Related videos:
For more than six decades, the Guantanamo Naval Base has been portrayed by the Cuban regime as a symbol of 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 Chief of U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM), General Francis L. Donovan, in the vicinity of the Guantanamo Naval Base, is particularly noteworthy.
The statement issued by the Ministry of Revolutionary Armed Forces (MINFAR) made no mention of territorial occupation, national sovereignty, or Havana's historical claims regarding the base. Instead, it employed technical, professional, and cooperative language.
"Both delegations view positively the meeting where issues 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 process led 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 is mentioned 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," "divisional perimeter," and "communication between military commands."
Even more striking is the context in which the statement was made.
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 disseminated images and details of the encounter through its official channels. Only afterwards did the confirmation come from MINFAR.
This is not the first time it has happened.
In early May, the visit to Havana by the CIA director, John Ratcliffe, was 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 appears to be setting the pace for communication regarding these types of sensitive contacts, while Havana chooses to respond only after the meetings have become public knowledge.
This is precisely why the tone chosen by the Armed Forces is significant. Once the meeting became public, the Cuban army had several options: to remain silent, to provide a brief confirmation, or to take the opportunity to reiterate its historical positions on Guantánamo.
He did none of the three things.
On the contrary, he described the meeting as positive and emphasized the importance of maintaining communication between both military commands.
The practical cooperation between the armed forces of both countries around the perimeter of the base is not entirely new. Historically, there have been discreet mechanisms to manage border incidents, immigration issues, or security matters.
What is indeed new is the public and explicit recognition of that communication in a moment of high political tension between Washington and Havana.
The message appears to convey a clear idea: despite the deep political differences between both governments, there is an interest in preventing incidents and keeping military communication channels open.
The paradox is evident. While the official political discourse continues to assert Cuban sovereignty over Guantánamo and the "first anti-imperialist trench" of Caimanera, the language used by the FAR increasingly resembles that of two military institutions that are pragmatically managing a sensitive border.
Perhaps the most important news isn't 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, which is very different from the rhetoric that defined the official stance on the Guantanamo Naval Base for decades.
Filed under: