Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
5 min of reading 
0 comments 
Cuban and US diplomatic delegations met in Havana on Monday (20) to discuss the impact of the American energy embargo on the island. The Cuban government demanded the immediate reversal of sanctions that restrict fuel supply to the country and classified the measure as an act of coercion that punishes the civilian population.
Cuba returned to the negotiating table with the United States in a diplomatic meeting that exposes the seriousness of the energy crisis faced by the Caribbean island. The meeting, confirmed by the Cuban Ministry of Foreign Affairs, brought together authorities at the vice-minister level from the host side and deputy secretaries from the American State Department. The central theme was the embargo on fuels intensified by Washington, which Havana classifies as a form of “global blackmail” against free trade and has caused severe shortages in the daily lives of Cubans.
Diplomat Alejandro García, deputy director-general of the Cuban Ministry of Foreign Affairs for American affairs, described the session as technical, respectful, and guided by professionalism. García emphasized that there were no impositions of deadlines or coercive statements from either party. Discretion was adopted as a rule to handle a bilateral agenda that involves decades of accumulated tensions between the two countries.
What led Cuba to demand the immediate end of the energy embargo
According to information released by the ndmais portal, the most urgent point brought to the table by the Cuban delegation was the concrete impact of the sanctions on the island’s energy sector. Cuba faces a scenario of chronic fuel shortages that affects everything from public transport to electricity generation, compromising the daily routine of millions of people. The Cuban government not only requested but demanded the immediate reversal of the blockade, classifying the economic restriction as an unjustified act of coercion that disproportionately punishes the civilian population.
-
With the end of the 6×1 scale, less audience, the rise of online shopping, the impact of remote work, and a decline in cinema, Brazilian shopping malls remain giants on the outside but are in crisis on the inside.
-
Labor shortage reaches Brazil and companies respond with free courses, 1,200 open positions, 4,034 active training programs, training from scratch, certifications like CPA-20, and even 100% employability in exclusive programs.
-
Almost 70% of Brazilians are in debt, and the desperation is such that 52% have already reduced their food intake, 50% have cut off electricity and water, and 38% have stopped buying medicine just to avoid sinking further into debt.
-
IMF warns: Brazil’s gross debt could reach 100% of GDP by 2027 and continue to rise until 2031.
The crisis took on even more severe contours on January 29, when President Donald Trump signed an executive order that intensified the embargo. The decree declared the situation a national emergency for the United States and authorized Washington to punish any nation or company that supplied oil to the island. In practice, this means that countries and companies trading fuel with Cuba began to face the risk of American retaliation, further isolating the Cuban economy from the global energy market.
Why Cuba classifies the embargo as global blackmail
Cuban diplomacy uses the term “global blackmail” to describe the mechanism of American sanctions because the scope of the embargo goes far beyond the bilateral relationship. By threatening to punish third parties that negotiate with Cuba, the United States transforms a dispute between two countries into a restriction that affects international trade as a whole. Shipping companies, refineries, and oil traders of any nationality are subject to penalties if they decide to sell fuel to the island.
For the Cuban government, this dynamic violates the fundamental rules of free trade and infringes upon the principle of economic sovereignty of nations that have no dispute with Havana. Cuba’s position is supported by recurring votes in the United Nations General Assembly, where the overwhelming majority of member countries oppose the American embargo year after year. Still, UN resolutions are not binding, which allows Washington to maintain the policy without formal consequences under international law.
What Díaz-Canel proposed as an alternative to the escalation of tensions
Despite the economic hardening promoted by Washington, Cuba maintains its declared willingness to continue negotiations through diplomatic channels. The Cuban president, Miguel Díaz-Canel, recently granted interviews to American outlets such as Newsweek magazine and NBC News, in which he outlined areas with potential for cooperation between the two countries. The positive agenda suggested by Díaz-Canel includes advances in scientific research, migration policies, environmental protection, cultural exchange, and combating drug trafficking.
However, the Cuban leader was categorical in defining the conditions for any progress in the negotiations. Díaz-Canel stated that Cuba will not accept interventions in the island’s political system and that the success of any dialogue with Washington depends on unconditional respect for the sovereignty and self-determination of the country. This position reflects a historical line of Cuban diplomacy, which treats the issue of the embargo not only as an economic topic but as a symbol of the struggle for political independence against the greatest power in the hemisphere.
What is at stake for Cubans as negotiations continue
While diplomats discuss in conference rooms, the Cuban population lives with the most tangible effects of the energy embargo. The fuel shortage causes frequent blackouts, partially paralyzes public transportation, and raises the cost of living in an economy that was already facing structural difficulties. Humanitarian organizations and allied governments, including Brazil, Spain, and Mexico, have already announced joint actions to mitigate the social crisis that the shortages have intensified.
The meeting on Monday in Havana did not produce immediate concrete results, but the fact that both delegations sat at the same table already represents a sign that there is some room for dialogue. The challenge for Cuba is to convince Washington that the sanctions cause more humanitarian harm than effective political pressure. For the United States, the issue is calibrating a policy that has lasted more than six decades and which, according to critics within the American government itself, has never achieved the stated goals of promoting political change on the island.
Do you think the American embargo against Cuba still makes sense after more than 60 years, or is the economic pressure just punishing the civilian population without producing political results? Leave your opinion in the comments, we want to know how you see this dispute between Havana and Washington.
Seja o primeiro a reagir!