(Bonn, 03.11.2025) The author and independent journalist Ricardo De Jesús Ruiz Garrido, who is close to the Cuban civil rights movement, has written a report on Christian and communist youth camps in Cuba in 2025, which we reproduce below.
The report by Ricardo De Jesús Ruiz Garrido
In the summer of 2025, two systems of youth camps coexist in Cuba, reflecting opposing visions of society: those organised by Christian institutions and those offered by the state or the communist youth organisation. Although both types of youth camps superficially offer recreational activities for young people, their ultimate goals, content, and power relations reveal the complex rivalry between religious freedom and loyalty to the state on the island.
Christian Camps: Spirituality and Community
In the communities of Matancera, the Centro Cristiano de Reflexión y Diálogo Cuba (CCRD) organises meetings for children, youth, and families. The centre’s offerings aim to educate young people on topics of interest to each group, to enable them to educate and teach values, and to enjoy nature through healthy activities. These camps are presented as spaces for value formation from a spiritual perspective.
A summer camp for youth organized by the same institution develops a program with a psychospiritual focus, including activities such as “Sharing and Learning About My Expectations,” an analysis of “family, roles, relationships with teenagers, violence,” and reflections on “How I See My Family as a Teenager.” The spiritual component blends with natural contact in what they call “Green Day,” where they conduct activities such as “sowing a tree” and explore the “integration of humans with nature” from a perspective that combines “nature and spirituality.”
The testimonies of participants in these religious encounters reflect the enthusiasm they generate. A young resident of the community of Colón said, “Glory be to God. Great is the Lord and great are his wonders. How I would have loved to have been there this summer; it’s wonderful to be moved by his Holy Spirit.” Another participant adds: “Glory be to God! For this great blessing for the young Christians of our Church, a time to reflect on the Word. Hear the voice of God for edification, liberation, salvation, and eternal life.”
Faced with this proposal, the camps organized by the Cuban state respond to a different logic. The government’s proposals for the summer of 2025 are part of the “strategy to respond to popular discontent regarding prices” by “integrating forms of non-governmental management into summer plans.”
The summer camp for youth in the province of Ciego de Ávila is an example of this model. It brings together “more than 100 young people from Ávila who have distinguished themselves through their achievements in political activities, university expansion, and contributions to production and services.” Students from the Student Union (FEU) and the Federation of Secondary School Students (FEEM) participate in a program that combines “training, revolutionary commitment, and recreation.”
Activities at these government-run camps include volunteer work in agriculture and beach cleanup, focusing on reducing plastics and recycling materials. Political events and revolutionary affirmation activities are also organized, bringing young residents together in nearby communities.
Some of the Christian camps are organized by Catholics, others by Evangelicals or Lutherans. The churches rent catering and tourism facilities for these camps.
Communist youth camps
The Communist Youth Camps take place in recreational centers owned by the Communist Party and local authorities.
Dr. Betsy Esperanza García Abad, secretary of the Union of Communist Youth (UJC) at the University of Medical Sciences of Ciego de Ávila, explains the educational goal: “To unite the work and knowledge acquired by students in relation to social welfare, and to bring history and healthy recreation to these young people as a summer option.” She adds a key element: “The highest authorities of the country, province, and municipalities, through the organization of these camps, are making every effort to meet the needs of their young people, because they are the continuity of this revolution.”
Fundamental Differences: Two Visions of Society
The analysis of the two models reveals significant differences that go beyond mere logistical organization: Christian camps strive for spiritual education and community empowerment, while the Communist Youth League camps prioritize political connection to the ruling system and social service from the defined ideological perspective of the Communist Party.
The former include activities such as “street theater” and tree planting with a spiritual focus, while the latter emphasize “volunteer work” and “community intervention” with goals of quantifiable social impact.
The government camps select young people “distinguished for their performance in political activities in favor of the revolutionary process, university expansion, and their contributions to tasks prioritized by the Cuban government,” that is, with a proven profile of institutional commitment.
To fully understand the Cuban government’s relationship with the religious camps, it is necessary to examine the historical legacy of the Military Production Assistance Units (UMAP) between 1965 and 1968. These camps imprisoned “homosexuals, Catholics, and young people suspected of not sympathizing with the so-called revolution due to their cultural or intellectual backgrounds.”
According to documents from the Human Rights Commission of the Organization of American States (OAS), these facilities were concentration camps where many political prisoners were subjected to forced labor and compulsory political indoctrination. The report added that more than 30,000 young people were admitted to such units with two objectives: “to facilitate free labor for the state and to punish young people who refuse to join communist organizations.”
Although there is partial recognition of these facts in official media, such as in a Cubadebate article , which admits that “the experience in the UMAP was undoubtedly traumatic for many people,” the current Cuban state pursues an approach that minimizes its historical impact and presents it as a response to specific contextual defense needs in the face of the “permanent threat of a US invasion.”
The Cuban government employs various strategies toward contemporary religious camps to limit their influence: The communist state youth organization organizes a wide range of summer activities that, according to the authorities, aim to “expand leisure and cultural opportunities, with an emphasis on accessibility and diversity of proposals for all social sectors.” This offering competes directly for youth participation.
State funding for communist youth versus self-help by Christian communities
While communist state youth camps receive institutional support, religious camps must be self-financed. The government “pays special attention to the areas covered by the Turquino Plan, as well as vulnerable and hard-to-reach neighborhoods, ensuring that activities reach the entire population” by establishing a state presence in potentially fertile areas for religious work.
Authorities emphasize that their programs are open to non-organized students and youth, demonstrating a structural openness that maintains the institutional framework.
Religious and state youth camps in Cuba represent two different visions of youth education that coexist in a tense relationship. While the former emphasize spiritual and communal values, the latter prioritize ideological education and social service from an official perspective.
The Cuban state, heir to a history of actively persecuting religion, has shifted toward a more subtle containment strategy based on competition for youth spaces and the construction of an attractive state offering, without resorting to the overt prohibition that characterized earlier periods.
This development reflects the changes in which faith, despite restrictions, is gaining space for expression, and in which the communist state must gradually and in a controlled manner accept the presence of non-state actors in the education of the younger generations. The resulting balance is fragile and extremely precarious , but demonstrates a mutual adaptability in the complex Cuban reality.
