Andrés Manuel López Obrador: “I have never bet, nor will I bet on the failure of the Cuban Revolution”.

By Andrés Manuel López Obrador
May 8, 2022
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews.

Miguel Díaz Canel Bermúdez, president of Cuba, awards the José Martí Order to his counterpart of Mexico, Andrés Manuel López Obrador. Photo: Abel Padrón Padilla/ Cubadebate.

President Andrés Manuel López Obrador: My friends:

Before reading the text I wrote for this important occasion, I would like to convey my condolences to the families of the victims of the accident that occurred in a hotel under repair here in Havana. A heartfelt embrace.

Miguel Díaz-Canel Bermúdez, President of the Republic of Cuba: Thank you, President.

President Andrés Manuel López Obrador: I would also like to send my congratulations to all the mothers of Cuba; those who are here on the island and those who are abroad. Our affection.

President, my friend Miguel Díaz-Canel.

Friends, friends all:

Without wanting to exalt the chauvinism that almost all Latin Americans carry inside, it is safe to say that Cuba was, for almost four centuries, the capital of America. No one coming from Europe to our continent could fail to pass by the largest island of the Antilles and, for many decades, Cuba was the jewel of the Spanish Crown.

Since ancient times, Cuba and Mexico, due to their geographic proximity, migration, language, music, sports, culture, idiosyncrasy and sugarcane cultivation, have maintained relations of true brotherhood.

It is even possible that in pre-Hispanic times there were Mayan inhabitants on the island from the Yucatan peninsula who, in addition to possessing a splendid culture, were like the Phoenicians, great navigators who maintained commercial relations, not only with the peoples of the Gulf of Mexico, but also with those of the Caribbean as far as the Darien.

But, leaving this very interesting subject to anthropologists and archaeologists, what is certain is that the first expeditions departed from Cuba towards the current Mexican territory and that from there, from here, the soldiers of Hernán Cortés sailed their ships to undertake the conquest of Mexico.

It is also known that, even with the differences that this intrepid and ambitious soldier had with the governor Diego de Velázquez, all the support to face the indigenous resistance in Mexico departed from Cuba by orders of the Spanish monarchy.

During the colonial period, in Cuba, as in Mexico, there were epidemics and overexploitation of the native population, which was practically exterminated. This explains the outrageous and painful boom -since the 16th century- in the African slave trade in Cuba and the Caribbean in general.

On one occasion, I visited the ancient city of Trinidad and went to the Museum of Slavery, and observed whips, shackles and stocks, of whose existence I was aware from mentions of the punishments provided for by the espionage laws that ruled in Mexico several decades after our political Independence from Spain, because it should be known that, in our country, slavery was not actually abolished until 1914. Furthermore, it should be noted that just three years earlier, in 1911, the great peasant leader Emiliano Zapata took up arms because the sugar haciendas were invading the lands of the towns of the state of Morelos with impunity.

However, sugar cane, royal palm and migration from Cuba to Mexico is most noticeable in the Papaloapan basin, in the state of Veracruz. Havana is like the port of Veracruz, and the most similar to the Cuban is the jarocho, the inhabitant of that region of the Gulf of Mexico. By the way, my paternal family is from there.

Our peoples are united, as in few cases, by political history. At the beginning of Mexico’s Independence, when there were still constant military uprisings and federalists against centralists and liberals against conservatives, there were two governors of Cuban origin in my state, in Tabasco, the infantry colonel Francisco de Sentmanat and the general Pedro de Ampudia.

Coincidentally, the confrontation of these military men would serve in these times to write an exciting, tremendous and realistic historical novel, whose short story is that one of these characters defeats his countryman governor militarily, and he goes abroad and recruits in New York a group of Spanish, French and English mercenaries, and they organize an expedition to invade Tabasco. But when the foreigners disembarked, they were defeated and put to the sword, while ex-governor Sentmanat’s head was cut off and on the recommendation of a doctor – at that time they were called facultative – they put it in a pot of boiling water, supposedly to delay its decomposition due to the heat and to be able to exhibit it for a few days as an example in the public square.

This inhumane procedure was not unknown in Mexico, nor was it strange in other parts of the world. The father of our country, Miguel Hidalgo, who proclaimed the abolition of slavery, when he was apprehended by orders of Creole and Spanish oligarchs, was not only shot, but also beheaded, and his head was exposed for 10 years in the main square of Guanajuato. Militarism is barbaric and belligerent conservatism breeds hatred and savagery.
=====================

But history is not flat or Manichean, it is not of good and bad, but of circumstance. The General de Ampudia who ordered the execution of Sentmanat, because, according to his words, ‘a terrible and exemplary punishment’ was needed, then stood out in 1846 as defender of the city of Monterrey in times of the American invasion of Mexico; and later, in 1860, he served as Minister of War and Navy in the liberal government of Benito Juarez.

The list of Cubans who fought in the Mexican cause during the American and French invasions is extensive and fruitful. Likewise, there were Mexicans who fought here for the liberation of Cuba. In the times of Juarez, Mexico was the first nation in America to support Cuba’s independence and to recognize Carlos Manuel de Cespedes, the president in arms and father of the Cuban homeland. And what can we say about the great services rendered to our country by the Cuban Pedro Santacilia, son-in-law of President Juarez and his main confidant.

Juarez, during his exile was here and in New Orleans, where he met the woman who would later marry his daughter Manuela. Juarez’s confidence in his son-in-law was so great that, during the most difficult moments of the French invasion, it was Santacilia who took care of the family of the defender of our Republic in the United States; Juarez called her ‘my Saint’. No one received as many letters from Juarez as Santacilia, no one like him shared in the moments of greatest sadness and happiness of the “Benemérito de las Américas”.

In the midst of so many gestures of political brotherhood, it is unthinkable that José Martí would not have been so closely linked to our country. The Cuban writer and politician lived in Mexico City from 1875 to 1877. There he wrote essays, poetry and, among many other works, the famous theater script Amor con amor se paga.

He was a columnist for the newspaper El Federalista, linked to the liberal president Sebastián Lerdo de Tejada, and when the latter was overthrown by a military movement led by Porfirio Díaz, Martí left Mexico and, with the vision that only the great possess, wrote to his friend Manuel Mercado that he was leaving, I quote, ‘because a man declared himself by his exclusive will to be lord of men and, with a little light on his forehead, one cannot live where tyrants rule’.

Even though Porfirio Díaz’s assault on power caused Martí’s anger, it should also be taken into account that by that time he had already set his sights on participating in the struggle for Cuban independence, in addition to maintaining a constant epistolary relationship with his friends in Mexico and returning to our country for the last time in 1894.

There is a parallel story to Martí, the Cuban independence fighter, in the figure of a Mexican revolutionary, Catarino Erasmo Garza Rodríguez, who, despite being little known at that time, had the audacity to lead a guerrilla movement from Texas and call on the people of Mexico to take up arms to overthrow Porfirio Díaz, 18 years before Francisco I. Madero did it in 1910.

Catarino Garza was from Matamoros, Tamaulipas, and lived in Laredo and other towns along the U.S.-Mexico border. On September 12, 1891 he crossed the Rio Bravo in command of 40 guerrillas and on September 15, 1891 he gave the Cry of Independence in Camargo, Tamaulipas.

In one of his proclamations to raise the people against Porfirio Diaz, Catarino denounced, before others, the grave injustice of the dispossession of the lands of the indigenous communities, declared by the regime as wastelands to benefit large national and foreign landowners.

Catarino was a journalist and his manifestos were constant, profound and well written. However, in the military field he achieved little with his movement: he only gathered about 100 combatants and of his four incursions into Mexican territory he only won one victory at Rancho de las Tortillas, near the town of Guerrero, Tamaulipas.

But, even without winning many battles, the challenge of this guerrilla caused a deep uneasiness in the Mexican military elite that, in collaboration with the U.S. Army and the famous Texas Rangers, mobilized thousands of soldiers to practically seal the border and carry out a tenacious pursuit, village by village, ranch by ranch, in search of the rebel chief, his small troop and his sympathizers.

In these circumstances, Catarino disappeared and in the midst of conjecture the legend and the inseparable corrido arose, which in one verse said: ‘Where did Catarino go with his plans pronounced with his insurgent struggle for the Mexican-American?’

The mystery was cleared up when, some time later, it was known that Catarino appeared in Matina, a town on the Atlantic coast of Costa Rica; before that he had been hiding here, in Havana, protected by his independence Masonic brothers.

In those times, Costa Rica was the country of encounters and the ideal territory to prepare guerrillas and landings of the most important revolutionaries of Latin America and the Caribbean.

The president of Costa Rica, Rafael Iglesias Castro, was a tolerant liberal and respectful of the right of asylum; hence, leaders and military leaders prepared in the Costa Rican capital the independence of Cuba, the integration of the Central American countries and the reconstitution of the great Colombia, projects celebrated under word of honor in which there was also the commitment to support Catarino in the overthrow of the dictator of Mexico.

In this atmosphere of fraternity, Catarino established close relations with Cubans, Colombians and Central Americans. In Costa Rica there were around 500 Cuban refugees, the most prominent of whom was Antonio Maceo, the general who, together with Máximo Gómez, fought for the independence of Cuba and was considered a threat by the Spanish colonial government.

The figure of Maceo did not go unnoticed in Costa Rica. Rubén Darío himself, the great Nicaraguan poet, relates that one day, I quote, he saw ‘coming out of a hotel accompanied by a very white woman with a fine Spanish body, a large and elegant man; it was Antonio Maceo. His manner was cultured, his intelligence lively and quick. He was a man of ebony’.

Maceo was indispensable for the triumph of the Cuban liberation movement. The duo he formed with Máximo Gómez was the main concern of the peninsular monarchy; it depended on them that Spain would lose its last important bastion in the continent. Hence the reckless phrase, I quote: ‘The war in Cuba is only a matter of two happy bullets against Maceo and Gomez’.

But, just as his enemies sought to eliminate Maceo, ‘the Bronze Titan’, there were others who considered him indispensable. This was the opinion of José Martí, the most intelligent and self-sacrificing character in the struggle for Cuban independence.

Despite the differences, Martí showed a patriotic humility in his relationship with Generals Máximo Gómez and Antonio Maceo. This explains why Martí went twice to Costa Rica to see Maceo.

Later, in November 1894, after the attempt on Maceo’s life in Costa Rica, Martí wrote from New York, with his incomparable prose, an article in which he said: ‘Let the Spanish government use as many assassins as it pleases, General Maceo and his comrades will be, in due time, in any case, in the position of honor and sacrifice that the homeland designates for them. Assassins can do nothing against the defenders of freedom. The infamous stab that wounds the revolution wounds the hero of those who pretend to suffocate with iniquitous crime the aspiration of a people’. Strictly speaking, to wound Maceo was to wound the heart of Cuba.

Although Catarino knew Maceo, he finally chose to link up with the radical Colombian general Avelino Rosas and his confidant, the journalist and writer Francisco Pereida Castro.

At that time, among other Colombians, the famous General Rafael Uribe Uribe, also a friend of Maceo’s and who inspired Gabriel García Márquez to create the character of Colonel Aureliano Buendía in his famous novel One Hundred Years of Solitude, was conspiring in Costa Rica.

Facing all kinds of adversities, betrayals and hardships, as it usually happens in those struggles, Rosas was able to define and undertake a revolutionary plan to rescue Colombia from the conservatives; that is how he ordered Catarino to take action to take the barracks and the port of Bocas del Toro, now Panama.

Catarino’s announced expedition began in early February 1895, almost at the same time as Maceo’s expedition to Cuba. The best information about Catarino’s incursion and its tragic end, we owe to Donaldo Velasco, the commander of the ports of Boca del Toro and Colon, who, the year after the events, that is, in 1896, published a booklet in which he narrated, with good prose, everything that happened. Thanks to this cultured conservative agent, we know the details of the last odyssey of the revolutionary Catarino Erasmo Garza.

The mission was not an easy one, but the idealism of the revolutionaries is an extraordinary source of inspiration and constitutes a very powerful force. Once the landing was made in Boca del Toro, after 4:00 a.m. on March 8, 1895, the guerrilla chiefs positioned the 30 combatants to simultaneously attack the police headquarters and the military barracks. Velasco recognized that ‘they had managed to surprise us when we least expected it, in spite of so many warnings’.

The combat was intense and there was hand-to-hand fighting. In the first minutes, the casualties were of the soldiers. Catarino led the action with passion and courage; however, two almost simultaneous shots wounded him to death. The agony was short; shortly after, at 5:00 a.m., the soldiers’ bugle sounded a powerful bugle playing a Diana as a sign of triumph.

In the war report, sent to General Gaytán, who was in David, Panama, it was reported that five guerrillas had died and nine soldiers with eight wounded. Of the latter, from both sides, some died later. At 4:00 in the afternoon, Catarino Erasmo Garza Rodriguez, Francisco Pereira and two other companions were buried in a deep grave in the Boca del Toro cemetery, located on the seashore.

Where the man who was, I would say seven decades later ‘Che’ Guevara’ falls, we are now doing an investigation to recover the remains of Catarino Garza and take them to Mexico.

The information of what happened in Boca del Toro spread and reached all the islands and ports of the Atlantic coast. Porfirio Diaz found out on March 11, through a cable sent by his ambassador in Washington, Matias Romero.

As to whether Catarino was a revolutionary -or, as it was said at that time, a bandit, apart from one’s own opinion-, there is a very valuable verdict to support it: a loyal and proud conservative, by the Colombian Donaldo Velasco. In his text, this important protagonist and witness of the last events, cannot hide his deep admiration for Catarino; I quote: ‘In my opinion, he was not the vulgar bandit portrayed by the Americans; even after his death, he inspired respect’.

This story could not end without clarifying that, even after taking the Boca del Toro barracks, Catarino was summoned to defeat an even more powerful enemy. At dawn, at the entrance of the bay, waiting for him with its cannons was the ‘Atlanta’, an imposing U.S. warship, a steel hull of 96 meters (inaudible) and 284 sailors of the U.S. Navy. All this power to pursue and annihilate, paradoxically, the quote-unquote Catarino, ‘the Filibuster’.

Those were the times when the Americans had decided to become masters of the continent and were defining what they considered their vital physical space, in order to then undertake the conquest of the world. Annexations, independence, the creation of new countries, free associated states, protectorates, military bases, landings and invasions to put and remove rulers at will were at their peak.

We do not know if it was due to the commander’s falsehood or by decision of the supreme command in Washington – since the crew of the Atlanta had no need to intervene -, the U.S. Navy certified that it had made, I quote, ‘a landing at Boca del Toro, Colombia, on March 8, 1895 to protect American lives and property threatened by a Liberal Party revolt and filibustering activity’. The sailors were even decorated.

In a brief account and in homage to the men of revolutionary ideals, the same year that Catarino and Pereira fell, Martí died. Maceo was assassinated in 1896; Rosas, in 1901. Such has also been the fate of many anonymous heroes, forgotten but blessed, and others who will continue to emerge, because the struggle for the dignity and freedom of the peoples is a never-ending story.

Even though my text is already very long -true, Beatriz?- I apologize, I could not fail to mention in our close relationship, President, the outstanding and worthy role of Manuel Márquez Sterling, Cuban ambassador in Mexico during the coup d’état, imprisonment and assassination of President Francisco I. Madero and Vice President José María Pino Suárez.

In those times of the coup d’etat, when the U.S. ambassador organized the coup against our Apostle of Democracy, Francisco I. Madero, the Cuban ambassador, in stark contrast, tried to save his life, offered asylum to prisoners and spent a night with them in the National Palace, where they were held for five days before the terrible felony of killing them in a rampage.

Márquez Sterling tells in his book that my fellow countryman, Vice President José María Pino Suárez, during that solidarity visit, prophetically confessed to him the following:

‘Our imposed resignation provokes the revolution. To assassinate us is equivalent to decreeing anarchy. I do not believe, like Mr. Madero, that the people will overthrow the traitors to rescue their legitimate leader; what the people will not consent is that they shoot us. They lack the civic education necessary for the former, they have plenty of courage and strength for the latter.’

And so it was. On February 22, 1913, at midnight, the president and vice-president legally and legitimately elected by the people of Mexico were cowardly assassinated. From that moment on, José María Pino Suárez’s prediction began to come true: as soon as he was killed, the Revolution was unleashed with fury. On March 26, 1913, Venustiano Carranza, governor of Coahuila, signed with other revolutionaries the Plan of Guadalupe to restore legality and depose the coup general Victoriano Huerta, who had appointed himself president.

Huerta remained in power for a year and a half. Carrancistas, Zapatistas and Villistas fought him with relative independence among them, and achieved the fall of the usurper, who was unable to obtain, at that time, the support of the United States government.

During the entire period of the revolution, both Porfiristas and Huertistas and Maderista revolutionaries lived in exile in Cuba; it is said that in the streets of Havana, here, they insulted each other. Here was, for example, the revolutionary from Veracruz Heriberto Jara, one of the inspirers of the oil expropriation carried out in 1938 by General Lázaro Cárdenas del Rio.

Nor can I omit to mention the solidarity role of the Mexican people and governments with the Cuban revolutionaries who fought against the Batista dictatorship.

It is well known, as you recalled, my friend President Miguel Diaz-Canel, when you visited us last year on the occasion of the commemoration of the 200th anniversary of Mexico’s Independence: the passage of Fidel and his companions through Mexico left a deep impression on the future expeditionaries of the ‘Granma’ and an accumulation of legends everywhere, which are still spoken of with admiration and respect.

We will never forget,” you said, “that thanks to the support of many Mexican friends, the yacht ‘Granma’ set sail from Tuxpan, Veracruz, on November 25, 1956. Seven days later, on December 2, the newborn rebel army that was coming to liberate Cuba disembarked from that historic vessel.

You went on to say:

‘Nor do we forget that, just a few months after the historic triumph of the Revolution, in 1959, General Lazaro Cardenas visited us. His willingness to stand by our people, following the mercenary invasion of Playa Giron in 1961, significantly marks the character of our relations.’

President Díaz-Canel, also expressed that ‘faithful to its best traditions, Mexico was the only country in Latin America that did not break relations with revolutionary Cuba when we were expelled from the OAS by imperial mandate’.

As for my convictions about Commander Fidel Castro, and about Cuba’s independence, I reiterate what I wrote recently in a book: Throughout our time as opponents in Mexico, Fidel was the only leftist leader who knew what we represented and distinguished us with his support in his reflections, writings and political acts of solidarity. We never met, but I always considered him a great man for his pro-independence ideals.

We can be for or against his person and his leadership, but, knowing the long history of invasions and colonial rule that Cuba suffered within the framework of U.S. policy, of manifest destiny and under the slogan of America for the Americans, in quotation marks, we can appreciate the feat that represents the persistence, less than 100 kilometers from the superpower, the existence of an independent island inhabited by a simple and humble people, but cheerful, creative and, above all, worthy, very worthy.

That is why, when I was touring Colima and learned of the death of Commander Castro, I declared something I felt and still hold: I said that a giant had died.

My position on the U.S. government’s blockade of Cuba is also well known. I have said quite frankly that it looks bad for the U.S. government to use the blockade to impede the welfare of the people of Cuba so that they, the people of Cuba, forced by necessity, will have to confront their own government.

If this perverse strategy were to succeed, something that does not seem likely due to the dignity of the Cuban people to which I have referred, it would, in any case, turn this great wrong into a pyrrhic, vile and despicable triumph, into one of those stains that cannot be erased even with all the water in the oceans.

But I also maintain that it is time for brotherhood and not confrontation; as José Martí pointed out, the clash can be avoided, I quote, ‘with the exquisite political tact that comes from majesty, disinterest and the sovereignty of love’.

It is time for a new coexistence among all the countries of America, because the model imposed more than two centuries ago is exhausted, has no future or way out, and no longer benefits anyone. We must put aside the dilemma of integrating with the United States or opposing it defensively.

It is time to express and explore another option, that of dialogue with the rulers of the United States, and to convince and persuade them that a new relationship between the countries of the Americas, of all America, is possible. Our proposal may seem utopian and even naïve, but, instead of closing ourselves off, we must open ourselves to committed, frank dialogue and seek unity throughout the American continent. Besides, I see no other alternative in the face of the exponential growth of the economy in other regions of the world and the productive decadence of all America.

Here I repeat what I have expressed to President Biden on more than one occasion: if the economic and commercial trend of the last three decades continues and there is nothing that legally and legitimately can prevent it, in another 30 years, by 2051, China would have the dominance of 64. 8 percent in the world market and the United States only four and even 10 percent, which, I insist, would be an economic and commercial disproportion that would be unacceptable for Washington, and that would keep alive the temptation to bet on resolving that disparity with the use of force, which would be a danger for the whole world.

I am aware that this is a complex issue that requires a new political and economic vision. The proposal is, no more and no less, to build something similar to the European Union, but attached to our history, our reality and our identities.

In this spirit, we should not rule out replacing the OAS with a truly autonomous organization, not a lackey of anyone, but a mediator at the request and acceptance of the parties in conflict, in matters of human rights and democracy. Although what is proposed here may seem like a dream, it should be considered that, without a horizon of ideals, one gets nowhere and that, consequently, it is worth trying. It is a great task for good diplomats and politicians such as those that fortunately exist in all the countries of our continent.

For our part, we believe that integration with respect for sovereignty and forms of government and the proper application of a treaty for economic and trade development is in the interest of all of us, and that no one loses in this; on the contrary, it would be the most effective and responsible way out in the face of the strong competition that exists, which will increase over time and which, if we do nothing to unite, strengthen ourselves and emerge victorious in a good fight, will inevitably lead to the decline of all the Americas.

Cuban friends.

Dear President Díaz-Canel.

I will end now with two brief reflections:

With all due respect for the sovereignty and independence of Cuba, I would like to state that I will continue to insist that the United States lift the blockade of this sister nation as a first step, in order to begin the reestablishment of relations of cooperation and friendship between the peoples of the two nations.

Therefore, I will insist with President Biden that no country of the Americas be excluded from next month’s summit to be held in Los Angeles, California. And that the authorities of each country should be free to decide whether or not to attend the meeting, but that no one should be excluded.

Finally, thank you very much for the distinction of awarding me the ‘José Martí’ Order, whom, as has been made clear, I respect and admire, as I admire and respect Simón Bolívar and our great President Benito Juárez.

Thanks to the generous, supportive and exemplary people of Cuba.

On a personal note, I maintain that I have never bet, do not and will never bet on the failure of the Cuban Revolution, its legacy of justice and its lessons of independence and dignity. I will never participate with coup plotters who conspire against the ideals of equality and universal fraternity.

Regression is decadence and desolation, it is a matter of power and not of humanity. I prefer to continue to maintain the hope that the Revolution will be reborn in the Revolution. That the Revolution will be able to renew itself to follow the example of the martyrs who fought for freedom, equality, justice, sovereignty. And I have the conviction and the faith that in Cuba things are being done with that purpose, that the new Revolution is being made in the Revolution, that is the second great lesson, the second great lesson of Cuba for the world.

This people will once again demonstrate that reason is more powerful than force.

Hugs and thank you very much.

Miguel Díaz-Canel Bermúdez, President of the Republic: Well, it is my turn to close this meeting, which will be memorable for all of us.

First of all, good afternoon.

And I would like to express our deepest appreciation to the Cuban mothers, even when we are living a moment of pain and mourning in our country.

I would like to thank President Andrés Manuel López Obrador for this visit to Cuba in these turbulent times we are living through.

Our people, my friend President, receive you with great affection, respect and the admiration you have earned for your generous expressions and gestures towards Cuba. And we also thank you for your condolences to our people for the events we have experienced in recent days.

The relations between Mexico and Cuba are, as you have expressed it, historic and endearing. And you had given a lesson on how the very history between Mexico and Cuba provides the reasons to justify, to nurture, to continue to enhance those relations, and it is precisely for those purposes that this visit has been taking place, which confirms the nature of these ties and opens a path for their progress and deepening.

During this visit we have signed a declaration that consolidates a new stage in the bilateral relationship between Mexico and Cuba. Our Health Ministers published a cooperation agreement that facilitates taking advantage of all the health and scientific potentialities, joint efforts and wills that our two countries can develop in the field of health for the benefit of our peoples in this noble area.

We have also dealt with important issues of the bilateral agenda, of our bilateral relations, but we have also addressed regional and international issues.

I have thanked President López Obrador for his firm position, as he has expressed in his words, of rejecting the genocidal blockade imposed by the government of the United States on our country in the commercial, economic and financial spheres, and also the intensification of this blockade at the present time.

The declaration we adopted recognizes the commitment of both nations to the proclamation of Latin America and the Caribbean as a zone of peace, which was created at a Celac summit here in Havana, and the respect that both nations profess for international law.

I also expressed to our friend President López Obrador our appreciation and recognition for his role in favor of the integration of our America, as demonstrated by Mexico’s commendable work at the helm of the pro tempore presidency of Celac last year and its defense of full respect for the sovereignty and integrity of the States, as Benito Juárez always proclaimed.

In this sense, we agree on the inappropriateness of the unjustified incursions of countries of our region in hemispheric events, as it seems that it will happen in what could already be called the so-called Summit of the Americas, in quotation marks.

As President López Obrador has expressed, hemispheric relations must change profoundly. The Cuban Revolution assures him that it will continue its triumphant march of hope and future, and that Mexico can always count on Cuba.

President:

We believe that we have expressed on both sides will, efforts and integration and have made decisions for the benefit of Mexico and Cuba, and of course our peoples.

Viva Mexico!

Viva Cuba!