A recent report from the Cuban Television News (NTV) highlighted the work of the Document Management Center of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Cuba (MINREX) as a key institution in the preservation of historical documents related to the country's diplomacy over the past 125 years.
However, the presentation of these files, and the interpretation made by the officials who oversee their valuable collection, reveal a marked ideological bias aimed at reinforcing the official narrative of the regime.
Among the documents held in this center are the original of the Platt Amendment, the Treaty of Commercial Reciprocity, and the agreement on naval and coal bases with the United States.
The television report emphasized the heritage value of these documents, but framed them within the historical narrative constructed by the Cuban regime, which describes the republican period prior to the Revolution of 1959 as "neocolonial," a key term in official historiography.
According to the state-run media, reflecting the version of MINREX, these files demonstrate "how the United States government dominated Cuba after the conclusion of the war of independence against Spain."
However, this interpretation overlooks the economic, civic, and democratic progress achieved by the Cuban nation during the republican era. By solely emphasizing Cuba's dependence on the United States, a narrative is reinforced that justifies the current regime's continued hold on power.
A clear example of this narrative is the presentation of the Hay-Quesada Treaty, signed in 1904 and ratified in 1925, which recognizes Cuban sovereignty over the Isle of Pines (now Isle of Youth).
This agreement is described by the official historiography as the result of a "political and diplomatic battle waged for more than two decades by the Cubans," emphasizing the Cuban claim in the dispute rather than the diplomatic process of dialogue and negotiation to achieve it.
For over 66 years of violent domination by the totalitarian regime, Havana is more interested in projecting the image of a “small island besieged by the empire,” insisting on the “criminal blockade” of an external enemy, rather than showcasing a rich tradition of dialogue, encounters, and disagreements addressed diplomatically, institutionally, and civilly with neighboring countries.
Rooted in a tradition of conflict and confrontation, the Cuban regime's "revolutionary diplomacy" aims to distort the historical memory of a nation that, with its ups and downs, progressed in the construction of a Republic and a democratic State alongside its American neighbor.
While there were diverse opinions in Cuban society at the time regarding this reality, the relationships with the United States were built on a foundation of mutual respect and understanding, resulting in benefits for both countries.
However, the "revolutionary historiography" exerted all its efforts to erase all the data and nuances that explain the historical relationship between both nations, in order to highlight those "anti-imperialist" currents that led to the stereotypical image of "David versus Goliath" and to the lamenting and victimization diplomacy practiced by Havana since 1959.
In these times, with the new Trump administration in the White House and the leadership of Cuban-American Marco Rubio at the Department of State, Havana is greatly concerned about the potential shift in Washington's foreign policy, whether it leans towards increased pressure or towards openness and negotiation.
After having devastated the country, violated the rights of its citizens, and caused the largest migration exodus in history, the Cuban regime is corrupt to the core, aware of its illegitimacy, and morally and materially incapable of sitting down at the table with the United States—a scenario they fear more than sanctions due to their lack of experience and knowledge in conducting negotiations. They fear that such a situation could bring their worst nightmare to fruition: losing power.
The manipulation of history to serve its interests has been a recurring strategy of the Cuban regime over the decades. The exaltation of the "national program of historical memory" by MINREX is part of an ongoing effort to solidify an official version of events, concealing aspects that could challenge the prevailing political discourse. Meanwhile, key documents that could provide a more balanced view of the past remain out of reach for the public and independent researchers.
Filed under:
