April 13, 2026 — from the office of the President of Cuba
Source: Cuba en Resumen
Miguel M. Díaz-Canel: Our political system is designed for the people; it is designed for social justice; it is designed so that we can all move forward. And it seems to bother others in the world because of what it might represent, because it is a system for us — it is not a system we want to impose on anyone — and so they block it in this way; because, you see, we are not just talking about a blockade; we are talking about a blockade that is unusual — it has been the longest in human history, the most severe.
A blockade that, moreover, is not only against the Cuban people, but against the American people as well, and has also become internationalized. American businesspeople cannot invest in Cuba — why? American citizens cannot freely visit Cuba — why? Citizens of other countries, businesspeople from other countries, are also subject to sanctions.
Kristen Welker: But you can trade with other countries.
Miguel M. Díaz-Canel: We can trade, with many limitations — many limitations! — because the laws of the blockade have been internationalized through the application of Title III of the Helms-Burton Act.
You have to do a lot of research, you have to look into it thoroughly, because the narrative in the media and the narratives on social media promoting hatred and confusion are not realistic. I think we also need to take a critical look at that. And we in our government, together with our people, remain committed to transforming it and moving forward, including overcoming these situations.
Kristen Welker: Let’s talk about the future.
China and Vietnam have embraced the one-party system and have made changes. Why couldn’t Cuba do the same?
Miguel M. Díaz-Canel: China and Vietnam are countries building socialism, just like Cuba.
It must be said that China and Vietnam — I have studied the reforms in China and Vietnam extensively, and we have taken them as a reference for Cuba — at one point also faced the consequences of coercive measures and sanctions by the United States and were subject to blockades, which lasted for a shorter period, approximately a decade. When they emerged from those blockades, they had every opportunity to develop their capacities for socialist construction. They implemented a series of reforms, and through those reforms they have demonstrated that socialism, led by a single party, is viable and capable of achieving significant economic, social, and technological progress. Today, China is a major global power.
We maintain ongoing exchanges; we are sister nations, our parties share a deep inter-party relationship, and we constantly exchange views on our respective processes. The thing is, Cuba also has its own unique circumstances.
Cuba is an island nation; Cuba is a country 90 miles from the United States. Cuba has been a country under attack, and the blockade has not been lifted — it has been in place for over sixty years, as I was telling you; therefore, we have not been able to build what we have dreamed of or what we have wanted to be. We have many unfinished tasks because the blockade has prevented them, even though there are people who don’t understand that.
Also, I’d tell you something else: I really appreciated this during our last trip to China and Vietnam. When you study the periods of reform and the times when China and Vietnam were able to strengthen themselves further, they started from a less favorable situation in terms of infrastructure and development than perhaps what Cuba has today. So we should tell the U.S. government: Lift the blockade and let’s see how we do, lift the blockade and let’s see how we do! Let’s see if Cuba, with all the potential it has — if it has been able to achieve victories while under the blockade — what wouldn’t it do if it weren’t under the blockade; because we have even been able to show solidarity while under the blockade.
Why does the United States have to spend millions? If we are so incapable, if we are as foolish as they want to portray us, if we are so closed-minded, if we are so uninnovative, why then have they insisted for so many years on spending millions — millions of dollars contributed by taxpayers, that is, the American people — on subversive schemes, on blockades, on crushing the Cuban Revolution? Why don’t they let us fall on our own, if that’s what they believe? Or why wouldn’t they be willing to acknowledge that a Cuba without the blockade would be capable of achieving levels of economic and social development with far-reaching impact and demonstrating that other solutions are possible in the world, that other models are possible in the world?
Kristen Welker: Let’s talk about the future.
There have been talks between Cuba and the United States. Do you think it is possible to reach an agreement with U.S. President Trump?
Miguel M. Díaz-Canel: Here I believe we can take an approach that starts with what is possible and what is difficult.
I believe that dialogue and agreements with the U.S. government are possible, but they are difficult.
Where does the possibility lie? Throughout the years of the Revolution, Cuba has always been willing — it has historically held the position — to have a civilized relationship with the United States as neighbors, one that allows us to cooperate, exchange, and maintain normal relations in a wide range of areas. And what we have always asked is that this relationship be built from a position of respect, from a position of equality, without imposing, without conditions; because imposing conditions does not lead to dialogue, and imposing does not lead to negotiation.
For there to be a conversation, for there to be a dialogue, for a negotiated agreement to be reached, there must be a willingness, there must be a capacity to dialogue and listen on both sides, there must be respect, there must be decency, and there must be recognition.
Therefore, all the conditions and possibilities exist, if both sides agree, to have that dialogue. What are the factors that make that dialogue difficult? First of all, over the past 67 years, U.S. policy toward Cuba has been a totally hostile one. The United States, as a major power, has always assumed the position of aggressor, and Cuba, as a small island, has had to assume the position of the aggressed party.
On several occasions — and this is another factor that facilitates the possibility of dialogue — agreements have been reached, conversations have taken place with different U.S. administrations, and compromises have been made. Cuba has always honored its commitments. The United States has failed to honor many of those commitments.
The United States, for example, has recently been in talks with other countries and then, in the middle of those talks, has attacked them. So, all of this creates a great deal of mistrust.
And we know that in the United States there are forces that, constantly, whenever they see an opportunity for conversation or dialogue, try to sabotage those negotiations. But, I insist, I am confident that we can talk with respect, with decency; that we can find, through dialogue, a solution to our bilateral differences; that we can find areas of cooperation in which we can develop projects.
There are many issues we can work on, including the fight against drug trafficking, terrorism, migration issues, and the fight against transnational crime. We can make progress in negotiations; we can have investment and business ventures by American entrepreneurs in Cuba.
There is a Cuban community residing in the United States to which we must also provide opportunities both in the United States and in our country; an American public that could visit Cuba. We can have cultural, sports, and health exchanges. All of that would then allow us to build spaces for understanding, moving us away from confrontation, and guaranteeing peace and security not only for Cuba and the United States, but also for the Latin American and Caribbean region. That is the future to which we aspire: to have a relationship of good neighbors, a civilized relationship, regardless of our ideological differences. I believe it would be an opportunity — it is what our peoples deserve.
I’m going to tell you a story.
Kristen Welker: They’re telling me we’re running out of time.
Miguel M. Díaz-Canel: That’s a shame, it’s a shame!
Kristen Welker: Please, let us finish with the questions.
Miguel M. Díaz-Canel: It’s a shame we’re running out of time, because we have a lot to discuss. So, I suggest we talk again another time.
But look, I’m going to tell you two stories.
Kristen Welker: But that’s fine. We have many more questions. I wanted to give you the time and the opportunity to respond so that the people of Cuba and the United States can hear you.
Miguel M. Díaz-Canel: I agree.
Kristen Welker: All right.
Miguel M. Díaz-Canel: For example, two anecdotes that give you an idea of how much both our peoples could benefit if we could reach agreements and achieve results — creating opportunities that make all this possible.
A Cuban science, technology, and pharmaceutical biotechnology entity has been conducting a clinical trial for years with a prestigious cancer center in the United States. A clinical trial on a Cuban vaccine against lung cancer. And this clinical trial has been going on for almost a decade now. It must be said that the results of this clinical trial are extremely encouraging. Both the U.S. and Cuban sides have tremendous confidence in the success of this clinical trial and in what it could mean for the health of the United States and for the health of Cuba.
Recently, I have been meeting with Cuban scientists every week as we seek to address the country’s problems through science and innovation, and they presented me with the results of a clinical trial involving a highly innovative Cuban medication to combat Alzheimer’s disease. In that clinical trial, there is a collaboration with a clinic in Colorado, in the United States, from which American patients come to receive treatment in Cuba, then return to the United States and continue their treatment.
One must hear the terms in which the Director of that clinic in Colorado speaks about how his patients have improved and have had results superior to any of the other medications. Therefore, we cannot allow a blockade policy — which caters to minorities and elites — to deprive our two peoples of the relationship they could have. And that is what I urge: that there be understanding, that there be sensitivity, that we see opportunities in our relationship, and that we do not encourage confrontation, war, and aggression.
Kristen Welker: I’d like to continue discussing the future of the negotiations. Are you confident that President Trump will reach an agreement?
Miguel M. Díaz-Canel: Well, if we are in a conversation, it is because we hope to reach an agreement. And as I was saying, reaching an agreement depends on the willingness of both parties to find those areas of collaboration and cooperation; to build those spaces of understanding; to approach this with sensitivity, with responsibility, and also with great seriousness.
Kristen Welker: Mr. President, are you in direct talks with Secretary of State Marco Rubio? Do you have confidence in him?
Miguel M. Díaz-Canel: We were in talks and will be in talks, provided the United States is willing, with the representative of the U.S. government designated by that country to hold talks with us.
The process of dialogue is a complex one. It involves first establishing channels of communication; then we must develop agendas that allow for discussion and the reconciliation of common interests.
Kristen Welker: But have you spoken with Secretary Rubio?
Miguel M. Díaz-Canel: No, I have not spoken with Secretary Rubio; I do not know Secretary Rubio.
After establishing agendas and debating, if there is a willingness, agreements can be reached. But these are processes that must be conducted with great sensitivity, with great responsibility, with great decency, and with great discretion, so as not to create false expectations, so that information is not manipulated, and so that intentions are not manipulated. Therefore, I prefer not to give details on these issues.
Kristen Welker: Let’s talk about some of the United States’ key demands: recognition of a free press, the release of political prisoners, and the holding of fair elections.
Miguel M. Díaz-Canel: At this time, no one has made those demands of us, and we have made it clear that internal affairs, the Cuban constitutional order, and respect for our political system are issues that are not up for negotiation or discussion with the United States.
And I believe, Kristen, that we must move beyond all the rhetoric that has existed regarding concepts about Cuba, about democracy, human rights, whether we are a tyranny or a dictatorship or not, freedom of expression, the existence of unions — in which there is a great deal of manipulation and prejudice that I believe we must overcome. It would take — we don’t have the time now — a long time, but we have all the arguments to demonstrate how democratic we are; how the electoral system in Cuba works — which is a system that comes from the grassroots; how we exercise power with the people; how we are indeed defenders of human rights; how we are not a dictatorship — I would have to explain all that in much more detail, and I ask that we discuss those things at another time. But there is a lot of prejudice that needs to be overcome and eliminated.
Kristen Welker: Two more questions.
There are still more than 1,200 political prisoners in Cuba. Maykel Osorbo, who is in prison and has won two Latin Grammys.
Miguel M. Díaz-Canel: This is another issue where those prejudices also exist. People talk about political prisoners in Cuba. In Cuba, just as you said, the people are going through a difficult situation; in Cuba, not everyone supports the Revolution — there are people who do not accept the Revolution, who every day demonstrate in various ways against the Revolution, and they are not in prison. That narrative they’ve created — that image that in Cuba anyone who speaks out against the Revolution is imprisoned and is a political prisoner — is a lie, it’s slander, and it’s part of that fabrication designed to discredit, to unsettle, to demonize, and to destroy the reputation of the Cuban Revolution.
Now, what happens? In Cuba, for example, protests take place, especially during prolonged power outages or supply shortages. When people protest, what do they do? They go to our government institutions, to state institutions, and there they engage with officials who attend to them, explain the situation, and either resolve the issues or provide justifications. That is a fully democratic process, and no one is imprisoned for doing so.
Now, people are often misled and encouraged — especially those with a certain aversion or discontent — to commit acts of vandalism or acts that disrupt our constitutional order, or that also disrupt internal order, or threaten public peace, including, often funded by terrorist organizations; often funded by programs of U.S. government agencies that encourage subversion against Cuba; often even directed by the U.S. Embassy in Cuba. And those people, then, are not in prison for protesting; they are in prison — as they would be anywhere in the world that respects its Constitution and its legal processes — for committing acts of vandalism and acts that are reprehensible anywhere in the world. There are no political prisoners in Cuba; I assure you of that.
Kristen Welker: I have to wrap up the interview now. I have to ask you this last question.
Would you be willing to resign in order to save Cuba, the people of Cuba?
Miguel M. Díaz-Canel: You, who are an important, renowned journalist, have you asked that question of any other president in the world?
Kristen Welker: If the United States asked you to, because that is one of the conditions the United States is imposing.
Miguel M. Díaz-Canel: I repeat, would you have asked that question to any other president in the world? Have you asked it to another president?
Could you ask it to Trump?
Kristen Welker: I ask President Trump very difficult questions.
Miguel M. Díaz-Canel: Is this your own question, or is it a question from the State Department or the U.S. government?
Kristen Welker: My question is, because it’s one of the things we’ve heard from the U.S. government. If they were to ask him.
Miguel M. Díaz-Canel: Given your sincerity, I’m going to assume you’re asking precisely because of those things.
First, in Cuba, the people who lead and hold government responsibilities are not chosen by the U.S. government nor are they appointed by the U.S. government. We are a sovereign, free state. We have self-determination, we have independence, and we do not submit to any dictates of the U.S. government.
Furthermore, Cuban leaders do not rise to power because we represent a ruling elite. You could look at my background — where I was born, the family I was born into, and what I have done in life. It is the people who elect us, although there is a narrative that tries to ignore that.
Any one of us, to hold a position of responsibility, must be elected at the grassroots level, in an electoral district, by thousands of Cubans, and then the Cubans who represent those others in the National Assembly of People’s Power elect those officials through an indirect vote, just as it is in other countries around the world, just as it is in other countries around the world! We also have an electoral system that is entirely based on popular participation.
Therefore, when we assume a position of responsibility, we do so neither out of personal ambition, nor out of corporate ambition, nor even for a party position, because our Party is not an electoral party. We do so by mandate of the people, and surrender is not part of the revolutionary concept.
If the Cuban people believe that I am incapable, that I am not up to the task, that I do not represent them, then it is they who must decide whether I should remain in the leadership or hold the office of President or not.
Furthermore, remember that the leadership of the country, the leadership of the Revolution, and the continuity of the Revolution cannot be focused on a single person. Here we have a collegial leadership, and it is a collegial leadership that has a deep connection with the people. But it is not the United States that can impose anything on us or demand a change from us.
The U.S. government, which has pursued that hostile policy against Cuba, has no moral standing to demand anything of Cuba. It has no moral standing, moreover, to claim that they are concerned about the situation of the Cuban people and that the Cuban government is the one that has led Cuba into this situation when they bear all that responsibility.
I believe the most important thing is for them to take a critical stance, a sincere stance, to see how much their policies have cost the Cuban people in suffering and hardship; how much they have deprived the American people of a normal relationship with Cuba; and to be willing, as we have asked, as we have requested, and as is in our interest, to engage in dialogue and debate on any topic, without conditions, without demanding changes to our system — just as we would not demand changes to the U.S. system, about which we have endless doubts and endless criticisms — and focus on what can unite us, on what can create spaces for understanding, and once again, I repeat, to avoid confrontation and ensure a future for both peoples marked by mutual benefit, relationship, friendship, and solidarity.
Kristen Welker: President Díaz-Canel, thank you.
Miguel M. Díaz-Canel: Thank you very much, and thank you for giving us this opportunity to speak to the American people.
And you are always welcome to come and discuss other topics in greater depth.
Kristen Welker: Thank you.
Miguel M. Díaz-Canel: Thank you.
Kristen Welker: I hope we can have more interviews to continue the discussion.
Miguel M. Díaz-Canel: That’s right, that’s right.
Kristen Welker: It’s an honor.
Miguel M. Díaz-Canel: Thank you.
Source: Cuba en Resumen
Join the Struggle-La Lucha Telegram channel