Reconciling U.S Property Claims in Cuba

no other financial instruments (financial markets are repressed), the family dwelling is often the only
significant family asset.
In this context, compensation for lost properties becomes a complex social matter, fraught with
potentially explosive repercussions within Cuba. Compensation could become a major source of
friction in the process of normalization of bilateral relations between Cuba and the United States.
The economic costs alone—direct costs of compensation claims and disruptions to economic activity—could
be prohibitive.
Nevertheless, through the new bilateral commission, Cuba has formally reaffirmed its willingness
to discuss claims with the U.S. government. But Cuba’s opening bargaining posture is intended,
among other goals, to reassure Cuban citizens: Cuban claims for economic damages allegedly inflicted
by the U.S. embargo—priced at more than $100 billion—and for alleged deaths and injuries to
Cuban citizens attributed to U.S.-sponsored acts of violence, would more than offset legitimate U.S.
claims, such that no actual transfers, of monies or properties, would be forthcoming.
In considering compensation and its potential economic and political impacts, it is vital to distinguish
between, on the one hand, U.S. nationals “at the time of taking,” when properties were confiscated in
the early years of the revolution (the subject of this paper); and on the other hand, the Cuban-American
exiles, whose properties were taken prior to their attaining U.S. citizenship. In the minds of both
the U.S. and Cuban governments, the two categories of claimants are wholly separate and benefit
from very distinctive rights or lack thereof.
The U.S. and Cuban governments both agree on two vital points widely accepted in international
law: sovereign governments have the right to take private properties in the public interest, even as
compensation should be paid to the former owners. Thus, both governments consider these claims
to be legitimate topics for negotiation.
U.S. Policy on Nationalizations and Compensation
U.S. policy on nationalizations has been remarkably consistent over time, as most famously enunciated
in a landmark letter from Cordell Hull, Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Secretary of State, to the Mexican
Ambassador to the United States wherein the United States “readily recognizes the right of a
sovereign state to expropriate property for public purposes” but adds:
Reconciling U.S. Property Claims in Cuba: Transforming Trauma into Opportunity
Latin America Initiative at Brookings
7