Private property rights are also human rights.
On March 2, 1964, three years after the beginning of the U.S. embargo on Cuba, Castro told the Cuban Communist Party newspaper Hoy that “within ten years we will produce more milk than Holland and more cheese than France… By that date, we expect to exceed thirty million liters of milk [annually], so much in fact that we will have to export.” Soviet subsidies and trade with the Communist block meant that the embargo had no impact on Cuba’s dairy industry.
Despite this, two of the great failures of the economy established by the communist revolution have been cattle ranching and the dairy industry. The confiscations of private cattle ranches and of dairy companies at the beginning of the the revolution left these industries, of vital importance for the country, in shambles.
The Cuban communists, in addition to pillaging Cuban property owners, also stole the properties of several U.S. companies, and now justice is finally being served in the courts.
Human rights, as an idea, have a conservative pedigree that stretches back to the Middle Ages and to the Catholic Church. The first time in human history that a universal concept of human rights in which they are applied to all living being on the planet emerged out of a debate concerning the Spanish conquest of the Americas in the 16th century.
Human rights and the rule of law exist in order to protect those without power from the abuse of the powerful.
The enforcement of Title III of the LIBERTAD Act, since May 2, 2019 is good news. The right to bring an action under Title III of the LIBERTAD Act means a chance for justice for property owners who had everything stolen from them by a dictatorship.
This decision means that victims of repression will be able to pursue justice through the courts, punish those in other countries who have profited from trafficking in stolen property.
Even in the United States the concept of private property rights was eroded with the 2005 Supreme Court decision Kelo vs. City of London which ratified the right of using government power to condemn private homes to benefit a property developer.
However, in a communist state where the rule of law and human rights are not existent such as China for example Beijing has been described by Richard A. Epstein of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University as "Kelo-on-steroids: neighborhoods are ripped down as skyscrapers go up." The same holds true, albeit at a smaller scale, in Cuba.
Often times the stripping of private property rights have unexpected and negative consequences. The destruction of Cuba's cattle and dairy industries are another cautionary example.
Cuba expert Mauricio Claver-Carone's gave important testimony on Capitol Hill on September 14, 2016 that spoke important truths on Cuba that are often overlooked in the public debate over U.S. - Cuba policy. Including the reality that "all business decisions in Cuba are based on the political and control-based calculations of the Castro regime -- not on market forces."
Trade between Cuba and the
United States imploded under the Obama Administration. Peak year of
U.S. trade in goods with Cuba was 2008, the last year of the Bush Administration. The two worst years in trade are the ones following the new Cuba policy launch in December of 2014. All of the details are available at the U.S. Census Bureau. The Cuban economy contracted in 2016 and at the same time military control over it has expanded.
This was a political decision by the Castro regime. The dictatorship used openings in trade from the Clinton era (medical products in 1992 and agricultural products in 2000) to build up a pro-Castro lobby and to target congressional districts in agricultural states to advance its interests. The regime accomplished this by purchasing American exports and requiring U.S. corporations and members of Congress to sign "advocacy contracts" that turned them into lobbyists for the dictatorship as a condition of Cuba buying their goods.
News of this practice broke 15 years ago in USA Today and in The Miami Herald but goes unmentioned today. The Miami Herald in a October 5, 2004 editorial described this practice as "peddling influence for a communist state" and said that those engaged in the practice "should be required to register as agents of a foreign government."
John Kavulich, who was the head of the above mentioned U.S.-Cuba Trade and Economic Council until 2005 explained in 2003 the significance of these "advocacy agreements" stating: ''These agreements are a corruption of the commercial process,'' ... ``Once you include an advocacy clause, they're no longer commercial agreements; they're political documents.''
Tourism in Cuba is not necessarily good for regular Cubans. The New York Times on December 8, 2016 reported how increased U.S. tourism to Cuba had meant more food shortages for Cubans because food production was geared to tourists, and the type of food foreigners eat that are not part of the traditional Cuban diet.
 |
| Beef is a rare commodity, even at this butcher shop in Havana |
Despite this, two of the great failures of the economy established by the communist revolution have been cattle ranching and the dairy industry. The confiscations of private cattle ranches and of dairy companies at the beginning of the the revolution left these industries, of vital importance for the country, in shambles.
The Cuban communists, in addition to pillaging Cuban property owners, also stole the properties of several U.S. companies, and now justice is finally being served in the courts.
59 years ago today #Cuba #Castro illegally confiscated 26 U.S. companies’ property. The #LIBERTADAct holds the Cuban gov accountable, giving families long-denied access to justice. This stolen property benefits Diaz-Canel & the #CastroCronies, not the Cuban people #RevolutionFail— Kimberly Breier (@WHAAsstSecty) August 6, 2019
Human rights, as an idea, have a conservative pedigree that stretches back to the Middle Ages and to the Catholic Church. The first time in human history that a universal concept of human rights in which they are applied to all living being on the planet emerged out of a debate concerning the Spanish conquest of the Americas in the 16th century.
Human rights and the rule of law exist in order to protect those without power from the abuse of the powerful.
The enforcement of Title III of the LIBERTAD Act, since May 2, 2019 is good news. The right to bring an action under Title III of the LIBERTAD Act means a chance for justice for property owners who had everything stolen from them by a dictatorship.
This decision means that victims of repression will be able to pursue justice through the courts, punish those in other countries who have profited from trafficking in stolen property.
Even in the United States the concept of private property rights was eroded with the 2005 Supreme Court decision Kelo vs. City of London which ratified the right of using government power to condemn private homes to benefit a property developer.
However, in a communist state where the rule of law and human rights are not existent such as China for example Beijing has been described by Richard A. Epstein of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University as "Kelo-on-steroids: neighborhoods are ripped down as skyscrapers go up." The same holds true, albeit at a smaller scale, in Cuba.
Often times the stripping of private property rights have unexpected and negative consequences. The destruction of Cuba's cattle and dairy industries are another cautionary example.
Cuba expert Mauricio Claver-Carone's gave important testimony on Capitol Hill on September 14, 2016 that spoke important truths on Cuba that are often overlooked in the public debate over U.S. - Cuba policy. Including the reality that "all business decisions in Cuba are based on the political and control-based calculations of the Castro regime -- not on market forces."
 |
| Trade collapsed with Cuba during the Obama Administration |
This was a political decision by the Castro regime. The dictatorship used openings in trade from the Clinton era (medical products in 1992 and agricultural products in 2000) to build up a pro-Castro lobby and to target congressional districts in agricultural states to advance its interests. The regime accomplished this by purchasing American exports and requiring U.S. corporations and members of Congress to sign "advocacy contracts" that turned them into lobbyists for the dictatorship as a condition of Cuba buying their goods.
News of this practice broke 15 years ago in USA Today and in The Miami Herald but goes unmentioned today. The Miami Herald in a October 5, 2004 editorial described this practice as "peddling influence for a communist state" and said that those engaged in the practice "should be required to register as agents of a foreign government."
John Kavulich, who was the head of the above mentioned U.S.-Cuba Trade and Economic Council until 2005 explained in 2003 the significance of these "advocacy agreements" stating: ''These agreements are a corruption of the commercial process,'' ... ``Once you include an advocacy clause, they're no longer commercial agreements; they're political documents.''
Tourism in Cuba is not necessarily good for regular Cubans. The New York Times on December 8, 2016 reported how increased U.S. tourism to Cuba had meant more food shortages for Cubans because food production was geared to tourists, and the type of food foreigners eat that are not part of the traditional Cuban diet.
Posts
