The Cuban regime has once again manifested its discomfort with the presence of the United States' Chargé d'Affaires in Havana, Mike Hammer, resorting this time to a political caricature in the pages of Granma, the official organ of the Communist Party. In an article mockingly titled "Hammer in the Wrong Novel," the government reverts to an old tactic, comparing the American diplomat to the fictional character of the same name — created by novelist Mickey Spillane — in an attempt to discredit him without any solid legal or diplomatic grounds.
This strategy reveals more than it conceals. Instead of responding with diplomatic language or appealing to formal international law mechanisms — like declaring an official "persona non grata" if they truly violate the Vienna Convention — Cuban authorities opt for media defamation, veiled threats, and an inquisitorial tone aimed at intimidating both the diplomat and the civil society sectors that have engaged with him.
The Diplomatic Agenda that Rattles Havana
Since arriving in Havana, Hammer has been meeting with independent actors, religious figures, and human rights advocates. He has also visited significant sites such as the Sanctuary of Cobre. These actions, typical within international diplomatic practice and consistent with rights recognized in the Vienna Convention — which prohibits interference but not contact with civil society — have been interpreted by the regime as provocative acts.
Rather than using the appropriate diplomatic channels, the Cuban government has opted for a discrediting campaign. The Granma article, rather than a political critique, is a propaganda piece employing sarcasm to distort Hammer's image and portray him as a harbinger of dark conspiracies. But if Hammer had indeed committed any grave offense, why hasn't he been expelled? The answer is simple: the Cuban regime neither wants nor can afford the political cost of a direct confrontation with Washington.
The Power of Caricature and Its Limits
The regime's hostility has even extended to the realm of graphics, with a caricature in Granma depicting Hammer as a grotesque and ridiculous version of Spillane's detective. Sweaty, clumsy, and with a bewildered expression, the caricatured character declares, “I think I can't play the part!” This visual mockery, far from humorous, is an attempt to dehumanize the diplomat and reinforce a childish narrative of confrontation, avoiding the political substance of the matter: the growing international interest in the state of human rights and fundamental freedoms in Cuba.
Meanwhile, Hammer continues his agenda, which includes meetings with opponents, religious community members, and activists, engaging in direct diplomacy that breaks with the usual opaqueness in U.S.-Cuba relations. His approach, transparent and focused on fundamental rights, contrasts sharply with the closed narrative of the officialdom, which views any external contact as an existential threat.
Why the Regime Fears a Diplomatic Presence
It's clear that Hammer has not only aroused the regime's antipathy but also a palpable fear. Fear that his presence might, instead of artificially destabilizing, draw attention to a Cuba the regime insists on concealing: pluralistic, critical, and weary of old dogmas. That's why they monitor him, harass him, and caricature him. Yet, they don't confront him with facts or law.
In a repressive environment where independent voices are criminalized, Hammer's figure takes on a symbolism that transcends his position. He represents a mode of foreign policy that listens, observes, and reports. And for a regime that fears scrutiny, this is intolerable.
The irony is that by trying to ridicule him, they place him at the center of a narrative they themselves have lost control of. The Granma article fails to discredit Hammer. On the contrary, it strengthens his image as an uncomfortable yet necessary interlocutor in a Cuba that demands dialogue, truth, and a future.
The Vienna Convention and the Regime's Silence
The Cuban regime's reaction to Hammer's public agenda has focused on a selective interpretation of Article 41 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961). This international treaty, signed by Cuba and governing the basic norms of diplomacy between states, indeed stipulates that diplomats must "respect the laws and regulations of the receiving state" and are obliged "not to interfere in the internal affairs of that state."
However, using this article as an argument against Hammer's activities is deeply manipulative and deliberately overlooks the context, spirit, and international practice of diplomatic law. The Convention itself, in Article 3, establishes that one of the essential functions of a diplomatic mission is "to ascertain by all lawful means conditions and developments in the receiving State and to report thereon to the Government of the sending State."
In other words, diplomats not only can but must maintain contact with civil society actors, religious leaders, local community representatives, and even government critics, provided they do not incite violence or directly interfere in governmental affairs.
In Hammer's case, there is no evidence — nor has the Cuban government provided any — that he violated Cuban law, called for demonstrations, funded political activities, or promoted civil disobedience. His meetings with citizens, dissidents, human rights defenders, and clergy are part of his normal diplomatic duties.
If there truly were a violation of the Convention, the Cuban government could declare the diplomat "persona non grata," as contemplated in Article 9 of the same treaty. But it hasn't done so, preferring propaganda noise over legal confrontation.
Understanding the Regime's Fear of "Interference"
The underlying question is why the Cuban regime fears this supposed "interference" so much. The answer lies in its own political nature.
Cuba is not a democratic state. The laws it demands be respected haven't been discussed or approved by a freely elected parliament, and the power structures respond to a one-party system where citizens have no real option for alternation.
In this context, "non-interference in internal affairs" becomes a shield to protect systematic practices of repression, political persecution, censorship, ideological exclusion, and human rights violations. Invoking legality to protect a regime that imprisons peaceful opponents, represses citizen demonstrations, prevents free association, criminalizes independent journalism, and blocks its own citizens' entry and exit is a legal and moral paradox.
International norms were not conceived to shield totalitarian systems from scrutiny. On the contrary, their spirit is to protect individuals and nations from power abuses. Therefore, Article 41 of the Vienna Convention cannot be read in isolation or become a tool to silence diplomacy. Respect for the host country's laws is valid insofar as those laws align with international standards of legality, proportionality, and human rights.
By developing a public and transparent agenda, in contact with sectors the regime seeks to render invisible, Hammer fulfills his diplomatic duty. The Cuban regime, by not tolerating these engagements, reveals that its fear is not of a supposed sovereignty violation, but of the visibility of its own illegitimacy.
This is not about interference but presence. And for a power that needs isolation to sustain itself, any critical presence — even from an embassy — is seen as a threat.
Hence the campaign of caricatures, inquisitorial speeches, and ad hominem attacks against Hammer. Because they have no way to respond to him with reasons, much less with legitimacy.
Understanding the Diplomatic Tensions Between the U.S. and Cuba
What is the significance of Mike Hammer's actions in Cuba?
Mike Hammer's actions, such as meeting with independent actors and visiting significant sites, are part of standard diplomatic practices that aim to understand and report on the conditions within Cuba. These actions highlight human rights issues and promote transparency, which challenge the Cuban regime's desire for control and isolation.
Why has the Cuban regime not declared Hammer "persona non grata"?
The Cuban regime has not declared Hammer "persona non grata" because doing so would require a formal legal confrontation with the United States, which the regime wants to avoid due to the political costs involved. Instead, they prefer to engage in a media discrediting campaign.