Cuban Terrorism 1929
THE DRIVE AGAINST CUBAN “TERRORISM”
MACHADO’S “REIGN OF TERROR” is what critics and political opponents of Cuba’s President call his government regime, involving Americans as well as Cubans in a “despotism” that respects neither property nor human rights, and since by treaty the United States holds an “intervention” club over the island Republic, Senator Borah’s Foreign Affairs Committee is led to make inquiry to discover what, if anything, we should do about it. Meantime the charges are vehemently called “false and defamatory” by Machado through his charge d’affaires in Washington, and the American Chamber of Commerce, as well as representatives of important American business firms in Havana, declare that Machado is neither a dictator nor unjust to Americans, and that Cuba is making rapid progress under his presidency.
Metropolitan papers published the charges against Machado in the form of lengthy resolutions said to have been presented to Senator Borah’s Committee, but their source remained “mysterious” even to Washington correspondents. Mr. Borah declared that they had not come before the Committee, whose inquiry was due to receiving individual complaints. Secret session conferences were to be held with Secretary of State Stimson before proceeding further with organized inquiry. The first conference, according to press reports, came short of developing grounds for intervention. The charges, briefly summarized, include—
Assassination and forcible exile, confiscation of property, profligate extravagance that has produced governmental bankruptcy, suppression of freedom of the press, speech and assembly, the existence of a military dictatorship, illegal elections and courts of justice that have become a farce. It is alleged that opposition to President Machado in the Cuban Congress is stilled by bribing Senators and Representatives with concessions in the national lottery; that each Cuban Senator gets annually from the lottery concession about $30,000 and each member of the House of Representatives about $15,000. Finally, it is declared that bankruptcy and political unrest will force the adoption of insurrectionary measures by the inhabitants, inevitably entailing the loss of life and the destruction of property, of both Cubans and Americans, thus again compelling the military intervention of the United States.
Such startling charges arouse lively discussion in the press in view of our special “protective” relations to Cuba. Inclination to look with suspicion is quite general, and is exprest by the Syracuse Standard, which is “tempted to ask: What American ‘ nigger’ is in the Cuban woodpile”? General press acclaim had followed President Hoover’s appointment of a new Ambassador to Cuba, Mr. Harold F. Guggenheim, of the Guggenheim Foundation, which is contributing to the development of aerial communication with Latin America, but the Senate holds up confirmation pending inquiry.
Washington correspondents appear to agree that the case of Mr. Joseph E. Barlow, an aged American citizen whose claim of some $9,000,000 for a land development in Havana has not yet come through the Cuban courts, is one of the chief precipitating elements in the situation. Correspondent William Hard, of the Consolidated Press Association, sees “the biggest cloud on our whole foreign horizon,” because American liberal and labor forces are clashing with American sugar and other big-business interests in Cuba. The latter stand for Machado’s government while the former accuse him of allowing importation of “Haitian savages” to tend the sugar fields, and say he connives at exile and assassination of Cuban labor leaders. Furthermore, Mr. Hard tells us that prominent political opponents of Machado offer to come to Washington to testify that they are prevented from organizing an opposition party, can not form an army to fight Machado under our State Department’s policy of furnishing arms only to put down “revolutions,” and must make public appeal to the Senate for a change of policy by the United States to restore political liberty to Cubans. Of these opponents Col. Carlos Mendietta, conspicuous in the war of liberation from Spain, is said to be leader, with Rafael Iturralde, ex-Secretary of the Interior and War Departments, and other ex-Senators and ex-representatives as associates.
Iturralde issued a statement to the Associated Press naming four editors of Cuban papers who had been “assassinated under mysterious circumstances after campaigns unfavorable to the Machado government,” as well as other editors forced to flee the country. He added that “no one can deny that Machado reelected himself without opposition; that no election had been held for members of Congress now holding office, and that hundreds of citizens have been murdered, while, wide-spread terrorism prevails.” Executives of four newspapers in Havana, however, unite in declaring that the press is free in Cuba, that there is no reign of terror, and that the Machado administration gives American business complete protection.
Where there is so much smoke there may be some fire, appears to be the point of view taken by the American press as a whole. It is time for action to learn the truth, according to the Manchester Union. “It is fortunate that the American Government has been unresponsive to the Cuban demand for freedom from oversight by this country,” observes the Detroit Free Press. A demand that those behind the charges come out into the open is voiced by the Brooklyn Eagle, which says:
“The terms of the Platt amendment are broad. Under them we have previously intervened in Cuba. Under them a pretext for intervention now might conceivably be found. Those behind the Senate resolution should come into the open; such information as they have at their command should be made public, and the result of Mr. Stimson’s examination of the charges should be fully spread upon the record. A move for intervention is so serious that there should be no secrecy about its origin.”
One of the first important papers to attack Machado unreservedly is the Washington News, of the Scripps-Howard chain. It declares that if Mr. Guggenheim, the new Ambassador, “sees clearly and reports fearlessly, there should be a reversal of the Administration’s policy toward Machado very soon”:
“The new Ambassador is going to represent a democracy in a country curst with one of the worst dictatorships in an age of dictatorship. That would not be so difficult for the Ambassador under ordinary circumstances, for the internal affairs of the foreign country would be none of his business. Cuba is different. It is a United States protectorate. The Machado dictatorship destroys life, property, and individual liberty. Many of Machado’s political opponents have mysteriously disappeared, their bodies found later in prison or washed up by the sea. He has violated property rights of Cubans and Americans, and in the latter cases has defied court rulings and State Department protests. What is the United States going to do about its obligation to preserve those Cuban liberties?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
