Guevara headed Cuba’s delegation to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development in Geneva, Switzerland, where he presented this speech.
Mr. President;
Distinguished delegates:
This is the delegation of Cuba speaking, an island country situated at the mouth of the Gulf of Mexico in the Caribbean Sea. It is addressing you under the protection of its right to come to this forum and proclaim the truth. It addresses you, first of all, as a country that is going through the gigantic experience of building socialism. It does so also as a country belonging to the group of Latin American nations, even though illegal decisions have temporarily severed it from the regional organization, owing to the pressure exerted and the action taken by the United States of America.7 Its geography indicates it is an underdeveloped country that addresses you, one that bears the scars of colonialist and imperial exploitation and that knows from bitter experience the subjection of its markets and its entire economy or — what amounts to the same thing — the subjection of its entire governmental machinery to a foreign power. Cuba also addresses you as a country under attack.
All these features have given our country a prominent place in the news throughout the world, despite our small size, our lack of economic importance and our limited population.
At this conference, Cuba will express its views from the various standpoints that correspond to its particular situation in the world. But we will base our analysis on our most important and positive attribute: that of a country building socialism. As a Latin American and underdeveloped country, we will support the main demands of our sister countries, and as a country under attack we will denounce from the very outset all the schemes being cooked up by the coercive machinery of that imperialist power, the United States of America.
We preface our statement with these words of explanation because our country considers it imperative to define exactly the scope of the conference, its meaning, and its possible importance.
We come to this meeting 17 years after the Havana conference, whose aim was to create a world order suited to the competitive interests of the imperialist powers.8 Although Cuba was the site of that conference, our revolutionary government does not consider itself bound in the slightest by the role then played by a government subordinated to imperialist interests. Nor do we feel bound by the content or scope of the so-called Havana Charter.
At that conference, and at the previous meeting at Bretton Woods, a number of international bodies were set up whose activities have been harmful to the interests of the dependent countries of the contemporary world. And even though the United States of America did not ratify the Havana Charter because it considered it too “daring,” the various international credit and financial bodies and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) — the tangible outcome of those two meetings — have proved to be effective weapons for defending U.S. interests. What is more, they have been weapons for attacking our countries. These are subjects we will deal with at length later on.
Today, the conference agenda is broader and more realistic because it includes, among others, three of the crucial problems facing the modern world: the relations between the camp of the socialist countries and that of the developed capitalist countries, the relations between the underdeveloped countries and the developed capitalist powers, and the great problem of development for the dependent world.
The participants at this new meeting far outnumber those who met at Havana in 1947. Nevertheless, we cannot say with complete accuracy that this is a forum of the world’s peoples. As a result of the strange legal interpretations that certain powers still use with impunity, countries of great importance in the world are missing from this meeting: for example the People’s Republic of China, the sole lawful representative of the most populous nation on earth, whose seats are occupied by a delegation that falsely claims to represent that nation and that, to add to the anomaly, even enjoys the right of veto in the United Nations.9
It should also be noted that delegations representing the Democratic Republic of Korea and the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, the genuine governments of those nations, are absent, while representatives of the governments of the southern parts of both those divided states are present. To add to the absurdity of the situation, while the German Democratic Republic is unjustly excluded, the Federal Republic of Germany is attending this conference and is given a vice-presidency. And while the socialist republics I mentioned are not represented here, the government of the Union of South Africa, which violates the United Nations Charter with the inhuman and fascist policy of apartheid embodied in its laws, and which defies the United Nations by refusing to transmit information on the territories that it holds in trust, makes bold to occupy a seat in this hall.10
Because of all these anomalies, this conference cannot be defined as the forum of the world’s peoples. It is our duty to point this out and draw it to the attention of those present. Because so long as this situation persists and justice remains the tool of a few powerful interests, legal interpretations will continue to be tailored to the convenience of the oppressor powers and it will be difficult to ease the prevailing tension: a situation that entails real dangers for humanity. We also stress these facts in order to call attention to the responsibilities incumbent upon us and to the consequences that may flow from the decisions taken here. A single moment of weakness, wavering, or compromise may discredit us in the eyes of history, just as we member states of the United Nations are in a sense accomplices and, in a manner of speaking, bear on our hands the blood of Patrice Lumumba, Congolese Prime Minister, who was shamefully murdered at a time when United Nations troops supposedly guaranteed the stability of his government.11 What is worse, those troops had been expressly called in by the martyr, Patrice Lumumba. Events of such gravity or of a similar nature, or that have negative implications for international relations and jeopardize our standing as sovereign nations, must not be allowed to happen at this conference.
We live in a world that is deeply and antagonistically divided into groupings of nations very dissimilar in economic, social and political outlook. In this world of contradictions, the one existing between the socialist countries and the developed capitalist countries is spoken of as the fundamental contradiction of our time. The fact that the Cold War, conceived by the West, has shown itself lacking in real effectiveness and in political realism is one of the factors that have led to the convening of this conference. While that is the most important contradiction, however, it is nevertheless not the only one. There is also the contradiction between the developed capitalist countries and the world’s underdeveloped nations. And at this conference on trade and development, the contradictions existing between these groups of nations are also of fundamental importance. In addition there is the inherent contradiction between the various developed capitalist countries, which struggle unceasingly among themselves to divide up the world and to gain stable possession of its markets so that they may enjoy substantial development based, unfortunately, on the hunger and exploitation of the dependent world.
These contradictions are important. They reflect the realities of the planet today, and they give rise to the danger of new conflagrations that, in the nuclear age, may spread throughout the world.
If, at this egalitarian conference — where all nations can express, through their votes, the hopes of their peoples — a solution satisfactory to the majority can be reached, a unique step will have been taken in the history of the world. There are many forces at work to prevent this from happening, however. The responsibility for the decisions to be taken falls on the representatives of the underdeveloped peoples. If all the peoples who live under precarious economic conditions and who depend on foreign powers for some vital aspects of their economy and for their economic and social structure are capable of resisting — coolly, although in the heat of the moment — the temptations offered them and imposing a new type of relationship here, then humanity will have taken a step forward.
If, on the other hand, the groups of underdeveloped countries, lured by the siren song of the interests of the developed powers who profit from their backwardness, compete futilely among themselves for crumbs from the tables of the world’s mighty, and break the unity of numerically superior forces; or if they are not capable of insisting on clear agreements, without escape clauses open to capricious misinterpretations; or if they rest content with agreements that can simply be violated at will by the powerful, then our efforts will have been to no avail and the lengthy deliberations at this conference will result in nothing more than innocuous documents and files for the international bureaucracy to guard zealously: tons of printed paper and kilometers of magnetic tape recording the opinions expressed by the participants. And the world will stay as it is.
Such is the nature of this conference. It will have to deal not only with the problems involved in the domination of markets and the deterioration in the terms of trade but also with the main cause of this state of world affairs: the subordination of the national economies of the dependent countries to other more developed countries that, through investments, hold sway over the main sectors of each economy.
It must be clearly understood, and we say it in all frankness, that the only way to solve the problems now besetting humanity is to eliminate completely the exploitation of dependent countries by developed capitalist countries, with all the consequences that implies. We have come here fully aware that what is involved is a discussion among the representatives of countries that have put an end to the exploitation of man by man, representatives of countries that maintain such exploitation as their guiding philosophy, and representatives of the majority group of the exploited countries. We must begin our discussion by affirming the truth of these statements.
But though our convictions are so firm that no arguments can change them, we are ready to join in constructive debate in the framework of peaceful coexistence between countries with different political, economic and social systems. The difficulty lies in making sure that we all know how much we can hope to get without having to take it by force, and where to yield a privilege before it is inevitably wrung from us by force. The conference has to proceed along this narrow, difficult path. If we stray, we shall find ourselves on barren ground.
We announced at the beginning of this statement that Cuba would speak here also as a country under attack. The latest developments, which have made our country the target of imperialist wrath and the object of every conceivable kind of repression and violation of international law, from before Playa Girón until now, are known to all. It was no accident that Cuba was the main scene of one of the acts that have most seriously endangered world peace, as a result of a legitimate action taken by Cuba in exercise of its right to adopt its own principles for its people’s development.
Acts of aggression by the United States against Cuba began virtually as soon as the revolution triumphed. In the first stage, they took the form of direct attacks on Cuban centers of production.
Later, these acts took the form of measures aimed at paralyzing the Cuban economy. About the middle of 1960 an attempt was made to deprive Cuba of the fuel needed to operate its industries, transport and power stations. Under pressure from the State Department, the independent U.S. oil companies refused to sell petroleum to Cuba or to provide Cuba with tankers to ship it in. Shortly afterward, efforts were made to deprive Cuba of the foreign exchange needed for its foreign trade. A cut of 700,000 tons in the Cuban sugar quota the United States was made by then President Eisenhower on July 6, 1960, and the quota was abolished altogether on March 31, 1961, a few days after the announcement of the Alliance for Progress and a few days before Playa Girón. In an effort to paralyze Cuban industry by cutting off its supplies of raw materials and spare machine parts, the U.S. Commerce Department issued an order on October 19, 1960, prohibiting the shipment of a large number of products to our island. This ban on trade with Cuba was progressively intensified until, on February 3, 1962, the late President Kennedy placed an embargo on all U.S. trade with Cuba.
After all these acts of aggression had failed, the United States went on to subject our country to an economic blockade whose purpose was to stop trade between other countries and our own. First, on January 24, 1962, the U.S. Treasury Department announced a ban on the importation into the United States of any article made in whole or in part from products of Cuban origin, even if it was manufactured in another country. A further step, equivalent to setting up a virtual economic blockade, was taken on February 6, 1963, when the White House issued a statement announcing that goods bought with U.S. Government funds would not be shipped in vessels flying the flag of foreign countries that had traded with Cuba after January 1 of that year. This was the beginning of the blacklist, which now includes more than 150 ships belonging to countries that have not yielded to the illegal Yankee blockade. A further measure to obstruct Cuba’s trade was taken on July 8, 1963, when the U.S. Treasury Department froze all Cuban property in the United States and prohibited the transfer of dollars to or from Cuba, together with any other kind of dollar transaction carried out through third countries.
— Mr. President, would it not be possible to ask that the disturbance be stopped, which is making it difficult to hear? —
Obsessed with the desire to attack us, the United States specifically excluded our country from the supposed benefits of the Trade Expansion Act.
Acts of aggression have continued this year. On February 18, 1964, the United States announced the suspension of its aid to Great Britain, France and Yugoslavia because these countries were still trading with Cuba. Dean Rusk, the Secretary of State, said, according to the text that appeared in the U.S. newspapers: “At the same time there can be no improvement in relations with Communist China as long as that country incites and supports acts of aggression in Southeast Asia, or in those with Cuba as long as it represents a threat to the Western Hemisphere. That threat can be ended to Washington’s satisfaction only with the overthrow of the Castro regime by the Cuban people. We regard that regime as temporary.”
Cuba calls on the delegation of the U.S. Government to say whether the actions foreshadowed by this statement and others like it, and the incidents we have described, are or are not at odds with coexistence in the world today, and whether, in the opinion of that delegation, the series of acts of economic aggression committed against our island and against other countries that trade with us are legitimate. I ask whether that attitude is or is not at odds with the principle of the organization that brings us together — that of practicing tolerance among states — and with the obligation imposed by that organization on countries that have ratified its charter to settle their disputes by peaceful means. I ask whether that attitude is or is not at odds with the spirit of this meeting in favor of abandoning all forms of discrimination and removing the barriers between countries with different social systems and at different stages of development. And we ask this conference to pass judgment on any explanation the U.S. delegation ventures to make. We, for our part, maintain the only position we have ever taken in the matter: we are ready to join in discussions provided that no prior conditions are imposed.
The period that has elapsed since the Havana Charter was signed has been marked by events of undeniable importance in the field of trade and economic development. In the first place, we have to note the expansion of the socialist camp and the collapse of the colonial system. Many countries, covering an area of more than 30 million square kilometers and with one-third of the world’s population, have chosen as their system of development the construction of the communist society and, as their guiding philosophy, Marxism-Leninism. Others, without directly embracing the Marxist-Leninist philosophy, have stated their intention of laying the foundations on which to build socialism. Europe, Asia, and now Africa and Latin America are continents shaken by the new ideas abroad in the world.
The socialist camp has developed uninterruptedly at rates of growth much faster than those of the capitalist countries despite having started out, as a general rule, from fairly low levels of development and of having had to withstand wars of extermination and rigorous blockades.
In contrast to the rapid rate of growth of the countries in the socialist camp and to the development taking place, albeit much more slowly, in the majority of the capitalist countries, the unquestionable fact is that a large proportion of the so-called underdeveloped countries are in total stagnation, and in some of them the rate of economic growth is lower than that of its population increase.
These characteristics are not accidental. They are strictly in keeping with the nature of the developed capitalist system in the process of expansion, which transfers to the dependent countries the most abusive and naked forms of exploitation.
Since the end of the last century, this aggressive expansionist trend has been manifested in countless attacks on various countries in the more backward continents. Today, however, it mainly takes the form of control exercised by the developed powers over the production of and trade in raw materials in the dependent countries. In general, it is shown by the dependence of a given country on a single primary commodity, which sells only in a specific market in quantities restricted to the needs of that market.
The penetration of capital from the developed countries is the essential condition for this economic dependence. This penetration takes various forms: loans granted on onerous terms; investments that place a given country under the power of the investors; almost total technological subordination of the dependent country to the developed country; control of a country’s foreign trade by the big international monopolies; and in extreme cases, the use of force as an economic power to reinforce the other forms of exploitation.
Sometimes this penetration of capital takes very subtle forms, such as the use of international financial, credit, and other types of organizations. The International Monetary Fund, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, GATT, and in Latin America, the Inter-American Development Bank are examples of international organizations placed at the service of the great capitalist colonialist powers — fundamentally, U.S. imperialism. These organizations inject themselves into domestic economic policy, foreign trade policy, and all kinds of internal financial relations as well as financial relations among different nations.
The International Monetary Fund is the watchdog of the dollar in the capitalist camp; the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development is the instrument for the penetration of U.S. capital into the underdeveloped world; and the Inter-American Development Bank performs the same sorry function in Latin America. All these organizations are governed by rules and principles that are represented as safeguards of fairness and reciprocity in international economic relations. In reality, however, they are merely fetishes behind which hide the most subtle instruments for the perpetuation of backwardness and exploitation. The International Monetary Fund, which is supposed to watch over the stability of exchange rates and the liberalization of international payments, merely denies the underdeveloped countries even the slightest measures of defense against competition and penetration by foreign monopolies.
The IMF imposes so-called austerity programs and opposes the forms of payment necessary for the expansion of trade between countries facing a balance-of-payments crisis and suffering from severe discriminatory measures in international trade. At the same time it strives desperately to rescue the dollar from its precarious situation without going to the heart of the structural problems afflicting the international monetary system, which block a more rapid expansion of world trade.
GATT, for its part, by establishing equal treatment and reciprocal concessions between developed and underdeveloped countries, helps to maintain the status quo and serves the interests of the former group of countries. Its machinery fails to provide the necessary means for eliminating agricultural protectionism, subsidies, tariffs and other obstacles to the expansion of exports from the dependent countries. For all that, it now has its so-called Program of Action and, by a rather suspicious coincidence, the “Kennedy round” is just about to begin.
In order to strengthen imperialist domination, the establishment of preferential areas has been adopted as a means of exploitation and neocolonial control. We are well-acquainted with this, for we ourselves have suffered the effects of Cuban-U.S. preferential agreements, which shackled our trade and placed it at the disposal of the U.S. monopolies.
There is no better way to show what those preferences meant for Cuba than to quote the views of Sumner Welles, the U.S. ambassador [to Cuba], on the Reciprocal Trade Agreement, which was negotiated in 1933 and signed in 1934:
The Cuban Government in turn would grant us a practical monopoly of the Cuban market for American imports, the sole reservation being that, in view of the fact that Great Britain was Cuba’s chief customer for that portion of sugar exports which did not go to the United States, the Cuban Government would desire to concede certain advantages to a limited category of imports from Great Britain…
Finally, the negotiation at this time of a reciprocal trade agreement with Cuba along the lines above-indicated, will not only revivify Cuba but will give us practical control of a market we have been steadily losing for the past 10 years not only for our manufactured products but for our agricultural exports as well, notably in such categories as wheat, animal fats, meat products, rice and potatoes.
This is a telegram from Ambassador Welles to the U.S. secretary of state, sent May 13, 1933, and published on pages 289 and 290 of volume V of the official publication, Foreign Relations of the United States, from 1933.
The results of the so-called Reciprocal Trade Agreement confirmed the view of Ambassador Welles.
Our country had to try to sell its main product, sugar, all over the world in order to obtain foreign currency with which to achieve a balance of payments with the United States. The special tariffs that were imposed prevented producers in European countries, as well as our own national producers, from competing with those of the United States.
It is necessary to quote only a few figures to prove that it was Cuba’s function to seek foreign currency all over the world for the United States. During the period 1948–57, Cuba had a consistently unfavorable balance of trade with the United States, totaling 382.7 million pesos, whereas its trade balance with the rest of the world was consistently favorable, totaling 1.2746 billion pesos.
The balance of payments for the period 1948–58 tells the story even more eloquently: Cuba had a positive balance of 543.9 million pesos with countries other than the United States, but lost this to its rich neighbor, with whom it had a negative balance of 952.1 million pesos, with the result that its foreign currency reserves were reduced by 408.2 million pesos.
The so-called Alliance for Progress is another clear demonstration of the fraudulent methods used by the United States to maintain false hopes among nations while exploitation grows worse.
When Fidel Castro, our prime minister, pointed out at Buenos Aires in 1959 that a minimum of $3 billion a year of additional outside income was needed to finance a rate of development that would really reduce the enormous gap separating Latin America from the developed countries, many thought that the figure was exaggerated. At Punta del Este, however, $2 billion a year was promised. Today, it is recognized that merely to offset the loss caused by the deterioration in the terms of trade in 1961 (the last year for which figures are available), 30 percent a year more than the hypothetical funds promised will be required. The paradoxical situation now is that while the loans are either not forthcoming or are made for projects that contribute little or nothing to the industrial development of the region, increased amounts of foreign exchange are being transferred to the industrialized countries. This means that the wealth created by the labor of peoples who live for the most part in conditions of backwardness, hunger and poverty is enjoyed by the capitalist circles.
In 1961, for instance, according to figures given by the [United Nations] Economic Commission for Latin America, $1.735 billion left Latin America in the form of interest on foreign investments and similar payments, and $1.456 billion left in payments on foreign short-term and long-term loans. If we add to this the indirect loss of purchasing power of exports (or deterioration in the terms of trade), which amounted to $2.66 billion in 1961, and $349 million for the flight of capital, we arrive at a total of $6.2 billion, or more than three Alliances for Progress a year. Thus, assuming that the situation has not deteriorated further in 1964, the Latin American countries participating in the Alliance for Progress will lose, directly or indirectly, during the three months of this conference, almost $1.6 billion of the wealth created by the labor of their peoples. On the other hand, of the $2 billion pledged for the entire year, barely half can expected, at an optimistic estimate, to be forthcoming.
Latin America’s experience with the real results of this type of “aid,” which is represented as the surest and most effective means of increasing foreign earnings — better than doing it directly by increasing the volume and value of exports, and modifying their structure — has been a sad one. For this very reason it may serve as a lesson for other regions and for the underdeveloped world in general. At present our region is virtually at a standstill so far as growth is concerned. Moreover, it is devastated by inflation and unemployment, it is caught up in the vicious circle of foreign indebtedness, and it is racked with tensions that are sometimes resolved by armed conflict.
Cuba has exposed these facts as they emerged, and has predicted the outcome, while rejecting any implications in doing so other than those flowing from our example and our moral support. The development of events has proven us to be correct. The [1962] Second Declaration of Havana is proving its historical validity.
These phenomena, which we have analyzed in relation to Latin America but which are valid for the whole of the dependent world, have the effect of enabling the developed powers to maintain trade conditions that lead to a deterioration in the terms of trade between the dependent countries and the developed countries.
This aspect — one of the more obvious ones, which the capitalist propaganda machinery has been unable to conceal — is another of the factors that have led to the convening of this conference.
The deterioration in the terms of trade is quite simple in its practical effect: the underdeveloped countries must export more raw materials and primary commodities in order to import the same amount of industrial goods. The problem is particularly serious in the case of the machinery and equipment that are essential to agricultural and industrial development.
Many underdeveloped countries, on analyzing their troubles, arrive at what seems a logical conclusion. They say that if the deterioration of the terms of trade is an objective reality and the cause of most of their problems, and if it is attributable to the fall in the prices of raw materials that they export and the rise in the prices of manufactured goods that they import on the world market, then, in the case of trade relations with the socialist countries based on existing market prices, the latter will also benefit from the situation since they are, in general, exporters of manufactured goods and importers of raw materials.
We should honestly and bravely answer that this is true, but with the same honesty we must also recognize that the socialist countries have not caused the present situation. They absorb barely 10 percent of the underdeveloped countries’ primary commodity exports to the rest of the world. For historical reasons they have been compelled to trade under the conditions prevailing in the world market, which is the outcome of imperialist domination over the internal economy and external markets of the dependent countries. This is not the basis on which the socialist countries establish their long-term trade with the underdeveloped countries. There are many examples to bear this out, Cuba in particular. When our social status changed and our relations with the socialist camp attained a new level of mutual trust, we did not cease to be underdeveloped, but we established a new type of relationship with the countries in that camp. The highest expression of this new relationship is the sugar price agreements we have concluded with the Soviet Union, under which that sister nation has undertaken to purchase increasing amounts of our main product at fair and stable prices until the year 1970.
Furthermore, we must not forget that there are underdeveloped countries in different circumstances and that they maintain different policies toward the socialist camp. There are some, such as Cuba, that have chosen the path of socialism; there are some that are developing in a more or less capitalist manner and are beginning to produce manufactured goods for export; there are some that have neocolonial ties; there are some that have a virtually feudal structure; and there are others that, unfortunately, do not participate in conferences of this type because the developed countries have not granted the independence to which their peoples aspire. Such is the case of British Guiana, Puerto Rico, and other countries in Latin America, Africa and Asia. Except for the first of these categories, foreign capital has made its way into these countries in one way or another.
The demands that are today being directed to the socialist countries should be dealt with on a real basis of dialogue. In some cases this means a dialogue between underdeveloped and developed country. Almost always, however, it means a dialogue between one country subject to discrimination and another in the same situation. On many occasions, these same countries demand unilateral preferential treatment from all the developed countries without exception, including the socialist countries in this category and putting all kinds of obstacles in the way of direct trade with them. There is a danger that, by seeking to trade through their national subsidiaries, companies from the imperialist powers could be given the opportunity to make spectacular profits by claiming that a given country is underdeveloped and therefore entitled to unilateral preferences.
If we do not want to wreck this conference, we must abide strictly by principles. As an underdeveloped country we must speak about right being on our side. In our case, as a socialist country, we can also speak of the discrimination that is practiced against us not only by some developed capitalist countries but also by underdeveloped countries that, consciously or otherwise, are serving the interests of monopoly capital, which has taken over basic control of their economies.
We do not regard the existing price relationships in the world as just, as fair, but this is not the only injustice that exists. There is direct exploitation of some countries by others. There is discrimination against countries because they have different economic structures. And, as we have already pointed out, there is the invasion of foreign capital to the point where it controls a country’s economy for its own ends. To be consistent, when we address requests to the developed socialist countries we should also specify what we are going to do to end discrimination, and at least to end the most obvious and dangerous forms of imperialist penetration.
We all know about the trade discrimination practiced by the imperialist countries against the socialist countries with the aim of blocking their development. At times, it has been tantamount to a real blockade, such as the almost absolute blockade maintained by U.S. imperialism against the German Democratic Republic, the People’s Republic of China, the Democratic Republic of Korea, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Republic of Cuba. Everyone knows that this policy has failed, and that other powers that originally followed the lead of the United States have gradually parted company from it in order to secure their own profits. The failure of this policy is by now only too obvious.
Trade discrimination has also been practiced against dependent countries and socialist countries, with the ultimate aim of ensuring that the monopolies do not lose their fields of exploitation and at the same time strengthening the blockade of the socialist camp. This policy, too, is failing, and the question arises whether there is any point in remaining bound to historically doomed foreign interests, or whether the time has come to break through all the obstacles to trade and expand markets in the socialist area.
The various forms of discrimination that hamper trade, and that make it easier for the imperialists to manipulate a range of primary commodities and a number of countries producing those commodities, are still being maintained. In the nuclear age, it is simply absurd to classify products such as copper and other minerals as strategic materials and to prevent trade in them. Yet this policy has been maintained and is maintained to this day. There is also talk of so-called incompatibilities between state monopoly of foreign trade and the forms of trading adopted by the capitalist countries. Using that pretext, discriminatory relations, quotas, etc., are established — maneuvers in which GATT has played a dominant role under the official guise of combating unfair trade practices. Discrimination against state trading not only serves as a weapon against the socialist countries but is also designed to prevent the underdeveloped countries from adopting any of the most urgent measures needed to strengthen their negotiating position on the international market and to counteract the actions of the monopolies.
The suspension of economic aid by international agencies to countries adopting the socialist system of government is a further variation on the same theme. A common practice of the International Monetary Fund in recent years has been to attack bilateral payment agreements with socialist countries and to impose on its weaker members a policy of opposing this type of relations between peoples.
As we have already pointed out, all these discriminatory measures imposed by imperialism have the dual object of blockading the socialist camp and strengthening the exploitation of the underdeveloped countries.
It is undeniable that present-day prices are unfair. It is equally true that those prices are conditioned by monopoly restriction of markets and by the establishment of political relationships that make free competition a term applied one-sidedly: free competition for the monopolies — a free fox among free chickens.
Quite apart from the agreements that may emanate from this conference, opening up the large and growing markets of the socialist camp would help to raise raw material prices. The world has plenty of hunger, but not enough money to buy food. And paradoxically in the underdeveloped world, in the world of hunger, projects for increasing food production — that is, to be able to eat — are actually discouraged in order to maintain present prices. This is the inexorable law of the philosophy of plunder, which must cease to be the rule in relations between peoples.
Furthermore, it would be feasible for some underdeveloped countries to export manufactured goods to the socialist countries and even make long-term agreements so as to enable some nations to make better use of their natural wealth and specialize in certain branches of industry that would enable them to participate in world trade as producers of manufactured products. All this can be complemented by the supplying of long-term credits for the development of the industries, or branches of industry, we are considering. It must always be borne in mind, however, that certain measures with respect to relations between socialist countries and underdeveloped countries cannot be taken unilaterally.
It is a strange paradox that while in its reports the United Nations is forecasting adverse trends in the foreign trade of the underdeveloped countries, and while Dr. Prebisch, the secretary-general of the conference, is stressing the dangers that will arise if this state of affairs persists, there is still talk of the feasibility — and in some cases the necessity, as with the so-called strategic materials — of discriminating against certain states because they belong to the socialist camp.
All these anomalies are possible because of the incontrovertible fact that at the present stage of human history the underdeveloped countries are the battleground of economic systems that belong to different historical eras. In some of these countries feudalism still exists; in others a nascent, still weak bourgeoisie has to withstand the dual pressure of imperialist interests and of its own proletariat, which is fighting for a more just distribution of income. In the face of this dilemma, some national bourgeoisies have maintained their independence or adopted some forms of joint action with the proletariat, while others have made common cause with imperialism; they have become its appendages, its agents, and have transmitted this same quality to the governments representing them.
We must sound a warning that this type of dependence, skillfully used, may endanger the possibility of solid progress at the conference. But we must also point out that whatever advantages these governments may gain today, as the price of disunity, will be repaid with interest tomorrow, when in addition to facing the hostility of their own peoples they will have to stand up alone to the sudden attack of the monopolies, for whom the only law is maximum profit.
We have made a brief analysis of the causes and results of the contradictions between the socialist camp and the imperialist camp and between the camp of the exploited and that of the exploiting countries. Here are two clear dangers to world peace.
It must also be pointed out, however, that the growing boom in some capitalist countries, and their inevitable expansion in search of new markets, has led to changes in the balance of forces among them and given rise to tensions that must be taken into account if world peace is to be preserved. Do not forget that the last two world conflagrations were sparked by clashes between developed powers that could find no solution to their problems other than the use of force. We observe a series of phenomena that clearly demonstrate the growing acuteness of this struggle. This situation may involve real dangers to world peace in the future, but it is exceedingly dangerous to the smooth progress of this conference here today. There is a clear distribution of spheres of influence between the United States and other developed capitalist powers, embracing the backward continents and parts of Europe as well. If these influences are strong enough to turn the exploited countries into fields of battle for the profits of the imperialist powers, this conference will have failed.
Cuba believes, as is pointed out in the joint statement of the underdeveloped countries, that the trade problems of our countries are well known and that what is required is the adoption of clear principles and a specific action program to usher in a new era for the world. We also believe that the statement of principles submitted by the Soviet Union and other socialist countries forms the correct basis on which to begin discussion, and we endorse it fully. Our country also supports the measures formulated at the meeting of experts at Brasilia, which would give coherent effect to the principles we advocate and will now explain.
Cuba wishes to make one point clear at the outset: we are not begging for aid. We are demanding justice; but not a justice subject to the fallacious interpretations we have so often seen prevail at international meetings. We are demanding a justice that, perhaps, the people cannot define in legal terms but for which the desire is deeply rooted in the spirit of the people, oppressed by generations of exploitation.
Cuba affirms that out of this conference should come a definition of international trade as an appropriate tool for the more rapid economic development of the underdeveloped peoples and of those subject to discrimination. This definition must provide for the elimination of all forms of discrimination and all differences, even those arising from so-called equal treatment. Treatment must be fair, and fairness, in this context, is not equality; fairness is the inequality needed to enable the exploited peoples to attain an acceptable standard of living. Our task here is to lay a foundation on which a new international division of labor can be instituted. This can be done by making full use of a country’s natural resources and by steadily raising its level of production until it has achieved the most complex forms of manufacturing.
In addition, the new division of labor must be achieved by restoring to the underdeveloped countries the traditional export markets that have been seized from them by artificial measures of protectionism and subsidization of production in the developed countries, and by a fair participation in future consumption increases.
This conference should recommend specific regulations on the use of surplus primary commodities to prevent them from being turned into a form of subsidized exports of developed countries, to the detriment of the traditional exports of the underdeveloped countries, or from being turned into instruments of penetration by foreign capital of an underdeveloped country.
It is unthinkable for the underdeveloped countries to have to bear the growing burden of the foreign debt while their just demands are ignored. These countries are already sustaining huge losses from the deterioration of the terms of trade. Moreover, through the steady drain of interest payments they have already more than repaid the value of the imperialists’ investments. The Cuban delegation proposes that until such time as the export prices of the underdeveloped countries reach a level sufficient to reimburse them for the losses of the past decade, all payments of dividends, interest and principal should be suspended.
It must be made crystal clear that the domination of any country’s economy by foreign capital investment, the deterioration in terms of trade, the control of one country’s markets by another, discriminatory relations and the use of force as an instrument of persuasion, are dangers to world trade and world peace.
This conference should also clearly establish the right of all nations to unrestricted freedom of trade, and the obligation of all states signing the agreement emanating from this conference to refrain from restraining trade in any manner, directly or indirectly.
The right of all countries to freely arrange the shipment of their goods by sea or air and to move them freely throughout the world without hindrance should be clearly set forth.
The conference should condemn any application or instigation of economic measures by one state to infringe the sovereign freedom of another state and to obtain from it advantages of any kind whatsoever, or to bring about the collapse of its economy.
In order to achieve the foregoing, the principle of self-determination embodied in the United Nations Charter must be fully implemented. The conference should reaffirm the right of states to dispose of their own resources, to adopt the form of political and economic organization that suits them best, and to choose their own avenues of development and specialization in economic activity, without incurring reprisals of any kind whatsoever. The conference should adopt measures for the establishment of financial, credit and tariff organizations, with rules based on absolute equality and on justice and fairness, to replace the existing organizations, which are obsolete from the functional point of view and reprehensible from the standpoint of their specific aims.
In order to guarantee to a people the full use of its own resources, it is necessary to condemn the existence of foreign bases, the presence — temporary or otherwise — of foreign troops in a country without its consent, and the maintenance of colonial rule by some developed capitalist powers.
For all these purposes, the conference needs to reach agreement and lay a firm foundation for the establishment of an international trade organization, to be governed by the principle of the equality and universality of membership, and to possess sufficient authority to make decisions binding on all signatory states. The practice of barring from such forums countries that have won their liberation since the establishment of the United Nations, and/or that have social systems not to the liking of some of the world’s powers, must be abolished.
The authority to make decisions that will be respected can come only from an organization of the kind I have described — one that will replace the existing organizations, which perpetuate the status quo and current discrimination in trade. Such authority cannot come from unenforceable formulas that lead only to endless discussions of what we already know all too well. This new type of organization is what can guarantee respect for new norms in international relations and the achievement of economic security.
Precise time periods for the establishment of each of these measures need to be set.
These are, distinguished delegates, the most important points that the Cuban delegation wished to bring to the attention of the conference. It should be pointed out that many of the ideas that are now gaining currency through being expressed by international bodies, by the precise analysis of the present situation of the developing countries submitted by Dr. Prebisch, the secretary-general of the conference, and many of the measures approved by other states — trading with socialist countries, obtaining credits from them, the need of basic social reforms for economic development, etc. — have been formulated and put into practice by Cuba during the five years of revolutionary government. Moreover, the adoption of these measures has caused our country to be subjected to unjust condemnation and to acts of economic and military aggression approved by some of the countries that now endorse those ideas.
Suffice it to recall the criticism and condemnation of Cuba for having established trade relations and cooperation with countries outside our hemisphere, and its de facto exclusion, to this day, from the Latin American regional group, organized under the auspices of the Charter of Alta Gracia, that is, of the Organization of American States, from which Cuba is excluded.12
We have dealt with the basic points concerning foreign trade, the need for changes in the foreign policy of the developed countries in their relations with the underdeveloped countries, and the need to restructure all international credit, financial, and similar bodies. We must emphasize, however, that these measures are not sufficient to guarantee economic development. Other measures — which Cuba, an underdeveloped country, has put into practice — are needed as well.
As a minimum, exchange controls must be established, prohibiting remittances of funds abroad or restricting them to a significant degree; there must be state control of foreign trade; there must be agrarian reform; all natural resources must be restored to the nation; technological education must be encouraged. And other measures of internal reorganization essential to a faster rate of development must be taken.
Out of respect for the wishes of the governments represented here, Cuba has not included among the irreducible minimum measures the taking over by the state of all the means of production. But we believe that this measure would contribute to a more efficient and quicker solution to the serious problems under discussion.
And the imperialists? Will they sit with arms folded? No!
Their system is the cause of the evils from which we are suffering, but they will try to obscure the facts with twisted statements; of this they are masters. They will try to render this conference powerless and sow disunity in the camp of the exploited countries by offering them crumbs.
They will try everything to keep in place the old international bodies that serve their ends so well. They will offer reforms, but not basic ones. They will seek a way to lead the conference into a blind alley, so that it will be suspended or adjourned. They will try to rob it of importance by counterposing other meetings convened by themselves, or to see that the conference ends without achieving any tangible results.
They will not accept a new international trade organization; they will threaten to boycott it and will probably do so. They will try to show that the existing international division of labor is beneficial to all, and will refer to industrialization as a dangerous and excessive ambition.
Lastly, they will allege that the blame for underdevelopment rests with the underdeveloped. To this we can reply that to a certain extent they are right, and that they will be even more right if we show ourselves incapable of uniting, in wholehearted determination, to form a united front of victims of discrimination and exploitation.
The questions we wish to ask this assembly are these: Will we be able to carry out the task history demands of us? Will the developed capitalist countries have the political acumen to accede to the minimum demands?
If the measures stated here cannot be adopted by this conference; if all that emerges once again is a hybrid document crammed with vague statements and escape clauses; and unless, at the very least, the economic and political barriers to trade among all regions of the world and to international cooperation are removed, then the underdeveloped countries will continue to face increasingly difficult economic situations, and world tension may mount dangerously. A world conflagration may be sparked at any moment by the ambition of some imperialist country to destroy the socialist camp, or, in the not-too-distant future, by insoluble contradictions between the capitalist countries. In addition, rebelliousness will grow stronger every day among the peoples subjected to various conditions of exploitation, and they will take up arms to gain by force the rights that reason alone has not won them.
This is happening today with the peoples of so-called Portuguese Guinea and Angola, who are fighting to free themselves from the colonial yoke, and with the people of South Vietnam who, weapons in hand, stand ready to shake off the yoke of imperialism and its puppets.
Let it be known that Cuba supports and applauds those peoples who, having exhausted all possibilities of a peaceful solution, have said “Enough!” to exploitation, and that their magnificent demonstration of rebellion has won our militant solidarity.
Having stated the essential points on which our analysis of the present situation is based, having put forward the recommendations we consider relevant to this conference and our views on what the future holds if no progress is made in trade relations between countries — an appropriate means of reducing tension and contributing to development — we wish to place on record our hope that the constructive discussion we spoke of will take place. The aim of our efforts is to bring about such a discussion, from which everyone will gain, and to rally the underdeveloped countries of the world to unity, so as to present a cohesive front. We place our hopes also in the success of this conference, and we join in friendship with the poor of this world and the countries in the socialist camp, putting all our powers to work for its success.
Thank you.