Kubakrisen, på engelska

The closest the world has ever come to WWIII (World War III) and also a nuclear war was an October day in 1962. The Soviets had mounted nuclear missiles in western Cuba, just 150 kilometers off the coast of the United States. The field commanders of Soviets in Cuba where authorized to use nuclear weapons if the United States would invade. The lives of millions of people in the world literally hung upon two men to reach a compromise, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev and American President John F. Kennedy.

One of the reasons why I chose to work with this topic is because the Cuban missile crisis remains the best-documented report of presidential decision-making at a time of extreme national danger. It offers exclusive insights into the interplay between the debates in the Oval Office at the White House and rapidly moving events in the rest of world. I have chosen to investigate “How did the Cuban missile crisis change the world?”

The two main sources I have chosen to answer this question are documents from the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) and a report on the Havana conference: Cuba on the Brink: Castro, the Missile Crisis and the Soviet Collapse compiled by James G. Blight, Allyn J. Bruce and David A. Welsh. The origin of the documents comes from the CIA. They are among the CIA’s most important documents on the Cuban missile crisis. It contains John A. McCone’s notes taken during the National Security Council Executive Committee meetings at the height of the crisis, as well as intelligence memorandums and estimates, briefing papers, Cuban refugee reports and memos on Operation MONGOOSE; the clandestine program aimed at destabilizing the Castro regime. The purpose of these documents is to give the world a clearer broader view about the crisis and to know what decisions were made as well as why and when they were made. The values of the documented data are immense, since they are written by one of the Government’s highest instances. One limitation is that many of the documents were written hastily during a time of national emergency, so they may contain small occasional errors such that dates and so on. Another is that they are written from an American point of view and may be somewhat biased.

The origin of the report are compiled by James G. Blight, Allyn J. Bruce and David A. Welsh from the Havana conference hosted by Fidel Castro that took place in 1992 to discuss Cuba’s particular role during the crisis. The report was written in purpose to strongly enlarge the numbers of people who participated in the Havana conference by providing context sufficient for their readers. The value of the book lies in the fact that it provides a new perspective on the crisis for the Cubans that often has been overlooked. As well, the reader is exposed to Castro’s personal interpretation and valuation of Cuba’s implication, as Castro was hosting the conference. The limitation of the report is that the Havana conference did not occur until 30 years after the crisis and therefore is dependent on “critical oral history” which is why it’s uncertain that the memories of the veteran participants either subconsciously or for the purpose of satisfy political pressures.

For thirteen fateful days in October 1962 the world stood still, seemingly on the brink of nuclear war – and praying for a peaceful resolution to the Cuban missile crisis. President John F. Kennedy faced the commission of avoiding Armageddon. President Kennedy was still hurting from a series of humiliation in the Cold War. Castro had at the Bay of Pigs repelled Kennedy’s invasion of Cuba the previous year. In Asia Kennedy fought to contain the spreading of communism, and in Germany half of the capital had been cut off because of the Berlin Wall. Now, he was prepared to risk a nuclear war to get the Soviet missiles out of Cuba. In May 1962 Nikita Khrushchev proposed the idea of placing nuclear missiles on Cuba in case the United States would invade. Castro and Khrushchev came to the agreement that the construction of several missile sites would take place that summer. On October 14, American reconnaissance planes discovered several Soviet missiles in San Cristóbal, a city on the island of Cuba, and the United States was determined to banish them. The Cubans and Soviets, though, had other plans; they were determined to keep the nuclear weapons in place. Kennedy found himself facing off against his own Joint Chiefs of Staff when he was deciding what to do. The JCS and many other advisors recommended a full-size attack and invasion of Cuba, but Kennedy dreaded that an attack like that would lead to that the USSR using nuclear weapons against the United States. After many difficult meetings, Kennedy decided to place a naval blockade around Cuba. His purpose of this “quarantine” as he called it, was to prevent the USSR from bringing in more military materials. Kennedy demanded the removal of the missiles and the destruction of the sites. On October 22, he spoke to the nation about the crisis in a televised address. No one knew how Khrushchev would respond to the naval blockade and the U.S. demands, but both leaders realized that a full-scale nuclear war would devastate the world so they publicly agreed to the deal that the Soviets would dismantle their nuclear weapons in exchange for a pledge from the U.S. not to occupy Cuba. The United States also agreed to remove their nuclear missiles from Turkey in another deal, which remained a secret for over 25 years. The Cuban missile crisis was over but the arms race was not.

The Cuban missile crisis left many severe consequences on today’s society. One of the major consequences was that it slowed down the nuclear frenzy. Even though the crisis occurred over 50 years ago, it is still affecting the serious debate on Swedish nuclear weapons. The Swedish Armed Forces was a strong supporter of nuclear weapon and ran on nuclear research at the Defense Research Establishment (Försvarets Forskningsanstalt (FOA)). The main argument was that the military defense would otherwise end up in a hopeless disadvantage against potential attackers, as if they would face weapons with arrows and spears. Nuclear proponents met resistance from ambivalent politicians and a big part of the general public. The Task Force against Swedish nuclear bomb had already been formed in 1958. The general relief when the Cuban missile crisis ended without fighting actions – and the beginnings of the détente between East and West that followed – took away much of the nuclear supporters eagerness.

One of the biggest impacts the crisis had on our society is the naval blockade Kennedy placed around Cuba. Even though the Cuban missile crisis is over, Cuba has been in an economic crisis for a very long time. In 1958 the U.S. investments to Cuba reached 80 million dollars. The U.S. hadn’t had such large financial interests in a single country in Latin America. Over 70% of Cuba’s export went to the U.S. The United States tried to isolate Cuba from the rest of Latin America. In August of 1960 a declaration got through directed to Cuba in the OAS (Organization of American States). In January 1961 the United States broke their diplomatic relationships with Cuba. The U.S. also participated in sabotage. In May 1960 the CIA set up training camps in Guatemala for the invasion forces. The 15 of April, American reconnaissance planes bombed Cuba’s airports. Two days later U.S. invasion forces landed in the Bay of Pigs. After three days of fighting the invasion attempt had been fought off. In 1962 the U.S. put an embargo on all exports and imports from Cuba. After the Cuban missile crisis the United States promised not to invade. Nevertheless, the acts of sabotage continued and?? numerous attempts were made to assassinate Fidel Castro. In 1992, President Bush signed the so-called Torricelli Act, also known as the "Cuban Democracy Act". This law reinstated the ban on ships that entered Cuba to make port in the United States. It even extended the U.S. law to other countries by prohibiting subsidiaries in third countries to trade with Cuba. This had been attempted in 1982, but had then encountered fierce opposition from the EC. In 1996 President Clinton signed the "Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act", or the Helms-Burton Act. Its provisions detail the conditions for the United States to enforce the blockade, how a transitional government must be established and so on. Like in the past, the U.S. will accept any government to be able to sit in Havana. The UN General Assembly has demanded for years for the U.S. to end its blockade – in 1998 by 157 votes to 2. The blockade has cost Cuba billions of dollars, a little over 751 billions to be more precise. The actual vote about the blockade tends to be a bumpy history, where the U.S., Israel and some of America's small vassal states are voting for the blockade, while the international community condemn the U.S. action. Even before the question has been brought up in the General Assembly strong voices have raised against the blockade against Cuba. Brazil, as a spokesman of Latin America, has demanded that the blockade come to an end and Malawi, as a spokesman for African States organization, has demanded the same. South Africa's foreign minister has also called for an end to the blockade. Amnesty International released a report three years ago for the issue to be brought up in the U.S. Senate about how the blockade violates human rights.

- U.S. embargo is immoral and should be repealed. It prevents one million Cubans from obtaining necessary medications and treatment with medical equipment that are vital to their health, said Irene Khan, Amnesty International Secretary General.

The report presented to the UN General Assembly shows that the U.S. blockade now affects almost the entire Cuban society. It's about access to medicines and medical equipment, difficulties to export rum and sugar, lack of paper for printing school books, imports of sports equipment and much more. The blockade’s repeal would without a doubt mean a fundamental change for the socialist Cuba.