Export Ban Drives Cuba To Non-US Analytics Software To Boost Tourism 84
dkatana writes with some crucial lines from an article at InformationWeek: Currently Cuba receives around 2.8 million visitors every year, half of them from Canada. Mintur, the Cuban Tourist Ministry, estimates that if Americans were free to travel to Cuba today, the number of visitors would increase by two million the first year. Last year the Cuban government was interested in getting its hands on analytics software to process the data generated by visitors on social networks. ... Because of the existing ban on American companies supplying technology to Cuba, Havana had to look somewhere else and found SocialVane, a small Spanish company on the island of Menorca, which has been working with the local tourist sector to analyze issues, trends, and potentials of the tourism industry.
Cold war is over (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought Obama already did.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
There is multiple levels to this. The bill to remove the embargo was entered back in February, but is reliant on removing Cuba from the state terrorism list. Obama approved the recommendation and then there is a 45-day review period. From mid-April that takes us through to June.
Here's hoping...
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
It should have gone away when the soviets did. It hasn't made any sense since the 80's.
Well, other than for a way for TV shows/movies to show off how rich someone is by offering the main character a cuban cigar.
Re: (Score:3)
Except that cubans are just as easy now to get as ever and are not very expensive. In fact, my cigar aficionados do not want the embargo to be stopped as it could cause a rise in prices and in counterfeits.
Re:Cold war is over (Score:4, Insightful)
I like Cohiba's, I really do. But I think a lot of the obsession is just the forbidden fruit tasting sweeter. For my part, I prefer Sumatran leaf to Cuban.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am reminded of the, possibly apocryphal, tale of when the Americans wanted to buy the land for the old American embassy in London off the land's owner. He refused but eventually offered a compromise: he said he would sell it to them if they returned the land they'd taken from his family in America. The owner is the Duke of Westminster. The land is most of the state of NY and Maine. They declined and opted for an extremely long lease instead.
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Keep in mind that many Mexicans claim that America stole their land as well. Yet, there were some 100 million Native Americans here, that New Spaniards/Mexicans kept fighting with, and trying to exterminate them. Finally, when USA came across the west, USA succeeded only because the Mexicans had been committing genocide for so long against the nativ
Re: (Score:2)
Have the Brits been compensated? No? Then it doesn't matter if they are dead. Their great great grand children might be alive and would gladly accept compensation, along with interest over 250 years of course.
Their great great grand children would have to show a claim on what has been taken away. Even if the claim is granted, those people might not be able to make a claim stick just because they can't demonstrate that they inherited the original claim. And if nobody can show that they should inherit the claim, then it doesn't get paid, even if the US agrees to pay compensation with interest.
This isn't a problem with someone who were actually alive for the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But what businesses did we steal? And what horses? Did Americans go running through the home of redcoats stealing and murdering the same way that red coats had done to Americans?
Somehow, I doubt that we did.
More importantly, I suspect that you can not back up a SINGLE word of what you are claiming, except by claiming that stolen items belonged to your citizens. Kind of like when Germans claim gold
Re: (Score:3)
However I was talking about people living in the USA, not in England, but forced to emigrate because of the war. All those loyalists didn't keep their stuff (try bringing a land with you to Canada or England). Just like Americans who fled Cuba during Casto's takeover left a lot of belongings behind.
Some would say they choose to leave, others would say they were forced. The result is the same. They left some belongings
Re: (Score:2)
You can not.
As to the business/buildings, we never took them away. In fact, it would go against everything that America stood for back then.
Now, Castro took over the businesses/posessions, etc.
Is that anything like what America did? Nope.
However, IMHO, that was foreign soil and it is NOT America's place to protect businesses and possessions on foreign soil. It IS our place to protect our citizens, even on foreign s
Re: (Score:2)
How could anybody in England own land here, when it belonged to the native Americans?
In 1776, it didn't. NYC, Boston, and other major cities weren't owned by native americans.
Re: (Score:2)
NOBODY in England owned ANY LAND HERE.It belonged to the Native Americans.
That is quite possibly the funniest thing I've ever seen a Yank write.
Re: (Score:2)
Now since America was formed, that means that we yanks are responsible for what happened after that point. And I believe that we owe a lot fo them.
Even now, the GOP continues to steal from the native Americans, over and over.
It makes zero sense at 'giving' land back to them. However, it does make sense that we prevent any more thef
Re: (Score:1)
Oh, and UK is still rolling in wealth and riches it stole from India.
Re: (Score:1)
yes it is, but how is THIS newsworthy?
Vast quantity (Score:1)
OMG (Score:4, Funny)
The US isn't the centre* of the universe!?!
*Yes, I spelled it Canadian.
Re: (Score:2)
My guess is because he knows how to use a dictionary. Such as the Oxford English Dictionary.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If you are caught trading with Cuba in goods that are the product of an American company (HP, Dell, Ford, etc etc), even if you are not located in the US the parent company is (were) subject to stiff fines and your license to sell said products would almost certainly be revoked. So, for example, if a Canadian-based reseller made the mistake of selling an HP computer to a Cuban company, that reseller may find their HP reseller status revoked. Big risk.
This is American reach you see. That is why it hurts s
Re: (Score:2)
Cuba seems to claim it is. They blame the inability to trade with the USA for all their ills. I'm not sure why (nearly) the rest of the world can't satisfy their needs, or why they would want to trade with a nation they disagree with ideologically, but this kind of illogical sentiment is not unique (see: Venezuela).
"Othering" is just a staple of politics regardless of any realities.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not sure why (nearly) the rest of the world can't satisfy their needs
Because of this [wikipedia.org]:
and in 1996 by the Cuban Liberty and Democracy Solidarity Act (known as the Helms–Burton Act) which penalizes foreign companies that do business in Cuba by preventing them from doing business in the U.S.
Re: (Score:2)
Cuba seems to claim it is. They blame the inability to trade with the USA for all their ills. I'm not sure why (nearly) the rest of the world can't satisfy their needs, or why they would want to trade with a nation they disagree with ideologically, but this kind of illogical sentiment is not unique (see: Venezuela).
Yes, it's not as though the USA is the world's main economic and military superpower and has worldwide influence or anything.
Re: (Score:2)
did you know Miami based terrorist groups have successfully carried out terrorist attacks against Cuba? Look it up. Who is harboring terrorists again?
That stuff take a while to forget (Score:3, Insightful)
America should really get their act together and try to patch things up with Cuba sooner rather than later. When a larger country pisses all over their small island neighbours for decades, the small guys have a habit of holding a grudge.
Disclaimer: I'm Irish.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a little different. AFAIK, the US never had a bunch of rich people go and seize all the prime real estate there, use it for farming and send all the profits to the US, then go through a drought and send all the food to the US leaving Cubans to starve to death (literally), and then send in paramilitary forces to beat up on the general population and get into an actual shooting war with them. Ireland has every right to be pissed at England; England's actions were absolutely despicable. Have they eve
Re: (Score:1)
You were OK up to this point. Cuba didn't just nationalize those holdings, they seized them-- no compensation. Whether or not the corporations were receiving special treatment, it's a government's responsibility to protect their citizens' right to property, so it wasn't a stretch to demand compensation. Remember, many private citizens also lost their properties.
Re: (Score:1)
That's a little different. AFAIK, the US never had a bunch of rich people go and seize all the prime real estate there, use it for farming and send all the profits to the US, then go through a drought and send all the food to the US leaving Cubans to starve to death (literally), and then send in paramilitary forces to beat up on the general population and get into an actual shooting war with them. Ireland has every right to be pissed at England; England's actions were absolutely despicable. Have they ever even apologized for all that?
England? Yes. Tony Blair in 1997. The Queen wasn't quite as outright about it though.
Regarding the US treatment of Cuba...you may not want to admit, but some pretty shitty things did happen in Cuba, and in the rest of the Caribbean, at the behest of the US government. Marines were deployed rather frequently, and while you can say they were also fighting some nasty folks, that doesn't mean they didn't commit any abuses.
Re: (Score:2)
you may not want to admit, but some pretty shitty things did happen in Cuba, and in the rest of the Caribbean, at the behest of the US government.
I'm only talking about Cuba here, not the rest of the Caribbean. Similarly, England's actions in Ireland were of no concern to people in France, even though it's a short distance away.
Anyway, I just related the textbook version; I wasn't aware of any US military deployments in Cuba (besides them leasing the Guantanamo Bay facility). If you'd like to fill in some
Re:That stuff take a while to forget (Score:4, Informative)
Leasing? America is NOT "leasing" Guantanamo in any legitimate use of that word.
America jammed the Platt Amendment into Cuba's Constitution at the end of a war, which unilaterally said "we get to keep a navy base here" ... in effect "we own joo, bitches".
Cuba has never cashed the checks, has repeatedly said they don't consent to Guantanamo, and don't want the Americans there.
Guantanamo is basically a forcible military presence in a foreign country.
It sure as fuck isn't 'leased' in any honest meaning of 'lease'.
Re: (Score:2)
Whether or not the corporations were receiving special treatment, it's a government's responsibility to protect their citizens' right to property, so it wasn't a stretch to demand compensation.
You can demand all you want, but when you own property in a *foreign nation*, which has different laws, you can't expect your demands to necessarily be met. If you're not a citizen of a foreign nation, you have zero rights there. A foreign government has every right to seize foreign(to them)-owned property; they ma
Re:That stuff take a while to forget (Score:4, Informative)
There's more to it than that. Far more.
Starting in 1901 when the US jammed the Platt Amendment [wikipedia.org] into the Cuiban Constitution which America said entitles them to keep a naval base in Cuba (that's what Guantanamo is).
Carrying forward, the US was a backer of Batista [wikipedia.org], who was a petty little thug who did things like:
But, as always happens, he was a thug and a dictator but friendly to US business interests. So America liked him.
Basically the Cubans were poor and starving under a terrible government who cared more about US interests than its own citizens.
The American Mafia is largely whose stuff was nationalized:
So, let's not pretend that Cuba wasn't already under a corrupt dictatorship under which the citizens suffered hugely.
I'm not defending everything Castro did, but everyone likes to conveniently the history of American supported dictators allowing American organized crime to treat the nation as their own private playground.
Batista and the crooks really needed to go. And I'm afraid I have little sympathy for them.
Americans like to act like Castro overthrew a benign government, when nothing could be further from the truth.
Don't just look at the last 50 years, look at the last 100.
Re: (Score:1)
It wasn't that simple, at the very beginning Castro only nationalized the really big farms (max cap was 3,333 acres or 13 km) and assured full compensation, but the US cut Cuba's sugar access to the US market, threatening to severely cripple the Cuban economy (that was virtually their only export of worth; other products like coffee and tobacco were relatively small in comparison), so Cuba retaliated back with more nationalization while the US started destabilization policies (these days we call it terroris
Re: (Score:2)
I see. I really didn't understand all the pre-Castro history, I was just starting with Castro's revolution.
Re: (Score:2)
I realize that England is not an independent nation, however England during the early 1900s was absolutely in control of the UK and its activities overseas, and things aren't much different these days. You will not convince me that the Welsh or Channel Islanders had any significant hand in what happened in Ireland or anywhere else.
I never said the US was always nice to everyone around the world, I was just pointing out that (at least since Castro took over in the 50s), the US didn't have a record of milita
Re: (Score:2)
The Queen, in a visit to Ireland a couple of years back did say "We feel there are some things we could have done differently (pause) or not at all"
That is probably as close to an apology as we are going to get.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, as I said to someone else here, I basically started right when Castro took over.
"Someone can't buy thing, has to buy other thing" (Score:4, Funny)
STUFF THAT MATTERS!
Re: (Score:2)
No. "Embargo Proves Pointless" is the point
Re: (Score:2)
This.
It's actually news when a US interest loses a sale to a foreigner? Oh Noes! There must be something amiss. Some regulation standing in the way. Because otherwise this could never happen.
Never mind that it's a Spanish (speaking) company, which probably fits its Cuban user's needs quite well. It's quite possible they might have won the sale even in the absence of an embargo.
And Cuba will be fucked ... (Score:4, Interesting)
I've been to Cuba 5 times in the last 8 years or so, and while I really like Cuba and the Cubans, I've also seen a considerable decline over that time.
The quality of the service has gone down. The resort staff are much less interested in good service and are now expecting tips. They doubled the size of the airport, but their internal stuff couldn't scale, so there can be days where it takes hours to check in for your flight.
Cuba has a lot of older resorts. It's still a really poor country with some shady infrastructure.
If you start throwing millions of Americans into that mix, I firmly believe the systems won't be able to handle it.
The last two times I was there the airport devolved into madness and chaos, because they had more passengers and aircraft than they could handle.
And there's going to be a lot of disappointed Americans as they discover that the effects of the embargo is a country which is impoverished and can't give them the kind of experience they want.
Honestly, for me, Florida is becoming more attractive than Cuba. The same weather, all the first world amenities, and none of the tourist stomach ailments.
I just don't think Cuba will weather a sudden influx of more tourists who are expecting first world luxuries. Cuba is beautiful and charming, but it's also small and poor.
Re:And Cuba will be fucked ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Nonsense.
influx of money means the "system" of which you speak will grow.
plenty of other third world countries prove the point
Re:And Cuba will be fucked ... (Score:4, Interesting)
If you think an influx of money will magically fix a country which has a limited infrastructure and widespread poverty you're foolish and naive.
Maybe in the long run it will improve things.
In the short run I predict it will create a shitstorm which will be to the detriment of the Cubans.
You can't go from being embargoed to not embargoed overnight and expect that to work well at all. It simply doesn't work that way.
Until they can build up their infrastructure, and make some systemic changes to their economy, a sudden influx of Americans looking for McDonald's and five star resorts will not have good outcomes for Cuba.
I think it's long overdue to get rid of the embargo, but there's no way in hell I believe opening the floodgates to American tourists will have anything but a disruptive and negative effect for the immediate future.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've watched it happen in countries where my relatives live, over the past 40+ years.
You are the ignorant fool, probably young too
Re:And Cuba will be fucked ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Your perspective is completely wrong. Cuba isn't Disneyland, it's a country with a population of over 11 million people. Tourism is currently a significant source of income for many on the island, and even professionals with university educations are drawn to the resorts out of necessity - I know an air traffic controller who works full-time in Varadero and conducts private tours on the side to earn much needed money. He's one of the lucky ones.
Cuba needs industry and business. The country introduced reforms a few years ago to encourage small private enterprises, but access to capital and markets has kept people from being able to take advantage of those changes. As it stands, there is foreign oil investment from companies like China's Greatwall and Canada's Sherritt, but the nation's basic infrastructure is in crisis; a lot of the infrastructure was obviously built under the guidance of Soviet engineers -- concrete apartment buildings dot the outskirts of Havana that are familiar to anyone who has visited Vilnius or St Petersburg. The electrical poles are a classic Soviet concrete design, as are the 1970s and 1980s era bus shelters. Even shop doors cause me to do a double take, because they're right out of my 1990 memories from the Baltic states.
But anyway, I digress. What Cubans need is access to capital and encouragement to start small diversified businesses that extend the economy beyond rum, cigars and tacky booze holiday tourism. They also need access to the US market in a manner that isn't exploitative (American companies that see the island as a cheap labour source for large manufacturing facilities would not be beneficial, because the wealth would flow out of the country, as an example).
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, Cuba does need business and capital, it does need to expand its economy, it does need better infrastructure, and the unfinished/rough cinderblock construction is everywhere.
They have lots of poverty, and lots of problems. Their internal transportation is a mess.
It's also true that I've met many educated people working on resorts because they could make far more money.
I am not disagreeing with a single thing you said.
What I am saying is Cuba's tourism industry is already stretched beyond what it can ha
Cuba's Charm (Score:1)
*Had* to look elsewhere? Or just... did? (Score:2)
Because of the existing ban on American companies supplying technology to Cuba, Havana had to look somewhere else
Had to? Because otherwise there couldn't be possibly be any reason to look anywhere other than the USA for high quality software? Sheesh.
You do know it's okay not to be "number one!" at everything, right?