The United States fears the transfer of Guantanamo to Russia

0 6

July 26, 2015

By Evgeny Krutikov (translated by Alya Rea)

In connection with
the restoration of relations between the United States
and Cuba, there is a renewed interest in
the status of Guantanamo. Director of the Institute of Cuban and Cuban-American Studies, Suchliki Jamie, said
that Cuba insists
on the return of Guantanamo. But
as far as the American side is concerned, there are fears that in the future this
base will go to Russia. The question is whether there are any grounds for these fears.

 

The legal status of Guantanamo
is impeccable, as all the treaties that the U.S. federal government concluded with
the native tribes since the time of
the expropriation of the Indian Act starting in 1885.
… This perfection is in the crystal-like simplicity of the text,
which, by definition, the natives must understand
literally. Guantanamo is acquired by the United States as a “perpetual
lease” (i.e., forever) for
“2,000 pesos in U.S.
gold currency per
year.” In mid-1934, after a
series of military talks in Cuba,
the payment plan has been revised
and the bar was raised up to
1,300 dollars a year.

United States has initially
treated Cuba as
the spoils of the Spanish-American
War of 1898. Back then, the dominant ideology of American isolationism did not allow the incorporation of areas outside of the “natural
boundaries”; that made it
impossible to annex the
Philippines and Cuba, by rights
of the conquest. Formally though, according to the
Treaty of Paris, Cuba and the Philippines, as well as Puerto Rico
and Guam, were completely under the United States rule, and for
quite some time they were under
the civil and military administration of Washington. …

The situation on the ground is that Cuba will never get the
Guantanamo back. At
least not in the written history of mankind, if we forget about the fire of
nuclear war which shall devour the document of the eternal lease for a penny. It
is not an exaggeration but rather an explanation of the circumstances. Havana
had the only chance to get this territory back, free of charge – in 1991. The
disappearance of the Soviet Union have put such a strange and intricate
illusion in American minds that if the Cuban government, using the language of
the ’30s, “would disarm before the imperialists,” then the Americans,
following a wave of euphoria, could easily renegotiate the terms of the lease.

By and large, from
a military point of view this base was not needed to the U.S., and even more so today. Closing
“the Gitmo prison” could also affect the conditions of the
base’s stay in Cuba, but only indirectly. In fact, Cuban fishermen will never be allowed to catch tuna in Guantanamo
Bay (and, per numerous rumors, there is a plenty
of tuna over there) – according to the laws of the rental agreement, even fishing in the area is
forbidden to all the Cubans. Not that it hurts the economy (it is not even clear
what it is based on), but still, it is annoying.

But the talk about the transfer of this base to Russia belongs to the
fantasy realm. Russia does not
need Guantanamo whatsoever. It is not a base suited for submarines: there are
no adequate port, no docks, no logistics supply. It is equally
easy to refuel in Venezuela. And, at the
end, why even to have the submarine
base? To expose the submarines to
the shooting coming from Florida or just be blocked at the exit from
Cuba? No one is going to repeat the mistakes of Khrushchev and place an offensive weapon in the “backyard” of the U.S. It does not fare well according to either the
modern concepts of war nor the
written strategy of Russia.

In the last few weeks, the number of propaganda materials
in the United States – “the horror stories” on the topic of the
“Russian threat” – has significantly increased. This threat has
become a multivariate and multilayered, and it is difficult to explain it while
looking on the map. There
are hypersonic missiles, the killer-satellites, and new maritime systems, and
now – the Guantanamo. It
is noteworthy that all these threats are of the “strategic nature” – which
is so easily being explained according to the US military-industrial complex.

Subscribe to our newsletter
Sign up here to get the latest news, updates and special offers delivered directly to your inbox.
Comments