Essential Afro-Latino/ Caribbean Current Events

[loyola llothta]

 

[loyola llothta]

Cuba’s New Blockade

The US blockade of Cuba is the longest embargo against any country in history. Now, the Trump administration plans to tighten the net.

Tribune 30 May 2019

On 2 May 2019, the Trump administration implemented Title III of the 1996 Helms Burton Act. In doing so, it unleashed the most severe economic sanctions against Cuba since the blockade was first introduced by President Kennedy in 1962.

Title III of the Helms-Burton Act enables Cuban-Americans to launch lawsuits in US courts against foreign companies accused of “trafficking” in property nationalised after the 1959 Cuban Revolution. Previously, lawsuits had been limited to US citizens with claims against nationalised properties. Now that Title III is ‘live’ it includes claims by Cuban-Americans who were Cuban citizens at the time of the Revolution, despite their claims lacking legitimacy under international law.

Britain, like most other countries, negotiated compensation agreements over nationalised properties on the island many years ago. Nationalisations were carried out in accordance with international law and previous owners compensated. Cuba has repeatedly offered to do the same with the United States, but its offers have been rejected.

The US State Department’s action comes hot on the heels of a succession of increasingly hostile threats. In November 2018, National Security Adviser John Bolton, who has a history of aggression towards Latin American countries, labelled Cuba as part of a “troika of tyranny” together with Venezuela and Nicaragua.

Legal experts anticipate there may be as many as 200,000 Title III cases waiting to be taken. However, while the US strictly adheres to other articles of Helms-Burton (an Act which codified sanctions against Cuba into US law 23 years ago), until 2 May Title III had never been enforced. Every president, Democrat and Republican, waived this part of the Act on a six-monthly basis since it was passed in 1996.

The US blockade already constituted the longest economic sanctions against any country in history. It has cost the Cuban economy more than $933 billion dollars since 1962. The new measures aim to further deter foreign investment in Cuba and deprive the country of much-needed resources.

There is speculation that the move is an attempt to court the votes of Cuban-Americans in Florida in advance of the 2020 presidential election. Hardliners in the community are relishing the prospect of taking the Cuban government to court–a grievance they have been carrying since many deserted their properties and plantations in the early years of the Revolution.

In response to the US measures, Josefina Vidal, who was a key negotiator with the US during the Obama rapprochement process said

“they want Cuba to abandon what Cuba is, to abandon its principles, and to submit Cuba to the desires of the US. But that won’t happen.”

In addition to the implementation of Title III, on 17 April, the 58th anniversary of the failed Bay of Pigs invasion, National Security Advisor John Bolton announced the end of virtually all non-family travel to the island and new limits on the amount of money Cuban-Americans can send home to family.

Cuban President, Miguel Díaz-Canel Bermúdez, recognised that the US had chosen a significant date on which to make the announcements and tweeted “58th Anniversary of Girón [Cuba’s name for the Bay of Pigs]: The victory that the US does not forgive.”

Some analysts are predicting that the US move could backfire. Cuba specialist Professor William Leogrande has warned that enacting Title III “would cause an enormous legal mess, anger US allies in Europe and Latin America, and probably result in a World Trade Organisation case against the US.”

When Helms Burton was enacted in 1996, the European Union filed a complaint with the World Trade Organisation and passed a law prohibiting EU members from complying with it. Mexico, Canada and the UK passed similar laws.

The European Union’s foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini and Commissioner for Trade Cecilia Malmström released a statement on behalf of the EU which said it would “consider all options at its disposal to protect its legitimate interests.” Brussels may launch a WTO lawsuit and invoke the EU’s Blocking Statute, which allows EU companies sued in the US to recover any damage through legal proceedings against US claimants before EU courts.

Canada, China and Mexico also condemned the US action, as did several Democrat members of Congress, and the US Chamber of Commerce. Ben Rhodes, the White House official who had been responsible for former president Obama’s Cuba policy tweeted that the only real consequence of Trump’s policy would be to “hurt millions of Cubans” by “denying them resources, drying up remittances, choking off the foreign travel they depend upon to make a living.”

Four lawsuits were filed in the first 16 days that Title III became operational. On 2 May, two Cuban-Americans sued cruise operator Carnival Corp for using Cuban ports nationalised from family members who owned them 60 years ago.

On 3 May, Exon Mobil filed a lawsuit seeking $280 million from state-owned Cuba-Petroleo and CIMEX Corp over a refinery, gas stations and other assets. And on 17 May, members of the Mata family in Florida filed a claim for use of the Meliá San Carlos hotel – the first filed by people who became US citizens after the property was nationalised.

No previous US president has risked unleashing such chaos in the US courts. But the Trump administration takes its advice on Cuba policy from Bolton, Marco Rubio and hardline anti-Cuba lobbyists in Florida. Vicki Huddleston, who was head of the US Interests Section in Havana from 1999 to 2002, told Intelligence Matters magazine in February that she thought “most Cuba watchers and experts on Cuba believe the policy is now regime change.”

Even without Title III, the US blockade is already extraterritorial in its application. International companies including the Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Bank have been fined billions of dollars by the US Office of Foreign Asset Control for historic trading with Cuba.

The Co-operative Bank closed the accounts of the Cuba Solidarity Campaign in 2016, and the Open University banned applications from Cuban students in 2017, both due to the perceived threat of fines for breaking US sanctions.

The British government says that it will work with the EU to protect British companies and that it considers Title III sanctions to be “illegal under international law,” adding that they “threaten to harm UK and EU companies doing legitimate business in Cuba by exposing them to liability in US courts.”

Despite existing antidote legislation and various proclamations about British sovereignty, successive governments have failed to defend British companies’ rights to trade with the island. It remains to be seen how strongly British Trade Minister, Liam Fox, will defend British corporate interests against Trump’s expansionist policy in Latin America generally and this renewed aggression towards Cuba particularly.

Title III promises to kill off chances of improving US-Cuba relations. But its most devastating impact will be felt by the people of Cuba, already suffering under a 57-year-old blockade. The labour movement, in Britain and internationally, must do all it can to ensure this inhumane policy is not exacerbated by these new measures.

Cuba’s New Blockade

 

[Cuban Pete]

Cuba’s New Blockade

The US blockade of Cuba is the longest embargo against any country in history. Now, the Trump administration plans to tighten the net.

Tribune 30 May 2019

On 2 May 2019, the Trump administration implemented Title III of the 1996 Helms Burton Act. In doing so, it unleashed the most severe economic sanctions against Cuba since the blockade was first introduced by President Kennedy in 1962.

Title III of the Helms-Burton Act enables Cuban-Americans to launch lawsuits in US courts against foreign companies accused of “trafficking” in property nationalised after the 1959 Cuban Revolution. Previously, lawsuits had been limited to US citizens with claims against nationalised properties. Now that Title III is ‘live’ it includes claims by Cuban-Americans who were Cuban citizens at the time of the Revolution, despite their claims lacking legitimacy under international law.



Cuba’s New Blockade

Its getting real bad now. Im speaking to family over there. Theres no rice. No hygiene products. No meat. Barely any chicken. No bread. No beans. The government is trying to raise Crocodiles and bring in Ostriches from Kenya to alleviate the food shortages. Its real fukking sad. Thanks cheese cracker in chief

 

[loyola llothta]

5 June 2019
US Bans Educational and Recreational Travel to Cuba

“Cubans should not be used as political pawns. They are human beings," said James Williams, president of Engage Cuba, a political activist group.

By Telesur

As of June 5, U.S. citizens will be prohibited from making group educational and cultural trips known as “people to people” travel to Cuba, Secretary of Commerce Steve Mnuchinof the U.S. Treasury Department confirmed in a statement Tuesday.

According to the commercial director at Cuba’s tourism ministry, Michel Bernal, the island nation received about 250,000 U.S. visitors in the first four months of 2019, which represented a 93.5 percent increase from the same period in 2018.

For the time being, commercial airline flights and travel for university groups, academic research, journalism and professional meetings will continue to be allowed.

In response to the new sanctions, Cuba Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez wrote on Twitter that he “strongly rejects new sanctions announced by the U.S., which further restrict U.S. citizens’ travels to Cuba, aimed at suffocating the economy and harming the living standards of Cubans in order to forcefully obtain political concessions.


Once again they will fail.”

The “strategic decision to reverse the relation of sanctions and other restrictions” limiting Cuba-bound travellers was fueled, allegedly, by the belief that the foreign government’s principles play a “destabilizing role in the Western Hemisphere.” However, Mnuchin admitted that the decision was just one of many tied to the battle being waged against Venezuela’s government — which is supported by Cuba, Nicaragua, China, and Russia, among others.




James Williams, president of Engage Cuba, an activist organization that seeks to end the 60-year old blockade, criticized the Trump administration of using Cuba as a political pawn and policing where Americans travel.

“Our core freedoms ought to no longer be held hostage by politicians for bare partisanship,” he said, adding that “Cubans should not be used as political pawns. They are human beings … As of late’s news is highly opposed for the Cuban folk, particularly the burgeoning Cuban personal sector, who rely on American vacationers to toughen their firms and families.”

This latest sanction is just one of dozens imposed against the Caribbean nation since President Donald Trump rose to office and reimposed the 1950’s economic and tourism embargo.

US Bans Educational and Recreational Travel to Cuba

 

[loyola llothta]

 

[loyola llothta]

Trudeau Government Squeezes Cuba
3 June 2019

Ottawa faces a dilemma. How far are Trudeau’s Liberals prepared to go in squeezing Cuba? Can Canadian corporations with interests on the island restrain the most pro-US, anti-socialist, elements of the ruling class?

Recently, the Canadian Embassy in Havana closed its Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship section. Now most Cubans wanting to visit Canada or get work/study permits will have to travel to a Canadian embassy in another country to submit their documents. In some cases Cubans will have to travel to another country at least twice to submit information to enter Canada. The draconian measure has already undercut cultural exchange and family visits, as described in a Toronto Star op-ed titled “Canada closes a door on Cuban culture”.

It’s rare for an embassy to simply eliminate visa processing, but what’s prompted this measure is the stuff of science fiction. Canada’s embassy staff was cut in half in January after diplomats became ill following a mysterious ailment that felled US diplomats sent to Cuba after Donald Trump’s election. Four months after the first US diplomats (apparently) became ill US ambassador Jeffrey DeLaurentis met his Canadian, British and French counterparts to ask if any of their staff were sick. According to a recent New York Times Magazine story, “none knew of any similar experiences afflicting their officials in Cuba. But after the Canadian ambassador notified his staff, 27 officials and family members there asked to be tested. Twelve were found to be suffering from a variety of symptoms, similar to those experienced by the Americans.”

With theories ranging from “mass hysteria” to the sounds of “Indies short-tailed crickets” to an “outbreak of functional disorders”, the medical questions remains largely unresolved. The politics of the affair are far clearer. In response, the Trump Administration withdrew most of its embassy staff in Havana and expelled Cuban diplomats from Washington. They’ve rolled back measures the Obama Administration instituted to re-engage with Cuba and recently implemented an extreme measure even the George W. Bush administration shied away from.

Ottawa has followed along partly because it’s committed to overthrowing Venezuela’s government and an important talking point of the anti-Nicolás Maduro coalition is that Havana is propping him up. On May 3 Justin Trudeau called Cuban president Miguel Díaz-Canel to pressure him to join Ottawa’s effort to oust President Maduro. The release noted,


“the Prime Minister, on behalf of the Lima Group [of countries hostile to Maduro], underscored the desire to see free and fair elections and the constitution upheld in Venezuela.”

Four days later Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland added to the diplomatic pressure on Havana. She told reporters,

“Cuba needs to not be part of the problem in Venezuela, but become part of the solution.”

A week later Freeland visited Cuba to discuss Venezuela.

On Tuesday Freeland talked with US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo about Venezuela and Cuba. Afterwards the State Department tweeted,

“Secretary Pompeo spoke with Canada’s Foreign Minister Freeland to discuss ongoing efforts to restore democracy in Venezuela. The Secretary and Foreign Minister agreed to continue working together to press the Cuban regime to provide for a democratic and prosperous future for the people of Cuba.”

Ottawa supports putting pressure on Cuba in the hopes of further isolating/demonizing the Maduro government. But, the Trudeau government is simultaneously uncomfortable with how the US campaign against Cuba threatens the interests of some Canadian-owned businesses.

The other subject atop the agenda when Freeland traveled to Havana was Washington’s decision to allow lawsuits for property confiscated after the 1959 Cuban revolution. The Trump Administration recently activated a section of the Helms-Burton Act that permits Cubans and US citizens to sue foreign companies doing business in Cuba over property nationalized decades ago. The move could trigger billions of dollars in legal claims in US courts against Canadian and European businesses operating on the island.

Obviously, Canadian firms that extract Cuban minerals and deliver over a million vacationers to the Caribbean country each year don’t want to be sued in US courts. They want Ottawa’s backing, but the Trudeau government’s response to Washington’s move has been relatively muted. This speaks to Trudeau/Freeland’s commitment to overthrowing Venezuela’s government.

But, it also reflects the broader history of Canada-Cuba ties. Despite the hullabaloo around Ottawa’s seemingly cordial relations with Havana, the reality is more complicated than often presented. Similar to Venezuela today, Ottawa has previously aligned with US fear-mongering about the “Cuban menace” in Latin America and elsewhere. Even Prime minister Pierre Trudeau, who famously declared “viva Castro” during a trip to that country in 1976, denounced (highly altruistic) Cuban efforts to defend newly independent Angola from apartheid South Africa’s invasion. In response, Trudeau stated, “Canada disapproves with horror [of] participation of Cuban troops in Africa” and later terminated the Canadian International Development Agency’s small aid program in Cuba as a result.

After the 1959 Cuban revolution Ottawa never broke off diplomatic relations, even though most other countries in the hemisphere did. Three Nights in Havana explains part of why Ottawa maintained diplomatic and economic relations with Cuba: “Recently declassified State Department documents have revealed that, far from encouraging Canada to support the embargo, the United States secretly urged Diefenbaker to maintain normal relations because it was thought that Canada would be well positioned to gather intelligence on the island.” Washington was okay with Canada’s continued relations with the island. It simply wanted assurances, which were promptly given, that Canada wouldn’t take over the trade the US lost. For their part, Canadian business interests in the country, which were sizable, were generally less hostile to the revolution since they were mostly compensated when their operations were nationalized. Still, the more ideological elements of corporate Canada have always preferred the Cuban model didn’t exist.

If a Canadian company is sued in the US for operating in Cuba Ottawa will face greater pressure to push back on Washington. If simultaneously the Venezuelan government remains, Ottawa’s ability to sustain its position against Cuba and Venezuela is likely to become even more difficult.

Link:
Trudeau government squeezes Cuba

 

[loyola llothta]

 

[loyola llothta]

 

[loyola llothta]

 

[loyola llothta]

How Wall Street Colonized the Caribbean
June 27, 2019

By: Peter James Hudson – Boston Review –

Scrubbed from the pages of glossy coffeetable books, the history of U.S. imperialism can be found in the archives of Wall Street’s oldest, largest, and most powerful institutions. A deep dive into the vaults and ledgers of banking houses such as Citigroup, Inc., and J. P. Morgan Chase and Co. reveals a story of capitalism and empire whose narrative is not of morally pure and inspiring economic growth, technological innovation, market expansion, and shareholder accumulation, but rather of blood and labor, stolen sovereignty and pilfered resources, military occupation and monetary control. Sugar comingles with blood, chain gangs cross spur lines, and the magical abstractions of finance are found vulgarized in the base manifestations of racial capitalism.

This history of bankers and empire is also a Caribbean history. The Caribbean archipelago was ground zero for U.S. imperial banking. Wall Street’s first experiments in internationalism occurred in Cuba, Haiti, Panama, Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic, and Nicaragua, often with disastrous results—for those countries and colonies, and often for the imperial banks themselves. Yet where there was expansion, there was also pushback. The internationalization of Wall Street was met with local resistance, refusal and revolt. And just as the history of imperialism has been excised from popular narratives, so too has this history of Caribbean anti-imperialism and autonomy.

The history of imperial banking and racial capitalism begins at the end of the nineteenth century, at the historical horizon where the project of U.S. settler colonialism that spurred the financing of the West became the enterprise of U.S. territorial colonialism in the Caribbean and Asia.

Buoyed by unprecedented wealth and boosted by the expansionist jingoism following the victory over Spain in the Caribbean and the Pacific, New York City’s bankers and merchants believed that the organization of an imperial banking system—one that could compete with Europe’s long-established institutions—was critical to the global rise of the city and to the consolidation of Wall Street’s position in international finance, trade, and commerce. With these ambitions, bankers and business-people set their sights on asserting control over the trade and finance of the Americas. They sought to control local central banks, establish U.S. branch banks, take over commodity financing, reorganize monetary systems on a dollar basis, and refinance European-funded sovereign debt.

This project of internationalization was explicitly encouraged and supported by the U.S. government. The war and state departments required fiscal agencies to support the infrastructure of U.S. colonialism, and financial institutions were an important conduit of colonial policy and financial and commercial diplomacy. Bankers, however, needed little prodding to move overseas, extending their influence into the sugar plantations, railroads, and financial systems of Haiti, Cuba, Santo Domingo, and Nicaragua. The U.S. state made both implicit and explicit assurances that it would intervene should local conditions turn against U.S. business interests or disrupt the payments of interest or customs revenue.

How Wall Street Colonized the Caribbean - Haiti Analysis

 

[loyola llothta]

Part 2

At the center of this story was the National City Bank of New York, the precursor to today’s Citigroup, Inc. Founded in 1812, it emerged as the largest and most important imperial financier in the United States. Through most of the nineteenth century, it was a powerful but staid merchant bank whose cautious lending and massive cash reserves helped it ride the nation’s economic roils. It took on a more aggressive, entrepreneurial, and activist strategy for expansion and growth under James Stillman and Frank A. Vanderlip, who carried it into the twentieth century.

Stillman and Vanderlip transformed City Bank from a merchant bank into a modern financial department store—creating a new managerial structure, expanding into new financial markets, and exploring the possibilities of foreign expansion and international banking. The most important theater of internationalization was the “American Mediterranean,” as one City Banker described the countries and colonies ringing the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico. There, the bank experimented with the issuance of sovereign debt, the financing of international trade, the funding of industrial infrastructure, and the organization of regional state banks and currency systems. Beginning in 1914, it also made the Caribbean the centerpiece of the largest foreign branch bank system of any U.S. banking house, with Cuba the jewel in its crown.

Law was critical to City Bank’s internationalization and expansion. As part of its efforts, City Bank hammered away at the banking regulations shackling its activities and pushed for regulatory reform while creating new subsidiary organizations that could navigate the complex regulatory geographies of international finance or simply evade existing legal constraint. Wall Street lawyer John Sterling, of Shearman and Sterling, worked closely with Stillman and Vanderlip, while other firms worked to devise the colonial methods by which the imperial banks operated.

Race was central to City Bank’s work, too. In its encounters with the nations and colonies of the Caribbean and Latin America, Wall Street helped reorder those economies along racial lines, exporting the U.S. racist imaginaries in which Wall Street was embedded and through which it functioned. When conducting business in the Caribbean, U.S. bankers understood people of color—whether Africans or indigenous peoples—through the same racist lenses they viewed them through at home. White representations of African Americans, in particular, were exported to the West Indies and inscribed in a vast and diffuse archive of pamphlets, reports, circulars, press releases, prospectuses, and journal articles produced by Wall Street about the Caribbean and Latin America. At the same time, in their dispatches back to the United States, bankers translated the Caribbean to U.S. businesspeople, investors, and the general public. In some cases they debunked stereotypes as a means to encourage investment. In others they replicated and reconstituted racial stereotypes in order to further the expansion of white supremacist control of the region—with returns to investment found not in the extraction of capital values, but in the ledger of white racial dominance.

One example of this practice can be found in City Bank vice president John H. Allen, one of the new slate of managers and vice presidents appointed by Vanderlip as part of the bank’s modernization of its bureaucracy. Allen aided the bank’s expansion into Cuba and Argentina and was the manager of the City Bank–controlled Banque Nationale de la République d’Haiti in the 1910s. In the City Bank’s foreign trade journal The Americas, Allen evoked a picture of Haiti that would have been recognizable to white U.S. audiences but for its tropical setting. “Cock-fighting and card playing,” Allen asserted, “are the national pastimes, and these, together with a supply of Haitian rum, are all that is necessary for a Haitian citizen’s perfect day.” He claimed that during his visits to Haiti, he found that “humorous incidents were of almost daily occurrences.” For Allen, such incidents “showed the naivete and also the restricted mentality of the people, which latter was plainly noticeable even among the more highly educated.”

These anecdotes did not exist in a vacuum. They were not an incidental cultural membrane stretched over the inner workings of banking, racial capitalism, and imperialism. Instead they contributed to the fundamental ideological and cultural rationales that made the Caribbean the target of Wall Street’s imperial aims, and at the same time helped fashion the terms through which the Caribbean was encountered. These representations were underwritten by both direct and indirect forms of violence: by coercive diplomacy, military force, and labor impressment, as well as by the terms and conditions of credit and debt, the imbalanced application of law and legal regulation, and the imposition of modern forms of post-emancipation financial governance.

Indeed, Allen himself was deeply involved with the decision to send U.S. Marines to Haiti in 1915 in what would become a nineteen-year military occupation. City Bank had been interested in Haitian investments since about 1910, and Vanderlip sought to use some initial railway and dock investments as a springboard to control the republic’s financial system. Haiti’s internal political conflicts, fueled in part by outside agitation and interference from both U.S. and European speculators, created disastrous terms for business. In response, City Bank’s Roger L. Farnham, who viewed the Haitian people as “nothing but grown-up children” who required the paternalistic guidance of a stronger power, drafted a document arguing for U.S. military intervention to stabilize the country and protect U.S. financial and commercial interests.

The Farnham plan, as it was dubbed, was realized in 1915, when Marines landed to restore order following the assassination of Haitian president Vilbrun Guillaume Sam. The occupation provided the platform for City Bank’s takeover of the Banque Nationale while making City Bank’s imposition of a $30 million loan to the Haitian government almost risk free. Vanderlip described Haiti as “a small but profitable piece of business” for City Bank. But such profits came at a cost: the suppression of a series of peasant insurgencies that left thousands of Haitians dead and dozens of villages burned. Hundreds of Haitians were jailed or forced to work on chain gangs, serving as a reminder to many Haitians of the days of slavery.

 

[loyola llothta]

Part 3

City Bank was not the only U.S. financial institution charting an imperial turn. It was joined by its neighbors on Wall Street, sometimes as collaborators involved in a collective project to consolidate the financial realms of the U.S. imperium, sometimes as rivals embroiled in bitter competition.

Chase Manhattan Bank, for instance, made an aggressive push to displace City Bank in Panama while fighting City Bank for pride of place in the financing of the dictatorship of Gerardo Machado y Morales in Cuba. Meanwhile, Wall Street’s unincorporated and private investment banks, including J. P. Morgan and Co., Speyer and Co., and Kuhn, Loeb and Co., began floating the public debt of Caribbean, Latin American, and Asian countries, states, and municipalities and financing railroad and port projects. These private bankers had initially grown in prominence by using their strong European networks and their close family ties as the conduit to market U.S. government bonds and corporate securities across the Atlantic. Now, increasingly, they sold Caribbean and Latin American debt in the United States.

Private bankers came to play an important role in the policy of “dollar diplomacy” initiated by President William Howard Taft and his secretary of state, Philander Knox, in the 1910s. In the attempt to displace European influence and extend U.S. capitalism in the Caribbean— which purported to replace military intervention with financial diplomacy—private bankers worked with financial experts and local governments to refund sovereign debt, reorganize customs collection and currency systems, and organize nominally national government banks. The disordered global financial and economic conditions unleashed by World War I accelerated the internationalization of Wall Street and intensified the relationship between banking, bankers, and imperialism.

But the expansion, and this initial experiment in imperial banking, was short lived. The sharp economic crisis following the postwar commodity boom forced a brief retreat from internationalization, prompting many Wall Street institutions, including City Bank, to rethink their strategies for expansion. Meanwhile the local banking sector in Cuba was completely destroyed. Of course, by the end of the 1920s, another crisis had occurred; the concussions of the October 1929 stock market crash were felt not only domestically, but throughout the international branch and subsidiary networks of Wall Street—perhaps most acutely in the Caribbean.

The domestic crisis of finance capitalism in the United States became a crisis of racial capitalism in the Caribbean. As Wall Street’s financial edifice imploded, so too did the racial bolsters on which it was constructed. A wave of anti-imperialist and anti–Wall Street sentiment rose across the Caribbean, manifested in the withdrawal of funds from foreign banks, editorials in local newspapers attacking the monopoly presence, worker takeover of foreign-controlled sugar mills, bombings of bank buildings, calls for the nationalization or indigenization of foreign-owned banks, and, in the case of Cuba, calls for the renunciation of foreign debt.

These assertions of sovereignty were not only a claim for economic independence; they were also a rejection of the governing tropes of racial paternalism. Moreover, the rejection of finance capitalism and imperial banking served as a rejection of white supremacy and the obliteration of the circular logic associating whites with wealth and wealth with whites. The desire to break the hold and allure of City Bank and other U.S. banking and investment firms meant a challenge to the divine laws of racial capitalism. In these calls for the nationalization or indigenization of state banking, and in the cries to default on sovereign debt, was a refusal to be governed through the implicitly hierarchal—and implicitly racialized—international orders that had subordinated these countries to the United States.

It was also an effort to critique the registers of profitmaking and accumulation through which the Caribbean labor that produced products—especially sugar—was obscured, shrouded, and hidden in the commodity form itself. The radical journalist Carleton Beals captured this process in The Crime of Cuba (1933), his account of U.S. finance capital—of Chase Bank and City Bank—and the Machado dictatorship. Early in the book, in his discussion of the racialized political economy of sugar, Beals evokes Karl Marx’s description of the commodity as a “social hieroglyphic” whose meaning is only revealed through exegetical means. “For most Americans, Cuba is but the hieroglyphic of a ticker,” Beals writes: “Amer. Sugar 26 5/8 / Cub. Amer. Sugar 17 1/7 / Cub. Am. Pfd. 18 1/5.” He goes further, unpacking, or deciphering, the meaning of sugar as the story of the capture of black labor power. “But for me,” Beals writes, “all this inner mystery is forever imprisoned in each cube of white sugar I drop into my morning coffee. Black Cuba and black sweat and black song and dance, crystallized into a snow cube, held in silver prongs.”

Often such critiques occurred under the guises of the Communist Party and the Comintern, especially through their efforts to build a global movement of radical black labor. The literature and propaganda of black communists at this time linked racial, or what was called “national,” oppression of black workers to finance capital and imperialism. The pages of the Negro Worker, for instance, contained denunciations of City Bank’s involvement in Haiti alongside accounts of black labor exploitation and colonial oppression across the African diaspora. The magazine was published under the auspices of the International Trade Union’s Committee of Negro Workers, a branch of the Red International Labour Union and an appendage of the Comintern tasked with mobilizing black labor in worldwide class struggle against global capitalism.

 

[loyola llothta]

Part 4

The paper’s one-time editor George Padmore also cataloged global conditions of black exploitation in his Life and Struggles of Negro Toilers, published in 1931. Padmore was a young black Trinidadian functionary for the Communist Party’s Negro wing and a prolific writer. Life and Struggles of Negro Toilers presents a sweeping comparative account of the conditions suffered by black people in Africa and the African diaspora and includes attacks on early twentieth-century U.S. expansionism overseas and, with it, the transformation of Haiti and the Dominican Republic, and Liberia and Abyssinia, into colonies of U.S. finance capital. Padmore assails City Bank’s imposition of debt on the Dominican Republic and the transformation of Haiti into “an American slave colony” during the U.S. occupation. He lambasts the “‘Black Ivory’ Trade”—the conscription of Haitian workers to the Cuban plantations of the General Sugar Company and the United Fruit Company. He argues that Haitians were brought to the country “in the same ways as chattel slaves of former days.” Haitians were underpaid, indebted to their contractors, and housed in segregated and unsanitary barrac00ns. In Padmore’s writing, finance capitalism was racial capitalism.

Similar critiques were implicit in Jacques Roumain’s novel Masters of the Dew (1941). The founder of the Haitian Communist Party, Roumain was jailed during the waning days of the U.S. occupation. Masters of the Dew centers on a Haitian bracero who returns to his country from Cuba and attempts to rebuild Haiti through collective labor and a call for black autonomy. For Roumain, the collective pull of the coumbite (farmers’ cooperative) replaces the coercive push of the corvée (forced-labor gang).

At the same time, U.S. banking and corporate interests became the subject of a radical, anti-imperialist Caribbean literature—a literature that can be viewed as a counterpoint to the rhetoric of City Bank and attempts by Wall Street to “visualize” the Caribbean, to borrow Allen’s term, for the purposes of exploitation and accumulation. Cuban poet Nicolás Guillén’s West Indies, Ltd. (1934), for instance, satirically attacks the corporate transformation of the Caribbean into “the grotesque headquarters of companies and trusts.” In Nicaraguan novelist’s Hernán Robleto’s Los estrangulados (1933), the Brown Brothers and J. W. Seligman– controlled Banco Nacional de Nicaragua and the Mercantile Bank of the Americas’ Compañía Mercantil de Ultramar feature as dominant and domineering institutions undermining the economic independence of the Nicaraguan elite through its loaning practices. Langston Hughes wrote of the role of City Bank not only in Haiti but also in Cuba. He evokes the transitions from mercantilism to imperialism and colonialism to neocolonialism in Cuba’s history and offers a glum assessment of the ability of “the Little Fort of San Lazaro,” standing sentinel at the entrance to Havana’s harbor, facing the Caribbean Sea and the United States, to repel the pillaging of finance capitalism. “But now,” writes Hughes, “Against a pirate called / THE NATIONAL CITY BANK / What can you do alone?”

Pushback against racial capitalism did not occur only under the auspices of the Communist Party. Caribbean intellectuals also turned inward to seek out an autochthonous, anti-imperial critique that was the precursor to the philosophy of Négritude. This phenomenon was perhaps most pronounced in Haiti. For the Haitian elite, the utter humiliation of the U.S. occupation forced them to rethink their identities. Their longstanding identifications with France and European Enlightenment thought and culture proved an absurdity in the face of the brutal racism of the U.S. occupation. Many among them realized they were suffering from what Jean Price-Mars called a “collective bovarism”—a deluded and misrecognized sense of self. The Haitian elite slowly realized that Europe was not their home. Africa was. Price-Mars’s Ainsi Parla l’Oncle, an ethnological exploration of the culture and folklore of the Haitian peasantry and its African origins, published in Port-au-Prince in 1927, helped spur the development of insurgent literary and national cultures in the Caribbean and throughout the African diaspora.

In Cuba, this turn to blackness as an alternative to racial capitalism took on multiple and contradictory forms. In the early 1920s, writers such as Jesús Masdeu, in La raza triste (1924), depicted the black workers in the Cuban sugar mills in sentimental, romantic, and often paternal tones. The racial paternalism began to slip away in La danza de los millones (1923), Venezuelan expatriate Rafael Antonio Cisneros’s experimental novel with its efforts at narrating the effects of the banking crisis of 1920–21 on his black characters. In La zafra (1926), a collection of “combat poems,” Cuba’s Agustín Acosta recounted the effects of the sugar boom and bust on the country, linking finance capital to racial capitalism, and sugar to blackness, money, and the poison of U.S. empire. Acosta made this explicit in the poem “La danza de los millones.” It evokes the incursion of the instruments and techniques of U.S. finance capital into the Cuban economy, portraying it as a turbulent sea threatening to capsize the ship of Cuba’s sovereignty. Acosta warned of “Wall Street, with its usurious bankers.” In the novel ¡Écue-Yamba-Ó! written by a young Alejo Carpentier while in Machado’s prison in 1927, blackness was rendered as the soul of Cuban culture, and an African alterity became the terms of a critique of imperialism and white finance. “El bongo,” Carpentier wrote, “Antídoto de Wall Street!”

The antidote to Wall Street did not prove to be a cure. Certainly, changes occurred and the crises of the 1930s forced Wall Street to rethink the organization of finance capital and the project of internationalization in a new era of governance, regulation, and sovereignty. In Haiti, City Bank sold the Banque Nationale to the Haitian government but kept its management structure and its ties to Wall Street in place. In the Dominican Republic, City Bank’s branches became the basis for a national banking system, but U.S. capital still dominated the country. In Cuba, attempts to renounce Chase Bank’s debts and default on amortization payments were stalled by the Cuban courts, and it would take another three decades before Wall Street was finally expelled from the country.

Meanwhile, City Bank and Chase Bank would spend the next decades struggling to return to the heady days of unregulated expansion and unbounded freedom that characterized the early twentieth-century history of imperial banking, writing anew the Caribbean ledger of finance and racial capitalism

 

[loyola llothta]

 

[loyola llothta]

With Chinese trains rolling, Cuba starts revamping railway system

Published on Jul 14, 2019
The first train made up entirely by Chinese wagons began a 14-hour, 835-km journey between Havana and Santiago de Cuba, the second-largest city on the island on Saturday.