255. Editorial Note
Under Secretary of State George W. Ballʼs speech on “United States Policy Toward Cuba” before the North Atlantic Council in Paris on March 23, 1964, was an important statement on U.S. policy toward Cuba during the Johnson Presidency. (National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1964–66, POL 1 CUBA–US)
Ball said that the loss of Cuba to communism was a loss not just to the United States, with its long and particularly close ties to that country, but to all free nations, because it had created a beachhead of communism in a very vulnerable but important part of the world, Latin America. Ball stated that the United States regarded Cuba as a subversive threat, not a military one. He highlighted the aggressive and subversive nature of Castroism, the non-negotiability to the United States of Castroʼs political, economic, and military dependence on the Soviet Union and his subversive activities in Latin America, and the objectives of the U.S. and OAS economic denial programs. The latter, he said, were limited to lessening Castroʼs will and ability to export subversion and violence, convincing the Cuban and Latin American peoples that Castroism could not serve their interests and that communism had no future in the Western Hemisphere, and increasing the cost to the Soviet Union of maintaining a Communist outpost in Latin America. Ultimately, however, Ball said that Latin America would be rendered “immune to Communist infection only by an amelioration of the conditions—political, economic, and social—in which subversion flourishes. The United States and the free nations of Latin America have, therefore, through the Alliance for Progress, undertaken a major collective effort” to transform the structure and production of the region.
Ball explained how Cuba was “almost uniquely suited to a policy of economic denial,” but that the program would “be effective only if generally supported by the Western Alliance.” Ball said that the United States and its allies had developed a three-pronged program of common action to exploit Cubaʼs economic vulnerability by: 1) restricting the availability of Free World shipping to Cuba, 2) limiting the categories of goods available to Cuba, and 3) limiting governmental credit guarantees in connection with sales to Cuba. The importance of the latter action was emphasized by Ball. Noting that “a recent transaction was presumbly made possible only by a positive government decision to guarantee the financing,” he said:
“The primary question is not, therefore, whether governments should impose negative controls on exports to Cuba—as the United States does, for example. The central issue is whether member governments of the Western Alliance should take positive action to encourage [Page 621] such sales by assuming risks that commercial bankers are unwilling to take.
“To the people of the Western Hemisphere—including many of my countrymen—this element gives such transactions the appearance of a political act—and an act that has the effect of defeating the principal instrument short of war available against a regime that seriously menaces free governments in the Western Hemisphere.”
In telegram Polto 1138 from Paris, March 23, Ambassador Finletter reported that Ballʼs presentation “drew so much support that UK decided best not to speak at all. Canada, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Greece and Turkey spoke out strongly in favor US policy.” Finletter added that several “permanent representatives expressed view US case as just lucidly presented to NAC should be presented to European public badly informed on Cuba” and he concluded that “UK appears isolated in NAC on Cuba.” (Ibid.)
In a meeting of the North Atlantic Council on April 15, reported in telegram Polto 1472 from Paris, April 15, British representative Shuckburgh read a statement under instructions in which he declared that the United Kingdom was “opposed in principle to economic warfare no matter what name is except in case like Berlin contingency planning.” He added that the “UK does not agree that its trade policies should be custom tailored and designed to differentiate among Communist countries in accordance with conditions and behaviour of individual countries and with specific objectives towards each. This is fundamental difference.” Shuckburgh noted that the “British are a trading people and trade is essence of their survival.” In the case of Cuba, he said, British trade policy coincided with its political judgment, in that the “UK does not think that policy of economic denial is right or wise politically or likely to be effective.” Among many other arguments, Shuckburgh stated that the UK questioned “whether there is direct relationship between Cubaʼs economic strength and her capacity for subversion.” (Ibid.)