between the “Cubastroika” negotiated with the Castros and the desire for total rupture

The current president in Cuba, Miguel Diaz-Canelpointed out this Friday in an unusual appearance, that he is currently in talks with the United States, with the aim that this commitment to “dialogue” carried out by the Cuban Government serves to solve the energy blockade suffered by the island.

At this moment, Cuba has entered a period of international suffocation of the regime, especially since the fall of Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela.

This statement by the Cuban president has come at a particularly critical moment for the Caribbean island, due to the energy blockade carried out by the United States by suppressing the supply of Venezuelan oil to Cuban territory.

Currently, Miami, Madrid or Mexico City are the main cities where various activists, intellectuals and opposition organizations discuss the key issue. How should the Cuban transition take place, promoted from the US by the Trump Administration?

This debate about the political future of the country deeply divides the opposition in exile. The answer to this question is far from unanimous on the part of Cuban opponents in exile.

There is a tougher sector, headed by Rosa María Payá, who defends a total break with the dictatorship.

On the other hand, others opponents are more pragmaticand they bet on a negotiated transition with sectors of the regime. A line promoted by the deceased Cuban writer Carlos Alberto Montanerwho defended the thesis of a peaceful and negotiated solution to put an end to the regime.

Trump himself has raised the possibility of a “friendly takeover,” although leaving room for the possibility that it could be carried out in the opposite way, by leaving the door open to a forcible incursion into Cuban territory because, he says, “they are finished.”

Uncertainty about the future of the island has returned to the foreground, after Trump himself has recently suggested that the fall of the regime would be “the icing on the cake”, while at the same time hinting that his executive maintains indirect contacts with power sectors in Havana.

As the economic crisis worsens and Washington intensifies its pressure, experts and opponents agree on a diagnosis of the situation in Cuba. The closed power structure on the island makes it almost impossible to foresee how and who could lead an eventual political transition.

The reality of the island, after the capture of Nicolás Maduro and the loss of its main partner in the region, is an unsustainable situation, produced by economic asphyxiation, as Venezuela is Cuba’s main oil supplier.

The shipment of crude oil began with an agreement signed in 2000 between Hugo Chávez and Fidel Castro, by which the Caribbean island received oil under very favorable economic conditions. In exchange, from Cuba, they sent doctors, professors and analysts at a competitive level.

This allowed the Cuban economy to be sustained for decades, despite the economic blockade from the US, produced since 1960.

A seamless system

Despite the situation in Cuba, with continuous power outages, lack of supply and a population that mostly wants the regime to come to an end, the way out is not easy.

Different specialists in Cuban politics warn that the opacity of the system makes it extremely difficult to anticipate how a regime change would occur.

Díaz-Canel’s words this Friday, regarding the existence of contacts between Cuba and the United States, indicate that there is an attempt to resolve the differences between both executives. “The contacts are aimed at seeking solutions through dialogue to the differences between both Governments,” said the president.

He also explained that the first step will be to “identify the problems that need a solution and the possible solutions”, although he clarified that any agreement is still “far away.”

According to analysts cited by the agency EFEtotalitarian regimes like the one that has been governing Cuba for more than six decades, are characterized precisely by their secrecy. This prevents us from clearly identifying possible transitional figures within power.

The political scientist Sebastian Arcosfrom the Cuban Research Institute of the University of Florida, points out that in Cuba it is practically impossible to know who could play a role similar to that which some figures have had in other political processes in Latin America, a solution that the US Administration would be trying to explore.

However, Arcos also warns that, unlike Venezuela, where the different sectors of Chavismo divided, in Cuba political power remains strictly centralized.

That is why, from the US Government, the plan designed by the US administration could be a kind of “Cubastroika“, that is, an agreement with Castroism, which includes a negotiated departure for Díaz-Canel, while relaxing the sanctions suffered by the island.

In any case, Arcos sees this possibility with great difficulty, since he assures that “Cuba is not Venezuela”, where it was “easier to identify actors willing to negotiate” behind the back of a more diffuse power, in reference to the attitude of the current Venezuelan president, Delcy Rodríguez.

“Cuba has been a totalitarian regime for almost 70 years, where power is extremely hierarchical. The price of negotiating with the US behind the leader’s back is death,” warned the political scientist.

The historian agreed with his words. Madison Andres Pertierrawho in statements to EFEassured that “in Cuba there is a much more cohesive elite” with respect to Venezuela, and that “it is difficult to imagine” that any member of the top leadership of the Cuban elite would agree to negotiate.

Total break

In this scenario, the exile community—especially influential in the United States—aspires to play a role in any eventual transition process.

According to Arcos, Cuban opponents have already They are coordinating with the Administration to have an active role in the transition, something necessary, since for him, in Washington they need this exiled opposition to “understand the political terrain” and to “guarantee the legitimacy” of the process.

Furthermore, Pertierra warned that the Republican Party cannot carry out the Cuban transition in any way, since “The Cuban diaspora in the US is well organized“, while “it has a history of electorally punishing” when they violate Cuba’s interests.

In fact, although the Cuban exile is divided in its vote in the United States, a majority, especially in Florida, tends to support the Republican Party, and some even feel identified with the politics of Donald Trump, with his reference to MAGA (Make America Great Again).

In any case, within the Cuban exile there are strong discrepancies. While some defend a total break with the political system established in 1959, others consider that any realistic change must involve some type of negotiation with sectors of the current power.

Activists like Rosa María Payáfounder of the Cuba Decide platform, defend that the only legitimate solution is through a complete political change that includes free elections, party pluralism and international supervision.

For this critical sector, allowing leaders linked to the current power to direct a transition could result in a superficial reform that keeps the Communist Party’s political monopoly intact.

Negotiated transition

Other opponents consider, however, that a radical and immediate change could be unrealistic. This sector is led by writers, social democrats and activists.

Among them, the writer and political analyst stands out Carlos Alberto Montanerwho died in 2023 in Madrid, has been one of the most influential voices in exile for decades.

During his life he defended the idea of ​​a negotiated transition in which sectors of the system itself participated in the democratic opening.

His vision was shared by other opponents close to social democratic ideas, such as Manuel Cuesta Morúa, who is one of the few who has chosen to remain living in Cuba, which has cost him prison up to three times.

Other opponents in exile who have validated the idea of ​​a negotiated transition with the Cuban regime come from the field of political science and human rights activism.

In this regard, the political scientist highlights Marifeli Pérez-Stablewhose family had to go into exile in the 60s, at the beginning of the dictatorship or the activist Orlando Gutiérrez-Boronatcurrent leader of the Cuban Democratic Directorate, both residents of Miami.

For these opponents, the closest precedent would be the political process experienced in Spain after the death of the dictator. Francisco Francowhen former members of the regime participated in the construction of the new democratic system.