By Roberto Morejón

In the face of demonstrations of discomfort due to material limitations and doubts about distribution mechanisms recently registered in some geographical points of Cuba, the responses of the national government and that of an actor that nobody invited, the United States, contrasted due to their discordance.

The authorities of Cuba quickly referred to the expressions of people dissatisfied with aspects of the current situation, characterized by an acute limitation of material resources.

The intermittence of supplies of subsidized basic food basket items, the transitory absence of others and the increase of power cuts coinciding with the maintenance of one of the aging thermoelectric power plants, make up a thorny situation.

But government and Communist Party leaders applied the policy of attending to the demands of the population.

In addition to talking with those who made proposals or came as spectators, the authorities, especially President Miguel Diaz-Canel, reiterated the cornerstone of their line of work.

The President wrote in his social network account X a text in which three verbs were highlighted: listen, dialogue, explain, always ---he said--- in an atmosphere of tranquility.

Contrasting with this disposition to dialogue and clarification of doubts about what is being done in the country to alleviate today's difficulties, was the position of the US government and of those who manipulated the events on social networks to promote outbursts.

The paradox stood out: he who tightens the screws and hinders the entry of supplies to the Caribbean archipelago, claims to be "concerned" about the circumstances.
As the Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs, Carlos Fernandez de Cossio, pointed out to the AP agency: it was an open interference in internal affairs.

The U.S. embassy tried to assume the role of actor in a strictly internal matter.

This was made known by representatives of the local Foreign Ministry, who conveyed their rejection of an episode of interference.  

The foreign headquarters echoed what happened in Santiago de Cuba and in several localities and urged the government to what it called respect for the human rights of the demonstrators.

In other words, Washington was drawing the line of what the country where it has diplomatic representation should do.

The response of the Cuban Ministry of Foreign Affairs was energetic: if the US government had a minimum and honest concern for the welfare of the population, it would remove the country from the arbitrary list of States that, according to the power of the North, sponsor terrorism.

The inclusion in that unfortunate list, the intensified blockade, the economic consequences of the pandemic, the tense international situation and the impediment to access credit are the main causes of the adverse situation of Cuba.