Statements to the press by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Cuba, Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla
January 15th, 2025
Yaira Jiménez Roig, General Director of Press, Communication and Image: Thank you for being here, colleagues from the national press, colleagues from the foreign press. This appearance is being broadcast live on Cubavisión, Cubavisión Internacional, Cuban Radio, the Caribbean Channel, and also on the CubaMINREX YouTube channel. I have been informed by my colleagues Minister that present are 32 journalists from 21 media outlets in 12 countries and, of course, colleagues from the national press. You have the floor.
Minister: Thank you very much for your attendance.
I want to share with our people and with the international community, with the American citizens, information regarding the events of yesterday. I have also received numerous questions through the networks, from the accounts on the digital networks and, in general, I am aware of the conversation that has taken place and the debate in relation to these issues.
The first question I have received repeatedly is: Why? Why has the Government of the United States of America taken these three decisions, which I will discuss later. My opinion is that this decision was made because plans have failed. Because the vision of provoking the collapse of the Cuban economy, the social explosion, the execution of Mr. Lester Mallory's memorandum to overthrow the Cuban Revolution through measures that provoke hunger, despair and the overthrow of the government continues to fail to achieve its objectives. It is true that the measures of the blockade as a whole, and in particular the intensification of these since 2017, and especially of the additional measures taken by the previous Republican Government since mid-2019, have created exceedingly difficult circumstances for our economy, generated considerable humanitarian damage, caused difficulties, anxiety, and suffering to Cuban families.
However, neither the collapse of the economy nor the overthrow of the Government has occurred. My view is that the Government of the United States of America has taken these decisions based on the recognition that the policy it has pursued toward Cuba is an obsolete, failed policy that does not serve the national objectives or interests of the United States, nor does it have the support of United States citizens or Cubans residing in that country. It is the recognition that it causes profoundly serious international isolation, discredits its foreign policy and damages instruments that the United States government supposedly needs to enforce certain objectives of its international agenda.
And it happens precisely from the resistance and the advances that despite the enormous difficulties we face and that are perceptible in our streets, in our workplaces, in our homes; the support of the Cuban people for the Revolution is maintained, for the constitutional order that it gave itself in a sovereign manner and in the exercise of self-determination. These measures are taking place thanks to the creativity of our people, thanks to their daily heroism, thanks to their nobility that arouses admiration, respect, support and solidarity on an international scale and within broad sectors of the United States. Another lingering question is why now? It is a question that it would be good to ask the government of the United States in the days that it will still be exercising that function. It would have to be asked.
The Government of Cuba has historically and persistently proposed to the Government of the United States of America to maintain a respectful, responsible dialogue, on the basis of sovereign equality, mutual benefit and mutual respect, without interference in the internal affairs of our countries. It has done so publicly, repeatedly by President Fidel Castro, by President Raúl Castro, by President Miguel Díaz-Canel and it has also done so repeatedly and respectfully in a private manner.
The United States Government should be asked why it has waited until this moment to do what it could have done and what many of its voters, including citizens of Cuban origin, have expected since its election. Because in its electoral platform it was promised to adopt significant changes in the policy of the United States towards Cuba that, as is known, the previous and next Republican government had applied, causing a serious setback with respect to the progress that had been achieved in the years 2014-2016.
I must reiterate that the Government of Cuba has always had and has today and will have tomorrow and will have next week and in the future, all the will to work in favor of civilized relations for the benefit of our peoples, despite the very deep differences we have with the United States Governments. That our willingness to hold a dialogue in these circumstances, which are those required by international law, remains intact and that we will reiterate this willingness to the next government.
Thirdly, I have heard a lot of the question about whether these measures are reversible. Of course, they are reversible, says the statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs published yesterday. They are executive measures that could be reversed in an executive manner. However, I have read some opinions today, curiously, from some of those who drafted the previous measures, from some of those who participated, starred and caused the setback in the bilateral relationship, pointing out that it will take time and work to reverse them. We should ask the next government of the United States as well.
However, it will be especially important, in my opinion, to consider that whatever happens in relation to these measures in the future, they are an important fact, an event that has traveled the world and that has received overly broad international support in the few hours. We are about 24 hours after the main announcements made by both governments. It has attracted international recognition and solidarity, internal debate in the United States within the terrible political polarization that exists in that country, but significant support from U.S. citizens, organizations, institutions. And in Cuba it has been welcomed by our people, with the hope that this could open a path towards an improvement in bilateral relations, fully aware that in the future it will be necessary to judge by its practical results and knowing perfectly well that there is no need to have illusions or excessive expectations.
Let's analyze the value of the measures. I brought the texts with me.
I would suggest that people who have an interest in this matter read not only the statements of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the statement of the White House, but also that they read the legal documents signed by the Government, signed in his own handwriting by the President of the United States of America.
One is this, the certificate of rescission of Cuba's designation as a State sponsor of terrorism. This unilateral and arbitrary list, the truth is that it already lacked any credibility or prestige at the international level, but its practical effects, especially in the financial sector, are extraordinary and it causes considerable economic damage and extreme humanitarian damage in itself.
Foreign policy is always a state policy. It is assumed that there is a responsibility of the States that should not submit to the ups and downs of governments, much less to the whims of domestic politics or electoral competences or trickery. If the President of the United States of America, through an interagency process involving the entire United States government, its intelligence community, and dozens of institutions, affirms that Cuba is not a state sponsor of terrorism, that matters. He does affirm that the U.S. government does not have the slightest evidence that Cuba has been involved or accused of being related to terrorist acts in the last period. It does recognize that the government of Cuba maintains a position of confronting terrorism in any of its forms, manifestations, motivations that the international community recognizes and that Cuba periodically reiterates to it.
This seems to me to have value. It has a curious precedent that dates back to May 2024, which was Secretary of State Blinken's statement at a House hearing, when Cuba was removed from that other, less important, lesser-known list of countries that do not fully cooperate with the alleged anti-terrorist efforts of the United States government. And there was a congresswoman who hysterically and disrespectfully pursued him during that hearing in which Secretary Blinken said circumstances have changed and refuted each of the pretexts that the previous administration had used to put Cuba back on that list.
All the pretexts, that of Cuba's links with terrorism, another of a different nature, or the presence of alleged terrorists in Cuba.
Well, it could happen that this is reversed again. It will be difficult to explain if it were to happen.
In an arbitrary, unmotivated manner, Cuba was included in this list. Then, in 2015, with a certification remarkably similar to this one, the president of the United States reversed that and seriously and definitively reassured what President Biden is now affirming again.
Well, if another president were to come along, the next one or the next, and put Cuba back on the list, we would have to ask ourselves what the reasons are.
What would the agencies of the U.S. government, the law enforcement agencies, say? Where would the credibility of the U.S. government be?
This would seem like a mess. In Cuba they would call it a ‘relajo’.
That is to say, a president makes accusations of one type, another denies them and changes them, another comes and makes them again and then another comes and repeats the previous ones.
It seems to me that one of the consequences of this decision by President Biden, which we consider a serious, important decision, in the right direction, but extremely limited and extremely late, is that the list of countries sponsoring terrorism has been demolished. It doesn't exist anymore. No one else will be able to believe in it because it is an absolute, tangible confirmation that this list is not intended to confront the scourge of terrorism, but is a mere instrument, a vulgar instrument of political coercion against sovereign States.
It has been the recognition of the truth.
Cuba should never have been included on that list, much less because of its status as a victim of State terrorism from the United States or because of its status as a victim to this day of terrorist acts organized, financed and tolerated from United States territory. Let's not forget some of the recent ones, the instigation that is seen on networks, I saw it this morning and I saw it yesterday, to violent acts, and the instigators do it from the United States.
The person, the terrorist who fired shots at the Cuban Embassy in Washington, was released. There are numerous examples, and we do not forget the 3,478 deaths and 2,099 people with disabilities as a result of State terrorism in the United States.
Any situation that occurs with this list in the future will only be able to confirm our claims.
Secondly, it will be exceedingly difficult to maintain the coercive measures that result from this list. It limits access to financial institutions and services in any country.
How is the U.S. government going to be able to sanction a bank or a country for having financial relations with Cuba in the future after this decision by President Biden?
How are deposits, payments, transactions, credits, all movement of assets with any currency outside the United States going to be hindered after this certification?
How will it be possible to intimidate or prevent foreign companies from trading with Cuba?
The foreign companies that have suspended their relations with Cuba, the banking institutions that have intimidated it under the coercion of this list, would in no way accept that these policies be reinstated.
The effect of this list on imports of inputs, basic necessities for our people, for the functioning of our economy, is particularly important.
Who will be able to explain to a Cuban family if this were to be reversed in some way in the future, that there is justification for taking the measures that derive from that arbitrariness and that directly harm people? Because the blockade as a whole and this list in particular is aimed at causing harm to the Cuban family.
Also, a derivation of this list is the threat, coercion, prohibition of European and other citizens from using the U.S. electronic visa authorization system. If anything were to happen to this list in the future, other than forgetting about it, would anyone be able to demand that any European government not protect its citizens from such arbitrariness? Will anyone be able to explain to a European that he cannot travel to Cuba because Cuba is re-entered on a list that the President of the United States has declared to be unmotivated?
So, it seems to me that these facts are especially important and they are enduring, and they are definitive.
The political, ethical, and legal scope of even this determination by President Biden will not be surpassed by any action, no matter how arbitrary, extreme, dishonest, or fraudulent, of a next U.S. government.
Second measure, the exemption from the application of Title III of the Helms-Burton Act. That is, a law aimed at intimidating third parties, not only to guide the destruction of the constitutional order in Cuba, etc., but also to intimidate third parties by a ferocious extraterritorial application.
The law contains an arbitrariness and a brutal violation of international law that is to try in United States courts persons, entities, companies from third countries or Cubans for their economic ties with Cuba, outside the jurisdiction of the United States or without any relationship with the United States of America. All U.S. presidents signed the so-called waiver or waiver of this list. Even the president-elect of the United States did so in the early part of his term.
So, this has a really important effect on American courts. That is to say, the U.S. courts, the Supreme Court of the United States, which has rulings that consider nationalizations in accordance with rights, remember the Sabatino case, for example. The US courts will allow their credibility to be damaged because now someone will allow them to commit unconstitutional acts and illegal acts from the point of view of international law and the whole of US law, because they refuse to do the only decent and elementary thing, which is to continue signing this waiver so as not to incur in this very serious legal violation.
So, this effect is important, it is lasting, it is tangible, it is again the recognition that what was being done was illegal and arbitrary.
This, however, has a great pernicious effect, not only on international law, but on the flow of capital investment to Cuba, access to technologies, access to markets.
But the threat is against foreign sovereignties, against foreign companies, against foreign governments. So, what powerful corporation, what foreign government will allow its national interests, its economic interests, those of its companies, its businesspeople or its citizens to be affected under the cover of capricious decisions that come or go? Many foreign governments have antidote legislation to prevent this arbitrariness from being committed.
Well, it would be inconceivable that those governments, in the face of the repetition of arbitrariness, would not use those legislations. The third decision of the President of the United States of America, well, the second is shorter, I have it here, it is a paragraph, but it is a paragraph of the greatest interest. And the third is longer. These are the recipients.
That is, it is a directive, it gives orders to almost the entire government of the United States of America. And this memorandum, National Security Memorandum 5 from the President of the United States, has been abrogated. It does not exist. It has been rescinded, according to this paper that I have here, which has President Biden's signature. And within that memorandum, one of the atrocities of the blockade of Cuba has also been eliminated, which is the so-called List of Restricted Entities of 2017. Whimsical, arbitrary, absurd. In some cases, the same affects public entities as private sector services in our country. Interestingly, it seems that it is a list that some people who could return to the United States government next week made up. There are funny versions of how they did this over coffee and using the internet.
So, the objective of this set of actions, of these actions that renders the presidential decision null and void, the three presidential decisions on coercion against Cuba's commercial and banking institutions, should be expected to be reflected in some way in regulatory and practical conduct.
This also, and it would be enough to read the White House statement, which I have here as well, the White House statement recognizes the effect of these measures on the Cuban people, on Cuban citizens, on Cuban families. It recognizes that it causes humanitarian harm and refutes the claim that these are measures aimed at protecting the Cuban people, empowering them, alleviating their hardships, and that they only harm the government or government officials.
If you browse the digital networks, you can see that the Cuban people have received this news, these decisions of the U.S. government, recognizing that they are positive, although they are limited and late, and also recognizing with wisdom and realism that they could be reversed. Now, why do people, our workers, our students, artists, athletes, young people, all sectors of Cuban society show in the social conversation an extremely high interest in these measures and share hope and participate in the debate based on the questions I have mentioned? Because they recognize that these measures have a direct relationship with the lives of each of them, because they recognize their impact and because they know that, if these measures are finally no longer applied, they will have a favorable effect on the lives of people, on Cuban families.
I have been watching these days the nomination or appointment hearings in the next administration of the United States. I have taken a look at them, because the truth is that they are exceptionally long, we should admit that they are very interesting. They remember adult films, what they call the Saturday night film in Cuba, without adult language, sex, violence, drugs, alcohol, corruption, which are many of the themes unusually present in those audiences. Well, none of them are yet in office. If they were to occupy their positions, well, we will have to deal with that reality. But I must reiterate that our people, our government, will persist in denouncing the blockade.
The next step is to continue lifting elements of the blockade. The only correct thing to do is to lift the blockade as a whole, to let Cubans live in peace. Just as we will defend our independence and sovereignty with all vigor and determination against any act of interference. Just as we will defend the observance of our Constitution and the application of our laws; just as we will preserve national security, internal order and citizen security; We will be ready to maintain, and I repeat again, we are ready to resume at any minute a serious, responsible dialogue based on international law, sovereign equality, the mutual benefit of both peoples, mutual respect without interference in our internal affairs.
Thank you very much for your time and for your presence.
Non official translation
(Cubaminrex)