Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel said he sees three possible scenarios that the US government is planning for the country’s immediate future: social unrest, coercive dialogue to take control of the Cuban economy, or armed conflict.
He made this statement last Thursday (4), in an interview with eldiario.es, the transcript of which was also published on Monday (8) by the Cuban government.
Díaz-Canel spoke about the pressure that the United States has been exerting on the island for months, pressure that has intensified in recent weeks with more sanctions, the accusation against Raúl Castro and the risk of a possible attack.
“We have never threatened anyone. However, aggression against Cuba is increasingly present in the rhetoric of US government spokespeople. This rhetoric is increasingly intensifying,” the president said in an extensive report published on Thursday.
A CNN sent a request for comment to the US State Department on these statements by the Cuban president and awaits a response.
Both Donald Trump and members of his administration have stated on several occasions that regime change is necessary in Cuba, and the American president has not ruled out the possibility of “taking control” of the country.
Last week, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio referred to Havana as “a forward operating base for global irregular warfare” against US interests.
In this context, according to Díaz-Canel, the US government is following three scenarios: first, one of “economic strangulation”, whose objective is “to provoke social unrest, and that this social unrest gives them the opportunity, under the pretext of humanitarian aid, to intervene in the country”.
Oil shortages have affected Cuba since the country lost shipments from Venezuela, its main supplier, and the US has also threatened to impose additional tariffs on countries that supply oil to Cuba directly or indirectly.
This has deepened and accelerated the crisis in the country, which is deteriorating further under US pressure. The impacts are evident in the lack of electricity, gasoline, medical services and even essential public services.
The second scenario, says Díaz-Canel, is to continue a “coercive” dialogue with Cuba, “of maximum pressure, to take control of the Cuban economy, to occupy the country economically, and that would give them the opportunity to bring about a change in the political system.”
This change in the political system, he says, “is the great aspiration” of the United States.
For the Cuban president, the third scenario is that of a , and he states that, in this case, there is a need to offer resistance.
“We have the right to defend ourselves, to prepare to defend ourselves, so that there are no surprises and so that there is no defeat,” he stated.
At that moment, Díaz-Canel cited the example of the 32 Cuban agents who died on January 3 during the US attack in Caracas, in which President Nicolás Maduro was detained and captured. They were Cuban agents who performed defense and protection functions in Venezuela and who “heroically gave their lives defending their principles”.
“If 32 Cubans were able to confront by surprise an elite US force, which surpassed them in numbers and technology, what wouldn’t millions of Cubans do willing to defend the Revolution, defend sovereignty, defend independence and maintain the self-determination that we have in this country?”, commented the Cuban president in the interview.
A clear example of Díaz-Canel’s argument occurred in March, when the Cuban government presented Cuban singer and composer Silvio Rodríguez with an AKM rifle and a replica of the same weapon for his “patriotic willingness” to defend the country. “Like him, millions of Cubans will not abandon their country,” declared the Cuban Presidency at the time, in reference to the tribute.
Díaz-Canel sees a direct link between what is happening in Cuba and what has already happened in Venezuela with the actions of the United States, and states that it is an “ideological, cultural and media” war.
As he reiterated in recent months, Díaz-Canel stated that they are willing to work with the Trump administration to strengthen commercial and cultural ties, but that this willingness has a limit: it must be a dialogue “without pressure” and without conditions for changing the political system.
