Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

US-CUBA Thaw May Mean COMPENSATION for lost assets

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Places » Latin America Donate to DU
 
magbana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-25-09 02:55 PM
Original message
US-CUBA Thaw May Mean COMPENSATION for lost assets
Distributed by CubaNews. Introductory comments are from Walter Lippmann, list editor - his comments are a bit garbled, but I think you can gather what he means.
magbana

This is a useful summary of the issues involved, and
affirms that Cuba offered to compensate US companies
for nationalized property, but the US government said
"no". As a result, those companies never got paid for
their properties. Meanwhile, Cuba settled with every
other country whose nationals had property taken by
Cuba's revolutionary government.

(Imagine, for a moment, if you are willing, how much $$
those US companies could have made by now had they
been willing to settle? Instead, Washington's refusal
to settle denied those US companies anything. The US
hoped Cuba's government could or would be overthrown.
However, here we are, half a century later, and it's
obvious that Washington's calculations were incorrect.
History has demonstration that Washington shot itself,
and US companies, in the foot by its stubborn attitude.
Will they ever learn? So far, it doesn't look hopeful.)
=========================================================

Published on Otago Daily Times Online (http://www.odt.co.nz)
US-Cuba thaw may mean compensation for lost assets
Created 25/05/2009 - 16:45

SOURCE: AP

After 47 years, Mario Sanchez's memory of the house near the Havana Zoo where he was born has faded.But he has not forgotten the address, and can look at the roof using satellite imaging on his computer at his Florida home, 370km away.

"My hope and dream is that one day I would be able to have my property returned to me," Sanchez, a computer science professor at Miami Dade Community College, said in a telephone interview.

With the prospect of improved relations between the United States and Cuba, Sanchez believes that day may no longer be so far off.

He's not alone. Some US companies and Cuban-Americans still hope to recover ownership or compensation for what they lost in the early 1960s, when Fidel Castro nationalized factories, farms, hotels, office towers, department stores, mills, mines, farmland and homes - the largest seizure of American-owned property in history.

The Obama administration's overtures to Havana, its easing of some facets of the 47-year-old trade embargo, and the Cuban government's willingness to discuss improved relations have kindled hope for settlements.

"It's early yet, but I'm optimistic," said Robert Muse, a Washington attorney who represents two of the largest claimants to certify lost property with the US Department of Justice.

"Any warming trend is positive because these claims can't be resolved in absence of rapprochement with Cuba."

Muse, who asked that his clients not be named in print, said international law recognizes the right of foreign owners to seek compensation for seized property.

In 1972, nearly 6000 American companies and individuals who were US citizens at the time their property was confiscated filed claims with the US government for property then worth more than $US1.8 billion and estimated to now be worth around $US7 billion.

Claimants include General Electric, General Motors, Ford, Sears, Coke, Pepsi, Citicorp and Goodyear. Texaco lost its refinery in the eastern city of Santiago. ITT was stripped of its stake in Cuba's phone company.

None of the numerous US companies contacted for this story would comment on claims, citing legal constraints.

But Muse said the "claims remain assets on the books of the companies."

The 10 largest claimants are US companies accounting for nearly $US1 billion of the original losses, he said.

But they are unlikely to want their assets back after years of neglect, and may settle instead for receiving special incentives to invest in the island if controls are lifted, Muse said.

"Companies are willing to be creative and innovative in settling," he said in a telephone interview.

Cuba also expropriated property belonging to hundreds of non-US firms and has signed compensation agreements with Canada, Switzerland, France, Great Britain, Spain and Mexico.

The US negotiated settlements for American property lost to Vietnam's communist government, to Iran after its Islamic revolution and to Eastern European countries that went communist after World War 2.

But not Cuba. In 1960 Castro's government offered compensation in bonds or sugar exports to the US but American authorities say that would have required their country to buy huge amounts of sugar at inflated prices.

A year later the US imposed the embargo and froze Cuban government accounts in American banks. At the end of 2005, the US Treasury Department said $US268.3 million remained, though how much is still there today is unclear.

Some of that money went to families who sued Cuba in American courts under a 1996 law allowing victims of terrorist groups or countries that sponsor them to seek damages.

Cuba has long said it is willing to compensate US interests but wants restitution for the embargo's economic damage, which it calculates at $US93 billion.

The Cuban government is less willing to pay for property lost by Cubans who later became US citizens.

That group includes Sanchez, the computer science professor, who was smuggled off the island at age 6 and didn't see his parents for six more years.

His family's land, home and beach house were seized when officials forced his father, the owner of a transportation company, to work for the new Castro government as a logistical consultant.

Now 53, Sanchez holds deeds to both homes and can still reel off his exact address in Havana's Nuevo Vedado neighbourhood: "Oeste 818 between Conill and Santa Ana Streets."

From what he sees on the satellite images, "The roof looks good." "I would have no problem living there," he said.

But some say it's impossible to turn back the clock.

"Finding out what belongs to who is going to be very hard. Too hard," said Clara Del Valle, 65, a descendant of the Bacardi family whose rum empire had to leave Cuba after Castro took over.

She is vice chairwoman of the Cuban-American National Foundation, an anti-Castro group.

Sanchez's house is an example of the difficulties that may lie ahead.

It looks unchanged from the fashionable one-story home in a black-and-white 1950s photo that Sanchez has, but is occupied by 80-year-old Iliana Paz and her daughter and son-in-law.

"This is my world," Paz said.

A retired attendant at a military mess hall, Paz said she lived in a decrepit apartment building until she moved into the house 42 years ago.

She said Sanchez's mother asked her to care for it until her return. She gave the mother's full name without prompting, saying that this proved she was in the home legally.

But Sanchez said he has never heard of Paz and that his mother, now deceased, never said anything about such instructions.

Also, Paz's account has inconsistencies, and neighbours suggest the house is controlled by the government, which decides who can live there.

Sanchez said he doesn't want to displace anyone.

"How do you deal with people who have been living in your house for 40 years?" he asked. "Do you throw them out on the street? You can't do it." Paz said she won't let him.

"Nothing can make me move," she vowed. "Nothing, nothing, nothing."
Source URL (retrieved on 26/05/2009 - 06:35): http://www.odt.co.nz/news/world/57892/us-cuba-thaw-may-mean-compensation-lost-assets

=========================================
WALTER LIPPMANN
Los Angeles, California
Editor-in-Chief, CubaNews
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CubaNews/
"Cuba - Un Paraíso bajo el bloqueo"
=========================================
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
magbana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-25-09 08:33 PM
Response to Original message
1. MORE from Nelson Valdes
On Cuban compensation for US nationalized properties
Posted by: "NPV" nvaldes@unm.edu nvaldes05
Mon May 25, 2009 4:53 pm (PDT)


On the matter of Cuban compensation for US properties -

It is important to consider the issues from each side of the conflict:

1. Cuba offered to pay compensation in 1960 to all foreign companies.
However, the Cuban position was that the compensation formula would be
similar to what the United States government did at the time that the US
military took over Japan in 1945. At that time the United States government
assumed that in order to have a political democracy in Japan it was
necessary to carry out an agrarian reform diminishing the economic (and
hence political power) of the landlords. The agrarian reform established by
the US had a compensation formula by which 1/3 of the value of the landed
property would be paid in cash and immediately, 1/3 would be paid in
installments during a 30 year period, and the last 1/3 would be paid in cash
at the end of a 30 year period. The Cuban government adopted
a similar formula for US properties.

2. The US government, on the other hand, demanded that Cuba pay "in cash,
adequate and prompt" compensation. Adequate meant - pay what the owners of
the properties say the property is worth. Prompt meant pay all of the
compensation immediately. Finally, in cash meant that it should not be in
bonds, securities, etc.

3. The past issue that should be considered: the formula to determine the
worth of the property. The Cuban government maintained that the value of a
property should be determined on the basis of what the owners said the
property was worth for purposes of taxation throughout the 1950s. As a rule,
foreign investors undervalued their properties in order to pay fewer taxes
on a yearly basis. The Cuban government maintained that that would be the
figure that the state would accept; the US property owners disagreed. The
Cuban authorities offered to pay the worth that the owners claimed, but then
the owners had to pay back taxes (plus a penalty and interest). the United
States government considered such formula unacceptable.

The Cuban government also offered to establish a special fund for purposes
of compensation stemming from the sale of sugar to the United States. The
US government did not accept that proposal.

The majority of the US companies declared their investments in Cuba as
losses and consequently deducted their declared value to the IRS.

Nelson P Valdes
Cuba-L Direct
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dipsydoodle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 03:45 AM
Response to Original message
2. To the phrase "shot themselves in the foot"
should be added "the USA made the bed : now let them lie in it".

This is a pure and simple case of spite. x(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 03:12 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Places » Latin America Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC