Viernes, 22 de Noviembre de 2019
Última actualización: 16:13 CET
Opinion

Editorial: Díaz-Canel Backs Down and Claims to 'Rectify'

Miguel Díaz-Canel and Raúl Castro. (GETTY)

There is no need to believe that backing down is the same as regressing, nor should it be confused with weakness, when it results from listening to the people. Revolution is about changing everything that should be changed. None of us can do as much as all of us together.

Last Friday, when Decree 349 on cultural activities, and a set of measures covering "self-employment," was to go into effect, Miguel Díaz-Canel tweeted: "There is no need to believe that backing down is the same as regressing, nor should it be confused with weakness, when it results from listening to the people. Revolution is about changing everything that should be changed. None of us can do as much as all of us together."

He had already been officially warned that the package of measures had been harshly criticized by Cuba's self-employed community. That same day the Minister of Culture announced on television that work was being done on the "careful drafting" of a law complementing Decree 349.

In the face of such changes and delays, Diaz-Canel the tweeter was interested in making the regime's magnanimity and strength clear. But, how can we avoid speaking of weakness and backwardness when police force was used against a group of artists peacefully calling for a dialogue with the authorities? Those who did not step back, or show weakness, were those artists.

On December 7 a strike of private drivers had been organised, which forced the authorities to take action in this regard. And the pressure exerted by the self-employed had to be of some consequence, as the measures to be applied to them were rendered less restrictive.

These workers, artists and small businesspeople stood up to and called out an abusive State. They left it no alternative but to recant – no matter what Díaz Canel's ridiculous explanations say.

To them we must add the doctors from the Más Médicos program who decided not to return from Brazil. And, even more, those among them who have decided to sue the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), an accessory of the Cuban regime in the extortion they suffered.

It is clear that, whatever their profession or trade, Cubans aspire to earn a decent living through their work, and to improve economically. Against such aspirations it faces a regime (the "Revolution" that Díaz-Canel cites) that, ever since its origins, needs to exploit them in the worst way to stay alive, and that thrives on restricting and denying rights.

Because of this, more instances of resistance and protests against the State will have to take place in Cuba. And, outside the country, in international courts, the regime is awaiting judicial proceedings that will reveal the scheme of larceny that, in complicity with the PAHO, exploited and continues to exploit health workers on international missions.

It remains to be seen what "rectifications" Diaz-Canel will talk about then.