Unjustified Intervention: Debate Surrounding United States Involvement in Cuban Affairs

John Alexander Vailas History of Latin America and the Caribbean Spring 2013

The decline of Cuban sovereignty began and continued as a result of Spanish and American refusal to relinquish authority over Cuban affairs. Following Cuban attempts at claiming their own independence, the Spanish remained a potentate until the US was able to defeat them in the Spanish-American War (1898-1902). During the aftermath of the war, the US neglected to grant Cuba their proposed independence. Instead of leaving the government and control of the island to its people as was proposed in the Teller Amendment preceding the war, the United States remained a presence, forcibly granting the Cubans an ultimatum with the Platt Amendment.1 The United States intervention in Cuban affairs, stemming from the Spanish-American War, shows irony in how US sovereignty quickly replaced the newly abolished Spanish power and forcibly bestowed aid upon the Cubans. The majority of scholars believe that United States intervention during the Spanish-American War and Platt Amendment period proved detrimental to the countrys overall growth for subsequent generations and gave the US unjustified control over Cuban affairs. United States interest in Cuba piqued as they witnessed the Cuban war for independence merely 90 miles off the coast of Florida. Prominent figures involved in United States affairs, such as Theodore Roosevelt and Henry Cabot Lodge, had been promoting a greater global role for the US. In the words of Richard Gott, British journalist and historian, this new expansionist mood was reinforced by the timely arrival of yellow journalism, the jingoistic propaganda that helped catalyze positive public opinion surrounding US intervention in Cuba.2 The government became more and more in favor of intervening, and yet would remain divided, hesitant in abandoning the

1 2

"The Teller Amendment." Text of. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 May 2013. Gott, Richard. Cuba: A New History. New Haven: Yale UP, 2004. Print. Pg. 100

precedent established by the Monroe Doctrine. Within the next few years, all the United States needed was a spark to incite a sense of justification for their desired intervention. In 1898, the US dispatched the USS Maine on a "friendly" mission to Cuba. The ship was to help rescue any US citizens or people of interest who may have been endangered by the conflict. On February 15, 1898, by an act of dirty treachery, as Roosevelt recorded in his diary, the ship mysteriously exploded.3 The blame was immediately place upon the Spanish as shown in the common chant at the time, Remember the Maine; To Hell with Spain. The disaster upon the USS Maine was exactly what the US needed to justify their declaration of war against Spain. On April 20, 1898, The Joint Resolution signed by presidential incumbent at the time, William McKinley, entitled the president to use force to remove the Spanish government from Cuba. The resolution also assured Cubans that American intentions were selfless, hoping only to free them from Spanish oppression. Cuban ambivalence towards US intervention with the Cuban war for independence came also as a result of the Teller Amendment; a clause added to the declaration of war against Spain and ratified by the US Congress, stating that the occupation of Cuba should not be permanent.4 It committed the United States Government to granting Cuba its independence following the removal of Spanish forces.5 The Teller Amendment lulled the Cubans into a false sense of security, thinking US intervention would come with no strings attached. Many scholars today still debate over true US intentions in entering the conflict. Most agree that the United States seized an opportunity to further expand their social, economic, political prowess within
3

Jones, Howard. Crucible of Power: A History of American Foreign Relations since 1897 . Wilmington, DE: Scholary Resources, 2001. Print. Pg. 7. 4 Gott, 102. 5 United States. U.S. Department of State. Historian. The United States, Cuba, and the Platt Amendment . N.p., n.d. Web. 30 April, 2013.

neighboring country. Others, such as historian Walter LaFeber, say otherwise. Lafeber, a highly regarded history professor at Cornell University, claims that the United States went to war for humanitarian reasons, in an effort to free the Cubans from the horrors of Spanish policies.6 Many counter the previous statement, such as historian at the University of Connecticut Thomas G. Peterson, by revealing that if the US was so concerned with ensuring Cuban independence, how is it that self determination became such a sullied principle after U.S. entry into war, as the United States imposed a protectorate on Cuba that included the sovereignty-denying Platt Amendment?7 This certainly doesnt portray great humanitarianism. The war lasted less than four months, ending on December 12, 1898 with the Treaty of Paris. With the departure of Spanish fleets following the war, the Cubans anxiously waited, hoping the US would do the same. They were sorely mistaken. Instead, they were granted an ultimatum; either they accepted the provisions established by the Platt Amendment, or they would remain under military occupation indefinitely.8 The Cubans had no choice. By directly incorporating the requirements of the Platt Amendment into the newly drafted Cuban constitution, the McKinley administration was able to shape Cuban affairs without violating the Teller Amendment.9 This loophole, more than anything, would alter the course of US-Cuban relations for the future. The first of the eight sections under the Platt Amendment prohibited the Cuban government from entering a treaty that would compromise Cuban independence or

Lefeber, Walter. "That 'Splendid Little War' in Historical Perspective." Texas Quarterly1968: 8998. History Files. Web. 30 Apr. 2013. 7 U.S. Intervention in Cuba, 1898: Interpreting the Spanish-American-Cuban-Filipino War. OAH Magazine of History, Volume 12, number 3, Spring, 1998. Pg. 6. 8 Crooker, Richard A. Cuba. Philadelphia: Chelsea House, 2003. Print. 9 United States, 1.

allow foreign powers to use the island for military purposes.10 The second forbid the Cuban government from enacted any legislation that would in turn plunge the country into debt. The third granted the US the power to intervene in Cuba whenever they felt the need or were attempting to establish a government adequate for the protection of life, property, and individual liberty.11 The fourth justified and ratified all actions taken by the US during the Spanish-American War as legal and necessary. Section five allowed the US to assume power over cleanliness and sanitation within the country in the case of epidemic or other disease. The sixth and seventh section, granted the US the greatest power over Cuba. Section six and seven allowed for the selling or leasing of Cuban lands to the US to be used for naval bases or coaling. Section eight merely stated that Cuba will embody the foregoing provisions in a permanent treaty with the United States.12 Simply stated, this last section guarantees cooperation by the Cubans in following the previously stated articles. Article seven, and the power it granted the US in claiming land, is still prevalent today. The amendment itself has long been abolished, though the US still maintains control over a naval base at Guantanamo Bay. The majority of scholars and historians, one such historian being Geraldine Lievesley, a senior lecturer in politics at Manchester Metropolitan University, agree upon the fact that United States ownership and usage of the naval base at Guantanamo Bay represents both a violation of Cubas sovereignty and of international law and continues to drive the two countries apart.13 In an brief volume,

10 11

United States 1. "Platt Amendment." Welcome to OurDocuments.gov. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 April 2013. 12 Platt Amendment. 13 Lievesley, Geraldine. Cuba, The USA and Guantanamo Bay: The Collision Between National Sovereignty and Imperial Ambition. Contemporary Politics 12.1 (2006) 3. Advance Placement Source. Web. 14 May 2013. Pg. 4.

Guantnamo: Why the Illegal US Base Should be Returned to Cuba, author Fidel Castro, a man who needs no introduction, claims that the continued existence of the naval base in Guantnamo is an imposition on Cuba by the United States with no legal backing whatsoever and without consideration for the will of the Cuban people.14 The Cuban people see it as a sign of disrespect that the United States is still justified in their usage of the base; a piece of land that was taken by an amendment which has been abolished for nearly seventy years. Progression towards stronger relations between the two nations will remain intransigent as long as the US maintains control over Guantanamo Bay. The Platt Amendment was incorporated into US law on March 2nd 1902. It wasnt until June 12th when the Cuban Constituent Assembly, with a vote of 15 to 14, decided to annex it into their newly formed constitution.15 Those in favor saw restricted independence as being better than continued American occupation. All those opposed declared that the amendment had reduced the independence and sovereignty of the Cuban Republic to a myth.16 At first, Cuba saw nothing immediately wrong with the relationship that had been formed with the US. It wasnt until Woodrow Wilson engaged repeatedly in heavy-handed intervention that Cubans began to display tell tale signs of Yankeepbobia, states author Louis A. Prez.17 Although the Platt Amendment was eventually repealed; it had detrimental effects upon Cubas political development during the first three decades of the republic. It represented a semi-permanent restriction upon Cuban self-determination. It was also an

14

Castro, Fidel, David Deutschmann, and Deborah Shnookal. Guantnamo: Why the Illegal US Base Should be Returned to Cuba. Melbourne, Vic.: Ocean, 2007. Print. 15 Gott, 111. 16 Ibid. 17 Prez, Louis A. Cuba under the Platt Amendment: 1902-1934. Pittsburgh, PA: Univ. of Pittsburgh Pr., 1986. Print.

intangible barrier, preventing the Cubans from developing as their own separate entity. El Mandato, as the Cubans called it, served as the principle instrument of hegemony.18 United States policy in Cuba for the first three decades of the twentieth century provided a textbook example of all that was wrong with American foreign policy in Latin America. By granting the United States the authority to basically control Cuba, all of the new imperfections came as a result of American political policy and its attempts to mirror itself in the new Cuban Republic. In the words of author Richard Gott, the United States solved problems in Cuba that a genuinely independent government would have been obliged to sort out on its own.19 This Big Brother complex, imposed by the US, coddled Cuba to the point where they were unable to mature in a progressive manner as would any other newly independent country. Mentioned earlier, politician Henry Cabot Lodge and newly appointed president Theodore Roosevelt became more and more distraught over Cuba during the decades following the war. I am so angry with that infernal little Cuban Republic, Roosevelt declared. He went on to say, All that we wanted from them was that they should behave themselves and be prosperous and happy so that we should not have to interfere.20 Even more interesting is what Senator Lodge had to say. Nobody wants to annex them he stated, but the general feeling is that they ought to be taken by the scruff of the neck and shaken until they behave themselves.21 Although this appears to contradictory to the apparent forceful intervention during the first few years of the war,

Perez, Louis A., Jr. Cuba Under the Platt Amendment, 1902-1934 Gott, 112. 20 Winter, Mick. Cuba for the Misinformed: Facts from the Forbidden Island . Napa, CA: Westsong, 2013. Print. Pg. 112. 21 Thomas, Hugh. Cuba, Or, The Pursuit of Freedom. New York: Da Capo, 1998. Print. Pg. 481.
18 19

it continues to show how reliant the Cubans were. It is for this reason that a debate still exists over whether intervention was beneficial or not. In an apparent state of complete disarray, many believe the United States had no choice but to take control. Cubas republic quickly descended into a chaotic spin of political infighting, corruption, political violence and civil unrest.22 Political factions, mainly moderates, conservatives, and liberals, all fought over control of the new republic. In certain instances, the Cubans called upon US forces to aid in the quelling of forces during Cuban political revolts. The history of Cuban Government during and after the Platt Amendment period is littered with corruption. It is nothing more than a series of coups and overthrows of dictators such as Gerado Machado, Fulgencio Batista and Fidel Castro. Many of these rulers were in some way either assisted by or involved with the United States. Again, scholars debate over whether Cuba would have been better off with or without United States intervention. If the US would have denied assistance, before and during the Platt Amendment period, it is unsure whether the Cubans would have been able to first cut the cord with Spain and then form a sustaining government system allowing them to prosper. Many believe the United States should have just stayed out of it and allowed the Cubans to evolve on their own. The Cuban Revolution wasnt any different from the American Revolution; a newly formed nation attempting to claim their independence. The US fought for and gained their independence, then created a stable political system that best suited the needs of the nation. Theres no reason why Cuba couldnt have done the same. United States intervention within Cuban affairs, stemming from the Spanish-American

22

Sweig, Julia. Cuba: What Everyone Needs to Know. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2009. Print. Pg. 12.

War, has had lasting negative consequences upon the overall growth of Cuba. However selfish or selfless the reason, by forcibly implementing policies such as the Platt Amendment upon Cuban infrastructure, the countrys development was forever stunted by their reliance upon the United States. To this day, there remains a rift in the relations between the United States and Cuba, somewhat as a result of Guantanamo Bay and the apparent stigma it carries as a symbol of authority the United States maintains over Cuba. In the end, US involvement in Cuban affairs was unjustified when compared to the consequences it had upon the possible growth of Cuba.

Bibliography Book Crooker, Richard A. Cuba. Philadelphia: Chelsea House, 2003. Print. Castro, Fidel, David Deutschmann, and Deborah Shnookal. Guantnamo: Why the Illegal US Base Should be Returned to Cuba. Melbourne, Vic.: Ocean, 2007. Print. Gott, Richard. Cuba: A New History. New Haven: Yale UP, 2004. Print. Jones, Howard. Crucible of Power: A History of American Foreign Relations since 1897.Wilmington, DE: Scholary Resources, 2001. Print. Newman, John J., and John M. Schmalbach. United States History: Preparing for the Advanced Placement Examination. New York, NY: Amsco School Publications, 1998. Print. Sweig, Julia. Cuba: What Everyone Needs to Know. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2009. Print. Thomas, Hugh. Cuba, Or, The Pursuit of Freedom. New York: Da Capo, 1998. Print. Winter, Mick. Cuba for the Misinformed: Facts from the Forbidden Island. Napa, CA: Westsong, 2013. Print. Web Lefeber, Walter. "That 'Splendid Little War' in Historical Perspective." Texas Quarterly1968: 89-98. History Files. Web. 30 Apr. 2013. Lievesley, Geraldine. Cuba, The USA and Guantanamo Bay: The Collision Between National Sovereignty and Imperial Ambition. Contemporary Politics 12.1 (2006) 3. Advance Placement Source. Web. 14 May 2013. "Platt Amendment." Welcome to OurDocuments.gov. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 April 2013. "The Teller Amendment." Text of. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 May 2013. United States. U.S. Department of State. Historian. The United States, Cuba, and the Platt Amendment. N.p., n.d. Web. Ebsco Prez, Louis A. Cuba under the Platt Amendment: 1902-1934. Pittsburgh, PA: Univ. of Pittsburgh Pr., 1986. Print. Magazine U.S. Intervention in Cuba, 1898: Interpreting the Spanish-American-Cuban-Filipino War. OAH Magazine of History, Volume 12, number 3, Spring, 1998