Remarks by Vice Minister Carlos Fernández de Cossío at
the inauguration of the 22nd series of conversations on Cuba in U.S. foreign
policy
The Road to a Diplomatic Relationship: Ten Years
Later.
Vice
Minister Josefina Vidal, Ambassador José Ramón Cabañas, Director of CIPI,
Ambassador Rogelio Sierra, Chancellor of ISIPI, Ambassador Rogelio Sierra,
Ambassador Rogelio Sierra, Rector of ISRI, members of the diplomatic corps,
guests, academics and friends.
Today
and this event as a whole coincides with the tenth anniversary of the
simultaneous announcement by President Raul Castro and President Barack Obama of
the intention of both governments to move towards the establishment of
diplomatic relations. There will be a panel specifically dedicated to that to
that and I'm sure that the topic will be mentioned throughout this event, so in
my remarks I do not intend to delve into that subject.
I
would like to bring up that from our point of view there are four truths that
stand out regarding this tenth anniversary.
The
first is that Cuba fulfilled all the commitments it assumed -several of them in
writing- with respect to the establishment of bilateral relations and the
discreet progress made in the ties during that period, while the U.S.
government has failed to fulfill practically all of them. This is a first truth
that we register and we think it is obvious.
The
second is that the brief rapprochement that took place during that period was
positive for Cuba and for the U.S. and aroused the respect, we would say the compliments
and admiration of many governments in the world, among them some very close to
Cuba, governments that are also allies of the U.S. and particularly in our
region of Latin America and the Caribbean.
That, in our opinion, is a second obvious truth.
The
third is that in the last eight years, not the last ten, and for most of the
U.S.-Cuba ties since 1959, what has prevailed is aggression as the defining
characteristic of the ties between the two countries.
The
fourth truth that stands out is that in this difficult relationship between Cuba and the U.S. there is an
aggressor country and an attacked country.
All
are important for the academic and intellectual analysis of the U.S.-Cuba
conflict and for the study of the prospects of what could be an evolution
toward a more respectful, more civilized relation between our two countries.
But the fourth one in particular, the one that defines that here there is an
aggressor country and an attacked country, allows us to understand the
incongruity of pretending to see this conflict and this problem in a
symmetrical balance. It also allows us to see the incongruity that on many
occasions the idea of demanding gestures from Cuba or demanding concessions
from Cuba arises in order to seek a civilized and viable accommodation with the
U.S
It
is an approach, in our view, that is intellectually unsustainable and morally
unacceptable and U.S. history in dealing with other countries also demonstrates
many times that it is an approach that proves to be unproductive.
This
does not mean - and those who study history will understand this - that
throughout its history Cuba has been unwilling to offer gestures and that this disposition
has not been part, in certain circumstances, of our way of performing our
relations with any country. This includes the US, that is, the possibility of
finding formulas that we do not consider an obligation, but we do understand
that within certain conditions it is legitimate and fitting to offer some
gesture to achieve a meeting point, to find a solution to a difficult conflict.
But what is incongruous is to demand that Cuba be the one to take a step in
this direction.
During
these eight years in which what has prevailed is the aggressiveness of the
Trump-Biden policy, the United States has considered it convenient and to a
certain extent necessary to find ways to justify its actions and justify the
steps that have been taken. It was necessary, first, to justify to public
opinion, especially in the United States and elsewhere, the dismantling of a
successful process that had attracted support and had been positive for both
countries, according to the evaluations of the time. Then it was necessary to underpin
the application of a successive series of coercive and aggressive measures
against Cuba that were contradicting the commitments made between 2014 and 2017
and I include here January 2017.
It
is worth remembering what were the pretexts used; many of them seem like coming
out of James Bond movies, but some of them were actually used and still are.
Of
course, the first one that stands out is the alleged sonic or neurological
attacks against US diplomats in Cuba, something that the most authoritative
voices of science in Cuba, of many centers in the US, of many countries that
are allies of the US have disqualified because they consider that what is being
alleged is simply impossible and that it defies the laws of physics.
It
is something that, in addition, has already been discredited by the intelligence
community in the U.S. However, it is frequently brought up again, it appears in
press articles, reports appear, the Wall Street Journal is one that brings it
around most frequently and CNN published a report two years ago on the subject
trying to revive itonce again without any evidence, without any basis and
without any rigorous adherence to science, but this was the first one that
served the purpose of trying to dismantle a process that proved successful.
For several years, especially
in 2019 and 2020, the alleged presence in Venezuela of 20,000, 30,000 and even
40,000 Cuban soldiers was much wielded. No one has ever seen a Cuban battalion
in Venezuela - a battalion has about 1000 troops. I do not think anyone has seen even a company.
However, it is a subject that is not much talked about now, but it was repeated
a lot and under that pretext new coercive economic measures were applied
against Cuba, which are still in place today and which the Biden administration
strictly implemented, despite the fact that it is a myth that nobody believes
in and that the government did not repeat.
More recently we have the myth
of the Chinese military bases in Cuba that emerged in June 2023 and that is
reiterated from time to time and articles appear repeating the subject. One of
the characteristics of the Cuban capital is that there is a large presence of
diplomatic missions including, of course, a U.S. embassy. None, not even the
Beijing embassy, has reported that there are Chinese military bases in Cuba. A
military base implies military personnel that no one has seen. They have gone
to such an extent that a center known by its acronym CSIS (Center for Strategic
and International Studies) catalogued as a prestigious center on security and
intelligence analysis that receives funding from the US government, has even disclosed-
quoting experts - where the bases are located. However, the diplomatic corps
and the foreign press accredited in Cuba have not been able to find where these
mysterious bases belonging to China are located. Cuba is not a huge country and can be traveled
by car in less than a day. That means it is not difficult for anyone who wants
to search and locate, take a photo, demonstrate that what is alleged in the
press is true, to do so, despite the fact that the U.S. government does not
take the trouble to deny it. I am sure that if there is a government on this earth
that knows whether or not there is a Chinese military base in Cuba, it is the
U.S. government.
The idea that Cuba is a malicious
influence in the Latin American and Caribbean region was propagated. They know
that our country has diplomatic relations with all the countries of the region.
With most of them they are relations of friendship, cooperation and solidarity.
that our country has contributed with social programs in most of the countries
of the region and still contributes today. Cuba has also been active and has
been recognized for contributing to the peace process in Colombia, even paying
a high political price to persist in that solidarity effort with a sister
nation of Latin America and the Caribbean.
There is the dirty campaign
against the medical services provided by Cuba in many parts of the world
accusing us of being associated with human trafficking and slavery. They go so
far as to approve funds to be distributed through USAID, the United States
Agency for International Development, to buy witnesses to come and say that
they have evidence that Cuba's international cooperation and medical services
are used for slavery or human trafficking. This effort by Cuba, praised by many
governments of the world, by some U.S. politicians and by at least two
Secretaries General of the United Nations, strictly complies with the norms and
principles of that organization on South-South cooperation based on the notion
of complementary between developing countries, in which each one contributes
what it has.
In order to be considered a
victim of human trafficking, the Cuban health cooperator who works in a country
would have to be deceived and every Cuban knows where he is going, to which
country he is going, to which territory he is going and what his mission is. His
movements would have to be restricted, he would have to be unable to move and live
under surveillance. Anyone who knows a little about this knows that this is an
absurdity, because you cannot have tens of thousands of professionals in the
world with a guard watching each of them, it is impossible. Thirdly, it is said that they are not paid.
The doctor or health professional who goes to a country while on mission,
receives his salary in full in Cuba, therefore, he receives a payment for the
professional activity he performs and in addition he receives in the country of
destination a stipend that is much higher than his salary and the salary of his
colleagues in Cuba. It is therefore an absolute fallacy to say that these are
people who receive no income. However,
this is a source of punishment against Cuba and a source of pressure against
third governments that demand these services and it is also an insult and an
offense to the governments that participate in this cooperation.
Added to this are the myths on
the subject of human rights and other fallacies promoted by a country whose
record in human rights abuses and atrocities is amply documented; atrocities
committed within the U.S. against the U.S. population and in other parts of the
world. It is also a country with a track record of supporting some of the most
atrocious regimes humanity has ever known and an ally of genocide and ethnic
cleansing operations, not in the past, but committed today in this world.
On
the basis of these lies and fallacies used as pretexts, the Trump
administration imposed against Cuba the policy that he himself called maximum
economic pressure that Biden has continued to apply and which implies in
practice the reinforcement of the blockade on an unprecedented scale.
In July 2021, something
happened that is part of those legends: the alleged abuses and outrages
committed by the Cuban government in the face of protests that occurred on the
eleventh and on the morning of the twelfth that month. These served as a
pretext to justify a policy previously conceived by the Biden administration,
which despite the promises it made, as some articles that have been published
in recent days point out, to revert suddenly Trump’s measures which was what
the democratic platform said. What Biden did was to continue applying the
measures of economic reinforcement, to observe what was happening in Cuba at
the most dramatic and critical moment for our country with the Covid pandemic
and to trust that they were not assuming the cost since the measures had been
adopted by the previous government, despite the fact that they were applying
them with absolute and surprising loyalty.
It should be added that the
narrative regarding the abuses committed has even incorporated people who know
Cuba, who have traveled to our country, who know our way of acting, of course
to a certain extent. They are an expression of the exposure of the majority of
Americans to the huge propaganda machine of the U.S. government and the
monopolized mainstream media. The Biden administration used and still uses that
banner today, despite the fact that the US government bears direct and indirect
responsibility for what happened that day. We have said this directly in the
diplomatic exchanges we have had with the U.S. government.
The
above are only examples - not the only ones - of the various ways of trying to
demonize an experience that turned out to be positive and was celebrated, and
of course to try to demonize Cuba in order to justify hostility.
In
the coming months and years, we should not be surprised if new similar myths
emerge, some as exotic as the one about sonic and neurological attacks or
others to try to justify hostile policies. It is the way to sell to public
opinion a policy and a cruel behavior that, in the eyes of most people if they
were well informed, would be inexplicable.
We
know enough about the U.S. to understand that if the majority of the people of
that country knew the facts as they are, if the information regarding Cuba were
objective and not distorted, if the population were not constantly frightened
with regard to non-existent dangers related to Cuba and if hostility were not
stimulated against a supposed adversary that is not and does not intend to be
one, the people of the U.S. would have an even greater support for relations
with Cuba, for the exchange between the two countries but even then it would not
cease to have political differences with us. We are sure that out of pure
sentiment it would not support and would not accompany a policy such as the one
applied today against our country.
On
several occasions we have pointed out that despite the continuation of the
policy of maximum economic pressure, there are certain political differences in
the behavior of the current U.S. government of Joseph Biden with respect to the
previous Trump administration and we recognize them in different areas.
But
there is one that has been systematically maintained that could have been
changed and that we cannot overlook, which is the presence of Cuba on the State
Department's list of countries that allegedly sponsor terrorism. This was a
decision adopted by the Trump administration in the last days of his presidency
and it is well known that even, at one point, it has received rejection from
the ranks of the Democratic Party in the days that Trump made the decision.
It has been absolutely in the
hands of the U.S. President and his State Department to change that reality. It
would be a matter of a pure recognition of the truth, of making a declaration
of honesty to change that reality.
The
U.S. government knows perfectly well that Cuba does not sponsor terrorism, it
is absolutely clear, but it also knows perfectly well the damage it is capable
of causing by keeping Cuba on that list and evidently that is the purpose that
has prevailed.
The
paradox is that the U.S. has practiced and still practices terrorism, including
state terrorism, against Cuba and in other parts of the world.
These
are realities that cannot be ignored when we try to approach the difficult
coexistence between Cuba and the US.
By way of information, it is
important to understand that there are areas in which Cuba has been willing to
work with the U.S. because it considers them to be beneficial to our country,
because it identifies that they are also of benefit to the U.S. and that we can
cooperate.
Cuba could have said with this
hostility, the way it is presented, that we have no reason to be interacting
with the US, that they must first modify this or modify that, before we begin
to act, and we had every right to do so and it would have been understood as
something logical that we would have done so.
I
am going to list some of those areas, although naturally the U.S. government
presents that exchange as gestures by this government with respect to Cuba.
It
is actually the opposite. It is Cuba that had the right and the legitimate
reason to say that we cannot cooperate if there is unilateral hostility towards
Cuba, being a unilateral act of Cuba towards the US.
Among
those areas, there is the migratory issue which is important for Cuba, but also
for the US, with agreements that during the Trump administration were
unilaterally breached by the US and we not only had the willingness to resume
dialogue, but to maintain cooperation and compliance with the agreements.
In
this period there has been cooperation and dialogues on law enforcement and
compliance in several areas, again an issue where by the simple fact of Cuba
being on the list of countries sponsoring terrorism we would have more than
enough reasons to say we are not going to dialogue with you, you are slandering
Cuba, causing a great economic cost to the Cuban economy and the Cuban
population on the basis of that pretext.
What
is the point of us having to engage in dialogue? However, as a gesture, we said: we are going
to talk, it is in the interest of the U.S. and it is in our interest, it is
useful, it can contribute to the bilateral relationship.
Something
similar happens with the exchanges that have taken place in the field of
environment, in the field of health with
many U.S. institutions and very productive; in the field of Science and
Technology, exchanges with the U.S. academy of advanced sciences of high level,
of high scientific caliber of Cuba. There have been exchanges and cooperation
in Geology, in Higher Education, in Basic Education and in Art and Culture,
which is possibly what we see the most. In other words, there have been areas
that have demonstrated the usefulness of a civilized and respectful
relationship and that Cuba, despite the hostility, has been willing to channel
and develop.
We
cannot say that these areas imply transcendental advances in the bilateral
relation, since we know that the economic blockade is the essence of the
bilateral relation or is what most marks that relation, but they are important
areas, each on its own field, beneficial for Cuba and the US and which show
what our governments and countries are capable of doing.
We have been willing to have a
dialogue with the US specifically on terrorism and we have officially proposed
to have a formal dialogue on human rights. We have not received a response. We
could have had a dialogue on compensation, which is very important for the U.S.
and for Cuba, and evidently there was no willingness for those dialogues. I
reiterate that we would have every reason in the world to reject those
possibilities.
Those
who have dedicatedly studied the difficult relationship between Cuba and the
U.S. have evidence, not only now but historically, of the persistent efforts of
the Cuban government, throughout the Revolution, in search of an understanding
with the U.S. and the absence of that understanding has not been our fault.
The supposed fallacy that Cuba
has missed opportunities and that it has not known how to make the most of them
are just that, fallacies. It is an attempt by the side of the attacker to blame
the attacked. Those who delve into these
studies from a scientific standpoint will find evidence of this, if they look
for it,.
Faced
with the coming period, about which there is much speculation and predictions,
our behavior will continue to be consistent. It will not be Cuba the one to
propose or take the initiative to suspend the dialogues and cooperation that
exist, not even the discreet exchanges on some sensitive issues. That
initiative will not be Cuba's. Our position will remain consistent as it has
been for almost 66 years.
In
the deliberations of this meeting, I am sure that we will witness appreciations
and predictions about what can be expected in the coming months or in the next
four years in the bilateral relationship.
It
is not absurd, the trajectory of the previous Trump administration is well
known and many have deep knowledge of what the bilateral relationship has been
and it is not difficult to try to design scenarios of what may happen and, in
addition, the statements that in the past have been issued by some of those who
will make up the US government and some of those who aspire to be part of the
Trump administration and those who again dream that the moment has arrived are
known.
For them, the moment is to see
the destruction of the Cuba that has been built during the last 60 years or
more and they believe that the time has truly come. That is what you hear and what comes out in
the press.
We,
of course, will be attentive to the attitude that the new government assumes,
but Cuba's disposition will continue to be the same as it has been for more
than 60 years, ready to develop a serious and respectful relationship with the
U.S., and of course to protect the sovereign interests of both countries.
The
truth is that the U.S. government has caused much damage to the people of Cuba
and continues to do so today, and may cause even greater damage in the years to
come. The goal of mercilessly harming the people of Cuba will be achievable,
since the U.S. government is powerful and has the destructive capacity to cause
that kind of damage. If it intends to do so, it will use any pretext and lie it
can find, no matter how credible it is and how many people believe what it
says.
What
it will not be able to do is to achieve the goal of bending the will of Cubans;
it has not been able to do so to this day and it will not be able to do so
henceforth.
It
does not have the capacity to force Cuba or to convince us that the abandonment
of our sovereign rights, or the renunciation of self-determination are viable
options for the Cuban nation.
Let
us not fool ourselves. It
is in that conflict that the fundamental contradiction of these almost 66 years
is centered, that is, the recurrent inability of almost all U.S. governments in
all periods to accept that Cuba is a sovereign state and has the right to be
one.
I
wish the seminar success.
Thank you very much.
***************************************************************
The Cuban people deserve better. Here’s what President Biden can
do
With time running out, President Biden should
immediately remove Cuba from the list of state sponsors of terrorism, which at
this point has no factual or legal basis and depreciates the credibility of the
list; and restore the right of Americans to travel freely to Cuba, as they can
to every other country except North Korea. He should end the Trump-era “Cuba
prohibition lists” that restrict where Americans can stay, where they can eat,
and what they can buy and bring home.
by Patrick Leahy and Alan
Gross, opinion contributors - 12/17/24
https://thehill.com/opinion/5043822-cuba-engagement-policy-review/
Bush, Obama alumni ask Biden administration to ease up on Cuba before
Trump takes office
In a letter to President Biden and Vice
President Harris, the former officials including former Havana Chief of
Mission Vicki Huddleston and former deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes urge the outgoing
administration to remove Cuba from the State Sponsors of Terrorism List,
increase humanitarian aid to the country and to streamline rules for Cuban
nationals to access the U.S. financial system. ...
“In my view the
only reason the Trump Administration put Cuba back on the SSOT in its waning
days in January 2021 was to make it more difficult for the incoming Biden
Administration to reverse Trump Administration reversals of President Obama’s
wise and forward-leaning policy,” said Jeffrey DeLaurentis, who served as acting
ambassador to Cuba during the Obama
administration’s rapprochement period.
The former officials also
called on Biden and Harris to send humanitarian aid to the Caribbean island,
which has been hit by hurricanes and earthquakes, noting that the administration
already pledged $2 million following Hurricane Ian in 2022.
The
signatories also asked Biden to instruct the Office of Foreign Assets Control to
guide financial institutions on how to serve qualified Cuban nationals without
stepping astride of U.S. sanctions. They also called for a general license to
allow U.S. citizens to invest in Cuban enterprises not linked to the country’s
government.
by Rafael Bernal - 12/17/24
https://thehill.com/latino/5045016-bush-obama-biden-harris-trump-cuba-rules/
