Raul Castro extends olive branch to U.S.

[lord of the mark]

1. comparison to Israel. I think its widely understood that a final settlement between Israel and the Pals will involve financial compensation for property confiscated by the Israeli state. Thats really not controversial, and is a seperate issue from the right of the population to return.


2. The Am Rev. IIUC all issues of compensation for private property were resolved in the treaty that ended the war.

I dont see how negotiations between the US and Cuba can avoid the subject of compensation. OTOH I think everyone also understands that if Cuba is taking appropriate steps towards economic and political reform, the US would not insist on a level of compensation that would cripple said reforms.

[lord of the mark]

The treaty of Paris


Article 5:

It is agreed that Congress shall earnestly recommend it to the legislatures of the respective states to provide for the restitution of all estates, rights, and properties, which have been confiscated belonging to real British subjects; and also of the estates, rights, and properties of persons resident in districts in the possession on his Majesty's arms and who have not borne arms against the said United States. And that persons of any other decription shall have free liberty to go to any part or parts of any of the thirteen United States and therein to remain twelve months unmolested in their endeavors to obtain the restitution of such of their estates, rights, and properties as may have been confiscated; and that Congress shall also earnestly recommend to the several states a reconsideration and revision of all acts or laws regarding the premises, so as to render the said laws or acts perfectly consistent not only with justice and equity but with that spirit of conciliation which on the return of the blessings of peace should universally prevail. And that Congress shall also earnestly recommend to the several states that the estates, rights, and properties, of such last mentioned persons shall be restored to them, they refunding to any persons who may be now in possession the bona fide price (where any has been given) which such persons may have paid on purchasing any of the said lands, rights, or properties since the confiscation.
And it is agreed that all persons who have any interest in confiscated lands, either by debts, marriage settlements, or otherwise, shall meet with no lawful impediment in the prosecution of their just rights.

Article 6:

That there shall be no future confiscations made nor any prosecutions commenced against any person or persons for, or by reason of, the part which he or they may have taken in the present war, and that no person shall on that account suffer any future loss or damage, either in his person, liberty, or property; and that those who may be in confinement on such charges at the time of the ratification of the treaty in America shall be immediately set at liberty, and the prosecutions so commenced be discontinued.

[Zkribbler]

Don't forget that Bush's grandfather lost $53 million when Castro nationalized the West Indies Suger Company in 1959.

I've also heard rumors that it was George Herbert Walker Bush, Jr. who ran failed the Bay of Pigs operation.

It sounds like the Bushes and the Castros don't get along real well.

[senowen]

Originally posted by laurentius


You dont think there was a revolucion in Cuba?

There was certainly a revolution in Cuba, but it wasn't against American control and taxation of Cuban citizens. However much the revolution was a result of American and European indirect control of the country, the Cuban revolution was about one faction of Cubans against the Cubans that controlled the government. It was not a revolution against the American government. If a government loses a revolution, its citizens lose the RIGHT to property in the new nation. (Doesn't have to be that way, but often is). BTW, relatively few British subjects actually lost property without compensation (the Crown being a notable exception).

But nationalization is quite a different story. A new government takes over a country, decides that it doesn't like the amount of foreign ownership of property and then expropriates it. Quantitatively different IMHO.

[lord of the mark]

unresolved property issues were addressed in the Jay Treaty


ARTICLE 6.
Whereas it is alledged by divers British Merchants and others His Majesty's Subjects, that Debts to a considerable amount which were bona fide contracted before the Peace, still remain owing to them by Citizens or Inhabitants of the United States, and that by the operation of various lawful Impediments since the Peace, not only the full recovery of the said Debts has been delayed, but also the Value and Security thereof, have been in several instances impaired and lessened, so that by the ordinary course of Judicial proceedings the British Creditors, cannot now obtain and actually have and receive full and adequate Compensation for the losses and damages which they have thereby sustained: It is agreed that in all such Cases where full Compensation for such losses and damages cannot, for whatever reason, be actually obtained had and received by the said Creditors in the ordinary course of Justice, The United States will make full and complete Compensation for the same to the said Creditors; But it is distinctly understood, that this provision is to extend to such losses only, as have been occasioned by the lawful impediments aforesaid, and is not to extend to losses occasioned by such Insolvency of the Debtors or other Causes as would equally have operated to produce such loss, if the said impediments had not existed, nor to such losses or damages as have been occasioned by the manifest delay or negligence, or wilful omission of the Claimant.

For the purpose of ascertaining the amount of any such losses and damages, Five Commissioners shall be appointed and authorized to meet and act in manner following-viz- Two of them shall be appointed by His Majesty, Two of them by the President of the United States by and with the advice and consent of the Senate thereof, and the fifth, by the unanimous voice of the other Four; and if they should not agree in such Choice, then the Commissioners named by the two parties shall respectively propose one person, and of the two names so proposed, one shall be drawn by Lot in the presence of the Four Original Commissioners. When the Five Commissioners thus appointed shall first meet, they shall before they proceed to act respectively, take the following Oath or Affirmation in the presence of each other, which Oath or Affirmation, being so taken, and duly attested, shall be entered on the Record of their Proceedings, -viz.- I. A: B: One of the Commissioners appointed in pursuance of the 6th Article of the Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation between His Britannick Majesty and The United States of America, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will honestly, diligently, impartially, and carefully examine, and to the best of my Judgement, according to Justice and Equity decide all such Complaints, as under the said Article shall be preferred to the said Commissioners: and that I will forbear to act as a Commissioner in any Case in which I may be personally interested.

Three of the said Commissioners shall constitute a Board, and shall have power to do any act appertaining to the said Commission, provided that one of the Commissioners named on each side, and the Fifth Commissioner shall be present, and all decisions shall be made by the Majority of the Voices of the Commissioners then present. Eighteen Months from the Day on which the said Commissioners shall form a Board, and be ready to proceed to Business are assigned for receiving Complaints and applications, but they are nevertheless authorized in any particular Cases in which it shall appear to them to be reasonable and just to extend the said Term of Eighteen Months, for any term not exceeding Six Months after the expiration thereof. The said Commissioners shall first meet at Philadelphia, but they shall have power to adjourn from Place to Place as they shall see Cause.

The said Commissioners in examining the Complaints and applications so preferred to them, are impowered and required in pursuance of the true intent and meaning of this article to take into their Consideration all claims whether of principal or interest, or balances of principal and interest, and to determine the same respectively according to the merits of the several Cases, due regard being had to all the Circumstances thereof, and as Equity and Justice shall appear to them to require. And the said Commissioners shall have power to examine all such Persons as shall come before them on Oath or Affirmation touching the premises; and also to receive in Evidence according as they may think most consistent with Equity and Justice all written positions, or Books or Papers, or Copies or Extracts thereof. Every such Deposition, Book or Paper or Copy or Extract being duly authenticated either according to the legal Forms now respectively existing in the two Countries, or in such other manner as the said Commissioners shall see cause to require or allow.

The award of the said Commissioners or of any three of them as aforesaid shall in all Cases be final and conclusive both as to the Justice of the Claim, and to the amount of the Sum to be paid to the Creditor or Claimant. And the United States undertake to cause the Sum so awarded to be paid in Specie to such Creditor or Claimant without deduction; and at such Time or Times, and at such Place or Places, as shall be awarded by the said Commissioners, and on Condition of such Releases or assignments to be given by the Creditor or Claimant as by the said Commissioners may be directed; Provided always that no such payment shall be fixed by the said Commissioners to take place sooner then twelve months from the Day of the Exchange of the Ratifications of this Treaty.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
If anybody thinks they're getting money for something that happened 47 years ago then they're dreaming.

Won't happen.

67 was only 39 years ago...

[Odin]

Originally posted by Ned
The Stinger, I think it all began when Castro nationalized a lot of US property without payment.

Castro offered compensation, US corporations refused.

[Sandman]

Did Vietnam compensate for nationalised stuff?

[The Mad Monk]

If it didn't, does that make it right?

[The Mad Monk]

Has the Cuban Missle Crises been mentioned yet? One dosen't forget nearly causing WWIII overnight.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Odin


Castro offered compensation, US corporations refused.

That's a laugh.

[Dr Strangelove]

The Castro regime has long maintained that much of the property seized was either out-right stolen or obtained through extortion or fraud. Resolving all those issues now would be very dificult. Also Cuban land isn't worth much now.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
If anybody thinks they're getting money for something that happened 47 years ago then they're dreaming.

Won't happen.

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


67 was only 39 years ago...

Pretty bad for a mathematics guru, isn't it?

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


67 was only 39 years ago...

Correct you are. Now perhaps you can explain why 1967 was especially significant.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Odin


Castro offered compensation, US corporations refused.

You can say that categorically about every entity? Furthermore can you characterize the compensation as sufficient (and prove it)?