Split (1)

train · 85.2k rows

train stringlengths 0 9.95k
the plundering and atrocities of pirates along the coast; the barbarities of the Spanish soldiers during our War of Independence; the shooting of prisoners of the Cuban Army by the forces of Weyler; the horrors of the Machado regime, and so on through the bloody crimes of March, 1935. But never has such a sad and bloody page been written in numbers of victims and in the viciousness of the victimizers, as in Santiago de Cuba. Only one man in all these centuries has stained with blood two separate periods of our history and has dug his claws into the flesh of two generations of Cubans. To release this river of blood, he waited for the Centennial of the Apostle, just after the fiftieth anniversary of the Republic, whose people fought for freedom, human rights and happiness at the cost of so many lives. Even greater is his crime and even more condemnable because the man who perpetrated it had already, for eleven long years, lorded over his people - this people who, by such deep-rooted sentiment and tradition, loves freedom and repudiates evil. This man has furthermore never been sincere, loyal, honest or chivalrous for a single minute of his public life. He was not content with the treachery of January, 1934, the crimes of March, 1935 and the forty million dollar fortune that crowned his first regime. He had to add the treason of March, 1952, the crimes of July, 1953, and all the millions that only time will reveal. Dante divided his Inferno into nine circles. He put criminals in the seventh, thieves in the eighth and traitors in the ninth. Difficult dilemma the devils will be faced with, when they try to find an adequate spot for this man's soul - if this man has a soul. The man who instigated the atrocious acts in Santiago de Cuba doesn't even have a heart. I know many details of the way in which these crimes were carried out, from the lips of some of the soldiers who, filled with shame, told me of the scenes they had witnessed. When the fighting was over, the soldiers descended like savage beasts on Santiago de Cuba and they took the first fury of their frustrations out against the defenseless population. In the middle of a street, and far from the site of the fighting, they shot through the chest an innocent child who was playing by his doorstep. When the father approached to pick him up, they shot him through his head. Without a word they shot 'Niño' Cala, who was on his way home with a loaf of bread in his hands. It would be an endless task to relate all the crimes and outrages perpetrated against the civilian population. And if the Army dealt thus with those who had had no part at all in the action, you can imagine the terrible fate of the prisoners who had taken part or who were believed to have taken part. Just as, in this trial, they accused many people not at all involved in our attack, they also killed many prisoners who had no involvement whatsoever. The latter are not included in the statistics of victims released by the regime; those statistics refer exclusively to our men. Some day the total number of victims will be known. The first prisoner killed has our doctor, Mario Muñoz, who bore no arms, wore no uniform, and was dressed in the white smock of a physician. He was a generous and competent man who would have given the same devoted care to the wounded adversary as to a friend. On the road from the Civilian Hospital to the barracks they shot him in the back and left him lying there, face down in a pool of blood. But the mass murder of prisoners did not begin until after three o'clock in the afternoon. Until this hour they awaited orders. Then General Martín Díaz Tamayo arrived from Havana and brought specific instructions from a meeting he had attended with Batista, along with the head of the Army, the head of the Military Intelligence, and others. He said: 'It is humiliating and dishonorable for the Army to have lost three times as many men in combat as the insurgents did. Ten prisoners must be killed for each dead soldier.' This was the order! In every society there are men of base instincts. The sadists, brutes, conveyors of all the ancestral atavisms go about in the guise of human beings, but they are monsters, only more or less restrained by discipline and social habit. If they are offered a drink from a river of blood, they will not be satisfied until they drink the river dry. All these men needed was the order. At their hands the best and noblest Cubans perished: the most valiant, the most honest, the most idealistic. The tyrant called them mercenaries. There they were dying as heroes at the hands of men who collect a salary from the Republic and who, with the arms the Republic gave them to defend her, serve the interests of a clique and murder her best citizens. Throughout their torturing of our comrades, the Army offered them the chance to save their lives by betraying their ideology and falsely declaring that Prío had given them money. When they indignantly rejected that proposition, the Army continued with its horrible tortures. They crushed their testicles and they tore out their eyes. But no one yielded. No complaint was heard nor a favor asked. Even when they had been deprived of their vital organs, our men were still a thousand times more men than all their tormentors together. Photographs, which do not lie, show the bodies torn to pieces, Other methods were used.
Photographs, which do not lie, show the bodies torn to pieces, Other methods were used. Frustrated by the valor of the men, they tried to break the spirit of our women. With a bleeding eye in their hands, a sergeant and several other men went to the cell where our comrades Melba Hernández and Haydée Santamaría were held. Addressing the latter, and showing her the eye, they said: 'This eye belonged to your brother. If you will not tell us what he refused to say, we will tear out the other.' She, who loved her valiant brother above all things, replied full of dignity: 'If you tore out an eye and he did not speak, much less will I.' Later they came back and burned their arms with lit cigarettes until at last, filled with spite, they told the young Haydée Santamaría: 'You no longer have a fiancé because we have killed him too.' But still imperturbable, she answered: 'He is not dead, because to die for one's country is to live forever.' Never had the heroism and the dignity of Cuban womanhood reached such heights. There wasn't even any respect for the combat wounded in the various city hospitals. There they were hunted down as prey pursued by vultures. In the Centro Gallego they broke into the operating room at the very moment when two of our critically wounded were receiving blood transfusions. They pulled them off the tables and, as the wounded could no longer stand, they were dragged down to the first floor where they arrived as corpses. They could not do the same in the Spanish Clinic, where Gustavo Arcos and José Ponce were patients, because they were prevented by Dr. Posada who bravely told them they could enter only over his dead body. Air and camphor were injected into the veins of Pedro Miret, Abelardo Crespo and Fidel Labrador, in an attempt to kill them at the Military Hospital. They owe their lives to Captain Tamayo, an Army doctor and true soldier of honor who, pistol in hand, wrenched them out of the hands of their merciless captors and transferred them to the Civilian Hospital. These five young men were the only ones of our wounded who survived. In the early morning hours, groups of our men were removed from the barracks and taken in automobiles to Siboney, La Maya, Songo, and elsewhere. Then they were led out - tied, gagged, already disfigured by the torture - and were murdered in isolated spots. They are recorded as having died in combat against the Army. This went on for several days, and few of the captured prisoners survived. Many were compelled to dig their own graves. One of our men, while he was digging, wheeled around and slashed the face of one of his assassins with his pick. Others were even buried alive, their hands tied behind their backs. Many solitary spots became the graveyards of the brave. On the Army target range alone, five of our men lie buried. Some day these men will be disinterred. Then they will be carried on the shoulders of the people to a place beside the tomb of Martí, and their liberated land will surely erect a monument to honor the memory of the Martyrs of the Centennial. The last youth they murdered in the surroundings of Santiago de Cuba was Marcos Martí. He was captured with our comrade Ciro Redondo in a cave at Siboney on the morning of Thursday the 30th. These two men were led down the road, with their arms raised, and the soldiers shot Marcos Martí in the back. After he had fallen to the ground, they riddled him with bullets. Redondo was taken to the camp. When Major Pérez Chaumont saw him he exclaimed: 'And this one? Why have you brought him to me?' The Court heard this incident from Redondo himself, the young man who survived thanks to what Pérez Chaumont called 'the soldiers' stupidity.' It was the same throughout the province. Ten days after July 26th, a newspaper in this city printed the news that two young men had been found hanged on the road from Manzanillo to Bayamo. Later the bodies were identified as those of Hugo Camejo and Pedro Vélez. Another extraordinary incident took place there: There were three victims - they had been dragged from Manzanillo Barracks at two that morning. At a certain spot on the highway they were taken out, beaten unconscious, and strangled with a rope. But after they had been left for dead, one of them, Andrés García, regained consciousness and hid in a farmer's house. Thanks to this the Court learned the details of this crime too. Of all our men taken prisoner in the Bayamo area, this is the only survivor. Near the Cauto River, in a spot known as Barrancas, at the bottom of a pit, lie the bodies of Raúl de Aguiar, Armando del Valle and Andrés Valdés. They were murdered at midnight on the road between Alto Cedro and Palma Soriano by Sergeant Montes de Oca - in charge of the military post at Miranda Barracks - Corporal Maceo, and the Lieutenant in charge of Alta Cedro where the murdered men were captured. In the annals of crime, Sergeant Eulalio Gonzáles - better known as the 'Tiger' of Moncada Barracks - deserves a special place. Later this man didn't have the slightest qualms in bragging about his unspeakable deeds. It was he who with his own hands murdered our comrade Abel Santamaría. But that didn't satisfy him. One day as he was coming back from the Puerto Boniato Prison, where he raises pedigree fighting cocks in the back courtyard, he got on a bus on which Abel's mother was also traveling. When this monster realized who she was he began to brag about his grisly deeds, and - in a loud voice so that the woman dressed in mourning could hear him - he said: 'Yes, I have gouged many eyes out and I expect to continue gouging them out.' The unprecedented moral degradation our nation is suffering is expressed beyond the power of words in that mother's sobs of grief before the cowardly insolence of the very man who murdered her son.
When these mothers went to Moncada Barracks to ask about their sons, it was with incredible cynicism and sadism that they were told: 'Surely madam, you may see him at the Santa Ifigenia Hotel where we have put him up for you.' Either Cuba is not Cuba, or the men responsible for these acts will have to face their reckoning one day. Heartless men, they threw crude insults at the people who bared their heads in reverence as the corpses of the revolutionaries were carried by. There were so many victims that the government still has not dared make public the complete list. They know their figures are false. They have all the victims' names, because prior to every murder they recorded all the vital statistics. The whole long process of identification through the National Identification Bureau was a huge farce, and there are families still waiting for word of their sons' fate. Why has this not been cleared up, after three months? I wish to state for the record here that all the victims' pockets were picked to the very last penny and that all their personal effects, rings and watches, were stripped from their bodies and are brazenly being worn today by their assassins. Honorable Judges, a great deal of what I have just related you already know, from the testimony of many of my comrades. But please note that many key witnesses have been barred from this trial, although they were permitted to attend the sessions of the previous trial. For example, I want to point out that the nurses of the Civilian Hospital are absent, even though they work in the same place where this hearing is being held. They were kept from this Court so that, under my questioning, they would not be able to testify that - besides Dr. Mario Muñoz - twenty more of our men were captured alive. The regime fears that from the questioning of these witnesses some extremely dangerous testimony could find its way into the official transcript. But Major Pérez Chaumont did appear here and he could not elude my questioning. What we learned from this man, a 'hero' who fought only against unarmed and handcuffed men, gives us an idea of what could have been learned at the Courthouse if I had not been isolated from the proceedings. I asked him how many of our men had died in his celebrated skirmishes at Siboney. He hesitated. I insisted and he finally said twenty-one. Since I knew such skirmishes had never taken place, I asked him how many of our men had been wounded. He answered: 'None. All of them were killed.' It was then that I asked him, in astonishment, if the soldiers were using nuclear weapons. Of course, where men are shot point blank, there are no wounded. Then I asked him how many casualties the Army had sustained. He replied that two of his men had been wounded. Finally I asked him if either of these men had died, and he said no. I waited. Later, all of the wounded Army soldiers filed by and it was discovered that none of them had been wounded at Siboney. This same Major Pérez Chaumont who hardly flinched at having assassinated twenty-one defenseless young men has built a palatial home in Ciudamar Beach. It's worth more than 100,000 pesos - his savings after only a few months under Batista's new rule. And if this is the savings of a Major, imagine how much generals have saved! Honorable Judges: Where are our men who were captured July 26th, 27th, 28th and 29th? It is known that more than sixty men were captured in the area of Santiago de Cuba. Only three of them and the two women have been brought before the Court. The rest of the accused were seized later. Where are our wounded? Only five of them are alive; the rest were murdered. These figures are irrefutable. On the other hand, twenty of the soldiers who we held prisoner have been presented here and they themselves have declared that they received not even one offensive word from us. Thirty soldiers who were wounded, many in the street fighting, also appeared before you. Not one was killed by us. If the Army suffered losses of nineteen dead and thirty wounded, how is it possible that we should have had eighty dead and only five wounded? Who ever witnessed a battle with 21 dead and no wounded, like these famous battles described by Pérez Chaumont? We have here the casualty lists from the bitter fighting sustained by the invasion troops in the war of 1895, both in battles where the Cuban army was defeated and where it was victorious. The battle of Los Indios in Las Villas: 12 wounded, none dead. The battle of Mal Tiempo: 4 dead, 23 wounded. Calimete: 16 dead, 64 wounded.
Calimete: 16 dead, 64 wounded. La Palma: 39 dead, 88 wounded. Cacarajícara: 5 dead, 13 wounded. Descanso: 4 dead, 45 wounded. San Gabriel de Lombillo: 2 dead, 18 wounded ... In all these battles the number of wounded is twice, three times and up to ten times the number of dead, although in those days there were no modern medical techniques by which the percentage of deaths could be reduced. How then, now, can we explain the enormous proportion of sixteen deaths per wounded man, if not by the government's slaughter of the wounded in the very hospitals, and by the assassination of the other helpless prisoners they had taken? The figures are irrefutable. 'It is shameful and a dishonor to the Army to have lost three times as many men in combat as those lost by the insurgents; we must kill ten prisoners for each dead soldier.' This is the concept of honor held by the petty corporals who became generals on March 10th. This is the code of honor they wish to impose on the national Army. A false honor, a feigned honor, an apparent honor based on lies, hypocrisy and crime; a mask of honor molded by those assassins with blood. Who told them that to die fighting is dishonorable? Who told them the honor of an army consists of murdering the wounded and prisoners of war? In war time, armies that murder prisoners have always earned the contempt and abomination of the entire world. Such cowardice has no justification, even in a case where national territory is invaded by foreign troops. In the words of a South American liberator: 'Not even the strictest military obedience may turn a soldier's sword into that of an executioner.' The honorable soldier does not kill the helpless prisoner after the fight, but rather, respects him. He does not finish off a wounded man, but rather, helps him. He stands in the way of crime and if he cannot prevent it, he acts as did that Spanish captain who, upon hearing the shots of the firing squad that murdered Cuban students, indignantly broke his sword in two and refused to continue serving in that Army. The soldiers who murdered their prisoners were not worthy of the soldiers who died. I saw many soldiers fight with courage - for example, those in the patrols that fired their machine guns against us in almost hand-to-hand combat, or that sergeant who, defying death, rang the alarm to mobilize the barracks. Some of them live. I am glad. Others are dead. They believed they were doing their duty and in my eyes this makes them worthy of admiration and respect. I deplore only the fact that valiant men should fall for an evil cause. When Cuba is freed, we should respect, shelter and aid the wives and children of those courageous soldiers who perished fighting against us. They are not to blame for Cuba's miseries. They too are victims of this nefarious situation. But what honor was earned by the soldiers who died in battle was lost by the generals who ordered prisoners to be killed after they surrendered. Men who became generals overnight, without ever having fired a shot; men who bought their stars with high treason against their country; men who ordered the execution of prisoners taken in battles in which they didn't even participate: these are the generals of the 10th of March - generals who would not even have been fit to drive the mules that carried the equipment in Antonio Maceo's army. The Army suffered three times as many casualties as we did. That was because our men were expertly trained, as the Army men themselves have admitted; and also because we had prepared adequate tactical measures, another fact recognized by the Army. The Army did not perform brilliantly; despite the millions spent on espionage by the Military Intelligence Agency, they were totally taken by surprise, and their hand grenades failed to explode because they were obsolete. And the Army owes all this to generals like Martín Díaz Tamayo and colonels like Ugalde Carrillo and Albert del Río Chaviano. We were not 17 traitors infiltrated into the ranks of the Army, as was the case on March 10th. Instead, we were 165 men who had traveled the length and breadth of Cuba to look death boldly in the face. If the Army leaders had a notion of real military honor they would have resigned their commands rather than trying to wash away their shame and incompetence in the blood of their prisoners. To kill helpless prisoners and then declare that they died in battle: that is the military capacity of the generals of March 10th. That was the way the worst butchers of Valeriano Weyler behaved in the cruelest years of our War of Independence. The Chronicles of War include the following story: 'On February 23rd, officer Baldomero Acosta entered Punta Brava with some cavalry when, from the opposite road, a squad of the Pizarro regiment approached, led by a sergeant known in those parts as Barriguilla (Pot Belly). The insurgents exchanged a few shots with Pizarro's men, then withdrew by the trail that leads from Punta Brava to the village of Guatao. Followed by another battalion of volunteers from Marianao, and a company of troops from the Public Order Corps, who were led by Captain Calvo, Pizarro's squad of 50 men marched on Guatao ...
Followed by another battalion of volunteers from Marianao, and a company of troops from the Public Order Corps, who were led by Captain Calvo, Pizarro's squad of 50 men marched on Guatao ... As soon as their first forces entered the village they commenced their massacre - killing twelve of the peaceful inhabitants ... The troops led by Captain Calvo speedily rounded up all the civilians that were running about the village, tied them up and took them as prisoners of war to Havana ... Not yet satisfied with their outrages, on the outskirts of Guatao they carried out another barbaric action, killing one of the prisoners and horribly wounding the rest. The Marquis of Cervera, a cowardly and palatine soldier, informed Weyler of the pyrrhic victory of the Spanish soldiers; but Major Zugasti, a man of principles, denounced the incident to the government and officially called the murders perpetrated by the criminal Captain Calvo and Sergeant Barriguilla an assassination of peaceful citizens. 'Weyler's intervention in this horrible incident and his delight upon learning the details of the massacre may be palpably deduced from the official dispatch that he sent to the Ministry of War concerning these cruelties. "Small column organized by commander Marianao with forces from garrison, volunteers and firemen led by Captain Calvo, fought and destroyed bands of Villanueva and Baldomero Acosta near Punta Brava, killing twenty of theirs, who were handed over to Mayor of Guatao for burial, and taking fifteen prisoners, one of them wounded, we assume there are many wounded among them. One of ours suffered critical wounds, some suffered light bruises and wounds. Weyler."' What is the difference between Weyler's dispatch and that of Colonel Chaviano detailing the victories of Major Pérez Chaumont? Only that Weyler mentions one wounded soldier in his ranks. Chaviano mentions two. Weyler speaks of one wounded man and fifteen prisoners in the enemy's ranks. Chaviano records neither wounded men nor prisoners. Just as I admire the courage of the soldiers who died bravely, I also admire the officers who bore themselves with dignity and did not drench their hands in this blood. Many of the survivors owe their lives to the commendable conduct of officers like Lieutenant Sarría, Lieutenant Campa, Captain Tamayo and others, who were true gentlemen in their treatment of the prisoners. If men like these had not partially saved the name of the Armed Forces, it would be more honorable today to wear a dishrag than to wear an Army uniform. For my dead comrades, I claim no vengeance. Since their lives were priceless, the murderers could not pay for them even with their own lives. It is not by blood that we may redeem the lives of those who died for their country. The happiness of their people is the only tribute worthy of them. What is more, my comrades are neither dead nor forgotten; they live today, more than ever, and their murderers will view with dismay the victorious spirit of their ideas rise from their corpses. Let the Apostle speak for me: 'There is a limit to the tears we can shed at the graveside of the dead. Such limit is the infinite love for the homeland and its glory, a love that never falters, loses hope nor grows dim. For the graves of the martyrs are the highest altars of our reverence.' ... When one dies In the arms of a grateful country Agony ends, prison chains break - and At last, with death, life begins! Up to this point I have confined myself almost exclusively to relating events. Since I am well aware that I am before a Court convened to judge me, I will now demonstrate that all legal right was on our side alone, and that the verdict imposed on my comrades - the verdict now being sought against me - has no justification in reason, in social morality or in terms of true justice. I wish to be duly respectful to the Honorable Judges, and I am grateful that you find in the frankness of my plea no animosity towards you. My argument is meant simply to demonstrate what a false and erroneous position the Judicial Power has adopted in the present situation. To a certain extent, each Court is nothing more than a cog in the wheel of the system, and therefore must move along the course determined by the vehicle, although this by no means justifies any individual acting against his principles. I know very well that the oligarchy bears most of the blame. The oligarchy, without dignified protest, abjectly yielded to the dictates of the usurper and betrayed their country by renouncing the autonomy of the Judicial Power. Men who constitute noble exceptions have attempted to mend the system's mangled honor with their individual decisions. But the gestures of this minority have been of little consequence, drowned as they were by the obsequious and fawning majority. This fatalism, however, will not stop me from speaking the truth that supports my cause. My appearance before this Court may be a pure farce in order to give a semblance of legality to arbitrary decisions, but I am determined to wrench apart with a firm hand the infamous veil that hides so much shamelessness. It is curious: the very men who have brought me here to be judged and condemned have never heeded a single decision of this Court. Since this trial may, as you said, be the most important trial since we achieved our national sovereignty, what I say here will perhaps be lost in the silence which the dictatorship has tried to impose on me, but posterity will often turn its eyes to what you do here. Remember that today you are judging an accused man, but that you yourselves will be judged not once, but many times, as often as these days are submitted to scrutiny in the future. What I say here will be then repeated many times, not because it comes from my lips, but because the problem of justice is eternal and the people have a deep sense of justice above and beyond the hairsplitting of jurisprudence. The people wield simple but implacable logic, in conflict with all that is absurd and contradictory. Furthermore, if there is in this world a people that utterly abhors favoritism and inequality, it is the Cuban people.
To them, justice is symbolized by a maiden with a scale and a sword in her hands. Should she cower before one group and furiously wield that sword against another group, then to the people of Cuba the maiden of justice will seem nothing more than a prostitute brandishing a dagger. My logic is the simple logic of the people. Let me tell you a story: Once upon a time there was a Republic. It had its Constitution, its laws, its freedoms, a President, a Congress and Courts of Law. Everyone could assemble, associate, speak and write with complete freedom. The people were not satisfied with the government officials at that time, but they had the power to elect new officials and only a few days remained before they would do so. Public opinion was respected and heeded and all problems of common interest were freely discussed. There were political parties, radio and television debates and forums and public meetings. The whole nation pulsated with enthusiasm. This people had suffered greatly and although it was unhappy, it longed to be happy and had a right to be happy. It had been deceived many times and it looked upon the past with real horror. This country innocently believed that such a past could not return; the people were proud of their love of freedom and they carried their heads high in the conviction that liberty would be respected as a sacred right. They felt confident that no one would dare commit the crime of violating their democratic institutions. They wanted a change for the better, aspired to progress; and they saw all this at hand. All their hope was in the future. Poor country! One morning the citizens woke up dismayed; under the cover of night, while the people slept, the ghosts of the past had conspired and has seized the citizenry by its hands, its feet, and its neck. That grip, those claws were familiar: those jaws, those death-dealing scythes, those boots. No; it was no nightmare; it was a sad and terrible reality: a man named Fulgencio Batista had just perpetrated the appalling crime that no one had expected. Then a humble citizen of that people, a citizen who wished to believe in the laws of the Republic, in the integrity of its judges, whom he had seen vent their fury against the underprivileged, searched through a Social Defense Code to see what punishment society prescribed for the author of such a coup, and he discovered the following: 'Whosoever shall perpetrate any deed destined through violent means directly to change in whole or in part the Constitution of the State or the form of the established government shall incur a sentence of six to ten years imprisonment. 'A sentence of three to ten years imprisonment will be imposed on the author of an act directed to promote an armed uprising against the Constitutional Powers of the State. The sentence increases from five to twenty years if the insurrection is carried out. 'Whosoever shall perpetrate an act with the specific purpose of preventing, in whole or in part, even temporarily, the Senate, the House of Representatives, the President, or the Supreme Court from exercising their constitutional functions will incur a sentence of from six to ten years imprisonment. 'Whosoever shall attempt to impede or tamper with the normal course of general elections, will incur a sentence of from four to eight years imprisonment. 'Whosoever shall introduce, publish, propagate or try to enforce in Cuba instructions, orders or decrees that tend ... to promote the unobservance of laws in force, will incur a sentence of from two to six years imprisonment. 'Whosoever shall assume command of troops, posts, fortresses, military camps, towns, warships, or military aircraft, without the authority to do so, or without express government orders, will incur a sentence of from five to ten years imprisonment. 'A similar sentence will be passed upon anyone who usurps the exercise of a function held by the Constitution as properly belonging to the powers of State.' Without telling anyone, Code in one hand and a deposition in the other, that citizen went to the old city building, that old building which housed the Court competent and under obligation to bring cause against and punish those responsible for this deed. He presented a writ denouncing the crimes and asking that Fulgencio Batista and his seventeen accomplices be sentenced to 108 years in prison as decreed by the Social Defense Code; considering also aggravating circumstances of secondary offense treachery, and acting under cover of night. Days and months passed. What a disappointment! The accused remained unmolested: he strode up and down the country like a great lord and was called Honorable Sir and General: he removed and replaced judges at will. The very day the Courts opened, the criminal occupied the seat of honor in the midst of our august and venerable patriarchs of justice. Once more the days and the months rolled by, the people wearied of mockery and abuses. There is a limit to tolerance! The struggle began against this man who was disregarding the law, who had usurped power by the use of violence against the will of the people, who was guilty of aggression against the established order, had tortured, murdered, imprisoned and prosecuted those who had taken up the struggle to defend the law and to restore freedom to the people. Honorable Judges: I am that humble citizen who one day demanded in vain that the Courts punish the power-hungry men who had violated the law and torn our institutions to shreds. Now that it is I who am accused for attempting to overthrow this illegal regime and to restore the legitimate Constitution of the Republic, I am held incommunicado for 76 days and denied the right to speak to anyone, even to my son; between two heavy machine guns I am led through the city. I am transferred to this hospital to be tried secretly with the greatest severity; and the Prosecutor with the Code in his hand solemnly demands that I be sentenced to 26 years in prison.
and the Prosecutor with the Code in his hand solemnly demands that I be sentenced to 26 years in prison. You will answer that on the former occasion the Courts failed to act because force prevented them from doing so. Well then, confess, this time force will compel you to condemn me. The first time you were unable to punish the guilty; now you will be compelled to punish the innocent. The maiden of justice twice raped. And so much talk to justify the unjustifiable, to explain the inexplicable and to reconcile the irreconcilable! The regime has reached the point of asserting that 'Might makes right' is the supreme law of the land. In other words, that using tanks and soldiers to take over the presidential palace, the national treasury, and the other government offices, and aiming guns at the heart of the people, entitles them to govern the people! The same argument the Nazis used when they occupied the countries of Europe and installed their puppet governments. I heartily believe revolution to be the source of legal right; but the nocturnal armed assault of March 10th could never be considered a revolution. In everyday language, as José Ingenieros said, it is common to give the name of revolution to small disorders promoted by a group of dissatisfied persons in order to grab, from those in power, both the political sinecures and the economic advantages. The usual result is no more than a change of hands, the dividing up of jobs and benefits. This is not the criterion of a philosopher, as it cannot be that of a cultured man. Leaving aside the problem of integral changes in the social system, not even on the surface of the public quagmire were we able to discern the slightest motion that could lessen the rampant putrefaction. The previous regime was guilty of petty politics, theft, pillage, and disrespect for human life; but the present regime has increased political skullduggery five-fold, pillage ten-fold, and a hundred-fold the lack of respect for human life. It was known that Barriguilla had plundered and murdered, that he was a millionaire, that he owned in Havana a good many apartment houses, countless stock in foreign companies, fabulous accounts in American banks, that he agreed to divorce settlements to the tune of eighteen million pesos, that he was a frequent guest in the most lavishly expensive hotels for Yankee tycoons. But no one would ever think of Barriguilla as a revolutionary. Barriguilla is that sergeant of Weyler's who assassinated twelve Cubans in Guatao. Batista's men murdered seventy in Santiago de Cuba. De te fabula narratur. Four political parties governed the country before the 10th of March: the Auténtico, Liberal, Democratic and Republican parties. Two days after the coup, the Republican party gave its support to the new rulers. A year had not yet passed before the Liberal and Democratic parties were again in power: Batista did not restore the Constitution, did not restore civil liberties, did not restore Congress, did not restore universal suffrage, did not restore in the last analysis any of the uprooted democratic institutions. But he did restore Verdeja, Guas Inclán, Salvito García Ramos, Anaya Murillo and the top hierarchy of the traditional government parties, the most corrupt, rapacious, reactionary and antediluvian elements in Cuban politics. So went the 'revolution' of Barriguilla!. Lacking even the most elementary revolutionary content, Batista's regime represents in every respect a 20 year regression for Cuba. Batista's regime has exacted a high price from all of us, but primarily from the humble classes which are suffering hunger and misery. Meanwhile the dictatorship has laid waste the nation with commotion, ineptitude and anguish, and now engages in the most loathsome forms of ruthless politics, concocting formula after formula to perpetuate itself in power, even if over a stack of corpses and a sea of blood. Batista's regime has not set in motion a single nationwide program of betterment for the people. Batista delivered himself into the hands of the great financial interests. Little else could be expected from a man of his mentality - utterly devoid as he is of ideals and of principles, and utterly lacking the faith, confidence and support of the masses. His regime merely brought with it a change of hands and a redistribution of the loot among a new group of friends, relatives, accomplices and parasitic hangers-on that constitute the political retinue of the Dictator. What great shame the people have been forced to endure so that a small group of egoists, altogether indifferent to the needs of their homeland, may find in public life an easy and comfortable modus vivendi. How right Eduardo Chibás was in his last radio speech, when he said that Batista was encouraging the return of the colonels, castor oil and the law of the fugitive! Immediately after March 10th, Cubans again began to witness acts of veritable vandalism which they had thought banished forever from their nation. There was an unprecedented attack on a cultural institution: a radio station was stormed by the thugs of the SIM, together with the young hoodlums of the PAU, while broadcasting the 'University of the Air' program. And there was the case of the journalist Mario Kuchilán, dragged from his home in the middle of the night and bestially tortured until he was nearly unconscious. There was the murder of the student Rubén Batista and the criminal volleys fired at a peaceful student demonstration next to the wall where Spanish volunteers shot the medical students in 1871. And many cases such as that of Dr. García Bárcena, where right in the courtrooms men have coughed up blood because of the barbaric tortures practiced upon them by the repressive security forces. I will not enumerate the hundreds of cases where groups of citizens have been brutally clubbed - men, women, children and the aged. All of this was being done even before July 26th. Since then, as everyone knows, even Cardinal Arteaga himself was not spared such treatment.
Everybody knows he was a victim of repressive agents. According to the official story, he fell prey to a 'band of thieves'. For once the regime told the truth. For what else is this regime? ... People have just contemplated with horror the case of the journalist who was kidnapped and subjected to torture by fire for twenty days. Each new case brings forth evidence of unheard-of effrontery, of immense hypocrisy: the cowardice of those who shirk responsibility and invariably blame the enemies of the regime. Governmental tactics enviable only by the worst gangster mobs. Even the Nazi criminals were never so cowardly. Hitler assumed responsibility for the massacres of June 30, 1934, stating that for 24 hours he himself had been the German Supreme Court; the henchmen of this dictatorship which defies all comparison because of its baseness, maliciousness and cowardice, kidnap, torture, murder and then loathsomely put the blame on the adversaries of the regime. Typical tactics of Sergeant Barriguilla! Not once in all the cases I have mentioned, Honorable Judges, have the agents responsible for these crimes been brought to Court to be tried for them. How is this? Was this not to be the regime of public order, peace and respect for human life? I have related all this in order to ask you now: Can this state of affairs be called a revolution, capable of formulating law and establishing rights? Is it or is it not legitimate to struggle against this regime? And must there not be a high degree of corruption in the courts of law when these courts imprison citizens who try to rid the country of so much infamy? Cuba is suffering from a cruel and base despotism. You are well aware that resistance to despots is legitimate. This is a universally recognized principle and our 1940 Constitution expressly makes it a sacred right, in the second paragraph of Article 40: 'It is legitimate to use adequate resistance to protect previously granted individual rights.' And even if this prerogative had not been provided by the Supreme Law of the Land, it is a consideration without which one cannot conceive of the existence of a democratic collectivity. Professor Infiesta, in his book on Constitutional Law, differentiates between the political and legal constitutions, and states: 'Sometimes the Legal Constitution includes constitutional principles which, even without being so classified, would be equally binding solely on the basis of the people's consent, for example, the principle of majority rule or representation in our democracies.' The right of insurrection in the face of tyranny is one such principle, and whether or not it be included in the Legal Constitution, it is always binding within a democratic society. The presentation of such a case to a high court is one of the most interesting problems of general law. Duguit has said in his Treatise on Constitutional Law: 'If an insurrection fails, no court will dare to rule that this unsuccessful insurrection was technically no conspiracy, no transgression against the security of the State, inasmuch as, the government being tyrannical, the intention to overthrow it was legitimate.' But please take note: Duguit does not state, 'the court ought not to rule.' He says, 'no court will dare to rule.' More explicitly, he means that no court will dare, that no court will have enough courage to do so, under a tyranny. If the court is courageous and does its duty, then yes, it will dare. Recently there has been a loud controversy concerning the 1940 Constitution. The Court of Social and Constitutional Rights ruled against it in favor of the so-called Statutes. Nevertheless, Honorable Judges, I maintain that the 1940 Constitution is still in force. My statement may seem absurd and extemporaneous to you. But do not be surprised. It is I who am astonished that a court of law should have attempted to deal a death blow to the legitimate Constitution of the Republic. Adhering strictly to facts, truth and reason - as I have done all along - I will prove what I have just stated. The Court of Social and Constitutional Rights was instituted according to Article 172 of the 1940 Constitution, and the supplementary Act of May 31, 1949. These laws, in virtue of which the Court was created, granted it, insofar as problems of unconstitutionality are concerned, a specific and clearly defined area of legal competence: to rule in all matters of appeals claiming the unconstitutionality of laws, legal decrees, resolutions, or acts that deny, diminish, restrain or adulterate the constitutional rights and privileges or that jeopardize the operations of State agencies. Article 194 established very clearly the following: 'All judges and courts are under the obligation to find solutions to conflicts between the Constitution and the existing laws in accordance with the principle that the former shall always prevail over the latter.' Therefore, according to the laws that created it, the Court of Social and Constitutional Rights should always rule in favor of the Constitution. When this Court caused the Statutes to prevail above the Constitution of the Republic, it completely overstepped its boundaries and its established field of competence, thereby rendering a decision which is legally null and void. Furthermore, the decision itself is absurd, and absurdities have no validity in law nor in fact, not even from a metaphysical point of view. No matter how venerable a court may be, it cannot assert that circles are square or, what amounts to the same thing, that the grotesque offspring of the April 4th Statutes should be considered the official Constitution of a State. The Constitution is understood to be the basic and supreme law of the nation, to define the country's political structure, regulate the functioning of its government agencies, and determine the limits of their activities. It must be stable, enduring and, to a certain extent, inflexible. The Statutes fulfill none of these qualifications. To begin with, they harbor a monstrous, shameless, and brazen contradiction in regard to the most vital aspect of all: the integration of the Republican structure and the principle of national sovereignty. Article 1 reads: 'Cuba is a sovereign and independent State constituted as a democratic Republic.' Article 2 reads: 'Sovereignty resides in the will of the people, and all powers derive from this source.' But then comes Article 118, which reads: 'The President will be nominated by the Cabinet.' So it is not the people who choose the President, but rather the Cabinet.
And who chooses the Cabinet? Article 120, section 13: 'The President will be authorized to nominate and reappoint the members of the Cabinet and to replace them when occasion arises.' So, after all, who nominates whom? Is this not the classical old problem of the chicken and the egg that no one has ever been able to solve? One day eighteen hoodlums got together. Their plan was to assault the Republic and loot its 350 million pesos annual budget. Behind peoples' backs and with great treachery, they succeeded in their purpose. 'Now what do we do next?' they wondered. One of them said to the rest: 'You name me Prime Minister, and I'll make you generals.' When this was done, he rounded up a group of 20 men and told them: 'I will make you my Cabinet if you make me President.' In this way they named each other generals, ministers and president, and then took over the treasury and the Republic. What is more, it was not simply a matter of usurping sovereignty at a given moment in order to name a Cabinet, Generals and a President. This man ascribed to himself, through these Statutes, not only absolute control of the nation, but also the power of life and death over every citizen - control, in fact, over the very existence of the nation. Because of this, I maintain that the position of the Court of Social and Constitutional Rights is not only treacherous, vile, cowardly and repugnant, but also absurd. The Statutes contain an article which has not received much attention, but which gives us the key to this situation and is the one from which we shall derive decisive conclusions. I refer specifically to the modifying clause included in Article 257, which reads: 'This constitutional law is open to reform by the Cabinet with a two-thirds quorum vote.' This is where mockery reaches its climax. Not only did they exercise sovereignty in order to impose a Constitution upon a people without that people's consent, and to install a regime which concentrates all power in their own hands, but also, through Article 257, they assume the most essential attribute of sovereignty: the power to change the Basic and Supreme Law of the Land. And they have already changed it several times since March 10th. Yet, with the greatest gall, they assert in Article 2 that sovereignty resides in the will of the people and that the people are the source of all power. Since these changes may be brought about by a vote of two-thirds of the Cabinet and the Cabinet is named by the President, then the right to make and break Cuba is in the hands of one man, a man who is, furthermore, the most unworthy of all the creatures ever to be born in this land. Was this then accepted by the Court of Social and Constitutional Rights? And is all that derives from it valid and legal? Very well, you shall see what was accepted: 'This constitutional law is open to reform by the Cabinet with a two-thirds quorum vote.' Such a power recognizes no limits. Under its aegis, any article, any chapter, any section, even the whole law may be modified. For example, Article 1, which I have just mentioned, says that Cuba is a sovereign and independent State constituted as a democratic Republic, 'although today it is in fact a bloody dictatorship.' Article 3 reads: 'The national boundaries include the island of Cuba, the Isle of Pines, and the neighboring keys ...' and so on. Batista and his Cabinet under the provisions of Article 257 can modify all these other articles. They can say that Cuba is no longer a Republic but a hereditary monarchy and he, Batista, can anoint himself king. He can dismember the national territory and sell a province to a foreign country as Napoleon did with Louisiana. He may suspend the right to life itself, and like Herod, order the decapitation of newborn children. All these measures would be legal and you would have to incarcerate all those who opposed them, just as you now intend to do with me. I have put forth extreme examples to show how sad and humiliating our present situation is. To think that all these absolute powers are in the hands of men truly capable of selling our country along with all its citizens! As the Court of Social and Constitutional Rights has accepted this state of affairs, what more are they waiting for? They may as well hang up their judicial robes. It is a fundamental principle of general law that there can be no constitutional status where the constitutional and legislative powers reside in the same body. When the Cabinet makes the laws, the decrees and the rules - and at the same time has the power to change the Constitution in a moment of time - then I ask you: why do we need a Court of Social and Constitutional Rights? The ruling in favor of this Statute is irrational, inconceivable, illogical and totally contrary to the Republican laws that you, Honorable Judges, swore to uphold. When the Court of Social and Constitutional Rights supported Batista's Statutes against the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land was not abolished but rather the Court of Social and Constitutional Rights placed itself outside the Constitution, renounced its autonomy and committed legal suicide. May it rest in peace! The right to rebel, established in Article 40 of the Constitution, is still valid. Was it established to function while the Republic was enjoying normal conditions? No. This provision is to the Constitution what a lifeboat is to a ship at sea. The lifeboat is only launched when the ship has been torpedoed by enemies laying wait along its course. With our Constitution betrayed and the people deprived of all their prerogatives, there was only one way open: one right which no power may abolish. The right to resist oppression and injustice. If any doubt remains, there is an article of the Social Defense Code which the Honorable Prosecutor would have done well not to forget. It reads, and I quote: 'The appointed or elected government authorities that fail to resist sedition with all available means will be liable to a sentence of interdiction of from six to eight years.' The judges of our nation were under the obligation to resist Batista's treacherous military coup of the 10th of March.
It is understandable that when no one has observed the law and when nobody else has done his duty, those who have observed the law and have done their duty should be sent to prison. You will not be able to deny that the regime forced upon the nation is unworthy of Cuba's history. In his book, The Spirit of Laws, which is the foundation of the modern division of governmental power, Montesquieu makes a distinction between three types of government according to their basic nature: 'The Republican form wherein the whole people or a portion thereof has sovereign power; the Monarchical form where only one man governs, but in accordance with fixed and well-defined laws; and the Despotic form where one man without regard for laws nor rules acts as he pleases, regarding only his own will or whim.' And then he adds: 'A man whose five senses constantly tell him that he is everything and that the rest of humanity is nothing is bound to be lazy, ignorant and sensuous.' 'As virtue is necessary to democracy, and honor to a monarchy, fear is of the essence to a despotic regime, where virtue is not needed and honor would be dangerous.' The right of rebellion against tyranny, Honorable Judges, has been recognized from the most ancient times to the present day by men of all creeds, ideas and doctrines. It was so in the theocratic monarchies of remote antiquity. In China it was almost a constitutional principle that when a king governed rudely and despotically he should be deposed and replaced by a virtuous prince. The philosophers of ancient India upheld the principle of active resistance to arbitrary authority. They justified revolution and very often put their theories into practice. One of their spiritual leaders used to say that 'an opinion held by the majority is stronger than the king himself. A rope woven of many strands is strong enough to hold a lion.' The city states of Greece and republican Rome not only admitted, but defended the meting-out of violent death to tyrants. In the Middle Ages, John Salisbury in his Book of the Statesman says that when a prince does not govern according to law and degenerates into a tyrant, violent overthrow is legitimate and justifiable. He recommends for tyrants the dagger rather than poison. Saint Thomas Aquinas, in the Summa Theologica, rejects the doctrine of tyrannicide, and yet upholds the thesis that tyrants should be overthrown by the people. Martin Luther proclaimed that when a government degenerates into a tyranny that violates the laws, its subjects are released from their obligations to obey. His disciple, Philippe Melanchton, upholds the right of resistance when governments become despotic. Calvin, the outstanding thinker of the Reformation with regard to political ideas, postulates that people are entitled to take up arms to oppose any usurpation. No less a man that Juan Mariana, a Spanish Jesuit during the reign of Philip II, asserts in his book, De Rege et Regis Institutione, that when a governor usurps power, or even if he were elected, when he governs in a tyrannical manner it is licit for a private citizen to exercise tyrannicide, either directly or through subterfuge with the least possible disturbance. The French writer, François Hotman, maintained that between the government and its subjects there is a bond or contract, and that the people may rise in rebellion against the tyranny of government when the latter violates that pact. About the same time, a booklet - which came to be widely read - appeared under the title Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos, and it was signed with the pseudonym Stephanus Junius Brutus. It openly declared that resistance to governments is legitimate when rulers oppress the people and that it is the duty of Honorable Judges to lead the struggle. The Scottish reformers John Knox and John Poynet upheld the same points of view. And, in the most important book of that movement, George Buchanan stated that if a government achieved power without taking into account the consent of the people, or if a government rules their destiny in an unjust or arbitrary fashion, then that government becomes a tyranny and can be divested of power or, in a final recourse, its leaders can be put to death. John Althus, a German jurist of the early 17th century, stated in his Treatise on Politics that sovereignty as the supreme authority of the State is born from the voluntary concourse of all its members; that governmental authority stems from the people and that its unjust, illegal or tyrannical function exempts them from the duty of obedience and justifies resistance or rebellion. Thus far, Honorable Judges, I have mentioned examples from antiquity, from the Middle Ages, and from the beginnings of our times. I selected these examples from writers of all creeds. What is more, you can see that the right to rebellion is at the very root of Cuba's existence as a nation. By virtue of it you are today able to appear in the robes of Cuban Judges. Would it be that those garments really served the cause of justice! It is well known that in England during the 17th century two kings, Charles I and James II, were dethroned for despotism. These actions coincided with the birth of liberal political philosophy and provided the ideological base for a new social class, which was then struggling to break the bonds of feudalism. Against divine right autocracies, this new philosophy upheld the principle of the social contract and of the consent of the governed, and constituted the foundation of the English Revolution of 1688, the American Revolution of 1775 and the French Revolution of 1789. These great revolutionary events ushered in the liberation of the Spanish colonies in the New World - the final link in that chain being broken by Cuba. The new philosophy nurtured our own political ideas and helped us to evolve our Constitutions, from the Constitution of Guáimaro up to the Constitution of 1940. The latter was influenced by the socialist currents of our time; the principle of the social function of property and of man's inalienable right to a decent living were built into it, although large vested interests have prevented fully enforcing those rights.
The right of insurrection against tyranny then underwent its final consecration and became a fundamental tenet of political liberty. As far back as 1649, John Milton wrote that political power lies with the people, who can enthrone and dethrone kings and have the duty of overthrowing tyrants. John Locke, in his essay on government, maintained that when the natural rights of man are violated, the people have the right and the duty to alter or abolish the government. 'The only remedy against unauthorized force is opposition to it by force.' Jean-Jaques Rousseau said with great eloquence in his Social Contract: 'While a people sees itself forced to obey and obeys, it does well; but as soon as it can shake off the yoke and shakes it off, it does better, recovering its liberty through the use of the very right that has been taken away from it.' 'The strongest man is never strong enough to be master forever, unless he converts force into right and obedience into duty. Force is a physical power; I do not see what morality one may derive from its use. To yield to force is an act of necessity, not of will; at the very least, it is an act of prudence. In what sense should this be called a duty?' 'To renounce freedom is to renounce one's status as a man, to renounce one's human rights, including one's duties. There is no possible compensation for renouncing everything. Total renunciation is incompatible with the nature of man and to take away all free will is to take away all morality of conduct. In short, it is vain and contradictory to stipulate on the one hand an absolute authority and on the other an unlimited obedience ...' Thomas Paine said that 'one just man deserves more respect than a rogue with a crown.' The people's right to rebel has been opposed only by reactionaries like that clergyman of Virginia, Jonathan Boucher, who said: 'The right to rebel is a censurable doctrine derived from Lucifer, the father of rebellions.' The Declaration of Independence of the Congress of Philadelphia, on July 4th, 1776, consecrated this right in a beautiful paragraph which reads: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness; That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it and to institute a new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.' The famous French Declaration of the Rights of Man willed this principle to the coming generations: 'When the government violates the rights of the people, insurrection is for them the most sacred of rights and the most imperative of duties.' 'When a person seizes sovereignty, he should be condemned to death by free men.' I believe I have sufficiently justified my point of view. I have called forth more reasons than the Honorable Prosecutor called forth to ask that I be condemned to 26 years in prison. All these reasons support men who struggle for the freedom and happiness of the people. None support those who oppress the people, revile them, and rob them heartlessly. Therefore I have been able to call forth many reasons and he could not adduce even one. How can Batista's presence in power be justified when he gained it against the will of the people and by violating the laws of the Republic through the use of treachery and force? How could anyone call legitimate a regime of blood, oppression and ignominy? How could anyone call revolutionary a regime which has gathered the most backward men, methods and ideas of public life around it? How can anyone consider legally valid the high treason of a Court whose duty was to defend the Constitution? With what right do the Courts send to prison citizens who have tried to redeem their country by giving their own blood, their own lives? All this is monstrous to the eyes of the nation and to the principles of true justice! Still there is one argument more powerful than all the others. We are Cubans and to be Cuban implies a duty; not to fulfill that duty is a crime, is treason. We are proud of the history of our country; we learned it in school and have grown up hearing of freedom, justice and human rights. We were taught to venerate the glorious example of our heroes and martyrs. Céspedes, Agramonte, Maceo, Gómez and Martí were the first names engraved in our minds. We were taught that the Titan once said that liberty is not begged for but won with the blade of a machete. We were taught that for the guidance of Cuba's free citizens, the Apostle wrote in his book The Golden Age: 'The man who abides by unjust laws and permits any man to trample and mistreat the country in which he was born is not an honorable man ... In the world there must be a certain degree of honor just as there must be a certain amount of light. When there are many men without honor, there are always others who bear in themselves the honor of many men. These are the men who rebel with great force against those who steal the people's freedom, that is to say, against those who steal honor itself. In those men thousands more are contained, an entire people is contained, human dignity is contained ...' We were taught that the 10th of October and the 24th of February are glorious anniversaries of national rejoicing because they mark days on which Cubans rebelled against the yoke of infamous tyranny. We were taught to cherish and defend the beloved flag of the lone star, and to sing every afternoon the verses of our National Anthem: 'To live in chains is to live in disgrace and in opprobrium,' and 'to die for one's homeland is to live forever!' All this we learned and will never forget, even though today in our land there is murder and prison for the men who practice the ideas taught to them since the cradle.
We were born in a free country that our parents bequeathed to us, and the Island will first sink into the sea before we consent to be the slaves of anyone. It seemed that the Apostle would die during his Centennial. It seemed that his memory would be extinguished forever. So great was the affront! But he is alive; he has not died. His people are rebellious. His people are worthy. His people are faithful to his memory. There are Cubans who have fallen defending his doctrines. There are young men who in magnificent selflessness came to die beside his tomb, giving their blood and their lives so that he could keep on living in the heart of his nation. Cuba, what would have become of you had you let your Apostle die? I come to the close of my defense plea but I will not end it as lawyers usually do, asking that the accused be freed. I cannot ask freedom for myself while my comrades are already suffering in the ignominious prison of the Isle of Pines. Send me there to join them and to share their fate. It is understandable that honest men should be dead or in prison in a Republic where the President is a criminal and a thief. To you, Honorable Judges, my sincere gratitude for having allowed me to express myself free from contemptible restrictions. I hold no bitterness towards you, I recognize that in certain aspects you have been humane, and I know that the Chief Judge of this Court, a man of impeccable private life, cannot disguise his repugnance at the current state of affairs that compels him to dictate unjust decisions. Still, a more serious problem remains for the Court of Appeals: the indictments arising from the murders of seventy men, that is to say, the greatest massacre we have ever known. The guilty continue at liberty and with weapons in their hands - weapons which continually threaten the lives of all citizens. If all the weight of the law does not fall upon the guilty because of cowardice or because of domination of the courts, and if then all the judges do not resign, I pity your honor. And I regret the unprecedented shame that will fall upon the Judicial Power. I know that imprisonment will be harder for me than it has ever been for anyone, filled with cowardly threats and hideous cruelty. But I do not fear prison, as I do not fear the fury of the miserable tyrant who took the lives of 70 of my comrades. Condemn me. It does not matter. History will absolve me. Fidel Castro Internet Archive
Fidel Castro Photo Collection Fidel Castro addressing a crowd at Moncada Army Barracks on January 1, 1959 Santiago speech, July 1964 Fidel and his eternal guerrilla boots Celia, Fidel and Hayd�e, sitting for a coffee, April 1958 Fidel crosses a river in Sierra Maestra With Che Guevara With Che Guevara With Che Guevara With Commander Juan Almeida Bosque Fidel chatting at a makeshift barber shop in El Naranjo, Sierra Maestra With peasant girls who have come to greet him during a ceasefire R�ul, Fidel and Ren� Ramos Latour (Daniel) Fidel in 1959 Victory Together Speaking with families, 1965 With Yuri Gagarin, 1961 With Nikita Khrushchev With Le Duan With Josip Broz Tito With Luiz Carlos Prestes, 1978 With Luiz Carlos Prestes, 1985 Speech, 2001 At the World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa, 2001 At the UN International Conference in Monterrey 2002 At the UN International Conference in Monterrey 2002 Speech, 2004 2012 2012 2012 2012 2015 2015 2015 2015 Fidel Castro Archive \| Cuban History Marxist Internet Archive Last updated on 23 April 2023
Fidel Castro Internet Archive Speech by the Commander in Chief Fidel Castro Ruz at the solemnevening in memory of Commander Ernesto Che Guevara, in the Plaza de la Revolución, on October 18, 1967 Delivered: October 18, 1967 Source: http://www.fidelcastro.cu/en from a short hand version, Stenographic Versions – Council of State. Markup: David Walters, 2019 Online Version & translation: http://www.fidelcastro.cu/en Revolutionary comrades: It was a day in the month of July or August of 1955 when we met Che. And in one night - as he tells in his accounts - he became a future expeditionary of the "Granma". But at that time that expedition had no ship, no weapons, no troops. And it was like this, along with Raúl, Che joined the group of the first two on the list of "Granma". Since then 12 years have passed; They have been 12 years full of struggle and history. Throughout those years, death cut short many valuable and irreplaceble lives; but, at the same time, throughout those years, extraordinary people emerged from our Revolution who and were forged among the men of the Revolution, and between men and the people, bonds of affection and bonds of friendship were built which go beyond all possible expression. And tonight we gather, you and us, to try to somehow express those feelings in relation to who was one of the closest to us, one of the most admired, one of the most loved and, without a doubt, the most extraordinary of our revolutionary comrades; to express those feelings to him and to the heroes who have fought with him and to the heroes who have fallen with him, his internationalist army, which has been writing a glorious and indelible page in history. Che was one of those persons to whom everyone immediately took affection, for his simplicity, for his character, for his sincerity, for his comradeship, for his personality, for his originality, even though we still did not know the other singular virtues which characterized him. During those first moments he was our troop’s doctor. And so the bonds were forged and the comradeship feelings arose. He was imbued with a deep spirit of hatred and contempt for imperialism, not only because his political background had already acquired a considerable degree of development, but because he had only recently had the opportunity to witness in Guatemala the criminal imperialist intervention through the mercenary soldiers who ruined the revolution in that country. For a man like him, not so many arguments were necessary. It was enough for him to know that Cuba lived in a similar situation, it was enough for him to know that there were men determined to fight with weapons to change that situation, it was enough for him to know that those men were inspired by genuinely revolutionary and patriotic feelings. And that was more than enough. This way, one day, by the end of November 1956, with us, he started the march towards Cuba. I remember that that journey was very hard for him since, given the circumstances in which it was the departure was organized, he could not even provide himself with the medicines he needed and he spent the whole voyage suffering a serious asthma attack without a single chance of relief, but also without a single complaint. We arrived, we started the first walks, we suffered the first setback, and after a few weeks we met again - as you know - a group of those who remained from the "Granma" expedition. Che continued to be a doctor of our troop. The first victorious combat took place and Che was already a soldier of our troop and, at the same time, he was still the doctor; the second victorious battle took place and Che was not only a soldier, but the most distinguished of the soldiers in that action, performing for the first time one of those singular feats that characterized him in all actions; Our strength continued to grow and a battle of extraordinary importance was fought at that time. The situation was difficult. The information was in many ways wrong. We were going to attack in the middle of the day, at dawn, a strongly defended position, by the sea, well armed and with enemy troops to our rear. Not far away, and in the midst of that situation of confusion in which it was necessary to ask the men a supreme effort, once comrade Juan Almeida took up one of the most difficult missions. However one of the flanks was completely devoid of forces. So, one of the flanks was left without an attacking force, which could endanger the whole operation. And in that moment Che, who was still a doctor, asked for three or four men, among them a man with a machine-gun rifle, and in a matter of seconds he quickly set out to take the attack mission from that direction. And on that occasion he was not only a distinguished combatant, but he was also a distinguished doctor, assisting wounded comrades, while assisting wounded enemy soldiers. And when it was necessary to leave that position, once all the weapons were seized and a long march began, harassed by different enemy forces, it was necessary to leave someone to stay with the wounded, and Che remained with the wounded. Helped by a small group of our soldiers, he took care of them, saved their lives and later those men joined the column. From that moment he stood out as a capable and brave leader, the kind of men who, when faced with carrying out a difficult mission, do not wait to be asked to carry out the mission. So he did during the combat of El Uvero, but had also done so on an occasion we hadn’t mentioned. It was during the early days when as a result of a betrayal, our small troop was attacked by surprise by several planes and when we retired under the bombing and had already walked a fair distance, we remember some of the rifles some peasant soldiers who had been with us in the first actions had left when they asked permission to visit their relatives at a time when there was still not much discipline in our incipient army. And at that moment the possibility was considered that those rifles were lost. We remember how after we just raised the issue, and under the bombing, Che volunteered and by doing so he quickly left to recover those rifles. That was one of its essential characteristics: the immediate, instantaneous willingness to offer himself to carry out the most dangerous mission. And that, of course, caused aroused the admiration, the double admiration towards that comrade who fought with us, who was not born on this land, who was a man of profound ideas, who was a man whose mind was full of dreams of struggle in other parts of the continent and yet, that altruism, that selflessness, that willingness to always do the most difficult, to risk your life constantly.
And that, of course, caused aroused the admiration, the double admiration towards that comrade who fought with us, who was not born on this land, who was a man of profound ideas, who was a man whose mind was full of dreams of struggle in other parts of the continent and yet, that altruism, that selflessness, that willingness to always do the most difficult, to risk your life constantly. This is how he earned the rank of Commander and chief of the second column organized in the Sierra Maestra; This is how his prestige began to grow, as he began to acquire his reputation as a magnificent combatant which he took to the highest levels in the course of the war. Che was an unsurpassable soldier; Che was an insuperable boss; Che was, from the military point of view, an extraordinarily capable man, extraordinarily courageous, extraordinarily aggressive. If as a guerrilla he had an Achilles heel, that Achilles heel was his excessive aggressiveness; it was his absolute contempt for danger. The enemies try to draw conclusions from his death. Che was a master of the war, Che was an artist of the guerrilla struggle! And he showed it countless times but he showed it especially in two extraordinary feats, as was one of them the invasion leading a column, a column which was being pursued by thousands of soldiers through absolutely flat and unknown territory, carrying out - together with Camilo - a formidable military feat. But, in addition, he demonstrated it in his fulminating campaign in Las Villas; and he proved it, above all, in his audacious attack on the city of Santa Clara, penetrating with a column of barely 300 men in a city defended by tanks, artillery and several thousand infantrymen. These two exploits consecrate him as an extraordinarily capable leader, as a teacher, as an artist of the revolutionary war. However, after his heroic and glorious death others try to deny the truth and value of his ideas and guerrilla ideas. The artist may die, especially when he is an artist of such dangerous art as the revolutionary struggle, but what will not die in any way is the art to which he dedicated his life and to which he devoted his intelligence. What is strange about that artist dying in a fight? Still more extraordinary is the fact that on the countless occasions when he risked this life during our revolutionary struggle he would not have died in combat. And there were many times when it was necessary to act to prevent the loss of his life in actions of minor transcendence. And so, in a fight, in one of the many battles he fought, he lost his life. We do not possess sufficient elements of judgment to be able to make any deduction about all the circumstances that preceded that combat, about the degree to which he could have acted in an excessively aggressive manner, but, we repeat, if as a guerrilla he had an Achilles heel, that heel Achilles was his excessive aggressiveness, his absolute contempt for danger. mhat is what it is difficult to agree with him, since we understand that his life, his experience, his ability as a seasoned leader, his prestige and all that he meant in life, was much more, incomparably more, than the evaluation that maybe he made himself. The idea that men have a relative value in history, the idea that causes are not defeated when men fall and the irrepressible march of history does not stop or stop before the fall, may have profoundly influenced their behavior of the leaders. And that's true, that can not be doubted. That shows his faith in men, his faith in ideas, his faith in example. However, as I said a few days ago, we would have wished with all our heart to see him as the forger of the victories, forging our comrades and people under his leadership, forging victories under his direction, since the men of his experience, his caliber, his really singular capacity, They are rare men. We are able to appreciate the full value of his example and we have the absolute conviction that this example will serve as encouragement and will serve to bring men similar to him from the bosom of the people. It is not easy to combine in a person all the virtues that were conjugated in him. It is not easy for a person to spontaneously be able to develop a personality like his. I would say that he is one of those kind of men who are difficult to match and practically impossible to outclass. But we will also say that men like him are capable, with his example, of helping men similar to him to emerge. The point is that it is not only the warrior what we admire in Che or the man capable of great feats. And what he did, and what he was doing, that fact in itself of facing with only a handful of men an entire oligarchic army, instructed by the Yankee advisers supplied by Yankee imperialism, supported by the oligarchies of all neighboring countries, that fact in itself constitutes an extraordinary feat. And if you look in the pages of history, you will not possibly find any case in which someone with such a small number of men has undertaken a task of greater importance, in which someone with such a small number of men has undertaken the fight against such considerable forces. This proof of self-confidence, that proof of confidence in the people, that proof of faith in the ability of men to fight, can be sought in the pages of history, and yet nothing similar can be found And he fell. The enemies believe they have defeated his ideas, defeated his guerrilla conception, defeated his views on the armed revolutionary struggle. And what they achieved was, with a stroke of luck, to eliminate his physical life; what they did was to achieve the accidental advantages that an enemy can achieve in war. And that stroke of luck, that stroke of fortune we do not know to what extent helped by that characteristic to which we referred before of excessive aggressiveness, of absolute contempt for danger, shown in a combat like so many combats. As it happened also in our War of Independence. In a fight in Dos Ríos they killed the Apostle of our independence. In a fight in Punta Brava they killed Antonio Maceo, veteran of hundreds of combats.
In a fight in Punta Brava they killed Antonio Maceo, veteran of hundreds of combats. In similar combats, countless leaders died, countless patriots of our independence war. And yet, that was not the defeat of the Cuban cause. The death of Che - as we said a few days ago - is a hard blow, it is a tremendous blow for the revolutionary movement, as it deprives it without any doubt of any kind, of his most experienced and capable leader. But those who sing victory are wrong. Those who believe his death is the defeat of his ideas, the defeat of his tactics, the defeat of his guerrilla conceptions, and the defeat of his thesis are mistaken. Because that man who fell as a mortal man, as a man who was exposed many times to bullets, as a soldier, as a leader, is a thousand times more capable than those who killed him with a stroke of luck. However, how should revolutionaries face this adverse blow? How should we face that loss? What would be the opinion of Che if he had to make a judgment on this matter? That opinion he already gave, that opinion expressed it clearly, when he wrote in his message to the solidarity conference of the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America that if he was surprised by death anywhere, it was always welcome that his shout of war, has reached a receptive ear, and another hand is extended to take up the weapon. And that, his war cry, will reach not a receptive ear, but millions of receptive ears! And not a hand, but millions of hands, inspired by his example, will be extended to take up arms! New leaders will emerge. And the men, the receptive ears and the extending hands, will need leaders who will emerge from the ranks of the people, as the bosses have emerged in all the revolutions. These hands will not more count with a leader of the extraordinary experience, the enormous capacity of Che. Those leaders will be formed and trained in the process of the struggle, those leaders will emerge from the bosom of the millions of receptive ears, from the millions of hands that, sooner or later, will reach out to take up arms. It is not that we consider that in practical terms his death will have an immediate repercussion in the revolutionary struggle. that in practical terms for the development of the struggle his death may have an immediate repercussion. But it is that Che, when he took up arms again, was not thinking of an immediate victory, was not thinking of a quick victory against the forces of the oligarchies and imperialism. His experienced combatant mind was prepared for a long fight of 5, 10, 15, 20 if necessary. He was willing to fight five, ten, fifteen, twenty years, all his life if necessary! And it is with that perspective in time, that his death, his example -which is what we should say-, will have a tremendous repercussion, will have an invincible force. Those who cling to a stroke of luck try in vain to deny his capacity as leader as well as his experience. Che was an extraordinarily capable military leader. But when we remember Che, when we think of Che, we are not thinking mainly about his military virtues. No! War is a means and not an end, war is an instrument of the revolutionaries. The important thing is the revolution, what matters is the revolutionary cause, the revolutionary ideas, the revolutionary objectives, the revolutionary feelings, the revolutionary virtues! And it is in this field, in the field of ideas, in the field of feelings, in the field of revolutionary virtues, in the field of intelligence, apart from its military virtues, where we feel the tremendous loss his death has meant for the Revolutionary movement. Because Che possessed, in his extraordinary personality, virtues that rarely appear together. He excelled as a man of insurmountable action, but Che was not only a man of insurmountable action: Che was a man of profound thinking, visionary intelligence, a man of great culture. That is to say, he had in himself the man of ideas and the man of action. But it is not that he just had those two features of being a man of ideas, a man of profound ideas, and also a man of action, but Che had in himself as a revolutionary the virtues that can be defined as the most complete expression of the virtues of a revolutionary: an upright, righteous man to the full, a man of supreme honesty, of absolute sincerity, a man of Stoic and Spartan life, a man to whom it is almost impossible to find a single stain in his conduct. He is because of his virtues what can be called a true revolutionary model. Ordinarily, at the time of the death of men, speeches are made, virtues are highlighted, but rarely as it is the case today, it can be fairly said, seldom it can be spoken with more accuracy that a man was a man of virtue when we say of Che: That he was a true example of revolutionary virtues! But we should also add to this another quality, which is not a quality of the intellect, which is not a quality of the will, a quality derived from experience, from the struggle, but a quality of the heart, because he was an extraordinarily human man, an extraordinarily sensitive human being! That is why we say, when we think about his life, when we think about his conduct, that he was the singular case of a very strange man, as he was able to combine not only the characteristics of a man of action, but also those of a man of thought, in his personality. Of a man of immaculate revolutionary virtues and of extraordinary human sensibility, together with an iron forged character of iron, to a will of steel, to an indomitable tenacity. And that is why he has bequeathed to future generations not only his experience, his knowledge as an outstanding soldier, but also the works of his intelligence. He wrote with the virtuosity of a classic. His narrations of the war are insurmountable.
His narrations of the war are insurmountable. The depth of his thought is impressive. He never wrote about anything if he didn’t do it with absolute and extraordinary seriousness, with extraordinary depth; and we do not doubt that posterity will remember some of his writings as classic documents of revolutionary thinking. And so, as a result of that vigorous and profound intelligence, he left us countless memories, countless stories that, without his work, without his effort, could have been forgotten for ever. Unflagging worker, during the years he was at the service of our country he did not know a single day of respite. Many responsibilities were assigned to him: as President of the National Bank, as director of the Planning Board, as Minister of Industries, as Commander of military regions, as head of political, economic or fraternal delegations. His multifaceted intelligence allowed him to undertake any task with confidence and certainty no matter how difficult. And so, he brilliantly represented our country in numerous international conferences, just as he brilliantly led the soldiers in combat, just as he was a model worker at the head of any of the institutions that he was assigned to run. , And for him there were no days of rest, for him there were no hours of rest! and if we looked to the windows of his offices, we could see the lights remained on until late at night, while he was studying, or rather, working and studying. Because he was a scholar of all problems, he was an tireless reader. His thirst to embrace human knowledge was practically insatiable, and the hours he snatched from sleep were devoted to study; and the days that were supposed to be days of rest were dedicated to volunteer work. He was the inspirer and the greatest promoter of volunteer work which today is the activity of hundreds of thousands of people throughout the country, the driver of this activity which becomes stronger and stronger every day among the masses, among our people. And as a revolutionary, as a communist revolutionary, as a truly communist. He had an infinite faith in moral values, he had an infinite faith in the conscience of men. And we must say that in his conception he saw with absolute clarity tat in the building of communism in the human society moral incentives were to be the main driver. Many things he thought, developed and wrote. And there is something that must be said on a day like today, and that is that the writings of Che, the political and revolutionary thinking of Che will have a permanent value in the Cuban revolutionary process and in the revolutionary process in Latin America. And we do not doubt that the value of his ideas, of his ideas as a man of action, as a man of thinking, as a man of moral virtues, as a man of unsurpassed human sensibility, as a man of irreproachable conduct, have and will have a universal value . The imperialists chant voices of triumph in the face of the fact of the guerrilla killed in combat; the imperialists sing the triumph in face of the stroke of fortune that led them to eliminate such a formidable man of action. But the imperialists may ignore or pretend to ignore that the character of a man of action was one of the many facets of that combatant's personality. And if it is about pain, it hurts us not only that a man of action has been lost as, it hurts that a virtuous man has been lost , what hurts us is that a man of exquisite human sensibility and intelligence has been lost. It hurts us to think that he was only 39 years old at the time of his death, it hurts us to think of how many fruits of that intelligence and experience in growth we have missed the opportunity to witness in its full potential. We can comprehend the dimension of the loss for the revolutionary movement. But, nevertheless, that is where the weak side of the imperialist enemy is: to believe that with the physical man they have killed they have liquidated his thinking, to believe that with the physical man he has liquidated his ideas, to believe that with the physical man he has killed his virtues, to believe that with the physical man they has killed his example. And they believe it in such an impudent manner that they do not hesitate to publish, as the most natural thing in the world, the circumstances almost universally accepted in which they killed him after having been seriously wounded in combat. They have not even noticed the repugnance of the procedure, they have not even noticed the impudence of recognition. And they have divulged as right of the henchmen, they have disclosed as right of the oligarchs and the mercenaries, the shooting against a revolutionary combatant seriously wounded. And the worst is that they also explain why they did it, alleging that the trial in which they would have had to judge Che would have been tremendous, arguing that it would have been impossible to seat such a revolutionary on the bench. And not only that, but also they have not hesitated to make his remains disappear. And be it true or lie, is the fact that they claim to have incinerated his body, with which they begin to show their fear, with which they begin to show they are not so convinced that killing the physical life of the fighter they killed his ideas and killed his example. Che did not fall defending any other interest, defending any other cause but the cause of the exploited and the oppressed in this continent; Che did not fall defending any other cause but the cause of the poor and the humble of this Earth. And the exemplary and selfless way in which he defended that cause is something that not even his most bitter enemies dare to dispute. and before history, men who act like him, men who do everything and give everything for the sake of the humble, become bigger and bigger every day get deeper and deeper into the hearts of the people . And the imperialist enemies are already beginning to notice it, and it will not be long before they prove that his death will eventually be like a seed from which many men determined to emulate hid deeds will emerge, many men determined to follow his example. And we are absolutely convinced that the revolutionary cause in this continent will recover from the blow, that the revolutionary cause in this continent will not be defeated by that blow. From the revolutionary point of view, from the point of view of our people, how should we look at the example of Che? Do we think that we have lost him?
Do we think that we have lost him? It is true that we will not see new writings again, it is certain that we will not hear his voice again. But Che has left the world with a heritage, a great patrimony, and we, who knew him so closely, can be heirs of his heritage. He left us his revolutionary thinking, he left us his revolutionary virtues, he left us his character, his will, his tenacity, his spirit of work. In a word, he left us his example! And the example of Che should be a model for our people, the example of Che should be the ideal model for our people! If we want to express how we aspire our revolutionary combatants to be, our militants, our men, we must say without hesitation of any kind: Let them be like Che! If we want to express how we want the men of future generations to be, we must say: Let them be like Che! If we want to say how we want our children to be educated, we must say without hesitation: We want them to be educated in the spirit of Che! If we want a model of man, a model of man that does not belong to this time, a model of man that belongs to the future, I say with my heart that model without a single stain in his behavior, without a single stain in his attitude, Without a single blot on his performance, that model is Che! If we want to express how we want our children to be, we must say with the whole heart of vehement revolutionaries: We want them to be like Che! Che has become a model of man not only for our people, but for any people in Latin America. Che brought to its highest expression the revolutionary stoicism, the spirit of revolutionary sacrifice, the combativeness of the revolutionary, the working spirit of the revolutionary, and Che took the ideas of Marxism-Leninism to its freshest, purest, most revolutionary expression. No man like him in these times has taken the proletarian internationalist spirit to its highest level! And when one speaks of proletarian internationalist, and when one looks for an example of proletarian internationalist, that example, above any other example, is the example of Che! In his mind and in his heart the flags, the prejudices, the chauvinisms, the selfishness had disappeared, and his generous blood he was willing to shed for the fate of any people, for the cause of any people, and willing to shed it spontaneously, and ready to pour it instantly! And so, his blood was shed on this earth when he was wounded in various battles; His blood for the redemption of the exploited and the oppressed, of the humble and the poor, was shed in Bolivia. That blood was shed for all the exploited, for all the oppressed; that blood was shed for all the peoples of America and spilled over Viet Nam, because there, fighting against the oligarchies, fighting against imperialism, he knew that he was offering Viet Nam the highest expression of its solidarity! That is why, comrades of the Revolution, we must firmly look to the future and with determination; That is why we should look with optimism at the future. And we will always look to Che's example for inspiration, inspiration in struggle, inspiration in tenacity, inspiration in intransigence against the enemy and inspiration in internationalist sentiment! That's why we tonight, after this impressive demonstration, after this incredible -for its magnitude, for its discipline and for its devotion- massive demonstration of acknowledgement, which shows how this is a sensitive people, which shows how this is a grateful people, which shows how this people knows how to honor the memory of the brave men who fall in combat, that shows how this people knows how to recognize those who serve them, that demonstrates how this people stands in solidarity with the revolutionary struggle , how this people will always raise and maintain the revolutionary flags and the revolutionary principles aloft; today, in these moments of remembrance, we raise our thoughts and, with optimism in the future, with absolute optimism in the definitive victory of the peoples, let us say to Che, and with him the heroes who fought and fell with him: Ever onward to victory! Homeland or Death! We will be victorious! (OVATION) TAQUIGRAPHIC VERSIONS Fidel Castro Archive \| Che Guevara Archive
Fidel Castro Internet Archive Address Speech by Commander-In-Chief Fidel Castro on his arrival in Havana on 8 January 1959 Delivered: April 14, 1959 Source: http://www.fidelcastro.cu/en from a short hand version. Translation of the stenographic version, filed at the Prime Minister's offices. Markup: David Walters, 2019 Online Version: http://www.fidelcastro.cu/en Fellow countrymen, Speaking here tonight, I'm presented with perhaps one of the most difficult tasks in this long struggle, which began on November 30, 1956, in Santiago de Cuba. The people are listening, the revolutionary fighters are listening, and the regular troops - whose fate is in our hands - are listening also. I believe this to be a turning point in our history: the tyranny has been overthrown. The rejoicing is immense. But there is still much to be done. We mustn't fool ourselves into believing that the future will be easy; everything may be more difficult in the future. Telling the truth is the first duty of all revolutionaries. Deceiving the people, raising false hopes, always brings the worst consequences, and I feel it's necessary to warn everyone against over-optimism. How did the Rebel Army win the war? Telling the truth. How did the tyranny lose the war? Deceiving the troops. When we suffered a setback, we announced it over Radio Rebelde, criticizing the mistakes any officer may have made, and warning all the comrades to make sure they didn't let the same thing happen to any other unit. That was not the way with the army units. Many of them repeated the same mistakes, because the officers and troops were never told the truth. That's why I mean to start - or rather continue - with the same system: that of always telling the people the truth. We have made headway, maybe taken a big step forward. Here we are in the capital, here we are in Columbia: the revolutionary forces have apparently prevailed; a government has been formed and recognized by several countries in the world; it seems the peace has been won. Nevertheless, we mustn't be complacent. While the people were laughing today, while the people were cheering, we were worrying; and the bigger the crowds that came to welcome us, and the greater the jubilation of the people, the more we worried, because also the greater was our obligation to history and to the people of Cuba. The Revolution is still being led by an army in battle order. Who, now and in the future, may be the enemies of the Revolution? Who, standing before this victorious people, could be the future enemies of the Revolution? The worst enemies which the Cuban Revolution could face in the future are us, the revolutionaries. This is what I always told the rebel fighters: when we no longer have the enemy before us, when the war is over, we ourselves are potentially the only enemies of the Revolution; that is why we said, and I repeat, that we will be tougher on the rebel soldiers than on anyone else, more demanding than with anyone else, because the triumph or failure of the Revolution will depend on them. There are many kinds of revolutionaries. We have been hearing talk about revolution for a long time: up to 10th March, they were saying that a revolution was under way, "revolution" was on everyone's lips, and everything was "revolutionary". The soldiers were assembled here and were told about the "10th March Revolution" (LAUGHTER). We've been hearing talk about revolutionaries for a long time. I remember my first notions of the revolutionary, before study and a certain maturity made me aware of what a revolution really was, and what a revolutionary really was. Our first impressions of revolutionaries were gained as children, and we were told: so-and-so was a revolutionary, fought in this or that engagement, or this or that operation, or placed bombs; or some other Joe was a revolutionary. "Revolutionary" even became a class. At that time there were revolutionaries who saw revolution as a living, who wanted a living based on having been a revolutionary, on having placed a bomb, or two bombs. And maybe those that talked the most were the ones who'd done least. But the fact is that they applied to the ministries for jobs, so as to live parasitic existences, to reap the rewards for what they had done at that time, for a revolution which sadly never got off the ground. It seems to me that the first revolution with a real chance of succeeding is this one, so long as we don't let it slip through our fingers... (SHOUTS OF "No!" AND APPLAUSE).
(SHOUTS OF "No!" AND APPLAUSE). The revolutionary of my childhood went about with a .45-calibre gun in his belt and wanted to live on the respect it commanded. He was to be feared: he was capable of killing anyone. He would arrive at the office of high officials with the air of a man who must be listened to. In reality, we wondered: where is the revolution these people fought? Because there was no revolution, and very few revolutionaries. The first thing that we, the protagonists of this Revolution, must ask ourselves, is what did we expect to achieve? Whether in any of us lurked ambition, a desire to command, some ignoble purpose; whether there was an idealist in each of those who fought in this revolution, or was it someone who was using idealism as a pretext for pursuing other ends; whether we undertook this revolution thinking that as soon as the tyranny was defeated, we would take over the reins of power; whether we were all going to drive around in limousines; whether we were all going to live like kings, whether we would all have mansions, and that life for us would be a stroll in the park, on the strength of having been revolutionaries and having vanquished the tyranny; whether what we were planning was to oust certain politicians; whether what we were planning was simply to remove certain men and put others in their place; or whether we were all truly disinterested, whether we all acted out of a spirit of self-sacrifice, whether all of us were willing to give our all and receive nothing in return, and whether, beforehand, we were ready to give up everything and continue on the austere path of the genuine revolutionary (PROLONGED APPLAUSE). We must address that question, because such soul-searching could have far-reaching implications for the future destiny of Cuba, of ourselves and of the people. When I hear mention of columns, when I hear mention of battle fronts, when I hear mention of more-or-less heavy troop concentrations, I always think: I have our strongest column right here, our best troops - the only troops able to win the war alone - right here. Those troops are the people! (APPLAUSE). No general is a greater asset than the people; no army is a greater force than the people. If you asked me what troops I prefer to lead, I would say I prefer to command the people (APPLAUSE), because the people are invincible. And it was the people who won this war, because we had no tanks, we had no planes, we had no heavy artillery, we had no military academies, we had no recruitment and training camps, we had no divisions, or regiments, or companies, or platoons, or even squads (PROLONGED APPLAUSE). Well then. Who won the war? The people, the people won the war. This war wasn't won by anyone except the people - I say that in case anyone thinks he won it, or if some troop unit thinks they won it (APPLAUSE). And so the victor's crown goes to the people. But there's another thing: the Revolution doesn't affect me as a person, or any other commander as a person; or any captain, or any column, or any company. Who the Revolution affects is the people (APPLAUSE) It's the people who gain or lose with the Revolution. If it was the people who suffered the horrors of these seven years, it is the people who must now consider whether in 10, 15 or 20 years they, and their children, and their grandchildren, are going to go on suffering the horrors the Republic of Cuba has suffered from its inception, crowned with dictatorships like those of Machado and those of Batista (PROLONGED APPLAUSE). The people are greatly affected by whether we're going to make a good job of this revolution, or if we're going to make the same mistakes as in the last revolution, or the one before that, or the one before that. And so we'll suffer the consequences of our mistakes, since there are no mistakes which do not affect the people, no political mistake which does not have to be paid for, sooner or later. Circumstances alter cases. For instance, I think the present opportunity offers more chances than ever before for the Revolution to fully meet its aims. Perhaps that's why the people are so jubilant, forgetting somewhat the toil and sweat that still lie ahead. One of the nation's main desires, a reflection of the past horrors of the repression and the war, is the yearning for peace, for peace with freedom, for peace with justice, for peace with rights. Nobody wants peace on other terms: Batista talked about peace, about order, but no-one wanted that peace, because its price was subjugation. Now the people have the sort of peace they wanted: peace without dictatorship, peace without censorship, peace without persecution (PROLONGED APPLAUSE). Perhaps the greatest joy at this moment is felt by Cuban mothers. Mothers of soldiers, mothers of revolutionaries, mothers of any citizen, are now basking in the knowledge that their sons are finally out of danger (APPLAUSE). The worst crime that could be committed now in Cuba, would be a crime against the peace. The thing that nobody in Cuba could forgive now would be if someone conspired against the peace (APPLAUSE). Anyone who acts now against the nation's peace, anyone who threatens the peace of mind and happiness of millions of Cuban mothers, is a criminal and a traitor (APPLAUSE).
Anyone who acts now against the nation's peace, anyone who threatens the peace of mind and happiness of millions of Cuban mothers, is a criminal and a traitor (APPLAUSE). Anybody who is unwilling to give up something for the sake of peace, who is unwilling to give up everything for the sake of the nation's peace at this juncture, is a criminal and a traitor (APPLAUSE). Since that's how I see things, I say and I swear before my compatriots that if any of my comrades, or our movement, or I myself, prove to be the slightest obstacle to the nation's peace, from this very moment the people may do with all of us what they will, and tell us what we must do (APPLAUSE). Because I'm a man capable of self-sacrifice, as I have demonstrated more than once in my life, and have passed on to my comrades; I believe I have earned the moral right and have the standing and authority to speak at such a moment as this (APPLAUSE AND SHOUTS OF "Long live Fidel Castro!") And those to whom I should speak first are the revolutionaries, in case of the need - or rather, because of the need - to get the message across early. The decade following the Machado's fall is not far behind us. Perhaps one of the greatest evils of that struggle was the spawning of bands of revolutionaries, which promptly started shooting at each other (APPLAUSE). And as a result, what happened was the arrival of Batista, who stayed in power for 11 years. When the 26th July Movement was organized, also when we started this war, I thought that although the sacrifices we were making were great, although the conflict would be long - and it has been: over two years, two years that were no picnic for us, two years of hard struggle, from when we restarted the campaign with a handful of men, until we arrived at the capital of the Republic. Despite the sacrifices that awaited us, we were comforted by an idea: it was clear that that the 26th July Movement had the overwhelming support and sympathy of the people (APPLAUSE); it was clear that the 26th July Movement had the almost unanimous support of Cuba's youth (APPLAUSE). It seemed that, this time, a large, powerful organization would be able to calm the anxieties of our people, and would forestall the terrible consequences of the proliferation of revolutionary organizations. I think we should all have belonged to a single revolutionary organization from the outset, either ours or someone else's - the 26th, the 27th or the 50th or whatever. If in the last analysis we were all the same, whether we fought in the Sierra Maestra or in the Escambray or in Pinar del Río, and were young men, and men with the same ideals, what was the point of having half a dozen revolutionary organizations? Ours was simply the first; our was simply the one which fought the first battle at the Moncada barracks, the one which landed from the 'Granma' on 2nd December (APPLAUSE), and which fought alone against the tyranny's entire force for over a year (APPLAUSE); which had a mere 12 men, kept the rebel flag flying, showed the people that it was possible to fight and to win; which put paid to all the false notions in the country about revolution. Because here everyone was conspiring with the corporal, with the sergeant, or bringing weapons into Havana, which were seized by the police (APPLAUSE), until we arrived and showed that that wasn't the way to fight, that a different approach was needed, that new tactics and strategies had to be invented, that it was the strategies and tactics which we had put into practice which led to the most remarkable victory in the history of the Cuban people (APPLAUSE). And I want the Cuban people to tell me honestly whether or not this is true (APPLAUSE AND SHOUTS OF "Yes!") And another question: the 26th July Movement had a clear majority of the people's support - is that true or not? (SHOUTS OF "Yes!"). And how did the struggle end? I'll tell you: the Rebel Army (which is what our army is called), from what was started in the Sierra Maestra, by time of the fall of the tyranny, had taken the whole of Oriente, the whole of Camagüey province, part of Las Villas, the whole of Matanzas, La Cabaña, Columbia, the police prefecture and Pinar del Río (APPLAUSE). The end of the conflict was determined by the coordination of our forces: not for nothing our columns crossed the Camagüey plains - pursued by thousands of troops with air support - and reached Las Villas; and because the Rebel Army had Comandante Camilo Cienfuegos (PROLONGED APPLAUSE) at Las Villas, and because it had Comandante Ernesto Guevara at Las Villas (PROLONGED APPLAUSE) on 1st January, following Cantillo's treachery (SHOUTS OF "Down with traitors!")… Because it had them there, on the 1st , I was able to order Comandante Camilo Cienfuegos to advance with 500 men on the capital and attack Columbia (APPLAUSE); because it had Comandante Ernesto Guevara at Las Villas, I was able to tell him to advance on the capital and take La Cabaña (APPLAUSE). All the regiments, all the significant military strongholds, were in the hands of the Rebel Army. And nobody gave them to us; nobody said to us:"Go there, go there, go there". It was our efforts and our sacrifice, our experience and our organization, which led to those results (APPLAUSE). Does this mean the others didn't fight? No. Does this mean that the others deserve no credit? No. Because we all of us fought, because the whole people fought. There was no Sierra in Havana, but there are hundreds of dead comrades, murdered for doing their revolutionary duty. There was no Sierra in Havana, but even so the general strike was a decisive factor in the completeness of the Revolutionary victory (APPLAUSE). In saying this, all I'm doing is putting things in context: the role of the 26th July Movement in this struggle, how it guided the people in those moments when elections and electioneering were talked about here.
Once I had to write an article from Mexico entitled "Frente a Todos", because we were at odds with the general opinion, defending our revolutionary manifesto, the strategy of this revolution, which was drawn up by the Movement; and the culmination of this revolution, which was the crushing defeat of the tyranny, with its key strongholds in the hands of the Rebel Army, organized by the 26th July Movement. The 26th July Movement not only devised the guidelines for war but also established how the enemy was to be treated during the hostilities. This has been perhaps the first revolution in history in which not a single prisoner of war has been murdered (PROLONGED APPLAUSE); in which no wounded have been abandoned, in which no-one has been tortured (APPLAUSE); because that was the standing order established by the rebel Army. And another thing: this is the only revolution in the world which has not produced a general (APPLAUSE) or even a colonel, because the rank I took or my comrades assigned to me was that of comandante [major], and I haven't changed it, despite our having won numerous battles and having won the war; I'm still a comandante, and I don't want any other rank (APPLAUSE). And the moral effect, the fact that we who started this war chose a particular rank within the military hierarchy, was that no-one dared to rank themselves above the level of comandante - although by the look of things, this has resulted in a surfeit of comandantes. I think the people agree with my not mincing words, because having fought as I have for the rights of every citizen at least gives me the right to tell the truth out loud (APPLAUSE). And also because the interests of the homeland are in play: I won't countenance the slightest compromise with risks threatening the Cuban Revolution (APPLAUSE). Does everyone have the same moral right to speak? I say that those to whom more credit is due have more right to speak than those less meritorious. I think that men who seek equality of moral prerogatives should first earn equality of merit. I believe the Revolution has culminated as it should, with Comandante Camilo Cienfuegos - veteran of two years and one month of fighting - (APPLAUSE), as the chief of Columbia; with comandante Efigenio Ameijeiras, who lost three brothers in this war and is a veteran of the 'Granma' and comandante by virtue of the battles he has waged (APPLAUSE), as the Republic's Chief of Police; and with Ernesto Guevara - true hero, member of the 'Granma' expedition and veteran of two years and one month of fighting in Cuba's highest and toughest mountain terrain - as chief of La Cabaña (APPLAUSE); and with each regiment in the various provinces commanded by the men who have sacrificed most and fought hardest for this revolution. And if that's the way things are, no-one has the right to object. First and foremost, merit must be recognized; those who do not recognize merit are mere upstarts (APPLAUSE), lacking the merits of others but seeking the same prerogatives. The Republic, or the Revolution, is entering a new stage. Would it be right for ambition or the cult of personality to emerge and threaten the destiny of the Revolution? (SHOUTS OF "No!"). What is it that interests the people, because it is the people who have the last word here? (SHOUTS OF "Freedom! Freedom!"). They are interested first and foremost in freedoms, in the rights they were deprived of, and in peace. And they've got them, because they now have all the freedoms, all the rights that the tyranny took from them, and they have peace (APPLAUSE). What do the people want? An honest government. An honest government: isn't that what the people want? (SHOUTS OF "Yes!"). They have it here: an upright judge as President of the Republic (APPLAUSE). What do they want - young and honest men as ministers in the revolutionary government? (SHOUTS OF "Yes!"). They have them here: examine the ministers of the revolutionary government one by one, and tell me whether there's a thief or a criminal or a scoundrel among them (SHOUTS OF "No!"). There are many men eligible to be ministers in Cuba by virtue of their integrity and ability, but they can't all be ministers, because there can be only 14, 15 or 16. And the people don't care who so-and-so is, but that whoever he is, that he is young and honest (APPLAUSE). And here the important thing is that those who've been appointed have those qualities, and not whether so-and-so is in or out, because the so-and-so's don't matter a damn at this juncture, to the Revolution or to the Republic (APPLAUSE). Can anyone, aspiring to be a minister, seek to shed blood in this country? (SHOUTS OF "No!"). Can any group, having been denied three or four ministries, shed blood in this country or undermine the peace? (SHOUTS OF "No!"). If the governing team which the Cuban people have now is no good, the people will have the opportunity of throwing it out - not voting for it at the polls, but ousting it in an election (APPLAUSE).
If the governing team which the Cuban people have now is no good, the people will have the opportunity of throwing it out - not voting for it at the polls, but ousting it in an election (APPLAUSE). This isn't a case where the way to get rid of a mediocre government team is for someone start a revolution or carry out a coup d'état, since everybody knows that elections will be held and if the administration is no good, the people will have the last word, without let or hindrance. Not doing what Batista did, 80 days before an election, saying that he was fighting the government and making a series of accusations against that government, saying that it was his mission to get rid of it and that this was the patriotic thing to do. Coups d'état and attacks on the constitution and rule of law are gone forever from here (APPLAUSE). These things need to be said, to prevent the emergence of demagoguery and misinformation and attempts to divide us; to ensure that the first sign of vaunting ambition by anyone is recognized at once by the people (APPLAUSE). And for my part, I say that since who I want to command is the people, because they are the best troops, and that I prefer the people to all the armed columns put together; I say that the first thing I will always do when I see a threat to the Revolution, is to call on the people (APPLAUSE). Because by talking to the people, we can avoid bloodshed. Because here, we should call on the people a thousand times before firing a shot, and talk to the people so that the people, without shoot-outs, solve the problems. I have faith in the people, and I know what the people can do and I believe I have demonstrated it; and I say that if the people so choose, there will never be another shot fired in this country (APPLAUSE). Because public opinion has tremendous strength and has tremendous influence, especially when there's no dictatorship. Under dictatorship, public opinion is nothing; in times of freedom, public opinion is everything, and the guns must yield and kneel before public opinion (APPLAUSE). How am I doing, Camilo? (SHOUTS OF "Long live Camilo!") I am speaking to the people in this way because I have always liked to look ahead, and I think that talking to the people ahead of events can protect the Revolution from the only remaining future threats; while these are not great, I want to make sure that the Revolution can take root without the shedding of another drop of Cuban blood (APPLAUSE). My main concern is that abroad, where the Revolution has caught the imagination of the whole world, it must not be said that, within three weeks, or four weeks, or a month, or one week, more Cuban blood has been shed to consolidate this Revolution, because in that case this Revolution would not be an example (APPLAUSE). I would not have talked like this when we were a group of 12 men, because when we were a group of 12 men all we had to look forward to was fighting, fighting, fighting. And in those circumstances, fighting was right. But now, when we've got the planes, the tanks, the artillery and the immense majority of men under arms, and a navy, several army companies and enormous military power (SHOUTS OF "And the people!" "And the people!") People … What I'm saying is: now that we have all that, I'm alarmed by the idea of fighting, because now there's no merit in fighting. I'd rather go back to the Sierra Maestra, with 12 men, to fight all the tanks, than come with all the tanks to shoot at anyone here (APPLAUSE). And those I ask to give us much help, those I beg to help me, are the people (APPLAUSE), public opinion, so as to disarm the power-hungry, to denounce immediately those who are now beginning to show their true colors (APPLAUSE). I'm not today going to embark on personal or specific attacks, because it's early days, too soon to start public controversies - although when the time comes, I don't mind, because I have no inhibitions about plain speaking when it's necessary - and because the people are rejoicing, and because among the body of fighters - I'm not saying among all their leaders, but certainly most of their leaders - and there's Carlos Prío Socarrás, for example, who came to Cuba with the aim of helping the Revolution with no strings attached, as he says, absolutely without any ulterior motive (APPLAUSE); he has made no protest about what's happened, not the slighted protest, has not made the least complaint, or expressed the least disagreement regarding the cabinet; he knows the cabinet is composed of honest men and of young men, who well deserve a vote of confidence in their work. And then there are the leaders of other organizations, equally prepared. And there's another thing: the bodies of fighting men, the men who fought and who were motivated solely by ideals, the men who fought, in all the organizations: they are figures of high patriotism, with strongly revolutionary, noble sentiments, who will always think the way the people think; I'm sure that whoever commits the lunacy of trying to spark a civil war will incur the condemnation of the entire people (APPLAUSE) and will lose the support of the rank-and-file fighters, who will not follow him. And it would be lunacy indeed, to challenge not only our forces in their present condition, but also to defy reason, the law of the land and the entire Cuban people (APPLAUSE). And I'm saying all this because I want to ask the people a question: I want to ask the people a question that interests me greatly, and interests the people greatly; so tell me: To what end, at this juncture, are clandestine weapons being stockpiled? Why are weapons being hidden in various parts of Havana? What are weapons being smuggled in for, at this juncture? What for? I'm telling you there are elements of a certain revolutionary organization who are hiding weapons (SHOUTS OF "Let's find them!"), who are stockpiling arms and are smuggling arms. All the arms captured by the Rebel Army are in the barracks, where not a single weapon has been touched, nobody has taken any home, or hidden any.
They are in the barracks under lock and key. It's the same in Pinar del Río, in La Cabaña, in Columbia, in Matanzas, in Santa Clara, in Camagüey, and in Oriente. Nobody has loaded up trucks with weapons to hide them anywhere: these weapons are in the barracks. I'm going to ask you a question, because speaking frankly and analyzing problems is how you solve them, and I'm ready to do everything in my power to solve them as they should be solved: with reasoning and intelligence, and with the influence of public opinion, which is in charge, and not with force. Because if one believes in force, if problems had to be solved by the use of force, there would be no need to talk to the people, or to put this problem to them, but to go and look for those arms (APPLAUSE). And what we must try to do here is persuade the revolutionary fighters, the idealists, who could be misled by such machinations, to turn their backs on the treacherous honchos who are involved in these activities, and align themselves with those they serve first and foremost - the people. I'm going to ask you a question: Weapons for what purpose? To fight whom? To fight the revolutionary government, which has the support of the entire people? (SHOUTS OF "No!"). Is the Republic's present Urrutia administration the same as the Batista administration? (SHOUTS OF "No!"). Weapons for what purpose? Is there a dictatorship here? (SHOUTS OF "No!") Are they going to attack a free government that respects the rights of the people? (SHOUTS OF "No!") Now, when there's no censorship, when the press is completely free, freer than it's ever been, and has the certainty of knowing that it will always be free, that censorship is gone forever? (APPLAUSE). Now, when the whole people can assemble freely? Now, when there's no torture, no political prisoners, no murders, no terror? Now, when there's nothing but joy, when all the traitorous union leaders have been sacked and we're on the point of holding elections in all the unions? (APPLAUSE). When all the citizen's rights have been restored, when elections are to be called as soon as possible - arms for what? Hiding arms to what end? To blackmail the President of the Republic? To threaten the peace? To set up gangster organizations? Are we to go back to daily shoot-outs in the streets of Havana? Arms for what? Well, I can tell you that two days ago, elements of a certain organization went to a barracks - the San Antonio barracks which were under the jurisdiction of Comandante Camilo Cienfuegos and under my jurisdiction as Commander-In-Chief of all the forces - and made off with the arms stored there; they took 500 small arms, 6 machine guns and 80,000 cartridges (SHOUTS OF "Let's find them!"). And I tell you frankly there could not have been a worse provocation. Because to do this to men who've been fighting for this country for years, to men who are now tasked with keeping the nation's peace and are trying to do things properly, is a shameful act and an unjustifiable provocation. And what we've done is not to go looking for those guns, exactly because - as I said earlier - what we want is to talk to the people, use the influence of public opinion, so that the honchos behind these criminal operations find themselves without men. So that the idealistic fighters - they're true idealists, the men who fought in all the organizations here - know about it, so they can demand accountability for these acts. And that's why we haven't even allowed ourselves to be provoked, why we have kept our cool despite this stealing of weapons - an unjustifiable theft because here there is no dictatorship; no-one is afraid that we're going to turn into dictators - and I'll tell you why: those who become dictators are those who don't have the support of the people, who have to resort to force because they don't get votes at election time (APPLAUSE). We couldn't become dictators, we who have evoked such affection - universal, total and absolute affection - among the people. Not to mention our principles, which would never allow us the effrontery of holding onto a position by force, because that disgusts us - it's not for nothing that we have been the standard bearers in a struggle against an ugly, repellent tyranny (APPLAUSE). We will never need to use force, because the people are with us, and also because the day the people frown on us will be the last day they do so: we'll quit (APPLAUSE). Because we see this as duty, not as a pleasure; we see this as work, which may mean that we go without sleep, without rest, without food, traveling around the island and working honestly to serve our country. It means something that we have nothing, and that we will always be men who have nothing (APPLAUSE AND SHOUTS OF: "You have the people!"). And the people will never see us commit acts of immorality or grant privileges to anybody or tolerate an injustice or steal or make ourselves rich or anything of the kind. Because we see power as self-sacrifice, and believe me, if it were not so, after all the show of affection I've had from the people, all this tremendous demonstration today, if one were not committed to performing a duty, one should depart, or retire, or die, because after so much affection and so much trust, not doing one's duty to this people is simply unthinkable! (PROLONGED APPLAUSE).
(PROLONGED APPLAUSE). And if it weren't for this duty, if it weren't for this duty - I'm telling you - what I would do now is take my leave of the people and keep with me always the affection I've received today, and have people address me with same terms of encouragement with which they have addressed me today. However, I know that power is a burdensome, a complicated affair, that our missions and tasks are difficult, like this very problem which has confronted us, which is a really difficult one, a hard nut to crack, and one tackles it because the one thing one is not going to say to the people at this juncture is "I'm leaving". (SHOUTS OF "Long live the father of the homeland!" FOLLOWED BY AN OVATION). There is another reason we're not interested in using force: on the day anyone takes up arms here, I would go so far as to call on my worst enemy, on the person who was the most inimical to me and, assuming he was prepared to do the will of the people, I would tell him: "Look, take all these forces, all these troops and all these arms" and I would be so easy in my mind, because I know that the day there's an armed uprising, I'll head straight back to the Sierra Maestra and we'd see how long the new dictatorship stayed in power (APPLAUSE). I think there are more than enough reasons for everyone to see that we have no interest in exercising power by the use of force. The President of the Republic has entrusted me with the thorniest of tasks, that of reorganizing the Republic's armed institutions, and has assigned to me the post of Commander-In-Chief of all the nation's air, sea and land-based forces (APPLAUSE AND SHOUTS OF "You deserve it!"). No, I don't deserve it, because it's a sacrifice for me, and it's absolutely no reason for pride, no reason for vanity; for me, it's a sacrifice. But I want the people to tell me whether they think I should take the job (PROLONGED APPLAUSE AND (SHOUTS OF "Yes!"). I think that if we created an army with 12 men, and those 12 men are now in positions of command, I think that if we taught our army that no prisoner can be murdered, that the wounded can never be abandoned, that no prisoner can ever be beaten, we are the men who can teach the Republic's armed institutions the same things that we taught that army (APPLAUSE). To have armed institutions in which not a single one of their men ever again beats a prisoner, or tortures one or kills one (APPLAUSE). And also because we can serve as a bridge between the revolutionaries and the decent soldiers, the ones who have not stolen or murdered, because those soldiers, the ones who have not stolen or murdered, have the right to remain in the armed forces (APPLAUSE); by the same token, there'll be no escape from the firing squad for those who have committed murder (PROLONGED APPLAUSE). Moreover, all the revolutionary fighters who want to belong to the Republic's regular forces have the right, whatever organization they belong to, to keep their existing ranks … The doors are open to all the revolutionary fighting men who want to pitch in, who want to do something useful for the country. And if that's the case, if there are freedoms, if there is government by honest young men, if the country is satisfied, if it trusts that government and the men in command of the armed forces, if there are going to be elections, if the doors are open to everyone, why stockpile weapons? I want you to tell me whether what the people want is that we make peace, or whether they want a guy with a gun on every street corner; I want you to tell me if the people are in agreement with or believe it to be right that everyone here who wants a private army can have one, and can stop following his superior's orders (SHOUTS OF "No!"); and whether that's the way to get order and peace in the Republic of Cuba (SHOUTS OF "No!"). (SOMEONE SHOUTS: "Purging of the armed forces!") 'Super-purging', not purging (APPLAUSE). (SHOUTS OF: "Tell us about Raúl"!). Raúl is at the Moncada barracks, which is where he should be now. And these are the issues I wanted to raise with the people today. As soon as possible the guns must leave the streets, the guns must disappear from the streets (APPLAUSE). Because there is no longer an enemy confronting us, because there's no longer any reason to fight anybody. And if one day it becomes necessary to fight a foreign enemy or a movement that attacks the Revolution, it won't be some limited engagement, it'll be the entire people that fight (PROLONGED APPLAUSE). The weapons belong in the barracks. Nobody has the right to a private army here (APPLAUSE). The elements carrying on these suspicious operations have maybe found an excuse for these in the fact that I've been appointed, together with my comrades, to do a job assigned to us by the President, and have suggested the existence of a political army. A political army? As I've been saying, the entire people are with us; does that really make ours a political army? I want the people to know, I want Cuban mothers to know, that I will always do whatever is in our power to solve the country's problems without shedding a drop of blood (APPLAUSE). I want Cuban mothers to know that not another shot will be fired here on our account; and I want to ask the people, and to ask the press, and to ask every sane, reasonable man in the country, to help us solve these problems with the support of public opinion; not with horse-trading, because when people arm themselves and make threats in order to get something, that is immoral and I'll never have truck with it (APPLAUSE). Now that certain elements have started stockpiling weapons, I can assure you that I won't accept the slightest concession, because that would be debasing the ideals of the Revolution (APPLAUSE). And what needs to be done is to get those who don't belong to the Republic's regular forces - to which every revolutionary fighting man has the right to belong - to return the weapons to the barracks, because weapons are superfluous here, now there's no tyranny, and it's been demonstrated that arms are only appropriate when there's a good reason for having them and the people are behind you;
otherwise, all they're good for is murder and kidnapping (APPLAUSE). I want to tell the people also that they can be sure that the law of the land with be respected, that there'll be no gangsterism here, nor street gangs, nor banditry, simply because there will be zero tolerance. The Republic's weaponry is now in the hands of the revolutionaries. I hope those arms will never have to be used, but on the day when the people orders their deployment to ensure peace, law and order, or the exercise of their rights, when the people so order, when the people so desire, in the presence of a real need, then the arms will do their job, will do their duty, simply (APPLAUSE). Let no-one think that we're going to respond to provocation; because we're too level-headed to respond to provocation, because we have responsibilities too important for us ever to take hasty measures or engage in saber-rattling or anything of that kind, and because I'm acutely aware of the need to exhaust - and I will always exhaust - every means of persuasion, every reasonable means, every human means to avoid the shedding of another drop of blood in Cuba. So as far as provocations are concerned, no-one needs to worry that I'm going to go off the deep end; because when the patience of all of us has run out, we'll get some more patience, and when that runs out, we'll get even more. That will be our rule (APPLAUSE). And that must be among the standing orders of every man bearing arms and of those wielding power: never tire of forbearance, never tire of accepting abuse and provocations of all kinds, except in cases threatening the most sacrosanct interests of the people. But then only when the case is clear-cut, only when demanded by the whole nation, the press, the civic institutions, the workers' organizations, and the people as a whole; when they call for action, and only then. And what I will always do in these circumstances, is come to the people and explain: "Look, this has happened". On this occasion, I've avoided naming names, because I don't want to poison the atmosphere, and because I don't want to add to the tension; all I want is, simply, to avoid these dangers to the people, because it would be very sad if this Revolution, bought at the price of so much sacrifice - not that it's going to be thwarted, because there's no way this Revolution could be thwarted, because it's known that the people are behind it, and given everything it offers to the people, there's not the slightest risk - but it would be very sad if after the example we have shown Latin America, another shot was fired here. It's true that in almost every revolution, after the conflict ends, comes another, and another. Consider the history of all revolutions, in Mexico and everywhere. However, it seem that this one is going to be an exception, as it has been an exception in every other respect. It has been extraordinary in every other respect, and we would be gratified if it were extraordinary in the sense that not another shot was fired here. And I think that will be the case, I think the Revolution will triumph without another shot being fired. Do you know why? Because it is truly laudable, the degree of integrity which has evolved in this country, the civic-mindedness of this people, the discipline of this people, the spirit of this people; really, I'm proud of the entire people, I have tremendous faith in the people of Cuba (APPLAUSE). It's worthwhile, making sacrifices for this people. Today I had the satisfaction of giving an example in front of the entire press. There was a crowd in front of the presidential palace, and they were telling me it would take 1,000 men to be able to get away from there. So I stopped, and I asked the people to form two ranks. There was no need for even one man, I said, and that I was going to get there by myself. And in a few minutes, the people formed two ranks, and we passed through without the slightest difficulty. That's the people of Cuba, and that demonstration was performed in front of the entire press corps (APPLAUSE). From now on, no more bouquets and ovations. From now on, for us: work. Tomorrow will be a day like any other, as will all the rest, and we'll get used to freedom. Now we are content, because we were without freedom for a long time, but within a week we'll be worrying about other things: whether we've got enough money to pay the rent, the electricity, to buy food. These are the problems the revolutionary government should really be solving, the million problems of the people of Cuba, and to that end it has a council of ministers composed of young men I know to be fired with enthusiasm, who I'm certain are going to change the Republic of Cuba - I'm certain (PROLONGED APPLAUSE). Also because there's a president who is securely installed in office, who is free of any danger, because the dangers I was talking about were not such as to overthrow the regime - nothing remotely of the kind - but the danger that another single drop of blood might be shed. But the President of the Republic is secure, already recognized by all the nations - well, not all, but he is quickly being recognized by all the countries in the world - and has the support of the people, and our support, the support of the revolutionary forces; and real support - support with no strings attached, support without asking for or claiming anything, because we have fought here for the foundations of civil power, and we are going to show that for us, principles take precedence over every other consideration and that we were not fighting out of personal ambition. I think we've given enough proof of having fought without personal ambition. I don't think a single Cuban has the slightest doubt on that score. So now we've got a lot of work to do. For my part, I'm ready to do everything I can for the benefit of my country, as I know all my comrades are, as I know are the President of the Republic and all the ministers, who will work tirelessly. And I can assure you that anyone who leaves Cuba today and comes back in two years' time, won't recognize this Republic.
I see a tremendous spirit of cooperation all over the country. I see the press, the journalists, all sectors of the nation, eager to help; and that's what's needed. The Cuban people have learned a lot: in these seven years, they've learned as if seventy years have gone by. It was said that the coup d'état set the country back 25 years; if that was the case - and it was indeed a setback of that magnitude - we've now brought about an advance of fifty. The Republic is unrecognizable: no politicking, no vice, no gambling, no stealing. We began just a few days ago, and already the Republic is virtually unrecognizable. Now there remains a major job to be done. All the problems concerning the armed forces are issues with implications for our future activities, but, moreover, we will always do whatever is in our power for the entire people. I'm not a professional soldier, or a career soldier, or anything of that nature. I'll be here for the minimum time, and when I've finished here I'll move on to other things because, frankly, I won't be needed here for this (EXCLAMATIONS). I mean that I won't be needed within military-type operations, and that I have other aspirations of different kinds. And exactly that, among other things: the day I feel the urge to start shooting, fight, pursue a new interest, there's plenty of space here for doing stuff (APPLAUSE). (SHOUTS OF: "We need to create jobs!"). If we don't solve these problems, this is no Revolution, comrades, because I think the basic problem of the Republic at this juncture, which will soon be a necessity for the people, when the euphoria of victory has faded, is work - a decent means of earning a living (APPLAUSE). But that's not all, comrades: there are a thousand other things which I've been discussing throughout these days, which I assume you, to varying degrees, have heard about through the radio and the press and otherwise, because we're not going to deal with all the issues in a single evening. Let's confine ourselves to thinking about the problems I've talked about today, and wind up a long day - I may not be tired, but I know you have to get back to homes that are a long way away (SHOUTS OF:" It doesn't matter, carry on!"). I had a date to appear on the Ante la Prensa ["Face the Press"] program tonight at 10.30 or whatever time it was, and now it's 1.30 (SHOUTS OF: "Tomorrow!"). OK, I'll leave it till tomorrow. You will get the opportunity to hear the ministers, through the press, the radio and all the media possible. All the friends of mine of such a long time, wherever they've come from: from the school, from the neighborhood. I can almost say I know every Cuban … I was saying you'll have the opportunity to hear the ministers, each of whom has his plans and will set out his program; all the men on the Council of Ministers have a close rapport with all the revolutionary elements. The President of the Republic, with the rights attaching to his post - because he was elected without conditions - has filled most of the ministerial posts from the 26th July Movement. He exercised his right, and having asked for our cooperation, he received it fully, and we accepted responsibility for this revolutionary government. Something I've said elsewhere: nobody should imagine that the issues will be resolved overnight. The war wasn't won in a day, or in two or in three days, and it was an uphill struggle; nor are we going to do everything that needs to be done in a day. Also, I've told the people on earlier occasions not to run away with the idea that these ministers are sages. For a start, none - or hardly any of them - has been a minister before. So none of them know how to be a minister - it's something new for them. What they are is full of good intentions. And in this I say the same as I say of the rebel commanders: look, Comandante Camilo Cienfuegos knew nothing about war, or how to handle a gun - absolutely nothing. Che Guevara knew nothing; when I met him in Mexico, his occupation was dissecting rabbits and doing medical research. Raúl didn't know anything either. Neither did Efigenio Ameijeiras. At the beginning, they knew nothing of war; at the end, I could say to them, as I in fact said, "Comrade, advance on Columbia, and take it", "Comrade, advance on La Cabaña, and take it, "Advance on Santiago, and take it", and I knew that they would succeed … (PROLONGED APPLAUSE). Why? Because they'd learned. Perhaps the ministers will not be able to do great things now, but I'm sure that within a few months they'll know how to solve the problems posed to them by the people, because they have what counts most: the desire to get things right and to help the people. And above all, I'm sure that not one of them will ever commit one of the classic offenses of ministers. You know which, don't you?
You know which, don't you? (SHOUTS OF "Stealing!", "Stealing!"). Aha! How did you know? Well, above all, this: the morality, the integrity of these comrades. They may not be sages, because no-one here is a sage, but I can assure you there's no shortage of men of integrity, which is what the situation calls for. Isn't that what the people have always called for, an honest government? (SHOUTS OF "Yes!"). So then, let's give them a vote of confidence, let's do that and let's wait (SHOUTING). Yes, most of them are from the "26th" , but if they're no good, they'll be replaced by others from the 27th or the 28th. We know that there are a lot of qualified people in Cuba, but they can't all be ministers. Or maybe the 26th July Movement doesn't have the right to try its hand at governing the Republic? (SHOUTS OF "Yes!"). So that's all for today. Really, there's just one other thing … If you knew, that when I meet with the people, I lose the need for sleep, for food. You lose the need for sleep too, don't you? (SHOUTS OF "Yes!") The important thing, or what I need to tell you, is my belief that what the people of Havana have done today, today's huge concentrations, this gathering stretching for miles - because this has been amazing, you saw it, it appeared in the films, in the photographs - I think, frankly, that the people have gone too far, because this is much more than we deserve (SHOUTS OF "No!"). I also know that never again in our lives will we see such a gathering, except on another occasion - on which I’m sure the crowds will mass again - and that's the day we die, because when the time comes to bury us, on that day, as many people as today will be here, because we will never disappoint our people! (OVATION) Translation of the stenographic version, filed at the Prime Minister's offices. Fidel Castro Internet Archive
[email protected] Home Current Issue Archives Arsenal of Marxism Subscribe Links Search Who We Are Donate Contact us Sep/Oct 2007 • Vol 7, No. 5 Click Here to Return to the Index Search the Site: Enter term and click Go! In Spite of Everything By Fidel Castro Ruz Do you think that you merely enjoy the Pan American Games? Think again, and you will realize that no matter your age, you run, jump, put the shots, throw javelins, discuses and hammers; soar above hurdles and tracks, relay batons, spike balls, score a basket, row, execute ippons, turn your rival over, follow strategies, splash water over yourself after running for two hours and even stop taking in the oxygen that your lungs are demanding. What a wonderful show the athletes put on for us! But you do not just enjoy; you participate, especially when athletes from your country are competing. In our case, there is hardly any event where there is not a Cuban team or athlete present. Besides, July and August are months filled with commemorative activities. This is also the warmest and most humid period of the year. Added to this there is a magic word: holidays! Your homes see millions of children, teenagers and young people getting together. People from all ages feel the obsessive need to relax in this stressful time in which we live. This is the time of mothers, especially of grandmothers. With great love and determination they look after their children’s children and even after their grandchildren’s children. They are the heroines of the marathon that goes on year after year. Commemorations would lack every sense if it were not for the advances achieved by our Revolution; these are the sum total of examples set forth and efforts carried out for a long time. Cuba is almost the only country offering free education, health and sports services. A special tribute should go to a comrade who exactly 50 years ago gave up his life fighting the tyranny: the young 22-year-old hero Frank Pa�s [A Cuban revolutionary fighter killed by Santiago de Cuba police July 30, 1957]. Those who fought for these ideals made it possible for us to enjoy today’s levels of social justice, which includes full employment for all men and women in our country. The most important achievement of the Revolution has been the capacity to resist a blockade for almost half century as well as privations of every sort. Restrictions in the variety and quality of foodstuffs and future threats of unaffordable prices that may result from the imperialist constraint of using much of this scarce and vital raw material to produce fuel are not ruled out. We have come to the end of the Pan American Games; I am going to miss them. Cuba won the first place in track and field, with 12 gold medals. As a country, it ranked second at the XV Pan American Games with a total of 59 gold medals, preceded only by the United States, which won 97; in other words, they won 1.64 gold medals for each one that was won by our country. But the United States has 26-times more inhabitants than Cuba. According to conservative figures, they won one medal per every 3.09 million inhabitants; we won one per every 195 thousand. On 59 occasions we heard the spirited notes of the Cuban National Anthem playing. In spite of everything! —Prensa Latina, July 30, 2007 Home Current Archives Arsenal of Marxism Subscribe Links Search About Us Donate Contact 2001-2007. Socialist Viewpoint Publishing
Castro Internet Archive U.N. Demands of Cuba First Published: November 2, 1962 Source: Castro Speech Database Markup: Brian Baggins Online Version: Castro Internet Archive (marxists.org) 2000 (Live interview with Fidel Castro in television studios of station CMQ; Luis Gomez Wanguermert, moderator) Wanguermert: Good evening televiewers. The Cuban radio and television stations have joined the national hookup this evening in order to broadcast the statement of the premier and commander in chief, Dr. Fidel Castro, on the talks held in Havana with U.N. Secretary General U Thant and other current subjects. Commander Castro, what can you tell us about U Thant's visit to Havana? Castro: Well, the talks held with U Thant, the U.N. secretary general, lasted two days, and I thought that the best way to inform the people of this matter was to read the copies of the conversations. The following should be pointed out and considered: On the first day talks of a general nature were held in which our country's position was set forth. On the second day he wanted to discuss several confidential matters. I then asked him if he minded if the shorthand version of the first day's talks, in which the entire position of the Cuban revolution of the reasons for Cuba's conduct is set forth — if he minded if I made it public. He agreed. We also promised him that the points — the questions and the matters of a confidential nature he might discuss, labeling them as such, not for our sake but for his — would not be published for the time being. However, everything that was discussed is right there. Therefore, I shall read the shorthand version of the conversations held at the Presidential Palace on 30 October 1962 which began at 1510 hours. U Thant — I shall read the names of the persons speaking — so U Thant — there is one point I should like to bring up — (Castro explains — Ed.) he (U Thant — Ed.) is speaking: In the discussions I had in New York, both with the representatives of the Soviet Union and with the representatives of the United States, General Rikhye was always present, and I feel that his presence would be useful at this meeting with the Premier. We: We do not mind. General Rikhye is invited to participate in the interview. U Thant: First of all, Mr. Premier, I should like to thank you and your government for your invitation to visit Cuba, not only for this mission, but also for the invitation given me earlier. As I informed you when I accepted your invitation, I came as soon as possible. I am certain that today and tomorrow we shall have very fruitful talks toward finding a solution with regard to Cuba's sovereignty and independence. We: We can talk for as long as is necessary. We have plenty of free time to give you. U Thant: As you well know the Cuban problem was presented to the Security Council last week during the meetings of the 45 neutral countries, principally those which had attended the Bandung and Belgrade conferences. Two meetings were held, and they sent representatives to confer with me — since I also belong to a neutral country and participated in the two meetings — to ask me to take the initiative, the initiative which could contribute to the peaceful solution of this problem. On 24 October I decided to take this initiative. After I heard the statements by the three delegations in the Security Council I came to the conclusion that the immediate problem was to make an appeal to the three powers and I called upon Premier Khrushchev to suspend the arms shipments to Cuba voluntarily for two or three weeks and upon President Kennedy to lift the quarantine voluntarily; and then I called upon Your Excellency to voluntarily suspend the construction of the missile bases to give us an opportunity to discuss the problem calmly. Immediately after my request the Security Council suspended its meetings to give me a change to put my plans into effect. On the following day I learned that Soviet ships are approaching the quarantine area. I sent a second appeal to Premier Khrushchev and to President Kennedy asking them to avoid a direct confrontation on this matter, so that I could have the few days necessary to discuss this matter. On the same day I send you a letter to which you very kingly replied asking me to visit Cuba. The subject of this letter was the suspension of missile base construction in Cuba. Since then there have been communications between Premier Khrushchev and President Kennedy, between Premier Khrushchev and myself, between President Kennedy and myself. Naturally, Your Excellency also replied to my letter of 27 October. The contents of this letter are already known to the public because it has been published. As I see the problem, Your Excellency, it is in two parts: one immediate and the other long term. For the time being the Security Council wishes to deal with the solution of the immediate problem. The object of my negotiations with the three powers I mentioned concerns only the immediate problem, naturally. However, the United National will have to be involved in some way in the solution of the long term problem. Several factors are involved in the immediate problem: The first is that Premier Khrushchev responded to my request, giving instructions to the Soviet ships to keep away from the quarantine area for the time being for several days. President Kennedy replied that he was prepared to avoid a direct confrontation with the Soviet ships if they were not carrying armaments, and Premier Khrushchev told me very explicitly that the Soviet ships are not carrying armaments at present. If the two powers agree, no armaments will be sent to Cuba for two or three weeks, and for two or three weeks if no arms are being shipped the United States will lift the quarantine. What the United States wants to be sure of is that the Soviet ships will not carry armaments. What the United State wants is a machinery — an arrangement — through the United Nations which would assure it that during this period of two or three weeks no arms will enter Cuba. The Soviet Union does not agree with this proposal. Yesterday the Soviet Government proposed another solution, that is, that the Soviet ships would permit inspections by the Red Cross, verification by the Red Cross that they are not carrying weapons. This reply by the Soviet Union was communicated to the United States last evening. The Red Cross, which we contacted in Geneva by telephone yesterday, replied that in the name of world peace and international cooperation it would agree to take charge of this matter, either on the high seas or in the ports of disembarkation, if the Cuban Government agreed.
I cannot take sides at all. I am not empowered to associated myself with any of the proposals. I only informed the Red Cross, the Soviet Union, and the United States that, with due consideration to Cuba's sovereignty, I would request this of the Red Cross, always subject to the consent of the Cuban Government. The three parties were informed of this, and it was reported that the Cuban Government would be informed of it. Therefore, Your Excellency, the first point, which would help my work considerably, would be to know the attitude of the Cuban Government to the idea of the Red Cross checking the transportation of armaments on Soviet ships for the next two or three weeks. The question is: What would Cuba's attitude be to this proposal? President Dorticos: Are you speaking of the high seas, or in Cuba? U Thant: Of course, I informed the governments of the Soviet Union and the United States of this proposal made by the Red Cross. The Soviet Government replied that this is a matter pertaining to Cuban sovereignty. I have not received a reply from the U.S. Government on the matter. Would Your Excellency like to discuss the matter point by point or all together? We: I would prefer you to continue your statement. U Thant: The United States told me, and also said so during the negotiations and during the Security Council meetings, that its main concern lies with the launching pads rather than the armament. Its principal concern is the missile launching pads. As is well known, last Sunday Premier Khrushchev instructed the Soviet technicians to dismantle the missile launching pads and to return the missiles to the Soviet Union. He also said that he would ask the United Nations to send teams to verify if this has actually been done. I replied to the Soviet representatives that before a team could be sent to check on this the most important point was to obtain the prior consent of the Cuban Government. This matter could not be presented without the knowledge and consent of the Cuban Government and no action could be taken which would violate its sovereignty. I also informed both the Soviet representative and the U.S. Government that I would come to Cuba to present this viewpoint to Premier Castro and to his colleagues. Of course, but the Soviet Government and the U.S. Government agree on this point — that if the launching pads are removed tension will be reduced. What the United States is seeking through me is a temporary agreement prior to the conclusion of the dismantling of the pads. I asked the Soviet representatives how long this would take. They asked Moscow, but this morning they had not received a reply. What the United States is looking for is a temporary agreement with the United Nations, subject, naturally, to the authorization and consent of the Cuban Government. Naturally, no one knows how long this will take — one or two weeks, and perhaps more. Thus, the first U.S. proposal is that if Cuba consents, a team of U.N. representatives consists of persons whose nationalities are acceptable to the Cuban Government would be suggested. The second proposal would be a reconnaissance plane manned by persons acceptable to the Cuban, Russian, and American Governments. A plane with a Cuban, a Russian, and a U.S. representative on board for the two or three weeks this may last was also suggested. I replied to the United States that this proposal would also be presented to Premier Fidel Castro. The United States informed me that as soon as this system has been put into practice it would make a public statement, in the Security Council if necessary, that it would harbor no aggressive intentions toward the Cuban Government and would guarantee the territorial integrity of the nation. I was asked to tell you this. As I replied to the United States and to everyone, the most important thing is that all these decisions cannot be reached without the consent of the Cuban Government. I was told that if this decision was reached with agreement of the Cuban Government and the United Nations, not only would the United States make the statements in the Security Council but it would also lift the blockade. I informed the United States yesterday that while I was conferring with premier Fidel Castro and the Cuban leaders, it would be ill advised for the blockade to be maintained, and I asked that is be suspended. This morning it was announced that the blockade had been suspended for the 48 hours of my visit to the Republic of Cuba. As Your Excellency knows, I said in the Security Council that this blockade was highly unusual, not very common excepting in times of war. That is what I told the Security Council. This viewpoint is shared by the 45 countries which me and asked me to make this request. Two of these 45 countries, who also have seats on the Security Council at this time — the United Arab Republic and Ghana — made statements in this connection during a meeting in the Security Council. Other countries of the 45 neutrals, particularly those which participated in the Belgrade conference, will make similar statements if given an opportunity. So much for the immediate problem. Your Excellency, the Security Council did not authorize me to discuss the longterm problems, although this is something which will have to be discussed in the Security Council later. For the purposes of this first conversation, this is all I have to say to you, Your Excellency. We: There is one point which confuses me: it concerns your proposals on inspection. They speak of two points here — a team and a plane. I should like more explanation on this point. Please repeat to me the part referring to the inspection proposal.
Please repeat to me the part referring to the inspection proposal. U Thant: Both proposals would come from the United Nations and would consist of two units: one on land and the other from a plane for the period of the dismantling of the bases, that is, about two weeks. We: I do not understand why this is asked of us. Could you explain a little better? U Thant: The explanation given by the United States why it is making the request is that it wants to be certain that the pads are actually dismantled and that the missiles are returned to the Soviet Union. We: What right has the United States to ask this? I mean, if this is based upon a real right of if it is a demand based upon force, or a position of strength. U Thant: This is my viewpoint: it is not a right. Such a thing could only be done with the approval and consent of the Cuban Government. We: We do not exactly understand why this is asked of us because we have not violated any right, we absolutely have not attacked anyone. All our actions have been based upon international law. We have done absolutely nothing outside the norms of international law. On the other hand, we have been the victims first of all of a blockage, which is an illegal act, and in the second place, of the attempt to determine from another what we have a right to do or not to do within our frontiers. It is our understanding that Cuba is a sovereign state no more nor less than any member nation of the United Nations with all the attributes inherent in any of these states. Moreover, the United States has repeatedly been violating our airspace without any right, committing an intolerable act of aggression against our country which it has sought to justify by an OAS decision, but this decision is not valid for us. We were even expelled from the OAS. We can accept anything that is just, that does not imply a reduction of our sovereignty. The rights violated by the United States have not been reestablished, and we do not accept any imposition by force. I believe that this question of inspection is one more attempt to humiliate our country, therefore we do not accept it. This request for inspection is to confirm their attempt to violate our right, to act within our frontiers with complete freedom, to decide what we can or cannot do within our frontiers. This line of ours is not a new one; it is a viewpoint we have invariably and always maintained. In Cuba's reply to the joint U.S. resolution we said textually: The threat of a direct armed attack if Cuba strengthens itself militarily to a degree to which the United States takes the liberty of deciding is absurd. We do not have the slightest intention of giving an account or of consulting the U.S. Senate or House of Representatives with regard to the weapons we deem it advisable to acquire and the measures to take to fully defend our country. Do we not have the rights which the international norms, laws, and principles recognize for every sovereign state anywhere in the world? We have not granted and do not plan to grant the U.S. Congress any sovereign prerogative. This viewpoint was confirmed in the United Nations by the President of the Republic of Cuba, and also during many public statements made by me as premier of the government, and this is a firm stand of the Cuban Government. All these steps were taken for the security of the country in the face of a systematic policy of hostility and aggression. They were all taken in accordance with the law and we have not abandoned our determination to defend these rights. We can negotiate in all sincerity and in all honor. However, we would not be honorable if we were to consent to negotiate a sovereign right of our country. We are prepared to pay the necessary price for these rights, and this is not just so much talk, but an attitude very keenly felt by our people. U Thant: I understand Your Excellency's sentiments perfectly. That is why I told the United States and others clearly: Any U.N. action in Cuban territory can be undertaken only with the consent of the people and the Government of Cuba. I told them that in the name of peace, which is ardently desired by everybody and by all inhabitants of the world. I told the 45 countries and I agreed to come to Cuba without having any commitment to either side. Last night and this morning, before I began my trip, certain press reports said I was coming to settle the details of the United Nations' presence in Cuba. That is completely erroneous. That would be a violation of the sovereignty of the Republic of Cuba. I have come here only to present the other side's viewpoints and explore the possibilities of finding a peaceful solution. The 45 countries that asked me to come also know what position is legal and what is not, but in the name of world peace, and for a period of only one or two weeks, perhaps three, they asked me to come to try to find a possible solution. Your Excellency, my conscience is clear on this point. The United Nations can only undertake an action of this sort when it has the consent of the government involved. It is not the first time this has happened. In Laos, when a situation existed there that threatened international peace, the United Nations established itself in that territory only after obtaining the consent of the Government of Laos. In 1956, in Egypt, in the UAR, a situation arose and the United Nations established itself in Egypt, and still is in Egypt, with the consent of the government. Similarly, in 1958, in Lebanon, another situation threatening world peace arose, and the United Nations went in only after it had obtained consent of the Government of Lebanon. One condition is absolutely necessary: In order to undertake an action of that nature, the consent of the government involved must be obtained. We: In the case of the Congo too?
We: In the case of the Congo too? U Thant: And in the case of Somalia. We: In the case of the Congo I have understood they requested it of the United Nations. U Thant: In the Congo the petition was presented by the Government of the Congo. We: In the Congo the government that requested it is buried now. In the first place, our government has not the slightest doubt of the fine intentions and the disinterestedness and honesty with which the present U.N. Secretary General is working. We have no doubts at all about his intentions, his good faith, his extraordinary interest in finding a solution for the problem. All of us hold his mission and his person in great esteem. I say this in all sincerity. I understand the interest we all should feel in peace, but the path of peace is not the path of sacrificing the rights of peoples, of violating the rights of peoples; that is precisely the path that leads to war. The path of peace is the path of guarantees for the rights of peoples and the peoples' readiness to defend those rights. In every case mentioned by the Secretary General, Laos, Egypt, Lebanon, and the Congo, which I just mentioned — in all of these cases we see nothing but a series of aggressions against the rights of the peoples. All were caused by the same thing. The road to the past world war was the road marked by the annexation of Austria, the dissolution of Czechoslovakia, tolerated acts of German imperialism — and it led to that war. And we are keenly aware of those dangers. We know the paths aggressors like to take. We guess the path the United States wants to take with regard to us. Therefore it is really hard to understand how it is possible to speak of immediate solutions independently of future solutions, when the matter of greatest interest is not to pay any price for peace now, but to guarantee peace definitely, and not to by paying daily the price of an ephemeral peace. And of course Cuba is not Austria, nor the Czechoslovak Sudetenland, nor the Congo. We have the most resolute intention of defending our rights, in the face of all difficulties and risks. And it is necessary for the U.N. Secretary General to know this determination of ours so he can succeed in his mission, or at least be able to work with a perfect knowledge of this circumstance. U Thant: I understand your sentiments perfectly, as well as the viewpoints Your Excellency has expressed. As for the point of immediate solutions and long-term solutions, I wish to say that the Security Council has authorized me to seek means of obtaining peace in this area. I understand that immediate solutions and long-term solutions are intimately interrelated, and for those long-term solutions we should explore the possibilities in the light of the situation as it exists now. The Security Council has given me authorization for that. In practice, it is very hard to separate the two. I believe that, if we find an immediate solution for this, it will lead us to a permanent solution, not just for the United Nations but for all interested parties. In mentioning Laos and the other cases where the United Nations has established itself, I agree with you, but I also want to say that the United Nations, in those places, has succeeded in removing or averting aggression from without. I thought, if you please, that the U.N. presence in Cuba for a period of perhaps more than three weeks may likewise lessen or eliminate the danger of aggression. It is my opinion that, in current and future times, the presence of the United Nations in certain countries will serve especially to remove and avert aggression. President Dorticos: I would like to say something. I agree with what our Premier has said about our full understanding of the high mission the Secretary General is carrying out with such nobility. That mission, of course, is none other than to seek means of guaranteeing peace in this critical situation. It seems there is a question to be defined: Where is the danger of war? In the arms of one kind or another that Cuba has, or in the aggressive U.S. designs against Cuba? We believe aggression is what can engender war. The arms that exist in Cuba, regardless of what they may be, will never begin an aggression. Therefore, we ask ourselves: Why is inspection, and an acceptance of inspection, a condition for guaranteeing peace? To guarantee peace it would suffice for the United States to pledge, with all necessary guarantees through the United Nations, not to attack Cuba. That is why we have set forth — and our Premier has repeated it here very clearly — that the questions of a long-term solution, if they can be called that, are intimately connected with the immediate solution of the crisis. The immediate solution of the crisis would come as soon as the United States offered guarantees against an attack on Cuba, minimum guarantees that are contained in the declarations made by our Premier on 28 October and which are surely known to the Secretary General. A U.N. stay in Cuba for purposes of inspection, which the Revolutionary Government of Cuba does not accept because of the reasons set forth by the Premier, would at most mean a guarantee for two or three weeks of that peace, which he has rightly called emphemeral. Immediately afterward, the danger of war would resume, because the conditions that favor North American aggression against Cuba would remain. Let the United States give the guarantees that we demand as a minimum, and the solution of the immediate problem will have begun. I would say, in the last instance, that for the purpose of obtaining peace now, there are no immediate questions or long-term questions to be discussed. We believe the five points contained in the declarations made by our Premier are ingredients that form part of the immediate discussion intended to guarantee peace. We believe that these five points are not deferred for long-term discussion, but that circumstances demand that they should be part of the immediate discussion because, in our opinion, they are minimum conditions for guaranteeing peace.
We believe that these five points are not deferred for long-term discussion, but that circumstances demand that they should be part of the immediate discussion because, in our opinion, they are minimum conditions for guaranteeing peace. I repeat, peace is not endangered by our arms; peace is in danger because of the aggressive conduct of the United States, and negotiations and discussions covering these five points are what will immediately eliminate the dangers of war. That is our understanding of the problem. U Thant: First, I want to thank Your Excellencies, the President and the Premier, for their kind words for my person and the post I occupy, and I am in full agreement with both as to the solution we may find, for short-term agreements should also include negotiations for long-term agreements. But in terms of the United Nations, I believe the best solution — and in this I believe the 110 member nations will agree — is for the United Nations, through the Security Council, to provide U.N. representatives to seek and find the long-term solution. But right now, at this moment, I do not believe the United Nations, and its Security Council, can arrive at a positive, acceptable long-term solution in the best interests of everybody and world peace. If a long- term solution if sound, it will be in the best interests of all and of world peace, but I believe it is difficult to obtain at present in the United Nations. We: I understand that if that short-term solution of which the Secretary speaks were not achieved, it would be simply because the United States does not want it and would persist in demanding inspection as a humiliating act for Cuba, because, for purposes of that unilateral security which the United States demands, the Soviet Government's decision to withdraw the arms of a strategic nature which had been brought for the defense of the Republic of Cuba should have sufficed. The Cuban Government has not hindered the withdrawal of those arms, and the Soviet Government's decision is in itself a decision of a public nature. The mere fact that it was made in this manner in the public view has had an effect on world public opinion. The United States knows that that decision was made seriously by the Soviet Union and that, in fact, the strategic weapons are being withdrawn. If what the United States wants, beside that, is to humiliate our country, it will not get it. We have not hesitated an instant in the decision to defend our rights. We cannot accept impositions that can be forced only on a conquerered country. We have not desisted from our determination to defend ourselves, even to such an extent that they will never be able to impose conditions on us, because first they will have to destroy us and annihilate us, and in any case they will not find anybody here on whom to impose humiliating conditions. (Prolonged applause) U Thant: On the subject of the U.S. declaration, the United States has said that it will make a public declaration of nonaggression and respect for Cuba's territorial integrity once the missiles have been dismantled and withdrawn. In my opinion, on that there is no disagreement. I am completely in agreement with the Premier that the U.N. actions involve an invasion of the rights of a member state, and in this case, speaking of Cuba, if it is not in agreement with accepting a U.N. action, then my duty — what I must do — is to inform those who made the proposal of this. It is not my intention here to impose anything. My duty is merely to explain the possibilities for finding the means, the manner, or the form by which we could find a peaceful solution, without making concrete proposals. I shall take into account everything that has been said here this afternoon and I shall return, I shall go back, to make my report to the parties interested in this. I feel that this meeting has been very useful, and if the Premier is agreeable we can meet again tomorrow, before I leave. Meanwhile, I can be thinking over carefully what the President and the Premier have said about this matter. We: To conclude, I should like to reply on the question of Red Cross inspection. We also oppose that inspection in our ports. I wonder, if the Soviet Union authorizes inspection of its ships on the high seas, why would it then be necessary to inspect them again in Cuban ports? In the second place, I see that the Secretary centers his interest on getting the United States to make that public declaration, that pledge in the United Nations, that it will not invade Cuba. On this point, I wish to say first that the United States has no right to invade Cuba and that it is impossible to negotiate with a promise not to commit a crime, with a mere promise not to commit a crime, and that in the face of that danger we trust more to our determination to defend ourselves than to the words of the U.S. Government. But moreover, if the United Nations attaches great value to a public commitment entered into in that body by the United States, such as a commitment not to invade, why not concede equal value to the public commitment to the United Nations made by the USSR to withdraw the strategic weapons it send for the defense of the Republic of Cuba? These would be two equally public commitments. If one of them needs no additional guarantee — that is, the U.S. commitment not to invade Cuba — why does the Soviet Union's commitment to withdraw its strategic weapons need the additional guarantee of inspecting us? We shall meet with you again with pleasure as often as you wish and at the time you choose. U Thant: Many thanks, Your Excellency. (Castro speaks for himself at this point — Ed.): And that was the end of the first meeting. At the second meeting, he began by saying: "I want to thank the government and the people for the hospitality and the facilities they have afforded me in this country. The motive for this new meeting is to exchange opinions on certain confidential matters I have in mind." Thus, at this second meeting, he started off by saying it would deal with matters of a confidential matter. We agreed with him not to make public the things he said. Fundamentally, at this second meeting we maintained our viewpoints from the first meeting and brought up a few things, such as the danger inherent in the violations of our airspace, the danger of an incident, and the fact that it was indispensable for the United States to suspend those flights. At the same time, the U.N.
Secretary General asked us for information about the plane which the U.S. Defense Department reported had disappeared on one of its flights to Cuba. We gave him the information he requested, and, at the same time, we agreed on acceding to his request to send the body of the pilot, who died while on an illegal flight over our territory — we decided for humane reasons to return the body. As a matter of fact, we regretted that this North American had to die in our country as a result of the illegal acts, in violation of our sovereignty, ordered by the U.S. Government. We hope the circumstances that resulted in that death will not be repeated; that is, that the causes that resulted in that death will not be repeated. In general terms, the opinion of the government regarding the U.N. Secretary General is that he is an honest and impartial person who has a real desire to struggle to find solutions for these problems. He also appeared to be a competent person, and he, in reality, did inspire our confidence. That is the conclusion we drew from the meeting we had with him, from the way he expressed himself, from the respect he showed at all times toward the ideas of our country and toward the rights of our country. Moreover, we understand that at this moment the U.N. Secretary General is carrying out a very important mission, which enhances the post he holds, and, at the same time, if he achieves success in that effort, it will undoubtedly increase the prestige of the United Nations. It is possible that the institution will develop and carry out its work. It is at present carrying out a very important task. Undoubtedly, it is of interest that the United Nations constitutes an institution guaranteeing the rights of countries, and particularly the rights of the little countries. At this moment, it appears to us that the United Nations is carrying out that role well. In that sense, we give the United Nations all our support; that is, in the efforts and activities it is carrying out in favor of peace and to find a solution. This is apart from our having been intransigeant with regard to the problem of inspection, because we consider that we cannot accept any inspection. We cannot accept inspection for several reasons. First, because we have no desire to sacrifice a sovereign principle of our country. A series of rights has been violated. Freedom of the seas has been violated by the United States. The United States is trying to meddle in things which we have a right to do or not do within our borders. The United States, in an open manner, has been violating the airspace of our country. How, in the face of all those facts of aggression and violation, in the face of those acts of force, are we going to accept inspection of our country, an inspection which actually validates the pretensions of the United States to decide what kind of weapons we have or do not have the right to possess? We have not renounced the right to possess the kinds of weapons we may consider convenient in the exercise of the sovereign power of our country. We have not renounced that right. We consider it one of our rights. How are we to authorize an inspection to validate a pretension of a foreign country? Therefore, we do not accept it. In the second place, this constitutes a demand from a position of force, a position of force of the United States, and we do not yield to that position of force. We will never yield to positions of force. (Applause) What Cuba defends in maintaining its position is not inconsiderable. It defends the sovereign right of countries. Moreover, it defends peace, because our position against the positions of force which is required by these things, our firmness against the demands of the aggressors and those who like to practice such a policy, is a position that will not encourage the aggressors. The aggressors can be aggressors; that is, the world may find that there are aggressors, but the aggressors will find resistance in our country. The aggressors will find resistance to all kinds of aggression which is being attempted, or an aggression against a right. And they will not be encouraged by the position of Cuba! We are absolutely in the right and we are absolutely determined to defend that right. Above all, as is clear in the explanation we gave the U.N. Secretary General, more than anything else this is an attempt to humiliate us. Therefore, the position of Cuba was and is that we do not accept inspection. We have noted the conditions that are needed, and we repeated to the U.N. Secretary General in the second meeting that the Cuban view is that, if a real solution is desired for the existing tensions and problems in the Caribbean and on the continent, which also affect the entire world, it is necessary that the guarantees that Cuba demands be granted. Those guarantees have the virtue of being absolutely just demands, and all are based on the indisputable rights of our country — the ending of the economic blockade and all the measures of economic and commercial pressure which the United States exerts against our country all over the world and which it has been exercising against our country, aggressive acts that were part of the ingredients that aggravated the situation to the point it reached this time, aggressive acts they continue to commit at this moment. We are constantly receiving reports of vessels which were coming to Cuba and whose goods were left in Mediterranean, European, or Latin American ports, goods that were destined for Cuba. Just yesterday a report came of one or two ships, loaded with jute for our sugar production, which left their cargoes in a Mediterranean port because of pressure by the United States. Moreover, we demand the cessation of all subversive activities and the launching and landing of weapons and explosives by air and sea, the organization of mercenary invasions, and the infiltration of spies and saboteurs — all actions which are carried out from U.S. territory and some accomplice countries. Do not a people have a right to demand guarantees against those actions?
Do not a people have a right to demand guarantees against those actions? The cessation of the pirate attacks that are carried out from bases in the United States and Puerto Rico, the cessation of all violations of our airspace and territorial waters by U.S. planes and warships — that is to say, our country requests that crime not be committed against it, that violations and illegal acts not be committed against it, and, finally, that the naval base at Guanatanamo be withdrawn and the Cuban territory occupied by the United States be returned. It is absurd that the withdrawal of friendly weapons be requested and that an enemy base be left in our country. That has absolutely no foundation! This is absolutely absurd! No one in any place in the world would dispute the right of our country to request the return of the territory on which this base is situated, a base where, in these days of crisis, troops were accumulating to attack our country. How are we going to be asked to withdraw friendly weapons, while enemy weapons remain within the heart of our country? The United States says that is possesses that base by virtue of a treaty, an agreement between the United States and a Cuban government — of course, a Cuban government that emerged during the intervention. It was not through any treaty; it was through a unilateral agreement in the U.S. Congress, through an amendment they imposed on our constitution and imposed by the United States, by the United States in a law of its Congress, Cuba was warned that they would not depart the country if that amendment were not accepted, and amendment which contained the question of the naval base! If they call that agreement legitimate, even more legitimate are the agreements between the Soviet Government and the most free government of Cuba, by virtue of which those strategic missiles were situated in our country and for our defense. And if the United States has placed the world on the brink of war to demand the withdrawal of those missiles, then what right and justification has it to refuse to abandon the territory it occupies in our country? We are not an obstacle to a solution of peace, a real solution of peace. We are not a warrior or a warlike people. We are a peaceful people, and being peaceful does not mean permitting oneself to be trampled upon. Not in the least! When the trampling comes, then we are as warlike as we must be to defend ourselves. Facts have demonstrated this. We shall never obstruct a true solution of peace, and the conditions for a true solution of peace are the guarantees of the five points established by the Government of Cuba. The United States should begin by demonstrating its good faith,not with a promise — deeds and not words. A really convincing deed would be for the United States to return to us the territory it occupies in the naval base of Guantanamo. That would be a much more convincing deed than any word, than any promise the United States could give. If Cuba's guarantees are not complied with there will be no true solution of peace, and then we shall all have to continue living in this same atmosphere of tension in which we have been living up to now. We want solutions of peace, but solutions of peace with dignity. Moreover, there would be no peace without dignity, because the nations without dignity are not respected. We have a right to peace, to one kind of peace or another, to the peace which is neither peace nor war, simply because we were able to resist and were able to have dignity. We have the right to a peace, to a real solution of peace, and sooner or later we shall obtain it because we have earned that right due to the spirit of our people, due to their resistance and their dignity. Our cause, and our right to peace, will continue to gain ground throughout the world. Everyone also knows who is to blame for these problems, who is to blame for all these tensions. And the people of the world will go on giving support to our five points which are indispensable conditions for peace. Our people have won and will keep on winning even more the right to a worthy and to a just peace. We must be allowed to work in peace. More than weapons we prefer to use instruments of work. More than to kill and destroy, we prefer to create. Our people are not permitted to create. They are constantly being forced to mobilize, to put themselves on a war footing, to defend themselves, to prepare themselves because they are forced to do so, not because we desire this policy. It is a policy imposed upon us by the aggressors against our country. What our country wants is to work. What it wants is to develop its resources, to develop the people, and to progress with its peaceful work. Some things are amusing. A few days before the crisis, barely two days earlier, we inaugurated the institute for basic sciences. Some 1,000 young people were to enter it to begin studying medicine. Within three days the institute for basic sciences was converted into an anti-aircraft artillery school, and thus went everything else. Compare one thing with the other: peaceful work and the desires and efforts of a nation to improve its well being and health, to train all the doctors our peasants need, and to train all the doctors our people need to raise their average life span and to improve their health. There were 800 young people who had entered and within three days 800, 1,000, or 2,000 youths had to enter to be taught to kill, to be taught to handle not surgical instruments but cannon. Our road, the desire of our people, is not the artillery school, but the institute of basic sciences; the rest are bitter tasks which have been imposed on us by the aggressors. Some days before this crisis, signs could be seen everywhere how the work of the revolution had advanced. Supplies were improving considerably — production, both agricultural and industrial, and the plans — the entire creative work of the revolution — were advancing at a high rate. And the organisms were devoted to creating the work conditions for next year, 1963, with the hope of achieving a leap ahead in the economy, a leap in the production. But the crisis came, and the threat.
But the crisis came, and the threat. Mobilization was necessary, the abandonment of all the projects, the abandonment of all the tasks, in order to assume under those circumstances the most sacred task, which is the defense of the country. And we defend the fatherland because we want a country in which to work, not a country of parasites but a country of workers, a country of creators. And we want that country in order to work, to create! That is why we must defend it before all else. And the ardor with which the people prepared to fight and to do whatever else was necessary demonstrates the love the people feel, more every day, for creative work. What were they defending in the trenches? What they are doing in the rural areas, what they are doing in the universities,what they are doing in the factories, what they are doing in the schools — that is what the people are going to defend in the trenches! And the more awareness they have of what they are doing, the more they love what they are doing, the more logical it is that they go to the trenches with more love and more courage. We will not be an obstacle to any real solution of peace. We gladly offer our efforts toward that solution, to the effort being made by the United Nations to find that real solution of peace, to the effort being made by different neutralist countries to find that solution of real peace, a peace with dignity and with absolutely no lessening of any of the sovereign rights of our country. But if there is to be a lessening, we shall continue as we are. We shall not accept it. How long? As long as necessary. We shall have patience, all the patience necessary, so that as the climax of all this struggle we shall some day attain that peace with all the attributes of a state that is totally and absolutely sovereign, which has always been the aspiration of our people. We must have patience. We shall not accept just any little formula. We shall accept any formula of peace that is truly worthy. And I think that, with such a formula, not only we would profit, everyone would profit, the world would profit, American would profit, the United States would profit; that is to say, the very ones to blame for this situation would also profit from a solution of peace is acceptable to our country. And we express the view of our people when we say that we are ready to fight and to cooperate for that peace. We have proposed it, we have said it in all our proposals. Let us see if now, after this crisis which shook the world for several days, the conditions or the circumstances are achieved in order to attain that peace. I still have some questions to deal with. In the course of this crisis, it must be said that during the development of the crisis there arose some differences between the Soviet Government and the Cuban Government. But I want to say something to all Cubans. It is not here that we should discuss those problems; it is not here, where our enemies might find it useful or try to profit from those discussions. We must discuss this with the Soviets at the level of government and party, sit down with them to discuss everything that might be necessary in the light of reason and principles. It must be said that, above all, we are Marxist-Leninists. (Prolonged applause) Between the Soviet Union and Cuba there shall be no breaches! We want to say another thing, that we have confidence in the policy of principle of the Soviet Union and we have confidence in the leadership of the Soviet Union; that is to say, in the government and the leading party of the Soviet Union. (Applause) If my compatriots were to ask me at this moment for an opinion, what should I tell them, what advice amid confused situations, things that have not been understood or are not well understood, what to do? I would say that what must be done is to have confidence, that what must be done is to understand that these international problems are extremely complex and extremely delicate, and that our people, who have given evidence of great maturity, of extraordinary maturity, should demonstrate it in this way — taking care to analyze things, to make no premature judgments, to be disciplined, and, above all, to have confidence; moreover, to have complete faith in the revolutionary government, in the leadership of the revolutionary government; to have complete confidence that everything — all the problems, all the questions — will be discussed opportunely; to keep in mind that elements of judgment needed to understand certain things could even be missing; and to keep in mind that the dramatic and urgent circumstances in which events took place must not be forgotten. Now there is time in which to discuss all that completely, and we shall discuss it. We must prevent the enemy from profiting from our impatience, from our judgments, because an honest revolutionary may make judgments; he has the right to form his opinions. But if the opinions he formed at a given moment about certain things that he does not understand well are voiced, there might also be someone around who is not a revolutionary, someone interested in creating distrust, division, and resentment. That is why the advice we must give is: Have confidence, be firm, and have faith; be guided by what we have said here today — that is what must be done in these circumstances and it is that which we must do. Above all, and I say it with absolute sincerity — there are things I want to say in these moments in which a certain disagreement may have been created because of those misunderstandings or differences — it is good to remember, above all, what the Soviet Union has done for us. It is good to remember, above all, what it has done for us in every one of the difficult moments we have had, how the friendly hand of the Soviet Union has been there with us after each Yankee blow — economic aggression, the suppression of the sugar quota, the suppression of the shipments of petroleum to our country — after each of the aggressions we have endured, and we are grateful. We must say that here loudly. Moreover, there is another even more moving thing, at least it impresses me extraordinarily — the Soviet men, the Soviet men we have met here, the technicians who have come to work with us in our rural areas, the teachers, professors, engineers, planners, technicians of all kinds, the interest, the devotion, the fondness with which they have helped us. Moreover, there are the military technicians, men who have been ready to die here with us, who have helped us in the instruction, training, and preparation of our fighting forces;
who have worked with us for months and years, teaching our men to fight; who have worked with us for months, years, teaching our men to fight and organizing that formidable army we have at this moment; all the weapons they have sent us, the basic weapons of our armed forces which are all weapons that the Soviet Union has sent us and for which the Soviet Union has not charged us! (Applause) I should like to say that several months ago the Soviet Union decided to cancel all the debts of our country for armaments. Some of these matters are of a military nature, which must be treated with great care. Nevertheless, I will explain something; for example, the strategic weapons for our defense. Those weapons, the strategic weapons, were not the property of Cuba. That is not the case with the tanks and an entire series of weapons, which are our property. The strategic weapons were not our property. In the agreements by virtue of which they were sent to our country to strengthen our defenses against the threats of attack, it was decided that those strategic weapons, which are very complex and require very specialized personnel, would continue under the direction of Soviet personnel and continue being the property of the Soviet state. That is why, when the Soviet Government decided to withdraw those weapons, which belonged to it, we respected that decision. I explain that so that the reasons why the withdrawal was decided on by the Soviet Government can be understood. That is why I was saying that, even though we may have some well-founded reason for discontent over some fact, some detail, more than ever, we must remember how good, generous, noble, and friendly the Soviets have been toward us, and I was precisely speaking of the technicians, whom we have seen at our side, ready to die, to sacrifice their lives in the defense of our country. They are magnificent men. That is why another thing that we must feel at this moment more than ever is appreciation, affection, respect, and gratitude toward those men. I believe that that is the conduct which we must follow at this moment. (Applause) That is what we must show, and, above all, we must conduct ourselves better than ever during these moments, with higher morale than ever and with more greatness than ever. Let it not be thought that the withdrawal of the strategic weapons disarms us. This does not mean that we are disarmed. I can assure you that we have formidable means of defense, powerful means of defense, extraordinary resources with which to defend ourselves. The strategic weapons are leaving, but all the other weapons — all the other weapons are staying in our country, and they are very powerful means of defense, with which we can face any situation. There is no reason for confusion; there is not reason for confusion. The confusion will pass little by little. There is one matter I want to stress, one observation I want to make, and it involves the people, the conduct of the people during these days. I want to say that the action of the people has surpassed everything even the most optimistic could ever have imagined in determination, valor, and discipline. It must be said that thousands of men who were not militiamen, who did not become militiamen during these four years of revolution, became militiamen during this crisis. It must be said that thousands of persons who did not belong to mass organizations or committees for the defense of the revolution went to register in the mass organizations during these days. It must be said that the enemy was unable, inside our country, to count on allies of any kind. It must be said that during these days of extreme crisis it was not necessary to arrest anybody. Even men and women who criticized the revolution — in this decisive hour the patriotic, revolutionary core became apparent in them and they went to enlist, and they went to enlist for a battle that according to every prospect was a serious battle, a terrifying battle; a battle that could be fought with conventional weapons or with atomic weapons. The President of the United States tried to intimidate our people, these people whom he called a captive people, when he spoke of how we might be a target for atomic attacks, and the result was that there were more militiamen than ever, more revolutionary militants than ever. It must be told how the women went to work, and how the pensioners went to work to replace the men in the trenches. It must be noted that, although this was the greatest mobilization of all, it was the one that affected production the least. Never during a mobilization had production gone as it did. The people's discipline was truly impressive, the people's ardor, the people's valor. Impressive also was the organization acquired by our people, above all by our revolutionary armed forces, and the efficiency with which the commands operated. It was demonstrated how the revolution has been creating discipline, has been shaping a people. By harassing us, the enemy has made us disciplined, has made us organized, has made us battle-hardened. The result of these four years of harassment has made a heroic people, a people more than Spartan, for it is said that shield, or on it." And here, an entire people, men, women, and children, young and old, told themselves, "with our shield, or on it." (Prolonged applause) A people like that are an invincible people. A people like that, who in that manner so calmly, so admirably, confront such difficult situations, are a people who have a right to win what they aspire to, which is peace, respect, to keep inviolate their dignity and their prestige, because we have long-range moral missiles that cannot be dismantled and will never be dismantled! (Prolonged applause) And that is our most powerful strategic weapon, of strategic defense and strategic offense! And so here I want to bear witness today more than ever to our admiration for our people. And all we revolutionaries should feel doubly obliged, after this experience, to fight for our people, to work tirelessly for our people. I want to say here today from the very bottom of my heart, in conclusion I want to say, that today more than ever I feel proud of being a son of this people. Fatherland or death, we will win! (Applause) Castro Internet Archive
Home Contents Subscribe Write us! [email protected] July/August 2001 • Vol 1, No. 3 • “Without Socialism…” Fidel Castro Defends Socialist Nature of Cuban Revolution Printed below are major excerpts from a speech delivered by President Fidel Castro Ruz, on the 40th anniversary of the proclamation of the socialist nature of the Cuban Revolution, in Havana, April 16, 2001. Compatriots: Exactly 40 years ago, at this same time, in this same place, we proclaimed the socialist nature of our Revolution. We had just buried the men who had died victims of the perfidious attack made at daybreak on April 15, 1961. Forty years have passed. Nevertheless, the methods of lies and deception used by the empire and its mercenary allies remain unchanged. Barely four years ago, when bombs began to explode in Havana hotels, financed by the Cuban American National Foundation and brought to Cuba from Central America by bloodthirsty terrorists, the story they tried to spread was that these were actions carried out by members of the Cuban state security services disgruntled with the Revolution. Almost at the end of the speech I gave here 40 years ago, I said, what the imperialists cannot forgive us is that we are here. What they cannot forgive us is the dignity, the determination, the courage, the ideological firmness, the spirit of sacrifice and the revolutionary spirit of the Cuban people, and the fact that we have undertaken a socialist revolution. And that socialist revolution we defend with these guns! We defend that socialist revolution with the same courage with which our antiaircraft artillery force riddled the attacking planes with bullets yesterday! We do not defend it with mercenaries; we defend it with the men and women of our people! [The many rhetorical questions that follow were posed by Fidel Castro to this mass rally of Cuban workers and peasants in Havana. They were all met by answered shouts.] Is it the millionaires who have the weapons? Is it the children of the rich who have the weapons? That is what I asked then, and this is what you answer now. Is it the overseers who have the weapons? Who has the weapons? Whose hands are those raising those weapons? Are they the hands of the rich kids? Are they the hands of the rich? Are they the hands of the exploiters? Whose hands are those raising those weapons? Are they not the hands of workers, are they not the hands of peasants, are they not hands callused by work, are they not creative hands, are they not the humble hands of the people? And who makes up the majority of the people, the millionaires or the workers? The exploiters or the exploited? The privileged or the humble? Do the privileged have them? Do the humble have them? Are the privileged the minority? Are the humble the majority? Is a revolution democratic when it is the humble who have the weapons? Comrades, workers and peasants: This is the socialist and democratic revolution of the humble, by the humble and for the humble! And for this revolution of the humble, by the humble and for the humble, we are willing to give our lives! Yesterday’s attack, which cost seven heroic lives, was aimed at destroying our planes on the ground. But they failed, they only destroyed three planes, and the bulk of the enemy planes were damaged or shot down.” Compatriots of yesterday, today and tomorrow: At the Bay of Pigs, our patriotic and heroic people, who had matured extraordinarily in barely two years of confrontation with the powerful empire, fought fearlessly and unwaveringly for socialism.
But they failed, they only destroyed three planes, and the bulk of the enemy planes were damaged or shot down.” Compatriots of yesterday, today and tomorrow: At the Bay of Pigs, our patriotic and heroic people, who had matured extraordinarily in barely two years of confrontation with the powerful empire, fought fearlessly and unwaveringly for socialism. Once and for all, they crushed the absurd idea that the suffering endured, and the blood and tears spilled throughout almost a hundred years of struggle for independence and justice against Spanish colonialism and its slavery-based model of exploitation, and later against imperialist domination and the corrupt and bloody governments imposed on Cuba by the United States, were to serve for the rebuilding of a neocolonialist, capitalist and bourgeois society. It was essential to seek out loftier objectives in the political and social development of Cuba. It was necessary, and it was possible. We did it at the exact and precise moment in history, not a minute before and not a minute later, and we were daring enough to attempt it. When we see that south of the Rio Grande there is a whole collection of balkanized countries—although they all share the same language, culture, history and ethnic roots—about to be devoured by the mighty, expansionist and insatiable superpower of the turbulent and brutal north that scorns us, we Cubans can cry out to the top of our voices: Bless that day, a thousand times over, that we proclaimed our revolution to be socialist! Today it might have been too late. The victory of January 1, 1959, offered an exceptional opportunity to do it. Without socialism, we would not have been able to reduce the illiteracy rate to zero. Without socialism, we would not have schools and teachers for all our children, without a single exception, even in the most distant and remote corners of the country. Nor would we have special schools for those who need them, nor a primary schooling rate of 100 percent, nor a secondary schooling rate of 98.8 percent. We would not have exact science vocational schools, or senior high schools, or military schools, or sports training schools, or schools for physical education and sports instructors, or trade schools, or technological and polytechnic professional training institutes, or colleges for workers and peasants, or language schools, or art schools in every province of the country. Without socialism, Cuba today would not have 700,000 university graduates, 15 teacher-training colleges, 22 medical schools, a total of 51 higher education institutions, plus 12 affiliates and independent faculties, with 137,000 university students. Without socialism, we would not have 67,500 doctors, over 250,000 professors and teachers, and 34,000 physical education and sports instructors, the highest number per capita in all three categories among all countries in the world. Without socialism, sports would not be a right of the people, and Cuba would not win more Olympic gold medals per capita than any other country. Without socialism, we would not have been able to attain the level of political culture we have today. Without socialism, we would not have 30,133 family doctors, 436 polyclinics, 275 hospitals, both general and specialized, including surgical, pediatric and maternal hospitals, and 13 specialized medical institutes. Without socialism, our country would not have 133 scientific research centers and tens of thousands of either Masters or Ph.D. researchers. Without socialism, there would not be 1,012,000 retired workers, 325,500 pensioners and 120,000 people on social welfare receiving social security benefits, without a single exception, nor would those social security benefits be available to all of the country’s people when needed. Without socialism, 163,000 campesinos would not be the owners of their lands, whether in the form of individually owned parcels or cooperatives, nor would 252,000 agricultural workers be the owners of the facilities, machinery and crops in the basic units of cooperative production. Without socialism, 85 percent of families would not own their homes, nor would 95 percent of the population have access to electricity, and 95.3 percent to drinking water; 48,540 kilometers of highways would not have been built, nor would there be 1,005 water reservoirs, which hold almost all of the water that can be dammed for agricultural, industrial and domestic use. Without socialism, the infant mortality rate would not be less than eight per 1000 live births. Vaccines against 13 diseases would not protect our children, nor would our people’s life expectancy at birth be 76 years. The rate of HIV infection would not be 0.03 percent, as compared to 0.6 percent in the United States and other developed and wealthy countries; nor would 575,000 voluntary blood donations have been made in the year 2000. Without socialism, we would not be able to promise, as we are now doing, to provide decent employment to 100 percent of our youth under the sole condition that they be trained; nor would we be developing the programs that will offer them all the opportunity for training. Without socialism, manual laborers and intellectuals, whose works help fulfill the material and spiritual needs of our species, would never have taken the vanguard role they justly deserve in human society. Without socialism, Cuban women, formerly discriminated against and relegated to humiliating work, would not constitute 65 percent of the country’s technical work force today, nor would they enjoy the right to equal pay for equal work, a goal that has yet to be achieved in almost all of the developed capitalist countries. Without socialism, there would not be mass organizations, made up of workers and laborers, campesinos, women, neighborhood residents organized into Committees for the Defense of the Revolution, primary school, junior and senior high school students, university students, veterans of the Cuban Revolution. These organizations encompass the vast majority of our people and play a decisive role in the revolutionary process and the truly democratic participation of all the people in the leadership and destiny of the country.
Without socialism, we could not have a society without beggars wandering the streets, without children going barefoot or begging, or absent from school because they need to work for a living, or subjected to sexual exploitation, or used for committing crimes, or joining gangs, things that are so common in other parts of the world, including the United States. Without socialism, Cuba would not have an outstanding place in its growing, tenacious and sustained struggle to preserve the environment. Without socialism, the country’s cultural heritage would be left unprotected, subjected to plunder or destruction. The historic parts of Cuba ‘s oldest cities would have been replaced with new buildings totally unrelated to their architectural surroundings. The oldest section of our capital, where visitors increasingly marvel at the painstaking care taken in its restoration and preservation, would not exist. The eyesore built behind the Palace of the Captains-General, where a centuries-old university building was torn down to put up a heliport in its place, provides ample evidence for these claims. Without socialism, we would not have been able to withstand the overpowering foreign influence progressively imposed on so many peoples around the world, nor would we be witnessing the vigorous cultural and artistic movement developing in our country today: the Higher Institute of Art, a prestigious institution created by the Revolution, is being restored and expanded; valuable knowledge is being passed on in the 43 vocational and professional art schools throughout the country, which will soon grow in number; and 4,000 young people have just entered the first year of study in 15 new art instructor training schools created last year. Every year, another 4,000 students will enter these schools, which have room for a total enrollment of 15,000, and they will graduate with a high school degree in humanities. Presently, we have 306 cultural centers, 292 museums, 368 public libraries open to the entire population, and 181 art galleries. Without socialism, we would not have the televised courses of University for All; its initial programming has had a tremendous impact, and it promises to contribute significantly to achieving a level of comprehensive general knowledge that will make Cubans the most educated people in the world. Three hundred Youth Computer Clubs are operating, and 20,000 personal computers are being distributed to junior and senior high schools. Computer skills will be taught on a mass basis from preschool all the way up to the university level. The list of comparisons and contrasts would be endless, but there are a few that I cannot fail to mention, given their patriotic, internationalist and human significance: Without socialism, Cuba would not have been able to endure 42 years of hostility, blockade and economic war imposed by imperialism, much less a 10-year special period that has still not ended. It would not have been able to achieve an appreciation of its currency from 150 pesos to the dollar in 1994 to just 20 pesos to the dollar in 1999, a feat unequalled by any other country. Nor would it have been possible, in the midst of inconceivable difficulties, to initiate modest yet sustained and sound economic growth. Without socialism, Cuba would not be the only country in the world today that does not need trade with the United States in order to survive, and even to advance, both economically and socially. As to the latter, not even the wealthiest and most industrialized countries compare to Cuba. Cuba is one of the few countries in the world that is not a member, and does not want to be a member, of the International Monetary Fund, which has become the zealous guardian of the empire’s interests. Nothing I have described here would have been possible if our hands and feet were tied to that sinister institution spawned at Bretton Woods, which politically crushes those who must turn to it, destabilizing and destroying governments. There is no escape for those tied to the double yoke of the IMF and neo-liberalism, both manifestations of the unfair and irrational economic order imposed on the world. Without socialism, each and every person in our country would not have the same right to receive educational or health care services free of charge, regardless of the cost, and without anyone ever questioning him or her on religious or political beliefs. Without socialism, we would not have a country free of drugs, brothels, gambling casinos, organized crime, vanished people, death squads, lynching and out-of-court executions. Without socialism, Cuban families could not watch their children grow up healthy, educated and skilled, with no fear of them being lured into drugs or crime, or killed at school by their own classmates. Without socialism, Cuba would not be, as it is today, the most solid barrier in the hemisphere against drug trafficking, something that benefits even U.S. society. Without socialism, Cuba would not be a country in which, for 42 years, no one has suffered the repression and police brutality so commonly practiced in Europe and other parts of the world, where anti-riot vehicles and men dressed up in strange gear, like visitors from outer space, attack the population with clubs, shields, rubber bullets, tear gas, pepper gas and other means. It is difficult for the West to understand why such things do not happen in Cuba. They do not have the slightest notion of the way human society can be enriched by the unity, political consciousness, solidarity, selflessness and generosity, patriotism, moral values and commitment built through education, culture and all the justice offered by a true revolution. Without socialism, hundreds of thousands of Cubans would not have undertaken internationalist missions; nor would our country have contributed even a grain of sand to the struggle against colonialism in Africa; nor would its people have shed a single drop of blood fighting against the seemingly invincible forces of the hateful system of apartheid, racism and fascism. Not one of the countries that traded and invested back then and still now possess enormous wealth in South Africa and other countries on the African continent—where Cuba neither sought, nor has, nor wants to have a single square inch of land—contributed the least share of sacrifice. Not even the enormous distance separating us from Africa could be an insurmountable obstacle for the spirit of solidarity of this small, blockaded and besieged island.
Without socialism, over 40,000 Cuban health care workers would not have provided their noble internationalist cooperation in more than 90 countries, nor would they be helping to develop comprehensive health care programs today in 16 countries in Latin America, the Caribbean and Africa, thanks to the immense human capital created by the Revolution. Without socialism, it would not have been possible for 15,600 students from the Third World to graduate in Cuban universities, nor would there be 11,000 students from those countries currently enrolled in higher studies in Cuba. Without socialism, we would not have the prestigious Latin American Medical School, where there are currently young people from 24 countries and 63 indigenous ethnic groups studying, and 2,000 new students will enroll every year. Without socialism, we would not have been able to establish the International School of Sports and Physical Education that can accommodate a total of 1,500 students, and where 588 youths from 50 countries are currently enrolled in the first year of studies. Without socialism, we would not have been able to provide medical treatment in Cuba for 19,000 children and adults from the three republics affected by the Chernobyl nuclear accident in 1986, the majority of whom were treated in the midst of the special period, and for 53 people harmed by the radiation leak in the state of Goiás, in Brazil. What we have shared with other peoples has not prevented a single one of our compatriots from having the opportunity to be a part of the millions of mid-level technicians and university-educated professionals in Cuba today. This shows that much can be done with very little, and that everything could be done with much less resources than those spent today on commercial advertising, weapons, narcotics and luxury. Without socialism, Cuba would not have become, without actually trying, an example for many people in the world, and the loyal and constant voice for the most deserving causes; a small country that enjoys the enviable privilege of being almost the only one that can speak out at any international forum and freely denounce, with no fear of reprisals or aggression, the unfair economic order and the insatiable, rapacious, hypocritical and immoral policies of the hegemonic superpower’s government.... On a day like today, as we look back over the accomplishments of the Revolution, it is amazing to discover that we are far from having achieved all the necessary and possible justice. The years that have passed have come to enrich our experience and knowledge tremendously. Four decades of struggle in the face of enormous difficulties have strengthened our convictions, and our confidence in human beings and their infinite potential. The socialism we conceive of today is far superior to our dreams back then. The special period forced us to walk back on a stretch of the road we had traveled. Painful inequalities emerged. Those who were willing to patiently endure, those most dedicated to the revolutionary cause above all else, our most loyal manual and intellectual workers, the most humble and faithful of the people, the most conscientious revolutionaries understood this inevitable circumstance. And as has always happened and always will happen in difficult times, they shouldered the bulk of the burden in the efforts to save the country and socialism at any cost. In the future we will not only achieve much higher goals than those we achieved in the past, but we will even surpass them. Today, we are advancing towards objectives we would not have even dreamed of 40 years ago, and much less in the extremely difficult stage that began 10 years ago, from which we are emerging victorious. A new dawn is beginning to shine on our future, a future that will shine more brightly on a more accomplished socialism, a more promising and profound revolutionary work. We did not come here today to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the proclamation of the socialist nature of the Revolution, but rather we came here to ratify it, to swear our allegiance once again. Using the exact same words as on that unforgettable day 40 years ago, I will ask you, “Workers and peasants, humble men and women of the homeland, do you swear to defend to your last drop of blood this Revolution of the humble, by the humble and for the humble?” [Exclamations of, “We do!”] “Here, before the tomb of our fallen comrades; here, near the remains of those heroic young men, sons of workers and sons of humble families”—and today I will add two more things: in memory of all those who have died for the homeland and for justice in the last 133 years, and in the name of all those who have given their lives for humanity in heroic internationalist missions—”we reaffirm our determination that like those who stood up to the bullets, like those who gave their lives, no matter when the mercenaries come, all of us, proud of our Revolution, proud to defend this Revolution of the humble, by the humble and for the humble, will not waver, in the face of whoever they may be, in defending our Revolution to our last drop of blood.” Ever onward to victory! Patria o Muerte! Venceremos! Top Contents Home Subscribe Write us! [email protected]
Castro Internet Archive El Nuevo Diario Interview with Fidel Castro: Blaming Stalin for everything would be historical simplism By Tomas Borge First Published: El Nuevo Diario, Managua, 3 June 1992 Source: Castro Speech Database Markup: John Wagner Online Version: Castro Internet Archive (marxists.org) 2002 Q: Montesquieu said history is the noise surrounding certain events, but there are events that are simply not noise, like the collapse of the socialist countries and the survival of the Cuban revolution. Does this at mean you are going down in history? A: I would say the simple fact that we decided to keep going forward when the socialist bloc collapsed, and now that we have become the only victim of a vicious imperialist attack, is a significant event in history. The mere fact that Cuba has decided to keep going forward and face the dangers and the challenges following the collapse of the socialist bloc and the disappearance of the USSR is a significant event in history. Tomas, it is not a matter, however, of what we may have done up until now or of what we may be capable of withstanding from here on. I believe it all depends on what lies ahead because that will determine the real significance of what we are doing today. Q: Undoubtedly you have much confidence in that, and I share it. Does that mean the Cuban revolution is the beginning of a resurrection of a socialist option at the world level? A: I believe we are defending certain principles that are immensely, extraordinarily valuable at a moment of confusion in the world. It is a time for opportunists, a time in which politicians are trying to accommodate themselves, and we may say it is a time of apotheosis for imperialist military and political power. Mankind has never before experienced such a reactionary expansion and empire building. That does not mean it will go on forever. That empire is corroded by all types of contradictions. We are living in the present and I believe that preserving our values is of great importance for all men who want the best for humanity. I believe and I have always believed that symbols are of great importance, flags are of great value. I believe that even if we became a lonely island, that would be of great value. If we were invaded and were capable of resisting until the end, that would have great value. If we were capable of prevailing, as we will undoubtedly prevail, because it would be impossible to exterminate millions of men determined to fight, that would have great value. Q: You recently said, not referring to socialism in general but to the USSR in particular, that socialism had been assassinated, stabbed in the back. In this conspiracy of daggers that killed socialism, would you say Gorbachev was one of the assassins? A: No, I could not say that about Gorbachev because I have another view of Gorbachev and it is not one of an assassin who plotted the USSR's destruction. The USSR self-destructed in an incredible way. The responsibility for that self-destruction undoubtedly lies in the hands of the country's leaders, those who led that nation. Now, some of them were aware they were destroying it and others were not. That is what I was trying to say, more or less, and we saw it all from the beginning. I cannot say Gorbachev played a role in which he was aware of the destruction of the USSR because I have no doubt that Gorbachev intended to fight to improve socialism. We approved of Soviet efforts to improve socialism in the USSR. But we could not approve of, and never would have agreed to, not only the destruction of socialism in the USSR, but also the destruction of the USSR itself. That inflicted terrible damage on all peoples of the world and created a bad situation for the Third World in particular. Imperialism would have been able to disintegrate the Soviet Union, had the Soviets not destroyed themselves, had those responsible for the strategies and tactics and for the country's political and government policies not destroyed the country. In other words, socialism did not die from natural causes: it was a suicide, socialism was murdered. That is what I meant. Q: Fidel, for most Latin American revolutionary leaders, the current crisis of socialism has a mastermind: Josef Stalin. A: I believe Stalin made big mistakes but also showed great wisdom. In my opinion, blaming Stalin for everything that occurred in the Soviet Union would be historical simplism, because no man by himself could have created certain conditions. It would be the same as giving Stalin all the credit for what the USSR once was. That is impossible! I believe that the efforts of millions and millions of heroic people contributed to the USSR's development and to its relevant role in the world in favor of hundreds of millions of people. I have criticized Stalin for a lot of things. First of all, I criticized his violation of the legal framework. I believe Stalin committed an enormous abuse of power. That is another conviction I have always had. I feel that Stalin's agricultural policy did not develop a progressive process to socialize land. In my opinion, the land socialization process should have begun earlier and should have been gradually implemented. Because of its violent implementation, it had a very high economic and human cost in a very brief period of history. I also feel that Stalin's policy prior to the war was totally erroneous. No one can deny that western powers promoted Hitler until he became a monster, a real threat. The terrible weakness shown by western powers before Hitler cannot be denied. This at encouraged Hitler's expansionism and Stalin's fear, which led Stalin to do something I will criticize all my life, because I believe that it was a flagrant violation of principles: seek peace with Hitler at any cost, stalling for time. During our revolutionary life, during the relatively long history of the Cuban Revolution, we have never negotiated a single principle to gain time, or to obtain any practical advantage. Stalin fell for the famous Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact at a time when Germans were already demanding the delivery of the Danzig Corridor. I feel that, far from gaining time, the nonaggression pact reduced time, because the war broke out anyway. Then, in my opinion, he made another big mistake, because when Poland was being attacked, he sent troops to occupy that territory, which was disputed because it had a Ukrainian or Russian population, I am not sure.
Then, in my opinion, he made another big mistake, because when Poland was being attacked, he sent troops to occupy that territory, which was disputed because it had a Ukrainian or Russian population, I am not sure. I also believe that the little war against Finland was another terrible mistake, from the standpoint of principles and international law. Stalin made a series of mistakes that were criticized by a large part of the world, and which placed Communists - who were great friends of the USSR - in a very difficult position by having to support each one of those episodes. Since we are discussing this topic, I must tell you that I have never discussed it with any journalist (or on any other occasion, he added). The things I mentioned are against principles and doctrine; they are even contrary to political wisdom. Although it is true that there was a period of one year and nine months from September 1939 to June 1941 during which the USSR could have rearmed itself, Hitler was the one who got stronger. If Hitler had declared war on the USSR in 1939, the destruction would have been less than the destruction caused in 1941, and he would have suffered the same fate as Napoleon Bonaparte. With the people's participation in an irregular war, the USSR would have defeated Hitler. Finally, Stalin's character, his terrible distrust of everything, made him commit several other mistakes: one of them was falling in the trap of German intrigue and conducting a terrible, bloody purge of the armed forces and practically beheading the Soviet Army on the eve of war. Q: What do you believe were Stalin's merits? A: He established unity in the Soviet Union. He consolidated what Lenin had begun: party unity. He gave the international revolutionary movement a new impetus. The USSR's industrialization was one of Stalin's wisest actions, and I believe it was a determining factor in the USSR's capacity to resist. One of Stalin's - and the team that supported him - greatest merits was the plan to transfer the war industry and main strategic industries to Siberia and deep into Soviet territory. I believe Stalin led the USSR well during the war. According to many generals, Zhukov and the most brilliant Soviet generals, Stalin played an important role in defending the USSR and in the war against Nazism. They all recognized it. I think there should be an impartial analysis of Stalin. Blaming him for everything that happened would be historical simplism. Castro Internet Archive
[email protected] Home Current Issue Archives Arsenal of Marxism Subscribe Links Search Who We Are Donate Contact us May/June 2007 • Vol 7, No. 3 Click Here to Return to the Index Search the Site: Enter term and click Go! Reflections: A Brutal Reply By President Fidel Castro Ruz George W. Bush is undoubtedly the most genuine representative of a system of terror forced on the world by the technological, economic and political superiority of the most powerful country known to this planet. For this reason, we share the tragedy of the American people and their ethical values. The instructions for the verdict issued by Judge Kathleen Cardone, of the El Paso Federal Court last Friday, granting Luis Posada Carriles freedom on bail, could only have come from the White House. It was President Bush himself who ignored at all times the criminal and terrorist nature of the defendant who was protected with a simple accusation of immigration violation leveled at him. The reply is brutal. The government of the United States and its most representative institutions had already decided to release the monster. The backgrounds are well-known and reach far back. The people who trained him and ordered him to destroy a Cuban passenger plane in midair, with 73 athletes, students and other Cuban and foreign travelers on board, together with its dedicated crew; those who bought his freedom while the terrorist was held in prison in Venezuela, so that he could supply and practically conduct a dirty war against the people of Nicaragua, resulting in the loss of thousands of lives and the devastation of a country for decades to come; those who empowered him to smuggle with drugs and weapons making a mockery of the laws of Congress; those who collaborated with him to create the terrible Operation Condor and to internationalize terror; the same who brought torture, death and often the physical disappearance of hundreds of thousands of Latin Americans, could not possibly act any different. Even though Bush’s decision was to be expected, it is certainly no less humiliating for our people. Thanks to the revelations of Por Esto! a Mexican publication from the state of Quintana Roo later complemented by our own sources, Cuba knew with absolute precision how Posada Carriles entered from Central America, via Cancun, to the Isla Mujeres departing from there on board the Santrina, after the ship was inspected by the Mexican federal authorities, heading with other terrorists straight to Miami. Denounced and publicly challenged with exact information on the matter, since April 15, 2005, it took the government of that country more than a month to arrest the terrorist, and a year and two months to admit that Luis Posada Carriles had entered through the Florida coast illegally on board the Santrina, a presumed school-ship licensed in the United States. Not a single word is said of his countless victims, of the bombs he set off in tourist facilities in recent years, of his dozens of plans financed by the government of the United States to physically eliminate me. It was not enough for Bush to offend the name of Cuba by installing a horrible torture center similar to Abu Ghraib on the territory illegally occupied in Guant�namo, horrifying the world with this procedure. The cruel actions of his predecessors seemed not enough for him. It was not enough to force a poor and underdeveloped country like Cuba to spend 100 billion dollars. To accuse Posada Carriles was tantamount to accusing himself. Throughout almost half a century, everything was fair game against our small island lying 90 miles away from its coast, wanting to be independent. Florida saw the installation of the largest station for intelligence and subversion that ever existed on this planet. It was not enough to send a mercenary invasion on the Bay of Pigs, costing us 176 dead and more than 300 wounded at a time when the few medical specialists they left us had no experience treating war wounds. Earlier still, the French ship La Coubre carrying Belgian weapons and grenades for Cuba had exploded on the docks of Havana Harbor. The two well synchronized explosions caused the deaths of more than 100 workers and wounded others as many of them took part in the rescue attempts. It was not enough to have the Missile Crisis of 1962, which brought the world to the brink of an all-consuming thermonuclear war, at a time when there were bombs 50 times more powerful than the ones dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was not enough to introduce in our country viruses, bacteria and fungi to attack plantations and flocks; and incredible as it may seem, to attack human beings. Some of these pathogens came out of American laboratories and were brought to Cuba by well-known terrorists in the service of the United States government. Add to all this the enormous injustice of keeping five heroic patriots imprisoned for supplying information about terrorist activities; they were condemned in a fraudulent manner to sentences that include two life sentences and they stoically withstand cruel mistreatment, each of them in a different prison. Time and again the Cuban people have fearlessly faced the threat of death. They have demonstrated that with intelligence, using appropriate tactics and strategies, and especially preserving unity around their political and social vanguard, there can be no force on this earth capable of defeating them. I think that the coming May Day celebration would be the ideal day for our people—using the minimum of fuel and transportation—to show their feelings to the workers and the poor of the world. — Granma (Cuba), April 10, 2007. Home Current Archives Arsenal of Marxism Subscribe Links Search About Us Donate Contact 2001-2007. Socialist Viewpoint Publishing
Castro Internet Archive To the U.N. General Assembly The Problem of Cuba and its Revolutionary Policy Spoken: September 26, 1960 at the U.N. General Assembly Source: Castro Speech Database [Embassy of Cuba] Markup: Brian Baggins Online Version: Castro Internet Archive (marxists.org) 2000 Speech of Dr. Fidel Castro at the U.N. General Assembly, September 1960. No. 4. Issued by the Embassy of Cuba, Colombo. Mr. President, Fellow Delegates Although it has been said of us that we speak at great length, you may rest assured that we shall endeavor to be brief and to put before you what we consider it our duty to say. We shall also speak slowly in order to co-operate with the interpreters. Some people may think that we are very annoyed and upset by the treatment the Cuban delegation has received. This is not the case. We understand full well the reasons behind it. That is why we are not irritated. Nor should anybody worry that Cuba will not continue to the effort of achieving a worldwide understanding. That being so, we shall speak openly. It is extremely expensive to send a delegation to the United Nations. We, the underdeveloped countries, do not have many resources to spend, unless it is to speak openly at this meeting of representatives of almost every country in the world. The speakers who have preceded me on this rostrum have expressed their concern about problems the whole world is concerned about. We too are concerned about those problems and yet, in the case of Cuba, there is a very special circumstance, and it is that, at this moment, Cuba itself must be a concern for the world, because, as several delegates have rightly said here, among the many current problems of the world, there is the problem of Cuba. In addition to the problems facing the world today, Cuba has problems of her own, problems which worry her people. Much has been said of the universal desire for peace, which is the desire of all peoples and, therefore, the desire of our people too, but the peace which the world wishes to preserve is the peace that we Cuban have been missing for quite some time. The dangers that other peoples of the world can regard as more or less remote are dangers and preoccupations that for us are very close. It has not been easy to come to this Assembly to state the problems of Cuba. It has not been easy for us to come here. I do not know whether we are privileged in this respect. Are we, the Cuban delegates, the representatives of the worst type of Government in the world? Do we, the representatives of the Cuban delegation, deserve the maltreatment we have received? And why our delegation? Cuba has sent many delegations to the United Nations, and yet it was we who were singled out for such exceptional measures: confinement to the Island of Manhattan; notice to all hotels not to rent rooms to us, hostility and, under the pretense of security, isolation. Perhaps not one among you, fellow delegates, you, who are not the individual representatives of anybody, but the representatives of your respective countries and, for that reason, whatever happens to each of you must concern you because of what you represent, perhaps not one among you, upon your arrival in this city of New York, has had to under go such personally and physically humiliating treatment as that which the President of Cuban delegation has received. I am not trying to agitate in this Assembly. I am merely telling the truth. It is about time we had an opportunity to speak. Much has been said about us for many days now, the newspapers have referred to us, but we have remained silent. We cannot defend ourselves from such attacks in this country. Our day to state the truth has come, and we will not fail to state it. As I have said, we had to undergo degrading and humiliating treatment, including eviction from the hotel in which we were living and efforts at extortion. When we went to another hotel, we did all in our power to avoid difficulties. We refrained from leaving our hotel rooms and went nowhere except to this assembly hall of the United Nations, on the few occasions when we have come to General Assembly. We also accepted an invitation to a reception at the Soviet Embassy, yet this was not enough for them to leave us in peace. There has been considerable Cuban emigration to this country. There are more than one hundred thousand Cubans who have come to this country during the last twenty years. They have come to this country from their own land, where they would have liked to remain for ever, and where they wish to return, as is always the case with those who, for social or economic reasons, are forced to abandon their homeland. These Cubans were wholly devoted to their work; they respected and respect the laws of this country, but they naturally harbored a feeling of love for their native country and its Revolution. They never had any problems, but one day another type of visitor began to arrive in this country, individuals who in some cases had murdered hundreds of our compatriots. Soon they were encouraged by publicity here. The authorities received them warmly and soon encouraged them, and, naturally, that encouragement is reflected in their conduct. They provoke frequent incidents with the Cuban population which has worked honestly in this country for many years.
They provoke frequent incidents with the Cuban population which has worked honestly in this country for many years. One of such incidents, provoked by those who feel supported by the systematic campaigns against Cuba and by the authorities, caused the death of a child. That was a lamentable event, and we should all regret such an event. The guilty ones were not the Cubans who lived here. The guilty ones were, even less, we, the members of the Cuban delegation, and yet undoubtedly, you have all seen the headlines of the newspapers, which stated that "pro-Castro groups" had killed a ten-year old girl. With the characteristic hypocrisy of those who have a say in the relations between Cuba and this country, a spokesman for the White House immediately made declarations to the world pointing out the deed, in fact, almost fixing the guilt on the Cuban delegation. And of course, His Excellency, the United States Delegate to the Assembly, did not fail to join the farce, sending a telegram of condolence to the Venezuelan Government, addressed to the victim's relatives, as though he felt called upon to give some explanation for something Cuban delegation was, in effect, responsible for. But that was not all. When we were forced to leave one of the hotels in this city, and came to the United National Headquarters while efforts were being made to find accommodation for us, a hotel, a humble hotel of this city, a Negro hotel in Harlem, offered to rent us rooms [where Castro met Malcolm X]. The reply came when we were speaking to the Secretary General. Nevertheless, an official of the State Department did all in his power to prevent our staying at that hotel. At that moment, as though by magic, hotels began appearing all over New York. Hotels which had previously refused lodgings to the Cuban delegation offered us rooms, even free of charge. Out of simple reciprocity we accepted the Harlem hotel. We felt then that we had earned the right to be left in peace. But peace was not accorded us. Once in Harlem, since it was impossible to prevent us from living there, the slander and defamation campaigns began. They began spreading the news all over the world that the Cuban delegation had lodged in a brothel. For some humble hotel in Harlem, a hotel inhabited by Negroes of the United States, must obviously be a brothel. Furthermore, they have tried to heap infamy upon the Cuban delegation, without even respecting the female members who work with us and are a part of the Cuban delegation. If we were the kind of men they try to depict at all costs, imperialism would not have lost all hope, as it did long ago, of somehow buying or seducing us. But, since they lost that hope a long time ago — though they never had reasons to sustain it — after having stated that the Cuban delegation lodged in a brothel, they should at least realize that imperialist financial capital is a prostitute that cannot seduce us — and not precisely the "respectful" type of prostitute described by Jean Paul Sarte. Now, to the problem of Cuba. Perhaps some of you are well aware of the facts, perhaps others are not. It all depends on the sources of information, but, undoubtedly, the problem of Cuba, born within the last two years, is a new problem for the world. The world had not had many reasons to know that Cuba existed. For many, Cuba was something of an appendix of the United States. Even for many citizens of this country, Cuba was a colony of the United States. As far as the map was concerned, this we not the case: our country had a different color from that of the United States. But in reality Cuba was a colony of the United States. How did our country became a colony of the United States? It was not because of its origins; the same men did not colonize the United States and Cuba. Cuba has a very different ethnical and cultural origin, and the difference was widened over the centuries. Cuba was the last country in America to free itself from Spanish colonial rule, to cast off, with due respect to the representative of Spain, the Spanish colonial yoke; and because it was the last, it also had to fight more fiercely. Spain had only one small possession left in America and it defended it with tooth and nail. Our people, small in numbers, scarcely a million inhabitants at that time, had to face alone, for almost thirty years, an army considered one of the strongest in Europe. Against our small national population the Spanish Government mobilized an army as big as the total forces that had fought against South American independence. Half a million Spanish soldiers fought against the historic and unbreakable will of our people to be free. For thirty years the Cubans fought alone for their independence; thirty years of struggle that strengthened our love for freedom and independence. But Cuba was a fruit — according to the opinion of a President of the United States at the beginning of the past century, John Adams — , it was an apple hanging from the Spanish tree, destined to fall, as soon as it was ripe enough, into the hands of the United States. Spanish power had worn itself out in our country. Spain had neither the men nor the economic resources to continue the war in Cuba; Spain had been defeated. Apparently the apple was ripe, and the United States Government held out its open hands. Not one but several apples fell in to the hands of the United States. Puerto Rico fell — heroic Puerto Rico, which had begun its struggle for independence at the same time as Cuba. The Philippine Islands fell, and several other possessions. However, the method of dominating our country could not be the same. Our country had struggled fiercely, and thus had gained the favor of world public opinion.
Our country had struggled fiercely, and thus had gained the favor of world public opinion. Therefore the method of taking our country had to be different. The Cubans who fought for our independence and at that very moment were giving their blood and their lives believed in good faith in the joint resolution of the Congress of the United States of April 20, 1898, which declared that "Cuba is, and by right ought to be, free and independent." The people of the United States were sympathetic to the Cuban struggle for liberty. That joint declaration was a law adopted by the Congress of the United States through which war was declared on Spain. But that illusion was followed by a rude awakening. After two years of military occupation of our country, the unexpected happened: at the very moment that the people of Cuba, through their Constituent Assembly, were drafting the Constitution of the Republic, a new law was passed by the United States Congress, a law proposed by Senator Platt, bearing such unhappy memories for the Cubans. That law stated that the constitution of the Cuba must have an appendix under which the United States would be granted the right to intervent in Cuba's political affairs and, furthermore, to lease certain parts of Cuba for naval bases or coal supply station. In other words, under a law passed by the legislative body of a foreign country, Cuban's Constitution had to contain an appendix with those provisions. Our legislators were clearly told that if they did not accept the amendment, the occupation forces would not be withdrawn. In other words, an agreement to grant another country the right to intervene and to lease naval bases was imposed by force upon my country by the legislative body of a foreign country. It is well, I think, for countries just entering this Organization, countries just beginning their independent life, to bear in mind our history and to note any similar conditions which they may find waiting for them along their own road. And if it is not they, then those who came after them, or their children, or grandchildren, although it seems to us that we will not have to wait that long. Then began the new colonization of our country, the acquisition of the best agricultural lands by United States firms, concessions of Cuban natural resources and mines, concessions of public utilities for exploitation purposes, commercial concessions of all types. These concessions, when linked with the constitutional right — constitutional by force — of intervention in our country, turned it from a Spanish colony into an American colony. Colonies do not speak. Colonies are not known until they have the opportunity to express themselves. That is why our colony and its problems were unknown to the rest of the world. In geography books reference was made to a flag and a coat of arms. There was an island with another color on the maps, but it was not an independent republic. Let us not deceive ourselves, since by doing so we only make ourselves ridiculous. Let no one be mistaken. There was no independent republic; there was only a colony where orders were given by the Ambassador of the United States. We are not ashamed to have to declare this. On the contrary: we are proud to say that today no embassy rules our country; our country is ruled by its people! Once against the Cuban people had to resort to fighting in order to achieve independence, and that independence was finally attained after seven bloody years of tyranny, who forced this tyranny upon us? Those who in our country were nothing more than tools of the interests which dominated our country economically. How can an unpopular regime, inimical to the interests of the people, stay in power unless it is by force? Will we have to explain to the representatives of our sister republics of Latin America what military tyrannies are? Will we have to outline to them how these tyrannies have kept themselves in power? Will we have to explain the history of several of those tyrannies which are already classical? Will we have to say what forces, what national and international interests support them? The military group which tyrannized our country was supported by the most reactionary elements of the nation, and, above all, by the foreign interests that dominated the economy of our country. Everybody knows, and we understand that even the Government of the United States admits it, that that was the type of government favored by the monopolies. Why? Because by the use of force it was possible to check the demands of the people; by the use of force it was possible to suppress strikes for improvement of living standards; by the use of force it was possible to crush all movements on the part of the peasants to own the land they worked; by the use of force it was possible to curb the greatest and most deeply felt aspirations of the nation. That is why governments of force were favored by the ruling circles of the United States. That is why governments of force stayed in power for so long, and why there are governments of force still in power in America. Naturally, it all depends on whether it is possible to secure the support of the United States. For instance, now they say they oppose one of these governments of force; the Government of Trujillo. But they do not say they are against other governments of force — that of Nicaragua, or Paraguay, for example. The Nicaraguan one is no longer government of force; it is a monarchy that is almost as constitutional as that of the United Kingdom, where the reins of power are handed down from father to son. The same would have occurred in my own country. It was the type of government of force — that of Fulgencio Batista — which suited the American monopolies in Cuba, but it was not, of course, the type of government which suited the Cuban people, and the Cuban people, at a great cost in lives and sacrifices, over threw the government. What did the Revolution find when it came to power in Cuba? What marvels did the Revolution find when it came to power in Cuba?
What marvels did the Revolution find when it came to power in Cuba? First of all the Revolution found that 600,000 able Cubans were unemployed — as many, proportionately, as were unemployed in the United States at the time of the great depression which shook this country and which almost created a catastrophy in the United States. That was our permanent unemployment. Three million out of a population of somewhat over 6,000,000 did not have electric lights and did not enjoy the advantages and comforts of electricity. Three and a half million out of a total of slightly more than 6,000,000 lived in huts, shacks and slums, without the slightest sanitary facilities. In the cities, rents took almost one third of family incomes. Electricity rates and rents were among the highest in the world. Thirty-seven and one half percent of our population were illiterate; 70 per cent of the rural children had no teachers; 2 per cent of population, that is, 100,000 persons out of a total of more than 6,000,000 suffered from tuberculosis. Ninety-five per cent of the children in rural areas were affected by parasites, and the infant mortality rate was therefore very high, just the opposite of the average life span. On the other hand, 85 per cent of the small farmers were paying rents for the use of land to the tune of almost 30 per cent of their income, while 1 1/2 percent of the landowners controlled 46 per cent of the total area of the nation. Of course, the proportion of hospital beds to the number of inhabitants of the country was ridiculous, when compared with countries that only have halfway decent medical services. Public utilities, electricity and telephone services all belonged to the United States monopolies. A major portion of the banking business, of the importing business and the oil refineries, the greater part of the sugar production, the best land in Cuba, and the most important industries in all fields belonged to American companies. The balance of payments in the last ten years, from 1950 to 1960, had been favorable to the United States with regard to Cuba to the extent of one thousand million dollars. This is without taking in to account the hundreds of millions of dollars that were extraeted from the treasury of the country by the corrupt officials of the tyranny and were later deposited in United States or European Banks. One thousand million dollars in ten years. This poor and underdeveloped Caribbean country, with 600,000 unemployed, was contributing greatly to the economic development of the most highly industrialized country in the world. That was the situation we found, and it is probably not foreign to many of the countries represented in this Assembly, because, when all is said and done, what we have said about Cuba is like a diagnostic x-ray applicable to many of the countries represented here. What alternative was there for the Revolutionary Government? To betray the people? Of course, as far as the President of the United States is concerned, we have betrayed our people, but it would certainly not have been considered so, if, instead of the Revolutionary Government being true to its people, it had been loyal to the big American monopolies that exploited the economy of our country. At least, let note be taken here of the wonders the Revolution found when it came to power. They were no more and no less than the usual wonder of imperialism, which are in themselves the wonders of the free world as far as we, the colonies, are concerned! We surely cannot be blamed if there were 600,000 unemployed in Cuba and 37.5 per cent of the population were illiterate. We surely cannot be held responsible if 2 per cent of the population suffered from tuberculosis and 95 per cent were affected by parasites. Until that moment none of us had anything to do with the destiny of our country; until that moment, those who had something to do with the destiny of our country were the rulers who served the interests of the monopolies; until that moment, monopolies had been in control of our country. Did anyone hinder them? No one. Did anyone trouble them? No one. They were able to do their work, and there we found the result of their work. What was the state of our reserved when the tyrant Batista came to power. There was $500,000,000 in our national reserve, a goodly sum to have invested in the industrial development of the country. When the Revolution came to power there was only $70,000,000 in our reserves. Was there any concern for the industrial development of our country? No. That is why we are astonished and amazed when we hear of the extraordinary concern shown by the United States Government for the Fate of the countries of Latin America, Africa and Asia. We cannot overcome our amazement, because after fifty years we have the result of their concern before our eyes. What has the Revolutionary Government done? What crime has the Revolutionary Government committed to deserve the treatment we have received here, and the powerful enemies that events have shown us we have? Did problems with the United States Government arise from the first moments? No. It is perhaps that when we reached power we were imbued with the purpose of getting into international trouble? No. No Revolutionary government wants international trouble when it comes to power. What a revolutionary government wants to do is concentrate its efforts on solving its own problems; what it wants to do is carry out a program for the people, as is the desire of all governments that are interested in the progress of their country. The first unfriendly act perpetrated by the Government of the United States was to throw open its doors to a gang of murders who had left our country covered with blood.
The first unfriendly act perpetrated by the Government of the United States was to throw open its doors to a gang of murders who had left our country covered with blood. Men who had murdered hundreds of defenseless peasants, who for many years never tired of torturing prisoners, who killed right and left — were received in this country with open arms. To us, this was amazing. Why this unfriendly act on the part of the Government of the United States towards Cuba? Why this act of hostility? At that time we could not quite understand; now we see the reason clearly. Was that the proper policy as regards relations between the United States and Cuba? Certainly not, because we were the injured party, inasmuch as the Batista regime remained in power with the help of tanks, planes and arms furnished by the Government of the United States; the Batista regime remained in power thanks to the use of an army whose officers were trained by a military mission sent by the United States Government; and we trust that no official of the United States will dare to deny that truth. Even when the Rebel Army arrived in Havana, the American military mission was in the most important military camp of the city. That was a broken army, an army that had been defeated and had surrendered. We could very well have considered those foreign officers as prisoners of war, since they had been there helping and training the enemies of the people. However, we did not do so. We merely asked the members of that military mission to return to their country, because after all, we did not need their lessons; their pupils had been defeated. I have with me a document. Do not be surprised as its appearance, for it is a torn document. It is an old military pact, by virtue of which the Batista tyranny received generous assistance from the Government of the United States. And it is quite important to know the contents of Article 2 of this Agreement: "The Government of the Republic of Cuba commits itself to make efficient use of the assistance it receives from the United States, pursuant to the present agreement, in order to carry out the plans of defense accepted by both Governments, pursuant to which the two Governments will take part in missions which are important for the defense of the Western Hemisphere, and, unless permission is previously obtained from the Government of the United States of America ..." — I repeat: "and unless permission is previously obtained from the Government of the United States, such assistance will not be dedicated to other ends than those for which such assistance has been granted." That assistance was used to combat the Cuban revolutionaries; it was therefore approved by the Government of the United States. And even when, some months before the war was over, an embargo on arms for Batista was put into effect, after more than six years of military help, once the arms embargo had been solemnly declared, the Rebel Army had proof, documentary proof, that the forces of the tyranny had been supplied with 300 rockets to be fired from planes. When our comrades living in this country laid these documents before the public opinion of the United States, the Government of the United States found no other explanation than to say that we were wrong, that they had not sent new supplies to the army of the tyranny, but had just changed some rockets that could not be used in their planes for another type of rocket that could — and, by the way, they were fired at us while we were in the mountains. I must say that this is a unique way of explaining a contradiction when it can be neither justified nor explained. According to the United States, then, this was not military assistance; it was probably some sort of '"technical assistance." Why, then, if all this existed and was a cause of resentment for our people ... because everybody knows, even the most innocent and guileless, that with the revolution that has taken place in military equipment, those weapons from the last war have became throughly obsolete for a modern war. Fifty tanks of armoured cars and a few outmoded aircraft cannot defend a continent, much less a hemisphere. But on the other hand they are good enough to oppress unarmed peoples. They are good for what they are used for: to intimidate people and to defend monopolies. That is why these hemisphere defense pacts might better be described as "defense pacts for the protection of United States monopolies." And so the Revolutionary Government began to take the first steps. The first thing it did was to lower the rents paid by families by fifty per cent, a just measure, since, as I said earlier, there were families paying up to one third of their income. The people had been the victim of housing speculation, and city lots had also been the subject of speculation at the expense of the entire Cuban people. But when the Revolutionary Government reduced the rents by fifty per cent, there were, of course, a few individuals who became upset, the few who owned those apartment buildings, but the people rushed into the streets rejoicing, as they would in any country, even here in New York, if rents were reduced by fifty per cent. But this was no problem to the monopolies. Some American monopolies owned large buildings, but they were relatively few in number. Then another law was passed, a law cancelling the concessions which had been granted by the tyranny of Batista to the Telephone Company, an American monopoly. Taking advantage of the fact our people were defenseless, they had obtained valuable concessions. The Revolutionary Government then cancelled these concessions and re-established normal prices for telephone services. Thus began the first conflict with the American monopolies. The third measure was the reduction of electricity rates, which were the highest in the world. Then followed the second conflict with the American monopolies. We were beginning to appear communist; they were beginning to daub us in red because we had clashed head on with the interests of the United States monopolies. Then followed the next law, an essential and inevitable law for our country, and a law which sooner or later will have to be adopted by all countries of the world, at least by those which have not yet adopted it: the Agrarian Reform Law. Of course, in theory everybody agrees with the Agrarian Reform Law. Nobody will deny the need for it unless he is a fool. No one can deny that agrarian reform is one of the essential conditions for the economic development of the country. In Cuba, even the big landowners agreed about the agrarian reform — only they wanted their own kind of reform, such as the one defended by many theoreticians;
a reform which would not harm their interests, and above all, one which would not be put into effect as long as it could be avoided. This is something that is well known to the economic bodies of the United Nations, something nobody even cares to discuss any more. In my country it was absolutely necessary: more than 200,000 peasant families lived in the countryside without land on which to grow essential food crops. Without an agrarian reform, our country would have been unable to take that step; we made an agrarian reform. Was it a radical agrarian reform? We think not. It was a reform adjusted to the needs of our development, and in keeping with our own possibilities of agricultural development. In other words, was an agrarian reform which was to solve the problems of the landless peasants, the problem of supplying basic foodstuffs, the problem of rural unemployment, and which was to end, once and for all, the ghastly poverty which existed in the countryside of our native land. And that is where the first major difficulty arose. In the neighboring Republic of Guatemala a similar case had occurred. And I honestly warn my colleagues of Latin America, Africa and Asia; whenever you set out to make a just agrarian reform, you must be ready to face s similar situation, especially if the best and largest tracts of land are owned by American monopolies, as was the case in Cuba. (OVATION) It is quite possible that we may later be accused of giving bad advice in this Assembly. It is not our intention to disturb anybody's sleep. We are simply stating the facts, although the facts are sufficient to disturb everybody's sleep. Then the problem of payment arose. Notes from the State Department rained on our Government. They never asked about our problems, not even out of sheer pity, or because of the great responsibility they had in creating such problems. They never asked us how many died of starvation in our country, or how many were suffering from tuberculosis, or how many were unemployed. No, they never asked about that. A sympathetic attitude towards our needs? Certainly not. All talks by the representatives of the Government of the United States centered upon the Telephone Co., the Electric Co., and the land owned by American Companies. How could we solve the problem of payment? Of course, the first question that should have been asked was what we were going to pay with, rather than how. Can you gentlemen conceive of a poor underdeveloped country, with 600,000 unemployed and such a large number of illiterates and sick people, a country whose reserves have been exhausted, and which has contributed to the economy of a powerful country with one thousand million dollars in ten years — can you conceive of this country having the means to pay for the land affected by the Agrarian Reform Law, or the means to pay for it in the terms demanded? What were the State Department aspirations regarding their affected interests? They wanted prompt, efficient and just payment. Do you understand that language? "Prompt, efficient, and just payment." That means, "pay now, in dollars, and whatever we ask for our land." (APPLAUSE) We were not 100 per cent communist yet (LAUGHS) We were just becoming slightly pink. We did not confiscate land; we simply proposed to pay for it in twenty years, and in the only way in which we could pay for it: in bonds, which would mature in twenty years at 4 1/2 per cent, or amortized yearly. How could we pay for the land in dollars, and the amount they asked for it? It was absurd. Anyone can readily understand that, under those circumstances, we had to choose between making the agrarian reform, and not making it. If we choose not to make it, the dreadful economic situation of our country would last indefinitely. If we decided to make it, we exposed ourselves to the hatred of the Government of the powerful neighbor of the north. We decided to go on with the agrarian reform. Of course, the limits set to latifundia in Cuba would amaze a representative of the Netherlands, for example, or of any country of Europe, because of their extent. The maximum amount of land set forth in the Agrarian Reform Law is 400 hectares (988 acres). In Europe, 40 hectares is practically a lati-fundium; in Cuba, where there were American monopolies that had up to 200,000 hectares — I repeat, in case someone thinks he has heard wrong, 200,000 hectares — an agrarian reform law reducing the maximum limit to 400 hectares was inadmissible. But the truth is that in our country it was not only the land that was the property of the agrarian monopolies. The largest and most important mines were also owned by those monopolies. Cuba produces, for example, a great deal of nickel. All of the nickel was exploited by American interests, and under the tyranny of Batista, an American company, the Moa Bay, had obtained such a juicy concession that in a mere five years — mark my words, in a mere five years — it intended amortizing an investment of $120,000,000. A $120,000,000 investment amortized in five years! And who had given the Moa Bay company this concession through the intervention of the Government of the United States? Quite simply, the tyrannical government of Fulgencio Batista, which was there to defend the interests of the monopolies. And this is an absolutely true fact. Exempt from all taxes what were those companies going to leave for the Cubans?
Exempt from all taxes what were those companies going to leave for the Cubans? The empty, worked out mines, the impoverished land, and not the slightest contribution to the economic development of our country. And so the Revolutionary Government passed a mining law which forced those monopolies to pay a 25 per cent tax on the exportation of minerals. The attitude of the Revolutionary Government already had been too bold. It had clashed with the interests of the international electric trusts; it had clashed with the interests of the international telephone trusts; it had clashed with the interests of the mining trusts; it had clashed with the interests of the United Fruit Co; and it had in effect, clashed with the most powerful interests of the United States, which, as you know, are very closely linked with each other. And that was more than the Government of the United States — or rather, the representatives of the United States monopolies — could possibly tolerate. Then began a new period of harassment of the Revolution. Can anyone who objectively analyzes the facts? Who is willing to think honestly, not as the UP or the AP tell him, to think with his head and to draw conclusions from his own reasoning and the facts without prejudice, sincerely and honestly — would anyone who does this consider that things which the Revolutionary Government did were such as to demand the destruction of the Cuban Revolution? No. But the interests affected by the Cuban Revolution were not concerned about the Cuban case; they were not being ruined by the measures of the Cuban Revolutionary Government. That was not the problem. The problem lay in the fact that those very interests owned the wealth and the natural resources of the greater part of the peoples of the world. The attitude of the Cuban Revolution therefore had to be punished. Punitive actions of all sorts — even the destruction of those insolent people — had to follow the audacity of the Revolutionary Government. On our honor, we swear that up to that moment we had not had the opportunity even to exchange letters with the distinguished Prime Minister of the Soviet Union, Nikita Khrushchev. That is to say that when, for the North American press and the international news agencies that supply information to the world, Cuba was already a Communist Government, a red peril ninety miles from the United States with a Government dominated by Communists, the Revolutionary Government had not even had the opportunity of establishing diplomatic and commercial relations with the Soviet Union. But hysteria can go to any length; hysteria is capable of making the most unlikely and absurd claims. Of course, let no one think for a moment that we are going to intone a mea culpa here. There will be no mea culpa. We do not have to ask anyone's pardon. What we have done, we have done consciously, and above all, fully convinced of our right to do it. (PROLONGED APPLAUSE) Then came the threats against our sugar quota, imperialism's cheap philosophy of showing generosity, egoistical and exploiting generosity; and they began showing kindness towards Cuba, declaring that they were paying us a preferential price for sugar, which amounted to a subsidy to Cuban sugar — a sugar which was not so sweet for Cubans, since we were not the owners of the best sugar-producing land, nor the owners of the largest sugar mills. Furthermore, in that affirmation lay hidden the true history of Cuban sugar, of the sacrifices which had been imposed upon my country during the periods when it was economically attacked. However when quotas were established, our participation was reduced to 28 per cent, and the advantages which that law had granted us, the very few advantages which that law had granted us, were gradually taken away in successive laws, and, of course the colony depended on the colonial power. The economy of the colony had been organized by the colonial power. The colony had to be subjected to the colonial power, and if the colony took measures to free itself from the colonial powers that country would take measures to crush the colony. Conscious of the subordination of our economy to their market, the Government of the United States began to issue a series of warnings that our quota would be reduced further, and at the same time, other activities were taking place in the United States of America: the activities of counterrevolutionaries. One afternoon an airplane coming from the north flew over one of the sugar refineries and dropped a bomb. This was a strange and unheard-of event, but we knew full well where that plane came from. On another afternoon another plane flew over our sugar cane fields and dropped a few incendiary bombs. These events which began sporadically continued systematically. One afternoon, when a number of American tourist agents were visiting Cuba in response to an effort made by the Revolutionary Government to promote tourism as one of the sources of national income, a plane manufactured in the United States, of the type used in the Second World War, flew over our capital dropping pamphlets and grenades. Of course, some anti-aircraft guns went into action. The result was more than forty victims, between the grenades dropped by the plane and the anti-aircraft fire, because, as you know, some of the projectiles explode upon contacting any object. As I said, the result was more than forty victims. There were little girls on the street with their entrails torn out, old men and women wantonly killed. Was this the first time it had happened in our country? No. Children, old men and old women, young men and women, had often been killed in the villages of Cuba by American bombs supplied to the tyrant Batista. One one occasion, eighty workers died when a mysterious explosion — too mysterious — took place in the harbor of Havana, the explosion of a ship carrying Belgian weapons which had arrived in our country, after many efforts by the United States Government to prevent the Belgian Government from selling arms to us. Dozens of victims of war; eighty families orphaned by the explosions. Forty victims as a result of an airplane that brazenly flew over our territory. The authorities of the United States Government denied the fact that these planes came from American territory, but the plane was now safely in a hangar in this country.
The authorities of the United States Government denied the fact that these planes came from American territory, but the plane was now safely in a hangar in this country. When one of our magazines published a photograph of it, the United States authorities seized the plane. A version of the affair was issued to the effect that this was not very important, and that these victims had not died because of the bombs, but because of the anti-aircraft fire. Those responsible for this crime, those who had caused these deaths were wandering about peacefully in the United States, where they were not even prevented from committing further acts of aggression. May I take this opportunity of telling His Excellency the Representative of the United States that there are many mothers in Cuba still awaiting his telegrams of condolence for their children murdered by the bombs of the United States (APPLAUSE). Planes kept coming and going. But as far as they were concerned, there was no evidence. Frankly, we don't know how they define the word evidence. The plane was there, photographed and captured, and yet we were told the plane did not drop any bombs. It is not known how the United States authorities were so well informed. Planes continued to fly over our territory dropping incendiary bombs. Millions and millions of pesos were lost in the burning fields of sugar cane. Many humble people of Cuba, who saw property destroyed, property that was now truly their own, suffered burns in the struggle against those persistent and tenacious bombings by pirate planes. And then one day, while dropping a bomb on one of our sugar mills, a plane exploded in mid air and the Revolutionary Government was able to collect what was left of the pilot, who by the way, was an American. In his documents were found, proof as to the place where the plane had taken off from. On its way to Cuba, the plane had flown between two United States military bases. This was a matter that could not be denied any longer: the planes took off from the United States. Confronted with irrefutable evidence the United States Government gave an explanation to the Cuban Government. Its conduct in this case was not the same as in connection with the U-2. When it was proved that the planes were taking off from the United States, the Government of the United States did not proclaim its right to burn over sugar cane fields. The United States Government apologized and said it was sorry. We were lucky, after all, because after the U - 2 incident the United States Government did not even apologize, it proclaimed its right to carry out flights over Soviet territory. Bad luck for the Soviets! (APPLAUSE). But we do not have too many anti-aircraft batteries, and the planes went on flying and bombing us until the harvest was over. When there was no more sugar cane, the bombing stopped. We were the only country in the world which had gone through a thing like this, although I do recall that at the time of his visit to Cuba, President Sukarno told us that this was not the case, for they, too, had had certain problems with American planes flying over their territory. But the truth is that in this peaceful hemisphere at least, we were a country that, without being at war with anyone, had to stand the constant attack of pirate planes. And could those planes come in and out of United States territory unmolested? It has been stated that the defenses of the world they call "free" are impregnable. If this is the case, how is it that planes, not supersonic planes, but light planes with a velocity of barely 150 miles per hour, how is it that these planes are able to fly in and out of United States territory undetected. The air raids ended, and then came economic aggression. What was one of the arguments wielded by the enemies of the agrarian reform? They said that the agrarian reform would bring chaos to agricultural production, that production would diminish considerably, and that the Government of the United States was concerned because Cuba might not be able to fulfill her commitments to the American market. The first argument — and it is appropriate that at least the new delegations in the General Assembly should become familiar with some of the arguments, because some day they may have to answer similar arguments — the first argument was that the agrarian reform meant the ruin of the country. This was not the case. If this had been so, and agricultural production had deceased, the American Government would not have felt the need to carry on its economic aggression. Did they sincerely believe in what they said when they stated that the agrarian reform would cause a drop in production? Perhaps they did. Surely it is logical for each one to believe what his mind has been conditioned to believe. It is quite possible they may have felt that without the all-powerful monopolist companies, we Cubans would be unable to produce sugar. perhaps they were even sure we would ruin the country. And of course, if the Revolution had ruined the country, then the United States would not have had to attack us; it would have left us alone, and the United States Government would have appeared as a good and honourable government, and we as people who ruined our own Nation, and as a great example that Revolutions should not be made because they ruin countries. Fortunately, that was not the case. There is proof that revolutions do not ruin countries, and that proof has just been furnished by the Government of the United States. Among other things, it has been proved that revolutions do not ruin countries, and that imperialist governments do try to ruin countries. Cuba had not been ruined; she therefore had to be ruined. Cuba needed new markets for its products, and we would honestly ask any delegation present if it does not want its country to sell what it produces and its export to increase. We wanted our exports to increase, and this is what all countries wish; this must be a universal law.
this must be a universal law. Only egotistical interests can oppose the universal interest in trade and commercial exchange, which surely is one of the most ancient aspirations and needs of mankind. We wanted to sell our products and went in search of new markets. We signed a trade treaty with the Soviet Union, according to which we would sell one million tons of sugar and would purchase a certain amount of Soviet products or articles. Surely no one can say that this is an incorrect procedure. There may be some who would not do such a thing because it might displease certain intersts. We really did not have to ask permission from the State Department in order to sign a trade treaty with the Soviet Union, because we considered ourselves, and we continue to consider ourselves and we will always consider ourselves, a truly independent and free country. When the amount of sugar in stock began to diminish stimulating our economy, we received the hard blow: at the request of the executive power of the United States, Congress passed a law empowering the President or Executive power to reduce the import quotas for Cuban sugar to whatever limits might deem appropriate. The economic weapon was wielded against our Revolution. The justification for that attitude had already been prepared by publicity experts; the campaign had been on for a long time. You know perfectly well that in this country monopolies and publicity are one and the same thing. The economic weapon was wielded, our sugar quota was suddenly cut by about one million tons — sugar that had already been produced and prepared for the American market — in order to deprive our country of resources for its development, and thus reduce it to a state of impotence, with the natural political consequences. Such measures were expressly banned by Regional International Law. Economic aggression, as all Latin American delegates here know, is expressly condemned by Regional International Law. However, the Government of the United States violated that law, wielded its economic weapon, and cut our sugar quota by about one million tons. They could do it. What was Cuba's defense when confronted by that reality? It could appeal to the United Nations. It could turn to the United Nations, in order to denounce political and economic aggressions, the air attacks of the pirate planes, besides the constant interference of the Government of the United States in the political affairs of our country and the subversive campaigns it carries out against the Revolutionary Government of Cuba. So we turned to the United Nations. The United Nations had power to deal with these matters. The United Nations is, within the hierarchy of international organizations, the highest authority. The United Nations' authority is even above that of the OAS. And besides, we were interested in bringing the problem to the United Nations, because we know quite well the situation the economy of Latin America finds itself in; because we understand the state of dependence of the economy of Latin America in relation to the United States. The United Nations knew of the affair, it requested the OAS to make an investigation, and the OAS met. Very well. And what was to be expected? That the OAS would protect the country; that the OAS would condemn the political aggression against Cuba, and above all that would condemn the economic aggression against our country. That should have been expected. But after all, we were a small people of the Latin American community of nations. We were just another victim. And we were neither the first or the last, because Mexico had already been attacked more than once militarily. In one way they tore away from Mexico a great part of its territory, and on that occasion the heroic sons of Mexico leaped to their death from the Castle of Chapultepec enwrapped in the Mexican flag rather than surrender. These were the heroic sons of Mexico (APPLAUSE). And that was not the only aggression. That was not the only time that American infantry forces trod upon Mexican soil. Nicaragua was invaded and for seven long years was heroically defended by Ceasar Augusto Sandino. Cuba suffered intervention more than once, and so did Haiti and Santo Domingo. Guatemala also suffered intervention. Who among you could honestly deny the intervention of the United Fruit Co. and the State Department of the United States when the legitimate government of Guatemala was overthrown? I understand fully well that there may be some who consider it their official duty to be discreet on this matter, and who may even be willing to come here and deny this, but in their consciences they know we are simply stating the truth. Cuba was not the first victim of aggression; Cuba was not the first country to be in danger of aggression. In this hemisphere everyone knows that the Government of the United States has always imposed its own law — the law of the strongest, in virtue of which they have destroyed Puerto Rican nationhood and have imposed their domination on that friendly country — law in accordance with which they seized and held the Panama Canal. This was nothing new, our country should have been defended, but it was never defended. Why? Let us get to the bottom of this matter, without merely studying the from. If we stick to the dead letter of the law, then we are protected;
If we stick to the dead letter of the law, then we are protected; if we abide by reality, we have no protection whatsoever, because reality imposes itself on the law set forth in international codes, and that reality is, that a small nation attacked by a powerful country did not have any defense and was not defended. With all due respect to this organization, I must state here that, that is why the people, our people, the people of Cuba, who have learned much and are quite up to the role they are laying, to the heroic struggle they are conducting ... our people who have learned in the school of international events, know that in the last instance, when their rights have been denied and aggressive forces are marshalled against them, they still have the supreme and heroic resource of resisting when their rights are not protected by either the OAS or the UN (OVATION). That is why we, the small countries, do not yet feel too sure that our rights will be preserved; that is why we, the small countries, whenever we decide to become free, know that we become free at our own risk. In truth, when people are united and are defending a just right, they can trust their own energies. We are not, as we have been pictured, a mere group of men governing the country. We are a whole people governing a country — a whole people firmly united, with a great revolutionary consciousness, defending its rights. And this should be known by the enemies of the revolution and of Cuba, because if they ignore this fact, they will be making a regretable error. These are the circumstances in which the revolutionary process has taken place in our country; that is how we found the country, and why difficulties have arisen. And yet the Cuban Revolution is changing what was yesterday a land without hope, a land of poverty and illiteracy, into one of the most advanced and developed countries in this Continent. The Revolutionary Government, in but twenty months, has created 10,000 new schools. In this brief period it has doubled the number of rural schools that had been created in fifty years. Cuba is today, the first country of America that has met all its school needs, that has a teacher in the farthest corners of the mountains. In this brief period of time, the Revolutionary Government has built 5,000 houses in the rural and urban areas. Fifty new towns are being built at this moment. The most important military fortresses today house tens of thousands of students, and, in the coming year, our people intend to fight the great battle against illiteracy, with the ambitious goal of teaching every single inhabitant of the country to read and write in one year, and, with that end in mind, organizations of teachers, students and workers, that is, the entire people, are preparing themselves for an intensive campaign, and Cuba will be the first country of America which, after a few months, will be able to say it does not have one single illiterate. Our people are receiving today the assistance of hundreds of doctors who have been sent to the fields to fight against illnesses and parasitic ailments, and improve the sanitary conditions of the nation. In another aspect, in the preservation of our natural resources, we can also point with pride to the fact that in only one year, in the most ambitious plan for the conservation of natural resources being carried out on this continent, including the United States of America and Canada, we have planted nearly fifty million timber-yielding trees. Youths who were unemployed, who did not attend school, have been organized by the Revolutionary Government and are today being gainfully and usefully employed by the country, and at the same time being prepared for productive work. Agricultural production in our country has been able to perform an almost unique feat, an increase in production from the very beginning. From the very start we were able to increase agricultural production. Why? In the first place, because the Revolutionary Government turned more than 10,000 agricultural workers, who formerly paid rent, to owners of their land, at the same time maintaining large-scale production through co-operatives. In other words production was maintained through co-operatives, thanks to which we have been able to apply the most modern technical methods to our agricultural production, causing a marked increase in that production. And all this social welfare work — teachers, housing, and hospitals — has been carried out without sacrificing the resources that we have earmarked for development. At this very moment the Revolutionary Government is carrying out a program of industrialization of the country, and the first plants are already being built. We have utilized the resources of our country in a rational manner. Formerly, for instance, thirty-five million dollars worth of cars were imported into Cuba, and only five million dollars worth of tractors. A country which is mainly agricultural imported seven times more cars than tractors. We have changed this around, and we are now importing seven times more tractors than cars. PG Close to five hundred million dollars was recovered from the politicians who had enriched themselves during the tyranny of Batista — close to five hundred million dollars in cash and other assets was the total we were able to recover from the corrupt politicians who had been sucking the blood of our country for seven years. It is the correct investment of these assets which enables the Revolutionary Government, while at the same time developing plans for industrialization and for the development of agriculture, to build houses, schools, to send teachers to the farthest corners of the country, and to give medical assistance to everyone — in other words, to carry out a true program of social development. At the Bogota meeting, as you know, the Government of the United States proposed a plan. Was it a plan for economic development? No. It was a plan for social development. What is understood by this? Well, it was a plan for building houses, building schools, and building roads. But does this settle the problem at all? How can there be a solution to the social problems without a plan for economic development? Do they want to make fools of the Latin American countries? What are families going to live on when they inhabit those houses, if those houses are really built? What shoes, what clothes are they going to wear, and what food are children going toe at when they attend those school? Is it not known that, when a family does not have clothes or shoes for the children, the children are not sent to schools? With what means are they going to pay the teachers and the doctors?
How are they going to pay for the medicine? Do you want a good way of saving medicine? Improve the nutrition of the people, and when they eat well you will not have to spend money on hospitals. Therefore, in view of the tremendous reality of undevelopment, the Government of the United States now comes out with a plan for social development. Of course, it is stimulating to observe the United States concerning itself with some of the problems of Latin America. Thus far they had not concerned themselves at all. What a coincidence that, they are not worried about those problems! And the fact that this concern emerged after the Cuban Revolution will probably be labelled by them as purely coincidental. Thus far, the monopolies have certainly not cared very much, except about exploiting the underdeveloped countries. But comes the Cuban Revolution and suddenly the monopolists are worrying, and while they attack us economically trying to crush us, they offer aims to the countries of Latin America. The countries of Latin America are offered, not the resources for development that Latin America needs, but resources for social development — houses for men who have no work, schools where children will not go, and hospitals that would not be necessary if there were enough food to eat (APPLAUSE). After all, although some of my Latin American colleagues may feel it their duty to be discreet at the United Nations, they should all welcome a revolution such as the Cuban Revolution which at any rate has forced the monopolists to return at least a small part of what they have been extracting from the natural resources and the sweat of the Latin American peoples (APPLAUSE). Although we are not included in that aid we are not worried about that; we do not get angry about things like that, because we have been settling those same problems of schools and housing and so on for quite some time. But perhaps there may be some of you who feel we are using this rostrum to make propaganda, because the President of the United Nations has said that some come here for propaganda purposes. And, of course, all of my colleagues in the United Nations have a standing invitation to visit Cuba. We do not close, our doors to any one, now do we confine anyone. Any of my colleagues in this assembly can fision Cuba whenever he wishes, in order to see with his own eyes what is going on. You know the chapter in the Bible that speaks of St. Thomas, who had to see in order to believe I think it was St. Thomas. And, after all, we can invite any newspapermen, and any member of any delegation, to visit Cuba and see what a nation is capable of doing with its own resources, when they are used with honesty and reason. But we are not only solving our housing and school problems, we are solving our development problems as well, because without the solution of the problems of development there can be no settlement of the social problems themselves. Why is the United States Government unwilling to talk of development? It is very simple: because the Government of the United States does not want to oppose the monopolies, and the monopolies require natural resources and markets for the investment of their capital. That is where the great contradiction lies. That is why the real solution to this problem is not sought. That is why planning for the development of underdeveloped countries with public funds is not done. It is good that this be stated frankly, because, after all, we the underdeveloped countries, are a majority in this Assembly — in case anyone is unaware of this fact — and we are witnesses to what is going on in the underdeveloped countries. Yet, the true solution of the problem is not sought, and much is said about the participation of private capital. Of course, this means markets for the investment of surplus capital, like the investment that was amortized in five years. The government of the United States cannot propose a plan for public investment, because this would divorce it from the very reason for being the Government of the United States, namely the American monopolies. Let us not beat about the bush, the reason no real economic plan is being promoted is simply this: to preserve our lands in Latin America, Africa, and Asia for the investment of surplus capital. Thus far we have referred to the problems of my own country and the reason why those problems have not been solved. Is it perhaps because we did not want to solve them? No. The Government of Cuba has always been ready to discuss its problems with the Government of the United States, but the Government of the United States has not been ready to discuss its problems with Cuba, and it must have its reasons for not doing so. The Government of the United States doe not deign to discuss its differences with the small country of Cuba. What hope can the people of Cuba maintain for the solution of these problems? the facts that we have been able to note here so far conspire against the solution of these problems, and the United Nations should seriously take this into account, because the people and the Government of Cuba are justifiably concerned at the aggressive turn in the policy of the United States with regard to Cuba, and it is proper that we should be well informed. In the first place, the Government of the United States considers it has the right to promote and encourage subversion in our country. The Government of the United States is promoting the organization of subversive movements against the Revolutionary Government of Cuba, and we wish to denounce this fact in this General Assembly; we also wish to denounce specifically the fact that, for instance, a territory which belongs to Honduras, known as Islas Cisnes, the Swan Islands, has been seized "manu militari" by the Government of the United States and that American marines are there, despite the fact that this territory belongs to Honduras. Thus, violating international law and despoiling a friendly people of a part of its territory, the United States has established a powerful radio station on one of those Islands, in violation of international radio agreements, and has placed it at the disposal of the war criminals and subversive groups supported in this country; furthermore, military training is being conducted on that island, in order to promote subversion and the landing of armed forces in our country. Does the Government of the United States feel it has the right to promote subversion on our country, violating all international treaties, including those relating to radio frequency? Does this mean, by chance, that the Cuban Government has the right to promote subversion in the United States? Does the Government of the United States believe it has the right to violate radio frequency agreements?
Does this mean, by chance, that the Cuban Government has the right to violate radio frequency agreements also? What right can the Government of the United States have over us over our island that permits it to act towards other nations in such a manner? Let the United States return the Swan Islands to Honduras, since it never had any jurisdiction over those Islands (APPLAUSE). But there are even more alarming circumstances for our people. It is well known that, in virtue of the Platt Amendment, imposed by force upon our people, the Government of the United States assumed the right to establish naval bases on our territory, a right forcefully imposed and maintained. A naval base in the territory of any country is surely a cause for concern. First of all, there is concern over the fact that a country which follows an aggressive and warlike international policy has a base in the heart of our country, which brings us the risk of being involved in any international conflict, in any atomic conflict, without our having anything to do with the problem, because we have absolutely nothing to do with the problems of the United States and the crises provoked by the Government of the United States. Yet, there is a base in the heart of our Island which entails danger for us in case of war. But is that only danger? No. There is another danger that concerns us even more, since it is closer to home. The Revolutionary Government of Cuba has repeatedly expressed its concern over the fact that the imperialist government of the United States may use that base, located in the heart of our national territory, as an excuse to promote a self - aggression, in order to justify an attack on our country. I repeat: the Revolutionary Government of Cuba is seriously concerned — and makes known this concern — over the fact that the imperialist government of the United States of America may use a self-aggression in order to justify an attack on our country. And this concern on our part is becoming increasingly greater because of the intensified aggressiveness that the United States is displaying. For instance, I have here a United Press cable which came to my country, and which reads as follows:, "Admiral Arleigh Burke, United States Chief of Naval Operations says that if Cuba attempts to take the Gunatanamo Naval base by force we will fight back" In an interview for the magazine U.S. News and World Report (please excuse my bad pronunciation), Admiral Burke was asked if the Navy was concerned about the situation in Cuba under Premier Fidel Castro. "Yes, our Navy is concerned — not about our base at Guantanamo, but about the whole Cuban situation," Admiral Burke said. The Admiral added that all the military services are concerned. "Is that because of Cuba's strategic position in the Caribbean?" he was asked. "No, not particularly,' Admiral Burke said. 'Here are a people normally very friendly to the United States, who like our people and were also like by us. In spite of this, an individual as appeared with a small group of fanatical communists, determined to change all that. Castro has taught his people to hate the United States, and has done much to ruin his country.' "Admiral Burke said 'we will react very fast if Castro makes any move against the Guantanamo base.' "If they try to take the base by force, we will fight back", he added. Asked whether Soviet Premier Krushchev's threat about retaliatonary rockets gave Admiral Burke 'second thoughts about fighting in Cuba' the Admiral said: "No, because he is not going to send his rockets. He knows quite well he will be destroyed if he does." He means that Russia will be destroyed. In the first place, I must emphasize that for this gently man, to have increased industrial production in our country by 35 per cent, to have given employment to more than 200,000 more Cubans, to have solved many of the social problems of our country, constitutes the ruination of our country. And in accordance with this line of reasoning they assume the right to prepare the conditions for aggression. So you see how conjectures are made — very dangerous conjectures, because this gentleman, in effect, thinks that in case of an attack on us we are to stand alone. This is just a conjecture by Mr. Burke, but let us imagine that Mr. Burke is wrong, let us suppose for just a moment that Mr. Burke, although an admiral, is mistaken. Than Admiral Burke is playing with the fate of the world in a most irresponsible manner. Admiral Burke and his aggressive militarist clique are playing with the fate of the world, and it would really not be worth our while to worry over the fate of each of us, but we feel that we, as representatives of the various peoples of the world, have the duty to concern ourselves with the fate of the world, and we also have the duty to condemn all those who play irresponsibly with the fate of the world. They are not only playing with the fate of our people; they are playing with the fate of their people and with the fate of all the people's of the world or does thus Admiral Burke think we are still living in the times of the blunderbusses? Does he not realize, this Admiral Burke, that we are living in the atomic age, in an age whose disastrous and cataclysmic destructive forces could not even he imagined by Dante or Leonardo Da Vinci, with all their imagination, because this goes beyond the imagination of man. Yet, he made his conjectures, United Press International spread the news all over the world, the magazine is about to come out, hysteria is being created, the campaign is being prepared, the imaginary danger of an attack on the base is beginning to be publicized. And this is not all. Yesterday a United States news bulletin appeared containing some declarations by the United States Senator Styles Bridges who, I believe is a member of the Armed forces Committee of the Senate of the United States. He said: "The United States should maintain its naval base of Guantanamo in Cuba at all costs"; and 'we must go as far as necessary to defend those gigantic installations of the United States. We have naval forces there, and we have the Marines, and if we were attacked I would defend it, of course, because I believe it is the most important base in the Caribbean area." This member of the Senate Armed Forces Committee did not entirely reject the use of the atomic weapons in the case of an attack against the base.
What does this mean? This means that not only is hysteria being created, not only is the atmosphere being systematically prepared, but we are even threatened with the use of atomic weapons, and, of course, among the many things that we can think of, one is to ask this Mr. Bridges whether he is not ashamed of himself to threaten a small country like Cuba with the use of atomic weapons (PROLONGS APPLAUSE). As far as we are concerned, and with all due respect, we must tell him that the problems of the world cannot be solved by the use of threats or by sowing fear, and that our humble people, our little country, is there. What can we do about? We are there, however much they dislike the idea, and our Revolution will go ahead, however much they dislike that. And our humble people must resign themselves to their fate. They are not afraid, nor are they shaken by this threat of the use of atomic weapons. What does all this mean? There are many countries that have American bases in their territory, but they are not directed against the governments that made these concessions — at least not as far as we know. Yet ours is the most tragic case. There is a base on our island territory directed against Cuba and the Revolutionary Government of Cuba, in the hands of those who declare themselves enemies of our country, enemies of our revolution, and enemies of our people. In the entire history of the world's present-day bases, the most tragic case is that of Cuba; a base imposed upon us by force, well within our territory, which is a good many miles away from the coast of the United States, an instrument used against Cuba and the Cuban people imposed by the use of force, and a constant threat and a cause for concern for our people. That is why we must state here that all these rumors of attacks are intended to create hysteria and prepare the conditions for an aggression against our country, that we have never spoken a single word implying the thought of any type of attack on the Guantanamo base, because we are the first in not wanting to give imperialism an excuse to attack us, and we state this categorically. But we also declare that from the very moment that base was turned into a threat to the security and peace of our country, a danger to our country, the Revolutionary Government of Cuba has been considering very seriously the requesting, within the framework of international law, of the withdrawal of the naval and military forces of the United States (THE SPEAKER IS INTERRUPTED BY PROLONGED APPLAUSE) from that portion of our National territory. But is is imperative that this Assembly be kept well informed regarding the problems of Cuba, because we have to be on the alert against deceit and confusion. We have to explain these problems very clearly because with them go the security and the fate of our country. And that is why we want exact note to be taken of the words I have spoken, particularly when one takes into consideration the fact that the opinions or erroneous ideas of the politicians of this country as regards Cuban problems do not show any signs of improving. I have here some declarations by Mr. Kennedy that would surprise anybody. On Cuba he says. "We must use all the power of the Organization of American States to prevent Castro from interfering in other Latin American countries, and we must use all that power to return freedom to Cuba". They are going to give freedom back to Cuba! "We must state our intention," he says, "of not allowing the Soviet Union to turn Cuba into its Caribbean base, and of applying the Monroe Doctrine". Half-way or more into the twentieth century, this gentleman speaks of the Monroe doctrine! "We must make Prime Minister Castro understand that we intend to defend our right to the Naval Base of Guantanamo." He is the third who speaks of the problem. "And we must make the Cuban people know that we sympathize with their legitimate economic aspirations...." Why did they not feel sympathetic before? "....that we know their love of freedom, and that we shall never be happy until democracy is restored in Cuba...." What democracy? The democracy "made" by the imperialist monopolies of the Government of the United States? "The forces in exile that are struggling for freedom," he says — note this very carefully so that you will understand why there are planes flying from American territory over Cuba: pay close attention to what this gentleman has to say. "The forces that struggle for liberty in exile and in the mountains of Cuba should be supported and assisted, and in other countries of Latin America communism must be confined and not allowed to expand." If Kennedy were not an illiterate and ignorant millionaire (APPLAUSE)...he would understand that is is not possible to carry out a revolution supported by landowners against the peasant in the mountains, and that every time imperialism has tried to encourage counterrevolutionary groups, the peasant militia has captured them in the course of a few days. But he seems to have read a novel, or seen a Hollywood film, about guerrillas, and he thinks it is possible to carry on guerrilla warfare in a country where the relations of the social forces are what they are in Cuba. In any case, this is discouraging. Let no one think, however, that these opinions as regards Kennedy's statements indicate that we feel any sympathy towards the other one, Mr. Nixon...(LAUGHTER) who has made similar statements. As far as we are concerned, both lack political brains. Up to this point we have been dealing with the problem of our country, a fundamental duty of ours when coming before the United Nations, but we understand that it would be a little egoistical on our part if our concern were to be limited to our specific case alone. It is also true that we have used up the greater part of our time informing this Assembly about the Cuban case, and that there is not much time left for us to deal with the remaining questions, to which we wish to refer briefly. The case of Cuba is not isolated case. It would be an error to think of it only as the case of Cuba. The case of Cuba is the case of all underdeveloped countries. The case of Cuba is like that of the Congo, Egypt, Algeria, Iran...(APPLAUSE)...like that of Panama, which wishes to have its canal; it is like that of Puerto Rico, whose national spirit they are destroying; like that of Honduras, a portion of whose territory has been alienated.
In short, although we have not make specific reference to other countries, the case of Cuba is the case of all underdeveloped, colonialized countries. The problems which we have been describing in relation to Cuba can be applied just as well to all of Latin America. The control of Latin American economic resources by the monopolies, which, when they do not own the mines directly and are in charge of extraction, as the case with the copper of Chile, Peru, or Mexico, and with the oil of Venezuela — when this control is not exercised directly it is because they are the owners of the public utility companies, as is the case in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Peru, Ecuador and Colombia, or the owners of telephone services, which is the case in Chile, Brazil, Peru, Venezuela, Paraguay and Bolivia, or they commercialize our products, as is the case with coffee in Brazil, Colombia, El Salvador, Costa Rica, and Guatemala, or with the cultivation, marketing and transportations of bananas by the United Fruit Co. in Guatemala, Costa Rica, and Honduras, or with the Cotton in Mexico and Brazil. In other words, the monopolies control the most important industries. Woe to those countries, the day they try to make an agrarian reform! They will be asked for immediate, efficient, and just payment. And if, in spite of everything they make an agrarian reform, the representative of the friendly country who comes to the United Nations will be confined to Manhattan; they will not rent hotel space to him; insult will he heaped upon him, and it is even possible that he may be physically mistreated by the police. The problem of Cuba is just an example of the situation in Latin America. And how long will Latin America wait for its development? It will have to wait, according to the point of view of the monopolies, until there are two Fridays in a week. Who is going to industrialize Latin America? The monopolies? Certainly not. There is a report by the economic Commission of the United Nations which explains how private capital, instead of going to the countries that need it most for the establishment of basic industries to contribute to their development, is being channeled referentially to the more industrialized countries, because there, according to their beliefs, private capital finds greater security. And, of course, even the Economic Secretariat of the United Nations has had to admit there there is no possible chance for development through the investment of private capital — that is, through the monopolies. The development of Latin America will have to be achieved through public investment, planned and granted unconditionally without any political strings attached, because, naturally, we all like to be representatives of free countries. None of us like to represent a country that does not feel itself in full possession of its freedom. None of us wants the independence of this country to be subjected to any interest other than that of the country itself. That is why assistance must be given without any political conditions. That help has been denied to us does not matter. We have not asked for it. However, in the interest of and for the benefit of the Latin American peoples, we do feel duty bound out of solidarity, to stress the fact that the assistance must be given without any political conditions whatsoever. There should be more public investments for economic development, rather than for "social development," which is the latest thing invented to hide the true need for the economic development of countries. The problems of Latin America are similar to those of the rest of the world: to those of Africa and Asia. The world is divided up among the monopolies; the same monopolies that we find in Latin America are also found in the Middle East. There the oil is in the hands of monopolistic companies that are controlled by France, the United States, the United Kingdom the Netherlands....in Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, in short, in all corners of the world. The same thing is true, for instance, in the Philippines, and in Africa. The world has been divided among the monopolistic interests. Who would dare deny this historic truth? The monopolistic interests do not want to see the development of countries and the people themselves. And the sooner they recover or amortize the capital invested, the better. The problems the Cuban people have had to face with the imperialistic government of the United States are the same which Saudi Arabia would face if it nationalized its oil, and this also applies to Iran or Iraq; the same problems that Egypt had when it quite justifiably nationalized the Suez Canal; the very same problems that Indonesia had when it wanted to become independent; the same surprise attacks as against Egypt and the Congo. Have colonialists or imperialists ever lacked a pretext when they wanted to invade a country? Never! Somehow they have always found a pretext. And which are the colonialist and imperialists countries? Four or five countries — no, four or five groups of monopolies are the owners of the wealth of the world. If a being from another planet were to come to this Assembly, one who had read neither the Communist Menifesto of Karl Marx nor the cables of the United Press or the Associated Press or other monopolist publications, if he were to ask how the world had been divided, and he saw on a map that the wealth of the world was divided among the monopolies of four or five countries, he would say, without further consideration; "The wealth of this world has been badly distributed, the world is being exploited." Here in this Assembly, where the majority of the underdeveloped countries are represented, he would say: "The majority of the peoples that you represent are being exploited; they have been exploited for a long time. The form of exploitation may have changed, but you are still being exploited." That would be the verdict. In the address made by Premier Khrushchev there is a statement that attracted our attention because of the value of its contents. It was when he said that "the Soviet Union has no colonies or investments in any country." How great our world would be today, our world which today is threatened with catastrophe, if all the representatives of all nations were able to say: "Our country has no colonies and no investments in any foreign country"! (APPLAUSE) There is no use in going all over the question again. This is substance of the matter, the substance of peace and war, the substance of the armaments race.
This is substance of the matter, the substance of peace and war, the substance of the armaments race. Wars, since the beginning of mankind, have occurred for one, fundamental reason; the desire of some to despoil others of their wealth. Do away with the philosophy of plunder and you will have done away forever with the philosophy of war! (APPLAUSE) Do away with the colonies, wipe out the exploitation of countries by monopolies, and mankind will have reached a true era of progress! As long s that step is not taken, as long as that stage is not reached, the world will have to live constantly under the nightmare and fear of being involved in any crisis, in an atomic conflagration. Why? Because there are some who are interested in perpetuating this exploitation. We have spoken here of the Cuban case. Our case has taught us because of the problems we have had with our own imperialism, that is, the particular imperialism that is ranged against us. But, since all imperialism are alike, they are all allies. A country that exploits the people of Latin America, or any other parts of the world, is an ally of the exploiters of the rest of the world. There are a number of problems which have already been discussed by several delegations. For reasons of time, we should like merely to express our opinion on the Congo problem. Of course, since we hold an anti-colonialist position against the exploitation of underdeveloped countries, we condemn the way in which the intervention by the United Nations forces was carried out in the Congo. First of all, these forces did not go there to act against the interventing forces, for which purpose they were originally sent. All necessary time was given, so that the first dissension could occur. And as that was not enough, further time was given, and the way was opened for the second division. And finally, while broadcasting stations and airfields were seized, the opportunity was provided for the emergence of the third man, as they always call the saviors who emerge in these circumstances. We know them only too well, because in the year of 1943 one of these saviors appeared in our country, and his name was Fulgenico Batista. In the Congo his name is Mobutu. In Cuba, he paid a daily visit to the American Embassy, and it appears the same thing is going on in the Congo. Is it because I say so? No, because no less than a magazine which is one of the most fervent supporters of the monopolies and therefore cannot be against them, is the one that says so. It cannot favor Lumumba, because it favors Mobutu. But it explains who Mobutu, is, how he began to work, and finally Time magazine says in its latest issue: "Mobutu became a frequent visitor to the United States Embassy and held long talks with officials there. One afternoon last week Mobutu conferred with officers of Camp Leopold and got their enthusiastic support. That night he went to Radio Congo — which Lumumba had not been allowed to use — and abruptly announced that the army was assuming power." In other words, all this occurred after frequent visits and lengthy conversations with the officials of the United States Embassy. This Time Magazine speaking, the defender of the monopolies. In other words, the hand of the colonialist interest has been clear and visible in the Congo, and our opinion is consequently that colonialist interests have been favored and that every fact indicates that reason and the people of the Congo are on the side of the only leader who remained there to defend the interests of his country, and that leader is Lumumba (APPLAUSE). As regard the problem of Algeria, we are, I need hardly say, 100 percent in support of the right of the people of Algeria to independence (APPLAUSE), and it is, furthermore, ridiculous — like so many ridiculous things in the world which have been artificially created by vested interests — to claim that Algeria is part of France. In the past, similar claims have been made by other countries in an attempt to keep their colonies. However, these African people have been fighting a heroic battle against the colonial power for many years. Perhaps, even while we are calmly talking here, Algerian villages and hamlets are being bombed and machinegunned by the French Army. Men may well be dying in a struggle in which there is not the slightest doubt where the right lies, a struggle that could be ended even without disregarding the interests of that minority which is being used for denying nine-tenths of the population of Algeria their right to independence. Yet we are doing nothing. So quick to go to the Congo, and such lack of enthusiasm about going to Algeria! (APPLAUSE). We are, therefore, on the side of the Algerian people, as we are on the remaining colonial peoples in Africa, and on the side of the Negroes who are discriminated against in the Union of South Africa. Similarly, we are on the side of those peoples that wish to be free, not only politically — for it is very easy to acquire a flag, a coat of arms, an anthem, and a color on the map — but also economically free, for there is one truth which we should all recognize as being of primary importance, namely, that there can be no political independence unless there is economic independence, that political independence without economic independence is a lie; we therefore support the aspirations of all countries to be free politically and economically. Freedom does not consist in the possession of a flag, a coat of arms, and representation in the United Nations. We should like to draw attention here to another right: a right which was proclaimed the Cuban people at a mass meeting quite recently, the right of the underdeveloped countries to nationalize their natural resources and the investments of the monopolies in their respective countries without compensation; in other words, we advocate the nationalization of natural resources and foreign investments in the underdeveloped countries. And if the highly industrialized countries wish to do the same thing, we shall not oppose them (APPLAUSE). If countries are to be truly free, in political matters, they must be truly free in economic matters, and we must lend them assistance. We shall be asked about the value of the investments, as we in return will ask: what about the value of the profits from those investments, the profits which have been extracted from the colonized and underdeveloped peoples for decades, if not for centuries?
We should like to support a proposal made by the President of the Republic of Ghana, the proposal that Africa should be cleared of military bases and thus of nuclear weapon bases, in other words, the proposal to free from the perils of atomic war. Something has already been done with regard to Antarctia. As we go forward on the path of disarmament, why should we not also go forward towards freeing certain parts of the world from the danger of nuclear war? Let the other people, let the West make up a little for what it has made Africa suffer, by preserving it from the danger of atomic war and declaring it a free zone as far as this peril is concerned. Let no atomic bases be established there! Even if we can do nothing else, let this continent at least remain a sanctuary where human life may be preserved! (PROLONGED APPLAUSE). We support this proposal warmly. On the question of disarmament, we wholeheartedly support the Soviet proposal, and we are not ashamed to do so. We regard as a correct, precise, well-defined and clear proposal. We have carefully studied the speech made here by President Eisenhower — he made no real reference to disarmament, to the development of the underdeveloped countries, or to the colonial problem. Really, it would be worthwhile for the citizens of this country, who are so influenced by false propaganda, to compare objectively the statements of the President of the United States with those of the Prime Minister of the Soviet Union, so that they could see which speech contains genuine concern over the world's problems, so that they could see who spoke clearly and sincerely, and so they could see who really wants disarmament, and who is against it and why. The Soviet proposal could not be clearer. Nothing could be added to the Soviet explanation. Why should there be any reservations when no one has every before spoken so clearly of so tremendous a problem? The history of the world has taught us the tragic lesson that arms races always lead to war; but never has the responsibility been greater, for never has war signified so was a holocaust for mankind. And the Soviet Union has made a proposal regarding that problem which so greatly concerns mankind — whose very existence is at stake — a proposal for total and complete disarmament. What more can be asked? If more can be asked, let us ask it; if we can ask for more safeguards, let us do so; but the proposal could not be clearer or better defined, and, at this stage of history, it cannot be rejected without assuming the responsibility involved in the danger of war and of war itself. The representative of the Soviet Union has spoken openly — I say this objectively — and I urge that these proposals be considered, and that everybody put their cards on the table. Above all, this is not merely a question of representatives, that is a matter of public opinion. The warmongers and militarists must be exposed and condemned by the public opinion of the world. This is not a problem for minorities only: it concerns the world. The warmongers and militarists must be unmasked, and this is the task of public opinion. This problem must be discussed not only in the General Assembly, but before the entire world, before the great assembly of the whole world, because in the event of a war not only the leaders, but hundreds of millions of completely innocent persons will be exterminated, and it is for this reason that we, who meet here as representatives of the world — or part of the world, since this Assembly is not yet complete, it will not be complete until the Peoples' Republic of China is represented here — should take appropriate measures (APPLAUSE). One-quarter of the world's population is of course absent, but we who are here have the duty to speak openly and not to evade the issue. We must all discuss it; this problem is too serious to be overlooked. It is more important than economic aid and all other obligations, because this is the obligation to preserve the life of mankind. Let us all discuss and speak about this problem, and let us all fight to establish peace, or at least to unmask the militarists and warmongers. And, above all, if we, the underdeveloped countries, want to preserve the hope of achieving progress, if we want to have a chance of seeing our peoples enjoying a higher standard of living, let us struggle for peace, let us struggle for disarmament; with a fifth of what the world spends on armaments, we could promote the development of all the underdeveloped countries at a rate of growth of 10 percent per annum. With a fifth of the resources which countries spend on armaments, we could surely raise the people's standard of living. Now, what are the obstacles to disarmament? Who is interested in being armed? Those who are interested in being armed to the teeth are those who want to keep colonies, those who want to maintain their monopolies, those who want to retain control of the oil of the Middle East; the natural resources of Latin America, of Asia, of Africa, and who require military strength to defend their interests. And it is well known that these territories were occupied and colonized on the strength of the law of force; by virtue of the law of force million of men were enslaved, and it is force which sustains such exploitation in the world. Therefore, those who want no disarmament are those interested in maintaining their military strength in order to retain control of natural resources, the wealth of the people of the world, and cheap labor in underdeveloped countries. We promised to speak openly, and there is no other way of telling the truth. The colonialists, therefore, are against disarmament. Using the weapon of world public opinion, we must fight to force disarmament on them as we must force them to respect the right of peoples to economic and political liberation. The monopolies are against disarmament, because, besides being able to defend those interests with arms, the arms race has always been good business for them. For example, it is well known that the great monopolies in this country doubled their capital shortly after the Second World War. Like vultures, the monopolies feed on the corpses which are the harvest of war. And war is a business. Those who trade in war, those who enrich themselves war, by must be unmasked. We must open the eyes of the world and expose those who trade in the destiny of mankind, in the danger of war, particularly when the war may be so frightful that it leaves no hope of salvation.
We must open the eyes of the world and expose those who trade in the destiny of mankind, in the danger of war, particularly when the war may be so frightful that it leaves no hope of salvation. We, the small and underdeveloped countries, urge the whole Assembly and especially the other small and underdeveloped nations to devote themselves to this task and to have this problem discussed here, because afterwards we will never forgive ourselves if, through our neglect or lack of firmness and energy on this basic issue, the world becomes involved once again in the perils of war. We have just one more point to discuss, which, according to what we have read in some newspapers, was one of the points the Cuban delegation was going to raise. And this, of course, is the problem of the Peoples Republic of China. Other delegations have already spoken about this matter. We wish to say that the fact that this problem has never been discussed is in reality a denial of the "raison d'etre" and of the essential of nature of the United Nations. Why has it never been discussed? Because the United Nations Assembly going to renounce its right to discuss this problem? Many countries have joined the United Nations in recent years. To oppose discussion of the right to representation here of the People's Republic of China, that is, of 99 percent of the inhabitants of a country of more than 600,000,000 is to deny the reality of history, the facts of life itself. It is simply an absurdity; it is ridiculous that this problem is never even discussed. How long are we going to continue the sad business of never discussing this problem, when we have here representatives of Franco, for instance? At this point is its appropriate to ask by what right the navy of an extra-continental country — and it is worth repeating this here, when so much is being said about extra-continental interference — intervented in a domestic affair of China. It would be interesting to have an explanation. The sole purpose of this interference was to maintain a group of allies in that place and to prevent the total liberation of the territory. That is an absurd and unlawful state of affairs from any point of view, but it constitutes the reason why the United States Government does not want the question of the People's Republic of China to be discussed. And we want to put it on record here that this is our position and that we support discussion of this question, and that the United Nations General Assembly should seat the legitimate representatives of the Chinese people, namely, the representatives of the Government of the People's Republic of China. I understand perfectly that is somewhat difficult for anybody here to free himself of the stereotyped concepts by which the representatives of nations are usually judged. I must say that we have come here free from the prejudices, to analyze problems objectively, without fear of what people will think and without fear of the consequences of our position. We have been honest, we have been frank without being Fran coist (APPLAUSE), because we do not want to be a party to the injustice committed against a great number of Spaniards, still imprisoned in Spain after more than twenty years, men who fought together with the Americans of the Lincoln Brigade, as the comrades of those same Americans who were there to do honor to the name of that great American, Lincoln. In conclusion, we are going to place our trust in reason and in the decency of all. We wish to sum up our ideas regarding some aspects of these world problems about which there should be no doubt. The problem of Cuba, which we have set forth here, is a part of the problems of the world. Those who attack us today are those who are helping to attack others in other parts of the world. The United States Government cannot be on the side of the Algerian people, it cannot be on the side of the Algerian people because it is allied to metropolitan France. It cannot be on the side of the Congolese people, because it is allied to Belgium. It cannot be on the side of the Spanish people, because it is allied to Franco. It cannot be on the side of the Puerto Rican people, whose nationhood it has been destroying for fifty years. It cannot be on the side of the Panamanians, who claim the Canal. It cannot support the ascendancy of civil power in Latin America, Germany or Japan. It cannot be on the side of the peasants who want land, because it is allied to the big landowners. It cannot be on the side of the workers who are demanding better living conditions in all parts of the world, because it is allied to the monopolies. It cannot be on the side of the colonies which want their freedom, because it is allied to the colonizers. That is to say, it is for the Franco, for the colonization of Algeria for the colonization of the Congo; it is for the maintenance of its privileges and interests in the Panama Canal, for colonialism through the world. It is for the German militarism and for the resurgence of German militarism. It is for Japanese militarism and for the resurgence of Japanese militarism. The Government of the United States forgets the millions of Jews murdered in European concentration camps by the Nazis, who are today regaining their influence in the German army. It forgets the Frenchmen who were killed in their heroic struggle against the occupation; it forgets the American soldiers who died on the Seigfried Line, in the Ruhr, on the Rhine, and on the Asian fronts. The United States Government cannot be for the integrity and sovereignty of nations. Why? Because it must curtail the sovereignty of nations in order to keep its military bases, and each base is a dagger thrust into sovereignty; each base is a limitation on sovereignty. That is why it has to be against the sovereignty of nations, because it must constantly limit sovereignty in order to maintain its policy of encircling the Soviet Union with bases. We believe that these problems are not properly explained to the American people. But the American people need only imagine how uneasy they would feel if the Soviet Union began to establish a ring of atomic bases in Cuba, Mexico, or Canada. The population would not feel secure or calm. World opinion, including American opinion, must be taught to see the other person's point of view. The underdeveloped peoples should not always be represented as aggressors; revolutionaries should not be presented as aggressors, as enemies of the American people, because we have seen American like Carleton Beals, Waldo Frank, and others, famous and distinguished intellectuals, shed tears at the thought of the mistakes that are being made, at the breach of hospitality towards us;
revolutionaries should not be presented as aggressors, as enemies of the American people, because we have seen American like Carleton Beals, Waldo Frank, and others, famous and distinguished intellectuals, shed tears at the thought of the mistakes that are being made, at the breach of hospitality towards us; there are many Americans, the most humane, the most progressive, and the most esteemed writers, in whom I see the nobility of this country's early leaders, the Washingtons, the Jeffersons, and the Lincolns. I say this is no spirit of demegogy, but with the sincere admiration that we feel for those who once succeeded in freeing their people from colonial status and who did not fight in order that their country might today be the ally of all the reactionaires, the gangsters, the big landowners, the monopolists, the exploiters, the militarists, the facists in the world, that is to say, the ally of the most reactionary forces, but rather in order that their country might always be the champion of noble and just ideals. We know well what will be said about us, today, tomorrow, every day, to deceive the American people. But is does not matter. We are doing our duty by stating our views in, this historic Assembly. We proclaim the right of people to freedom, the right of people to nationhood; those who know that nationalism means the desire of the people to regain what is rightly theirs, their wealth, their natural resources, conspire against nationalism. We are, in short, for all the noble aspirations of all the peoples. That is our position. We are, and always shall be for everything that is just: against colonialism, exploitation, monopolies, militarism, the armaments race, and warmongering. We shall always be against such things. That will be our position. And to conclude, fulfilling what we regard as our duty, I am going to quote to this Assembly the key part of the Declaration of Havana. As you all know, the Declaration of Havana was the Cuban people's answer to the Declaration of San Jose, Costa Rica. Nor 10, nor 100, nor 100,000, but more than one million Cubans gathered together. At that Assembly, which was convened as an answer to the Declaration of San Jose, the following principles were proclaimed, in consultation with the people and by acclamation of the people, as the principles of the Cuban Revolution. "The National General Assembly of the Cuban people condemns largescale landowning as a source of poverty for the peasant and a backward and inhuman system of agricultural production; it condemns starvation wages and the iniquitous exploitation of human work by illegitimate and privileged interests; it condemns illiteracy, the lack of teachers, of schools, doctor and hospitals; the lack of old-age security in the countries of America; it condemns discrimination against the Negro and the Indian'; it condemns the inequality and the exploitation of women; it condemns political and military oligarchies, which keep our peoples in poverty, prevent their democratic development and the full exercise of their sovereignty; it condemns concessions of the natural resources of our countries as a policy of surrender which betrays the interests of the peoples; it condemns the governments which ignore the demands of their people in order to obey orders from abroad; it condemns the systematic deception of the people by mass communications media which serve the interests of the oligarchies and the policy of imperialist oppression; it condemns the monopoly held by news agencies, which are instruments of monopolist trusts and agents of such interests; it condemns the repressive laws which prevent the workers, the peasants, the students and the intellectuals, the great majorities in each country, from organizing themselves to fight for their social and national rights; it condemns the imperialist monopolies and enterprises which continually plunder our wealth, exploit our workers and peasants, bleed our economies to keep them in a backward state, and subordinate Latin American politics to their designs and interests. "In short, The National General Assembly of the Cuban People condemns the exploitation of man by man, and the exploitations of underdeveloped countries by imperialists capital. "Therefore, the National General Assembly of the Cuban People proclaims before America, and proclaims here before the world, the right of the peasants to the land; the right of the workers to the fruits of their labor; the right of the children to education: the right of the sick to medical care and hospitalization; the right of young people to work; the right of students to free vocational training and scientific education; the right of Negroes, and Indians to full human dignity; the right of women to civil, social and political equality; the right of the elderly to security in their old age; the right of intellectuals, artists and scientists so fight through their works for a better world; the right of States to nationalize imperialist monopolies, thus rescuing their national wealth and resources; the right of nations to their full sovereignty; the right of peoples to convert their military fortresses into schools, and to arm their workers — because in this we too have to be arms-conscious, to arm our people in defense against imperialist attacks — their peasants, their students, their intellectuals, Negroes, Indians, women, young people, old people, all the oppressed and exploited, so that they themselves can defend their rights and their destinies." Some people wanted to know what the policy of the Revolutionary Government of Cuba was. Very well, them, this is our policy (OVATION). Castro Internet Archive
[email protected] Home Current Issue Archives Arsenal of Marxism Subscribe Links Search Who We Are Donate Contact us Jul/Aug 2007 • Vol 7, No. 4 Click Here to Return to the Index Search the Site: Enter term and click Go! The English Submarine By Fidel Castro Ruz The press dispatches bring the news; it belongs to the Astute Class, the first of its kind to be constructed in Great Britain in more than two decades. “A nuclear reactor will allow it to navigate without refueling during its 25 years of service. Since it makes its own oxygen and drinking water, it can circumnavigate the globe without needing to surface,” was the statement to theBBC by Nigel Ward, head of the shipyards. “It’s a mean looking beast,” says another. “Looming above us is a construction shed 12 stories high. Within it are 3 nuclear-powered submarines at different stages of construction,” assures yet another. Someone says that “it can observe the movements of cruisers in New York harbor right from the English Channel, drawing close to the coast without being detected and listen to conversations on cell phones.” “In addition, it can transport special troops in mini-subs that, at the same time, will be able to fire lethal Tomahawk missiles for distances of 1,400 miles,” a fourth person declares. El Mercurio, the Chilean newspaper, emphatically spreads the news. The UK Royal Navy declares that it will be one of the most advanced in the world. The first of them will be launched on June 8 and will go into service in January of 2009. It can transport up to 38 Tomahawk cruise missiles and Spearfish torpedoes, capable of destroying a large warship. It will possess a permanent crew of 98 sailors who will even be able to watch movies on giant plasma screens. The new Astute will carry the latest generation of Block 4 Tomahawk torpedoes which can be reprogrammed in flight. It will be the first one not having a system of conventional periscopes and, instead, will be using fiber optics, infrared waves and thermal imaging. “BAE Systems, the armaments manufacturer, will build two other submarines of the same class,”AP reported. The total cost of the three submarines, according to calculations that will certainly be below the mark, is 7.5 billion dollars. What a feat for the British! The intelligent and tenacious people of that nation will surely not feel any sense of pride. What is most amazing is that with such an amount of money, 75 thousand doctors could be trained to care for 150 million people, assuming that the cost of training a doctor would be one-third of what it costs in the United States. You could build three thousand polyclinics, outfitted with sophisticated equipment, ten times what our country possesses. Cuba is currently training thousands of young people from other countries as medical doctors. In any remote African village, a Cuban doctor can impart medical knowledge to any youth from the village or from the surrounding municipality who has the equivalent of a grade twelve education, using videos and computers energized by a small solar panel; the youth does not even have to leave his hometown, nor does he need to be contaminated with the consumer habits of a large city. The important thing is the patients who are suffering from malaria or any other of the typical and unmistakable diseases that the student will be seeing together with the doctor. The method has been tested with surprising results. The knowledge and practical experience accumulated for years have no possible comparison. The non-lucrative practice of medicine is capable of winning over all noble hearts. Since the beginning of the Revolution, Cuba has been engaged in training doctors, teachers and other professionals; with a population of less than 12 million inhabitants, today we have more Comprehensive General Medicine specialists than all the doctors in sub-Saharan Africa where the population exceeds 700 million people. We must bow our heads in awe after reading the news about the English submarine. It teaches us, among other things, about the sophisticated weapons that are needed to maintain the untenable order developed by the United States imperial system. We cannot forget that for centuries, and until recently, England was called the Queen of the Seas. Today, what remains of that privileged position is merely a fraction of the hegemonic power of her ally and leader, the United States. Churchill said: Sink the Bismarck! Today Blair says: Sink whatever remains of Great Britain’s prestige! For that purpose, or for the holocaust of the species, is what his “marvelous submarine” will be good for. —Granma (Cuba), May 21, 2007 Home Current Archives Arsenal of Marxism Subscribe Links Search About Us Donate Contact 2001-2007. Socialist Viewpoint Publishing
May/June 2005 • Vol 4, No. 5 • Fidel Castro Defines the Theory of the Cuban Revolution A group of professionals, technicians, and artists of the Chilean Popular Action Front visited Cuba to study its political, economic, and social organization. Below is given the questions the delegation put to Fidel Castro during an interview with him, and the answers he made in defining the theory of the Cuban Revolution. It first appeared in the Spanish-language Socialist Party weekly El Sol (The Sun), Montevideo, 10 May 1963. Stages of the Revolution Question: Could you describe for us the principal steps of the dynamic process that took place between the triumph of the Revolution and the time when it could be defined as a Socialist Revolution, including your description of the ideological evolution of its team of leaders? Answer: There was only one Revolution. It was like a child who passes through several stages of growth to become a man. It cannot be broken down into two distinct revolutions; it has only steps. The basic premises are conquest of the revolutionary power and, of course, creation of a military force to back up that power. The military conquest destroys the dominant classes. It must not be at the call of Imperialism and Oligarchy. Each revolutionary law is a link in the path of the Revolution. The Law of Agrarian Reform signified aggressive measures of the Imperialists in the economic field, which called forth new measures against them. The law against monopolies in electric power and telephones was followed by new aggressive efforts and new counter-measures�cancellation of the sugar quota. Imperialism, with the collaboration of the Oligarchy, resorted to military aggression, which led in turn to the nationalization of Yankee and pro-Yankee enterprises. The increasingly open collision with Imperialism led the Revolution to become more radical and ideology to become more advanced. And the Revolution has its base in the progressive forces of everyone. The open aggression of the mercenaries results in new attacks, and the declaration of the Socialist character of the Revolution is made after the bombardment that preceeds the invasion. And so, the battle of the free people at the Bay of Pigs is now a battle for Socialism. The Revolution is a developing, dynamic process. But there is only one Revolution. If it is not a revolution, there is no revolutionary process. And if it stops, it is not a revolution. If conditions exist to bring about a revolution, then it will continue its uninterrupted march. That is why it goes so far, as only a true revolution can do, because it carries within it the necessary roots for the development of a revolution. If it is a revolution from the first step, it will remain a revolution to the last one. Having conquered political power and destroyed the military forces of the dominant classes, the revolution continues its upward progress. All other divisions are artificial; revolution cannot be divided capriciously into steps. How is power attained? There are, of course, various ways. Suppose that power is attained through peaceful elections. This is not enough, unless armed forces are created immediately to support the new power. Once power has been achieved, revolutionary laws must be dictated. The reduction of rents is not a Socialist law, nor is the recovery of stolen funds. The nationalization of enterprises, the creation of collective farms and cooperatives, the nationalization of education, these are socialist institutions. There is, however, interdependence between the first and last laws, as there is between A and Z. Is there a terminology that should be used to pacify people (who are no longer heedless), a terminology that may be used to neutralize groups that are not revolutionaries? This is a mistake. How should we talk to the Latin-American bourgeoisie? Do not think for a minute that those people can be overcome by talking to them about steps in national liberation and steps in Socialism, while giving them hopes of the infinite prolongation of that first step. They must be told that social change is inevitable, and that it will be the more bitter in the measure that they fail to understand its inevitability. It will be more or less painful according to the degree in which they collaborate or resist the change. This is not the case here. They did not resign themselves; on the contrary, egged on by the Imperialists, they went to Miami and assured that the change would be even more drastic. It was in El Cano that the counter-revolution offered the greatest resistance by its belligerent attitude, going so far as to hinder the distribution of food. Everything had to be confiscated. The Revolution was not weakened; on the contrary, it was strengthened. If they had not adopted that attitude,they could have been indemnified instead of having everything confiscated. In other words, the situation of the bourgeoisie would be different if they offered less resistance to social change; their acceptance or collaboration would be beneficial to them. Social change�I must say it�is irreversible in Latin America. Even Kennedy is asking for it. It is an illusion to think that at a given moment certain classes are going to collaborate. If we were to pamper the bourgeois class at this moment, we would be committing a grave error. Nor should we let ourselves forget that the bourgeoisie and the middle class believed in Imperialism. It would have been a mistake not to have told them that the masses were ready to make hash of them at a given moment. A revolution is divided into stages for its study, just as a human body is divided into head, trunk, extremities, etc.; but such divisions are artificial. The National Revolution of Liberation is part of the Socialist revolution. If it remains in its first stage, it is nothing more than a bourgeois revolution, but that is impossible in the Twentieth Century. (A member of the Chilean delegation who took part in the commemorative festivities of 26 July interposes a question.) The Role of the bourgeoisie in the colonial revolution Question: Is it the bourgeoisie or the dictatorship of the proletariat that is called upon at this time to fulfill the first stage of revolution; that is, national liberation?
that is, national liberation? Answer: Revolution can only be carried out by the dictatorship of the proletariat, because the State must be in the hands of the classes who have been oppressed up to this time. The State is a force at the service of the interests of the dominant class. For example, the Greek City State, that dawn of democracy, was the domain of a class that held the slaves under subjection by the repressive forces of the State. Rome did the same thing through her legions. Representative democracy is the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, who also use the State, and particularly the army, to defend their interests from the oppressed classes. In all such forms of government, the exploiters, who represent a minority, act as dictators for the class that they embody. We know that the State represents the domination of one class over another. If the State exists, it should be in the hands of a social class. And now at this time, the control of the State should be exercised by the majority class, which must suppress the capitalist class. The State passes thus into the hands of an organized proletariat as the governing class. This is absolute democracy, in which the proletariat exercises public authority and converts all means of production into the property of Society. What role does each person play in the revolutionary struggle? Who directs it? Who is in the vanguard? What revolutionary goals can be sacrificed? What does the proletariat gain if the struggle is left in the hands of the bourgeoisie, who then consolidate their position? What can be given up, and what not? This is a question of tactics. It is necessary to try to unite a number of different segments without sacrificing the fundamental objectives of the revolution. I am of the opinion that the revolutionary parties should not make concessions to the bourgeoisie, nor play their game. Let them play our game! Those that err in this matter will be aiding their class enemies. The revolution and sectarianism Question: Do you consider that sectarianism and bureaucratic deformation are inevitable in the first stage of the Socialist Revolution? And if they may not be inevitable, what do you think should be done to avoid them? Answer: In our revolution, I think it was inevitable in the first stage. We had all our forces mustered in the fight against reaction and Imperialism, and we could not take the time to develop an ideology that would have prevented sectarianism. Sectarianism transforms itself into an evil and deadly principle. Bureaucratic deformation is not inevitable, but it is inevitable that we must combat it. In Cuba, it could have been inevitable in the first stage, but I do not think that this is necessarily so in other countries, particularly after our experience. There are persons in Latin America who are so sectarian that they do not understand such facts as sectarianism. Such persons should be exploited to the maximum, because they present a grave danger to the Revolution. Many did not understand the problem of Anibal (Escalante). Sectarianism has nothing to do with radicalism in a revolution; on the contrary, it is reactionary because it impedes the revolution. What permits revolution to spread? The force and the freshness imparted by overcoming sectarianism. Because problems had been created in every field�production, distribution, etc. Radicalism is not sectarianism. The Revolution at this moment is in full process of radicalization. Previously, 90 percent of the people were with the Revolution, but only 2 percent had a clear understanding of Imperialism, and less than 1 percent was Marxist. Now, on the other hand, if the immense majority of the public has evolved into Marxist-Leninism, it is absurd to be sectarian, because it results in a complete divorce from the Masses. The Masses were accused of errors committed by them in the past. Sectarianism did not forgive the masses for a past in which they had been nothing more than the victims. The anti-Masses line was a shield for the leaders. Because there is a Masses line and an anti-Masses line. The latter sets up a State that is in no way different from the form and methods of Fascism: distrust, terror, and so on, even though the appearance is given that a struggle to form a Socialist state is going on. Divorce from the Masses is part of sectarianism, because it does not use Marxist methods. The effect produced was one of resentment. The choice of directors, the designation of administrators, chiefs, etc., was made by guesswork. Cells kept themselves secret because of an anti-Masses spirit, not taking into account the will of the Masses to enter them. The vital point is to have faith in the Masses. If we had prolonged sectarian policies and had not adopted the methods of the Masses, the Revolution would have failed. Question: In what form do you think democratic centralism will be applied to the United Revolution Party (PURS) that is now being set up? Answer: Democratic centralism is not the same as bureaucratic centralism. These two terms are often confused. Democratic centralism does not imply the abandonment of internal democracy; on the contrary, there should be collective internal discussion, but without losing respect for the discipline and directives from higher authorities. Centralism should be more and more democratic as revolution advances. This is what is happening in Cuba. We are establishing a political organization by the most democratic means. The principle of selection is maintained, but selection is made from among those elected by the Masses as being exemplary workers. In this way, the decisive factor governing the entrance of a worker in the Party is the good opinion and support of the Masses. If a comrade is not known by his companions at his present working place, he should give them a frank explanation of his merits, so that they can elect him as an exemplary worker. We are sure that this method will prevent the bureaucratization of the Party and prevent it from becoming a caste that is completely separated from the Masses. Everyone who wishes to join the Party must realize that he must first count on the support of the Masses.
Everyone who wishes to join the Party must realize that he must first count on the support of the Masses. It is not the same to gain mass support as to gain that of a civil servant. We started out with a caste spirit. Jobs, scholarships, and so on were given to children or relatives of our old revolutionary militia. Take the case of the 20 sons of old Communists that were chosen to go to the USSR to learn to be helicopter pilots. Nearly all were sent back because they were uneducated, or anti-Marxist, or undisciplined, etc. Should the son of a Communist be one too, as the son of a count who is also a count? Suppose the mother is an anti-revolutionary, what then? On the other hand, we shall use now the method of the Masses, and we shall choose the best ones. Recently, for example, the Masses chose 500 youths from 15 to 25 years old from humble origins to be trained as artillerymen. We put them through severe tests; we made them march 150 kilometers in a day; we sent 400 of this group to Soviet Russia, and they came back magnificent artillerymen, only one of them giving us any trouble. The caste system is criminal. When people are prepared to die�and the fact is that they are sent to die when they are mobilized indiscriminately from among the Masses to fight for their country�we cannot turn around and choose a son or relative of so-and-so for Party membership, for a scholarship, or something else. The Masses, not parties, make revolutions. An elementary principle of Marxism is to depend on the Masses for support. To separate ourselves from the Masses is like a general who would separate himself from his troops. Question: In your opinion, what are the strategic and tactical lessons that the Cuban Socialist Revolution has brought�in the frame of its own situation�to help the workers in their goal of international revolution? Answer: In the first place, the myth was destroyed that revolution could not succeed against a professional army. Second, it demonstrated the importance of the peasant in under-developed countries where feudal conditions exist and where it is possible to fight. It was the peasants who faced the consequences of our revolution. In the same way, the proletariat of Latin America can count on the support of the peasants if they are properly led. Third, the value of military tactics in the fight against Imperialism was vindicated. If it proved possible on this island, it should be even easier in the expanse of an entire continent. We are convinced of the value of our military tactics; they are invincible. We are not dogmatic. In countries where there exists the possibility of success through elections, peaceful means may be tried. But care must be taken not to be carried away by appearances and to stretch things so far that everyone turns out to be a pacifist. Many times in practice, revolutionary parties do not adopt programs that make possible a change in tactics when it becomes necessary. While it is generally said that both tactics�military and pacific�are employed according to changing circumstances, in practice the use of only one of them may be planned for. The parties should be prepared for a change of tactics. But these puzzling things are the very devil. It is very difficult for us as actors in the drama to say definitely what we have contributed of value. Every revolution has its lessons. Like others, ours has enriched theory to some degree. But we have much to learn from other peoples; we must be able to understand correctly their experiences, and, on our part, not be vain. Reality has taught us to beware of chauvinism at the beginning. These problems must be viewed from a dialectical angle and not as part of a fixed posture. We must know how to discover what is new, we must seek changes, differences, national characteristics, etc. Life cannot be squeezed into a mold to which everything must adjust itself. For these reasons, some have �put their foot in it,� others have hit the mark. The important thing is the practical application of revolutionary theory, which is, in itself, a complex problem. Question: In view of the present state of the revolutionary movement in Latin America, what do you think are the ways that offer the greatest possibilities for the Masses to seize power. Answer: For the majority of Latin American countries, the only road is armed warfare. There is not the remotest possibility of being able to seize power through elections. On this point, we do not budge one iota from the Second Declaration of Havana. We believe blindly in it. The liberation of Latin America marks the end of Imperialism without the need for atomic war. It is the only chance we have of putting an end to misery without waiting forever and a day. An increase in living standards of the mass of people strengthens the struggle for peace and for disarmament. The hundreds of millions that are spent on arms would be used to accelerate the development of the under-developed countries. As Imperialism is weakened, the danger of war is lessened. Only the fight against Imperialism in Latin America will bring the peace that everyone longs for so earnestly. �Castro Speech Data Base (Havana), May 10, 1963 Home Contents Subscribe Email us! Top \| Home \| Contents \| Subscribe \| Email Us!
Fidel Castro The barbaric world order that humanity endures today cannot last much longer Spoken: July 26, 2002 at the public rally held at the "Abel Santamaría Cuadrado" Revolution Square in Ciego de Avila on the occasion of the 49th anniversary of the attacks on the Moncada and Carlos Manuel de Céspedes Barracks Source: Discursos e Intervenciones del Comandante en Jefe Fidel Castro Ruz (cuba.cu) Markup: John Wagner Online Version: Castro Internet Archive (marxists.org) 2002 Fellow Cubans: History has proved that nothing could defeat our people in its noble endeavors and that weapons are no more powerful than ideas. Gomez and Maceo, their tenacity and heroism, ride today like invincible horsemen through our fields; Céspedes and Agramonte bear with them the constitution and the justice for which they shed their blood in the free and sovereign republic they proclaimed in 1868. Martí�s ideals live on in the nation of workers that we are today, as nothing could prevent that, from the proletarian spirit of a country built over centuries with the blood and sweat of slaves and workers, the deepest yearning for freedom and justice that our national hero demanded would flow with inextinguishable strength, that is, our socialism. What we are today we have defended with honor and a sense of humanism and justice that will live on like an eternal flame. Glory be especially to this July 26 and to those who on the same date forty-nine years ago shed their blood and gave their lives to resume with ever growing conscience the march down the road opened by their predecessors! Glory be to the people that, educated in just ideas and heroic traditions, has stayed true to them until today and will stay true tomorrow and ever onwards to victory! What are we, what shall we be if not one single history, one single idea, one single will for all times? Ciego de Avila and Morón, yesterday a line of barricades that the enemy tried to use to divide the country the East from the West, what are they this July 26? They are an indestructible path linking the thought, the heroism and the will to struggle of that imperishable bulwark with whose independence Martí wanted to prevent and did prevent the powerful and expansionist neighbor to the North from spreading through the Antilles and falling with that additional force on our American lands. People of Ciego de Avila and fellow Cubans from the former province of Camagüey, without the memory of your sacrifices of yesterday, our dreams of today would be impossible. Hardly twelve years ago, many in the world expected to see Cuba, the last socialist state in the West, crumble. Not much time has gone by and today, instead, quite a number of us on this earth are waiting to see how the developed capitalist world led by the United States disengages from the colossal and chaotic economic mess in which it is enmeshed. Those who yesterday talked so much about the end of history might be wondering if this profound crisis is not the beginning of the end of the political, economic and social system it represents. Nevertheless, being aware of the disaster affecting that system does not necessarily mean to be unrealistic, to indulge in excessive optimism or to see mirages in the midst of what is still an arid desert. The men who to some degree foresaw a fragment of the future, as a rule perceived the demise of their eraís tragedies as closer and imminent. However, one would have to be really blind to fail to understand that the barbaric and cruel world order that humanity endures today cannot last much longer. History has shown that new eras have always arisen from the profound crises of any dominant system. The 21st century will not be like the century that just ended when the human population grew four times more that it had grown in the hundreds of thousands of years that man wandered through the woods, groves, rivers and lakes of the earth, seeking sustenance in obscure corners of the planet which are today threatened with pre-emptive and surprise attacks. Today, one could almost envy those noble barbaric predecessors! When Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto in 1848, it seemed that almost the only limit to the inexhaustible fount of riches that would make possible a truly just and worthy social system for human beings was the exploitative and merciless capitalist system born from the bourgeois revolution. Not even his wondrous genius could imagine how much damage capitalism was yet to bring on humanity. Lenin discovered and analyzed its imperialist phase. Today, almost one hundred years later, humanity is suffering under the horrors of its neoliberal globalization. New and enormous challenges have surfaced in each of these stages that lead it closer to its end. Hardly 30 years ago, few people in the world discussed the environment. Ideas or themes linked to the destruction of the forests, soil erosion and salinity, climate change, the disappearing ozone layer, melting icecaps, whole cities and nations doomed to fatally disappear beneath the sea, polluted air and water; overexploited oceans seemed to be inventions of doomsday scientists and not pressing realities. What does it mean for the overwhelming majority of humanity the spectacular breakthroughs of science, space flights, the possible colonization of Mars and suchlike things? What is it they promise to the billions of starving and diseased people, total or functional illiterates, who live on this planet? And what does the alleged existence of the United Nations Organization and the General Assembly mean to them, when the only thing that counts there is the Security Council, where five countries have veto power, and the real tyranny on any matter exerted by the dominant hegemonic superpower? How can they be explained about the 200 million children who work for a living, others who are sold in the marketplaces of pleasure, or die by the millions every year when their lives could be saved with just a few cents? What can we feel proud of? What kind of humanity do we belong to? It is necessary to build an awareness of these realities. We should send this simple message of truth to the billions of people who in one way or another are experiencing this and are aware of it, so that no sophisticated weapons or mechanisms of deceit and lies that can destroy the conscience of our species.
Selfishness, ambition, hatred, envy, rivalries, the worst instincts are sown everywhere. Education is what the overwhelming majority of people on this planet mostly lack, and that is what turns newborn babies into human beings. A minimal amount of political education for young people and adults would allow them to understand the worldís realities. Perhaps, of the evils brought about by developed capitalism none is so nefarious as the way of life and the consumerist habits, as unrealistic as they are unattainable, which advertising drums into the world population 365 days a year, 24 hours a day at a cost of a trillion dollars. If this amount were spent on instilling values and on rationally educating nations, the face of the earth would change. Human beings are not educated to realistic patterns of consumption and distribution that include our infinite cultural and spiritual wealth. These could realistically be within humankindís reach without destroying nature, as could food, housing, and other essential material goods. Actually, the exact opposite is done, which constitutes an enormous tragedy. Cuba is a modest example of what could be done with a minimum of resources. Our current struggle becomes especially important as we find ourselves up against the hostility and aggression of a government, which is the sum of the most overwhelming powers that have ever existed. It is, nevertheless, completely lacking in the ethical, social and humanist values which an endangered species like ours need to survive. Twenty U.S. universities have introduced crash courses to explain the complicated tangles created by neoliberal capitalismís latest feat: accounting fraud. What is accounting fraud? It is barefaced robbery, a criminal swindling of millions and millions of Americans who had bought shares in big companies or had invested hundreds of billions of dollars in them. It is a fraud that directly affects retirees who had invested their money in these seemingly juicy shares. The fraud scandal has given rise to controversies and direct and indirect accusations between political leaders in the United States. President Bush, in a recent speech given in Alabama, insinuated that the blame lay with the previous U.S. administration. He said that the U.S. economy was suffering a hangover from the economic binge of the 90s. He did not mention President Clinton by name but he criticized that culture of endless corporate profits in the stock markets where no one ever thought about the future. The Democratic leadership has coincided with major newspapers in responding with harsh direct criticisms linking the current president with the same practices that he now pretends "to get rid of". They have mentioned the use of a company on the brink of a crisis, and how Mr. Bush, fully informed of the situation as a board member, sold his shares for $848,560, while the price was still high. Additionally, the leader of the Democratic majority in the Senate has asked the body regulating the Stock Exchange to publish information about the privileged loans received by the president, at low interest rates, when he worked for the Harken Energy Company. Accusations are flying while "millions of investors and pensioners have seen their savings and pensions reduced by more than one trillion dollars," to quote one prominent newspaper. In the midst of the year 2000 crisis, the effects on the stock markets in the United States and Europe have been devastating and have had a serious impact on the world economy dealing a blow to hopes of a slight recovery in 2002. More than 50% of U.S. consumers have shares in the stock market, which could negatively impact on the economic recovery Unemployment in the United States has now risen to 6%. Company profits have fallen in five consecutive quarters. From March 2000 to date the Dow Jones and NASDAQ indices, the most important for the New York Stock Exchange had fallen, the former by around 31.6% and the latter by 73.9%. The New York Stock Exchange had lost $1.4 trillion in the last two weeks. On Tuesday July 23, the New York Stock Exchange plummeted again because of the accounting fraud at WorldCom, the second largest world communications company. On Wednesday 24, it closed at a relatively high trend, and yesterday Thursday 25, it was announced that 12 investment banks were under investigation for possible links with the accounting frauds. Nobody knows what surprise tomorrow might bring. After several years of high surpluses, the current administration is accused of bringing back budget deficits with its economic policy. Public debt has risen to 6 trillion dollars, which is equivalent to a $66,000 per capita debt for every American. The trade deficit continues to grow while the countryís spending in 2002 could exceed 500 billion dollars. The external financing they receive has fallen to less than half the previous amount and so has foreign investment. The dollar has been devalued against the Euro and the Yen. The interest rate has fallen to its lowest level in 40 years, a symptom of uncertainty and insecurity. There are some positive economic indicators, which do little to offset the set of overwhelmingly unfavorable factors just mentioned. I have not said a word about what is happening in Latin America where, according to information known to our people, the economic and social situation is terrifying and getting worse. Given the major significance of the U.S. economy for that of the rest of the world, including Cubaís, which in addition to the blockade suffers the indirect damage caused by the international economic crisis, the figures are far from encouraging for anyone. The set of problems that are piling up in the world point objectively to a disaster for neoliberal globalization and for that unsustainable economic order. Since Cuba is a Third World country, it is also suffering from low sugar and nickel prices.
Since Cuba is a Third World country, it is also suffering from low sugar and nickel prices. The 10-year sustained growth of tourism of more than 15% annually was hit by the devastating terrorist attack on the Twin Towers, the effects of the world economic crisis on this industry and the growing cost of life insurance and fuel. Additionally submitted to an economic blockade by the United States for more than 40 years, but saving and managing its resources efficiently and honorably, there is no place here for murky businesses, the plundering of public funds, money laundering, drug trafficking or any other similar situations. There are no children who donít have a school. They donít go barefoot or panhandling. Thirteen vaccines protect their health. The infant mortality rate is one of the lowest in the world. All get immediate free medical care. All complete their sixth grade and almost one hundred percent their ninth grade. Today, all options for studying are within their reach. Their diet has improved. Their general education and art knowledge are growing. Our young people are guaranteed the continuation of their studies and a job when they turn 16. Unemployment is not growing; it is falling, from 6% about 2 years ago and it will be 3.5% by the end of 2002. The number of drugs in short supply for the population is clearly decreasing. Medical services are improving and other new ones are being introduced. The people are protected in case of natural disasters and receive immediate assistance when have been affected; also, recovery after such events takes place in record time. Hundreds of thousands of televisions are supplied every year. Old schools are repaired and new ones are built. Audiovisual aids and computers are being introduced into school and general education on a massive scale. Programs such as the training of social workers and University for All are coming into being. Teachers and professors-training-on-the-job to increase the numbers of teaching staff and reduce classroom size are being educated. Computer skills teachers are teaching this subject from pre-school on. University education is advancing significantly while we continue to help other countries with education, health and sport, free of charge. The social and humane advantages of our system are infinite. We are well ahead of many industrialized nations in many of the most important areas of life and ahead of all of them in some areas such as education, culture, scientific knowledge for the masses and other fields. Not all have been mentioned. We have unity, a political culture, cohesion and strength. Nothing can even affect our brilliant future. In the battle of ideas no one can go up against our intelligent and ever more cultured people. We have been able to withstand the blockade for more than 40 years, including 11 of special period. We have just waged a sound struggle against lies, infamy, political subversion and the attempt to impose the fickle will of the masters of the most powerful empire that has ever existed on our people. We did so with such impressive strength and popular support that nobody should have any doubts that there is no way to break our invincible will to win or to die defending our socialism, which we think is the most just, humane and decent society that can be conceived of. And with every minute that passes the lies, the ignorance, the lack of culture and the threats will crash up against the invincible spirit of our people. Hardly three days ago, the Miami terrorist Mob created, hand-fed, trained and supported by the U.S. administration openly declared the millions that it invests in interfering, destabilizing and terrorist actions against our people. One more proof of the lack of seriousness behind the declarations, the lies and the alleged policies of an administration that promises to fight terrorism. Even if only out of a sense of political decency, the U.S. government should stop tolerating and supporting the extremist group which made it put on such a ridiculous show on May 20, which only led to greater unity, a strengthening of the revolutionary spirit and the patriotic conscience that the Cuban people has shown to the world. The smallest municipality in Cuba is stronger than all the scum that met with Bush in the James L. Knight Center in Miami. I have always said and I shall never regret it that the American people, idealist by nature due to its ethical values and its traditions of love of liberty will be one of the Cuban peopleís best friends when it learns the whole truth about Cubaís honest and heroic struggle. It showed this in an impressive way with its support for Eliánís return. Scarcely 72 hours ago, the House of Representatives also made an important gesture when, based on various criteria and viewpoints, and even under assault by the hysterical screams and shouts of a little group of Miami mobsters, it paid no heed to the arguments of the supporters of the blockade and genocide against Cuba, voting with determination and courage for three amendments that bring glory to that institution. It does not matter if the executive as was already announced vetoes them, nor does it matter if new ruses and provocations are invented to annul them. We shall always be grateful for that gesture.
We shall always be grateful for that gesture. I would like to express our peopleís gratitude to both the Democratic and Republican legislators who on that day acted intelligently and strongly, following their own beliefs. We shall always be on the American peopleís side in its struggle to preserve the lives and interests of its citizens who might become innocent victims of criminal terrorist attacks. On this historical date for Cubans, I can assure you that we wish for a sincere, respectful and fraternal friendship between the peoples of Cuba and the United States. Long live socialism! Patria o Muerte! Venceremos! Castro Internet Archive
Home Contents Subscribe Write us! [email protected]@pacbell.net April 2002 • Vol 2, No. 4 • Speech by Fidel Castro at the UN International Conference in Monterrey Excellencies: Not everyone here will share my thoughts. Still, I will respectfully say what I think. The existing world economic order constitutes a system of plundering and exploitation like no other in history. Thus, the peoples believe less and less in statements and promises. The prestige of the international financial institutions rates less than zero. The world economy is today a huge casino. Recent analyses indicate that for every dollar that goes into trade, over one hundred end up in speculative operations completely disconnected from the real economy. As a result of this economic order, over 75 percent of the world population lives in underdevelopment, and extreme poverty has already reached 1.2 billion people in the Third World. So, far from narrowing the gap is widening. The revenue of the richest nations that in 1960 was 37 times larger than that of the poorest is now 74 times larger. The situation has reached such extremes that the assets of the three wealthiest persons in the world amount to the GDP of the 48 poorest countries combined. The number of people actually starving was 826 million in the year 2001. There are at the moment 854 million illiterate adults while 325 million children do not attend school. There are 2 billion people who have no access to low cost medications and 2.4 billion lack the basic sanitation conditions. No less than 11 million children under the age of 5 perish every year from preventable causes while half a million go blind for lack of vitamin A. The life span of the population in the developed world is 30 years higher than that of people living in Sub-Saharan Africa. A true genocide! The poor countries should not be blamed for this tragedy. They neither conquered nor plundered entire continents for centuries; they did not establish colonialism, or re-established slavery; and, modern imperialism is not of their making. Actually, they have been its victims. Therefore, the main responsibility for financing their development lies with those states that, for obvious historical reasons, enjoy today the benefits of those atrocities. The rich world should annul its foreign debt and grant them fresh soft credits to finance their development. The traditional offers of assistance, always scant and often ridiculous, are either inadequate or unfulfilled. For a true and sustainable economic and social development to take place much more is required than is usually admitted. Measures as those suggested by the late James Tobin to curtail the irrepressible flow of currency speculation—albeit it was not his idea to foster development—would perhaps be the only ones capable of generating enough funds, which in the hands of the UN agencies and not of awful institutions like the IMF, could supply direct development assistance with a democratic participation of all countries and without the need to sacrifice the independence and sovereignty of the peoples. The Consensus draft, which the masters of the world are imposing on this conference, intends that we accept humiliating, conditioned and interfering alms. Everything created since Bretton Woods until today should be reconsidered. A farsighted vision was then missing, thus, the privileges and interests of the most powerful prevailed. In the face of the deep present crisis, a still worse future is offered where the economic, social and ecologic tragedy of an increasingly ungovernable world would never be resolved and where the number of the poor and the starving would grow higher, as if a large part of humanity were doomed. It is high time for statesmen and politicians to calmly reflect on this. The belief that a social and economic order that has proven to be unsustainable can be forcibly imposed is really senseless. As I have said before, the ever more sophisticated weapons piling up in the arsenals of the wealthiest and the mightiest can kill the illiterate, the ill, the poor and the hungry but they cannot kill ignorance, illnesses, poverty or hunger. It should definitely be said: “Farewell to arms.” Something must be done to save Humanity! A better world is possible! Thank you. —Granma, March 21, 2002 Cuban Participation in Monterrey UN Conference Excluded by U.S. Ricardo Alarcón de Quesada, president of Cuba’s National Assembly of People’s Power and head of the Cuban delegation to the United Nations Conference on Financing for Development, revealed that President Fidel Castro’s early return to Cuba from the UN Conference on Financing for Development in Monterrey, Mexico was due to “brutal pressure placed on the Mexican government by the United States.” In an article in the March 26 issue of the Cuban newspaper Granma, Alarcón was quoted saying, “Not only high-ranking officials, bu I would say very high-ranking persons in the Mexican government communicated to us before the conference began that they had been subjected to pressures by the United States to block Cuba’s participation in the conference, and specifically to keep its delegation from being headed by the president of the Council of State, Comrade Fidel Castro.” Alarcón told Granma that the United Nations would lose its authority as a result of the incident with Cuba, “because no one there will understand or accept such a thing, which is completely contrary to the spirit and tradition of the organization. The United Nations demands that host countries of a meeting accept all members of the United Nations, based on a principle in the UN Charter’s first paragraph, establishing sovereign equality among states.” The incident reveals two important facts. First, the United States uses and views the United Nations as a water boy for U.S. imperialism; in the case of this conference, as a rubber stamp for a completely useless “Monterrey Consensus” [See article entitled “The Threat of Economic Collapse and World Poverty” in this issue.] Second, and perhaps, more important, the U.S. is genuinely afraid of Fidel Castro’s socialist message—that another world is possible—reaching the working people of the world. —Carole Seligman Top Contents Home Subscribe Write us [email protected]@pacbell.net
Fidel Castro The Revolution Begins Now The Revolution Begins Now Spoken: January 3, 1959 at the Cospedes Park in Santiago de Cuba, Publisher: Revolucion on 3, 4 and 5 of January, 1959. Translated: FBIS Transcription/Markup: Castro Speech Database/Brian Baggins Online Version: Castro Internet Archive (marxists.org) 2002 People of Santiago, Compatriots of All Cuba, We have finally reached Santiago de Cuba. The road was long and difficult, but we finally arrived. It was rumored that they expected us in the capital of the Republic at 2 p.m. today. No one was more amazed by this than I, because I was the first one to be surprised by this treacherous blow, which would place me in the capital of the Republic this morning. Moreover, I intended to be in the capital of the Republic — that is, in the new capital of the Republic — because Santiago de Cuba, in accordance with the wishes of the Provisional President, in accordance with the wishes of the Rebel Army, and in accordance with the wishes of the people of Santiago de Cuba, who really deserved it, Santiago will be the new capital of Cuba. This measure may surprise some people. Admittedly, it is new, but the revolution is characterized precisely by its newness, by the fact that it will do things that have never been done before. In making Santiago de Cuba the provisional capital of the Republic, we are fully aware of our reason for doing so. This is no attempt to cajole a specific area by demogogic means. It is simply that Santiago de Cuba has been the strongest bulwark of the revolution, a revolution that is beginning now. Our Revolution will be no easy task, but a harsh and dangerous undertaking, particularly in the initial phases. And in what better place could we establish the Government of the Republic than in this fortress of the Revolution. So that you may know that this will be a government solidly supported by the people of this heroic city, located in the foothills of the Sierra Maestra — because Santiago de Cuba is a part of the Sierra Maestra — Santiago de Cuba and the Sierra Maestra will provide the two strongest fortresses for the Revolution. However, there are other reasons that motivate us, and one is the military revolutionary movement, the truly military revolutionary movement which did not take place in [Camp] Colombia. [The Betrayal of General Cantillo] In Colombia they prepared a puny little uprising against the revolution, principally with Batista's assistance. Since it is necessary to tell the truth and since we came here with a view to orienting people, I can tell you and I can assure you that the military uprising in Colombia was an attempt to deprive the people in power, to rob the revolution of its triumph and to allow Batista to escape, to allow the Tabernilla to escape, to allow the Tabernillas to escape together with the Pilar Garcias, to allow the Salas Canizares and the Venturas. The Colombian uprising was an ambitious and treacherous blow that deserves the lowest epithets. We must call a spade a spade and put the blame where it belongs. I am not going to be diplomatic. I will say outright that General Cantillo betrayed us and not only am I going to say it, but I am going to prove it to you. However, we had always said so. We had always said that there would be no point in resolving this matter at the last moment with a puny little military uprising, because if there is a military uprising, concealed from the people, our Revolution will go forward nonetheless and this time cannot be over the power. It will not be like 1895 when the Americans came and took over, intervening at the last moment, and afterwards did not even allow Calixto Garcia to assume leadership, although he had fought at Santiago de Cuba for 30 years. Nor will it be like 1933, when the people began to believe that the revolution was going to triumph, and Mr. Batista came in to betray the revolution, take over power, and establish an 11-year-long dictatorship. Nor will it be like 1944, when the people took courage, believing that they had finally reached a position where they could take over the power, while those who did assume power proved to be thieves. We will have no thievery, no treason, no intervention. This time it is truly the revolution, even though some might not desire it. At the very moment that the dictatorship fell, as a consequence of the military victories of our Revolution, when they could not hold out even another 15 days, Mr. Cantillo appears on the scene as a paladin of freedom. Naturally, we have never been remiss in refusing any offer of collaboration that might prevent bloodshed, providing the aims of our Revolution were not imperiled thereby. Naturally, we have always appealed to the military in our search for peace, but it must be peace for freedom and peace with the triumph of our Revolution. This is the only way to obtain peace. Hence, on December 24, when we were told of General Cantillo's desire to meet us, we agreed to the interview. And I must confess to you that, given the course of events, the extraordinary development of our military operations, I had very little interest in speaking of military movements. Nevertheless, I felt that it was the duty of those of us with responsibility not to allow ourselves to be carried away by our feelings. I also thought that if triumph could be achieved with the minimum bloodshed, it was my duty to listen to the proposals made by the military. I went to meet Mr. Cantillo, who spoke to me on behalf of the Army. He met me on the 28th [December] at the Oriente mill, where he arrived in a helicopter at 8 p.m. We talked for four hours and I will not invent any stories about what took place, since there were several exceptional witnesses to the interview. There was Dr. Raul Chibas, there was a Catholic priest, there were several military men, whose evidence cannot be questioned on any grounds whatsoever. After analyzing all of Cuba's problems, and underlining all the minute details, General Cantillo agreed to carry out a military revolutionary movement with us. The first thing I said to him was this: After carefully studying the situation, the situation of the Army, the situation in which it had been placed by the dictatorship, after explaining to him that he did not have to concern himself with Batista, nor with the Tabernillas, nor with the rest of those people because none of them had shown any concern for the Cuban military forces, we showed him that those people had lead the military into a campaign against the masses, a campaign that can never be victorious because no one can win a war against the mass of the population.
After telling him that the military forces were the victims of the regime's immorality, that the budgetary allocations for the purchase of arms were embezzled, that the soldiers were being constantly defrauded, that those people did not deserve the consideration of honorable military men, that the Army had no reason to bear the blame for crimes committed by Batista's gangs of villains, I told him quite clearly that I did not authorize any type of movement that would enable Batista to escape. I warned him that if Batista got away afterwards with the Tabernillas and the rest of them it would be because we had been unable to prevent it. We had to prevent Batista's flight. Everyone knows that our first requirement in the event of a military uprising — that is, a military uprising in conjunction with our movement — was the surrender of the war criminals. This is an essential condition. We could have captured Batista and all his accomplices and I said it loudly and clearly that I was not in agreement with Batista's escape. I explained to him quite clearly what course of action would have to be taken and that I did not give any support [to Batista's escape] nor would the 27th of July Movement, nor would the people support a coup d'etat [on such terms], because the fact is that it was the people who obtained their freedom by conquest and only the people who did it. Our freedom was taken from us by a coup d'etat but in order to finish once and for all with coups d'etat, it was necessary to achieve freedom by dint of the people's sacrifice. We could achieve nothing by one uprising today and another tomorrow and another two years later and another three years after, because here in Cuba it is the people, and the people alone, who must decide who is to govern them. The military forces must unconditionally obey the people's orders and be at the disposal of the people, of the constitution and of the Laws of the Republic. If there is a poor government that embezzles and does more than four wrong things, the only thing to do is to wait a little while and when election time comes the bad government is turned out of office. That is why in democratic, constitutional regimes governments have a fixed mandate. If they are bad, they can be ousted by the people, who can vote for a better government. The function of the military is not to elect governments, but to guarantee laws and to guarantee the rights of the citizens. That is why I warned him that a coup d'etat was out of the question, but a military revolutionary movement was in order and it should take place in Santiago de Cuba and not in Colombia. I told him quite clearly that the only way of forming a link with the people and joining them, of uniting the military and the revolutionaries was not a coup d'etat in the early hours of the dawn in Colombia — at 2 or 3 a.m. — about which no one would know anything, as is the usual practice of the gentlemen. I told him it would be necessary to arouse the garrison at Santiago de Cuba, which was quite strong and adequately armed, in order to start the military movement, which would then be joined by the people and the revolutionaries. Given the situation in which the dictatorship found itself, such movement would prove irresistible because all the other garrisons in the country would certainly join it at once. That was what was agreed upon and not only was it what was agreed upon but I made him promise it. He intended to go to Havana the next day and we did not agree with this. I said to him, "It is risky for you to go to Havana." And he replied, "No, no there is no risk in it." I insisted, "You are running a great risk of arrest because if there is a conspiracy, everyone knows about it here." "No, I am sure they will not arrest me," he replied. And, of course, why would they arrest him if this was a "coup d'etat of Batista?" My thoughts were, "Well, all this seems so easy that it might well be a suspicious movement," so I said to him, "Will you promise me that in Havana you will not be persuaded by those interests which support you to carry out a coup d'etat in the capital? Will you promise me that you will not do it? His reply was, "I promise I won't." I insisted, "Will you swear to me that you won't?" And his reply again, "I swear I won't!" I believe that the prime requisite for a military man is honor, that the prime requisite of a military man is his word. This gentleman not only proved that he is dishonorable and that his word is worth nothing, but that he also lacks intelligence. I say this because a movement which could have been organized from the start with the support of the whole population, with its victory assured from the outset, did nothing more than dive into space. He believed that it would be only too easy to fool the people and to mislead the Revolution. He knew some things. He knew, for instance, that when we told the people that Batista had got hold of a plane the people would flock into the streets, madly happy. They thought that the people were not sufficiently mature to distinguish between Batista's flight and the Revolution. Because if Batista goes and over there Cantillo's friends assume command, it is quite likely that Dr. Urrutia would also have to go within three months. Because just as they were betraying us now, so would they betray us later and the truth of the matter is that Mr. Cantillo betrayed us before the Revolution. He gave signs of this and I can prove it. We agreed with General Cantillo that the uprising would take place on the 31st at 3 p.m. and it was agreed that the armed forces would give unconditional support to the revolutionary movement. The President was to appoint the revolutionary leaders and establish the positions to which the revolutionary leaders would assign the military. They were offering unconditional support and every detail of the plan was agreed upon. At 3 p.m. on the 31st the garrison at Santiago de Cuba was to rise in revolt. Immediately after several rebel columns would enter the city and the people would fraternize with the military and the rebels, immediately submitting a revolutionary proclamation to the country as a whole and calling on all honorable military men to join the movement.
It was agreed that the talks in the city would be placed at our disposal and I personally offered to advance toward the capital with an armed column preceded by the tanks. The tanks in the city would be placed at our disposal and I personally offered to advance toward the capital with an armed column preceded by the tanks. The tanks were to be handed to me at 3 p.m., not because it was felt that any fighting would be necessary but only against the possibility that in Havana the Movement might fail, making it necessary to place our vanguard as close as possible to the capital and to prevent any such occurrences in Havana. It was evident that with the hatred for the public forces created by the horrendous crimes committed by Ventura and Pilar Garcia, Batista's fall would create considerable upheaval among the people. Moreover, the police force would inevitably feel that it lacked the moral strength to contain the populace, as in fact happened. A series of excesses were recorded in the capital. There was looting, shooting, fires, and all the responsibility for it falls on the shoulders of General Cantillo, who betrayed his word of honor, who failed to carry out the plan which had been agreed upon. He believed that by appointing police captains and commanders, many of whom had already deserted when they were appointed — proof that they had a guilty conscience — would be enough to solve the problem. How different things were in Santiago de Cuba! How orderly and civic-minded! How disciplined the behavior of the masses! There was not a single attempt to loot, not a single example of personal vengeance, not a single man dragged through the streets, not a single fire! The behavior of the population of Santiago de Cuba was admirable and exemplary despite two factors. One of these was that Santiago de Cuba was the city which had suffered the most, where there had been the greatest terrorism and where, consequently, one would expect the people to be indignant. Moreover, despite our statements of this morning that we were not in agreement with the coup d'etat, the population in Santiago de Cuba behaved in an exemplary fashion.... [A typing error makes the translation of the next two lines impossible].... One can no longer say that revolution is anarchy and disorder; it occurred in Havana because of treason, but that was not the case in Santiago de Cuba, which we can hold out as a model every time the Revolution is accused of anarchy and disorganization. It is well that people should know of the negotiations between General Cantillo and me. If the people are not too tired, I can tell you that after the agreements were made, when we had already suspended operations in Santiago de Cuba, since on the 28th our troops were quite near to the city and had completed all the preparatory work necessary for the attack on it, according to the interview we were to make a series of changes, abandoning the operation at Santiago de Cuba. Instead, we were to direct our troops elsewhere, in fact, to a place where it was believed that the Movement might not be victorious from the outset. When we had completed all our movements, the column which was to march on the capital received the following note from General Cantillo, just a few hours before it was due to leave. The text of the note read as follows: "Circumstances have changed considerably and now are favorable to a national solution, in accordance with all desires for Cuba." Yet, the major factors could not be more favorable and every circumstance pointed to triumph. It was therefore strange that he should come and say that circumstances had changed greatly and favorably. The circumstances were that Batista and Tabernilla had agreed and the success of the coup was assured. I recommended that nothing should be done at the moment and that we should await the course of events over the next weeks, up to [January] 6th. Obviously, given the indefinitely prolonged truce while they were taking care of everything in Havana, my immediate reply was as follows: "The tenor of the note is entirely in contradiction with our agreements. Moreover, it is ambiguous and incomprehensible and has made me lose confidence in the seriousness of the agreements. Hostilities will break out tomorrow at 3 p.m., the date and time agreed upon for the launching of the movement." Something very curious happened immediately thereafter in addition to the receipt of the very short note. I advised the commanding officer at Santiago de Cuba, through the bearer of the message, that if hostilities were to break out because the agreements were not fulfilled and we had to attack the first at Santiago de Cuba, they could do nothing other than surrender. My phrase was that we demanded the surrender of the town if hostilities were to break out and if we were to initiate the attack. However, the bearer of the note did not interpret me correctly. He told Colonel Rego Rubido that I demanded the surrender of the town as a precondition to any agreement. He did not add that I had said, "in the event of our launching an attack." However, I had not said that I demanded the surrender of the town as a condition from General Cantillo. As a result of this message, the commanding officer at Santiago de Cuba sent me a very enigmatic and punctilious reply which I will read to you, indicating, naturally, that he felt very offended with what had been said to him in error. It read as follows: "The solution found is neither a coup d'etat nor a military revolt and yet we believe that it is the most advisable solution for Dr. Fidel Castro, in accordance with his ideas and one which would place the destinies of the country in his hands within 48 hours. It is not a local but a national solution and any indiscretion might compromise or destroy it, leading to chaos. Therefore, we hope you will have confidence in our decisions and you will receive the solution before the 6th. As for Santiago, owing to the note and to the words of the messenger, it will be necessary to change the plan and not enter the city." His words caused a certain amount of bad feeling among the key personnel. It was argued that no arms would be surrendered without fighting, that arms are not surrendered, that arms are not surrendered to an ally, that arms cannot be surrendered without honor. All of which are very beautiful phrases when spoken by the commander of the garrison of Santiago de Cuba, if he has no confidence in us; or if Santiago de Cuba is attacked, they will regard it as equivalent to breaking the agreements, which will interrupt the negotiations for the solution offered, thereby formally absolving us from any compromise.
It was our hope that, given the time required to act in one way or another, the reply would arrive in time to be sent to Havana by the Viscount flying out in the afternoon. My answer to Colonel Jose Rego Rubido's note was as follows: [Fidel's answer to Colonel Jose Rego Rubido's note] "In liberated Cuban Territory, 31 December 1958. Dear Colonel, a regrettable error has occurred in the transmission of my message to you, due perhaps to the haste with which I replied to your note. This is what I surmise from the conversation I have since held with its bearer. I did not tell him that the conditions we established in the agreement entered into encompassed the surrender of the garrison of Santiago de Cuba to our forces. This showed a lack of courtesy to our visitor and would have constituted an unworthy and offensive proposal to the military forces who so cordially sought us out. The question was entirely different. An agreement was reached and a plan adopted between the leader of the military movement and ourselves which was to go into effect as from 3 p.m. on 31 December. The plan included details established after careful analysis of the problems to be faced, and was to begin with the revolt of the garrison at Santiago de Cuba. I persuaded General Cantillo of the advantages to be derived from beginning at Oriente rather than in Colombia because the mass of the people greatly feared any coup starting in the barracks in the Capital of the Republic, stressing how difficult it would be, in that case, to insure that the people joined up with the movement. He stated that he was in full agreement with my viewpoint on the matter and was only concerned with maintaining order in the Capital, so we jointly agreed on measures necessary to avoid that danger. These measures involved the advance of our column toward Santiago de Cuba, to be exact. It was to be a combined effort of the military, the people and ourselves, a sort of revolutionary movement which, from the outset, would be backed by the confidence of the whole nation. According to what was established, we suspended the operations that were underway and undertook new displacements of our forces in other directions — such as Holguin, where the presence of well-known figureheads practically insured resistance to the revolutionary military movement. When all our preparatory tasks were completed, I received yesterday's message, indicating that the plan of action agreed upon was not to be fulfilled." "Apparently there were other plans but I was not to be informed of them because, in fact, the matter was no longer in our hands. Therefore all we could do was wait because one party was changing everything. Our own forces were being endangered, although according to our understanding and what was being said they were being sent off on difficult operations. And we remained subject to the outcome of the risks which General Cantillo took on his frequent trips to Havana. Militarily, these trips might well prove to be a disaster for us. You must realize that everything is very confused at this moment and Batista is an artful, crafty individual who knows only too well how to make the best use of a risk that can prove dangerous to others. All that can be asked is that we renounce all of the advantages gained during the past few weeks, and stand by, waiting patiently, for events to take their due course. I made it quite clear that it could not be an operation on the part of the military alone. We didn't have to undergo the horror of two years of war for this, and then stand with our arms crossed, doing nothing, at the most critical moment. They cannot expect this of men who have known no rest in the struggle against oppression. This cannot be done even though it is your intention to hand over the power to the revolutionaries. It is not power that is important to us, but that the Revolution should fulfill its destiny. I am even concerned by the fact that the military, through any unjustifiable excess of scruples, should facilitate the flight of the principal criminals who would be able to escape abroad with their vast fortunes, and then from some foreign country do all the harm possible to our country. [Translator's Note: This text involves some typographical errors. A rendering compatible with the argument has been given.] "I should add that, personally, I am not interested in power nor do I envisage assuming it at any time. All that I will do is to make sure that the sacrifices of so many compatriots should not be in vain, whatever the future may hold in store for me. "In all my dealings, I have always acted loyally and frankly. One should never consider what has been obtained underhandedly and with duplicity as a triumph and the language of honor which you have heard from my lips is the only language I know. Never in the course of the meetings with General Cantillo did we refer to the word 'surrender.' what I said yesterday and what I repeat today is that, as of 3 p.m. of the 31st [December], the date and time agreed upon, we could not cut short the truce with Santiago de Cuba because that would have been exceedingly detrimental to the people. "Last night, the rumor circulated here that General Cantillo had been arrested in Havana and that various young men had been found murdered in the cemetery of Santiago de Cuba. I had the feeling that we had been wasting our time most unhappily. And yet today, luckily enough, it seems certain that the General is at his post. What is the need for such risks? What I said to the messenger about surrender, and which was not communicated literally — as would appear to have been confirmed by the terms of his note today — was the following: that if hostilities were to break out because the terms of the agreement had not been fulfilled, we would be compelled t attack the garrison at Santiago de Cuba. This would be inevitable, since that was the objective of our efforts over the past few months. In this case, once the operation was under way, we would have to demand the surrender of those defending the garrison. This does not mean to imply that we think they will surrender without fighting because I know that even when there is not reason to fight, Cuban military forces will defend their positions adamantly and this has cost me many lives. "All I meant was that once the blood of our forces had been shed in the attempt to conquer a given objective, no other solution would be acceptable. Even though the cost be extremely heavy, in view of the present conditions of the forces defending the regime, and since these forces cannot support the garrison of Santiago de Cuba, the latter must inevitably fall into our hands.
"This was the basic objective of our whole campaign over the past two months and a plan of such scale cannot be held up for a week without giving rise to grave consequences, should the military movement fail. Moreover, it would mean losing the most opportune time — which is the present — when the dictatorship is suffering severe losses in the provinces of Oriente and Las Villas. We are faced with the dilemma of either waiving the advantages gained by our victory or exchanging an assured victory for one that is otherwise. Do you believe that in the face of yesterday's ambiguous and laconic note, containing a unilateral decision, I could hold myself responsible for delaying the plans? "As a military man, you must admit that too much is being asked of us. You have not stopped digging trenches for a single moment and you could well make use of those trenches against us... Some one like Pedraza, or Pilar Garcia or Canizares... and if General Cantillo is relieved of his command, and if his trusted lieutenants go with him, you cannot expect us to remain idle. You see, they have promised us the absurd and although they defend themselves valiantly with their arms, we have no alternative but to attack, because we also have very sacred commitments to fulfill. We desire that these honorable military men be much more than mere allies. We want them to be our companions in a single cause, the cause of Cuba. Above all, I wish you, yourself, my friend, not to misinterpret my attitude. Do not believe that I am being overly rigid as regards the tactics involving the holding off of an attack in the Santiago de Cuba area. In order that no possible doubt whatever may persist, I will confirm that although at any time before the fighting begins we can renew our negotiations, as of today it must be made clear that the attack will take place momentarily and that nothing will convince us to alter the plans again." [A Letter in Reply from Colonel Rego] Colonel Rego replied in a very punctilious note, worthy of the greatest praise, which reads as follows: "Sir, I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of today's date, and believe me, I wish to thank you most sincerely for the explanation regarding the previous message. However, I must confess that I felt some error of interpretation was involved since I have observed your line of conduct for some time and know that you are a man of principle. I ignored the details of the original plan because I was only informed of the first part of it. I might add that I am also not aware of some of the details of the present plan. I believe you are partly right in your analysis of the first part of the original plan. However, I believe that a few more days would be necessary before it could be consummated and we would never be able to prevent some of the major, intermediary and minor guilty parties from escaping. I am among those who believe it is absolutely essential to give an example of Cuba of all those who take advantage of the positions of power they occupy to commit every possible type of punishable offense. Unfortunately, history is plagued with a series of similar cases ad rarely do the criminals fall into the hands of the competent authorities. "I am fully aware of your concern for the men who have the least responsibility for the course of historical events." "I have no reason whatsoever to believe that any person is attempting to facilitate the escape of the guilty, and, personally, I might add that I am opposed to their flight." That was Colonel Rego Rubido's view. However, he also added that should such an event take place, the historical responsibility for such an act would fall on the shoulders of those who facilitated the escape, and never on those of anyone else. "I believe," he said, "that everything will take place in accordance with your ideas, and that it will be for the good of Cuba and of the Revolution of which you are the leader. I heard of a young student who had been murdered and whose body was in the cemetery. Today, I myself made sure that every possible measure be taken to determine who was guilty of those crimes and what the circumstances of his death were, and how it took place, just as I had done a few days ago, not sparing any effort until I am able to put the suspected authors of this crime at the disposal of the competent authorities. Lastly, I should advise you that I sent a message through to the General, letting him know that I had obtained a plane to carry your note to him. Do not be impatient for I feel sure that even before the date established as the maximum limit you will be in Havana. When the General left here, I asked him to let me have the helicopter and a pilot, just in case you might like to fly over Santiago de Cuba on Sunday afternoon. "With sincerest greetings and my warmest wishes for a Happy New Year, (Signed) Colonel Rego Rubido." [Surprised by the Coup in Colombia] This was the state of our negotiations when Colonel Rego, Commander of the garrison of Santiago de Cuba and I were equally surprised by the coup d'etat in Colombia, which was completely in contradiction with all that had been agreed upon. The first thing done and the most criminal aspect of all was that Batista was allowed to escape, and with him Tabernilla, and the other major criminals. They allowed them to escape with their millions of pesos; yes, they allowed them to flee with the three or four hundred million pesos they had stolen. This will prove very costly for us because now, from Santo Domingo and from other countries, they will be directing propaganda against the Revolution, plotting all the harm they can against our cause and for a good many years we will have them there, threatening our people, and causing the people to remain in a constant state of alarm because they will be conspiring against us and paying others to do so also. What did we do as soon as we learned of the blow? We heard about it on Radio Progreso and by that time, guessing what their plans were, as I was making a statement I was told that Batista had left for Santo Domingo. Is it a rumor? I wondered. Could it be a trick? I sent someone out to confirm the story and was informed that Batista and Tabernilla had actually gone to Santo Domingo. And the most astonishing thing of all was that General Cantillo declared that this movement had taken place thanks to the patriotic intentions of General Batista, who had resigned in order to avoid bloodshed.
What do you think about that? There is something else I must tell you in order to let you see what kind of a coup had been prepared. Pedraza had been appointed to membership of the Junta and then he left. I don't think one need add anything else to explain the nature of the aims of those responsible for carrying out the coup. Subsequently, they did not appoint Urrutia to the Presidency, that is, the man proclaimed by the movement and by all the revolutionary organizations. The person they chose is no less than the oldest member of the Supreme Court bench, and all his colleagues are quite old themselves. And above all he is a man who has been a President up to the present time: a President of a Supreme Court of Justice which never dispenses any justice, which never did dispense any justice whatsoever. What would the result of all this be? Only half a revolution. A compromise, a caricature of a revolution. Mr. Jack Straw, or whatever name you may wish to give this Mr. Piedra who, if he has not resigned by now should be getting ready to do so, because we are going to make him resign in Havana. I do not believe he will last twenty-four hours in office. It will break all records. They appoint this gentleman and, isn't it perfect, Cantillo becomes a national hero, the defender of Cuba's freedoms, the Lord and Master of Cuba, and there is Mr. Piedra... It would simply mean getting rid of one dictator to put another in his place. Every order contained in the documents referring to the movement in Colombia indicated that it was to be a counterrevolutionary uprising. In all the orders, the general trend was away from the aims of the people, and in all the orders there was an atmosphere of something suspect. Mr. Piedra immediately made an appeal, or stated that he was going to make an appeal to the rebels and to a peace commission. Meanwhile, we were supposed to be so calm and trusting; we would put down our guns and abandon everything and go and plead and pay homage to Mr. Piedra and Mr. Cantillo. It is obvious that both Cantillo and Piedra were out of touch with reality because I believe that the Cuban people have learned a great deal and we rebels have also learned something. That was the situation this morning but it is not the situation this evening, because many things have changed. Given these facts, given this betrayal, I ordered all the rebel commanders to continue marching on toward their targets, and in keeping with this, I also immediately ordered all the columns allocated to the Santiago de Cuba operations to advance against that garrison. I want you to know that our forces were firmly determined to take Santiago de Cuba by assault. This would have been regrettable because it would have led to much bloodshed and tonight would not have been a night of celebration and happiness, as it is, it would not have been a night of peace and fraternization, as it is. I must acknowledge that if there was not a bloody battle waged here in Santiago de Cuba, it is due largely to the patriotic attitude of Army Colonel Jose Rego Rubido, to the commanders of the frigates Maximo Gomez and Maceo and to the chief of the Santiago de Cuba Naval District, as well as to the officer who was acting as Chief of Police. [Avoiding a Bloody Battle] Citizens, it is only just that we should recognize these facts here and now and be thankful to the men responsible for them. They contributed to averting considerable bloodshed and to converting this morning's counterrevolutionary movement into the revolutionary movement of this afternoon. We had no alternative other than to attack because we could not allow the Colombia coup to be consolidated. Therefore, it was necessary to attack. When the troops were already marching out against their targets, Colonel Rego made use of a helicopter to try and locate me. The Navy commanders contacted us and placed themselves unconditionally at the service of the Revolution. Backed by the support of their two vessels, equipped with heavy firing capacity, and by the Naval District and the Police, I called a meeting of all the Army officers stationed at the Santiago de Cuba garrison — and there are over a hundred of these officers. I explained to them that I was not the least worried by the thought of addressing them because I knew I was right, and I knew they would understand my arguments and that we would reach an agreement in the course of the meeting. Indeed, in the early evening, just at nightfall, I went to the meeting at the Escande which was attended by nearly all the Army officers in Santiago de Cuba. Many of them were young men who were clearly anxious to struggle and fight for the good of their country. I met with these military men and spoke to them of our aims for our country, of what we wanted for the country, of the manner in which we had always dealt with the military and of all the harm done to the army by the tyrants. I said I did not think it fair that all military men be regarded equally, that the criminals were only a small minority, that there were many honorable men in the army who I knew repudiated criminal tactics, abuse and injustice. I knew it was not easy for the military to develop a specific type of action. It was clear that when the highest positions in the army were in the hands of the Tabernilla and the Pilar Garcia, relatives and unconditional supporters of Batista, there was a generalized feel of great fear in the Army. One could not ask an officer individually to accept any responsibility. There were two kinds of military men and we know them well.
There were two kinds of military men and we know them well. There were military men like Sosa Blanco, Canizares, Sanchez Mosquera and Chaviano, known for their crimes and the cowardly murder of unfortunate peasants; and then there are military men who have waged honorable campaigns, who never murdered anyone, nor burned down houses, men such as Commander Quevedo, who was our prisoner after his heroic resistance at the Battle of Jibo and who is still an Army officer. Men like Commander Sierra and many other officers who never in their lives burned down a house. However, this type of officer got no promotion. Those who were promoted were the criminals because Batista always made a point of recompensing crime. For example, we have the case of Colonel Rego Rubido who does not owe his position to the dictatorship since he was already a Colonel when the 10 March coup took place. The fact is that I was given the support of the Army officers in Santiago de Cuba and the army officers in Santiago de Cuba gave their unconditional backing to the Cuban Revolution. When the Navy, Army and Police officers met together, they agreed to condemn the Colombia uprising and to support the Legal Government of the Republic because it has the backing of the majority of the population, and is represented by Dr. Manuel Urrutia Lleo, and they also agreed to support the Cuban Revolution. Thanks to their attitude, we were able to prevent much bloodshed; thanks to their attitude, this afternoon we saw the birth of a truly revolutionary movement. I quite understand that among the people there may be many justifiably passionate feelings. I appreciate the concern for justice evinced by our people and I promise to give them justice, but I want to ask the people, above all and before all else, to remain calm. At the present moment, power must be consolidated before we do anything else. Before all else, power must be consolidated. After that, we will appoint a commission, made up of reputable military men and officers of the Rebel Army to take the necessary measures. These will include establishing responsibilities where they are due. No one will oppose such measures because it is precisely the army and the armed forces who are most concerned in insuring that the guilt of a few should not be borne by the whole corps. They are the ones most interested in insuring that the wearing of a uniform not be regarded as degrading, and that the guilty be punished in order that the innocent not be charged with the disreputable acts of others. We would ask the people to have confidence in us because we know how to fulfill our obligations. Those were the circumstances surrounding the meeting held this afternoon — a meeting that proved to be a truly revolutionary movement in which the people, the military and the rebels participated. Words fail us to describe the enthusiasm of the military in Santiago de Cuba. As a proof of their trust, I asked the military to join me in entering Santiago de Cuba, so that here I am with all the Army officers. There are the tanks that are at the service of the Revolution. there is the artillery and the service of the Revolution. And there are the vessels, now at the service of the Revolution. And finally the people. The people who at the outset... I need not add that the Revolution can depend on the people because this is a well-known fact. However, the people, who at the outset had only shotguns, now have artillery, tanks and well-armed vessels, and many trained army technicians to help us handle them. Now the people are properly armed. And let me assure you that if when we were only 12 men, we never lost faith, now that we have 12 tanks there, how are we going to lose faith? Let me tell you that today, tonight, as of this dawn — because daybreak is at hand, the eminent magistrate Dr. Manuel Urrutia Lleo will take over the presidency of the Republic. Does Dr. Urrutia have the support of the people or does he not have the support of the people? What I really mean to say is that it is the President of the Republic, the legal president, who has the support of the people of Cuba and that is Dr. Manuel Urrutia. Who wants Mr. Piedra as President? Then if no one wants Mr. Piedra as President, how are they going to impose Mr. Piedra on us now? Since those are the instructions given by the people of Santiago de Cuba, and since they represent the feelings of all the people of all Cuba, as soon as this meeting is over I will march with the veteran troops of Sierra Maestra, with the tanks and the artillery, toward the Capital in order to fulfill the will of people. We are here entirely at the request of the people. The mandate of the people is the only legal mandate at present. The President is elected by the people and not by a council in Colombia, meeting at four o'clock in the morning.
The President is elected by the people and not by a council in Colombia, meeting at four o'clock in the morning. The people have elected their President and this means that from this moment on the most powerful legal authority in the Republic has been established. Not a single one, not a single one of the appointments and promotions made by the Military Junta in the early hours of today is at all valid. All the appointments and promotions in the Army are annulled, all the appointments and promotions, I mean, that were made at dawn today. Anyone accepting a commission from the treacherous Junta which met this morning is regarded as adopting a counterrevolutionary attitude, call it by whatever name you wish, and as a result will be branded as an outlaw. I am absolutely convinced that by tomorrow morning all the army commands throughout the country will have accepted the decisions taken by the President of the Republic. The President will immediately appoint the chiefs of the Army, the Navy and the Police. Because of the very valuable service rendered now to the Revolution and because he placed his thousands of men at the service of the Revolution, we would recommend that colonel Rego Rubido be made Chief of the Army. Similarly, the Chief of the Navy will be one of the two commanders who first placed their vessels at the orders of the Revolution. And I would recommend to the President of the Republic that Commander Efigenio Almejeiras be appointed national Chief of Police. He lost three brothers in the Revolution, was one of the members of the gamma expeditionary force and one of the most able men in the revolutionary army. Almejeiras is on duty in the Guantanamo operations but will arrive here tomorrow. [Things Will Be the Way the People Want Them] All I can do is ask you to give us time and to allow time to the civil powers of the Republic, so that we can do things the way the people want them; but they must be done gradually, little by little. I would only ask one thing of the people, and that is that you remain calm. (A voice is heard shouting Oriente Federal!) No... no, the Republic, above all else, must remain united. What you must demand is justice for Oriente [province]. Time is a highly important factor in all things. The Revolution cannot be completed in a single day but you may be sure that we will carry the Revolution through to the full. You may be sure that for the first time the Republic will be truly and entirely free and the people will have their just recompense. Power was not achieved through politics, but through the sacrifices of hundreds and thousands of our fellows. It is not a promise we make to ourselves but to the people, the whole Cuban nation; the man who has taken over power has no commitments with anyone other than with the people. Che Guevara has been ordered to march on the Capital, not on the provisional Capital of the Republic. Commander Camilo Cienfuegos of Number 2 Column — the Antonio Maceo column — was likewise ordered to march on Havana and to take over command of the Colombia military camp. The orders issued by the President of the Republic were carried out, as is required by the mandate of the Revolution. We must not be blamed for the excesses occurring in Havana. General Cantillo and his fellow-conspirators of this day's dawn are to blame for those. They believed that they could overcome the situation there. In Santiago de Cuba, where a genuine revolution took place, complete order has reigned. In Santiago de Cuba, the people joined with the military and the revolutionaries in a way I cannot describe. The head of the Government, the head of the Army and the head of the Navy will be in Santiago de Cuba and their orders must be obeyed by every authority in the country. It is our hope that every honorable military man will respect these instructions. It is important to remember that primarily the military forces are at the service of law and of authority, not improperly constituted authorities but the legitimate authority. No reputable Army man need fear anything from the Revolution. In this struggle, there are no conquered ones because the only conqueror is the people. There are men who have fallen on one side and the other, but we have all joined together that the victory may be the nation's. We have all joined together, the reputable military and the revolutionaries. There will be no more bloodshed. I hope that no group puts up any resistance because apart from such an attitude proving foolhardy, it would be overcome in short shift. Moreover, it would be resistance against the Law, against the Republic and against the feelings of the whole Cuban nation. It was necessary to organize today's movement in order to prevent another war taking place in six months' time. What happened at the time of Machado's coup? Well one of machado's generals also organized a coup d'etat, removed Machado from power and put in a new President who remained in office for 15 days. Then the sergeants came along and said those officers were responsible for Machado's dictatorship and that they could not countenance them. The revolutionary spirit spread and the officers were ousted. That cannot take place now.
That cannot take place now. those officers have the backing of the people and of the troops. They also enjoy the prestige acquired by having joined a truly revolutionary movement. The people will respect and esteem these officers and it will not be necessary for them to use force nor to go about the streets armed nor to attempt to strike fear in the hearts of the people. True order is that based on freedom, on respect and on justice, but at the same time that which precludes the use of force. Henceforward, the people shall be entirely free and the people know how to conduct themselves, as they have proven today. We have achieved the peace that our country needs. Santiago de Cuba has paid for its freedom without bloodshed. That is why happiness reigns supreme here. That is why the military, today, condemned and repudiated the Colombia coup, in order to join the revolution unconditionally. Therefore, they deserve our acknowledgment of their motivation, our thanks and our respect. In the future, the armed forces of the Republic will be regarded as exemplary, given their ability, their training and the manner in which they identified with the cause of the people and because, henceforward, their rifles will be solely and always at the service of the people. There will be no more coups d'etat, no more war, because we have now taken care to prevent a repetition of what happened to Machado. To make the present case — the one that took place at dawn today — resemble Machado's fall even more closely, those gentlemen put a Carlos Manuel in office, just as a Carlos Manuel had been put in office previously. What we will not have this time is a Batista because there will be no need for a 4 September which destroys the discipline in the Armed Forces. It will be remembered that it was Batista who was responsible for the armed uprising at that time. His policy consisted in cajoling the soldiers in order to disguise the authority of the officers. The officers will have authority; there will be discipline in the Army; there will be a military penal code, in which any violation of human rights, any dishonorable or immoral acts by any military personnel, will be severely punished. There will be no privileges; there will be no privileges for anyone; and the members of the Armed Forces who are capable and deserving will be promoted. It will not be as it has been in the past — that is, that relations and friends are promoted, regardless of grades. This sort of thing will finish for the military as it will finish for laborers. There will be no more exploitation or compulsory contributions, which for the workers represent the trade union payments and for the military represent a peso here for the First Lady and two pesos elsewhere for something else and so all their pay dwindles away. Naturally, the whole population can expect it of us and can count on it. However, I have spoken of the military so that they will know that they can also count on the Revolution for all the improvements which have been lacking until now, because if the budgetary resources are not stolen, the military will be in a much better position than at the present. Moreover, the soldier will not be called upon to exercise the duty of a policeman because he will be busy with his own training in the barracks; the soldier will not be engaged in police work but will be busy being a soldier. We will not have to resort to short-wave systems [Translator's note: It is believed that the reference is to "bugging" devices]. I think that I should add that we rebels make use of short-wave facilities because this is advisable. However, the short-wave facilities have not made reference to assassins, have not involved sudden stopping of cars in front of houses nor ambushes at midnight. I am certain that as soon as the President of the Republic takes office and assumes command of the situation, he will decree the re-establishment of all rights and freedoms, including the absolute freedom of the press, of all individual rights, of all trade union rights, and of the rights and demands of the rural workers and our own free people. We will not forget our peasants in the Sierra Maestra and those in the interior of the country. I will not go and live in Havana because I want to live in Sierra Maestra, at least in that part for which I feel a very deep sense of gratitude. I will never forget those country people and as soon as I have a free moment we will see about building the first school city with seats for 20,000 children. We will do it with the help of the people and the rebels will work with them there. We will ask each citizen for a bag of cement and a trowel. I know we will have the help of our industry and of business and we will not forget any of the sectors of our population. The country's economy will be re-established immediately. This year it is we who will take care of the sugar cane to prevent its being burnt, because this year the tax on sugar is not going to be used for the purchase of murderous weapons nor for planes and bombs with which to attack the people. We will take care of communications and already from Jiguani to Palma Soriano the telephone lines have been re-established, and the railroad is being rebuilt. There will be a harvest all over the country and there will be good wages because I know that this is the intention of the President of the Republic. There will be good prices because the fear that there would be no harvest has raised prices on the world market. The peasants can sell their coffee and the cattle breeders can sell their fat steers in Havana because fortunately we triumphed soon enough to prevent their being ruins of any kind. It is not my place to say all these things. You know that we keep our word, and what we promise we fulfill and we promise less than what we intend to fulfill;
You know that we keep our word, and what we promise we fulfill and we promise less than what we intend to fulfill; we promise not more but less and we intend to do more than we have offered the people of Cuba. We do not believe that all the problems can be solved readily; we know the road is sown with obstacles, but we are men of good faith and we are always ready to face great difficulties. The people can be certain of one thing, and that is that we may make one or even many mistakes. But the only thing which cannot be said of us is that we have stolen, that we have profited from our position, that we have betrayed the movement. I know that the people can forgive mistakes but not dishonorable deeds, and what we had here were dishonorable men. In accepting the presidency, Dr. Manuel Urrutia, from the very first moment when he was invested in office, from the moment when he swore his oath before the people as President of the Republic, became the maximum authority in the country. Let no one think that I intend to exercise any power greater than that of the President of the Republic. I will be the first to obey orders issued by the civilian authority of the Republic and I will be the first to set an example. We will carry out his orders and within the scope of the authority granted to us we will try to do the utmost for our people without any personal ambition, because fortunately we are immune to the temptations of such ambitions and such vanity. What greater glory could we have than the affection of our people? What greater reward could we envision than the thousands of arms waving before us, full of hope, and faith in us and affection for us. We shall never allow ourselves to be influenced by vanity or ambition because, in the words of the Apostle, all the glory of the world can be contained within a single ear of corn, and there is no greater reward or satisfaction than to fulfill one's duty as we have been doing until the present time and as we shall always continue to do. In saying this, I am not speaking in my own name but in the name of the thousands and thousands of combatants who ensured the victory of the people. I speak on behalf of our deep sentiments and of our devotion for our people. I have in mind the respect we owe to our dead, to the fallen, who shall not be forgotten and whose faithful companions we shall always be. This time they shall not say of us as has been said of others in the past that we betrayed the memory of those who died because the years will still be given by those who died. Frank Pais is not physically among us, nor are many others, but they are all spiritually present and the mere knowledge that their sacrifice was not in vain recompenses us in part for the immense emptiness which they left behind them. Fresh flowers will continue to adorn their tombstones; their children shall not be forgotten because assistance will be given to the families of the fallen. We rebels will not ask for retroactive pay over the years during which we struggled because we feel proud not to be paid for the services rendered to Cuba. Indeed, it is quite possible that we should continue to fulfill our obligations without asking for pay because this is immaterial if funds are lacking. What exists is goodwill and we shall do everything necessary. However, I will repeat here what I have already said, "and history will absolve me," that we shall insure that maintenance, assistance, and education shall not be lacking for the children of the military who died fighting against us because they are not to blame for the errors of the tyrant. We shall be generous to everyone because, as I have said before, here there are no vanquished, but only victors. The war criminals will all be punished because it is the irrevocable duty of the Revolution to do so and the people can be certain that we shall fulfill that duty. The people should also be sure that when justice reigns there will be no revenge because if on the morrow there are to be no assaults made against anyone, justice must reign now. Since there will be justice, there will be no revenge nor will there be hatred. We shall exile hatred from the Republic, that hatred which is a damned and evil shadow bequeathed to us by ambition and tyranny. The pity is that the major criminals should have escaped. There are thousands of men who would pursue them, but we must respect the laws of other countries. It would be easy for us because we have more than enough volunteers to pursue those delinquents, ready and willing to risk their lives. However, we do not wish to give the appearance of a people who violate the laws of other peoples; we shall respect these laws while ours are respected. notwithstanding, I will issue one warning and that is that if in Santo Domingo they begin to conspire against the Revolution, if Trujillo... makes any mistake and directs any aggression against us, it will be a sorry day for him. (At one time I said that Trijillo had harmed Batista by selling him arms and the harm he did us not so much in selling arms but in selling weapons of poor quality, so bad, in fact, that when they fell into our hands they were no use at all.) However, he did sell bombs and those served to murder many peasants. We have no wish to return the rifles because they are worth nothing, but we would like to reciprocate with something better. In the first place, it is logical that the political refugees from Santo Domingo should have their safest asylum and most comfortable home here and that the political refugees of every dictatorship should find here their best protection, since we, too, have been refugees. If Santo Domingo is to be converted into an arsenal of counterrevolutionaries, if Santo Domingo is to be a base for conspiracies against the Cuban Revolution and if these gentlemen devote themselves to conspiracies over there, it would be better for them to leave Santo Domingo immediately. We say this, because they will not be very safe there either and it will not be because of us since we have no right to intervene in the problems of Santo Domingo. It will be because the citizens of the Dominican Republic have learnt from Cuba's example and conditions will be very grave indeed there. The citizens of the Dominican Republic have learned that one can struggle against tyranny and defeat and this is the lesson dictatorships fear the most.
Yet, it is a lesson which is encouraging for the Americas; a lesson exemplified just now in our country. All of America is watching the course of the fate of this revolution. All the Americas are watching us and they follow our actions with their best wishes for our triumph as they will all of them support us in our times of need. Therefore, everything is joyful now, not only in Cuba but also in the Americas. They rejoice as we have rejoiced when a dictator has fallen in Latin America, so now they rejoice with the Cuban people. It is assumed that there will be justice, as I was saying, despite the enormous accumulation of sentiments and ideas stemming from the general disorder, commotion, and feelings registered in our minds today. As I was saying, it was a pity that the major criminals escaped. We now know who was responsible because the people know who is to blame for their escape as they know that they also left here not the most unfortunate but the dullest, those who were penniless, the rank and file who took their orders from the major criminals. They allowed the major criminals to escape so that the people might state their anger and their indignation upon those who were least to blame although it is only right that they should be justly punished in order to learn their lesson. The same thing always happens, the people tell this group that the "big shots" will get away and they will be left behind and, nevertheless, though some of them may leave, others remain and must be punished. The top men may go but they will also have their punishment, a harsh punishment, for it is harsh to be exiled from one's country for the rest of one's days because they will, even in the best of circumstances, be ostracized for the rest of their lives as criminals and thieves who fled precipitately. If only one could see Mr. Batista now — through the eye of a needle, as the people say. If only one could see the proud, handsome Mr. Batista, who never made a single speech but that he described others as cowards, wretched villains, etcetera. Here, we have not even used the epithet of "villain" for anyone. Here we do not breathe hatred, nor are we proud or disdainful as are those who made speeches during the dictatorship. Like that man who claimed that he had a single bullet in his pistol when he entered Colombia and who left in the early hours of the dawn, on a plane, with a single bullet in his pistol. And it was proved that dictators are not so frightening nor so likely to commit suicide, because when they have lost the game, they immediately take flight like cowards. The sad part of it is that they escaped when they could have been taken prisoners and had we caught Batista, we could have taken the 200 million from him. But we will claim the money, wherever he is hiding it, because they are not political delinquents but common criminals. And we will see those who turn up in the embassies, if Mr. Cantillo has not already given them safe-conducts. We will distinguish then between the political prisoners but nothing for the common criminals. They will have to go before the courts and prove that they are political delinquents. However, if it should be proved that they are common criminals, they will have to appear before the proper authorities. For instance, Mujal, as big and as fat as he is, nobody knows where he is hiding at the present time. I can't understand how they got away. Nevertheless you will remember these unfortunate wretches.... [They May Speak Freely, Whether For or Against] At last the people have been able to free themselves from this rabble. Now anyone may speak out, whether they are for or against. Anyone who wishes to do so may speak out. That was not the case here previously because until the present time, they were the only ones [allowed] to speak out; only they spoke out. And they spoke against us. There will be freedom for those who speak in our favor and for those who speak against us and criticize us. There will be freedom for all men because we have achieved freedom for all men. We shall never feel offended; we shall always defend ourselves and we shall follow a single precept, that of respect for the rights and feelings of others. Other names have been mentioned here. Those people! Heaven alone knows in what embassy, on what beach, in what boat they now find themselves. We were able to get rid of them. If they have a tiny shack, or a small boat, or a tiny farm somewhere round here, we will naturally have to confiscate it, because we must sound the warning that the employees of tyranny, the representatives, the senators, etcetera, those who did not necessarily steal but who accepted their remuneration, will have to pay back, up to the last penny, what they received over these four years, because they received it illegally. The will have to pay back to the Republic the money they received as remuneration and if they do not reimburse the national coffers, we will confiscate whatever property they have. That is quite apart from what they may have stolen. Those who robbed will not be allowed to retain any of the stolen goods.
Those who robbed will not be allowed to retain any of the stolen goods. That is the law of the Revolution. It is not fair to send a man to prison for stealing a chicken or a turkey, and at the same time allow those who stole millions of pesos to spend a delightful life wandering around. Let the thieves of yesterday and today beware! Let them beware! Because the Revolution's laws may reach out to draw in the guilty of every period. Because the Revolution has triumphed and has no obligations to anyone whatsoever. It's only obligation is to the people, to whom it owes its victory. I want to conclude for today. Remember that I must leave right away. It is my duty. What is more, you have been standing there for a good many hours. However, I see so many red and black flags on the dresses of our women followers that it is really hard for us to leave this platform, on which all of us here have felt the great emotion in all our lives. We would not do less than remember Santiago de Cuba with the greatest warmth. The few times we have met here — a meeting on the Alameda and another on Trocha Avenue, at which I said that if we were deprived of our rights by force, we would recover them with our rifles in hand, and yet they attributed the statement to Luis Orlando. I kept quiet and at the time, while the newspapers made it seem as if Luis Orlando was the one who had done the most, although it was I who did the most. Yet I was not very sure whether or not things were well done because at that time there was no... [Translator's note: The remainder of this sentence and the beginning of the next is missing.]... and the result was that we had to exchange everything, the books and the diagrams for rifles, while the peasants exchanged their farm implements for rifles and we all had to exchange everything for rifles. Fortunately the task that required rifles is done; so let us keep the rifles where they are, far away from their eyes, because they will have to defend our sovereignty and our rights. Yet, when our people are threatened, it will not be only the thirty or forty thousand armed men who will fight, but the three or four or five hundred thousand Cubans, men and women, who can come here for their arms. There will be arms for all those who wish to fight when the time comes to defend our freedom. It has been proven that it is not only the men who fight but that in Cuba the women also fight. The best evidence of this is the Mariana Grajales platoon, which made such an outstanding showing in numerous encounters. The women are as good soldiers as our best military men and I wanted to prove that women can be good soldiers. At the outset, this scheme gave me a lot of trouble because they were very prejudiced. There were men who asked how on earth one could give a rifle to a woman while there was still a man alive to carry one. Yet on our front, women must be rescued because they are still the victims of discrimination insofar as labor is concerned and in other aspects of their lives. So we organized the women's units and these proved that women could fight, and when the men fight in a village and the women can fight alongside them, such villages are impregnable and the women of such villages cannot be defeated. We have organized the feminine combatants or militias and we will keep them trained — all of them on a voluntary basis — all these young women I see here with their black and red dresses recalled 26 July. And I ask all of you to learn to handle firearms. My dear Compatriots, this Revolution carried out with such sacrifice, our Revolution, the Revolution of the people, is now a magnificent and indestructible reality, a cause for no uncertain nor unjustified pride and a cause for the great joy that Cuba awaited. I know that it is not only here in Santiago de Cuba, it is everywhere, from Punta de Maisi to Cape San Antonio. I long to see our people all along our route to the Capital, because I know I will encounter the same hopes, the same faith, a single people, aroused, a people who patiently bore all the sacrifices, who cared little for hunger, who when we gave them three days' leave for the re-establishment of communications, in order not to suffer hunger, the whole mass of the people protested because what they wanted was victory at any price. Such a people deserves a better fate, and deserves to achieve the happiness it has not had in 56 years of a Republican form of government. It deserves to become one of the leading nations in the world by reasons of its intelligence, its valor and the firmness of its decision. No one can allege that I am speaking as a demagogue. No one can charge that I am seeking to assuage the people. I have given ample proof of my faith in the people because when I landed with 82 men on the beaches of Cuba and people said we were mad, and asked us why we thought we could win the war, we replied, "Because we have the people behind us!" And when we were defeated for the first time, and only a handful of men were left and yet we persisted in the struggle, we knew that this would be the outcome because we had faith in the people. When they dispersed us five times in forty-five days and we met up together again and renewed the struggle, it was because we had faith in the people. Today is the most palpable demonstration of the fact that our faith was justified. I have the greatest satisfaction in the knowledge that I believed so deeply in the people of Cuba and in having inspired my companions with this same faith. This faith is more than faith. It is complete security. This same faith that we have in you is the faith we wish you to have in us always. The Republic was not freed in 1895 and the dream was frustrated at the last minute. The Revolution did not take place in 1933 and was frustrated by its enemies.
The Revolution did not take place in 1933 and was frustrated by its enemies. However, this time the Revolution is backed by the mass of the people, and has all the revolutionaries behind it. It also has those who are honorable among the military. It is so vast and so uncontainable in its strength that this time its triumph is assured. We can say — and it is with joy that we do so — that in the four centuries since our country was founded, this will be the first time that we are entirely free and that the work of the first settlers will have been completed. A few days ago, I could not resist the temptation to go and visit my Mother whom I had not seen for several years. On my return, as I was traveling along the road that cuts through Mangos de Baragua, late at night, the feelings of deep devotion, on the part of those of us who were riding in that vehicle, made us stop at the monument raised to the memory of those involved in the protest at Baragua and the beginning of the Invasion. At that late hour, there was only our presence in that place, the thought of the daring feats connected with our wars of independence, the idea that these men fought for 30 years and in the end did not see their dream come true, but witnessed only one more frustration of the Republic. Yet they had a presentiment that very soon the Revolution of which they dreamed, the mother country of which they dreamed, would be transformed into reality, and this gave us one of the greatest emotions possible. In my mind's eye, I saw these men relive their sacrifice, sacrifices which we also underwent. I conjured up their dreams and their aspirations, which were the same as our dreams and our aspirations and I ventured to think that the present generation in Cuba must render and has rendered homage, gratitude and loyalty, as well as fervent tribute to the heroes of our independence. The men who fell in our three wars of independence now join their efforts to those of the men who fell in this war, and of all those who fell in the struggle for freedom. We can tell them that their dreams are about to be fulfilled and that the time has finally come when you, our people, our noble people, our people who are so enthusiastic and have so much faith, our people who demand nothing in return for their affection, who demand nothing in return for their confidence, who reward men with a kindness far beyond anything they might deserve, the time has come, I say, when you will have everything you need. There is nothing left for me to add, except, with modesty and sincerity to say, with the deepest emotion, that you will always have in us, in the fighters of the Revolution, loyal servants whose sole motto is service to you. On this date, today, when Dr. Urrutia took over the Presidency of the Republic Dr. Urrutia, the leader who declared that this was a just Revolution — on territory that has been liberated, which by now is the whole of our country, I declare that I will assume only those duties assigned to me, by him. The full authority of the Republic is vested in him. And our arms bow respectfully to the civil powers of the Civilian Republic of Cuba. All I have to say is that we hope that he will fulfill his duty because we naturally feel assured that he will know how to fulfill his duty. I surrender my authority to the Provisional President of the Republic of Cuba and with it I surrender to him the right to address the people of Cuba. Castro History Archive
[email protected] Home Current Issue Archives Arsenal of Marxism Subscribe Links Search Who We Are Donate Contact us Jan/Feb 2008 • Vol 8, No. 1 Click Here to Return to the Index Search the Site: Enter term and click Go! A People Under Fire By Fidel Castro Ruz Venezuela, whose people are heirs to Bolivar’s ideas which transcend his era, is today facing a world tyranny a thousand times more powerful than that of Spain’s colonial strength added to that of the recently born United States which, through Monroe, proclaimed their right to the natural wealth of the continent and to the sweat of its people. Marti denounced the brutal system and called it a monster, in whose entrails he had lived. His internationalist spirit shone as never before when, in a letter left unfinished due to his death in combat, he publicly revealed the objective of his restless struggle: “I am now every day risking my life for my country, and for my duty—since I understand it and have the courage to do it—to timely prevent, with the independence of Cuba, that the United States expand over the Antilles and that they fall, with this additional force, over our lands in America.” It was not in vain that he stated in plain verse: “With the poor of this earth, my fate I wish to cast.” Later, he proclaimed categorically: “Humanity is homeland.” The Apostle of our independence wrote one day: “Let Venezuela call on me to serve her: I am her son.” The most sophisticated media developed by technology, employed to kill human beings and to subjugate or exterminate peoples; the massive sowing of conditioned reflexes of the mind; consumerism and all available resources; these are being used today against the Venezuelans, with the intent of ripping the ideas of Bolivar and Marti to shreds. The empire has created conditions conducive to violence and internecine conflicts. On Chavez’s recent visit last November 21, I seriously discussed with him the risks of assassination, as he is constantly out in the open in convertible vehicles. I said this because of my experience as a combatant trained in the use of an automatic weapon and a telescopic sight. Likewise, after the triumph, I became the target of assassination plots directly or indirectly ordered by almost every United States administration since 1959. The irresponsible government of the empire does not stop for a minute to think that the assassination of Venezuela’s leader or a civil war in that country would blow up the globalized world economy, due to its huge reserves of hydrocarbons. Such circumstances are without precedent in the history of mankind. Cuba developed close ties with the Bolivarian government of Venezuela during the hardest days resulting from the demise of the USSR and the tightening of the United States economic blockade. The exchange of goods and services grew from practically zero level to more than 7 billion dollars annually, with great economic and social benefits for both our peoples. Today that is where we receive the fundamental supplies of fuel needed for our country’s consumption, something that would be very difficult to obtain from other sources due to the shortage of light crude oil, the insufficient refining capacity, the United States’ power and the wars its has unleashed to seize the world oil and gas reserves. Add to the high energy prices, the prices of foods destined by imperial policy to be transformed into fuel for the gas-guzzling cars of the United States and other industrial nations. A victory of the Yes vote on December 2 would not be enough. The weeks and months following that date may very well prove to be extremely tough for many countries, Cuba for one; although, before that, the empire’s adventures could lead the planet into an atomic war, as their own leaders have confessed. Our compatriots can rest assured that I have had time to think and to meditate at length on these problems. —Prensa Latina, November 29, 2007 Home Current Archives Arsenal of Marxism Subscribe Links Search About Us Donate Contact 2001-2008. Socialist Viewpoint Publishing
Speech to the OLAS Conference Spoken: August 10, 1967 in Havana’s Chaplin Theater. First publicly disseminated: August 11, 1967. Source: International Socialist Review, Vol.28 No.6, November-December 1967, pp.12-49. Translated: unknown See Also: An alternate translation by the US Government: Foreign Broadcast Information Service at the University of Texas: Fidel Castro Speech Database. Transcription/Markup: Daniel Gaido/Brian Baggins. Public Domain: Castro Internet Archive 2006. This work is completely free. Delegates, Honored Guests, Comrades: It is not easy to deliver the closing address of the First Latin American Conference of Solidarity. In the first place, what should our attitude be? To speak as a member of one of the organizations represented here? Or to speak somewhat more freely, simply as a guest speaker? I wish to say that we intend to express here the opinion of our Party and our people, which is the same opinion and the same points of view defended by our delegation in OLAS. (APPLAUSE) Could we say that the Conference has achieved a great ideological victory? Yes, we believe so. Does this mean that the agreements were reached without ideological struggle? No, the agreements were not reached without ideological struggle. Were opinions unanimous? Was support of the Declaration read here unanimous? Yes, it was unanimous. Does it represent unanimous opinions? No, it does not represent unanimous opinions. Some of the delegations present here had reservations on various aspects, and they expressed their reservations. Throughout the Conference, the international press has been trying to sound out to analyze, the development of the Conference. It has expressed various ideas on the ideological struggle that took place here. Some did so with more objectivity, others with less; some in a spirit of honest journalism, others without much journalistic honesty; some were jubilant when the opinions were unanimous and some were jubilant when they were not. And, of course, we must say that there were some within the Conference who were indiscreet; there were some indiscretions. For some agencies undoubtedly arranged to contact the delegations and various versions came out: some accurate, others less accurate, but undoubtedly revealing a certain lack of discretion on the part of delegates to the Conference. Some things were discussed publicly while others, very few others, were not. In the case of those that were not discussed publicly, the objective was to come up with the most positive results possible. A deep sense of responsibility prevailed among many of the delegates to the Conference, for it sought to accomplish something useful and positive, beneficial to the revolutionary movement and adverse to imperialism. It was not because of the principles involved that some of the questions under discussion could not be made public. If some things were not discussed publicly, it was simply due to a sense of responsibility; to prevent public consideration of those questions from which the enemy could glean an advantage. But, naturally, there were indiscretions, and nearly all the things discussed are known more or less. The agreements are clear and decisive. The Conference was not the only event that took place during these days. There were certain events that made the delegates to this Conference not only participants in ideological and political discussions and agreements, but also witnesses to and judges of the activities of imperialism against our country. Some will ask about our reason or reasons for setting these proofs before this Conference of OLAS. A few might consider this a strange coincidence. The most suspicious—principally those who represent a section of the press which has been continually hostile to the Revolution and, on many occasions, to the truth—might look quite skeptically upon the coincidence between the presence of counterrevolutionary infiltrators in our country and the OLAS Conference. Some spokesmen of imperialism have said that we made these presentations simply to demonstrate that imperialism intervenes in Cuba, and with a view to the next Conference of Foreign Ministers. These ideas might be legitimate if a case of fair play were involved; but, on the part of imperialism, there can be no fair play. These men were presented simply because such infiltrations have occurred systematically and incessantly in our country since the beginning of the Revolution. If this Conference of the OLAS were to last some time more, it could be said that every week we could bring here proof of the number and the kind of agents and the kind of missions that imperialism carries out against our country. Every week! It is unusual for a week to go by without our capturing one of these individuals. Is it, perhaps, necessary for us to prove that imperialism carries out subversive activities against our country? Is it, perhaps, necessary for us to prove that imperialism carries out all sorts of crimes against our country and that it has been, for over eight years, openly intervening in the affairs of Cuba?
Is it, perhaps, necessary for us to prove that imperialism carries out all sorts of crimes against our country and that it has been, for over eight years, openly intervening in the affairs of Cuba? Yesterday someone expressed doubts as to whether the CIA was so naive—so naive!—that, instead of sending food specially prepared for such missions, hydrophilized, dehydrated, it would be so foolish as to include ordinary canned fruit. We have no intention of using this rostrum to humiliate anyone in particular, even less, persons who have been authorized to enter the country. And simply, without any personal allusions, I want to refer to the doubts, the thoughts, the ideas. Is it not, perhaps, extreme naïveté to believe that the CIA is a perfect, wonderful, highly intelligent organization, incapable of making the slightest mistake? But was it not in a book written precisely by US journalists that we read sinister accounts of dozens and dozens of stupidities and crimes committed by the CIA? Are we to think that the CIA is so perfect that it cannot make mistakes? Wasn’t the mistake which the CIA, the Pentagon, the State Department, imperialism as a whole, made at Gir6n ten thousand times greater than that? Wasn’t that a much greater mistake? (APPLAUSE) It was a far greater mistake than the insignificant detail—probably done without consulting anyone—of picking up some canned fruit, or whatever it was, from the well-stocked pantry of the mother-ship! And to attempt—on such a flimsy excuse—to cover up evidence that anyone with a minimum of common sense and good judgment would deny! It is really extraordinary that there are people in the United States who believe such things; that the CIA is a good angel, incapable of committing misdeeds, or crimes; that the things the CIA does against Cuba are yet to be proved; that the CIA, moreover, is incapable of committing stupidities. Perhaps the CIA commits crimes ... This they accept or they reject. But it is necessary to analyze from a moral standpoint—from a moral standpoint!—whether the crimes of the CIA or the imbecilities of the CIA are the heart of the matter. We are not going to ask anybody in particular, but we ask ourselves, we ask those who are listening to us, if there is anyone in the world who can believe that the CIA is not a sinister, interventionist criminal organization, inconceivably unscrupulous? The fact that we are used to imperialist acts of vandalism must not cloud our responsiveness or our ability to judge these facts from a moral standpoint. In one sense, these are simply things that happen to our country practically every day. But if we analyze the facts more deeply, how many principles, how many international laws, how many norms of civilization, how many moral standards does the United States Government officially violate through the CIA? Like vulgar pirates, using the flag of any country, yet more immoral than the pirates of old—for the pirates of old, we hear, used the pirate flag, and piratical Yankee imperialism uses the flag of any country in the world. The use of any methods, the use of official documents, of official United States maps, the use of forged documents, the use of any resource or means whatsoever, to carry out their intentions. And of course, why speak of the moral or legal aspects of the aims of these activities? When it became evident yesterday, that one of these individuals had been seen only a few days ago in a Miami restaurant by the clerk, Charles; the manager, Joe; the cook, Sam ... and even the cat, (LAUGHTER) when it was obviously too far fetched to believe that our imagination had put this man on the stand, then up cropped another theory: that perhaps, instead of the CIA, an organization of anti-Castro exiles was involved. Is it that the United States Government does not consider itself responsible for the crimes committed by those organizations in the US? Are they now going to say that they are not responsible, when they are the ones who organized all those people, nourished them, indoctrinated them, trained them—trained them in US institutions? Does the fact that an exile organization may be involved exonerate the US Government from responsibility? But unfortunately for certain interested persons, this did not concern a group of exiles working with the CIA, but rather it involved direct CIA organization. The embarrassing thing about this is that it was organized directly by the CIA, not indirectly through counterrevolutionary organizations. For the CIA works through counterrevolutionary organizations, but it also works — as was explained to you — directly. Of course, CIA technique is superior when it works directly; when we say superior technique, we do not mean to say superior intelligence. Is there electronic equipment that never goes wrong? This simply shows that electronic equipment is much more intelligent than the CIA and much more infallible. And as for the insinuation that markets and Five and Ten Cent Stores in the US come stocked with this automatic equipment that transmits long messages in a fraction of a second or a minute—one of the most modern electronic devices ... if they really sell CIA equipment in the United States, wonderful! Because, in that case, perhaps US revolutionaries will be able to buy stocks of such equipment for their inter-communications. (APPLAUSE) Since when, in which store, in which Five and Ten can one buy these ultramodern, ultrasensitive, tiny sets capable of automatically transmitting messages in code over thousands of kilometers? One must really be naive! I do not criticize anybody for vacillating before such evident facts and refraining from comment, such as the journalist who said he was not a judge. (LAUGHTER) What a great fellow! (LAUGHTER) Really, the AP educates its little cadres well! (LAUGHTER) If you want to know what kind of judges these fellows are, analyze what they write day by day and you will see how “impartial” they are. There is only one thing which is true—their statement that they are not judges. They are not judges because they are partial, and they are absolutely incapable of judging anything. For eight years, we have been reading the news put out by that agency, which is always serving imperialist interests, always concealing something, always defending something that is never good—even by mistake!—distorting everything.
We Latin Americans know these facts only too well. All the representatives present here know them well. These facts are known, above all, to those who have to suffer these lies, this reporting, which while serving the worst imperialist causes, is the only information available, to whole nations on this continent. And that is part of the imperialist mechanism, because those lying, truculent, fraudulent news agencies are part and parcel—part and parcel!—of the imperialist machinery. They are part and parcel of the instruments used by imperialism to carry out its policies. Courtesy compels us to treat individuals with politeness, but courtesy does not compel us to refrain from stating some truths which are only too well known. (APPLAUSE) Besides referring to some of those news dispatches, we might ask if they were written out of naïveté—if it is not perhaps naive to publish such dispatches—and why they do so. Of course, there is an agency here that tries to be objective very often—I wouldn’t say that it always is—and this is a British agency. It says here: “A group of Cuban anti-Castro exiles called the Escambray Second Front stated today in this city that the contingent of men whose capture was announced on this date in Havana were guerrilla members of that organization. Andres Nazario, General Secretary of the Front, pointed out that the guerrilla fighters had left for Cuba about four weeks ago. “He added, ‘They were going to infiltrate into Cuba to carry out a mission of subversion and guerrilla warfare, joining up afterwards with patriots inside Cuba.’” That is, this news dispatch removes all doubt. It is official confirmation from the US by the gentlemen who sent the counterrevolutionaries presented here. But there is something else. Here is an AP dispatch: “Four of the captured exiles who were today presented in Havana as invaders were landed in Cuba by an anti-Castro military force based in Miami. “The band of infiltrators was described today in Miami by its leader, Major Armando Fleites, as on a mission”—as on a mission—“to kill Prime Minister Fidel Castro. This would form part of a campaign of irregular warfare designed to overthrow the Communist regime.” That is, we were not inventing anything when we stated the concrete mission of these men; we were not inventing anything when we presented, among other weapons, a 22 caliber pistol with silencer and bullets with potassium cyanide—a pistol that makes less noise than striking a match, with a silencer and bullets poisoned with potassium cyanide. And what laws did that arrogant, incredible deed violate? What laws can we refer to, what principles, what norms? For even in all-out war, that type of bullet is absolutely banned. And without anyone bothering him, the ringleader publicly declares to an imperialist news agency there, declares openly and calmly, in the name of an organization that has its own official shingle, that the group came to this country to assassinate a government leader. Does the government of the United States not feel responsible for these acts? We directly accuse the US Government and hold it responsible for these acts. (APPLAUSE AND CRIES OF: “FIDEL, FOR SURE, HIT THE YANKEES HARD!”) We accuse President Johnson and hold him responsible for the fact that plans are drawn up with absolute impunity in the United States for the assassination of government leaders of another State, using the most abhorrent methods, and that these plans are not only put into operation—serious attempts are being made at this—but also brazenly made public. These are certainly serious matters. They are more than serious; they are grave. And all these statements demonstrate the absolute truth regarding the charges and information offered to the people by the Revolutionary Government as normal procedure. What is strange about that? What is strange about their sending other spies? What is strange about that? We could ask the CIA and see what they have to say about this man. And, above all, we could ask the CIA what a US destroyer, a mother-ship, helicopter and a Neptune aircraft were doing today, anxiously searching for something 20 miles north of Pinar del Río Province. And it so happens that at dawn yesterday, some fishermen ran into “Bichinche”—I think that’s his name.(1) (APPLAUSE) No, don’t harbor any illusions. I understand your desires to see “Bichinche” captured. They were in a boat because they took to sea in a rubber raft in accordance with the emergency instructions they have. The fishermen spotted them at dawn. And the fishermen might have done better, they might have taken them aboard, but their boat was small and they were unarmed. But they immediately reported what they had seen and we immediately drew the conclusion as to who they were. And, naturally, today we were competing with the CIA. (LAUGHTER) Our reconnaissance plane and the Neptune were so close to one another that our crew photographed the Neptune. I presume that they photographed our plane, too. The CIA and the government of the United States were looking for “Bichinche” today (LAUGHTER) at the same time that our planes and our ships were trying to find “Bichinche.” (LAUGHTER) “Bichinche” has become almost famous. (LAUGHTER) But what happened? What happened? The means of escape was very difficult to detect because it is a rubber raft that can be easily hidden in the mangrove trees during the day. And they try to help themselves by moving with the currents until they are picked up, but the CIA didn’t know that “Bichinche” was in trouble. But, since a note came out in the Sunday papers saying that they had re-embarked—since that was the theory of our Security Department, after it found the things that had been left ashore, and based on all the information ... It isn’t easy to locate a robber raft. We do not know if the CIA, the destroyer, the plane or the helicopter found “Bichinche”. We, unfortunately, couldn’t locate him. But we were both competing, 20 miles north of Cuba, to see who could find that “needle in a haystack.” (LAUGHTER) Perhaps “Bichinche” will get away.
But we were both competing, 20 miles north of Cuba, to see who could find that “needle in a haystack.” (LAUGHTER) Perhaps “Bichinche” will get away. We won’t be sad about that. We are not in a hurry. Didn’t they fall into our hands today? They will, tomorrow or the day after. (APPLAUSE) And there are quite a few of them. At the time of Girón, quite a number of “big fish”—as the people say—were caught ... More than a thousand! And many individuals who certainly did not imagine they would be caught here, were caught—because that was their fate—as instruments of the CIA. We could ask, by the way, if anyone can tell us if the maps—the maps brought in by those CIA agents—are also sold at Five and Ten Cent stores in the United States. (LAUGHTER) Because we should certainly like to have some of those maps, for they are detailed with minute precision. And that was a military map, a military blueprint, with every detail: the sentry boxes, munitions depots, bases for launching anti-aircraft missiles. One asks oneself why the CIA wants such minutely detailed maps of our military installations. What are their objectives? And these drawings—are they by any chance sold at Five and Ten Cent stores? Without any doubt, the objectives of this type of espionage are belligerent, the aims are aggressive. And, naturally, there is something that does not appear in the drawings, and that is the courage of those who defend these military positions! (APPLAUSE) Because that is something that certainly cannot be found either on the maps or in the imaginations of these gentlemen of the CIA. But we believe the evidence is indisputable, and we are prepared to put it at the disposal of anyone. And the capture of CIA agents has become commonplace here—it is a weekly occurrence. It isn’t even given publicity most of the time, because it is no longer news to anyone. Is it necessary for us to prove that the imperialists are aggressors against Cuba? Does it have anything to do with the Foreign Ministers’ meeting of the OAS? To some extent, yes, and to some extent, no. Is it our purpose to convince the OAS? Who is going to make such a joke? It is not our intention either to convince the OAS or to neutralize its agreements. We have other ways of neutralizing OAS agreements! (APPLAUSE) We intended, in any case, to demonstrate how cynical these gentlemen of the OAS are, we intended to demonstrate how brazen the gentlemen of the OAS, headed by the US Government, are. We intended simply to unmask them; we intended to demoralize them. That is one part of it. That’s why I say that it is true that it has some relation to the OAS meeting. But we do not intend to use this as an excuse. The OAS does not have even an iota of self-respect, the OAS does not have one iota of morality. And none of the governments of this continent—which, with the exception of Mexico, (APPLAUSE) are admitted accomplices in acts of banditry against our country, just as they were in the intervention against the Dominican Republic and in all the misdeeds committed by imperialism—have the slightest right to invoke any law or to invoke any principle against Cuba’s acts in support of the revolutionary movement! (APPLAUSE) Because they have violated all norms, all rights, all principles. And this is their responsibility, not ours. They are mistaken if they think that we are going to accept this imperialist order. Those who believe that we are going to accept this imperialist order, this law of “grabbing the lion’s share” that the imperialists are trying to impose on the world, this blackmail, they are very much mistaken, because our country will never be subjected to such an order. The imperialists assume the right to commit every kind of misdeed in the world with entire impunity. They daily bomb North Viet Nam, utilizing hundreds of planes: that is the imperialist order, those are the laws of imperialism. They invade the fraternal Dominican Republic with 40,000 soldiers, they openly set up a puppet government there with their occupation troops; that is the order of imperialism, those are the laws of imperialism. A State such as Israel, at the service of the imperialist aggressors, gets hold of a large part of the territory of other countries, establishes itself there at the very edge of the Suez Canal and is already claiming the right to participate in the control of that Canal—so all that’s lacking now is for it to ask that a pipeline be installed to run from the Aswan Dam to irrigate the Sinai Peninsula. And there they are, and nobody knows how long they’ll stay, and the longer nothing is done, the longer they’ll stay: that is the order imperialism wants to establish, those are the laws imperialism wants to impose upon the world. To send murderers on missions with poisoned bullets to kill leaders of other States, to constantly send armed infiltration groups to a country they have been harassing for eight years. That is the imperialist order! Those are the laws imperialism wants to impose upon the world! And we are a small country, but we will not accept that order! We will not accept those laws! (PROLONGED APPLAUSE) We are not a country of adventurers, of provocateurs, of irresponsible people, as some have wanted to picture us.
(PROLONGED APPLAUSE) We are not a country of adventurers, of provocateurs, of irresponsible people, as some have wanted to picture us. We simply refuse to accept that order and those laws of imperialism. And if the price of this attitude by our country were the sinking of this country in the Bartlett Deep(2) and the wiping of our entire population off the face of the earth—if that were possible—we would prefer this to accepting that order and those laws that imperialism wishes to impose upon the world. (APPLAUSE AND SHOUTS OF: “FIDEL, FOR SURE, HIT THE YANKEES HARD!”) Go out into the streets and ask any Cuban citizen—young or old; father, son, or mother—ask him what he prefers, what he would choose: the acceptance of such a Draconian order, submission to the dictates of imperialism, or death. (SHOUTS OF “PATRIA O MUERTE!”) you will find that there are very few who think differently, who prefer to accept the imperialist order. But do not think that all of them will be counterrevolutionaries; there will also be some who, invoking Marxism-Leninism, will say that that is what has to be done—that is, that we should accept submission to the imperialist Draconian order. There are such persons, and they may be found anywhere. Do you gentlemen of the press want information? You already have some, and there will be more if you are a little patient. There are currents, there are attitudes. And we do not impose attitudes on our people. We have tried both to teach and learn; we have tried to educate ourselves as consistent revolutionaries and help the people also to educate themselves as consistent revolutionaries. No one would affirm that the problems of this country are easily solved, that the dangers threatening this country are insignificant or minor. No one will be able to make light of the situations which this small country faces resolutely, without hesitation, at the very doorstep of the most powerful imperialist country in the world—and not only the most powerful one, but the most aggressive; and not only the most powerful and aggressive; but the bloodiest, the most cynical, the most arrogant of the imperialist powers in the world. The very essence of imperialist thinking is revealed in what the imperialists publish. Of course, we should state—to avoid any misunderstanding, so no honest person will mistakenly think I am referring to him—that we know that, in spite of the infamous conditions that prevail there, there are some honest writers and journalists in the United States. (APPLAUSE) I am not talking about them. But there are so many of the other kind that I am afraid someone may think we do not know how to distinguish between them. But here is a case which expresses the essence of imperialist thinking. It is an article from the New York Daily News entitled “Stokely, Stay There.” We would indeed be honored if he wished to remain here ...! (PROLONGED APPLAUSE) But he himself doesn’t want to stay here, because he believes that the struggle is his fundamental duty. But he must know that, whatever the circumstances, this country will always be his home. (APPLAUSE) The article states: “Stokely Carmichael, the Negro firebrand, is in Havana, capital of Red Cuba, after having stopped off at London and Prague, and we suggest that he remain in Havana, his spiritual home. “As pointed out, we urge Stokely to remain in Red Cuba until this miserable island is rescued from communism, and then he can head for some other Red country. If Carmichael returns to the United States we think that the Department of Justice should throw the book at him.” And in conclusion, after more of the same sort of thing, it states: While we are busy in Viet Nam, we can hardly crush Castro—although the Government could, and should, stop discouraging Cuban refugees who plan Castro’s destruction.” Stop discouraging!—stop discouraging Cuban exiles who plan Castro’s destruction! Discouragement indeed! Discouragement indeed! “But let’s stick a reminder in Uncle Sam’s hat to trample Castro underfoot with all the force necessary to destroy his communist regime just as soon as we win the war in Viet Nam.” (JEERS AND BOOS) If the danger posed in this country depended on a US victory in Viet Nam, we could all die of old age! Observe how they express themselves, with what unbelievable exasperation, with what contempt, they speak of “a Negro firebrand,” of “the miserable island,” of “trampling underfoot.” Because it must be said that the imperialists are annoyed by many things, but most of all they are annoyed by the visit here of a Negro leader—of a leader of the most exploited and most oppressed sector of the United States—by the strengthening of relations between the revolutionary movement of Latin America and the revolutionary movement inside the United States. (PROLONGED APPLAUSE) In the past few days, innumerable articles about Stokely’s trip have been published in the US press; some very insulting, others more subtle. They have elaborated a whole series of theories. Some say “Stokely is fooling Castro,” “Castro is fooling Stokely,” “Stokely wants to make him believe that he represents the Negro movement—the majority of the Negro movement—and Castro is using him.” Statements of that sort. And they have gone still further. Some theorists have stated: “How strange that this country is not racist, and Stokely is a racist ... How strange! How strange!” Their aim is to create the impression that the Negro movement in the United States is a racist movement. It is logical that the exploiters, who for centuries practiced racism against the Negro population, now label as racists all those who struggle against racism. It is claimed that they have no program. Well, that shows that often a movement can begin before a program is drawn up. But it is also false that the movement has no program. What is happening is that the Negro sector of the population of the United States at this moment, overwhelmed by daily repression, has concentrated its energies on defending itself, on resisting, on struggle.
But it will not be long before they will discover something that is inevitable according to the law of society, the law of history. And that is that the revolutionary movement in the United States will arise from this Negro sector, (APPLAUSE) because it is the most exploited and repressed sector, the most brutally treated in the United States (APPLAUSE); the revolutionary vanguard within the United States will arise from the most mistreated, the most exploited and oppressed of the Negro sectors. The revolutionary movement within US society will arise from this sector by the law of history—not for racial reasons, but for social reasons, reasons of exploitation and oppression, because this sector is the most long-suffering and oppressed—as has been the case in all epochs of history: as occurred with the Roman plebeians, the glebe serfs of the Middle Ages and the workers and peasants of modern times. This is a social truth, a historic truth. Have patience, and from that oppressed sector the revolutionary movement will arise—vanguard of a struggle—that will one day liberate all of US society! That is why we must reject—as injurious and slanderous—the attempt to present the Negro movement of the United States as a problem of racism. We hope they will give up the illusion that anyone has deceived anyone. The drawing together of the revolutionaries of the United States and those of Latin America is the most natural thing in the world, and the most spontaneous. And our people have been very receptive to and very capable of admiring Stokely for the courageous statements he has made in the OLAS Conference, because we know that this requires valor, because we know what it means to make such statements within a society that applies the most cruel and brutal procedures of repression, that constantly practices the worst crimes against the Negro sector of its population; and we know how much hatred his statements will arouse among the oppressors. And, for this reason, we believe that the revolutionary movements all over the world must give Stokely their utmost support as protection against the repression of the imperialists, so that it will be very clear that any crime committed against this leader will have serious repercussions throughout the world. And our solidarity can help to protect Stokely’s life. (APPLAUSE) And this is why—because all these inevitable events within the process are developing—revolutionaries are getting together, internationalism is being practiced. We believe that the attitude of this US revolutionary leader offers a great lesson, a great example of militant internationalism, something very characteristic of revolutionaries. We undoubtedly sympathize much more with this type of revolutionary than with the super-theoreticians, who are revolutionary in word but bourgeois in deed. This internationalism cannot be merely proclaimed; it must be practiced! And the Negroes of the United States are offering resistance, they are offering armed resistance. They didn’t go around propounding theses, or talking about objective conditions before they seized weapons to defend their rights. They did not seek a philosophy—and, much less, a revolutionary philosophy—to justify inaction. And we believe that if there is any country where the struggle is hard, where the struggle is difficult—that country is the United States. And here we have US revolutionaries setting an example and giving us lessons! It always seems that we have to bring along some dispatches, certain papers, news items, especially to an event of this nature. We sincerely believe that we would not be fulfilling our duty if we did not express here that the OLAS Conference has been a victory of revolutionary ideas, though not a victory without a struggle. A latent ideological struggle has been reflected in the OLAS. Should we hide the fact? No. What is gained by concealing it? Was it the aim of the OLAS to crush anyone, to harm anyone? No. That is not a revolutionary method; it is not in accord with the conscience of revolutionaries. But let us be clear about this—genuine revolutionaries! We believe that revolutionary ideas must prevail. If revolutionary ideas should be defeated, the Revolution in Latin America would be lost or would be delayed indefinitely. Ideas can hasten a process—or they can delay it considerably. We believe that the triumph of revolutionary ideas among the masses—not the masses in their entirety, but a sufficiently broad part of them—is an absolute requisite. This does not mean that action must wait for the triumph of ideas, and this is one of the essential points of the matter. There are those who believe that it is necessary for ideas to triumph among the masses before initiating action, and there are others who understand that action is one of the most efficient instruments for bringing about the triumph of ideas among the masses. Whoever hesitates while waiting for ideas to triumph among the greater part of the masses before initiating revolutionary action will never be a revolutionary. For, what is the difference between such a revolutionary and a rich landowner, a wealthy bourgeois? None whatsoever! Humanity will, of course, change; human society will, of course, continue to develop — in spite of men and the errors of men. But that is not a revolutionary attitude. If that had been our way of thinking, we would never have initiated a revolutionary process. It was enough for the ideas to take root in a sufficiently large number of men for revolutionary action to be initiated, and, through this action, the masses began to acquire these ideas; the masses began to acquire that awareness. It is obvious that there are already in many places in Latin America a number of men who are convinced of such ideas, and who have begun revolutionary action. What distinguishes the true revolutionary from the false revolutionary is precisely this: one acts to move the masses, the other waits for the masses as a whole to acquire awareness before starting to act. And a whole series of principles exists that one should not expect to be accepted without an argument, but which are essential truths, accepted by the majority, but with reserve by a few.
And a whole series of principles exists that one should not expect to be accepted without an argument, but which are essential truths, accepted by the majority, but with reserve by a few. This Byzantine discussion about the ways and means of struggle, whether it should be peaceful or non-peaceful, armed or unarmed—the essence of this discussion, which we call Byzantine because it is like an argument between two deaf and dumb people, is what distinguishes those who want to promote revolution, and those who do not want to promote it, those who want to curb it and those who want to promote it. Let no one be fooled. Different terms have been employed: whether this is the only way, or not the only way; whether it is exclusive, or not exclusive. And the Conference has been very clear about this. It has not used the term, the only way, although it could be called the only way; it has referred, instead, to the fundamental way, to which the other forms of struggle must be subordinated. And, in the long run, it is the only way. To use the word “only”—although the sense of the word is understood and it is the right word—might lead to erroneous thinking about the immediacy of the struggle. That is why we understand that the Declaration’s reference to the fundamental way, as the road that must be taken in the long run, is the correct formulation. If we wish to express our way of thinking, that of our Party and our people, let no one harbor any illusions about seizing power by peaceful means in any country of this continent. Let no one harbor any such illusions. Anyone who tries to sell such an idea to the masses will be deceiving them completely. This does not mean that one has to go out and grab a rifle tomorrow anywhere at all, and start fighting. That is not the question. It is a question of ideological conflict between those who want to make a revolution and those who do not want to make it. It is the conflict between those who want to act and those who want to hold back. Because essentially, it is not that difficult to decide if it is possible, if conditions are ripe, to take up arms or not. No one can be so sectarian, so dogmatic, as to say that, everywhere, one has to go out and grab a rifle tomorrow. And we ourselves do not doubt that there are some countries in which this task is not an immediate task, but we are convinced that it will be a task in the long run. There are some who have put forward theses that are even more radical than those of Cuba—that we Cubans believe that in such and such a country the conditions for armed struggle do not exist, and that this is not so. And the interesting thing is that this has been claimed in some cases by representatives who are not among those most in favor of the thesis of armed struggle. We will not be annoyed by this. We prefer that they make the mistake of wanting to make the revolution, although immediate conditions may be lacking, than that they make the mistake of never wanting to make the revolution. And let us hope that no one makes a mistake! But nobody who really wants to fight will ever have differences with us, and those who never want to fight will always have differences with us. (APPLAUSE) We understand the essence of this matter very well. It is the conflict between those who want to impel the revolution and those who are deadly enemies of the ideas of the revolution. A whole series of factors have contributed to these positions. This does not always mean that it is enough to maintain a correct position and nothing more. No, even among those who really want to make revolution many mistakes are made. It is true that there are still many weaknesses. But logically we will never have profound differences with anyone—in spite of their mistakes—who honestly maintains a revolutionary position. It is our understanding that revolutionary thought must take on new impetus; it is our understanding that we must leave behind old vices: sectarian positions of all kinds and the positions of those who believe they have a monopoly on revolution or on revolutionary theory! And, poor theory, how it has had to suffer in these processes. Unhappy theory, how it has been abused, and how it is still being abused! And these years have taught us all to meditate more and analyze better. We no longer accept any “self-evident’ truths. “Self-evident” truths belong to bourgeois philosophy. A whole series of old clichés must be abolished. Marxist literature itself, revolutionary political literature itself should be renewed because repeating the same old clichés, phraseology and verbiage that have been repeated for 35 years wins over no one, convinces no one at all. (APPLAUSE) There are times when political documents, called Marxist, give the impression that someone has gone to an archive and asked for a form: form 14, form 13, form 12; they are all alike, with the same empty words, in language incapable of expressing real situations. Very often, these documents are divorced from real life. And then many people are told that this is Marxism ... and in what way is this different from a catechism, and in what way is it different from a litany, from a rosary? (APPLAUSE) And anyone who considers himself a Marxist feels virtually obligated to go to this or that manifesto. And he reads 25 manifestos of 25 different organizations, and they are all alike, copied from models, incapable of convincing anyone. And nothing was farther from the thought and style of the founder of Marxism than empty words, than putting a straightjacket on ideas. Because Marx was, undoubtedly, one of the greatest and most brilliant prose writers of all time.
Because Marx was, undoubtedly, one of the greatest and most brilliant prose writers of all time. But, worse than the phrases are the ideas they often encompass. Meaningless phrases are bad, but so are the accepted meanings of certain phrases. Because there are theses that are 40 years old; for example, the famous thesis concerning the role of the national bourgeoisies. How hard it has been to become convinced, finally, that this idea is an absurdity on this continent; how much paper, how many phrases, how much empty talk has been wasted while waiting for a liberal, progressive, anti-imperialist bourgeois. And we ask ourselves if there is anybody who, at this time, can believe in the revolutionary role of a single bourgeoisie on this continent? All these ideas have been gaining strength, have been held for a long time — a long series of theses. I am not going to say that the revolutionary movement and the communist movement in general have ceased to play a role—even an important role—in the history of the revolutionary process and of revolutionary ideas in Latin America. The communist movement developed a method, style, and in some aspects, even took on the characteristics of a religion. And we sincerely believe that that character should be left behind. Of course to some of these “illustrious revolutionary thinkers” we are only petit-bourgeois adventurers without revolutionary maturity. We are lucky that the Revolution came before maturity! (APPLAUSE) Because at the end, the mature ones, the over-mature, have gotten so ripe that they are rotten. (APPLAUSE) But we consider ours a Marxist-Leninist Party, we consider ours a Communist Party. (APPLAUSE) And this is not a matter of words, it is a matter of facts. We do not consider ourselves the teachers, we do not consider ourselves the pace-setters, as some people say we do. But we have the right to consider ours a Marxist-Leninist Party, a Communist Party. We are deeply satisfied, and it is with great joy, not nostalgia, with happiness, not sadness, that we see the ranks of the revolutionary movement increasing, the revolutionary organizations multiplying, Marxist-Leninist spirit making headway—that is, Marxist-Leninist ideas—and we felt deeply satisfied when the final resolution of this Conference proclaimed that the revolutionary movement in Latin America is being guided by Marxist-Leninist ideas. (APPLAUSE) This means that convent-like narrow-mindedness must be overcome. And we, in our Communist Party, will fight to overcome that narrow concept, that narrow-mindedness. And we must say that, as a Marxist-Leninist Party, we belong to OLAS; as a Marxist Leninist Party, we belong not to a small group within the revolutionary movement, but to an organization which comprises all true revolutionaries, and we will not be prejudiced against any revolutionary. That is, there is a much wider movement on this continent than that of just the Communist Parties of Latin America; we are committed to that wide movement, and we shall judge the conduct of organizations not by what they say they are, but by what they prove they are, by what they do, by their conduct. And we feel very satisfied that our Party has wholeheartedly entered into this wider movement, the movement that has just held this first Conference. The importance of the guerrilla, the vanguard role of the guerrilla ... Much could be said about the guerrilla, but it is not possible to do so in a meeting like this. But guerrilla experiences on this continent have taught us many things—among them the terrible mistake, the absurd concept that the guerrilla movement could be directed from the cities. This is the reason for the thesis that political and military commands must be united. This is the reason for our conviction that it is not only a stupidity but also a crime to want to direct the guerrillas from the city. And we have had the opportunity t appreciate the consequences of this absurdity many times. It is necessary that these ideas be overcome, and this is why we consider the resolution of this Conference of great importance. The guerrilla is bound to be the nucleus of the revolutionary movement. This does not mean that the guerrilla movement can rise without any previous work; it does not mean that the guerrilla movement is something that can exist without political direction. No! We do not deny the role of the leading organizations, we do not deny the role of the political organizations. The guerrilla is organized by a political movement, by a political organization. What we believe incompatible with correct ideas of guerrilla struggle is the idea of directing the guerrilla from the cities. And in the conditions of our continent it will be very difficult to suppress the role of the guerrilla. There are some who ask themselves if it is possible in any country of Latin America to achieve power without armed struggle. And, of course, theoretically, hypothetically, when a great part of the continent has been liberated there is nothing surprising if, under those conditions a revolution succeeds without opposition—but this would be an exception. However, this does not mean that the revolution is going to succeed in any country without a struggle. The blood of the revolutionaries of a specific country may not be shed, but their victory will only be possible thanks to the efforts, the sacrifices and the blood of the revolutionaries of a whole continent. (APPLAUSE) It would, therefore, be false to say that they had a revolution there without a struggle. That will always be a lie. And I believe that it is not correct for any revolutionary to wait with arms crossed until all the other peoples struggle and create the conditions for victory for him without struggle. That will never be an attribute of revolutionaries. There are those who believe that a peaceful transition is possible in some countries of this continent; we cannot understand what kind of peaceful transition they refer to, unless it is to a peaceful transition in agreement with imperialism.
we cannot understand what kind of peaceful transition they refer to, unless it is to a peaceful transition in agreement with imperialism. Because in order to achieve victory by peaceful means—if in practice such a thing were possible, considering that the mechanisms of the bourgeoisie, the oligarchies and imperialism control all the means for peaceful struggle ... And then you hear a revolutionary say: They crushed us; they organized 200 radio programs, so and so many newspapers, so and so many magazines, so and so many TV shows, so and so many of this and so and so many of that. And one wants to ask him: What did you expect? That they would put TV, radio, the magazines, the newspapers, the printing shops, all this at your disposal? Or are you unaware that those are the instruments of the ruling class designed explicitly for crushing the revolution? (APPLAUSE) They complain that the bourgeoisie and the oligarchies crush them with their campaigns, as if that were a surprise to anyone. The first thing that a revolutionary has to understand is that the ruling classes have organized the State so as to dedicate every possible means to maintaining themselves in power. And they use not only arms, not only physical instruments, not only guns, but all possible instruments to influence, to deceive, to confuse. And those who believe that they are going to win against the imperialists in elections are just plain naive, and those who believe that the day will come when they will take over through elections are even more naive. It is necessary to have lived in a revolutionary process and to know just what the repressive apparatus is by which the ruling classes maintain the status quo, just how much one has to struggle, how difficult it is. This does not imply the negation of forms of struggle. When someone writes a manifesto in a newspaper, attends a demonstration, holds a rally or propagates an idea, he may be using the so-called famous legal means. We must do away with the differentiation between legal and illegal means; methods should be classified as revolutionary or non-revolutionary. The revolutionary employs various methods to achieve his ideal and his revolutionary aim. The essence of the question is whether the masses will be led to believe that the revolutionary movement, that socialism, can come to power without a struggle, that it can come to power peacefully. And that is a lie! And any persons in Latin America who assert that they will come to power peacefully are deceiving the masses. (APPLAUSE) We are talking about conditions in Latin America. We don’t want to involve ourselves in other problems which are already large enough—of those of the revolutionary organizations of other countries, such as in Europe. We are addressing Latin America. And of course, if they would only confine their mistakes to themselves ... But no, they try to encourage the errors of those of this continent who are mistaken! And to such an extent that part of the so-called revolutionary press has attacked Cuba for our revolutionary stand in Latin America. That’s a fine thing! They don’t know how to be revolutionaries over there, yet they want to teach us how to be revolutionaries over here. But we are not anxious to start arguments. We already have enough to think about But, of course, we will not overlook the direct or indirect, the overt or covert attacks of some neo-Social Democrats of Europe. (APPLAUSE) And these are clear ideas. We are absolutely convinced that, in the long run, there is only one solution, as expressed in the Resolution: guerrilla warfare in Latin America. Does this mean that if a garrison rises in rebellion because there are revolutionaries in it we should not support the rebellion because it is not a guerrilla struggle? No! It is stupid to think, as one organization did, that the Revolution would be made with the rebellion of garrisons only. It is no less stupid to have a rebellion in a garrison and afterwards let it be crushed by overpowering forces. New situations are arising; new situations may arise—we do not deny that. For example, in Santo Domingo a typical case came up: a military uprising that began to take on a revolutionary character. But, of course, this doesn’t mean that the revolutionary movement has to wait around for what may come up, for what may take place. Nobody was able to foresee, nobody was able to estimate the form, the character that the revolutionary movement would take on, especially as a result of imperialist intervention. In other words, by stressing the role of the guerrilla as an immediate task in all those countries where true conditions exist, we do not discard other forms of revolutionary armed struggle. The revolutionary movement must be ready to take advantage of, and support, any expression of struggle that may arise, that may develop or that may strengthen the position of the revolutionaries. What I do not believe is that anybody who considers himself a revolutionary can wait around for a garrison to rebel in order to carry out revolution, that any revolutionary can dream of making a revolution through the rebellion of garrisons. The uprising of military units may constitute a factor—one of those unforeseeable factors that may arise—but no really serious revolutionary movement would base itself on those eventualities. Guerrilla warfare is the main form of struggle, but it does not exclude any other expressions of armed struggle that may arise. And it is necessary—most necessary—that these ideas be clarified, because we have had very bitter experiences; not the blows or reverses of a military nature, but rather the frustrations of a political nature, the consequences—sad and disastrous for the revolutionary movement in the long run—of a series of wrong concepts. The most painful case was that of Venezuela. In Venezuela the revolutionary movement was growing. The revolutionary movement there has had to pay dearly the consequences of the absurd concept of trying to lead the guerrillas from the city, of trying to use the guerrilla movement as an instrument for political maneuvering, of trying to use the guerrilla movement as a tool of dirty politics: the consequences that can arise from incorrect attitudes, from wrong attitudes and, on many occasions, from immoral attitudes. The case of Venezuela is well worth taking into consideration, for if we do not learn from the lessons of Venezuela, we will never learn.
The case of Venezuela is well worth taking into consideration, for if we do not learn from the lessons of Venezuela, we will never learn. Of course, in spite of treason, the guerrilla movement in Venezuela is far from being crushed. And we, gentlemen, have every right to use the word “treason.” We know there are some who do not like this; some will even feel insulted. May those who do not also carry the seeds of treason in their hearts one day be convinced that they have no reason to feel insulted. The case of Venezuela is eloquent in many aspects. For in Venezuela a group—which, with all these wrong concepts, was in the leadership of a Party—almost achieved what neither imperialism nor the repressive forces of the regime could achieve. This Party, or rather the rightist leadership of the Venezuelan Party, has come to adopt a position which smacks of an enemy of revolutionaries, an instrument of imperialism and the oligarchy. And I do not say this for the sake of talking; I am not a slanderer, I am not a defamer. We have some unfinished business with that group of traitors. We have not encouraged polemics; we have not incited conflicts; far from that for a long time we have kept silent while enduring a barrage of documents and attacks from that rightist leadership, as that leadership forsook the guerrilla fighters and took the road of conciliation and submission. We were the victims of deceit. First they spoke to us about a strange thing—for many of these problems begin with a series of strange things —they began to talk of democratic peace. And we would say: What the devil does that democratic peace mean? What does that mean? It’s strange, very strange.” But they replied, “No, that’s a revolutionary slogan to widen the front, to unite forces, to present a broad front.” A broad front? Well, theoretically speaking, who would oppose this? “No, have faith in us.” Then after a few months, they began to speak of tactical retreats. Tactical retreats? How odd! If they had told us the truth we might have disagreed, we might have had doubts, whatever the case; but never ... A tactical retreat: that is what they said to the rank and file, that is what they said to the people. The tactical retreat was followed by an attempt to end the struggle, an attempt to suppress the guerrilla movement. For anyone knows that in a guerrilla movement there is no tactical retreat. A guerrilla group that retreats is like an airplane that cuts off its engine in mid-flight: it falls to the ground. Such a tactical retreat must have been the brainchild of some genius in high-flown revolutionary theories. Whoever has an idea of what a guerrilla group is, and begins to hear talk of retreat by the guerrillas, will say: “This man is talking a lot of nonsense.” There can be total withdrawal of guerrillas, but not retreat. Gradually they let their mask slip, until one day they revealed themselves completely and said: “Let’s take part in the elections.” They spoke out in favor of elections. But even before they declared themselves in favor of elections, they committed one of the vilest deeds that a revolutionary party can commit: they began to act as informers, as public accusers of the guerrillas. They took advantage of the case of Iribarren Borges.(3) They utilized that episode to begin speaking out openly and publicly against the guerrilla movement, practically throwing it into the claws of the government beasts. The government had the weapons and the soldiers with which to pursue the guerrillas who would not retreat; but the so-called Party or the rightist leadership of the Party which had assumed its command, took it upon itself to arm, both morally and politically, the repressive forces fighting the guerrillas. We have to ask ourselves honestly, how could we, a revolutionary party, cover up, in the name of an argument of a cloistered a cathedra type of thinking, the attitude of a party that was trying to morally arm the repressive forces fighting the guerrillas. And so the phrasemaking began, the accusations began. They said that we were creating factionalism, that we were creating factionalism! A group of charlatans weren’t under judgment here but a group of guerrilla fighters who had been in the mountains for years, who had gone there and had then suffered every form of neglect, of abandonment. Could revolutionaries have said, “Yes, once again you are right, you who have been deceiving us, you who began by telling us one thing, then another, and ended up by doing this.” Naturally, we publicly expressed our condemnation —after a series of statements had already been issued by that rightist leadership against our Party—of the treacherous ways in which they were slandering and attacking the revolutionaries, using the Iribarren incident as a point of departure. Logically, that provoked the irate and indignant protest of that rightist leadership, which made us the butt of a series of tirades. They did not answer a single one of our arguments; they were unable to answer even one, and they wrote a maudlin reply to the effect that we were ignoble, that we had attacked an underground Party, that we were fighting a most combative, a most heroic anti-imperialist organization. And they drafted a reply against us. Why has it been necessary to bring that reply here? Because that document became the argument of a gang, a whole gang of detractors and slanderers of the Cuban Revolution. And that incident signaled the beginning of a real international conspiracy against the Cuban Revolution, a real conspiracy against our Revolution. We feel that this is a problem that must be clarified; at least the truth must be clarified. I am going to read this answer, if you’ll pardon me, even though it is rather lengthy. Of course, it is an answer full of phrases which are not at all kind to us, but if you’ll permit me I would like to read this answer, which has been made public, (APPLAUSE) the so-called “Reply of the Communist Party of Venezuela to Fidel Castro.” And may this be a starting point for refuting some things that have been said about Cuba and about the Revolution.
Of course, it is an answer full of phrases which are not at all kind to us, but if you’ll permit me I would like to read this answer, which has been made public, (APPLAUSE) the so-called “Reply of the Communist Party of Venezuela to Fidel Castro.” And may this be a starting point for refuting some things that have been said about Cuba and about the Revolution. It reads: “Fidel Castro, Secretary General of the Communist Party (in power) of Cuba, and Prime Minister of the Socialist Government of Cuba, taking advantage of his comfortable position, has attacked the Communist Party of Venezuela, an underground Party, with hundreds of its militants in prison, dozens of them having been killed in the mountains and streets of the cities; and now subject to relentless persecution daily, while new victims fall even as Fidel Castro speaks. “The man who is tolerated in all his verbal excesses, thanks to the fact that Cuba occupies the front line of the anti-imperialist struggle, should have the elementary finesse to be careful of his language when referring to the Communist Party struggling in the country which in all of Latin America is that most intervened by Yankee imperialism and is fighting it under the most difficult conditions. Knowing who he is and with the whole world listening, Fidel Castro has not hesitated to insult a Communist Party which is hardly able to answer due to repression. “Therefore: Fidel Castro’s action is ignoble, takes unfair advantage and is treacherous and lacking the nobility and gallantry that have always characterized the Cuban Revolution. “Second: Fidel Castro has expressed a negative judgment concerning the murder of Iribarren Borges, even claiming a right to express an opinion on this matter. Nevertheless, with surprising nerve, he wants to deny the same right to the CPV. Fidel Castro, evidently does not want the Communist Party of Venezuela, which acts in Venezuela, which is in Venezuela, to express an opinion, to pass judgment on a Venezuelan political event which took place on Venezuelan soil and closely affects the life of the CPV. On the other hand, he himself can do so from Cuba. “According to his peculiar point of view, we are on speaking terms with and play up to the government. He does the same and pretends to be the voice of an intangible revolutionary oracle. This strange way of reasoning shows an irresponsible arrogance and self-sufficiency not appropriate in a Chief of State. “As to the event itself, the CPV said exactly the same thing that Fidel Castro did, no more, no less. On the other hand, we assert that what does play up to reaction and imperialism are speeches such as that of Fidel Castro”—they don’t even thank me (LAUGHTER)—“slander like that which he has hurled against our Party, his efforts to divide it, and such matters as the murder of Iribarren Borges. “Third: The CPV claims the right to plan its own policy without anybody’s interference. Cuba has marched along a hard, revolutionary road with honor, in this she is an example and inspiration to us. But the one thing that we have never been, are not, and never will be, is an agent of Cuba in Venezuela, or of any other Communist Party in the world. “We are Venezuelan Communists, and we do not accept the tutelage of anyone, no matter how great his revolutionary merits may be. “If there is any revolutionary group in Venezuela that submits with pleasure to the tutelage and patronage of Fidel Castro, that is its business. The CPV will never do it. If Fidel Castro does not like it, so much the worse for him. Now then: Why does Fidel Castro intervene precisely at this time against the CPV? Because the CPV has already begun to defeat in practice, and not only ideologically, the anti-Party faction of Douglas Bravo; because the Party and the Communist Youth have attained great political and organizational successes in applying their policy; because our recent feat, the rescue of comrades Pompeyo, Guillermo and Teodoro, has filled all the militant Communists of the country with enthusiasm and renewed energy; and because, finally, the anarchistic, adventurous policy of the anti-Party group has shown the inevitability of its failure and has helped enormously in the clarification of problems under discussion. “That is precisely why Fidel Castro has thrown all the weight of his prestige against the CPV in a desperate attempt to help the anarchistic group of adventurers, which he sponsored and urged on so the CPV would go under. “Nevertheless, our policy and the facts prove daily what the adjectives ‘hesitant’ ‘halting’ and ‘opportunist’—that Fidel Castro applied to the leadership of the CPV—are worth. And that is proved here in Venezuela, even in spite of the things Fidel Castro has done to us, and, surely, will continue doing to us. “But let him and the whole CPV understand this clearly: we will not even discuss the sovereignty of the CPV. “Fourth: Fidel Castro has described the leadership of the CPV as cowardly, in a new demonstration of that irritating tendency of his to believe himself possessed of a monopoly on bravery and courage. We Venezuelan Communists do not suffer from childish exhibitionism; we do not go around proclaiming our virtues in this field. When Fidel Castro was a child, that great patriarch of Venezuelan communism Gustavo Machado was already storming Curacao and invading Venezuela, arms in hand. “And from then on, the history of the CPV, which is a political history, was also the history of the men who confronted Gómez’s terror and that of Pérez Jiménez; the men who directed the insurrection of January 23, 1958; the men who were responsible for Fidel Castro’s receiving a plane loaded with arms when he was still in the Sierra Maestra; and the men who, if they have hesitated in anything during the last eight years, have not faltered in risking their lives. “This answer of ours is the best demonstration we can give Fidel Castro of what the leadership of the CPV is really like. Accustomed to believe in his power as a revolutionary High Pasha, he thought his speech would surely crush and confound us.
He couldn’t be more mistaken, and now Fidel Castro will see why Yankee imperialism and its agents insist so much on liquidating this Venezuelan Communist Party. “Fifth: In his speech, Fidel Castro shows that he wants to assume, once more, the role of a sort of arbiter of the revolutionary destiny of Latin America—a superrevolutionary who, if he had been in the place of all the Communists of Latin America, would have already made the Revolution. “On another occasion we referred to the characteristics of the Cuban struggle and to the place where Fidel Castro would still be if it had occurred to him to hoist the red flag in the Sierra Maestra. At the moment we only want to reject the role of revolutionary “papa” that Fidel Castro adopts. “We firmly reject his presuming to believe that he and only he can decide what is and what is not revolutionary in Latin America. In Venezuela this question is judged by the CPV, before itself and its people, before no one else. But of this Fidel Castro,—highest dispenser of revolutionary diplomas, who asks what North Viet Nam would say if Cuba were to trade with South Viet Nam—we only want to ask if he thinks about what the Spanish people have to say about his trading with Franco and the Spanish oligarchy, or what the Negro peoples of Zimbabwe, Rhodesia, and the patriots of Aden might say about his trading with imperialist Britain. Or is it that what Fidel Castro considers as opportunism in others, in him would be washed away by the holy waters of his own self-sufficiency? “Sixth: This is an unpleasant polemic and one that makes the enemy jump with joy; but which evidently cannot be deferred any longer. Fidel Castro himself forced us to the limit with his speech. All right, then. We will argue. And just as we claim our descent from Simón Bolivar and the fathers of our homeland in our anti-imperialist struggle, so we tell Fidel Castro that the descendants of Simón Bolívar and Ezequiel Zamora will never tolerate anybody’s using language as insolent and provoking as that which he used in his speech on March 13. “The Venezuelan believes himself neither above nor below anybody else; but if there is one thing that will provoke his fiery militant pride, it is an insult. “And already Fidel Castro must have started to realize that he has stumbled against something different, that he has come UP against the Venezuelan Communists. “Seventh: We realize that such acts as Fidel Castro’s will cause us difficulties but we do not despair. “We have the calm conviction of those who know they are right, and we have the revolutionary passion to defend it.” March 15, 1967 Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Venezuela: Pompeyo Márquez, Guillermo García Ponce, Alonso Ojeda Olaechea, Pedro Ortega Díaz, Eduardo Gallegos Mancera, Teodoro Petkoff, Germán Lairet.” “Without comment,” it says above. “Answer of the Communist Party of Venezuela to Fidel Castro.” And below: “Please reproduce and distribute. Second Front-Alpha 66, 109 South West 12 Avenue, Miami, Florida. 33-130.” Do not think that I have gotten this letter from a spokesman of a party or from a political newspaper. Thousands of copies of this letter were sent to Cuba from the United States by the Organization “Second Front-Alpha 66,” the same people who sent that gang with guns and bullets treated with cyanide to murder Prime Minister Fidel Castro, as they said. And this certainly requires some comment. In the first place, I am not going to refer now to what I said that night, because it would take too long. It is not true that we personally insulted anyone. We did not call anyone in that Party a coward; we said that the political line was cowardly. I was not insulting or offending anyone or saying so-and-so is a coward. Naturally, far from answering any criticisms made, they drew up this document and published it. It was one of the many that they have written and, naturally, we have compiled. Our Party has been working on a document to answer this and all the intrigues of these gentlemen, which will be released at an opportune moment. But a series of imputations are made in this document, the same ones that have been made against the Revolution, against our Party, and not only by imperialism ... not only by imperialism. Among other things, these gentlemen did not hesitate in accusing us, in accusing our Party, of intervening in the internal affairs of the Venezuelan Party and of intervening in the internal affairs of Venezuela. They accused us of having agent in Venezuela, they insinuated that the guerrilla group—the combatants who refused to retreat and surrender—was a group of Cuban agents. These were exactly the same as the slanderous accusations made by the US State Department. In this document Cuba was also accused of trying to be an arbiter, of trying to direct the Latin American revolutionary movement: exactly the same accusations that imperialism makes against us. In this document they even include false statements, even mentioning arms which came from Venezuela—but these did not come when we were in the Sierra Maestra; they were 150 weapons that came when our troops were advancing on Santiago de Cuba, in December, when the columns of Camilo Cienfuegos and Ernesto Guevara had already taken an important part of Santa Clara. (PROLONGED APPLAUSE) They practically throw in our faces the sending of a planeload of arms which they claim they sent. They almost try to say that the war was won with these arms ... And they were not the ones who sent these arms. And they are so short of arguments, so short of arguments, that they have had to resort to such deceptions. Perhaps someday the Venezuelan people will ask them about the millions of dollars they collected throughout the world on behalf of the guerrilla movement—which they abandoned, whose members they left without shoes, clothing, food, and even the bare necessities; and which they have accused and attacked without scruples of any kind.
Some day—I repeat—the Venezuelan people may ask these swindlers how much they collected throughout the world: the figures, the numbers, the data. And what did they do? For our part we do not ask them anything; we are not interested. When we help someone, we truly help him, we do not ask him for an accounting of what he did with this aid. Nevertheless, there is one argument which has gone all the rounds, and is going to have a full answer. There was something that became the gang’s argument, the argument of the “Mafia.” (Perhaps, if it were not for these painful circumstances, we would not have to discuss this problem.) This is the argument of our trade with Spain, with England and the other capitalist countries. Of course, this argument, or this problem, was not originally under discussion at all. This was not what was being discussed. Why, then, did these gentlemen bring this problem into the discussion? Why did they bring this argument into the discussion? They did so in connection with our critical position on financial and technical aid extended to the Latin American oligarchies. In the first place, there has been a deliberate attempt to distort our views. Furthermore, these gentlemen of the rightist leadership of the Communist Party of Venezuela had a goal, and they pursued it in a very immoral manner. Once, when Leoni’s administration was seeking to establish diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union, we were asked what we thought of it and we voiced our opinion; these gentlemen were also asked, and they also responded negatively to the idea. Why do these gentlemen resort to this argument and drag in a problem that was not being discussed with them? It is very clear, it forms part of the plot of the conspiracy in which they and their fellows are participating with imperialism to create a serious conflict between the Cuban Revolution and the socialist countries. It is unquestionable that this argument is one of the basest, most despicable, most treacherous and most provocative. It is an attempt to find a contradiction between our position and our trade with capitalist countries. But this argument until very recently has been bruited about by the “Mafia,” and not only has it been published openly—the capitalist press also published it, and the counterrevolutionary organizations have circulated this letter—but this vile argument has also been spread about sotto voce in corridors and powwows by the detractors of and conspirators against the Cuban Revolution. In the first place, they are lying when they state that Cuba is opposed to trade. In every international body, in every economic conference, in all organizations in which Cuba has taken part as a State, we have constantly denounced the imperialist policy of blockade, and we have denounced the acts of the government of the United States against our country as a violation of free trade and of the right of all countries to trade with each other. Cuba has inflexibly maintained that position at all times; that has been a policy pursued by our country and the entire history of the commercial relations of our country bears it out. Our position does not refer to commerce; it has never referred to commerce. And our position is known by the Soviet Union; we have stated our viewpoint to them. We were talking about financial and technical help given by any socialist State to the Latin American oligarchies. These things must not be confused; one thing should not be confused with the other! Some socialist states even offered dollar loans to Sr. Lleras Restrepo(4) because he was in difficulties with the International Monetary Fund. And we asked ourselves: How can this be? This is absurd! Dollar loans to an oligarchic government that is repressing the guerrillas, that is persecuting and assassinating guerrillas! And the war is carried out with money—among other things, because the oligarchies have nothing with which to wage war except money, with which they pay mercenary forces. And such things seem absurd to us—as does everything that implies financial and technical aid to any country that is repressing the revolutionary movement, to countries that are accomplices in the imperialist blockade against Cuba. That we condemn. It is unfortunate that we have to go into this problem in detail, but, naturally, it is the number one argument employed by the “Mafia.” And it is logical. Cuba is a small country against which the United States practices a cruel blockade. At Gran Tierra we explained to some of those present here how the imperialists do everything within their power to prevent our obtaining even such insignificant things as handfuls of new seeds, varieties of rice, cotton or anything else, seeds for grain, vegetables, anything. No one can imagine to what lengths the imperialists go to extend the economic blockade against our country. And all those governments are accomplices; all those governments have violated the most elemental principles of free trade, the right of peoples to trade freely; those governments help imperialism in its attempts to starve the people of Cuba. And if that is true, if that is the case, and if internationalism exists, if solidarity is a word worthy of respect, the least that we can expect of any State of the socialist camp is that it refrains from giving any financial or technical aid to those regimes. (PROLONGED APPLAUSE AND SHOUTS OF “FIDEL") It is truly repugnant that this vile argument is used, as if to test the revolutionary steadfastness of this country, or to provoke conflicts with it. And, truly, this nation’s steadfastness, its policy based on principle, its decision, has been to act in a responsible way, yes! Carefully, yes! So as to prevent, wherever possible, polemics and conflicts.
So as to prevent, wherever possible, polemics and conflicts. Yes. But never let it be believed that any circumstance, irrespective of its difficulty, any problem, no matter how great, will enable them to drive our dignity or our revolutionary conscience to the wall. Because if that were true, if the leadership of this Party were thus disposed, we would have given up long ago in the face of the greatest and most lethal danger, the danger to which our adamant political position toward imperialism has exposed us. And it is equally repugnant that they try to find a contradiction between this position and Cuba’s commercial policy with the capitalist world. The imperialists have tried to maintain the blockade. And the question is not what countries we do trade with, but rather how many countries throughout the wide world we do not trade with, simply because, one by one, and under the incessant and growing pressure of the imperialists, they have broken trade relations with us. We have never broken off those relations. Imperialism has taken care of that, in the same way that it has seen to it that these countries, one by one, broke off diplomatic relations with Cuba. We have never broken relations with anyone. That is a weapon that imperialism has used against the Cuban Revolution, in diplomatic relations, in commercial relations. And it is worthwhile to speak about commercial relations, as well, for some of the “Mafia”—and how else can I describe those who so slanderously and basely attack our Revolution, without any serious and powerful argument—have spoken of our not having broken off diplomatic relations with the State of Israel. Neither did our country break off relations with Albania when a great number of countries from the socialist camp did so; we did not break off relations with Federal Germany, but Federal Germany did not want to accept our establishing relations with the German Democratic Republic. And even though we knew that the consequences would be the breaking off of diplomatic and commercial relations with the Federal Republic, this country had not the slightest hesitation in being among the first to establish diplomatic relations with the German Democratic Republic. (APPLAUSE) And this country has never hesitated to put political principles above economic interest. If this were not so, we should long since have found millions of reasons to reconcile ourselves with imperialism, especially in these times when it has become so fashionable to do so. To make the slightest insinuation that we follow a selfish policy of self-interest in our international positions is to forget what this country has paid for its unyielding stands, its solidarity with a great number of countries—Algeria among them—notwithstanding the fact that this gave another country, one of the biggest buyers of Cuban sugar, an excuse to cede to the pressure exercised by imperialism and to stop buying our sugar. And there are many cases. Our people always understood, and we believed that everybody understood quite clearly, that every time the imperialists failed in their pressures to keep others from purchasing from or selling to us, it meant a victory for our Revolution over the blockade. And we have always regarded as an expression of, in a certain sense, a position of self-defense—and we have spoken publicly about this, and stated it in the Plaza de la Revolución only a short time ago—the fact that the European countries could not accept, and why they could not accept imperialist pressuring. Why Europe, in spite of its economic and industrial development, must contend with competition from the Yankee monopolies, the attempts of the Yankee imperialists to take over their economies, and why—as a question of self-interest—it was impossible for them to yield to US imperialist pressuring. Moreover, since Cuba paid its bills and paid promptly, and since Cuba offered an expanding market the imperialists met with resounding failure in their attempts to force the entire capitalist world to break off trade relations with Cuba, as they had desired. What has this to do with our arguments? What has it to do with our statements? If the imperialists had succeeded, the path of the Revolution would have been much more difficult. Do we trade with the socialist camp? Yes, in trade which is practically all barter, on the so-called clearing basis, which has a value only in the country with which the agreement exists. But if our country needs certain things such as medicines of a certain kind, things essential for the life of our people, and the trading organizations in a socialist country say, We do not have them,” we must look for them in other markets and pay in the currency of that country. This is where imperialism tries to crush us. And if we have bought medicines in capitalist countries—because we cannot get them, or a similar product, in a socialist country, in order to save the lives of sick people, of children, to reduce—as we have reduced—the infant mortality rate, the mortality rate in general, (APPLAUSE) and attain the position Cuba has today, for instance in public health and in many other fields, apparently we are criminals; apparently we are people without principles; apparently we are immoral; apparently we are the opposite of what we claim to be. The same applies to the argument concerning the breaking off of relations with the State of Israel. I think no one can have the slightest doubt regarding the position of Cuba in that painful problem: a position of principle, an uncompromising position, a firm position. It is just that we do not like fig leaves. What is of a State which acts as an instrument of Yankee imperialism, which is, in turn, the instigator, the protector, of that State. And that is why I ask those of the “Mafia,” those who seek to slander Cuba with such arguments, why they don’t break relations with the United States? (APPLAUSE) It just happens that if we are not obedient “yes-men,” we are immoral, we are a people without principles, we are a people full of ideological contradictions ... And all this is simply part of a repugnant conspiracy to create a conflict between the Cuban Revolution and the states of the socialist camp. We are not instigators of conflicts, we do not seek unnecessarily, gratuitously, to create conflicts of this nature. I believe that through confronting a powerful enemy, the interdependence among the movements, the parties, the revolutionary states, will grow to a high degree. A country as small as ours, without any possibility of economic self-sufficiency, in need, principally, of the arms to defend itself from Yankee imperialism, must very much desire this.

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.