Text 17483, 77 rader
Skriven 2011-04-27 17:35:03 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
     Kommentar till en text av Robert Bashe (2:2448/44)
Ärende: Names will never hurt me...
===================================
Hello Robert,

On Friday April 22 2011 09:41, you wrote to me:

 MV>> A treaty is sort a contract between sovereign states isn't it?

 RB> Like the USA and Cuba at the time Guantanamo was leased, yes. And just
 RB> to remind you, treaties are not abrogated (rendered null and void)
 RB> merely because a government happens to change. If that were the case,
 RB> no treaty would be worth the paper it's written on.

Of course. A mere change of government is no reason to terminate a treaty and
it is not the normal way of things.

However if the change is more than just a change of government but a more
drastic change like a revolution or a seperation, it is not unusual for
treaties to be terminated. Nobody expected the individual members to continue
all treaties singed when they were still part of the USSR. Nobody expects Iraq
to honour all treaties signed by Saddam and nobody will expect Libya to honour
all treaties by Ghadaffi after his fall.

Disallowing parties to renegotiate a treaty when the circumstances change
drastically is unfair.

When the treaty between Cuba and the US was signed it may have been to the
advantage of both parties. it is obvious that today that is no longer the case.
There is nothing in it for the Cubans anu more. The fee of some $4000 is a
joke. The base is no longer needed for its original purpose (coaling) and it
does not serve to prtect Cuba against any enemy.

To hold them to it with some legalistic argument is grossly unfair.

 RB>>> You're confusing Guantanemo with Ramstein.

 MV>> Am I? How do we know that when push comes to shove, The same will
 MV>> not happen to Ramstein as what happened to Guantanomo? That the US
 MV>> will simply refuse to leave?

 RB> You're joking ;-)

No Bob, I am dead serious. You claimed a souvereign country could allow foreign
military basis on its territory and disallow them at will. I gave you a counter
example. Cuba is unable to get rid of the Gitmo hotel. The US does not want to
leave and found a "reason": the treaty. So they refuse to go. Period.

How do we know that when Germany asks the Americans to vacate Ramstein, they
will not find some "reason" and refuse to leave?

 RB>>> May well be, but that still doesn't change the fact that Ramstein
 RB>>> still exists because the German government permits it.

 MV>> Just as Guantanomo still exists because the Cuban government
 MV>> permits it?

 RB> The Cuban government is not involved. The treatey was ratified and all
 RB> following governments are bound by it. Even the Cubans understand that
 RB> - why is it so hard for you to do so?

Because I can see that that treaty is a joke. No reasonable man would hold
someone to a treaty that is over a century old and was signed when the world
was a completely different place from what it was now.

Obviusly the present Cuban government does NOT feel bound by the treaty any
more. They refuse to accept payment!

Get those blinders off your eyes Bob. That joke of a treaty is just an excuse.
The Americans are still there because they refuse to leave and Cuba does not
have the clout to forcibly evict them.

Had it been the other way around, the Cubans would have been kicked out of
Florida the day after Castro rose to power. Treaty or no treaty.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20070503
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)