In La Habana, a U.S.-born activist closed the fifth Coloquio Patria with a lecture on Fidel Castro’s communication strategy even as Cuban officials praised him as a bridge to Washington.
Manolo de los Santos, executive director of The People’s Forum and a longtime visitor to the island, delivered the closing address to an audience that included President Miguel Díaz-Canel, Communist Party leaders, and Rosa Miriam Elizalde, dubbed “mother of Patria.” His talk, described as simple and humble, reconstructed Castro’s approach to messaging, highlighting the irony of speaking before the very leadership of the Cuban Revolution. Díaz-Canel embraced him warmly at the end, signaling a relationship that extends beyond personal rapport.
The gesture carried deliberate weight. By inviting a U.S. Citizen to cap a gathering the Cuban state had invested months in preparing, Havana signaled its desire for stable, respectful ties with the United States. De los Santos, born in the Dominican Republic and raised in the Bronx, has lived in Cuba and worked with U.S. Medical students at the Latin American School of Medicine, making him a familiar figure in both countries.
In an interview with La Jornada, he said most Americans lack a fixed view of Cuba, with opinions only now forming in reaction to Donald Trump’s rhetoric. He acknowledged a vocal, hardline segment within the Cuban-American community in Florida but dismissed it as a small minority, arguing that broader U.S. Public sentiment is shaped more by opposition to Trump’s policies than by affinity for Cuban ideology. He added that Americans, in general, have short historical memories, making the Obama-era thaw unlikely to serve as a lasting reference point.
The Coloquio Patria itself unfolded amid global concerns over media manipulation and geopolitical friction. Cubadebate reported that around 150 international guests from 25 countries attended, including Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson María Zajárova, who called the event a “vanguard of common sense” in the fight against disinformation, and Al Mayadeen’s Ghassan Ben Jeddou, who urged communication “from the South, free, and articulated.”
Opening the forum, UPEC president Ricardo Ronquillo Bello warned that economic strangulation had pushed families and social systems to breaking point, condemning the U.S. Blockade as having reached extreme levels and warning of its threat to civilizational survival.
A contrasting narrative emerged from CiberCuba, which criticized the regime’s reliance on symbolic gestures. It described an event where Cubans posed for selfies with an AI-generated, youthful version of Fidel Castro — a “cardboard Castro” — calling it a hollow spectacle that reveals the emptiness of revolutionary rhetoric.
The outlet argued that while the state clings to revolutionary pageantry, real power resides in a family-linked elite managing the country like a private enterprise, with GAESA as the economic backbone. Formal institutions — the presidency, the Party, even state media — are reduced to decorative façades. Behind them, a new generation of Castro relatives operates in intelligence, logistics, and shadow networks, ensuring continuity through pragmatism rather than ideology.
This duality — between the regime’s public invocation of revolutionary ideals and its private adaptation to survival — frames the current moment. The Coloquio Patria, with its international solidarity and calls for sovereign communication, coexists with a system increasingly defined by internal consolidation and elite resilience.
Why did Cuba feature a U.S. Activist as the closing speaker at the Coloquio Patria?
Cuban officials invited Manolo de los Santos to deliver the closing address as a deliberate signal of their interest in maintaining respectful dialogue with the United States, framing him as a trusted bridge between the two nations despite political differences.
How do critics view the regime’s utilize of revolutionary symbolism today?
Critics argue that the state’s continued use of revolutionary imagery — such as AI-enhanced depictions of Fidel Castro — serves as a propagandistic facade masking a shift toward familial control and economic pragmatism, where real power lies in elite networks rather than ideological commitment.