Talk:Cuban–American Treaty of Relations (1903)

sentence deleted - its not correct

This separate situation arose from a dispute because the island was not specifically mentioned in the Platt Amendment which defined Cuba's modern boundaries.

The Platt Amendment does not define the borders of Cuba, not could it. Not sure where how the dispute arose. anyone?? ( Martin | talk • contribs 20:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC))

check amount is not clear

The footnote/reference says $4085 per month, but another document says the 1934 treaty changed the amount to $4085 per year. That claim is not substantiated by the Yale Law Avlon project copy of the 1934 lease however, and I have not found the date or rationale for the change in payment amount. I have requested information from the state department that should clarify this ambiguity, at least somewhat. ( Martin | talk • contribs 02:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC))

Also: When (and by what process) was the original $2000 gold deemed to mean $4085? —Tamfang (talk) 19:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

de Zayas

Changed from

• Professor Alfred-Maurice de Zayas also argues that the United States has broken the terms of the treaty by allowing commercial use of the land and not giving Cuba ultimate sovereignty over the area.

He does mention McDonalds, but says this is not a material breach, sufficient to void the lease. He does discuss other more serious problems with the lease. He does note the that compulsion in signing a lease was not at that time considered enough to void an agreement. Consider, one supposes, the Magna Carta, signed under duress. ( Martin | talk • contribs 14:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC))

the "Distinguish" line makes kind of a mess

The article includes detail about the treaty of relations, and a new article has been created on the topic of "treaty of relations" that kind of makes a confusion of the four documents related to the lease. I am not sure what to do... ( Martin | talk • contribs 07:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC))

This article currently has text about the two lease documents in 1903, plus some text about the two treaties of relations documents of 1903 and of 1934 - all of which documents are related to the lease. Plus the new article also is less than clear about WHAT the Platt Amendment is an amendment to, and where the requirement is that the text of the Platt Amendment be incorporated into the Cuban Constitution.
One has to note that, in retrospect, the requirement of incorporation is problematic for several reasons: 1) in the Platt, the Congress is supposedly speaking, and in the Cuban Constitution, the Cuban people are supposedly speaking, so that the word "foreign" means different things, yet is repeated like a parrot; and 2) was the procedure for changing the Cuban Constitution followed? It is not obvious. ( Martin | talk • contribs 08:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC))

split paragraph

I split the paragraph "reactions to the lease" into American and Cuban. I think this is helpful, because there is little question that the lease is controversial, so making plain what the controversy is, is helpful. I hope to make some progress on this, and I will now add what I think is a useful source for Cuban opinion in the early days 1960-1965, taken from speeches of Cuban representatives, gathered in Spanish in 1970, and translated in 1977 into English, via Michael Strauss. ( Martin | talk • contribs 20:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC))

'Cuban Perspective' Is Not Neutral

The 'Cuban Perspective' section uses "we", and thus is not neutral in tone.Patchouliandcolt (talk) 05:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Did someone fix this..?? ( Martin | talk • contribs 09:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC))

Footnote 5 [The Leasing of] says something slightly different on page 50.

Both Guantanamo and Bahia Honda are reported in the book as leased, as an inspection of the lease also confirms. ( Martin | talk • contribs 09:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)) Copyright or I would load an image of the paragraph. ( Martin | talk • contribs 10:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC))