By Mafa Kwanisai Mafa

The ongoing presence of the United States naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, is not merely a historical oddity; it is a living testament to the persistence of imperial power and the violation of fundamental principles of international law, state sovereignty, and human rights.

For more than a century, this tiny strip of land on Cuban soil has been militarily occupied by a foreign power, a situation that remains illegal and an affront to the self-determination of the Cuban people.

That base, and the notorious detention camp within it, stand as symbols not only of U.S. domination in the Caribbean but also of a global system of military encroachment that imperils the peace and autonomy of nations across the world.

The U.S. presence in Guantánamo Bay traces back to the aftermath of the Spanish-American War and the imposition of the Platt Amendment, which compelled the Cuban government of the early 20th century to cede lands for U.S. use.

The treaty that purported to “lease” the territory to the U.S. in 1903 has no expiry and was imposed under conditions that reflected profound asymmetry and coercion rather than mutual consent.

Modern Cuban governments reject their legitimacy, viewing it as fundamentally hostile to the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Havana, for example, has consistently refused the annual lease payments offered by Washington precisely because the underlying “agreement” was not freely entered into by the Cuban people and has never represented their will.

Cuba’s repudiation of the Guantánamo occupation is not merely rhetorical. Tens of thousands of people, including residents from the province of Guantánamo itself, have protested the U.S. base’s continued existence, arguing that it restricts economic development, access to beaches and natural resources, and the full exercise of Cuban sovereignty over their own territory. Local voices emphasise that the base occupies much of the province’s most valuable coastal land and that its presence undermines both socio-economic development and national dignity.

The U.S. justification for its control over the territory hinges on narrow interpretations of century-old treaties, asserting “complete jurisdiction and control” as if the land were sovereign American soil.

However, international legal principles affirm that sovereignty cannot be so easily relinquished under duress or maintained in perpetuity against the unequivocal will of the people on whose land the military base sits.

This sharp disjuncture between legalistic arguments and moral legitimacy is evidenced in global scholarly assessments that cast the occupation of Guantánamo as a violation of fundamental tenets of international law and a direct affront to Cuban self-determination.

Compounding this travesty is the detention facility on the base, which has jailed hundreds of detainees without charge or fair trial, and has been repeatedly condemned by international human rights organisations for arbitrary detention and serious due-process abuses.

That the U.S. government positions Guantánamo outside its constitutional boundaries to evade accountability underscores how occupation is used to circumvent legal protections that apply within sovereign states.

This situation is not isolated. The Guantánamo Bay controversy forms part of a broader pattern of military overreach epitomised by a vast network of foreign military bases that span the globe.

According to recent counts, there are over 1,200 foreign military bases worldwide, of which roughly 877 are American, located in over 90 countries and territories.

This footprint is almost unparalleled in history and reflects a strategic posture that privileges power projection over peace, influence over independence, and unilateralism over sovereign choice.

These bases exert profound political, economic, and cultural effects on their host societies. They often serve as staging grounds for military interventions and geopolitical contests, from the Middle East to East Asia, positioning U.S. forces near the borders of Russia, China and key energy corridors.

Their presence can inflame local grievances, skew domestic politics towards militarisation, and entrench unequal power relations between host governments and the United States.

Beyond the U.S. footprint, NATO’s network of bases and status agreements across Europe and beyond further complicates sovereignty.

Through agreements like the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), host nations cede certain jurisdictional controls over foreign troops on their soil, inadvertently eroding domestic legal authority and creating spaces where military actors operate with considerable autonomy.

These arrangements, though justified in the language of “collective defence,” often replicate structural dependencies that undermine full political autonomy.

The strategic rationale offered by U.S. and NATO officials that these bases are essential for deterring threats or ensuring global stability must be critically examined.

Empirical analysis suggests that foreign bases have frequently facilitated military intervention rather than prevented conflict, and that their financial and human costs far outweigh any purported security benefits.

Indeed, taxpayers in host nations often subsidise the maintenance of foreign troops while their political leaders accept restrictions on sovereignty as a condition of alliance.

Moreover, the environmental and social impacts of these bases cannot be understated. Military installations contribute to ecological degradation, resource depletion, and disruption of local economies, while often remaining opaque to public scrutiny and national accountability mechanisms.

This pattern reinforces a form of contemporary neocolonialism whereby powerful states assert disproportionate influence over weaker nations under the guise of security cooperation.

The struggle against the occupation of Guantánamo Bay therefore resonates beyond Cuba’s borders. It is a call to challenge not only one illegal base, but the very architecture of global militarisation that privileges hegemony over human dignity, and intimidation over international law.

Peace movements, jurists, academics, human rights defenders, and journalists have a responsibility to connect the dots between Guantánamo’s injustice and the broader web of military outposts that collectively threaten sovereignty and peace.

Those who stand for peace must amplify these truths, build solidarity across borders, and denounce the systemic logic of military occupation, whether it appears on a Caribbean peninsula, a European plain, or an Asian island.

The fight for the return of Guantánamo to Cuban hands is indivisible from the struggle to dismantle structures of military domination worldwide.

In doing so, we assert a fundamental principle: that peace is not sustained through foreign occupation or military enclaves, but through respect for sovereignty, international law, and the self-determined flourishing of all peoples.