KOTA KINABALU, April 30 — The Sabah government’s rejection of a private motion in the State Assembly is evidence of the state’s lack of action on its 40 per cent revenue entitlement, said Kepayan assemblyman Chin Tek Ming.

Chin, whose proposal for a private motion in the final moments of the State Assembly sitting earlier was rejected by the Speaker, accused the administration of avoiding accountability and delaying action.

“This is not about rhetoric or slogans. What was rejected today was a complete action plan — with timelines, accountability and legal implications,” he said to reporters later.

He said the motion he sought was to compel the state government to formally affirm Sabah’s right to 40 per cent of net federal revenue derived from the state, and to demand full payment for the years 2022 to 2025, including arrears amounting to billions of ringgit.

It also proposed a 60-day deadline for negotiations with the federal government, failing which the state would be required to initiate legal action, alongside full public disclosure of revenue figures collected from Sabah.

Chin questioned the government’s justification that the matter was under court consideration and that a letter of demand had already been issued.

“The motion does not interfere with any court process. It simply calls for a clear political stance and binding administrative action,” he said.

“They do not want to be bound by a timeline. They do not want accountability. And they do not want to be compelled to act,” he said.

He also called out inconsistencies in the government’s action as he had submitted the motion earlier on April 2 while the government issued a letter of demand to the federal government on April 10.

“If action has already been taken, why reject a motion intended to strengthen and bind those actions? If this letter is genuine and substantive, it must be made public, including the amount claimed, the legal basis, and the next steps should enforcement be necessary.

“Otherwise, this appears reactive, not strategic, and worse, an excuse to avoid accountability,” he added.

KOTA KINABALU, April 30 — Sabah Chief Minister Datuk Seri Hajiji Noor pushed back against assumptions that he was not assertive in pursuing Sabah’s 40 per cent revenue entitlement, insisting he has “never been afraid” in negotiations with Putrajaya.

Rejecting a move by Kepayan assemblyman Chin Tek Ming for a special motion, Hajiji said that he was not afraid to negotiate with Putrajaya for Sabah’s constitutional right to 40 per cent of federal revenue derived from the state.

The chief minister dismissed claims that the state leadership was not pushing hard enough on the long-standing demand, describing such assertions as politically motivated.

“I think this is a political move, they assume we are not fully pushing for it,” he said during a heated exchange in the State Legislative Assembly between Chin and speaker Datuk Kadzim Yahya.

“Sometimes they make it seem as if the state government, particularly I, am not pushing for it. They think I’m afraid. I’m not afraid. I’ve never felt undermined in those meetings,” he said.

Hajiji stressed that negotiations with the federal government have been conducted without pressure, including discussions with the prime minister.

“To be honest with you, the federal government or the prime minister, has never pressured me or the state government. When we talk about the 40 per cent, it’s not just us — all Sabahans are fully supportive. Don’t use this as a political game,” he said.

His remarks came in response to concerns raised by Chin who questioned the lack of updates on negotiations and called for greater transparency, including a formal mandate from the assembly through a special motion on the issue.

“We do not know anything, no update. We do not know what is happening during meetings,” Chin said, urging the House to unite for a stronger and more visible stance.

However, Hajiji maintained that broad consensus within the assembly was already clear and sufficient.

“It is enough for everyone that everyone in this House supports it,” he said, adding that the state government has gone further by engaging King’s Counsel to strengthen Sabah’s legal position in its claim.

“That’s the issue. If we really think we are going to get it, why the need to engage King’s Counsel?” he said.

The exchange prompted intervention from the Speaker, who questioned what additional action the assembly could realistically take, noting that support for Sabah’s 40 per cent entitlement was already unanimous.

Assistant minister to the chief minister had the last word Datuk Joniston Bangkuai also weighed in, warning against attempts to portray the government as insincere.

“It’s clear everyone is supportive. What is the intention of giving the impression that we don’t support it? It seems malicious. It is loud and clear that we want the 40 per cent. Please don’t doubt our sincerity in getting it,” he said.

The exchange came at the end of a four-day session which covered debates and four bills passed today. Kadzim did not accommodate Chin’s request and officially ended the sitting shortly after. 

Sabah’s constitutional claim under Articles 112C and 112D has long been a contentious issue, with both sides of the aisle publicly affirming support for securing the state’s full entitlement.

The leaders of Mexico, Spain and Brazil called for Cuba’s sovereignty to be respected as it continues to face threats by Washington.

The joint statement came during a meeting of left-wing leaders in Spain and also vowed to send humanitarian aid to the crisis-ridden island.

The plea comes as the President Donald Trump administration ratchets up punitive measures on the communist-run island in the hopes of forcing political regime change. 

“We express our deep concern regarding the serious humanitarian crisis the Cuban people faces … [and] we reiterate the need to respect at all times international law and the principles of territorial integrity, sovereign equality and the peaceful settlement of disputes”, said Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez and Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula Da Silva in a joint statement on Saturday. 

Although the U.S. was not directly mentioned, the plea appears to be aimed at the White House as tensions rise between the two neighbors. Since news broke on Wednesday that the Pentagon is ramping up preparations for an operation against Cuba, a U.S. Navy surveillance drone has been observed flying over Cuba’s coast for several hours and Trump has promised that “a new dawn for Cuba” is imminent. 

Hope for a peaceful solution, however, remains. Havana and Washington are currently engaged in official diplomatic negotiations; a U.S. government delegation visited Havana earlier in April, marking the first visit of an official U.S. government plane since former President Barack Obama’s trip in 2016.

The U.S. delegation reportedly informed their Cuban counterparts that they saw an end to political repression, the liberation of high-profile political prisoners and economic liberalization as prerequisites for easing the longstanding economic and commercial embargo on the island. 

These sanctions, which have historically been condemned by the vast majority of the international community at the United Nations General Assembly, have caused far-reaching material shortages on the island and hindered the island’s ability to engage in international trade and commerce, according to UN experts. 

Recently, the U.S. intensified sanctions, declaring Cuba a national security threat and blockading the vast majority of oil destined for the island, which is now facing an acute humanitarian and economic crisis as a result of the intensified measures.

Sheinbaum, Lula and Sánchez’s promise of support represents the latest in a series of international offers and shipments of aid. Sheinbaum’s own government has already sent humanitarian shipments to the island, and the Chinese, Chilean and Canadian administrations have also sent or pledged to send aid to the island. 

Furthermore, a civilian humanitarian aid mission to Cuba, which brought food, medicine and solar equipment to the island, was organized in March. 

Featured Image: Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez and Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula Da Silva during the former’s visit to Brazil in 2024.

Image Credit: Ricardo Stuckert via Flickr

License: Creative Commons Licenses

The post International calls for US-Cuba de-escalation grow amid latest threats appeared first on Latin America Reports.

A conversation between Kirsten Welker, moderator of NBC News’ talk show “Meet the Press”, and Miguel Díaz-Canel aired on Sunday, marking the first time that a major U.S. media outlet has interviewed the current Cuban president. 

The discussion focused on the current state of U.S.-Cuba relations and saw Díaz-Canel insist that he would not resign in the face of U.S. pressure while aguing that sanctions on the island were the driving factor behind his people’s suffering. 

The Cuban politician did, however, express hope that current diplomatic talks between the two nations would culminate in a peaceful resolution and reverse the recent escalation of bilateral tensions. 

1. Defiance towards U.S. threats 

Responding to reports that the U.S. sees his dismissal from power as key to any successful negotiation, Díaz-Canel emphasized that, “In Cuba, the people in positions of leadership are not elected by the U.S. government … we have a free, sovereign state”.  

Díaz-Canel warned that both he and the Cuban population would be prepared to fight for such independence; he told Welker that, if the United States attempted to enforce political regime change through military action, he himself would be “willing to give my life for the Revolution” and would not be alone in his conviction. 

Invoking the words of Cuban independence hero and general Antonio Maceo, Díaz-Canel warned that “whoever tries to take power over Cuba will only get the dust of its soil, drenched in blood, if he doesn’t perish in the struggle”. Such a sentiment, the politician warned, is universally shared amongst Cuban people because “that is how we have been trained”.

The current readiness of Cuba’s military and population for the kind of irregular and asymmetrical warfare that Díaz-Canel referred to in the interview is unclear. The Cuban National Defense Council announced in January that its regular and irregular forces would transition into a state of preparation for war. 

Also, Cuba has a mandatory national service program designed specifically to deter and defend against a U.S. invasion. Therefore, the regular forces of the Cuban military can theoretically be bolstered by a mobilization of a paramilitary force of over 1 million trained troops at any time.

Considering this well-practiced defensive posture, Díaz-Canel predicted that a U.S. invasion of the island “would be unsustainable and untenable”.  

Though there is no way to prove Díaz-Canel’s claims about Cuban political unity in the face of U.S. threats, Dr Philip Brenner, an expert in U.S.-Cuba relations and professor at American University who spoke to Latin America Reports about the state of U.S.-Cuba relations, argued that the Cuban anti-regime opposition finds itself in a weak position. 

“There is no legitimate opposition in Cuba, there is no opposition party”. Furthermore, when discussing the anti-regime Miami-based Cuban opposition movement, Brenner argued that he “see[s] no way in which people who have been living outside of Cuba will have an effect on the future of Cuba other than through investment … There is no movement in Cuba that would really bring any of these dissidents into a leadership position”.

However, growing anti-government dissent on the island could be a sign that the Cuban population is not as supportive of the Cuban political leadership as Díaz-Canel suggests. 

2. Hope for improved relations

Despite his warnings about the potentially deadly consequences of American aggression, Díaz-Canel stressed that “both the American and Cuban peoples deserve … peace” and reiterated his desire that the current talks between the U.S. and Cuba could achieve that peace. 

“I think dialogue and deals with the U.S. government are possible, but they’re difficult … Cuba has always been willing, throughout all the years of the revolution, … [to have] a civilized, neighborly relationship with the United States”. 

On occasion, both sides have shown willingness to engage in high-level diplomatic talks, as was the case when revolutionary leader Raúl Castro and former U.S. President Barack Obama oversaw a normalization in relations in the mid-2010s. 

Nevertheless, Cuba’s posture during the Cold War, when it aligned with the USSR, the principal ideological adversary of the U.S., was more hostile. 

Specifically, Díaz-Canel listed the various areas of potential cooperation between the two countries, including combatting “drug trafficking, fighting terrorism, [working on] migration, issues of … transnational crime”. 

There has indeed been cooperation in these areas before; the U.S. previously agreed with the Cuban government to the admission of at least 20,000 legal migrants from Cuba a year, a deal designed to reduce irregular migration between the countries and slow the exodus of the Cuban population to American shores.

Despite their governments’ mutual hostility, the U.S. and Cuban Coast Guards have also historically cooperated in operations against drug trafficking and terrorism. 

Although Díaz-Canel saw continued and further cooperation on such issues as desirable, his positivity about the negotiations had a strong caveat; “we have always said that we need to build that relationship from a position of respect, from a position of equal footing, without having conditions imposed on us”. 

In practical terms, that means that discussions about the nature of Cuba’s leadership and internal political system are off the table for Cuban negotiators. 

Dr. Brenner emphasized the importance of this perceived diplomatic equality to any solution: “What the United States has to understand dealing with Cuba is that Cuba is not going to respond to threats, to the appearance of giving in to U.S. demands. They want to have a respectful negotiation that is mutually satisfactory”.

3. Identifying U.S. sanctions as principal cause of Cuban suffering

The Cuban leader decried American sanctions, calling them “genocidal” and referring to them collectively as “the blockade”. Díaz-Canel attributed the Cuban people’s suffering solely to the “policy of permanent hostility by the U.S. government at the national level.” 

Because of the U.S. sanctions, he argued, “we lack financing to buy food, to buy supplies for our production and services [industries] … [to buy] the medicine that we need and to carry out the repairs that we need for our national energy system and our industrial factories”. 

“Cuba is a country that has been under attack, …  [having suffered] over 60 years of the blockade … We are talking about the longest running blockade in the history of mankind, the most severe blockade, a blockade that is not only aimed at the Cuban people but at the American people and other peoples”, Díaz-Canel added.

Many, including representatives of the United Nations, agree that U.S. sanctions on Cuba impoverish the country’s population by causing shortages of spare parts, machinery, food, medicine, fuel and other essential goods and services. 

Dr. Brenner also pointed out that Cuba’s inclusion in the U.S. State Department’s state sponsors of terrorism (SST) list “makes it … [particularly] difficult for Cuba to engage in international commerce because most international transactions, regardless of whether the United States is actually involved, … travel through New York banks … [which are] very loathe to handle any transaction that involves Cuba” for fear of being sanctioned under the SST. 

Others, however, point to Cuban government mismanagement, failure to reform and corruption as key factors in the nation’s economic woes. 

Although Díaz-Canel suggested that he himself and Cuba’s collective leadership may have made some errors in economic judgement, he did not specify any and told Welker that the Cuban “people who are suffering … largely understand who the main culprit is”. 

4. Openness to economic, not political, reform

Cuban negotiators have stressed that any reforms implemented after negotiations with the U.S. and Cuba conclude will be economic in nature. Some of these reforms have already been announced; Cuban Americans will now be allowed to invest in businesses on the island and remittances sent from abroad will be able to be withdrawn in cash as U.S. dollars in Cuban currency exchange offices. 

Dr. Brenner suggested that such reforms demonstrated that the Cuban government is “willing to bend a lot … to regularize its relationship with the United States”. 

Díaz-Canel made occasional reference to these changes and indeed seemed enthusiastic about the possibility of greater American participation in Cuban economic life. 

“We can have investments and businesses from America, businesspeople in Cuba. We have a Cuban community living in the United States and we should also provide them with facilities, both in the United States and here … American people can come to Cuba for cultural and sporting exchanges … and exchange healthcare [expertise]”, he said. 

The Cuban president cited the recent cooperation of U.S. and Cuban healthcare practitioners on a potentially revolutionary Alzheimer’s drug developed by Cuba’s Center for Molecular Immunology (CIM) as a potential blueprint for future American-Cuban cooperation in key sectors. 

Following the U.S. operation to capture Cuban ally and Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, the U.S. left the Venezuelan regime intact but decided to effectively control the Venezuelan oil industry. 

Perhaps Díaz-Canel is hoping for a similar arrangement of political continuity with greater economic exchange in Cuba; during the interview, he said, “We’re open for foreign investment in Cuba, in oil exploration and drilling. There will be an opportunity for American businessmen and firms to come and participate in Cuba’s energy sector”. 

The Cuban leader even expressed admiration for the development of Vietnamese and Chinese “socialism”; Vietnam and China both retain their one-party communist political systems with more market-oriented, less centrally-planned economies than Cuba. 

Díaz-Canel’s admiration of such systems could suggest that he is open to steering Cuba in the same economic direction as Vietnam and China, though he clarified that the beginning of those two nations’ major economic development coincided with the lifting of U.S. sanctions, which clearly remains the Cuban leader’s economic priority. 

5. Rejection of human rights criticism

Towards the end of the interview, Welker challenged Díaz-Canel on Cuba’s human rights record, citing the detention of Maykel “Osorbo” Castillo Pérez, a Cuban musician and the co-founder of the Cuban anti-government dissident organization Movimiento San Isidro. 

Osorbo was sentenced to nine years in prison in 2022 for alleged “public disorder and defamation of institutions and organizations”. The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has concluded that he was detained solely on the basis of pro-democracy activism. 

Díaz-Canel did not directly address Osorbo’s individual case, but instead attacked what he viewed as a manipulative media-driven campaign to discredit Cuba’s political system.

“They [the media] speak about political prisoners in Cuba … there are people in Cuba who are not in favor of the revolution … and they protest on a daily basis in different ways against the revolution and they are not in prison”.

The narrative that Cuba arbitrarily detains peaceful opponents, he continued, “is a big lie … [designed] to vilify and to engage in a character assasination of the Cuban Revolution”. 

Various human rights groups contradict this claim; Amnesty International, for example, reports that Cuban authorities routinely restrict freedom of expression, criminalize peaceful dissent and mistreat arbitrarily detained prisoners. 

Díaz-Canel, however, claimed that those imprisoned were not peaceful opposition activists, but rather malicious actors who ”promote vandalistic acts and disrupt safety … often financed by terrorist organizations and … agencies of the U.S. government which promote subversion against Cuba”. 

Those prisoners, he went on to argue, “would be in jail in any country in the world … for engaging in vandalism and [seditious] crimes”. 

Amnesty International refutes this claim too, reporting that the Cuban authorities label activists and journalists “common criminals, mercenaries and foreign agents” to legitimize their detention. 

Human Rights Watch (HRW) corroborates these claims; according to HRW the majority of the approximately 1,500 people detained after the widespread protests of 2021, were peaceful demonstrators or bystanders. 

Cuban NGO Justicia 11J also claims that, of the 760 prisoners of conscience still behind bars in Cuba in March, 358 were arrested for their participation in the 2021 protests. 

Featured Image: Cuban exiles in Miami hold placards calling for an end to the Cuban dictatorship and criticizing Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel

Image Credit: Luis F. Rojas via Wikimedia Commons

License: Creative Commons Licenses

The post Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel’s NBC interview: 5 key takeaways appeared first on Latin America Reports.

The Cuban government announced last Friday that it would free 2010 prisoners to coincide with Easter celebrations. 

According to a statement by the Cuban Embassy in the United States, those released will include young people, women, adults over 60, those due for early release, foreign citizens and Cubans who reside abroad.

Although the embassy described the decision as a “humanitarian and sovereign gesture”, some speculate that the release is a response to increasing U.S. pressure on the Cuban government.  

Since his re-election, U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly expressed his desire for regime change on the island. Though Cuba and the U.S. are currently engaged in diplomatic negotiations to de-escalate the recent significant increase in tensions between the two nations, Trump has not ruled out the prospect of an “unfriendly takeover” of Cuba. 

The Trump administration’s operation to forcibly remove Cuban ally Nicolás Maduro from power in Venezuela – Cuba’s former primary oil supplier – and his three-month blockade of non-private fuel imports to the island in early 2026 indicate an aggressive American posture. 

The Cuban government, however, has stated that its political system is not up for negotiation. 

The regime has expressed its willingness to accept certain economic reforms which could improve its commercial relationship with the United States and liberalize its largely centrally planned economy. 

Specifically, authorities have announced that Cuban Americans will be allowed to invest in businesses on the island and that remittances sent from abroad can be withdrawn in cash as U.S. dollars in Cuban currency exchange offices. 

Lianys Torres Rivera, Cuba’s Chargé d’Affaires at the Cuban embassy in Washington, even revealed that Cuba was willing to allow the U.S. to participate in the island’s “economic transformation”. 

Meanwhile, Trump recently declared that he had “no problem” with a Russian oil tanker loaded with an estimated 730,000 barrels of crude oil docking in Cuba. 

These potential diplomatic overtures may represent the softening of the previously adversarial negotiating positions of both nations, which could indicate that a negotiated solution is on the horizon. 

Was the prisoner release a concession? 

The Cuban government has consistently rejected claims that its decisions are influenced by Washington. In March, the Cuban government released 51 prisoners after talks with the Vatican, but explicitly denied at the time that the release was in any way a result of U.S. coercion. 

Nevertheless, Havana has used the tactic of releasing prisoners to improve bilateral relations with Washington before; in 2025 the Cuban government released over 500 prisoners early because of a deal that was made between Joe Biden’s administration and the Cuban government. 

In exchange, Biden removed Cuba from the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism shortly before his term ended, a decision that was quickly reversed when Donald Trump came to power. But the Cuban government still upheld its end of the deal and freed the prisoners. 

Some believe the latest prisoner release announcement comes in response to Washington easing the oil blockade on the island.

“Trump announced that he would allow the entry of a Russian oil tanker into Cuba and that he will assess case by case from now on the entrance of oil ships in Cuba. That is a concession, he is opening a crack in the oil blockade,” Jorge Alfonso, an independent Cuban journalist based in Mexico City, told Latin America Reports. The prisoner release is “probably the way that Cuba is responding to that”, continued the journalist.

However, Alfonso warned that this potential concession should not be misinterpreted as a sign that Cuba is willing to fundamentally change its internal, authoritarian political system: “They haven’t released political prisoners, they have only released people processed for other felonies … It is also important to note that this release is also a way for the Cuban government to alleviate pressure on the [strained] jail system regardless of U.S. pressure.” 

Indeed, as of March 2026, Cuba has the second highest number of prisoners per 100,000 in the world, after El Salvador. Cuba’s poor prison conditions have begun to provoke dissent, with a protest recently breaking out in the La Canaleta jail in Ciego de Ávila because of dwindling food supplies and poor sanitary conditions. 

The prisoner release may therefore be a pragmatic move rather than a sign of the regime loosening its grip; President Miguel Díaz-Canel reiterated in a recent interview on NBC (set to air on Sunday) that he has no intention of resigning. 

More negotiation or confrontation? 

Progress in negotiations does not automatically rule out the possibility that the United States might launch some kind of military operation to force political changes. Just two days before the Trump administration decided to attack Iran, the U.S. and Iran had been engaged in talks which reportedly produced a bilateral agreement on sanctions relief for Iran.

Despite Trump’s recent precedent of opting for military force over diplomacy, analysts believe this is unlikely in Cuba’s case.

“I do not expect a military intervention by the U.S. … I expect that there will continue to be talks between the two governments, and it is conceivable that Washington will reduce its pressure on the island in response to initiatives by Havana to open opportunities for U.S.-based businesses,”  Eric Hershberg, Professor of Government at American University and expert, told Latin America Reports.

The White House’s repeated threats of regime change against Cuba could be part of a strategy that the U.S. President has used before. Hershberg explained that Trump often acts aggressively towards foes and then de-escalates before claiming an ultimate diplomatic victory. 

“Cuba may turn out to be another instance of Trump-era American menacing that doesn’t achieve its purported objectives, in this instance overthrowing the Cuban political system,” concluded the academic. 

Washington’s decision to strike an alliance with current Venezuelan President Delcy Rodríguez, the former vice-President under Maduro, instead of installing opposition leader María Corina Machado could suggest that Trump has little interest in changing foreign adversaries’ internal power structure. 

Instead, the Venezuela case would suggest that Trump prefers obliging adversaries to align more closely with the U.S. diplomatically, rather than pushing for comprehensive regime change. 

However, this preference is not necessarily shared by all of the Trump base or his high-ranking cabinet members, especially with regards to Cuba. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, for example, has a long history of calling for the current Cuban Government’s removal from power. Rubio told reporters as recently as mid-March that, for the Cuban domestic situation to improve, “they have to get new people in charge”. 

The historically powerful Florida-based Cuban-American lobby is also likely to oppose any negotiation that allows the Cuban Communist Party to continue its one-party rule of the island. 

Various Cuban opposition groups signed the so-called “Freedom Accord” in early March, a document which outlined the opposition’s plan for a democratic transition on the island and intention to “dismantl[e] the criminal enterprise that is the Communist Party of Cuba”. 

Cuban American voters have historically supported Trump, and will likely lobby him to push for systematic internal changes in Cuba in negotiations. 

Featured Image: Boniato Prison, near Santiago de Cuba. The facility, which remains in use today, was the site of Fidel Castro’s imprisonment after the failed attack on the Moncada barracks in 1953

Image Credit: Greg0611 via Wikimedia Commons

License: Creative Commons Licenses

The post Could latest Cuba prisoner release mark an advance in Havana-Washington talks? appeared first on Latin America Reports.

Cuban President Díaz-Canel confirmed earlier today that the Cuban and American governments are engaged in official negotiations with the aim of halting the recent escalation of tensions between Washington and Havana.

“Cuban functionaries recently had conversations with representatives of the Government of the United States to find, by way of dialogue, the potential solution to the bilateral differences that exist between our two nations,” Díaz-Canel told journalists in a televised address.

His comments come amidst months of speculation about clandestine negotiations between Washington and Havana as the U.S. enforces a total oil blockade on Cuba in the hopes of forcing political regime change. 

The Cuban state had, before this morning, refused to acknowledge the existence of official dialogue with the U.S. government; Díaz-Canel cited the revolutionary government’s aversion to giving into “speculation” about a particularly “sensitive” diplomatic process.

Washington, however, has previously referred to talks with Havana but has made no guarantee regarding a diplomatic solution to the tensions between the two countries. U.S. President Donald Trump has suggested that both “friendly” and “unfriendly” options for a Cuba settlement remain on the table. 

Although the U.S. leader has not specified what these options may entail, the “friendly” deal likely refers to some kind of economic arrangement that sees the Cuban government liberalize the economy in exchange for an end to American sanctions. The “unfriendly” deal could involve regime change by military force, a method used by the Trump administration  in Venezuela and Iran. 

Although the breadth and full agenda of the talks remains unknown, Díaz-Canel mentioned that he had agreed to the inclusion of the Cuban diaspora, which is mainly concentrated in the United States, in economic life in Cuba proper. 

Díaz-Canel’s acknowledgement of talks follows an announcement of a prisoner release by the Cuban government late on Thursday. Although the Cuban government implied that this release had been a result of dialogue with the Vatican, its proximity to today’s statements could suggest Havana is willing to make political concessions to reach a diplomatic solution with the U.S.

The United States has reportedly proposed a deal with Cuba that would allow the Cuban leadership a peaceful political exit strategy, but Díaz-Canel has given no indication that a fundamental political change on the island is imminent.

Instead, he said that the current negotiations were being conducted with the express consent and at the direction of the “General of the Army” and “historic leader of our Revolution” Raúl Castro. Díaz-Canel also added that the negotiations would base themselves upon a mutual respect for “equality”, “the political systems of both countries, sovereignty and self-determination”.

Responding to the announcement, a functionary of the Cuban Foreign Ministry, who asked to remain anonymous, told Latin America Reports: “Our willingness to converse with the United States has always been there”. 

However, reiterating the Cuban President’s statements, they added, “we must resolve our differences through respectful dialogue between equals with respect for our sovereignty”. 

But as negotiations take place, the U.S. continues its campaign of maximum pressure.

Díaz-Canel also revealed in his address today that not a single oil tanker had reached Cuba in three months as he named the U.S.-sanctioned “energy blockade” as the biggest crisis currently facing the country. 

A Russian tanker carrying 200,000 barrels of oil was recently diverted away from the island under suspected U.S. pressure. Venezuela, Cuba’s erstwhile closest regional ally and chief oil supplier, has also been blocked by Washington from providing the island with energy supplies.

As the U.S. blockade pushes Cuba’s economic and humanitarian infrastructure towards collapse, hope for some form of peaceful negotiated settlement remains. 

Featured Image: Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel

Image Credit: Russian Duma via Wikimedia Commons

License: Creative Commons Licenses 

The post Cuban government confirms talks with Washington appeared first on Latin America Reports.