Any effort to understand the reality in Cuba must inevitably lead observers and analysts to consider the significant impact of United States aggression against the country.

First, this is due to the immense power wielded by Cuba’s neighbor; second, because that impact is the cumulative result of nearly 70 years of aggression against our country.

It affects the lives of Cubans and has destructive consequences in many sectors and in many aspects of daily life for every Cuban.

Journalists accredited here in the country can understand this; they experience it firsthand.

The aggressiveness stems from the inability of a powerful and influential sector of the U.S. political elite to recognize Cuba’s right to full independence and self-determination.

History has shown that such recognition or acceptance of that notion has proven difficult or unattainable for an influential sector of the U.S. political elite.

This largely explains the ruthlessly aggressive policy that exists today against the Cuban people.

I use the word “ruthless” because normally in a war, in a military conflict, the nature of the conflict is measured by the number of casualties inflicted on the population—on human beings—through military action and weapons.

But when a country’s policy—an act of aggression by a country that is not of a military nature—causes physical harm, causes damage to people’s daily lives in terms of food intake, education, entertainment, care for family members, or medical treatment received; the casualties can also be measured, and the damage can also be measured, with terms such as “ruthless.”

The U.S. government has enforced an economic blockade of this nature for decades. But since late January—specifically, January 29—it has imposed an effective energy boycott.

It is not virtual; it is effective. This means that Cuba, as the President said, has not received any ships or fuel supplies from abroad for months. This is a country that is known to require fuel.

In practical and political terms, this does not mean that any country is prohibited from exporting to Cuba. It is legal and legitimate to export fuel to Cuba. Cuba has the right to import fuel, and every country in the world, except one, has the right to export it to Cuba.

The only one that does not have that right is the United States because its own government prohibits it.

What the rest of the countries face are illegal, illegitimate threats from the U.S. government against exporting fuel to Cuba. But it is not a right; it is a threat. It is the use of force or the threat of force to deprive Cubans of their right to import fuel. In commercial terms—not humanitarian aid—Cuba has the same right as any other country.

Cuba is not subject to, nor is it the target of, any international sanctions. Cuba is not subject to any special proceedings within the United Nations system that are accusatory or inquisitorial in nature.

Cuba is a country with extensive global ties. In reality, politically speaking, it is the U.S. policy that is isolated, and this is evident year after year. One need only look at the screen in the United Nations General Assembly hall to see how the international community votes against the blockade.

Cuba is convinced—and we have said this repeatedly over the years—that despite the differences that exist and may continue to exist, it is possible to have a respectful relationship with the United States; that is what Cuba desires.

Cuba is not an enemy of the United States. Cuba does not pose a threat to the United States. And anyone who says that is either lying in a very dishonest way, demonstrating ignorance, or has not looked at a map to understand that Cuba is not, nor can it pose, a threat to the United States.

Our desire is to have a respectful relationship with the United States, and for good reasons: there are extensive and fluid ties between various sectors of the American society and the Cuban society, which the Cuban government encourages and fosters. It does not prohibit them, nor does it place obstacles in their way.

The obstacles lie on the U.S. side, where citizens are banned from selling to Cuba, banned from buying from Cuba, banned from visiting Cuba, banned from studying in Cuba—unless they have permission from their government—banned from marrying in Cuba, banned from playing sports in Cuba, and banned from engaging in or enjoying art and culture in Cuba—unless they have permission from their government.

None of these prohibitions exist on Cuba’s part. That is the reality we are facing today with the U.S. government, which is engaging in overt aggression and making public statements of its intention to reestablish a relationship of dependence on the United States in Cuba—that is, to erase Cuba’s independence.

To assume that they will one day have the capacity and the prerogative to determine what happens in Cuba, how people act in Cuba, how this country is governed, and how the economy is managed, is a stated aspiration of the U.S. government—and one that is, naturally, totally unacceptable to Cuba.

Moderator: Let’s move on to questions.

AP News Agency: We’ve heard that there has finally been some engagement—a negotiation, a discussion, a conversation, whatever you want to call it—with the U.S. government. What stage are these talks at? We really have very few details and are eager to learn at least some of the specifics, the outlines. The U.S. government has been very vague about whether this involves the departure of President Díaz-Canel or not. Any details you can provide about that conversation will, I believe, help clarify where we are standing.

Deputy Foreign Minister: As the President said last Friday, our approach is that these are very sensitive issues, and we handle them with discretion, so I don’t have many more details than what the President provided.

I can categorically confirm, and this is implied in what the President said, that the Cuban political system is not subject to negotiation, and of course neither the President nor the position of any leader in Cuba is subject to negotiation with the United States or with the government of any country.

Granma Newspaper: Based on what you just said, my question is specific: Based on these talks, do you trust the U.S. government?

Deputy Foreign Minister: As the President said on Friday, Cuba has maintained a consistent position over time, one of willingness to engage in a dialogue with the United States in a respectful and responsible manner, and of course, grounded in the international law and the respect for the sovereignty of each country.

This has been a consistent position of ours that we are not going to change at this time, despite the increase in hostility from the United States.

But furthermore, that position does not exist in a vacuum and is not sustained simply because it has been stated in the past and we are repeating it today. It is sustained because we truly see no other way to resolve the problems between the two countries, just as I do not believe there is any other way between other countries.

The alternative is dialogue, and that is why we are always willing to engage in a dialogue with the United States on this basis.

We have previous experience with dialogues with the United States. In most of them, Cuba ends up fulfilling all the commitments it makes, while the United States fails to fulfill at least some of the commitments it makes.

In the case of the dialogues that made the most progress—those that took place in 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017—I can categorically assure you that the Cuban government fulfilled all the commitments it made, every single one.

I can also say, and it is notorious and public because it was declared in this way by the United States government, that the United States violated practically all the agreements that were made with rare exceptions. This is not just said by Cuba.

First of all, the US government said so when it decided to violate them, saying that it did not feel committed to what was agreed in those years, but also officials who were from the previous government in the United States have publicly stated that while Cuba complied, It was the US government that, in order to derail that advance, broke the agreements. I just want to say that, based on this experience, we are confronting these talks and all future talks with the United States government.

CBC News: What do you think about Canada and the $8 million they gave to Cuba through the United Nations? Do you want Canada to do more?

Deputy Foreign Minister: Canada is a country with which Cuba has had an unbroken relationship for many years, and it is a positive one. Possibly citizens of no country in the world know more about Cuba than Canadians, since it has maintained the largest flow of visitors to Cuba since 72. It’s an important relationship.

There are important trade relations; there is foreign investment from Canada in Cuba. And even though we do not agree on all international political positions, we have always been able to resolve our problems, our differences, and work on them on the basis of dialogue and respect. Therefore, it is a relationship that is appreciated in Cuba and to which we give value and we aspire to keep alive that important relationship between the two countries.

Canada’s offer of aid is important to Cuba, as is the offer of aid from all those countries and organizations around the world that express their solidarity. But what is more important for Cuba than aid is the willingness of each government to use its own sovereign prerogatives and defend its own right to trade freely with Cuba, without US interference.

Like any country, Cuba’s development cannot depend on assistance, on solidarity aid; it must depend on trade, on its own economy, and that is the relationship we seek with the rest of the world.

The international community should not allow the US government to interfere.

Los Angeles Times:  You just said that the Cuban political system is not a bargaining chip, so what does the US want? What do they want, what are they looking for?

Deputy Foreign Minister: I must clarify, just in case there is any doubt, that the political system of the United States is not part of the negotiation either. We have not demanded any constitutional change in the United States, nor have we asked for any official to be dismissed or excluded from government.

The political differences we have with the US are handled differently and in the negotiation there are no demands of Cuba to the US political system.

In a negotiation with the United States, there are a lot of issues that are of mutual interest. These include law enforcement, since we share a sub-region where there are drug trafficking, organized crime, and terrorist attempts. There are still experiences of Cuba’s cooperation with the US on any of these fronts, but the strength and effectiveness of any action against these phenomena would be much more effective for the US and Cuba if there were bilateral cooperation.

There is trade that could exist between the two countries. The US market could be a natural market for Cuba. Not because of US bans. We know that there are companies in the United States, some of whose owners are people of Cuban origin, that have an interest in doing business with Cuba and this requires adjustment, since the rules that the United States has today prevent it.

But, in addition, there are old matters, pending matters, such as the issue of compensation. The US has claims against Cuba; just as Cuba has claims against the US, for the damage caused by the blockade, for the physical damage done to our population.

We think that we have a right to compensation; just as in the US there are people who naturally feel they have a right to compensation. These are topics that can be discussed, very complex, but which require a dialogue and are legitimate issues.

I reiterate that the Cuban political system is not negotiated with the US government or any other government.

 (Cubaminrex)