Cuba Now a Strategic Battleground for China Against the US
Commentary
Cuba has been impoverished by years of communist control, but it possesses a strategic vantage point
that China prizes.
Ryan Berg, director of the Americas Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said in his congressional testimony on May 6 that Cuba is a 'strategic battleground' with China. Twenty sensitive U.S. government facilities in Florida are in range of the expanding Chinese Cyber and Signals Intelligence Collection network in Cuba.
Even before the Russians minimized their presence in Cuba in 2002, the Chinese were eyeing the Caribbean country.
'According to an article in El Nuevo Herald, the two reportedly signed an agreement granting China access to a number of former Soviet listening stations across the island, including the Bejucal base less than 10 miles from the old Lourdes station,' he noted.
Related Stories
5/14/2025
5/13/2025
As part of the path toward resolving the Cuban Missile Crisis, President John F. Kennedy pledged publicly
Chinese Military and Intelligence Network Grows in Cuba
In the summer of 2023, Cuba leapt onto the front pages with the sudden,
Then, The Associated Press reported there was an anonymous Biden administration official who confirmed that this started in 2019, which was a clever way of deflecting responsibility toward President Donald Trump.
Berg pointed out that then-National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby 'reversed course and admitted to China's spy bases in Cuba, but insisted that its presence had existed since 2019 under the first Trump administration, implying the Biden administration had 'inherited' the challenge.'
'Around the same time, reports surfaced that China was pursuing the construction of a military training base in Cuba,' he added.
Kirby had apparently missed the 1999 visit by Gen. Chi Haotian. In July 2024,
The Chinese regime's presence in Cuba is just one element of Chinese surveillance surrounding Florida. China has been
Gen. Glen VanHerck, former commander of U.S. Northern Command, pointed out, before the Chinese spy balloon episode,
Cuba Receives Promises of Chinese Support
Chinese leader Xi Jinping met with Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel Bermúdez in Moscow on May 9 during the 80th anniversary of the Soviet Union's victory in World War II.
The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs said about the meeting, 'China is ready to work with Cuba to further strengthen their ironclad friendship, build a closer China–Cuba community with a shared future, and set an example of solidarity and cooperation between socialist countries and sincere interaction between developing countries.'
In addition, the BRICS alliance—Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—welcomed Cuba into the organization on Jan. 1, 2025,
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has developed an alliance with Russia, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, and South Africa in its 'no limits' strategy to take on the United States, and it appears Cuba is entering this grouping of communist and totalitarian countries.
CCP Lures Latin American Countries Wi
th Financial Offer
Following the U.S.–China tariff truce, China hosted a forum with the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) in Beijing on May 13.
Left-leaning leaders in Latin America, such as Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Chilean President Gabriel Boric, and Colombian President Gustavo Petro, were in attendance.
The CCP used a Belt and Road Initiative power play and extended a credit line of $9.2 billion to the Latin American countries in attendance, with a very important caveat: The currency used in the line of credit would be the Chinese yuan.
The move, which excluded the global reserve currencies like the U.S. dollar, aimed to promote the yuan while China deepens its ties in the Americas.
Of all the opportunities in the Americas, Cuba offers China the greatest return on investment. The short distance to the United States from Cuba allows the CCP a key intelligence observation point and a way to create a counterbalance of world support for Taiwan.
There may not yet be missiles in Cuba, or at least they haven't been identified, but another Cuban crisis is developing. As a
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
18 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Voters wanted immigration enforcement, but not like this
Many voters elected President Trump to end border chaos. Illegal immigration remains low, but voters' opinions of his immigration policies as a whole have soured. The reason is that they view Trump's actions away from the border as just more chaos. Americans aren't against enforcement. But not like this. So what's the root problem — and what's the real fix? The public's perception of chaos stems from the fact that Trump's policies appear arbitrary. Under President Biden, no one knew why people were getting into the country. Now no one knows why people are getting thrown out. Under Biden, people came illegally or chaotically. Now people are being deported illegally or chaotically. The public cares about order in both directions. America shouldn't be doomed to oscillate between two types of chaos. Instead, we need to reembrace the antidote for chaos: the rule of law. In popular speech, the 'rule of law' often just means following whatever the government says. But our nation's founders meant something else entirely. For them, the rule of law was the opposite of the 'rule of men' — which leaves government dictates, and the fate of residents, to the leaders' whims in the moment. The founders saw the rule of law as general predictable rules publicly known to and applicable to all. As James Madison wrote, 'Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?' For Madison, the hallmark of the rule of man was 'instability' (i.e. chaos). The separation of powers provided the Madisonian cure. 'The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands,' he said, 'may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny' because 'the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control.' Arbitrariness is just chaos by another name. During Biden's term, much of the border chaos traces to the fact that immigrants never really knew what the rule was. On paper, it was illegal to cross between ports and legal to cross at them. In reality, at least from 2021 to 2023, ports were mostly closed, and about half of the illegal crossers were allowed to stay. Moreover, the actual determination of who got in and who got tossed was made by agents at the border, not based on asylum statutes passed by Congress or any other known rule. This was the rule of man, not the rule of law, and the chaotic results were readily apparent. Unfortunately, the chaos has not dissipated — it's only moved locations: from the border to the interior. The basic framework of Trump's interior enforcement is that it is whimsical and arbitrary. It is not about 'merit,' not about public safety threats, not even about people here illegally or about 'noncitizens,' as Trump is seeking to strip U.S. citizenship from people and remove U.S. citizenship for many U.S.-born children.. There's no articulable rule. Consider that Trump is arresting highly educated, lawful immigrant students for op-eds written long ago. Setting aside the 1st Amendment, the founders would be — or actually were — equally aghast at the 'subjecting of men to punishment for things which, when they were done, were breaches of no law, and the practice of arbitrary imprisonments.' The rule of man is back, and it's as chaotic as ever. Trump has empowered agents to strip immigrants of lawful status and immediately deport them. They are even arresting lawful immigrants based on secret criteria (like forbidden tattoos) and sending them without due process to a foreign prison. Judge. Jury. Executioner. R.I.P. Madison's definition of tyranny. All this is unnecessary. Restoring the rule of law can end the chaos. That starts with clear, consistent and predictable rules. The immigration rules were, before Trump, notoriously known as 'second only to the Internal Revenue Code in complexity.' The policies rapidly change from administration to administration and even from month to month. The U.S. needs straightforward, transparent policies on immigration. When the government accuses someone of being in violation of the law, clear rules would enable rapid implementation in accordance with due process. This enforcement would naturally channel people into legal ways to enter and live in the United States. Once someone is granted a legal way to enter, that decision should not be reopened — absent some significant new facts. America can end the immigration chaos. This vision of an immigration policy animated by the rule of law is achievable, but no one in government has focused on achieving it. David J. Bier is the director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute.
Los Angeles Times
18 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
What ‘China shock'? Trade didn't wreck the U.S. economy
When Donald Trump first campaigned in 2016, he capitalized on a potent narrative: that China's rise gutted American manufacturing, leaving countless blue-collar communities devastated. Known now as the 'China shock,' that idea paved the way for a dramatic resurgence in protectionism, culminating in sweeping tariffs including Trump's controversial 'Liberation Day' duties. Yet we continue to learn just how shaky the theory's foundations are. Pioneered by economists David Autor, David Dorn and Gordon Hanson, the China shock trope suggests that American regions heavily exposed to Chinese imports suffered significantly greater job losses than did less-exposed areas. Populists seized upon it to argue that China's 2001 accession to the World Trade Organization caused millions of job losses in the U.S. and social disintegration. But a theory's easy and outsized application to policy does not settle questions about its accuracy. That's what American Enterprise Institute scholar Scott Winship wanted to determine in a recent comprehensive review that set out to prove whether the China shock reduced American manufacturing employment. By examining alternative studies and methodological adjustments, Winship contends that the negative effects of trade with China have been significantly exaggerated and that populist narratives blaming this trade for U.S. economic decline aren't supported by rigorous evidence. The originators of China shock examined how Chinese imports affected certain U.S. locales compared with others — not with the entire country — based on initial industry composition and employment size. By these metrics, areas heavily exposed to Chinese imports showed disproportionately worse manufacturing job losses. However, Winship points out that even if we accept these estimates, the findings suggest only relatively modest employment effects. To put things in perspective, Winship gives the example of two hypothetical commuting zones with 200,000 working-age residents and 20,000 manufacturing workers. Data from the theory's proponents indicate that moving from low (10th percentile) to high (90th percentile) exposure to Chinese imports would result in a loss of roughly 2,700 manufacturing jobs — just a 1.4 percentage point drop in overall manufacturing employment. While significant, this does not convincingly explain the community decline, social disruption, and populist backlash often blamed specifically on Chinese trade. In addition, Winship flags multiple methodological issues. Once other economists revised the proponents' methods, the estimated negative impact shrank dramatically. Various follow-up studies found the China shock effect on manufacturing employment to be 50% smaller than initially claimed. Further research revealed that job losses in exposed areas were often offset or even outweighed by employment gains in other sectors. One detailed Census Bureau study even found that firms with greater Chinese import exposure increased manufacturing employment, reallocating jobs to more efficient domestic production lines enabled by cheaper imports. Moreover, the steady decline in U.S. manufacturing employment began decades before China's WTO entry. Between the late 1970s and 2000, factory employment had already decreased substantially, mostly because of technological advances and shifting consumer demand. Notably, there was no sudden acceleration of this decline after China joined the WTO. The rate of manufacturing job losses remained consistent with earlier trends, undermining claims that Chinese trade uniquely devastated American manufacturing. Furthermore, former manufacturing workers generally did not face permanent unemployment. In fact, unemployment rates among this group were lower in recent years compared to the late 1990s, before the peak of Chinese imports. Many workers transitioned successfully into other sectors, belying the notion of an enduring displacement crisis. It's also worth noting that there are around a half of a million unfilled manufacturing jobs today. Despite these realities, the exaggerated narrative persists as a political force. Trump's tariffs — taxes on American consumers raising prices on everyday goods from cars to clothing — have greatly increased economic uncertainty. American manufacturers reliant on imported components face higher input costs, dampening their competitiveness and causing unintended layoffs. In fact, evidence from Trump's first term showed that his tariffs often hurt American firms more than their foreign competitors. With broader and higher tariffs, we can only fear the worst. Instead of doubling down on tariffs and isolation, we need to empower U.S. workers to adapt to economic changes, whether caused by trade or economic downturn. Economists have shown that to the extent that workers sometimes don't recover from shocks, it tends to be a failure to adjust because of obstacles erected by government. Winship's critical reassessment of the China shock clarifies the actual, limited role Chinese imports have played in manufacturing-employment trends. The real 'shock' America faces in 2025 is not from Chinese imports, but from a resurgence of misguided protectionism based on a misdiagnosed problem. The path forward harnesses trade's real benefits rather than chasing economic illusions. Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate.
19 minutes ago
Trump directs DOJ, White House counsel to investigate Biden's mental state in office
President Donald Trump ordered Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate whether former President Joe Biden's administration sought to conspire to cover up his mental state while in office, prompting a response from Biden. "Let me be clear: I made the decisions during my presidency," Biden said in a statement. "I made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation, and proclamations. Any suggestion that I didn't is ridiculous and false." The move by the White House represents a significant escalation from the White House, as it is a directive to the Justice Department to formally investigate. It goes beyond the review into Biden's last-minute pardons before leaving office Biden responded to Trump's memo to Bondi and the Department of Justice, calling an investigation "nothing more than a mere distraction" and defending his decision-making ability. In a statement he says any suggestion he was not in control is "ridiculous and false." "This is nothing more than a distraction by Donald Trump and Congressional Republicans who are working to push disastrous legislation that would cut essential programs like Medicaid and raise costs on American families, all to pay for tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy and big corporations," Biden said in a statement sent to ABC News. The president directed the U.S.'s top law enforcement official, in coordination with his White House counsel, to investigate "the circumstances surrounding Biden's supposed execution of numerous executive actions during his final years in office," according to a statement from the White House.
