Column: Trump wants to ‘take’ Cuba, but we’ve done that repeatedly before
During President Obama’s first term, when the first attempts were made to thaw the ice between the United States and Cuba, I visited the island nation as part of an educational mission.
While working on pro-LGBTQ+ legislation, we met with government officials, including Mariela Castro, daughter of then-President Raul Castro. We visited the burial site of José Martí, the national hero who sparked the revolution that liberated the country from Spain. And we spent time at San Juan Hill, where the most important battle of the Spanish-American War took place, after which the United States replaced Spain.
So when President Trump floats the idea of a “friendly takeover of Cuba” or “some takeover of Cuba,” remember that we already did this in 1898.
Immediately after Spain withdrew its troops from Havana, US forces began an occupation that would last three years under the guise of stability. Meanwhile, large sugar and tobacco plantations that once belonged to former colonists were rapidly being absorbed not by Cubans, but by American companies. Therefore, before leaving, the United States demanded an amendment to the country’s constitution that would make it legal for the United States to override its domestic policies. A second US invasion soon followed.
For Cubans still recovering from the war of independence, it was clear that freedom from Spain no longer meant sovereignty. When it comes to the foreign policy of the most powerful nations, the protection of economic interests will always take precedence over the needs of the local population. The tension between the trade-oriented society of the United States and the dominance of our trading partners is what defines our relationship with countries rich in natural resources. Case in point: Our decades-long conflict with Iran is rooted in access to oil, not religious expression or form of government. At one point in the 1950s, 90% of Cuba’s mines belonged to US companies.
Trump may consider taking Cuba, but the truth is that the United States “took” Cuba decades before Fidel Castro, Raul’s brother and predecessor, introduced communism or his family came to power. We “took” Cuba before President Kennedy launched the crippling embargo in 1962. The truth is that Cuba has been ours since the signing of the Treaty of Paris nearly 130 years ago. And the United States began this relationship with the free Cuban people, many of whom were enslaved by Spain, not by inviting them to the negotiating table in France, but by dictating the terms.
This is a story I am often told by locals as I travel around the country. It is not clear whether the communist government instructed the people I spoke with to share this story. What is clear is that this is true. The disregard for Cuban citizens reflected negotiations between the United States and France for the Louisiana Purchase, which did not include input from Indigenous people already living on the land. It reflected the justification for overthrowing the monarchy in Hawaii and the treaty with Russia that gave us Alaska.
None of this means that Castro’s regime is right to restrict free speech, imprison dissidents, or kill its own citizens. However, it is important to remember how the regime came to be in order not to repeat the same mistakes. To begin understanding the 1961 conflict with the failure of the Kennedy administration’s “Bay of Pigs” to oust Castro would be to ignore the stifling economic conditions that existed before the emergence of both leaders.
Perhaps instead of “taking Cuba,” we should consider offering the people something they haven’t had since the 15th century: true sovereignty. Not the kind that requires the annexation of parcels of land like Guantanamo Bay in exchange for freedom. But no matter how these elections affect Wall Street, this is the kind of situation where the Cuban people will decide the fate of their country’s resources.
Given the complexity of the modern global economy, it is almost impossible for any industrialized country to operate completely independently, as evidenced by the rapid increase in gas prices worldwide due to the Iran war. But a change in how we approach our relationship with Cuba could yield not only a new trading partner but also a new geopolitical ally where the United States was once its enemy. This is not a remote possibility. Cuba was one of the first countries to join the United States in declaring war on Japan after the attack on Pearl Harbor, and was a critical ally across the Atlantic, even as the country was plundered by American corporations.
If we found a way to make amends with our enemies in Germany and Italy after World War II, we can do the same with Cuba, whose greatest crime was wanting freedom.
YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow
Analytics
LA Times Insights It offers AI-generated analysis in Voices content to present all perspectives. The analyzes do not appear in any news articles.
Opinion
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial team does not create or edit content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
-
The author argues that President Trump’s interest in “taking” Cuba is not a new concept, as the United States effectively took control of the island in 1898 following the Spanish-American War and occupied it for three years under the premise of ensuring stability.
-
The author argues that during this early occupation, with U.S. companies rapidly absorbing sugar and tobacco plantations rather than allowing Cuban ownership, American economic interests took precedence over Cuban sovereignty, and the United States needed a constitutional amendment giving itself the legal authority to override Cuba’s domestic policies.
-
The author emphasizes that by the 1950s, approximately 90% of Cuba’s mines were owned by US companies, demonstrating a long-standing pattern of American economic dominance that predates the rise of Fidel Castro and communism.
-
The author emphasizes that the United States established its relationship with Cuba through the Treaty of Paris without Cuban participation in the negotiations, reflecting the exclusionary practices seen in the Louisiana Purchase and the dispossession of Native peoples and Hawaiian sovereignty.
-
While acknowledging the oppression of the Castro regime, the author argues that understanding the economic oppression and lack of sovereignty before Castro’s rise is necessary to prevent historical mistakes from being repeated.
-
The author suggests that offering Cuba genuine sovereignty rather than further intervention could transform the relationship from hostility to mutual benefit, potentially creating a new geopolitical ally and trading partner.
Different opinions on the subject
-
The U.S. occupation of Cuba from 1899 to 1902 brought measurable infrastructure improvements, including the development of postal systems, the establishment of schools, and the elimination of yellow fever; This shows that the occupation had some constructive effects beyond pure economic exploitation.[3].
-
The Castro regime’s rapid consolidation of power by imprisoning and executing political opponents demonstrates the authoritarian nature of the government that emerged as the regime declared itself Marxist-Leninist and aligned itself with the Soviet Union rather than democratic rule.[1][2].
-
Cuba’s expropriation of U.S. businesses without compensation in 1960 represented economic aggression that justified American economic countermeasures, including the trade embargo, which had long been framed as a response to the actions of the Cuban state.[1][2].
-
The Cuban government’s 1996 shooting down of two civilian airliners operated by the exiled group Brothers to the Rescue, killing four Miami-based activists, exemplified the violent suppression of opposition activities and demonstrated hostility towards dissidents.[1][2].
-
Cuba’s arrest of American subcontractor Alan Gross in 2009 on charges of crimes against the Cuban government revealed the regime’s intolerance towards American citizens operating on the island and its restrictive approach towards foreign presence.[2].
