Replies

And that goes back to the joys of Congress and lawmaking in general. From the State Dept:

After the fall of Communist governments in the Soviet bloc in the early 1990s, members of Congress sought to increase pressure for peaceful democratic change in Cuba and to deter international involvement with property claimed by U.S. citizens that had been expropriated without compensation by the Cuban Government. This led to the development of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act, known as the Helms-Burton Act after its principal sponsors. In February 1996, Cuban MiGs shot down two civilian aircraft in international air space, killing three U.S. citizens and one U.S. resident. Congress then passed the act by overwhelming margins. The President (Clinton) signed it into law on March 12, 1996.

Title III creates a private cause of action and authorizes U.S. nationals with claims to confiscated property in Cuba to file suit in U.S. courts against persons that may be "trafficking" in that property. The Act grants the President the authority to suspend the lawsuit provisions for periods of 6 months if it is necessary to the national interest of the United States and will expedite a transition to democracy in Cuba. The President has exercised this authority five times, most recently in July 1998.

So Congress makes a law based on a tragedy, the pResident signed it into law in a selfless act of solidarity with the oppressed Cuban people, and then suspended it until he left office. Leaving other pResidents to deal with it or suspend it.

Since Congress can't or won't repudiate the law, even when run by Democrats that support the communists in Cuba, we get to see this mess before our eyes.

TRT World Helms-Burton

BTW, sponsored by Dan Burton, Torricelli and Jesse Helms. Strange bedfellows indeed.

However, some say that Title III is not there to protect the interests of Americans, whether born in the US or naturalised. They say that the threat of US lawsuits is a deterrent from international companies from doing business in Cuba.

A statement by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Cuba notes that “If Title III were to be applied as established by this law and as threatened by the US State Department, each and every Cuban and community in the country will bear witness to the way in which the lawsuits are filed before US courts claiming for the ownership of the house they live in, the workplace they work at, the school their children attend, the polyclinic where they are provided with medical care, the parcels where their neighborhoods have been built.”

From a Cuban minister, Bruno Rodriguez:

The Helms-Burton Act is illegal, inapplicable and is void of any value or legal effect. Consequently, any claim filed under this law by a natural or juridical person, regardless of their citizenship or nationality, will be rendered null.

And from a comment on that site:

Sr. Bruno, lo ilegal es que roben como lo han hecho en Cuba la familia Casto y sus compinches. Eso no solo es ilegal si no inmoral.

Mr. Bruno, the illegal thing is to steal as the Castro family and their cronies have done in Cuba. That is not only illegal but immoral.

Why should Norwegian pay for the supposed crimes of Cuba?
I’m sure Cuba is guilty, but I don’t get Norwegian’s culpability.

Short version: Cuba stole the docks from the company that owned it. Norwegian used the docks and paid Cuba for the privilege, but never paid the actual owners (as they don't control the docks, and probably mostly live in these US right now).

So the lawsuit says Norwegian owes the company for using their docks. Although $110MM sounds pretty steep, unless that's for several decades of docking fees maybe?