The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Cuba, Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla, attributed the country's ability to withstand the economic and energy crisis to the "effective management" of the Government and the Communist Party (PCC).
During a press conference held in Havana, on the eve of the annual United Nations vote on the U.S. embargo, Rodríguez defended the actions of the authorities and presented the survival of the Cuban political system as a result of a combination of popular patriotism, resilience, and good governmental management.
The chancellor made that assessment while responding to a question from the Associated Press agency regarding the arrest warrant against Raúl Castro and the prospects of a potential change in U.S. policy toward Cuba.
Rodríguez Parrilla stated that Washington will ultimately change its stance, among other reasons, due to the resilience of the Cuban people, and explained how, in his opinion, the country has managed to endure the difficulties of recent months.
It is the lineage of the Cuban people, it is the patriotic tradition of the Cuban people, and it is, moreover, the effective management of the government, of the party, the renewal of methods, the changes in our economic model, he stated.
According to the minister, these decisions have allowed for adjustments to the Cuban economy in response to international circumstances and to what he referred to as the "economic strangulation" by the United States.
However, this assessment contrasts sharply with the deterioration of living conditions for millions of Cubans, who are subjected to prolonged power outages, shortages of food and medicine, and a significant loss of purchasing power.
The statement is particularly significant because it explicitly attributes part of the merit for the country's resilience to the Government and the PCC, without addressing in that passage the responsibility of both institutions in the economic and energy decisions that have contributed to shaping the current crisis.
"Effective management" in the face of blackouts
Rodríguez Parrilla's words come at one of the most challenging times for the Cuban electrical system, impacted by fuel shortages, recurring breakdowns of thermoelectric plants, and a lack of sufficient investments to restore aging infrastructure.
During 2026, Cuba has experienced repeated total collapses of its National Electric System (SEN), in addition to generation deficits that leave vast areas of the country without electricity for much of the day.
The Minister of Energy and Mines, Vicente de la O Levy, recently acknowledged that private fuel imports from the United States do not cover even 3% of national needs and that Cuban oil production is insufficient to support consumption.
The crisis cannot be separated from the investment decisions made over the years by the authorities, who allocated significant resources to the construction of hotels and other tourism facilities while neglecting the mounting maintenance and modernization needs of the electrical infrastructure and public services.
Although U.S. sanctions and difficulties in accessing financing, supplies, and fuel impact the Cuban economy, the effectiveness of government management must also be measured by the results of its policies, its budgetary priorities, and its ability to ensure essential services.
In this regard, the resistance invoked by Rodríguez Parrilla has a dimension that his discourse overlooks: the daily struggle of a population forced to reorganize their lives around power outages, the difficulties in preserving food, the lack of water, and transport disruptions.
The numbers that contradict the official narrative
The data published by the Electric Union itself allows for an understanding of the extent of the crisis.
On October 19, just two days before the chancellor's statements, the state-owned company forecasted a shortfall of 2,020 megawatts (MW) during peak demand hours, compared to a mere availability of 830 MW and an estimated demand of 2,820 MW. The service had been interrupted for 24 hours the previous day due to a generation deficit.
This is not an exceptional situation. An analysis by CiberCuba published on October 4th noted that, in 23 of the 28 days with comparable data from the previous month, the electrical impact exceeded 2,000 MW. In other words, on more than 82% of the days examined.
These results are compounded by the deterioration of the tourism sector, which has absorbed millions in investments for years. Among the most visible examples is the hotel known as Torre K-23 in Havana, a facility funded by a company within the military conglomerate GAESA, whose substantial investment stands in stark contrast to the challenges facing the electrical system and the decline in tourist activity.
The contradiction is particularly striking because the Communist Party, whose management the chancellor praises, is not a secondary actor in the administration of the country. The Cuban Constitution recognizes the PCC as the superior political leading force of society and the State, while the government controls the main decisions regarding economic policy, public investment, and energy planning.
Therefore, attributing to the Party and the Government the credit for national resilience inevitably raises another question: what responsibility do they bear for the outcomes of an economic model that both lead and defend.
Resisting is not the same as governing effectively
In his speech, Rodríguez Parrilla presented the continuity of the Cuban political system as evidence of strength and adaptability; however, he did not provide concrete indicators that demonstrated an improvement in the material conditions of the population attributable to this alleged effectiveness.
The chancellor insisted that the United States will have to change its policy towards Cuba, whether under the current administration or the subsequent ones, and linked that conviction to the resilience of the people and the decisions of their leaders.
The difference between the two concepts is substantial: a government sustaining its power during a prolonged crisis does not necessarily demonstrate that it has effectively managed the country’s resources or that its policies have yielded favorable results for the citizens.
Rodríguez Parrilla highlighted the "effective management" of the Communist Party precisely when the population continues to endure extreme blackouts, while authorities acknowledge that they do not have enough fuel or generation capacity to ensure a stable electricity service nor the water supply.
His statement thus raises a question that the chancellor did not answer: if the survival of the political system is a merit of its leaders, why are their economic failures and the deterioration of public services almost exclusively attributed to external factors?
Filed under: