Miguel Díaz-Canel Bermúdez, First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Cuba and President of the Republic, recently gave an interview to Spanish political scientist Pablo Iglesias Turrión on the digital platform Canal Red, which was broadcast on the program Mesa Redonda
The discussion addressed issues related to Cuba’s current situation, the impact of the economic, commercial, and financial blockade imposed by the U.S. government, and recent acts of international solidarity.
The conversation provided insight into the Caribbean nation’s internal and external challenges, as well as the government’s stance on the humanitarian flotilla announced in recent days.
Pablo Iglesias: The fascists currently in power in the United States have learned very well from their Nazi role models the Goebbels-style principle that a lie repeated a thousand times can become the truth.
Miguel Díaz-Canel: We are very grateful to you for this opportunity you are giving us to speak to the European public, to the Spanish public, because those truths are constantly being distorted by media disinformation, by that narrative of lies and slander.
THE PALACE OF THE REVOLUTION
Díaz Canel: Pablo, we’re now entering the Palace of the Revolution, a place where you can still feel the presence of Commander-in-Chief Fidel Castro Ruz today. This was his workplace, the place where he received delegations and held important meetings, and he remains a constant source of inspiration in our daily lives, especially in these difficult times.
Pablo Iglesias: I wanted you to explain this to me, because there are some plants and rocks here that aren’t merely decorative.
Miguel Díaz-Canel: That’s a very subtle observation on your part. Fidel had a comrade-in-arms in the Sierra Maestra, Celia Sánchez, one of the heroines of the Revolution who was his collaborator for many years. And Celia had a particular sensitivity toward all things Cuban, toward Cuban identity, and she wanted Fidel and Raúl to have a reminder of the Sierra Maestra in this space. So, these stones were brought from the Sierra Maestra, and this is the vegetation of the Sierra Maestra, from the mountains, where the Rebel Army launched its offensive against Batista’s tyranny. Everyone who comes here marvels at the vegetation; in other words, it’s a very unique palace—a palace with vegetation and its own rocks—and I think it shows a bit of what’s authentically Cuban.
ANOTHER SPECIAL PERIOD
Pablo Iglesias: Miguel, Cuba is in the spotlight because of a situation that everyone tells me is a mess. I was here for the first time in ’94, right in the middle of the Special Period, and people tell me, “Now we could say we’re in another Special Period.” That observation is clear.
Miguel Díaz-Canel: Well, Pablo, I think we’ve always been in a complex situation. For example, I’m part of a generation born in the early years of the Revolution. I was born in 1960. I turned one the day after the victory at Playa Girón, and already 80% of the Cuban population was born after the Revolution. Therefore, we are generations that were born under the blockade. My children were born under the blockade. The children of our generation—our grandchildren—are children who were also born under the blockade and have been living their lives up to now under the conditions of the blockade. The thing is, the effects of the blockade also have a lot to do with the times we experienced before the Special Period.
Based on your experience of the 1990s in Cuba, there was a socialist bloc that provided significant support to Cuba, and we can never deny that. Then that socialist bloc collapsed. We had to, under the conditions of the Special Period, in the midst of that blockade, create, be creative, move forward, and then there came times when the relationship with Venezuela, the Bolivarian Revolution, the support from China, Vietnam, and other countries allowed us to move into a different situation. But there is a point that I would say is like a watershed moment, which is the year 2019, during the first phase of the Trump administration.
FIRST STAGE OF THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION
Miguel Díaz-Canel: At the end of 2019, in the second half of 2019, the Trump administration intensified the blockade. In other words, the blockade began to take on a qualitatively different character. It was an intensification. Why do we speak of intensification? Because Title 3 of the Helms-Burton Act—which internationalizes the blockade—was applied for the first time. Look, the blockade is a policy of coercion, of maximum pressure that is entirely unilateral, which the United States unilaterally imposes on Cuba; but with the Helms-Burton Act, it internationalizes it because it then applies restrictions, sanctions, and pressure to third parties involved in commercial or financial relations with Cuba.
It is a law, therefore, that this blockade law negates the very precepts of capitalism and imperialism that speak of the free market, so to speak. It is a totally absurd thing; I would say it is aberrant and very perverse. Very perverse. First, because they uphold it with a concept of slander, lies, and double standards. What they criticize in you, they do not criticize in others. What is unacceptable to us is acceptable to others. So, at that stage, Chapter 3 of the Helms-Burton Act is applied, but they also include us on a list of countries that supposedly support terrorism. When they apply that list of countries that supposedly support terrorism to you, all your financial transactions are cut off. Most banks stop giving you credit, and financial transactions become very complicated.
So, all of this manifests itself in financial persecution and energy persecution. That’s why I tell you it was a turning point, because from there the situation began to worsen. Today, that is, the situation we have today is one that has already accumulated and is intensifying even further with the executive order, with the events in Venezuela, and with the current stance of the Trump administration. At that very moment, our main sources of foreign currency financing began to be cut off; in other words, it became very difficult for us to export, tourism was blocked, U.S. citizens—and with many restrictions even for Cuban citizens residing in the United States—were prohibited from coming to the country, and a significant flow of tourism and sources of income was cut off.
Without access to those foreign currencies, we began to face problems acquiring the fuel we needed to purchase spare parts to maintain our power system, which consisted of thermoelectric plants that were also at a certain level of obsolescence and overuse. Shortages of food and medicine began, along with transportation problems and the paralysis of part of our economy.
Pablo Iglesias: And all of that has very significant implications... I want to ask about that because, of course, there are many people who say, well.
BLOCKADE AGAINST CUBA; WE ARE PART OF THE SAME PEOPLE
Pablo Iglesias: These are measures against the Cuban government, against a socialist government, but what does this mean for the people in terms of economic warfare, the blockade, and now the fact that practically no fuel is getting through, no oil is getting through. For the lives of Cuban men and women, what does it mean that oil isn’t getting through?
Miguel Díaz-Canel: There are several things here that you’re pointing out that it’s very important to clarify. First, in this attempt to claim that these measures are meant to affect the government and not the people, they are trying to divide the government from the people. I am part of the people. I was not born into an elite. I do not come from an elite family. I was born into a working-class family. My mother was a rural elementary school teacher; my father worked in a brewery—and that is what our leaders are like. We are part of the people. Why this attempt to separate the people from the state or the government in leadership, to separate them from the people? We are part of the same people.
Our children, our families, live their lives together, just like everyone else. We have that sense of belonging to the people; we also suffer the problems of our people, given the responsibilities we have in representing that people. So, there is a primary framework here, because remember that all this economic coercion and this policy of maximum pressure also has an ideological component.
So, they are defending the hegemony of a power that wants to exercise it in an extreme manner against a small island, but it also has a media component of media disinformation, and there are all those media narratives they are trying to construct. In other words, the blockade affects everyone. How does it affect the government? It hurts us deeply that we—our dreams, our programs, the projects we have for the benefit of the people—cannot move forward as we wish. It upsets us to see the people suffering.
CREATIVE RESISTANCE
Pablo Iglesias: But, so that people understand, for example, there are students who can’t go to college, there are hospitals that… we haven’t reached those extremes.
Miguel Díaz-Canel: I always say there’s a concept of creative resistance, which isn’t just about withstanding the blows of the blockade, but about growing and trying to move forward in the midst of that situation. So, we’re constantly reorganizing, but there are certainly impacts. For example, impacts; let’s look at daily life—having to sleep without electricity. It’s a hot country; children sleeping uncomfortably, getting up early in the morning to go to school. We’ve taken organizational measures; everyone can get to school. When there’s a problem with distance—in these times when there’s no transportation—that’s when you start running into another problem: how do you get around? How do you get to work? How do you get to school? How do you take your children to school?
So they begin to get organized, and in some places we’ve shifted the setting. The school setting gives way to the community setting, the local setting, where things are reorganized, but the course continues. Universities have transitioned from in-person classes in regular courses to a hybrid model, engaging university students with community issues, and also leveraging the potential of different institutions, and that’s where their education continues. We have a healthcare system capable of tackling epidemics, just as we were able to tackle COVID-19, which we managed to handle.
THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE BLOCKADE ON HEALTH AND EDUCATION
Pablo Iglesias: Many people outside of Cuba don’t know this, but you created your own vaccine.
Miguel Díaz-Canel: We are one of the few countries to have done so, and we created five vaccine candidates. Three of them became actual vaccines. And I’ll explain why, because it also has a lot to do with that concept of creative resistance. Well, healthcare is suffering. Today, we have more than 120,000 people on a waiting list for surgeries, because we’ve had to attend to emergencies, because we don’t have electricity in the hospitals or operating rooms, and because we lack the supplies needed to perform all the surgeries. But those surgeries—that volume of surgeries—we perform under normal conditions, even under non-intensified blockade conditions, such as the current one with this energy blockade. Even under these conditions, we maintain infant mortality, maternal mortality, health, and educational indicators on par with those of developed countries.
In other words, they are being affected; but we have achieved so much in social terms that this deterioration has not yet put us at a disadvantage compared to other countries, though there are indeed impacts. Precisely because among the surgeries we are waiting to perform, there are more than 11,000 children—including children and cancer patients—for whom we are struggling to guarantee medications, which Cuba provides free of charge. Education is affected. This too—many of our educational platforms are built on connectivity, on digital transformation platforms and artificial intelligence processes.
All of that is affected, because when there is no power, the base stations for connectivity do not work; there are transportation issues, there is the problem of water supply to the population. When there is a blackout, the water supply sources also stop working. Most of them run on electricity. So, look, you already have the burden of transportation, you have the burden of healthcare, you have the burden of education, you have the burden of food, and you’re missing water. How many problems are converging at once? And I ask, why?
Is it because the State lacks the capacity to provide our services? It’s not the State; it’s the blockade that prevents the State and the Government—which is the people—from acting, because I believe that many of the things we’ve set out to do, many of the ways we’re resisting and organizing, have to do, above all, with more than just government administration. That government administration cannot be separated from the people, who have the capacity to mobilize themselves, to be creative, to be resilient, to resist, and to innovate. Let me give you an example: right now we’re running out of liquefied gas.
Liquefied gas is one of the ways in which we face constraints, because the other constraint—electricity—also poses challenges for us. People have adapted their homes: one person builds a coal stove, and another makes a wood-burning stove. They’ve developed highly efficient wood-burning stoves. At the community level, neighbors are able to set up communal kitchens to cook for several households at once.
There are many families who have been able to acquire solar panels or solar systems for their homes, right? And to be independent from the national power grid, but they don’t keep the solution just for their own home. They share, because there is tremendous grassroots solidarity. I have a system at home and I share it with my neighbors, and others then let people charge their motorcycles, phones, or tablets, but there are also homes that provide access for the government and local authorities to set up what we call a viewing point. It’s a place with audio and a TV, so if there’s a blackout, people still have a place to get information, watch the news, or view the TV programming available.
Our energy initiatives also include the concept of electric mobility. We have also turned to electric mobility as a solution. So, for example, here we are assembling a type of vehicle—there are many motorcycles and electric tricycles. Well, the electric tricycle we assembled came with a specific design. There are already a multitude of designs because people adapt the electric tricycle; so we have electric tricycles for transporting passengers.
In the cities, we have electric tricycles; they’ve been converted into vans to transport goods. We have electric tricycles that people have customized to be a bit more comfortable, for example, to help patients who need hemodialysis, who have to travel regularly to receive such a complex service. They have even adapted tricycles for funeral services, so as not to depend on the hearses they have. They have made electric tricycles with amenities, such as televisions and screens, to also bring cultural and informational activities to the population. The way we have organized the school year in general education and the school year in higher education under these conditions. I would also say it is innovative, that it is creative. The people are suffering; there are limitations, there are shortages, but that Cuban spirit of resilience, solidarity, and joy is not lost.
Pablo Iglesias: I’m telling you, without that capacity. How long will it take for Cuba to achieve energy sovereignty in the sense of not depending on oil? Because I understand that you’ve stepped on the gas—that transition had been planned for a long time, a strategic collaboration with China to support solar energy—but now you have to make it happen.
Miguel Díaz-Canel: I’ll talk to you about that, but first, so I don’t leave a question hanging in the air from when you asked me about the vaccines, because that’s where the concept of creative resistance comes in.
SOBERANA VACCINE TO COMBAT COVID
Miguel Díaz-Canel: We were in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, as I already told you. In the midst of the pandemic, we were already experiencing this first phase of the intensified blockade. Furthermore, all the measures adopted by the Trump administration at that time were maintained by the Biden administration—in other words, the parties in power in the United States changed, but the policy toward Cuba did not. When we realized how the vaccine situation was unfolding around the world, we realized that we wouldn’t have the money or the ability—due to the blockade—to acquire vaccines, so we called on Cuban scientists.
We said, “To have sovereignty in managing the pandemic, we need Cuban vaccines.” Within two months, we already had the first batch of a vaccine candidate. We know the rest of the story: five vaccine candidates, three effective vaccines that weren’t just for Cuba—we shared them with other countries—and that allowed us to control the disease on the day we began vaccinating. We were the first in the world to vaccinate the pediatric population over the age of 2 with our own vaccines, and we achieved extremely high immunization rates once we had the vaccines. That’s when I say, why does the concept of creative resistance not only resist, but also help you grow? You developed vaccines.
There are powers that could not develop vaccines; therefore, you advance, and you grow as well, and you develop. It is not about resisting with submission; it is about resisting with creativity. So, regarding those very concepts, well, we ran out of medical oxygen, and the U.S. government pressured oxygen companies in the Caribbean and Latin America not to sell us oxygen, and we had to make a tremendous effort.
We received aid from Russia and other countries to overcome that crisis, and when they refused to sell us ventilators, young Cuban scientists developed ventilators that are now certified for high performance and we can even export them. All of that is creation, not just resistance.
THE PATH TO ENERGY INDEPENDENCE
Miguel Díaz-Canel: But well, from that moment on, we began evaluating how to seek a set of solutions to the country’s problems that would make us less dependent on the contributions and aid we could receive from others—as we once did from the socialist bloc, and at another time from Venezuela or China, or other friendly countries—in order to better guarantee the country’s economic sovereignty and sustainability. And within those issues, there are two fundamental ones: food production and the energy issue. So, the energy issue—how have we approached it? Well, with a comprehensive approach and a government program to overcome the energy crisis and bring energy stability to the country. One component of that system is that we will still have to rely on thermal power for base-load generation for years to come. The thermoelectric plants are in very poor condition. Therefore, we are implementing a program to restore the capacity of these thermoelectric plants. Consequently, under these conditions, we have had to allocate funding to gradually restore capacity.
We haven’t had a single drop of fuel enter the country for three months. But look, right now the peak deficits during nighttime hours are between 1,800 and 1,900 MW. If we had distributed generation online during the peak, we’d have 1,000 MW. That peak would be 500 MW; that peak lasts a few hours at night, and by early morning we would be covering the entire deficit.
With that distributed generation and with the solar farms during the day as well, we might not have any deficit at all. So where, then, is the deficit? It’s not in the inability of that energy program; it’s that we haven’t had the fuel for that capacity that we thought we could utilize.
So, on the one hand, there is the recovery of thermoelectric capacity; on the other hand, there is the recovery of that distributed generation, which had deteriorated significantly. And a third element is investment in renewable energy sources. They cannot block our sun; they cannot block our air. So last year, through a business project—which I can’t explain to you because they’ll go after it and attack it—we managed to install 1,000 MW of photovoltaic parks across the country in a single year. As a result, our penetration of electricity generation from renewable energy sources went from 3 percent to 10 percent. In other words, we grew by 7 percent in a single year amid intensified blockade conditions. We believe we should reach—based on our calculations—at least 3,000 MW from renewable energy sources, particularly photovoltaics, since we are also investing in wind energy. At the pace of last year, if we can maintain it financially, we could reach that in two or three years.
Now, this year we are going to prioritize our investments in renewable energy sources in photovoltaic parks with storage, because storage allows us, first of all, to help stabilize the system’s frequency—since frequency instability is what has caused the various blackouts we’ve experienced recently. And second, it gives us the ability to generate power at night using what was stored from photovoltaic generation during the day. Because look, right now, for example, during the day we’re generating power with thermoelectric plants that run on Cuban crude oil.
There isn’t much Cuban crude, and it’s heavy, but years ago we adapted the system to refine it here—the system to adapt, right? Now we’re moving on to refining. With that crude, with very little processing, the Cuban thermoelectric plants operate. Of course, they require more regularity, a more systematic approach to maintenance, especially for the boilers, due to the effects of the sulfur and the gases emitted by that crude.
But under these conditions, we have to realize that, if we can’t import, if we can’t receive fuel—though we’re not giving up on that because it’s our right as any country and that’s affected by the energy blockade—we can operate the thermoelectric plants with domestic crude.
That is what we are generating today, along with the photovoltaic parks I explained to you. Therefore, as of today, we are generating power with our crude oil and our solar parks, and while we cannot fully cover the deficit, we are generating our own power. No one can take that generation away from us.
So, what have we decided to do? We are going to increase domestic crude oil production by drilling more wells and introducing technologies that will allow us to improve well operations, but Cuban petroleum scientists already have a refining methodology. To the extent that we depend less on international crude oil—and also on domestic crude oil—we will be able to process and refine a portion of domestic crude oil to use it in the rest of the economy as well, not just for electricity generation. Crude oil extraction produces associated gas.
We have a power plant, a system called Energás, which we also use to generate electricity from the associated gas produced during oil extraction. If oil production increases, so does the output of associated gas; in fact, in January and February we reversed the decline in oil and associated gas production, already surpassing last year’s figures and meeting our planned targets.
Therefore, this is an area that allows us to move forward. We must also continue investing in solar power plants, renewable energy, and wind power. We are developing biodigesters—that is, by treating solid waste, especially in dairy and livestock farming areas—we can put systems into operation that allow us to provide gas for cooking in communities and settlements, but also by using gas generators, we can generate electricity through this method and, in addition, reduce pollution; it is a fully sustainable approach. We are also introducing technologies to harness biomass. For example, in the sugar sector, with very few modifications, we can convert the electricity generation of sugar mills so that during the off-season they can also generate electricity using biomass, which is also entirely sustainable.
In addition to this, we have incorporated into this strategy not only investments in generation but also electric mobility. As we expand electric mobility, we need less fuel for economic operations and transportation. So, we are building capacity through international economic partnerships, as well as with the private sector in the assembly and production of electrical systems, in addition to other investments we are making to purchase this equipment.
We will soon be purchasing 400 electric vehicles that will be used to support the healthcare sector, providing stability across all polyclinics and hospitals in the country. We have also implemented incentive measures for anyone—whether from the state, private, or cooperative sector—who introduces renewable energy sources into the country, both for their businesses and for their private lives.
So we apply incentives in terms of tariffs, that is, anyone who begins generating electricity through a system and feeds it into the national power grid receives a favorable tariff; if they maintain this for years, we waive import duties on those technologies and also provide a range of tax breaks related to services, profits, and installation for those who promote this. This has created an environment that I would describe as participatory, but also one of solidarity. For example, I have the case of a worker at a non-state MSME who purchased all the photovoltaic systems needed by a municipality’s social institutions, such as polyclinics. Therefore, if the power goes out at the polyclinics, the polyclinic still has power, the bank has power—in other words, the main energy services for the population are maintained using that same model developed by that non-state entity. So, we have now acquired a number of photovoltaic systems. We are doing the same thing in every municipality across the country.
Thanks to this solidarity, we are now receiving a lot of equipment. Institutions from other countries are telling us that they will provide all the photovoltaic systems needed by the healthcare system. Non-governmental entities are purchasing and donating these systems to specific state social institutions. Many state-owned companies are already beginning to make investments. Individuals who have owned electric mobility equipment—such as tricycles and electric cars—have made them available for public use.
So, all of this has been fostering a sense of empathy and, I would say, a movement that I believe will very soon generate significant capacity—which we will need to combine with state efforts—and we will gradually overcome this crisis. No, this isn’t a problem that can be solved overnight; it will take us three years. But I believe this is a more sustainable path.
That’s why I also say that these challenges must be viewed as opportunities—which is the concept of a revolutionary: not giving up and seeing it as an opportunity—and we’re moving toward a more sustainable path. But we’re going to overcome this gradually, and we’ll go through a phase where we’ll still suffer the same limitations we face now. But, for example, looking ahead, if we hadn’t made the investment of 1,000 MW in solar farms that we made last year, what would be happening in Cuba right now? We would barely have the capacity to generate power during the day, and the system would be so unstable that we’d be going from one blackout to another.
DIALOGUE PROCESS WITH THE UNITED STATES
Pablo Iglesias: Miguel, there’s an elephant in the room, and that’s Donald Trump. I have to ask you this question, though I don’t know if you can answer it. Are you talking to the U.S. government?
Miguel Díaz-Canel: Well, there’s been a lot of speculation and a lot of manipulation, and I’m going to explain the exact content of the information we responsibly provided to the people and the international community. Look, whenever there have been tense relations like the ones currently existing between the U.S. government and Cuba, people and institutions—some governmental, others non-governmental—have emerged to try to establish channels to foster dialogue between the two governments and overcome any differences or antagonism that may exist, above all seeking to avoid confrontation and resolve the issues, and that is what is happening right now. The thing is, reaching an agreement through a level of conversation or negotiation is a long process.
First, we must establish a channel for dialogue; then, we must develop common agendas of interest for the parties involved, and the parties must demonstrate their intention to move forward and truly commit to the process. Based on the discussion of those agendas, we must reach agreements that are beneficial to both sides, and from there, we can then achieve concrete results. So, in the first part of the information we provided, what did we say? That it is in line with the consistent policy of the Cuban Revolution. Why? Because this is not the first time in the history of the revolution that talks have taken place or been attempted.
There were attempts during the Kennedy administration. There were attempts during the Carter, Clinton, and even Reagan administrations; some went further, others less so, and they all fell through along the way due to various circumstances. But what we are doing now—this current attempt—is not the first of its kind. Furthermore, from the very beginning, the revolution has always stated that it was willing to engage in a dialogue with the U.S. government—based on respect and equality, without pressure or conditions—to find solutions to our differences. In other words, that willingness has been present throughout the history of the revolution.
Therefore, what we are proposing now does not contradict the history of the revolution in the least. Even one of the conversations that went the furthest—those between Army General Raúl Castro and President Obama, which resulted in concrete agreements—managed to lift some of the sanctions Cuba faced at that time. We are willing to build a civilized relationship between neighbors, regardless of the ideological differences we have. But we can do this because the United States, in fact, does so with some of those it considers its adversaries; it has relations with Russia, it has relations with China, it has relations with other countries. Why is the issue Cuba? So, why is the issue Cuba? So, what we are doing is not a first in history; it responds to a historical position of Cuba.
We are not warmongers. We do not offend; we are not going to do anything against the United States; we do not blockade the United States. The blockade is a unilateral situation, a unilateral decision by the U.S. government. The other thing we have said—because this is the other narrative they have tried to speculate on—is that there are divisions within the leadership of the revolution. There we explain that under the leadership of the Army General, who has earned his leadership in this country—he is the historic leader of the revolution, even though he has stepped down from his responsibilities—the prestige he holds among the people, his history, his contributions, and his historical recognition cannot be denied. As happens in other parts of the world, there are people who hold leadership not because of their positions, but because of their history and their experience.
Pablo Iglesias: I’ve been told that you speak with him frequently.
Miguel Díaz-Canel: We speak frequently. I share things with him; he’s keeping a close eye on things.
Pablo Iglesias: What does he think of the situation now?
Miguel Díaz-Canel: It is a complex situation. He is one of those who has guided, alongside me and in consultation with other bodies of the party, the government, and the state, how we should proceed with this dialogue process. If the dialogue process takes place—and he is very attentive to it—he evaluates it, encourages us when he sees that our efforts are yielding results, and above all, he remains committed to the people, to the revolution, and to saving the country from aggression. So, under that guidance, under that leadership—which is a collegial leadership headed by him and me and working in concert with the rest—our officials have recently held talks with officials from the State Department aimed at discussing our bilateral differences to find a solution.
Pablo Iglesias: What do they want? What are they asking for?
Miguel Díaz-Canel: We haven’t reached that point yet. We’ve initiated the conversation so that, if there’s a willingness, we can then build an agenda for discussion and debate that could lead to negotiations. That’s why we’ve proposed this, and it’s also been encouraged and facilitated by international mediators.
Pablo Iglesias: Can you say who they are?
Miguel Díaz-Canel: No, I don’t want to say; we don’t want to burn that bridge. Besides, these things are always done with great discretion, with great discretion, and we have approached this with seriousness and a great sense of responsibility because it is a very sensitive process. So, what are the objectives? First, to determine which bilateral differences we can find solutions for.
Pablo Iglesias: What might those be? I mean, what would we be talking about?
Miguel Díaz-Canel: There are thousands, there are thousands of issues, economic issues. We can talk about investments; we can talk about how the U.S. government can participate in the Cuban economy, but there are migration issues, issues related to the fight against drug trafficking, against terrorism, for regional security, environmental issues, issues of scientific collaboration, educational collaboration, collaboration—there are thousands of topics.
Pablo Iglesias: And what would be unacceptable to Cuba?
Miguel Díaz-Canel: For Cuba. First, that they impose conditions on us, such as requiring us to adopt a certain position in order to engage in dialogue. That they respect our sovereignty, our independence, and our political system just as we would respect theirs. Those things are not up for discussion. Those things are not up for discussion. That we work on the basis of reciprocity and adherence to international law.
So, let’s look for those bilateral differences where we can find solutions, let’s have the will on both sides to move forward in that process, let’s be able to find areas of cooperation that allow us to confront threats and achieve peace and security for both nations and also for the region, because we are part of an agreement reached in the region at a CELAC conference held in Havana, where a peace proclamation for Latin America and the Caribbean was adopted.
On the other hand, our conviction is not to respond to manipulation, because this is a serious process that must be handled with great responsibility and sensitivity, as it affects bilateral relations. Therefore, we must create spaces for understanding that allow us to move toward solutions and steer us away from confrontation, and we must do all of this with a sense of respect, equality, fairness, and respect for fundamental principles—principles that are not, and would never be, part of any discussion questioning the political system of imposition or the loss of sovereignty and independence.
SILVIO RODRÍGUEZ AND THE SYMBOLISM OF THE AKM
Pablo Iglesias: Of course, this is the ideal scenario—it’s the scenario Cuba wants, a scenario of dialogue with respect for sovereignty—but we’ve seen that Trump resorts to military threats and sometimes carries them out. I understand that this is the most complicated scenario. There’s an image that’s gone viral of Silvio Rodríguez saying, “If they come in, let them give me my AKM.”
Miguel Díaz-Canel: That—that’s an expression that’s even symbolic. The fact that Silvio is a symbol of the conviction held by the majority of the Cuban people. In other words, we don’t want war; we want dialogue; we want to reach that situation—that space—that you would say is ideal.
But if that space doesn’t materialize, we are prepared. And I tell you this with the deep conviction I share with my family that we would give our lives for the revolution. Because there is a history of more than 150 years of struggle, because this country has a great deal of experience. When was it humiliated? When was it colonized, when was it a neocolony, when were Cuban governments the tail of the U.S. government, when were almost all our resources plundered and controlled by U.S. companies, and all the miseries and evils that the revolution eliminated in this country? And now we’re talking about difficult times, but even in these difficult times in Cuba, we have more things and more guaranteed rights than at any other time in history. And that isn’t lost, and the people are fully aware of it, fully aware. And that’s why, first and foremost, we as revolutionaries always prepare for the worst-case scenario. If you overcome the worst-case scenario, you can overcome any scenario.
Right now in Cuba, a plan is being developed to enhance the defense readiness of the entire people. Our concept of a people’s war—which is not an offensive concept—is a concept of defending the country’s sovereignty and independence, but with popular participation. And every Cuban knows what role, what mission they must play in the defense, and the majority of our people are willing to face that, aren’t they? What we want to achieve—because we have never wanted to view the American people as an enemy—is to separate our view of the American people from that of the U.S. government.
But the fact is, the U.S. government could build a neighborly relationship with Cuba that is entirely decent, based on cooperation and beneficial to both sides. We are a small island, but within the revolution’s concept of socioeconomic development, we strive to ensure there is enough for everyone. Therefore, this is a market of 11 million people for the United States, a nearby market. We sometimes have to import rice from Asia. We could have rice right next to the United States. We could have oil and fuel very close by, just 90 miles away, but the United States could also benefit from Cuban scientific advances. We have very important vaccines against cancer and medications effective against other diseases.
Whenever I speak with visiting U.S. delegations—which is somewhat symbolic—I try to explain to them everything that undermines the possibility of both peoples enjoying a civilized relationship. It stems from a personal experience: every year in Cuba, the Havana Jazz Festival is held. On the festival’s final night, an orchestra is formed featuring Cuban and American musicians. You go in, and you come out with a surge of satisfaction, and you say, “How can the talent of two countries provide such a level of satisfaction that our peoples could enjoy?” But even cultural exchange is stifled by the blockade. Just look at how far the blockade reaches.
PROBLEMS FOR SPANISH INVESTMENT IN CUBA
Miguel Díaz-Canel: And I’ll give you an example of how it affects Europeans, and in particular Spaniards. We have several Spanish companies that have investments in Cuba. These businesspeople, who are also committed to Cuba and have respect for Cuba, have endured all kinds of pressure. Many face restrictions on entering the United States, or many face restrictions as part of the U.S. blockade.
But, for example, regarding the recent pressure the U.S. has put on tourism to Cuba, there is a visa called the ESTA visa that allows Europeans to enter the U.S. with relative ease. Well, if a European comes to Cuba, the U.S. government revokes their ESTA visa. They don’t do that to anyone else in the world. Why does it have to be Cuba? That was the other person who asked me. Look, we’re not a threat to anyone because of the things I was explaining to you.
Besides, this people has a spirit of solidarity and warmth; they welcome everyone who comes with affection. Hey, you visit Cuba yourself, and if you walk into a neighborhood, right away someone offers you something, even invites you into their home, shares with you—it’s a decent people, a peaceful people. Therefore, no one believes that Cuba is a threat, as they say, unusual for the United States. Therefore, that cannot be the reason. We do not hinder the life of the United States in any way. The only thing that might affect them is that the United States might view us with that anger. First, their arrogant, hegemonic mindset of domination, and second, the fear of the Cuban example, because Cuba has a different way of doing things. In any international forum, Cuba has its own perspective, its own truths, and can present its positions without yielding to any kind of pressure.
We are capable of recognizing all the good that is done by anyone in the world, but we also have our own voice to denounce what is wrong. And with this economy that has been affected for so many years—and they tell us we are a failed state—a failed state could not have survived 67 years of a blockade like the one imposed by the United States, nor could it be functioning under these conditions. That economy, which is often criticized, has been a wartime economy, yet it has sustained social welfare programs. Look at Cuba’s social indicators—even powers with far greater financial resources have failed to achieve them—because social justice, equity, working with all sectors, popular participation, and the unity of the Cuban people have taken precedence.
MEDICAL BRIGADES AND ELAM
Pablo Iglesias: There’s something I’d like you to explain that many people don’t know. Cuba has sent medical brigades to countless countries, and these brigades have played a crucial role in bringing healthcare to segments of society in those countries that otherwise would never have had access to it.
Miguel Díaz-Canel: That’s right; we’ve seen that in Europe. The farewell after the mission in Italy was broadcast on many TV stations, but for some countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, this has been almost a prerequisite for strengthening their healthcare systems and ensuring that care reached people who had never had access to healthcare before.
Pablo Iglesias: That is coming to an end due to pressure from the United States. I’d like you to talk about this—that is, there are countries being forced to tell Cuban doctors and healthcare professionals to leave because the United States doesn’t want them there.
Miguel Díaz-Canel: Let’s look at some background. There is a maxim by Martí that “the homeland is humanity,” and Cuba, the Cuban Revolution, has been consistent with that maxim. For us, there are no distinctions of race or skin color, nor of ethnicity or nation. We see the world as a community that must live in harmony, that must live in balance, where each person must contribute to others based on their abilities and potential. And by virtue of that, through the revolution we have achieved scientific development and progress in areas such as education and health care that set us apart. Furthermore, the training of our health care personnel is grounded in humanistic principles and ethical standards; there is no princely arrogance among an elite of doctors or health care professionals who view health care as a means to enrich themselves.
Our people see it as a way to contribute, to save lives, as a social commitment, a human commitment. And from the early years of the revolution, a group of countries facing certain disadvantages and seeking to develop community-based social programs asked us for medical assistance. The first mission was to Algeria during the Algerian revolution, and thereafter this practice became systematized.
The world also began to understand how Cuba provided these resources and opportunities, and it became increasingly common for countries and governments—driven by a humanistic and social vision and seeking social justice—to request medical brigades from us, especially to serve the underserved areas in those countries, because the doctors in those countries only wanted to work among the urban elite and not in the most disadvantaged sectors. Thus, the concept of medical brigades was developed—these are groups of Cuban doctors, nurses, and health technicians who, of their own free will, are willing to provide service in another country. There are various models for these medical brigades; there are countries where we have gone free of charge and do not charge anything for the medical brigade, except that the country guarantees the staff’s subsistence.
In other cases, we have different arrangements, and these also depend on whether a government has the means to contract those services or not. But all Cubans participating in a medical mission abroad continue to receive their full salary for the duration of their stay. Then they say it’s about human trafficking and exploitation. No, we are paying their full salary back home while they are carrying out their medical mission. In many of the medical mission contracts, for fulfilling the medical mission, they also receive a fee, or a redistribution—that is, their share of the medical mission and what they would earn if they were working in Cuba, which they are not doing at that time.
But what is that money used for? To enrich an elite? That money goes toward the expenses this country must cover for its healthcare system. Because even though we are a poor country, we have a world-class healthcare system. We have some of the most advanced technologies, an advanced, coordinated primary, secondary, and tertiary healthcare system that reaches the entire population, is completely free, and also supports high-level scientific research. So, it is all a fallacy to say that this is slave trade, human trafficking, or exploitation—and there is simply pressure now. Pressure has been exerted.
We are aware of actions by the U.S. Department of State that have pressured Caribbean leaders and Latin American leaders; they have even traveled to countries in other regions to inquire why those countries have such an agreement. The majority of responses from those countries are that they cannot do without the services of Cuban healthcare personnel. But there are some who have, unfortunately, succumbed to these practices, and we have therefore had to withdraw our doctors in response to those requests. However, this has left a significant portion of the population in those areas unprotected, as they are unable to cover the need with other doctors, and it is not the United States that will provide the doctors to fill the gaps that were previously covered by Cuban collaboration. Moreover, Cuban collaboration extends beyond just these medical services. We have a Latin American medical training school.
We provide almost all of it free of charge. Some participate on a self-funded basis. Hundreds of thousands of doctors from Latin America, the Caribbean, Africa, and even from the United States itself have been trained there. There are very poor communities in the United States that, through a partnership with Pastors for Peace—I met them in New York during one of my visits to the United Nations—have benefited from this program. These doctors from humble backgrounds were trained for free in Cuba and today serve those communities with a humanistic calling, devoid of any desire for personal enrichment and deeply dedicated to their people. At a time when Dilma Rousseff’s government in Brazil was in power, we had nearly 15,000 healthcare workers and were able to serve populations—I am not saying this out of Cuban chauvinism, far from it; this is what the Brazilians tell you, what Dilma acknowledges, what Lula acknowledges. They came to cover areas of that vast country—Brazil, which is practically a continent—where medical services had never reached by any means. And then the Bolsonaro government came along, a thoroughly neoliberal government, and wiped out that collaboration.
Brazilians still lament that and our willingness to help. We, moreover, have no feelings of revenge or hatred. We analyze the conditions under which a group of countries have done without, but the day they ask us again for medical help, we are always willing to provide it. That is the concept of our medical brigades. That is our will; that is the willingness of our people. The people who go on a medical mission do not get rich. Moreover, this demonstrates a sacrifice; they are separated from their families for years, and we try to have them come during vacation periods. Often they are in the most remote areas of those countries, in difficult living conditions, and yet they carry out their work with joy.
How many lives have they saved? When the ALBA project, in conjunction with Venezuela, carried out what was called Operation Miracle, millions of Latin Americans with vision problems and treatable conditions that had left them nearly blind received free treatment and regained their sight—all thanks to Cuban doctors.
EDUCATIONAL BRIGADES AND LITERACY
Miguel Díaz-Canel: We also have our educational brigades. In Cuba, in 1962—during the early years of the revolution—we succeeded in declaring ourselves a territory free of illiteracy. More than 40 years later, in Latin America, thanks to a Cuban method called “Yo sí puedo” and the presence of Cuban educational brigades in Latin American countries, several more Latin American nations have managed to free themselves from illiteracy. And yet, how many countries are there in the world today—in Africa, on other continents—that have not been able to resolve the scourge of illiteracy, which stunts the development of their people, which means they lack the ability to think, to engage in critical thinking, to contribute, and to achieve scientific and cultural development.
These are our truths, and these are the truths. That is why we are very grateful to you for this opportunity you are giving us to speak to the European public, to the Spanish public, because these truths are constantly being distorted by media disinformation, by that narrative of lies, slander, and character assassination, which is one of the components of this ideological, cultural, and media war we are facing.
And this is why I always use the expression “the perversity of the U.S. government’s policy toward Cuba.” Why must a superpower—the world’s leading superpower—resort to such perverse practices, such shadowy practices, such immoral and indecent practices, just to target a small island? And that brings us back to the answer to your question. Because it is the example.
THE IMMORALITY OF THE UNITED STATES WITH THE ENERGY BLOCKADE
Pablo Iglesias: There’s something I learned today that really caught my attention, and I’d like you to explain it. Of course, the United States doesn’t let oil in. So, for Cuban women and men, it’s very difficult to get gasoline; it’s hard to get it through the ration system—you might have to wait many days—or in terms of availability, we’re practically stuck with whatever we had left of what was available. But it turns out that the U.S. Embassy has asked the Cuban government, “Hey, let us import gasoline for our embassy cars.” How did this happen?
Miguel Díaz-Canel: Immoral, isn’t it? The issue isn’t whether the entire population is living under the restrictions you imposed and you want to save yourself. No, no. Find a solution to the energy blockade and we’ll all have fuel. The Cuban people will have it, all the country’s institutions—private and state-owned—will have it, all the embassies will have it, but it has to be on equal terms because it can’t be that the one responsible for this is now the one appearing as the victim or the one taking advantage of the situation. That’s immoral; that’s indecent.
THE HISTORICAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEXICO AND CUBA
Pablo Iglesias: Yesterday, President López Obrador, who is now retired, posted something on social media saying, “I feel deeply hurt by what is happening to the Cuban people.” There’s something that always happens with the Cuban people and with Cuba as well, which is that it continues to be a symbol that stirs consciences around the world, and years may pass, many things may change, but it keeps happening, just like with the Palestinian cause.
That is to say, there are things that make many people say, “This can’t be.” Andrés Manuel López Obrador, who says nothing—that is, a former president of Mexico who says, “I’m leaving, and I’m leaving.” And he has practically not appeared in public and does not use social media. And he breaks his silence for the second time in over a year to speak about Cuba. And he represents many more people, those who have come here with the flotilla, for the progressive international gathering. What do you feel when you see that solidarity emerging, even though many countries are still reluctant—afraid of the United States—and there are still people who say, “Are we willing to stand in solidarity with Cuba?”
Miguel Díaz-Canel: That stirs up a mix of feelings. First, there is a feeling of admiration, respect, and commitment toward those who help us, toward those who show solidarity. I have experienced this when we’ve been at gatherings with people who come to Cuba in solidarity, or when, during work trips, we always have the chance to meet with friends of Cuba in other countries. To see how Cuba is at the center of so many people’s lives across such diverse parts of the world, and how the issue of Cuba is even capable of uniting different political tendencies.
And I believe in the human race, in the human condition; I believe that most people in the world, regardless of creed or ideology, are good people. And I believe that Cuba has proven to be a just cause. I would say it’s a cause that could be embraced by the majority of the planet, and so it also inspires a great deal of sympathy for the way Cuba offers support and solidarity. So, that initial commitment, that first feeling of respect, commitment, and admiration—because you ask yourself, how is it possible that in such a part of the world there are people for whom the center of their lives is defending Cuba?
Moreover, they do so with tremendous determination, consistency, and commitment because we know we cannot let down those who do this—whether they see hope in Cuba, the triumph of a utopia, or what they wish their own countries had. There is also that feeling of intimacy, of a relationship forged through those attitudes. For example, there are relationships with countries that are historic. Mexico, Mexico. I believe that AMLO is a loyal supporter of Mexico’s consistent policy on the international stage and of Mexico’s consistent policy toward the Cuban Revolution.
Mexico and Cuba are bound by historical ties of all kinds. Mexicans participated in our wars of independence. Cubans were closely associated with Benito Juárez; they were part of the Mexican Revolution; they were among Benito Juárez’s inner circle; Fidel and the Granma expeditionaries, while in exile in Mexico, organized the revolution. The Granma set sail from Mexico. Cuban artists and intellectuals have always maintained close ties with Mexico. In Cuba, every radio station in every community airs at least one program a week featuring Mexican music. In other words, culturally we are very closely united. And in the early years of the revolution, in the 1960s, when the United States also pursued a policy of isolating Cuba, the only Latin American country that did not break off relations with Cuba was Mexico, and it seems history is repeating itself now. They are applying pressure, they are seeking isolation, they are trying to leave Cuba alone. And AMLO has come out of retirement to support Cuba with a sense of responsibility, loyalty, originality, and emotion—which we know is genuine. But Claudia, the president of Mexico, whom we admire and love and who is gaining more and more admiration among the Cuban people—I don’t know how many Cubans would like to be able to tell Claudia personally how much they admire her, how much they appreciate her.
Every day Claudia is defending Cuba; every day she is looking for ways to help us. Every day she is challenging the lies of media disinformation against Cuba. So, that also weaves a relationship of rapport, of integration, and of responsibility. And why not say it? I’m telling you this without any vanity. It also gives you a sense of satisfaction because you say, “We haven’t been plowing the sea; we’ve been giving, but we’re also receiving.” Not because doing it changes anything, but because I believe in that idea that we can all help each other, that if we all help each other, the world is a better place. And I believe that this also contributes a little bit to defending that idea.
And now, well, we’ve been talking with you mid-morning. I just arrived from the convoy’s welcome ceremony. Yesterday we were at a meeting with the convoy participants. I was totally moved yesterday. I left that event today feeling totally moved. In such a short time, so many people from all over the world—and they’re also people from humble backgrounds. They’ve come together, paid for their own tickets, collected solar panels, food, and medicine, and they’re coming with the intention of entering Cuba, but they’re also doing it with a sense of altruism. They have rented motorcycles and electric vehicles so as not to cause us—as they say—any trouble or add to the problems you are facing.
They have stayed in the most modest accommodations possible and are interacting with the people to truly learn the facts firsthand from the people themselves. I tell you that this also strengthens convictions, reinforces commitments, and fosters a sense of loyalty and fidelity. We cannot betray them; we cannot let them down. I believe all these feelings are present, and above all, one idea prevails: Cuba is not alone. How can Cuba be alone when there are such demonstrations of support from different parts of the world?
BALANCE, RESPONSIBILITY, AND POSTPONED DREAMS
Pablo Iglesias: I’ve spoken with some Cubans who tell me, “I’m not far-right; I recognize the progress of the revolution, and when it comes to Trump, I’m Cuban first and foremost, but I’d like our government to engage in self-criticism sometimes too, because we don’t always realize that we’ve done everything right.” Of course, it’s very difficult to do everything right when you’re in government. If you had to take stock of, let’s say, the things that, if you could go back, you would do differently.
Miguel Díaz-Canel: Well, we’re constantly looking inward and criticizing ourselves. The debates we’ve had recently have been very fundamental discussions about the country’s situation, not so much to always assign blame, right? But rather to ask, well, what responsibility have we had in why things aren’t working out one way or another? Because there’s always the stigma of the blockade and the siege mentality, but if not, then what can we promote to move forward further. And in that sense, there’s a whole series of transformations we’ve initiated that didn’t just start now—they’ve been coming for years. The thing is, everything—besides whatever shortcomings or inadequacies we might have—also has to do with the limits the blockade imposes on our progress. We have postponed dreams, pending achievements, things that haven’t been able to move at the pace we wanted.
But, for example, we have been very critical of bureaucracy; we have been very critical of the sometimes incomplete way a problem is addressed to solve it, right? Of the speed of procedures, the speed of providing responses, of certain organizational issues in specific sectors or a lack of creativity in certain sectors—and above all, we are subject to the people’s criticism. All of us have to report at different times of the year to the public, to leadership bodies, and that always leads you to constantly review yourself, and we take everything very seriously.
We are constantly monitoring public opinion, trying to find the answer. Many recent momentous decisions, such as the Constitution, the Family Code, the Code on Children, Youth, and Adolescents, and the government’s economic program, have been put to a popular consultation. In some cases, we have even conducted two broadly democratic exercises—a popular consultation and a referendum. And yet, some claim that we are not a democracy, that we do not take the people’s participation into account.
And I always ask my colleagues in the working groups, the government, the party, and the institutions that, whatever we set out to do, we must find a way to ensure popular participation and oversight. Popular participation and oversight. And within that participation, young people—they must feel that they are contributing, that they can participate, that their ideas are taken into account, that their contributions are valued—and none of this is perfect. These are very complex processes, and we’re carrying them out in very complex situations.
THE 32 CUBAN HEROES
Pablo Iglesias: I want to conclude with something that happened here on this rock in the Sierra Maestra. During the kidnapping of Nicolás Maduro, 32 Cubans gave their lives defending a political leader from another country. This is not the first time Cubans have protected political leaders from other countries. I’d like to ask you to say a few words about those men.
Miguel Díaz-Canel: I believe that was an event that moved the entire Cuban community in the country. I remember that in the early morning we began to receive the first reports of what was happening in Venezuela; the reports were very vague until we learned that 32 comrades had died. And I remember that we immediately went to the Palace, summoned our comrades in the party, and organized a brainstorming session on how to support Venezuela, on how to denounce what was a totally brutal and illegal act of aggression—kidnapping a president and removing him from the country to take him to the United States.
And I remember that at 8 a.m. we began calling on the people to gather for an open rally at the anti-imperialist protest site, so it would be ready by 10 a.m., thinking we could bring together thousands of people, and we kept working while others were making preparations. I arrived with part of my family and some coworkers at 9:30 a.m. at the anti-imperialist rally site. It was overflowing, Pablo. The people were fired up, filled with intense emotion and deep commitment—on a scale I never imagined could be mobilized in just two hours. To such an extent that we had to delay the start of the event because there hadn’t been time to prepare it technically—that is, to set up the screens, to set up the audio—meaning the people moved faster than everything else we could do to ensure the event took place. And it was a very heartfelt event, very heartfelt. And then the reactions of the people of the town to that were… and a few days later, the remains of our people returned. A march of a fighting people.
We marched past the U.S. Embassy in Cuba. A rally. From there, I gave a speech, and then the march began. It was an incredibly moving experience—emotionally, in terms of unity, and in terms of the spirit of struggle. And what was marching there was not a defeated people; it was a resolute people reaffirming their convictions.
And I believe there is a great deal of symbolism in that event, and history will tell. What was the true magnitude of what those Cubans—who are heroes—achieved? To us, they are heroes because 32 Cubans were able to hold their own against an elite U.S. force despite being outnumbered, technologically outmatched, and at a disadvantage in every way—and moreover, in a surprise attack. That demonstrates what millions of Cubans are capable of doing in defense of the island, in defense of the revolution, in defense of the homeland.
I remember that initially, in some statements by the U.S. president, he acknowledged that they had put up a tough fight, that there was resistance. Later, those comments were dropped; perhaps they regretted what they said, but I believe they taught a lesson. Many of them were young, many were young people who had never been in combat, but they were trained and proved they were prepared to face that. I have spoken with several of them, including some who are recovering from their wounds.
And when you see those young men, whom you go to visit while they are recovering, and they don’t talk to you about anything they’ve done, but rather speak of their pride in a duty fulfilled and in what they were capable of doing, you say, “There is no alternative here. There is no alternative here. It is simply a matter of defending this to the bitter end.” And I believe that this is such a powerful, such a stark, such a necessary symbolism for these defining times that we must always be grateful for the example they set for us.
Pablo Iglesias: Miguel, thank you very much.
Miguel Díaz-Canel: Canal, I hope we can meet again.
Pablo Iglesias: I’m sure we will.
