The historic thaw between Washington and Havana divided Cuban dissidents. The Social Democratic opponent, Manuel Cuesta Morua, said that, “the political scene has changed in a positive way because it promotes horizontal communication and thus democratization.” Instead, Berta Soler, head of the Association of Women in white, wives of political prisoners, judges that “promoteing the Cuban government, which will use the new resources received from the United States to strengthen its repressive machinery and nothing changes.”
They both attended the meeting of the opposition with US congressmen before the high-level meeting between the two countries, in Havana, Wednesday the 21st and Thursday the 22nd January, a month after the announcement of approximation made by Barack Obama and Raul Castro. “Some opponents still marked by the logic of confrontation that have long prevailed among Cubans, laments Mr. Cuesta Morua, reached by telephone in Havana. These dissidents think that Americans should not lift the embargo without consideration. They claim that Obama brings fresh air to the plan and grant him a reprieve. Rather, I believe that excessive ventilation may suffocate. ” 
The Social Democratic opponent cites as evidence the embarrassment of Havana. “The government has not celebrated the event too, because since the demise of the communist horizon, it has no vision for the future replacement. It merely prolongs the war’s economy and one-time plans. The power was unprepared for the thaw. ”
The release of the convicted Cuban spies in Florida made President Obama realize that the US embargo was a failure nonetheless and allowed the Castro propaganda to claim victory. Mr. Cuesta Morua, saw it as a strategic defeat, because the regime loses its justification, built according to the confrontation, an ongoing conflict. Since elementary school, we were told that the Cuban political system was justified by the standoff with the United States. Cuba has embodied a utopia with the Americans.
Hence the paradoxical result of half a century of tropical Cold War. The Social Democratic opponent wishes to ensure us that the Cuban government does not have an alternative discourse for peacetime. It should make radical changes to a mixed economy. But how do you explain the new situation? Are the United States to replace Venezuela like the way Caracas replaced Moscow? How can the defensive nationalism maintain ultimate refuge of Castro’s ideology?”
From the view of Mr. Cuesta Morua, the new situation favors a nationalization of democratic debate without the handicap represented from the United States’ pressures. “There is more than a besieged fortress that prevents peaceful coexistence among Cubans. We must adapt to this reality. It should stimulate discussion both in the island and abroad, including in Miami, now that we can travel, come and go.”
A historian by training, the opponent invokes the experiences of other dictatorial or authoritarian regimes. “With the exception of the defeat of Nazism and fascism during the Second World War, respect for human rights is not the result of collapse but a gradual process leading the authorities to accept the freedom as a necessity of peaceful and democratic coexistence. Thus, the Helsinki Accords (1975) were the result of intense exchanges between the Soviet Union and the West in spite of the cold war. This decreased the ideological conflict between the two camps. I think that in Cuba it will be poor. I do not believe in the possibility of a rout of Castroism by arms or the economy.”
This gradualism is reflected in the “defense of an agenda for reform of the Constitution, the amendment of legislation to establish new rules of the political game and a democratization of society.”
Cuesta Morua admits that dissent remains a minority, although the number of arrests (nearly 9,000 in 2014) and their extension across the island show growth. “The major challenge for the opposition is its legitimacy: to what extent do we represent the social sectors and not just ideas. There is a dissonance between society and the leaders who control the power and the media. Man’s most popular politician in Cuba is Obama. No Cuban official has any popularity. But this loss does not find ways to express themselves.”
Among those receiving more expressive capabilities include intellectuals who make a measured use. Mr. Cuesta Morua is more severe. “In Cuba, art and culture sometimes express unease and distrust of the authors. Ernesto Che Guevara said that the sin of Cuban intellectuals was not to have made the revolution. One might add that they have not done so either criticism. This must occur in public, but this is rarely the case. The intelligentsia lack of awareness. Since the disappearance of the iconic magazine Pensamiento Critico (1967-1971), his silence is abysmal. “