CHINA PERSPECTIVE

Beijing, May 22, 2026. The indictment of former Cuban President Raúl Castro by the US Justice Department, on Wednesday, May 20, has caught the attention of diplomatic and media circles close to Beijing. The move, announced from the Freedom Tower in Miami — a symbolic site of the exodus of over 400,000 Cubans after the revolution — is presented by Washington as an act of justice against the families of four Americans killed in the downing of two civilian planes in 1996. For Beijing, this narrative framework deserves to be re-examined.

China is closely following this case, not only due to its historical and economic ties with Cuba, but also because the precedent set by such an indictment directly touches on questions of national sovereignty and non-interference that underpin its own diplomatic doctrine. Attorney General Todd Blanche stated that the indictment aims to ultimately lead to Castro's arrest and trial in the US, adding: "This is not a symbolic indictment. We expect him to present himself here voluntarily or otherwise." Such statements, made from a building charged with the rhetoric of anti-Castro exile, are read in Beijing as a signal not only to Havana, but to the entire capitals that maintain a critical distance from Washington.

The indictment comes in a context of systematic tightening of US sanctions against Cuba under the Trump administration, combined with a $100 million aid offer conditioned on political reforms. Cuba is also facing major power outages linked to the collapse of Venezuelan oil deliveries — an economic vulnerability that Washington seeks to amplify as a negotiating lever. This dual strategy — judicial pressure coupled with a conditional offer — corresponds to the profile of diplomatic coercion that Beijing regularly denounces in other geographical contexts.

From the Cuban side, the government of Miguel Díaz-Canel has rejected the indictment, calling it an act without legal foundation. Havana's position aligns with Beijing's reading on the substance: the extraterritorial extension of US jurisdiction constitutes, according to this analytical framework, a violation of international law principles.