Pants-of-dog wrote:Looking back at your various claims:
1. Cuba had a neocolonial relationship with the USSR.
The thesis presented does not support this claim. It shows that Cuba acted independently from the USSR in Angola. Thus, any influence by the Soviets was not ongoing and issue and time specific, which is not typical with neocolonial relationships.
It acted "independently" in the sense that it put boots on the ground in Angola without asking the Soviets about it, yes. But the Soviets eventually sent military advisors and aid once Cuba was stuck in Angola. This is yet another case in which the differences are just in tactical matters, as opposed to overarching goals.
It's not all that
different from the US warning the Chilean government to change course on human rights, with the latter not listening to the advice. Although in that case, Chile eventually carried out an assassination in US soil and then refused to cooperate with the ensuing inquiry despite American threats of the consequences of non-cooperation, I don't think the same ever happened with regards to Cuba and the Soviets. But then again I doubt the Soviets would have cared too much about something like that.
And with regards to Ethiopia, the USSR and Cuba were very much in line with each other.
Pants-of-dog wrote:2. Cuba had a neocolonial relationship with Angola.
This also seems doubtful, since a lot of the aid was military training and supplies. No one trains and arms the people they are supposedly oppressing, for obvious reasons.
On top of the 15000 soldiers on the ground carrying out military operations against South Africa and UNITAS you mean.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Also, Cuba sent medical professionals, engineers, and other people who helped create vital infrastructure. This is also contradictory to neocolonialism.
Firstly, I showed a few posts ago that this wasn't for free: The MPLA had to pay Cuba for these services.
Secondly, this is no different (in fact, it's quite similar) to American aid to Latin American countries by means of USAID or the Peace Corps. Yet when the US does it, it's colonialism
Pants-of-dog wrote:3. Cuba had a neocolonial relationship with Ethiopia.
This seems doubtful since Cuba did not benefit materially from its relationship with Ethiopia, or if it did, it did not do so at the expense of the Ethiopian people.
Maybe, my impression is that Cuba did benefit at the very least in its relations with the Soviet Union.
Pants-of-dog wrote:4. Cuba used Granma to interfere in the sovereignty of other countries.
There is absolutely no evidence at all for this claim.
Wasn't Granma justifying the Cuban intervention in Ethiopia? Well, once the communists took over there - before that, Granma stood by the Somalian government
Pants-of-dog wrote:This does not contradict my claim that the USA reduced funding because it had already achieved its goals. The only assumption that i am making is that the CIA already knew about the imminent coup in Peru, and so the USA knew it could step down its military aid.
I haven't heard that it was aware of any of that in 1974. In particular, I don't think it was aware of any concrete coup plotting by then. But I'll do my research on the matter.
Even worse, anyway, is the fact that the US Executive branch wanted to keep sending military aid to Chile and was barred to do so by Congress. This is quite evident from Kissinger's frustration over the matter, frustration he voiced several times over during the period, and the attempts by the US government to find a way to circumvent the ban on military assistance to Chile. Should I cite from the minutes from the respective meetings and the memorandums from the time? The historical documents of the time make it quite explicit (along with Kissinger's belief that human rights promotion was secondary to American interests).
Pants-of-dog wrote:Economically, Chile was exactly where the USA wanted it: in an economic shambles and open for control and investment.
That, too, was something of concern for the US, particularly when it came to avoiding OPIC insurance claims and getting the Chilean government to pay the outstanding foreign debt to the US government.
Pants-of-dog wrote:No. The evidence you just cited shows that the Chilean military had its economic policies ignored and Friedman’s policies were adopted.
But it does
show that the military most definitely didn't carry out the coup to do that (hence the internal debate). The change of mind only came as a result of the failure of what was the traditional economic policy during the '60s to improve the economic situation in the country.
Pants-of-dog wrote:We are not discussing tracking movements. We are discussing surveilling conversations.
Tracking movements is a necessary condition to surveil conversations done in a face to face basis. To be able to track conversations using electronic means, you also need some physical infrastructure that is hard to place if you don't exert military control over the territory to be kept under surveillance.
Pants-of-dog wrote:This does not change the fact that US interests in Latin America were based on making the USA richer by exploiting the natural resources of Latin America.
Why? That's a concrete example in which the USA was made poorer and barred from "exploiting the natural resources of Latin America", with no retaliation since the government that did so was aligned with the US. This means this wasn't the main foreign policy goal for the US with regards to Latin America, but more of a secondary - even if still important - concern. Even worse, one reason of why it was still an important concern for the US government is that the US government had insured American foreign investment in Latin America, so expropriations meant the US government (i.e. the American taxpayer) had to pay insurance claims for expropriation of insured property, so even in that regard the US government was concerned about its financial self interest rather than only about helping American businesses.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Feel free to present whatever evidence you want. When you do, I will analyse it in terms of your claim.
At this point, you have only shown how implausible it is to claim that the Cuban counterintelligence are capable of stopping the CIA in its tracks so effectively.
It is more plausible to assume that Cuba does not have a significant number of people trying to get rid of socialism, which is why CIA efforts continue to fail.
I find it hard to see how the case of East Germany could prove that
, particularly since there was a revolt in 1953 that had to be put down by the Soviet military - and led to the development and strengthening of the East German repressive apparatus. If anything what it does show is that a good repressive apparatus can keep the opposition down.
This is not to say that the Cuban government cannot have widespread support. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, but it can most definitely hold on its own without it as long as the security establishment enjoys a high degree of cohesion and is determined to keep the system as is.
And indeed, the existence of a competent Cuban security apparatus is one of the reasons why the Bay of Pigs invasion failed.