The double standard as the foreign policy of Castroism
14ymedio, Yunior García Aguilera, Madrid, 15 February 2025 — The Cuban regime has constructed much of its political narrative on two concepts it repeats ad nauseam: sovereignty and anti-imperialism. In practice, both function less as principles than as rhetorical crutches. A minimally honest look is enough to show that, in the real Cuba, sovereignty does not reside in the people nor is it expressed through freely elected representatives, but rather has been hijacked by the sectarian interests of a single party. Anti-imperialism, for its part, operates like a broken compass that points only toward Washington.
The most obscene example of this double standard was seen in August 1968, when Warsaw Pact tanks crushed the Prague Spring. While thousands of Czechoslovakians watched their attempt to build democratic socialism evaporate, Fidel Castro delivered a lengthy televised speech endorsing the invasion. All his previous rhetoric about self-determination and the sovereignty of the peoples vanished at once. After an elaborate ideological sleight of hand, he justified the entry of Soviet troops as a “necessary” measure to save socialism and prevent Czechoslovakia from “falling into the arms of imperialism.”
More than half a century later, the script was repeated with less grandiosity and greater cynicism. Following the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Miguel Díaz-Canel chose to blame NATO, denounce the so-called “Western military expansion,” and present the aggression as a defensive reaction. In official statements and declarations, the regime decided to align itself with “the just demands of the Russian Federation,” without ambiguity or shame, adopting the Kremlin’s narrative as its own.
Everything indicates that the same reasoning would apply to a potential Chinese attack against Taiwan. Cuban foreign policy has made it clear that its strategic loyalty in Asia lies with Beijing and Xi Jinping, not with the right of any people to freely decide their future.
In May 1987, units involving Cuban troops were implicated in repressive operations in Luanda, in the context of internal MPLA struggles.
The history of the Cuban Revolution is marked, also, by systematic interference in the internal affairs of other countries. Since the 1960s, Havana has promoted, trained, and financed guerrilla movements throughout much of Latin America. This amounted to an armed export of its political model, carried out without regard for the human cost or the social rejection it generated in the countries where it intervened.
In Africa, this policy reached the dimensions of conventional warfare. In May 1987, units that included Cuban troops were involved in repressive operations in Luanda, in the context of internal struggles within the People’s Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA). These actions resulted in massacres within the ruling movement itself. There was nothing emancipatory about it: it was the violent purge of opponents of an allied leadership, under Soviet tutelage.
With the end of the Cold War, the Castro regime adjusted its methods. Where it had previously sent rifles, it began sending advisors, political operatives, and intelligence agents. The objective was no longer to seize power by force, but to influence political and electoral processes to favor the rise to power of actors aligned with or dependent on Havana.
Alexander Lukashenko stated it bluntly, claiming that Cuba was, in effect, “a former Soviet republic.”
In parallel, the island became a refuge for armed actors and organizations designated as terrorist groups by various states and international bodies. For years, it harbored ETA members wanted by Spanish authorities. It has maintained political and logistical ties with Hamas, an organization whose attacks against civilians it has never condemned. More recently, it offered protection to members of the Colombian National Liberation Army (ELN), designated as a narco-terrorist group.
Talking about sovereignty in this context borders on the absurd. For three decades, Cuba was a declared satellite of the Soviet Union, dependent on subsidies, oil, and political directives. Alexander Lukashenko stated this bluntly, declaring that Cuba was, in effect, “a former Soviet republic.” Miguel Díaz-Canel himself later recounted that comment in two interviews, not to refute it, but with a mixture of nostalgia and reverence.
Today, the island is once again orbiting around authoritarian powers, aligning its discourse and foreign policy with the interests of Moscow and Beijing. The sovereignty invoked by the regime is not that of Cuban citizens—who are denied the right to choose, protest, or dissent—but rather that of the single party: a political structure that places itself above even the Constitution.
The problem isn’t just the hypocrisy of the rhetoric. By using sovereignty as a shield and anti-imperialism as a pretext, the Cuban regime has emptied both concepts of meaning. It has turned them into propaganda tools, useful for justifying foreign invasions and repressing its own freedoms. A simple review of the facts confirms the obvious: sovereignty and anti-imperialism are, in the official narrative, rigged cards. And the marks are plain to see.
____________
COLLABORATE WITH OUR WORK: The 14ymedio team is committed to practicing serious journalism that reflects Cuba’s reality in all its depth. Thank you for joining us on this long journey. We invite you to continue supporting us by becoming a member of 14ymedio now. Together we can continue transforming journalism in Cuba.