US removes Cuba from list of state sponsors of terror(bbc.com)
bbc.com
US removes Cuba from list of state sponsors of terror
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-32926821
40 comments
The existence Cuba on that list was purely political esp. to appease a section of Florida voters. It is a weird form of identity politics. It goes to show, that politicians willingness to use laws addressing Terrorism for something other than Terrorism.
> The existence Cuba on that list was purely political esp. to appease a section of Florida voters. It is a weird form of identity politics. It goes to show, that politicians willingness to use laws addressing Terrorism for something other than Terrorism.
Cuba being not removed may have been for that reason, but Cuba being placed on that reason was not for that reason. While one might argue that the terrorism involved was no different than what the US and US-allies backed on the other side of the same global conflict, when Cuba was placed on that list it was actively backing terrorists around the world as one of the most active nations, behind the USSR itself, globally promoting the Soviet-led Communist movement. (If you look at the list in general, the pattern of countries being added for real reasons, having those reasons largely go away but remaining on the list until some agreement not directly related to any supposed active involvement with terrorism between the US and that country is not unique to Cuba.)
Cuba being not removed may have been for that reason, but Cuba being placed on that reason was not for that reason. While one might argue that the terrorism involved was no different than what the US and US-allies backed on the other side of the same global conflict, when Cuba was placed on that list it was actively backing terrorists around the world as one of the most active nations, behind the USSR itself, globally promoting the Soviet-led Communist movement. (If you look at the list in general, the pattern of countries being added for real reasons, having those reasons largely go away but remaining on the list until some agreement not directly related to any supposed active involvement with terrorism between the US and that country is not unique to Cuba.)
Maybe.. but every militarily active country does this. IE, everyone backs non state militant organizations of one kind or another. How many countries would you estimate have sent cash, arms or consultants to non-state militant groups in Syria and Iraq? Off the top of my head: US, France, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, Turkey, Iran, Qatar, probably Russia. Possibly a lot more than that.
If you support one side, those who support a different side are sponsoring terror. What conflict in the last few decades did not involve "terrorists?"
If you support one side, those who support a different side are sponsoring terror. What conflict in the last few decades did not involve "terrorists?"
I don't know what you mean by "backing terrorists"... actually I'm not sure of your definition of "terrorists", but if you meant members of the Basque separatist group ETA, you should be aware those ex-militants were sent from France through Panama to reside in Cuba after an agreement of the Spanish government (under Felipe González) with Cuba.
disclaimer: I'm Cuban
disclaimer: I'm Cuban
The remaining ETA members in Cuba and their relation to the government were the one of the last things cited in recent (2010-ish) US terrorism reports on Cuba, along with incomplete evidence of having completely cut ties with FARC, but rather more substantial support to international armed revolutionary groups that the US described as terrorist (including ETA, FARC in Colombia, various groups opposed to US-friendly central American governments, and others) was why it was put on the list in 1982.
(I won't argue against the position that the US was doing much the same thing on the other side of the same geopolitical conflict so that the "terrorist" label was always somewhat misrepresenting the purpose of the list -- and not just Cuba's inclusion on it -- or that the initial premise of the inclusion had long ceased to be relevant. I won't even argue against the position that some of the groups Cuba backed that justified its inclusion on the list were no worse -- and perhaps even less terroristic -- all things considered, than the often US-backed entities they opposed.)
(I won't argue against the position that the US was doing much the same thing on the other side of the same geopolitical conflict so that the "terrorist" label was always somewhat misrepresenting the purpose of the list -- and not just Cuba's inclusion on it -- or that the initial premise of the inclusion had long ceased to be relevant. I won't even argue against the position that some of the groups Cuba backed that justified its inclusion on the list were no worse -- and perhaps even less terroristic -- all things considered, than the often US-backed entities they opposed.)
When everyone can be on the list, it becomes a lie to single out one party. It's like in the Soviet republics where 100% of the population was breaking laws all the time just to live. Police could then just go and arrest anyone arbitrarily, with 100% confidence they would make something stick.
Same here. There are lots of terrorist supporting states. The ones one the list are the ones that are US enemies. Cuba's place on the list is "political^" in that sense. Yes, they sponsored terrorism. Yes, that provides justification for inclusion according to the rules of the list. But no, sponsoring terrorism is not why they were included on the list. They were included for being enemies of the US and its allies.
^I wouldn't even call it political, unless you'd also call an invasion or declaration of war political in the same circumstances.
Same here. There are lots of terrorist supporting states. The ones one the list are the ones that are US enemies. Cuba's place on the list is "political^" in that sense. Yes, they sponsored terrorism. Yes, that provides justification for inclusion according to the rules of the list. But no, sponsoring terrorism is not why they were included on the list. They were included for being enemies of the US and its allies.
^I wouldn't even call it political, unless you'd also call an invasion or declaration of war political in the same circumstances.
I won't argue either... It seems I misunderstood your first comment. Sorry.
Just for the sake of clarification, regarding ETA I'm aware there several versions of the story, but those 2010-ish US terrorism reports are not understandable when the very Spanish government was stating the contrary [+]. About the Colombian conflict, I've heard of the Cuban support to National Liberation Army (ELN) but never of any military support to Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).
[+] (Spanish) http://www.lavozlibre.com/noticias/ampliar/1041341/moratinos...
[+] (Spanish) http://www.lavozlibre.com/noticias/ampliar/1041341/moratinos...
Maybe he was talking about Mandela.
One man's "Terrorist" is another man's "Freedom Fighter".
The US viewed Mandela as a "Terrorist"... and Cuba viewed Mandela as a "Freedom Fighter".
In the course of history... these things happen.
One man's "Terrorist" is another man's "Freedom Fighter".
The US viewed Mandela as a "Terrorist"... and Cuba viewed Mandela as a "Freedom Fighter".
In the course of history... these things happen.
Cutting through the bullshit, the real issue behind US embargos against Cuba was whether Cuba was involved in any kind of warfare conducted against the US. The Moncada Barracks was one thing, the missile crisis was another, the Mariel boatlift another, and FARC yet another - just to name a few. But Cuba was never under an embargo because of Mandela and implying that is the purest propaganda.
> But Cuba was never under an embargo because of Mandela
Cuban support to the ANC and its armed wing, which the US considered a terrorist organization while it was actively backing the apartheid regime as a bulwark against Communism in southern Africa, was among very many instances of Cuban support for "terrorist" groups cited by US governments as evidence of Cuba's role as a sponsor of international terrorism in the 1980s.
Of course, the embargo and the sanctions related to inclusion on the State Sponsor of Terrorism list are also two entirely separate things.
Cuban support to the ANC and its armed wing, which the US considered a terrorist organization while it was actively backing the apartheid regime as a bulwark against Communism in southern Africa, was among very many instances of Cuban support for "terrorist" groups cited by US governments as evidence of Cuba's role as a sponsor of international terrorism in the 1980s.
Of course, the embargo and the sanctions related to inclusion on the State Sponsor of Terrorism list are also two entirely separate things.
"...But Cuba was never under an embargo because of Mandela and implying that is the purest propaganda..."
???
Are you serious ???
I can't really tell whether you meant that as sarcasm ??? or if you really believe that Mandela wasn't one of the many reasons Cuba is on the list ???
Firstly, we're discussing possible reasons that Cuba was on the terrorism list... not reasons that Cuba was under embargo. So I'm confused by your conflation of the two issues at the outset.
Secondly, I should clarify that I wasn't saying all of the reasons are legitimate, quite the contrary actually. But to imply that ETA, Mandela, etc are not the reasons Cuba was on that list is plainly incorrect.
Lastly, I apologize if your comment was meant as sarcasm. It's difficult to really tell whether people are serious or not on HN these days.
???
Are you serious ???
I can't really tell whether you meant that as sarcasm ??? or if you really believe that Mandela wasn't one of the many reasons Cuba is on the list ???
Firstly, we're discussing possible reasons that Cuba was on the terrorism list... not reasons that Cuba was under embargo. So I'm confused by your conflation of the two issues at the outset.
Secondly, I should clarify that I wasn't saying all of the reasons are legitimate, quite the contrary actually. But to imply that ETA, Mandela, etc are not the reasons Cuba was on that list is plainly incorrect.
Lastly, I apologize if your comment was meant as sarcasm. It's difficult to really tell whether people are serious or not on HN these days.
"The Moncada Barracks"? Seriously? Back then (1953), US government support to the dictatorship in Cuba was quite evident, but I don't think they would dub "terrorists" those attempting to overthrow it.
Yup. Castro is still an asshole, though.
Words like terrorism just can't be left in the hand of politicians. It's incredible how middle eastern dictators have picked it up as a name for their enemies.
This is all very Orwellian. Terrorism is currently just a euphemism for "enemy." We should just go back to using that title. It's way more honest. 'US removes Cuba from list of enemies' is what actually happened.
Can you imagine a military conflict today without at least one side accusing the other of terrorism?
This is all very Orwellian. Terrorism is currently just a euphemism for "enemy." We should just go back to using that title. It's way more honest. 'US removes Cuba from list of enemies' is what actually happened.
Can you imagine a military conflict today without at least one side accusing the other of terrorism?
> Terrorism is currently just a euphemism for "enemy." We should just go back to using that title. It's way more honest. 'US removes Cuba from list of enemies' is what actually happened.
The word "terrorism" may be overused and too broadly used in many political contexts, but in this particular context it is narrowly used. The official list that Cuba was removed from was "Cuba, Iran, Sudan, Syria". The list of enemies would be a larger list.
The word "terrorism" may be overused and too broadly used in many political contexts, but in this particular context it is narrowly used. The official list that Cuba was removed from was "Cuba, Iran, Sudan, Syria". The list of enemies would be a larger list.
> 'US removes Cuba from list of enemies' is what actually happened.
The US has lots of different things that amount to "lists of enemies", so its important to distinguish which list we are talking about. The individual terms in the names of the lists may not be meaningful in the usual sense of the words used, but the names of the lists still serve as (potentially opaque) unique identifiers for which list (and thus, which associated legal consequences) is being discussed.
The US has lots of different things that amount to "lists of enemies", so its important to distinguish which list we are talking about. The individual terms in the names of the lists may not be meaningful in the usual sense of the words used, but the names of the lists still serve as (potentially opaque) unique identifiers for which list (and thus, which associated legal consequences) is being discussed.
It used to be a political tool for furthering potentially legitimate political or ideological interests. These days it has been corrupted to further illegitimate, religious interests. That's out of bounds. So let's make a rule to only use it in cases where it applies to illegitimate political and ideological interests. Otherwise, let's call them potential freedom fighters, depending on outcome.
> It used to be a political tool for furthering potentially legitimate political or ideological interests.
By "it," I assume you mean terrorism, as a tactic.
> These days it has been corrupted to further illegitimate, religious interests. That's out of bounds.
Why? What's specifically out of bounds about religiously inspired terrorism, but acceptable about purely political and/or ideological terrorism? And where does the boundary get drawn - Northern Ireland, for example, has had no small amount of trouble with terrorism where the political and religious motives are inextricably linked.
> So let's make a rule to only use it in cases where it applies to illegitimate political and ideological interests. Otherwise, let's call them potential freedom fighters, depending on outcome.
Or perhaps your post was merely sarcasm.
By "it," I assume you mean terrorism, as a tactic.
> These days it has been corrupted to further illegitimate, religious interests. That's out of bounds.
Why? What's specifically out of bounds about religiously inspired terrorism, but acceptable about purely political and/or ideological terrorism? And where does the boundary get drawn - Northern Ireland, for example, has had no small amount of trouble with terrorism where the political and religious motives are inextricably linked.
> So let's make a rule to only use it in cases where it applies to illegitimate political and ideological interests. Otherwise, let's call them potential freedom fighters, depending on outcome.
Or perhaps your post was merely sarcasm.
Calling something terrorism never implied favorably that the interest was legitimate, so it isn't a corruption to apply it to hated groups like ISIS, it's just a description. The phrase "freedom fighter" has never been usable in an objective way.
[deleted]
Lets not use it at all. Lets call them enemies. ISIS are an enemy, that's unambiguous. They would not dispute it.
I'm not saying lets not apply moral judgement. Call them assholes, brutes, whatever.
I'm not saying lets not apply moral judgement. Call them assholes, brutes, whatever.
Irony is beautiful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Project
Trying to overthrow a government is not terrorism.
> Trying to overthrow a government is not terrorism.
True; "trying to overthrow a government" is a goal, "terrorism" is a means deployed to achieve a goal. You can do the former without the latter or the latter without the former, but the Cuban Project had the goal of overthrowing a government and used terrorism as a major one of its means.
True; "trying to overthrow a government" is a goal, "terrorism" is a means deployed to achieve a goal. You can do the former without the latter or the latter without the former, but the Cuban Project had the goal of overthrowing a government and used terrorism as a major one of its means.
But if someone tries to overthrow the US government it is, right?
Unless it's the US government, right?
its freedom fighting
It isn't?
About time. I had an opportunity to visit[0] last summer and it's ridiculous they're still on their list. Human rights record is more spotty and deserves scrutiny but they're not actively out to kill Americans.
[0] - http://dopeboy.github.io/cuba/
[0] - http://dopeboy.github.io/cuba/
Nobody deserves a point of view on this until they learn about Luis Posada Carriles living out his life comfortably in Miami after bombing a Cuban jetliner out of the sky with no survivors.
Does it mean Cubans can now install the Oracle Java runtime?
Every citizen of every nation of the earth is entitled to having crapware bundled with their software installers.
Maybe, two days ago:
https://twitter.com/MerchiseMeetup/status/603658720913010688
Maybe at some point the US will be able to remove itself from that list as well.
My friend whose uncle was murdered by FARC will be happy to know Cuba no longer supports terrorism.
I'm sorry to hear about your friend's uncle's fate.
But look at the bright side of this announcement! This is not about Cuba supporting terrorism or not. It's about the US government taking the Cuban government off its list labeled "governments supporting terrorism". Two governments are improving their communication.
With some luck, this will help diminish state (sponsored) violence against innocent people a little bit.
But look at the bright side of this announcement! This is not about Cuba supporting terrorism or not. It's about the US government taking the Cuban government off its list labeled "governments supporting terrorism". Two governments are improving their communication.
With some luck, this will help diminish state (sponsored) violence against innocent people a little bit.
http://www.cfr.org/cuba/state-sponsors-cuba/p9359#p1 has some context.
Every State supports freedom fighters sometimes, depending on political and ideological interests. But when you need to create a special list as justification for economic warfare, then that name, "freedom fighter", is rebranded something less appealing. But both of these use the same means to further political or ideological goals... and States are not exempt from using these means either.