English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

During the Spanish American War, the United States occupied Puerto Rico, Cuba, Guam, & the Philippines. The Treaty of Paris came into effect on April 11, 1899.

Did the military occupation of these areas end with the coming into force of the peace treaty? How does military occupation function under such circumstances?

2007-05-21 23:07:01 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Military

7 answers

No, the "military occupation" of Puerto Rico, Cuba, Guam, & the Philippines did not end with the April 11, 1899 Treaty of Paris (Spanish American Peace Treaty).

Military government is the form of administration by which an occupying power exercises governmental authority over occupied territory. Military government continues until legally supplanted.

Hence, for a territorial cession after war, the military government of the (principal) occupying power does not end with the coming into force of the peace treaty, but continues until legally supplanted.

For the Spanish American War cessions, the United States was the principal occupying power. The end of United States Military Government (USMG) jurisdiction over these four cessions occurred on the following dates:

Puerto Rico: May 1, 1900
Philippines: July 4, 1901
Guam: July 1, 1950
Cuba: May 20, 1902

In each case, USMG jurisdiction was supplanted by a civil government. The details are as follows:

Puerto Rico: civil government for Puerto Rico (USA)
Philippines: civil government for Philippines (USA)
Guam: civil government for Guam (USA)
Cuba: civil government for Cuba (Republic of Cuba)

2007-05-28 22:22:04 · answer #1 · answered by Overseas E 3 · 0 0

In a word no.
The Philippines remained a US colony until the Japanese invaded in WW2. Even then the US was reluctant to allow independence following WW2. The US retained a military presence in the Philippines until 1991 when the last permanent bases were closed, following a gesture of rare courage when the Philippines senate determined not to renew the leases. This courage was inspired by the fact that Clark Airforce base had been evacuated and completely destroyed, and Subic Bay Naval Base significantly damaged by the eruption of Mt Pinatubo.
Cuba was administered by a US peace treaty following the end of the Spanish American War. This effectively meant colonisation. This was originally to be a 20 year treaty, but in 1902 the newly elected Roosevelt granted Cuba independence.
Again this did not mean the end of US military presence. Even under this "independence" the US could intervene in internal Cuban affairs and maintained a presence at Guantanamo Bay. This independence lasted 4 years before Cuba was again placed under US care. In 1909 Cuba again took control of it's own affairs, although still with US supervision and this status continued until Castro took power in 1959. Even then, the US has maintained it's presence at Guantanamo Bay.
Guam and Puerto Rico remain territories of the US today.

2007-05-21 23:42:41 · answer #2 · answered by Sageandscholar 7 · 0 0

Sageandscholar had it wrong. The US gave Independence to the Philippines in 1946. The bases were on land owned by the Republic of the Philippines and only remained as long as the sovereign government permitted it. The bases closed when that government demanded they be closed. No colony would have had a legal right to do that.

During the leased period, the US tax payers paid as much as 500 million dollars per year in direct payments to the government. You also hired tens of thousands of local workers to work on base at another 200-300 million per year in salaries. Every time a battle group entered port the crews spent an average of 1,000,000 dollars per day in shopping and entertainment.

SAS and many historical revisionists would have you believe that the US victimized the poor Filipinos. The truth is, we paid way too much for way too little in return. Yet we were big enough to keep it up to help an ally. But it was not a good deal for you American tax payers. That's why the US is in no hurry to reopen any of the bases even with the realignment of forces planned for the far east.

2007-05-29 09:39:18 · answer #3 · answered by morgan j 4 · 0 0

The treaty states the US as the principal occupying power for Cuba and was then in the control of the US military government until a civil government is in place. At this time their allegiance was to the US until 1902 when the US flag came down and the Republic of Cuba was created. As far as the other countries go, the US was stated as the receiving country so then US congress is authorized to pass relevant legislation to establish a civil government itself in which case the US flag still flew after it was in place. So basically the US occupied these countries and the USMG ran them until a civil government was in place.

2007-05-21 23:37:57 · answer #4 · answered by D-Rock 2 · 0 0

This places are rich in natural resources and strategically well in their location. For instance, Philippines was very rich on sugar, coconuts, spices, nickle, copper, etc, which is why Spanish from the time they landed in its soil, they rule the country for 300 years until Americans realized that Philippines has this mineral they needed. So, American invaded the Philippines and kick out the Spaniards. In world war 2, Japanese had a great interest to conquer pacific and it realized that Philippines is very strategic in its location. So, they invaded the country for 3 years until they loss in war. Saba is originally owned by Philippines but because it is potentially source of oil and now it under malaysia.

2016-05-19 12:04:42 · answer #5 · answered by ? 2 · 0 0

The colonies were under military rule with a governor as the executive head of the government.

2007-05-21 23:11:29 · answer #6 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 0 0

I wish US bases were still there in the Philippines so that I dont have to worry about going to the US without a tourist visa as a Filipino retired USN.

2007-05-28 01:24:35 · answer #7 · answered by noypi_usn 2 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers