During President Obama’s first term, when the U.S. and Cuba initially made attempts to thaw our icy relationship, I visited the island country as part of an educational delegation.
We met with government officials including Mariela Castro, the daughter of then-President Raul Castro, as she was working on pro-LGBTQ+ legislation. We visited the burial site of national hero José Martí, who is credited with sparking the revolution that freed the nation from Spain. And we spent time at San Juan Hill, site of the most significant battle in the Spanish-American War, after which the U.S. essentially took Spain’s place.
So when President Trump floats the idea of a “friendly takeover of Cuba” or “taking Cuba in some form,” do keep in mind we did that already, back in 1898.
Soon after Spain withdrew its troops from Havana, U.S. forces began an occupation that would last three years under the guise of stability. Meanwhile the large sugar and tobacco plantations that once belonged to former colonizers were quickly being absorbed by American corporations — not by Cubans. That’s why, before leaving, the U.S. required an amendment be added to the country’s constitution making it legal for the U.S. to overrule domestic policies. A second U.S. occupation soon followed.
By now it was clear to Cubans still recovering from the war for independence that freedom from Spain did not mean sovereignty. When it comes to the foreign policy of the most powerful nations, protecting economic interests will always trump the needs of the local population. The tension between the U.S. commerce-driven society and the sovereignty of our trading partners is what dictates our relationship with nations rich in natural resources. Case in point: The roots of our decades of conflict with Iran do not trace back to religious expression or form of government but rather access to oil. At one point during the 1950s, 90% of Cuba’s mines belonged to U.S. companies.
Trump can contemplate taking Cuba, but the reality is the U.S. “took” Cuba decades before Fidel Castro, Raul’s brother and predecessor, introduced communism or his family rose to power. We “took” Cuba before President Kennedy initiated his crippling embargo in 1962. The reality is Cuba has been ours since the Treaty of Paris was signed nearly 130 years ago. And the U.S. began that relationship with the free Cuban people, many of whom had been enslaved by Spain, not by inviting them to the negotiation table in France but by dictating terms.
It’s a story I was told often by locals as I made my way around the country. Whether the communist government instructed the people I spoke with to share that story isn’t clear. What is clear is that it’s true. The lack of consideration for the citizens of Cuba mirrored the negotiations for the Louisiana Purchase between the U.S. and France, which did not include input from the Indigenous people who were already living on the land. It echoed the rationale for toppling the monarchy in Hawaii and the agreement with Russia that gave us Alaska.
None of this is to suggest that the Castro regime was justified in limiting free speech, imprisoning dissenters or murdering its own citizens. However, it’s important to remember how the regime came to be, lest we repeat the same errors. To begin our understanding of the conflict in 1961, with the Kennedy administration’s “Bay of Pigs” failure to overthrow Castro, would ignore the stifling economic conditions that existed before both leaders came along.
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 parcels of land to be annexed, such as Guantanamo Bay, in exchange for freedom. But the kind where the Cuban people decide the fate of their country’s resources regardless of how those choices affect Wall Street.
Given the entanglement of the modern global economy, it is virtually impossible for any industrialized nation to operate completely independently — as demonstrated by the swift rise in gas prices around the world because of the Iran war. However, a change in approach to our relationship with Cuba could provide not only a new trade partner but also a new geopolitical ally, where once the U.S. had a foe. That’s not far fetched. Even while the country was being pillaged by American companies, Cuba was among the first countries to join the U.S. in declaring war on Japan after the attack on Pearl Harbor and was a critical ally in the Atlantic.
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 biggest offense is wanting freedom.
YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
-
The author argues that President Trump’s stated interest in “taking” Cuba is not a novel concept, as the United States already effectively took control of the island in 1898 following the Spanish-American War, occupying it for three years under the premise of establishing stability.
-
The author contends that during this early occupation, American economic interests took priority over Cuban sovereignty, with U.S. corporations rapidly absorbing sugar and tobacco plantations rather than allowing Cuban ownership, and the U.S. required a constitutional amendment granting itself the legal authority to override Cuban domestic policies.
-
The author emphasizes that by the 1950s, approximately 90% of Cuba’s mines were owned by U.S. companies, demonstrating a longstanding pattern of American economic domination that predated the rise of Fidel Castro and communism.
-
The author stresses that the United States established its relationship with Cuba through the Treaty of Paris without Cuban participation in the negotiations, mirroring exclusionary practices seen in the Louisiana Purchase and the dispossession of Indigenous peoples and Hawaiian sovereignty.
-
The author acknowledges the Castro regime’s repression while arguing that understanding the economic oppression and lack of sovereignty preceding Castro’s rise is essential to avoiding repeating historical mistakes.
-
The author proposes that offering Cuba genuine sovereignty rather than further intervention could transform the relationship from one of antagonism to mutual benefit, potentially creating a new geopolitical ally and trade partner.
Different views on the topic
-
The U.S. occupation of Cuba from 1899 to 1902 brought measurable infrastructure improvements, including development of postal systems, establishment of schools, and elimination of yellow fever, suggesting the occupation had some constructive effects beyond pure economic exploitation[3].
-
The Castro regime’s rapid consolidation of power through imprisonment and execution of political rivals demonstrates the authoritarian nature of the government that emerged, with the regime declaring itself Marxist-Leninist and aligning with the Soviet Union rather than pursuing democratic governance[1][2].
-
Cuba’s nationalization of U.S. businesses without compensation in 1960 represented economic aggression that justified American economic countermeasures, including the trade embargo that has long been framed as a response to Cuban state actions[1][2].
-
The Cuban government’s 1996 shooting down of two civilian aircraft operated by the exile group Brothers to the Rescue, killing four Miami-based activists, exemplified violent suppression of opposition activities and demonstrated hostility toward dissent[1][2].
-
Cuba’s detention of American subcontractor Alan Gross in 2009 on accusations of crimes against the Cuban government illustrated the regime’s intolerance for American citizens operating on the island and its restrictive approach to foreign presence[2].
