Cuban Regime Deploys Spokespersons to Discredit $18 Billion GAESA Revelation

Joel Ernesto Marill, an economist specializing in Economic Policies at the Ministry of Economy and Planning (MEP), has joined the regime's social media chorus to challenge the Miami Herald's investigation. This investigation exposed the existence of $18 billion in current assets under the control of the military conglomerate GAESA. In a lengthy Facebook post, Marill claimed uncertainty over whether the American publication accessed actual financial statements but quickly launched a series of arguments to cast doubt on the data's authenticity.

Marill argued that the figures "show signs of significant manipulation," supporting his stance with three points: alleged inconsistency with national accounts, the "inexplicable" nature of certain operational issues within GAESA companies if they had such liquidity, and the interpretation of financial statements according to Cuban accounting standards.

Questionable Comparisons and Contradictions

Marill's initial argument involved comparing incomparable magnitudes. He pointed out that net foreign exchange sales reported for 2023—exceeding $17 billion—would amount to 70% of the GDP in dollars, far exceeding the country's total exports. However, he overlooked that GAESA is not merely an exporter; it dominates internal dollarized sectors such as tourism, remittances, retail in foreign currency, and telecommunications, generating income beyond foreign trade statistics. This comparison was a deliberate mix-up to undermine the Herald’s figures.

In his second point, Marill presented the deterioration of tourism services and shortages in GAESA stores as "evidence" against the data's validity, assuming liquidity should naturally lead to reinvestment in quality or inventory. He ignored that the investment priorities of a secretive, politically driven conglomerate might not align with classical business logic; accumulating reserves for strategic or political objectives can coexist with declining consumer services.

Accounting Technicalities and Omissions

Marill's third argument relied on a technicality: according to Cuban standards, dollar figures in a balance sheet are expressed at the official Cuban peso exchange rate, drastically reducing the real amount. He claimed, "18 billion in sales in dollars on a Cuban financial statement is practically around 750 million dollars." Yet, this argument neglected that the Herald cited dollar figures as they appeared in leaked documents, and internal conversion for accounting purposes does not alter the actual foreign currency balances.

Throughout his text, Marill avoided a critical step: he failed to provide evidence debunking the leaked documents. His critiques were based on assumptions and an implicit defense of institutional opacity that prevents citizens from accessing primary information. Marill accused other economists of lacking "critical analysis," yet he himself assumed—without proof—that the figures couldn't be accurate.

Political Deflection and the Role of Subordinates

Moreover, Marill committed a political motivation fallacy by reducing allegations against GAESA to a "black legend" designed to divide the "Cuban left"—whatever that may be—and benefit the "counter-revolution," shifting the debate from economic to ideological grounds to discredit based on origin rather than refuting with data.

As an MEP official, Marill spoke from a subordinate position within the state structure that shields GAESA from scrutiny. He didn't question the lack of audits, accountability, or the publicly verifiable fact that the military conglomerate manages strategic sectors without civilian oversight. His defense of the status quo is unsurprising: the regime uses technicians and specialists as rhetorical pawns to legitimize decisions and realities that don't allow open debate.

Repeated Strategy and Calculated Delegation

Marill's post isn't an isolated incident. It's part of an unofficial, fragmented response where the regime has chosen to delegate to lower-level officials what, given the magnitude of the allegations, should have been addressed by its top leaders. A similar situation occurred with Rodney González Maestrey, director of Legal Affairs and Analysis at MINREX, who responded not to the Miami Herald but to independent journalist Mario J. Pentón, who had commented on the investigation, diverting the debate to personal attacks and embargo narratives.

In both cases, the message structure was identical: the leaked data is neither confirmed nor denied, the coherence or motivation of the allegations is questioned, an ideological element is introduced ("right-wing attack" or "counter-revolutionary campaign") to discredit sources, and any reference to GAESA's obligation to account to the public or explain the use of its reserves is avoided.

This pattern reveals a deliberate shielding strategy: to prevent figures like Miguel Díaz-Canel, Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla, Manuel Marrero Cruz, or top military leaders from being directly linked to a response that, due to a lack of transparency, couldn't be supported with verifiable data and would expose the corruption surrounding the core of the Castro regime's power. Instead, a network of subordinate spokespersons—technical officials, advisors, and mid-level directors—is activated to occupy the rhetorical space and sow doubt.

With this tactic, the regime gains time, reduces the political cost of possible contradictions, and maintains silence at the top while reconfiguring the official narrative. However, it also exposes a lack of willingness or arguments to address the core issue: a military conglomerate manages billions of dollars without civilian oversight in a country mired in a humanitarian crisis. The implicit message is clear: opacity is state policy, and defending GAESA is a red line the top leaders prefer not to cross publicly. To avoid embarrassment, the regime prefers to deploy its pawns.