I guess now I do?
Nevermind that the embargo on Cuba limits the utility of US money.
Edit: for a similar scenario, look at the conditions for Haitian "independence" from France. France forced Haiti to pay for the lost property (read: slaves) that were freed by independence, costing the Haitian economy something like 20 billion dollars of economic contribution... For daring to free slaves. But oh no my agreements!
All Cuba has to do is go to the negotiating table. It is good for their propaganda to not do so and they don't need Guantanamo for anything.
All Haiti has to do was send it's slaves back to France, I really don't see the problem.
Are you really equating the U.S. sending a yearly uncashed check and keeping a Naval base at the ass end of Cuba with people being enslaved?
You should maybe read up on Haitian independence...
So you are saying a U.S. naval base at the ass-end of Cuba is the same as human enslavement?
Look back at your original comment and come back. Read carefully, like they taught you in primary school.
Okay, this was my original comment:
https://lemmy.world/comment/10620270
Now- are you saying a U.S. naval base at the ass-end of Cuba is the same as human enslavement?
Good, now read what Castro actually said on the issue (when he wasn't busy being assassinated by the CIA).
Are you going to continue to troll and violate civility rules or are you going to answer my question?
If you refuse to read what Castro actually said, that's hardly my problem.
I'm not asking about Castro, I'm asking about you: are you saying a U.S. naval base at the ass-end of Cuba is the same as human enslavement?
It's a yes or no question and you can't seem to answer. Are you trolling?
Are you? You don't seem to be listening.
I'll take that as a yes and act accordingly as a moderator.
Nice way to twist the story with irrelevant technicalities (that I haven’t been able to verify. Cuba is pretty clear about wanting the US base gone).
US would never give up Guantanamo Bay. Cuba has 0 negotiation advantages because they’re a small poor country whose economy is being crippled by US blokkades for decades.
Edit: Apparently it wasn’t clear that by information I wasn’t being able to verify, I mean the claim that Cuba for some reason would want to have an occupying force on their land and therefore doesn’t want to renegotiate the treaty.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cuban%E2%80%93American_Treaty_of_Relations_(1903)
Literally first search result.
What's wrong with you?
Just a tankie backing up another tankie there. (I checked their post history, and it checks out)
Thank you for the link it's an enlightening read that I'm sure will get ignored.
Please define the term tankie for me and how it applies to me.
I’m a communist, you can just call it by its name.
... It's a preposterously easy to find bit of information.
Us fought a war with Spain. Spain lost and got booted from the Americas, Asia and Pacific, with the US taking Guam, Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines.
A few years later we stipulated that Cuba's independence was conditional on allowing a navel base to remain under US control, Cuba reluctantly agreed, and a lease was signed with no end date with the US paying rent for the land.
When nations change governments, there is always a period of figuring out how treaties and debts are assumed. Usually the successor government assumes at least a portion of "fair" debt inherited from the previous government. (No, we're not paying for the ammunition the previous government shot at us, yes we're going to pay the interest on the loan for agricultural supplies). Same goes for treaties.
Post revolution Cuba did the usual and continued international relations as "Cuba", and not a brand new entity. Hence their argument being that the lease treaty is and was illegitimate, not just "not recognized", inapplicable or rejected. The US holds it's a perfectly legitimate agreement and keeps sending payment on time. Everyone agrees there's an agreement between the US and Cuba around the base, with the contention being about the legitimacy of the 1903 treaty, not it's applicability.
Yes, Cuba has no leverage to pressure negotiations in their favor. This was true before the embargo as well as after. No, they did not really have a viable alternative to agreeing to the lease. The best option sucking is usually not considered to make a treaty invalid.
Fair or not, the treaty is generally regarded as legitimate, which limits Cuba's options to use the law to compel the US to leave.
With no interest in negotiation, nothing to offer, no military force, and US complacency with the status quo, the odds of both parties agreeing to end the lease is pretty low.
☝️ an excellent breakdown of the actual situation.
As I said, the technicalities of why the US claims that their presence on Guantanamo Bay is rightful is irrelevant, the reason they still hold it is 100% their militarily and economically domination over Cuba (which the US keeps in place with their illegal blokkades), making it impossible for Cuba to have any negotiation power.
When the contract was made Cuba could not refuse it because the US had already occupied Cuba. A contract that is made with an army standing at your door to invade if you don’t sign it is not a legitimate contract. The US is a coloniser and Cuba is just one of the examples. Cuba got lucky though because they at least got some independence (albeit with constant interference of the US trying to spark a civil war).
Unfortunately, there are no agreements between nations that don't involve the presence of armies. One of the byproducts of the US fighting Spain to kick them out of Cuba is that the US army is necessarily involved. The alternative was continued Spanish colonialism, not an independent Cuba.
Do you find the German or Japanese surrender treaties to be illegitimate because they were made at gunpoint?
The US could have left Cuba after the war was won, and they can even leave today. Implying that that’s not an option is crazy. Guantanamo Bay is currently used to undermine Cuban independence and enforce an illegal blockade that heavily impacts the lives of all Cuba’s citizens. Implying that that’s not a bad thing or that the US should not stop doing active harm to Cuba’s citizens in this way is pretty disgusting imo.
Starving a whole country because you don’t agree with its politics is monstrous behaviour.
I don't think I implied that we couldn't leave, or even that we shouldn't. I said that Cuba's not going to get us to leave by asserting that the agreement was never valid, because that's just going to get the response of "yes it is". For better or worse nations negotiate backed with weapons, and a power imbalance is inevitable.
It's not even a matter of right or wrong, just reality. Few would argue that the Japanese constitution is illegitimate and that power should rightly devolve back to the Empire of Japan.
You have some misapprehensions about the embargo of Cuba. It's sometimes called a blockade for rhetorical effect, but it's not actually a blockade.
It's not "enforced" from Guantanamo bay, it's enforced by civil penalties levied by the Treasury department on US entities and their subsidiaries, and to a limited extent by the department of state through threats of potential trade or diplomatic consequences.
Cuba can and does trade with other nations, including US allies, and even the US. The harm the embargo does is via sharply limiting the availability of the lines of credit smaller nations rely on for continuing development of their infrastructure, not by literally preventing boats full of food from landing. Additional harm is done by denying them access to the largest convenient trading partner in the region for non-food, non-medical (embargo terms have excluded those items for decades) trades which further harms their economy by denying them a reliable cash influx their neighbors rely on, as well as making imports more expensive through sheer transport distance.
Justified or not, and regardless of poor negotiating position, refusal to engage in a dialogue is not helping Cuba's position.
They have their own ideological motivations for refusing to engage. Even a tacit acknowledgement that maybe they shouldn't have nationalized the assets of US companies without compensation would get them a lot of negotiation credit, and it costs them nothing, except for the ideological factors. The US doesn't get much out of it, and $6 billion 1959 can be written off fairly easily for the PR win.
One side doesn't need to budge, and the other one refuses, and they both have their reasons. I believe that was the point OP was going for.