Speech by the Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs of Cuba, Dr.C. Carlos Fernández de Cossío, during the twentieth edition of Conversations Cuba in the Foreign Policy of the United States of America, which takes place at the Higher Institute of International Relations (ISRI).
Ambassador Rogelio Sierra, rector of ISRI, thank you for welcoming us; doctor in Sciences José Ramón Cabañas, ambassador and director of the CIPI; Dear friends and participants:
On behalf of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this event and to listen and learn from the deliberations.
I also appreciate the opportunity to share the vision of the Ministry, in particular of the General Directorate of the United States, in a forum that has a well-earned authority as a stage for deliberation and academic and intellectual analysis on relations between Cuba and the United States.
The theme selected for this year is: "United States-Cuba relations in a new global scenario."
What I propose to do is share our vision of the bilateral scenario in the year that is ending.
The global scenario has certainly changed. The conflict in Europe has posed a new challenge for the international community. The tendencies to try to divide the world in two seem to be gaining strength, something that Cuba warned about a few years ago.
Important political changes have taken place in our region, which we accept with enthusiasm. Meanwhile, we continue to observe the persistent tendency to destabilize legitimate governments with the active participation of the OAS.
The scenario that has not undergone truly perceptible changes is the one that characterizes relations between Cuba and the United States.
We recognize that bilateral steps have been taken this year. Both governments have taken steps in that direction. It is not about unilateral actions of one of the parties. I am going to refer to some of those steps that have occurred this year.
First I am going to refer to immigration cooperation. It is natural that it is an area that has weight, given that there have been bilateral agreements for several decades. They are agreements that require examination, updating and revision of how they are implemented. When I say review I don't mean to change them, but to examine them and have bilateral discussions on the occasion of those agreements.
But more important than that is that there is an irregular migratory phenomenon that affects both countries and this requires dialogue, communication and cooperation. Unfortunately, since a round of talks that took place in 2018, migration exchanges between the two countries had been suspended, and there have been significant breaches of the agreements.
This year we had two talks: one in April, in Washington D.C., and one in November, in Havana. They were productive conversations in the sense that we confirmed the validity and importance of the agreements; we ratify the mutual political commitment to comply with the agreements; we identify areas that require further attention; and we had the opportunity to analyze issues that are not properly included in the agreements, but have a great influence on the irregular migratory flow. There were no new agreements, nor did we fully agree on what we discussed, but they were conversations that both parties identified as productive.
Also on the immigration issue, in the fiscal year that ended on September 30, the US government fulfilled its commitment to grant 20,000 visas annually for the first time since 2017. It is something that had not been fulfilled since 2017. Most of these visas were granted and delivered in Guyana, but some began to be processed and delivered in Havana.
The Government of the United States has already announced that, in the first days of January, all of these services return to their embassy in Havana.
In addition, we have had expert exchanges on false documentation, for example. There have also been operational exchanges between the Border Guard Troops and the United States Coast Guard, in what has been a particularly difficult year in terms of irregular departures by sea. Cooperation between both services has been maintained for interception on the high seas and the return to Cuba of those who are intercepted.
This year, we have already agreed to have conversations about law enforcement and enforcement. There were also exchanges on cooperation in dealing with oil spills, in health and there will be others in environmental matters.
This year, due to two disasters that our country has suffered, there was an offer of humanitarian aid from the United States Government, without political conditions, and which Cuba thanked and accepted. In the first case, it was due to the fire at the supertanker base in Matanzas: the United States Government immediately offered technical advice and this
facilitated telephone communications regarding the confrontation of the fire. Later on, it offered material aid and Cuba was able to communicate what our priorities were in this regard. The United States Government finally offered 100 suits with protective equipment for firefighters, which will soon be delivered to the Cuban authorities.
Due to Hurricane Ian in the province of Pinar del Río, the United States Government also offered material aid worth two million dollars to repair roofs and houses, which should begin to arrive in January. In both cases, this aid was offered without political conditionalities and was appreciated and accepted.
This year there has also been a greater degree of dialogue between the Department of State, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and other government agencies. All these are mutual steps of a bilateral nature that are of some importance and cannot be ignored.
But there are also facts in the opposite direction. For example, how to explain the recent designation of Cuba as a country of special concern in matters of religious freedom? It is a designation made without any real foundation, with arguments that are dishonest, which is not unusual. It is worth asking: who do they want to please?
It can no longer be said, as they sometimes claim, that it is about political pressures in an electoral year, since the elections have passed. It has already been shown that trying to compete with the Republicans in being aggressive towards Cuba did not win the Democrats a single vote in Florida. It is an action that one does not explain what political motivation it has.
In May, the United States Government announced a group of measures. They were announced with what in the United States they call hype, a lot of fanfare. It is convenient to dwell on the announced measures.
The first of these is the commitment to once again allow remittances to Cuba. That was in May and there is still no regular flow of remittances to Cuba. Secondly, it is that the announcement was made without any commitment to dismantle the measures announced by the Trump government to interrupt remittances. Third, if there is to be a flow of remittances in the near future greater than that which exists today, it is due more to steps that Cuba has taken than to actions taken by the United States Government.
Another of the measures announced was to promote Internet penetration and interconnection in Cuba. We are obliged to ask ourselves what is the consistency of that announcement when, by decision of the United States Government, access to more than 200 private commercial websites is prohibited for Cubans. I am not referring to government websites, but private ones; among them, around 20 belonging to Google. This refers to sites in the area of education, science and technology, health, art, culture and innovation.
What is the coherence of the Government when it announces that it has a commitment to the promotion of the Internet and at the same time prohibits, by government regulation, that Cubans have access to those sites?
A few weeks ago it was announced that a United States Government Advisory Committee had recommended rejecting a commercial operation that would connect a submarine Internet cable with Cuba. This forces us once again to ask ourselves what is the coherence of the United States Government when it announces its commitment to promote the Internet and at the same time cuts off the ways that Cuba has for greater Internet access.
It is possible that it is the same consistency that the United States Government has when it proclaims that its priority with respect to Cuba is the promotion of human rights and the well-being of the Cuban people.
Another of the measures announced was the possibility of commercial flights from the United States to different Cuban provinces. This has been accomplished.
The measure to provide more facilities for group travel has also been complied with. Doing it individually is still prohibited.
Another of the measures announced was to take actions to help the emerging private sector, which is one of the most inconsistent measures for various reasons.
First, the existence of the economic blockade has a negative impact in absolute terms on any sector of the Cuban economy. The US government may want to make exceptions, but that private entrepreneur is still going to encounter the effects of the blockade in his daily life. That is an inconsistency.
There is a second inconsistency: the promotion of the private or non-state sector in Cuba is part of the development of the Cuban economy. It began to be conceived about 12 years ago. We delayed in its design, implementation, regulation, but it is our promotion.
However, the Government of the United States, and it does not hide to say it, intends to promote the private sector, not to help the development of the Cuban economy, not to improve the standard of living of the population, not to help
to a majority sector of the population, but identifies it as an instrument of political subversion.
He dreams of using it to erode the public sector, the Cuban State, the public Administration, on which education, health, citizen security, electricity service, water service, the guarantee of social justice, the overcoming of economic and social differences. He does not hide to say that his ambition to promote this sector as a political weapon.
If exceptions to the blockade are introduced, with the dream of undermining the revolution, we are not going to oppose it. We are not going to oppose. If this allows for greater prosperity in any sector of the Cuban economy, we are not going to put obstacles in the way. If you manage to conceive exceptions that benefit some and continue to punish others, we are not going to try to prevent it either. But it makes a major mistake in political terms in trying to promote the private sector as a weapon to undermine the nature of Cuban society.
These actions announced in May are very limited, but as we said at the time we do identify them in a positive direction, even if they are inconsistent in many cases. There is no doubt that they and the areas of cooperation that I mentioned are in contrast to the last two years of the Trump administration and to the year 2021. This is part of what describes the bilateral relationship.
But to describe it seriously and objectively, in our opinion, one must pay attention to two fundamental issues. In the first place: what are the areas to which the United States Government dedicates more human resources, financial resources, more working hours.
If one takes into account the number of officials who work in the Treasury Department and are dedicated to applying the economic blockade, the number of US diplomats who in many parts of the world are dedicated to persecuting each and every one of Cuba's financial transactions , the number of pronouncements in the US Congress. If one takes this into account, there is no doubt that the economic blockade is the defining factor of bilateral relations.
If one takes into account the impact on the Cuban economy and Cuban society, which is the second factor, on the daily life of each and every Cuban, the impact on Cuba's relations with third countries, there can be no doubt of that the economic blockade continues to be the central and defining factor of the bilateral relationship, seconded –taking these factors into account– by political subversion, to which tens of millions of US taxpayer dollars are dedicated each year. Supposedly, a government's budget reflects the government's priorities.
Based on this analysis, the application of the blockade and its impact today, it can be said with sufficient confidence that the current United States government, that of Joseph Biden, is the one that has applied the blockade most aggressively and effectively. everyone who has known the Cuban Revolution. It is the one that punishes the most, the one that most harms the daily life of Cubans and the economy as a whole. Here I include all the Administrations from Eisenhower to date. That is what characterizes today the Government of the United States and its current policy towards Cuba. I insist, the one that most aggressively and effectively applies the economic blockade.
Some will assume it as a historical merit. In practice, he is applying with utter and surprising loyalty not just the blockade as it existed before but the policy of maximum economic pressure that was engineered by his predecessor, Donald Trump.
One has reason to wonder what the president of the United States could have done or can do to fulfill not only what he promised his constituents in the year 2020, but also to fulfill his stated priority of promoting human rights and worry about the welfare of the Cuban people.
The president, since the White House took office, could have removed Cuba from the List of States Sponsors of Terrorism. At the time it was taken, this measure had not even taken effect yet, since the days defined by law had not elapsed.
As soon as the Trump administration announced it, there was immediately a letter from several prominent US congressmen, Democrats, questioning the decision. The Government of the United States knows the impact that this measure has, it cannot be argued that it ignores it. A few weeks after the designation, 45 banks and financial institutions that had an old relationship with Cuba cut their links with our country.
This has an impact on our trade, our possibilities of obtaining credit, on the ways to make payments. It is a devastating impact. And still Cuba, today, by virtue of its presence on that list, runs into commercial and financial organizations that refuse to interact with it for fear of reprisals from
the United States Government.
The United States Government knows that the arguments used were dishonest. The main argument has even already been denounced by the current Colombian government, but that does not seem to move a government whose priority, apparently, is the well-being of the Cuban people.
The list to which Cuba does belong is the US List of Countries Victims of Terrorism, which is not a short list, by the way.
The President of the United States could also have suspended the possibility of action in US courts in lawsuits brought under Title III of the Helms-Burton Act. This has a deterrent impact on the purpose of our development to attract foreign capital.
This government could have stopped the practice of putting pressure on governments in Africa, Asia and Latin America to refuse the medical cooperation that Cuba provides. I am referring to the pressure exerted two or three weeks ago, from governments that tell us "we received a visit or from an envoy or from the US embassy warning us that if we receive Cuban doctors, we will be committing practices of slavery and human trafficking." of people".
This US action, of course, seeks to prevent medical services for tens of thousands of people, which is what Cuban doctors do. It is known that in countries that are more developed than Cuba, or more wealth than Cuba, Cuba receives financial compensation for these services. It is something totally legitimate, according to the resolutions of the United Nations referring to South-South cooperation, and pronouncements of the G-77 and the NAM.
The objective is to discredit the Cuban Revolution and deprive Cuba of financial resources, necessary for the economy, for development. This is not consistent with a concern for the welfare of Cubans.
The President of the United States could have also done, and has not done, to put an end to the punitive measures, the threats and the persecution of the exporting fuel companies, the transport companies, the port agencies, the insurance agencies and reinsurers; all aimed at depriving Cuba of fuel supplies that our country requires to function.
Since mid-2019, this has had an extremely severe impact on the economy and the lives of Cubans, not only because we have had to stop industries, reduce transportation, affect electricity service, but we are forced to pay premiums for the fuel that we import because of the risk assumed by whoever sells us oil or whoever transports it.
With that impact, explain to the Cuban people that the US government has the welfare of the Cuban people in mind.
The US Government was able to abolish a completely arbitrary list of restricted entities, formed with dishonest arguments and with total superficiality. In some cases, they took Trip Advisor as a reference and looked at the most popular places for US visitors and put them on the list. Therefore, some of those present here are prohibited from going to the Rum Museum, for example.
All these measures are aimed at cutting off the sources of income for the Cuban economy. That is how they were designed by the predecessor government and that is how they are applied, to deprive us of energy sources, access to technology and to deprive us of attracting capital that the development of the country requires.
They all bear the fingerprint of Donald Trump and his government. All were established with dishonest arguments that the current government no longer even takes the trouble to deny.
We know that the United States government and some Americans do not like to talk about the economic blockade. Some present it as tacky, old-fashioned, or anachronistic, or something that doesn't contribute to the dialogue.
But who lives here, how can they not talk about the blockade? Who is busy working every day to promote bilateral relations with the United States, how can he not talk about the blockade? Officials who have to decide every week how to allocate the scarce resources that the economy has to meet the needs of the population, how can they not talk about the blockade and think about the blockade constantly?
We know that in the United States it is common for racists not to want to talk about racism. I think there are even bills against education on racism. Those who apply the blockade do not want to talk about the blockade, which has an impact on everything: electrical service, the availability of medicines and material for medical services; in the ability to obtain inputs for food production; in the transport; in the production; including the production of construction materials.
The Government of the United States cannot claim that it is unaware of that impact and that its conduct influences that impact.
act.
For months now, the narrative has been promoted that it is up to Cuba to offer gestures; that steps have been taken by the Biden government that have not been reciprocated; as if Cuba were in debt; when it is known that there is no action taken by the Cuban Government against the Government of the United States, against any American organization, against any American individual, against the welfare of anyone in the United States. However, this narrative persists and they even send us messengers with this idea.
The current deplorable state of bilateral relations is not the responsibility of Cuba.
Cuba has not missed a single one of the commitments it made between 2015 and 2016. The Government of the United States has destroyed their relationship.
Today's reality is the product of a design that was frankly conceived by the administration of Donald Trump, who, at least, had the honesty to proclaim what he proposed to do.
Our Administration has said and reiterated clearly enough that we are willing to move toward a respectful and constructive relationship with the United States. That is the position of Cuba and it can be verified by anyone who stops to follow the pronouncements of our Government or who stops to verify the actions of the Government of Cuba.
Despite, even, the natural distrust that the conduct of the United States may generate in the last five years, there is no real argument capable of questioning Cuba's disposition. In practice, we have been demonstrating it with the steps that have been taken this year.
What also, of course, there should be no doubt about is that we approach this progress on the basis of absolute respect for our sovereignty.
The Government of the United States cannot claim to treat Cuba as if it were part of its territory, or to treat Cuba as if it were a colonial domain, or to treat Cuba as if it were a defeated adversary in a war. We are none of the three things.
Within the territory of the United States there are states, I am going to put, for example, the state of Mississippi, where poverty reaches close to 20%, where there is malnutrition that is estimated at a level of 15% in the population, where there are practices of depriving people of the right to vote. No one in the United States imagines that, by virtue of these realities, the federal government decides to apply a system of coercive measures against the population of the state of Mississippi, cutting off their electricity, financial relations with the rest of the American Union, prohibiting trade and ban all other Americans from traveling there. But even if the federal government did, Mississippi is within the United States, within the sovereign prerogatives of the federal government. As much as some Americans may dislike it, Cuba is outside the territory of the United States.
It is said that more than half of the population of Puerto Rico is leaving the country, that the economy of that Latin American sister nation is bankrupt. If the United States applies an economic blockade, it would be a crime and Puerto Rico is a colonial possession of the United States.
If the United States had applied an economic blockade against the German population after World War II, it would have been interpreted as a crime against the country's people, who were a defeated adversary in the war.
Cuba is not any of the three things. It is not within the United States, it is not a colony of the United States, and it is not an adversary that the United States has defeated.
This policy has no moral, legal and, of course, political explanation.
We are convinced that progress is beneficial for both countries and for both peoples. We are convinced that it is necessary. We are also convinced that it would be welcomed by the nations of the Americas and, furthermore, we are convinced that it is possible.
It requires, of course, will and political courage, as they existed a few years ago.
Those conditions do not appear to exist in the United States today.
The bet, as President Díaz-Canel points out, continues to be to suffocate the Cuban economy, and to try in this way to cause social collapse and a political crisis in Cuba.
The United States fails in that purpose, but it does not stop causing enormous damage and makes us pay a high cost that is reflected in the economic depression of the country and that is also reflected in the extraordinary flows of Cuban migrants.
No one could be surprised by those flows.
It is an established truth that economic depression in any country or region, depression in living conditions, are factors that promote migration and that adverse conditions in any country can promote migration, due to natural disasters, wars when there are any, famines, social instability, there may be insufficient economic policies. That happens anywhere in the world. Occurs within the United States
We have gone where there are cities that used to have two million inhabitants and today have less than 700,000.
What is unique about Cuba, what is a particular characteristic of our country, is that there is an extraordinary foreign force promoting economic depression and thus boosting migratory flows. It is what experts call the push effect.
We have discussed this with the United States Government. They know our point of view and our argumentation in this regard.
As we have said on more than one occasion, we will continue to build bridges to American society in all possible fields and we will try to continue promoting the most constructive and respectful relationship possible with the United States Government.
We will also continue in the effort to ensure our economic sustainability, even in the perspective that the economic blockade will last for many years.
I wish you success in your deliberations and that they contribute to a common understanding and to the purpose that I believe we all share to bring our two nations closer together.
Thank you very much.