For more than six decades, the Guantánamo Naval Base has been presented by the Cuban regime as a symbol of the confrontation with the United States.
Fidel Castro, Raúl Castro, Miguel Díaz-Canel, and Cuban diplomacy have insisted for years that this is illegally occupied territory and have demanded its return as a matter of national sovereignty.
For this reason, the language used by the Revolutionary Armed Forces (FAR) following the meeting held this Friday between Army Corps General Roberto Legrá Sotolongo and the Commander of the U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM), General Francis L. Donovan, in the vicinity of the Guantanamo Naval Base, is particularly striking.
The statement issued by the Ministry of Revolutionary Armed Forces (MINFAR) did not include any reference to territorial occupation, national sovereignty, or Havana's historical claims regarding the base. Instead, it employed technical, professional, and cooperative language.
"Both delegations viewed the meeting positively, where topics related to security around the boundary of the military enclave were discussed and agreed to maintain communication between both military commands," stated the MINFAR.
The difference with the historical discourse is evident. For decades, Cuban official propaganda has used expressions such as "illegally occupied territory," "imperialist military base," or "colonial enclave."
Even during the rapprochement initiated by Barack Obama, Raúl Castro publicly insisted that the return of Guantánamo was an essential condition for a full normalization of bilateral relations.
None of that appears in the military statement.
The word "occupation" disappears. There are also no references to sovereignty, imperialism, or territorial claims. Instead, the FAR speak of "security," "boundary perimeter," and "communication between military commands."
Even more striking is the context in which the statement is issued.
The meeting was not initially announced by the Cuban authorities. The first to make it public was the South Command of the United States, which released images and details of the encounter through its official channels. Confirmation from MINFAR came only later.
It's not the first time it's happened.
In early May, the visit to Havana by the CIA director, John Ratcliffe, was also initially revealed by U.S. sources. Subsequently, Cuban authorities responded to information that was already public knowledge.
The repetition of this pattern suggests a dynamic that deserves attention. Washington seems to be setting the pace for communication regarding these types of sensitive contacts, while Havana chooses to respond only after the meetings have already become public.
This is precisely why the tone chosen by the FAR is significant. Once the meeting was made public, the Cuban army had several options: to remain silent, to offer a brief confirmation, or to take the opportunity to reiterate its historical positions on Guantanamo.
He didn't do any of the three things.
On the contrary, he described the meeting as positive and emphasized the importance of maintaining communication between both military leaders.
The practical cooperation between the armed forces of both countries around the base perimeter is not entirely new. Historically, there have been discreet mechanisms to manage border incidents, immigration matters, or security issues.
What is indeed novel is the public and explicit acknowledgment of that communication in a moment of heightened political tension between Washington and Havana.
The message seems to convey a clear idea: beyond the deep political differences between both governments, there is an interest in avoiding incidents and keeping military communication channels open.
The paradox is evident. While the official political discourse continues to assert Cuban sovereignty over Guantanamo and the "first anti-imperialist trench" of Caimanera, the language used by the FAR increasingly resembles that of two military institutions pragmatically managing a sensitive border.
Perhaps the most important news is not that the generals met. What is truly noteworthy may be that, once the meeting was revealed, the Cuban army chose to describe it using language of cooperation, stability, and communication, very distant from the rhetoric that defined the official position on the Guantanamo Naval Base for decades.
Filed under: