In a recent interview on the program Versiones Públicas of the Mexican public television, the Cuban diplomat Johana Tablada de la Torre reminisced about her time in Washington from 1996 to 2000 and made a statement that is quite revealing.
When referring to the Helms-Burton Law, he stated: "I remember, we lived in Washington at that time... We worked there from '96 to 2000 as Cuban diplomats, and I recall attending Congress... [and I was] rushing alongside the Mexicans, the Europeans, through the halls of the United States Congress, explaining why that was unacceptable, and there was really significant support for the questioning."
In her account, Tablada de la Torre revealed that, at least since 1996, she has been sharing a diplomatic destiny with her husband, Eugenio Martínez Enríquez, with whom she attended the studio of Canal Catorce, both serving as ambassador and head of Mission in Mexico.
During their stay in Washington, both were part of the Cuban mission in the United States and, according to the official's own testimony, she actively participated in efforts before Congress during the debate surrounding the Helms-Burton.
The Helms-Burton Act was enacted on March 12, 1996, amid strong bilateral tensions following the downing of the Brothers to the Rescue planes. Since then, the Cuban regime has described it as "colonial" legislation and as evidence of Washington's alleged interventionist intentions.
However, the notable detail in Tablada de la Torre's own testimony was to show Cuban diplomats acting with complete freedom within the U.S. institutional system to try to influence that legislative debate.
From a legal standpoint, what was done is not illegal at all. The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations acknowledges the right of foreign representatives to defend the interests of their State, communicate with authorities of the host country, and express their political position.
Meeting with congress members, touring the Capitol, and coordinating efforts with European or Mexican diplomats are all part of the usual diplomatic practice in any open capital.
In the United States, that type of management is neither a scandal nor a crime. It is diplomacy.
The problem is not that Tablada lobbied. The problem is the contrast that his own statement reveals -in a glaring slip- when one observes the behavior of the Cuban regime within the island.
The same official who frequently denounces the "interference of the empire" and invokes the argument of sovereignty against any contact from foreign diplomats with Cuban actors openly admits to having attempted to influence the legislation of another country.
When a Cuban diplomat walks the halls of Congress to persuade lawmakers, it is a legitimate defense of national interests.
When a U.S. diplomat visits a neighborhood in Havana, talks with citizens, or meets with independent activists, the official rhetoric speaks of subversion, provocation, or aggression.
This is not a rhetorical nuance, but rather a structural double standard.
In Cuba, such contacts are often publicly denounced as "interference" and have regularly been accompanied by surveillance from State Security, media campaigns aimed at discrediting individuals, and even acts of repudiation against dissenters or people who interact with foreign representatives.
The scope for diplomatic action outside strictly governmental channels is considerably narrower than what Cuban diplomats enjoy abroad, supported by the same international legislation they constantly invoke. In this regard, the harassment of Mike Hammer serves as a clear example of the actions of the Cuban regime.
While Tablada de la Torre could "run through the halls of Congress" in a pluralistic and open political system, in Cuba there is no comparable legislative space where diverse actors can exert public pressure, nor is there an environment where independent political contact is normalized.
The Cuban political system does not allow for party pluralism or real institutional competition. Political interaction outside of state control is seen as a threat, not as part of the democratic process.
Tablada de la Torre did not act outside the law, but this Sunday left an uncomfortable question hanging in the air: Why does the Cuban regime not grant in its own territory the same scope of diplomatic action that its representatives exercise abroad?
If influencing is diplomacy when Cuba does it, but interference when others do, the consistency of the official rhetoric of the regime is seriously compromised.
The interview intended to denounce the Helms-Burton as a symbol of external intervention ultimately revealed a deep contradiction: the regime demands political freedoms for its diplomats abroad that it denies within its own borders.
As of today, that contrast is not an ideological interpretation. It is a fact that emerged from the very words of one of the most politically influential and visible representatives within the Cuban totalitarian regime.
Filed under: