The Cuban Presidency released an interview on Tuesday, 12 days after it was conducted, featuring Miguel Díaz-Canel speaking with the Spanish newspaper Público on May 1st, during the International Workers' Day march in Havana.
The video begins with a direct message from Díaz-Canel to the American public. From the Anti-Imperialist Platform, he called for a warm and respectful view of Cubans, expressing a desire for a "good neighbor" relationship with Washington.
"To the American people, I would first say, come to Cuba, ask your government to allow you to visit Cuba, get to know the Cuban people, and regard us with respect and affection," he stated.
Díaz-Canel emphasized that Cuba has never been antagonistic towards the United States.
"This is a people that has never harbored hatred towards Americans. We have never initiated any aggression against the United States. You won't find American flags burned here," he added.
Envisioning Peaceful Relations
The Cuban leader was clear about the type of relationship his regime seeks with Washington. "Our two peoples deserve to live in peace and maintain a loving relationship," he declared.
"I believe the relationship we aspire to is one of solidarity between neighbors, where, despite our ideological differences—which we will always have—we can find common areas of cooperation that allow us to build understanding and distance ourselves from confrontation," he continued.
Strategic Timing Amid Heightened Tensions
The interview's delayed release seems to be a calculated move by the regime to position itself as open to dialogue on the international stage, especially as U.S. military intervention threats are at their highest in decades.
The video emerged after President Donald Trump tweeted on Tuesday that Cuba is "asking for help" and announced forthcoming talks.
In another segment of the interview, Díaz-Canel addressed the potential for discussions with the Trump administration, admitting that "a dialogue could occur."
However, he stipulated that any agreements must be based on equality, without imposition, and respect for Cuba's sovereignty and independence, avoiding any questioning of its political system.
He also accused Washington of breaking previous agreements, stating, "Cuba has honored all its commitments, while the United States has failed on many fronts."
Mounting Pressure and Divergent Messages from Washington
The regime's decision to publish the interview comes at a time of immense tension. On May 1st, Trump reportedly declared at a private dinner in West Palm Beach that the U.S. would "take Cuba almost immediately" after operations in Iran, threatening to deploy the USS Abraham Lincoln near the island.
On May 5th, he reiterated the threat, describing Cuba as "completely devastated" and claiming it would be "an honor to liberate it."
The following day, Marco Rubio announced sanctions against GAESA and twelve regime officials, and on May 11th, Axios disclosed that the Pentagon updated its operational plans against Cuba, including military aircraft surveillance over the island.
Amid these developments, a State Department spokesperson indicated that Trump "would prefer a diplomatic solution" with Cuba, suggesting a nuanced stance within Washington's message during this period of intense pressure.
This Tuesday, U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth confirmed before Congress that the Cuban regime poses a threat to U.S. national security.
Understanding the U.S.-Cuba Tensions
Why did the Cuban government delay the release of Díaz-Canel's interview?
The delay appears to be a tactical move to present Cuba as open to dialogue during a time when U.S. military intervention threats are peaking.
What type of relationship does Díaz-Canel desire with the United States?
Díaz-Canel envisions a peaceful and cooperative relationship, one of mutual respect and solidarity between neighbors, despite ideological differences.
How did the U.S. react to the situation with Cuba?
The U.S. has issued threats of military intervention, with President Trump suggesting imminent action, while also expressing a preference for a diplomatic resolution.