Cuba’s Parallel Reality
At least the president admitted to missteps in managing the economy—but according to him, those happened due to external pressures.
By Francisco Acevedo
HAVANA TIMES – The interview made public this week between Cuban president Miguel Díaz-Canel and Brazilian journalist Breno Altman once again demonstrates that the country’s top leadership lives in a parallel reality, very different from that of the rest of Cuba’s inhabitants.
The discourse blaming the United States’ economic and financial embargo remains unchanged, as does the claim that they suffer terrible media campaigns meant to distort the truth—when in fact, they are the ones constantly trying to mask it.
However, barely into the interview, he already put his foot in his mouth, stating that with or without an embargo, the socialist model would remain. So the problem isn’t the embargo—it’s stubbornness.
The first major lie, and perhaps the gravest, is denying the existence of political prisoners in Cuba. From Luis Manuel Otero to Maikel Osorbo, including Jose Daniel Ferrer, there are hundreds of Cuban citizens behind bars for publicly expressing their discontent with the regime.
Diaz Canel said: “There are people imprisoned for committing crimes, judged by the justice system, with due process, in accordance with our Constitution’s norms—no one is being convicted for not supporting the Revolution, but for the criminal and vandalistic acts they commit.”
Documented reports from various international organizations, testimonies from those involved, and even the sentencing records themselves—which inflate any hint of “illegality”—are all dismissed by the government.
Everyone else is a liar and part of a foreign-funded platform to destabilize the country. And yet, on the other hand, the regime constantly begs for money from citizens living abroad.
“Since they have no popular support, they often resort to criminal acts and promote vandalism, terrorism, assaults, attacks on national security, public safety, and against internal order,” Diaz-Canel claimed in the television segment aired on the now-traditional From the Presidency podcast.
At least those three individuals mentioned—without even going too far—did not engage in any vandalism, but are being criminalized for active dissent, hidden under draconian laws that stigmatize anything that opposes the current political system.
In a brutally revealing self-portrait, he accused the international and independent press, as well as social media, of constructing a “virtual Cuba that has nothing to do with the real Cuba,” while supposedly taking notes and making corrections in a notebook, without looking the interviewer in the eye, and speaking more about the United States than about Cuba itself.
The growing repression against activists, independent journalists, artists, and citizens expressing discontent with the regime doesn’t exist in his imagination, nor do the more than a thousand political prisoners on the island—many detained after the historic July 11, 2021 protests and during subsequent demonstrations.
Diaz-Canel says there is no popular discontent. Constant repression and intimidation are just external fabrications, and opposition figures are nothing more than common criminals.
In some way, the international community validates him, because certainly no protest of that scale has happened again. But one only needs to look at the images of beatings and especially the arrests and sentences that followed to understand why Cubans no longer demonstrate freely. It should be suspicious that in no other country in the world do protests of that scale suddenly stop without any changes to internal conditions.
At least the president admitted to missteps in managing the economy—but according to him, those happened due to external pressures. So, the failed Tarea Ordenamiento monetary reform, the country’s import-focused mindset, the lack of investment in strategic sectors like agriculture and renewable energy, and serious problems like corruption, administrative inefficiency, and the brain drain are all the US government’s fault too.
“We haven’t been efficient in managing the few resources available,” was as far as he went, but he insisted that the lack of spare parts and inability to invest are what have the outdated thermoelectric plants in crisis—so the embargo gets blamed for Cuba’s biggest current problem too.
“We haven’t made the necessary investments in agriculture and food production,” he added. But then, how are luxury hotels being built right in the face of the Cuban people? It’s not enough to admit it; it must be corrected. In that same moment, he should have said, “We’ve corrected course, and right now we’re investing in agriculture, medicine production, transportation, etc.” There is no shortage of more important sectors for investment in this country.
Instead, he returned to the same patriotic rhetoric of appealing to resistance (from others, because he and his relatives and loyalists don’t suffer any of these hardships), the unity of the people, and the ethical values of the Revolution—which are nothing more than proof of the total failure of a model that insists on blaming others while avoiding its own responsibilities.
He insisted that with a single political party there is more democracy than with many—something completely illogical, and which the global reality disproves thoroughly. In his view, there’s democracy without political alternation, when the president proposes and no one challenges him, and when there are no free elections.
In the end, it’s the same old monologue, the same justifications repeated for over 60 years. They’re not incompetent, they’re victims, when the real victims are those of us who must endure endless blackouts, poor nutrition, inadequate medical care, no freedom of movement or thought, and a long list of shortages of every kind, including digital connectivity thanks to Etecsa’s recent rate hike.
All that’s left for the population is resignation, without even the civic right to protest and demand improvements. Because anyone who complains on social media could spend a decade in prison, and anyone who takes to the streets, even longer.
That’s the parallel reality in which, unfortunately, most Cubans live.
Anti-imperialist, I used to think that lifting the embargo would come as the culmination of a normalization process, but I have become convinced that absent its end, US policy change will be too ephemeral to have significant and necessary impact in both countries.
If, for whatever transactional reason, President Trump acknowledges his opposition to the embargo, the votes in Congress will be there. His relationship with Putin could be a factor. Or perhaps he would accept a Cuban argument that the only way they could accept return of tens of thousand of humanitarian parolees is if removal of the embargo and US investment provided revolutionary economic opportunity.
Professor William LeoGrande of American University and Geoff Thale, former President of the Washington Office on Latin American, have just published a more incrementalist brief for the Quincy Institute, “U.S.–Cuban Relations: A Realist Case for Pragmatic Engagement”
https://quincyinst.org/research/u-s-cuban-relations-a-realist-case-for-pragmatic-engagement/
John McAuliff – Keep in mind that if you want to end the embargo, which many of us would like to see, you have to convince a good number of Republicans in the Senate. With a fat chance of that… best to move on and forget about that ineffective campaign. Yes, give it lip service, but always knowing it’s not going anywhere. Yes, if it was removed the total mismanagement of the Cuban economy by its eternal government would be even more obvious, but that’s a moot point, don’t you think?
Moses, if you think the embargo has so little impact, do you support its end?
The annual virtually unanimous vote at the UN against the embargo is prefaced by extensive documentation of the devastating impact of the embargo.
Among other things, Americans would be allowed to freely travel as to all other countries in our hemisphere, reinfusing money and energy into the private sector. All you have to do is recall the economic and social impact of the partial opening of the brief Obama normalization.
We agree, “The US embargo is the best friend of the Ministry of Propaganda the Castros could wish for. ” They must appreciate the help they receive from you and the exile lobby.
PS, which Castro are you elevating to power? Raul is obviously still influential but not actively engaged with governance. What will you do when Raul passes? Blame Mariela or Alejandro?
Is it too hard to imagine a person/ persons within the country leading an uprising ( a la Fidel from back in the day) to bringing a change of government for the people and instilling a democracy?
Rise up on mass and show your power.
Michael, one only has to follow a few travel sites on the internet to find out why Canadians won’t boycott tourism to Cuba….it’s a cheap vacation for them. As long as the liquor flows and resorts are cheap they will continue to travel to Cuba. If by chance they realize they are supporting the very regime that stifles Cubans, the dollar store “gifts” they take helps to assuage their guilt and helps to create a society dependent on hand outs. The main sentiment I see expressed on travel sites is, “I am not interested in the politics of Cuba. I want my cheap beach vacation and will take some toothpaste to give away. Does the resort have liquor and eggs for my breakfast? That’s what I care about.”
Canadian tourists keep the Castro regime alive.
@Micheal and Amy. I have been gone from over a year from my visit but what I saw breaks my heart even now. I met a couple of people while I was there that I have stayed in touch with since coming back and when I read the news stories it just tears me up that I can’t help in some way. I’ve thought to go back and at least do something for them as I have no idea how I can possibly help from here but you’re right it’s going to have to get really really bad before the Cuban people will finally just come to the point where they will come together and try to once again release their Island from a repressive government.
Saludos to John MacAuliff. It has been a few years since I have had the pleasure of reading one of your comments. In the past, your comments reflected considerable support for the failed Castro regime. Your comment below seems measured and moderate. Please, if possible, enlighten me. How does the US embargo impact Cubans today? If tomorrow the Castros were free to buy and sell to whomever they chose, would life for Cubans improve? Or put another way, what is it that Cuba can’t do today because of the embargo that would change if the embargo were lifted? Would Cubans be able to drink more milk? Buy more laptops? Would the power plants that produce electricity be repaired? The buildings would no longer collapse after rainstorms? You see where I am going with this? The US embargo is the best friend of the Ministry of Propaganda the Castros could wish for. It has very little to no impact on life in Cuba today. There is nothing on the planet Cuba can’t buy from foreign sellers. Period.
It is easy to critique Cuban leaders who blame all of their problems on the embargo and US government hostility. At least as questionable are opponents who pretend that the embargo and US regime change agendas are not important factors in Cuba’s economic and political problems, as they are intended to be.
It has long puzzled me why critics of Cuba’s system are not leading the campaign to end the embargo Perhaps they can’t escape the paradigm of punishment and revenge to recognize how destabilizing and liberating it would be to have unrestricted trade, travel and investment with the overwhelming presence of the US.
Given Fidel Castro’s obsession to free what he saw as a neocolonized country from US dominance, the embargo was at least in the short term very useful.
I recently came across this from Roberto Veiga González, formerly of Espacio Laical and Cuba Posible, the most serious moral and political challenges to the status quo for a couple of decades.
“Five reasons against the United States embargo on Cuba
I have always taken a stand against the US embargo on Cuba, at least for five main reasons:
1- I consider that the embargo contradicts the foundations of peaceful coexistence between nations. Furthermore, I argue that ends do not justify the means, and that imposing coercive measures is not the right path to bring about political change.
2- I think this suggests that the system established in Cuba could demonstrate its effectiveness and consolidate its legitimacy if it were allowed to develop without the external pressure of the embargo.
3- The embargo has a significant negative impact on the Cuban population, generating economic and social difficulties that affect their quality of life.
4- Paradoxically, the embargo provides the Cuban Government with a strategic element for its domestic and international policy, allowing it to attribute the country’s difficulties to foreign interference.
5- The embargo further undermines the credibility of actors seeking democratic change in Cuba, by making them appear as dependent on American intervention. This, in turn, reinforces the perception that the United States is the only valid interlocutor against the Cuban Government.
In short, the embargo, far from achieving its declared goals, generates counterproductive consequences that negatively affect Cuban society and hinder the transition to a democratic system.”
I could do a year of no travel there, np.
I would like to “reach out” to my fellow Canadians and Others whom read these articles. People that care, and are tourists, have been tourists, or may be tourists.
For decades, us nice folks (the tourists) have taken clothing, medicines, hygenes, foods, toys and many other donations to the wonderful “Cuban” people.
Although helping them in the “short term”, because we are kind and giving, have we not actually in the “long term”, just perpetuated the “real” underlying problem.
Is such not just a continuum of “Bandaid Solutions” ?? Are we not, kind of, helping this “pathetic and inhumane” Regime, to continue its’ disgusting existence ??
Please… I call on all possible attendees to this Country to do the “right thing”, where it “hurts the most”, that being in the Goverments (If you can even call them such) “pockets”:)
For God’s sake the time has come to “Break these Bastards”.
“COULD WE ALL BOYCOTT VISITING CUBA FOR ONE FULL YEAR” !!
Without a “customer” no business can “survive”. Let’s send something much stronger than “weapons and violence”. Something “democratic”. Something that “will work” !!
LET US “VOTE”, ON BEHALF OF “THE PEOPLE”, WITH THE STRONGEST VOICE !!
“Where we choose to spend our Money”.
Although it may cause further “hardship” in the near-term, would almost “guarantee” it will “pay-off” in the long-term.
As they say… The best time to start a “TASK”… Is… “Now” !! Ya’ think ??
Love to the Cuban people from Canada.
We are “free”… May we finally let “them” be… “FREE” !!
Michael from Toronto
I wonder how long the regime would last if the “blockade” was dropped and American capital flooded into the country? A whole new generation of entrepreneurs would be created and the country would have little taste for the socialist restrictions and corruption leaching their wealth. Just a thought.
I just saw this interview on YouTube! It’s so full of bulls#%t propaganda, it’s hard to watch. Even his “admissions” were qualified by the excuse of a lack of resources. So the follow up question is why are there a lack of resources? Especially for such basic needs as energy and food. Diaz-Canel sounds as if he is still interviewing for the job he already has. Is he afraid that Fidel will get up from the grave and fire him? But there was something noteworthy. Maybe he said it and I just didn’t hear it since he talks like he’s mumbling but I don’t remember anything about when the economy will turn around. There was nothing about “better days ahead”. The regime has been famous for its lofty prognostications of a better harvest next year. Or, an increase in tobacco or sugar production. Nada de improvements in tourism. Does the regime finally see the writing on the wall?