Having visited the United States at the invitation of the Association of Newspaper Editors only a few months after the revolution in 1959, Fidel Castro returned to address the United Nations General Assembly in New York in September 1960. He was greeted at the airport by thousands of supporters but the US government immediately restricted the movements of the Cuban delegation to the island of Manhattan. After conflicts with the management of the downtown Shelburne Hotel, the Cubans moved to the Hotel Theresa on 125th Street in Harlem.
Mr. President;
Distinguished representatives:
Although it has been said that I speak at great length, you may rest assured that we will endeavor to be brief and to put before you what we consider our duty to say. I will speak slowly to assist the interpreters.
Some people may think that we are annoyed and upset by the treatment the Cuban delegation has received. This is not the case. We understand full well the reasons for the state of affairs and that is why we are not upset. Cuba will spare no effort to bring about an understanding in the world. But rest assured, we will speak frankly.
It is extremely expensive to send a delegation to the United Nations. We underdeveloped countries do not have many resources to squander, and when we do spend money in this fashion it is because we wish to address the representatives of virtually every country in the world.
The speakers who have preceded me here expressed their concern about problems that are of interest to the whole world. We, too, are concerned about those same problems. However, in the case of Cuba, a special circumstance exists. Cuba itself should be a world concern. As various speakers here have correctly pointed out, the problem of Cuba is an international issue.
Much has been said of the universal desire for peace. Everyone wants this, and this is also the desire of our people. But this peace the world wishes to preserve is something Cuba has not been able to enjoy for a long time. The dangers that other peoples of the world may now consider remote are, for us, very immediate concerns. It has not been easy to come here to this assembly to talk about the problems of Cuba.
I do not know whether you are privileged in this respect. Do we, the representatives of the Cuban delegation, represent the worst type of government in the world? Do we, the representatives of the Cuban delegation, deserve the treatment that we have received? Why has our delegation been singled out? Cuba has sent many delegations to the United Nations in the past. Cuba has been represented at the United Nations by many different people. Yet only we have been singled out for such extraordinary measures: confinement to the island of Manhattan; notice to all the hotels not to rent us rooms; hostility; and, under the pretext of security, isolation.
Perhaps none of you, fellow delegates, on your arrival in the city of New York, has had to suffer the personal mistreatment, the physically humiliating treatment, as that meted out to the president of the Cuban delegation.
I am not trying to stir up anyone in this assembly. I am merely stating the truth. Now it is our turn to take the floor and to speak. So much has been said about us. For so many days we have been a focus of attention, but we have held our peace since we cannot defend ourselves against attacks in this country. But the time to speak the truth has come, and rest assured, we will not hesitate to do so.
As I have said, we have put up with degrading and humiliating treatment, including eviction from the [Shelburne] Hotel where we were staying, along with efforts at extortion. We went to another hotel, doing everything possible to avoid difficulties. We refrained from leaving our hotel rooms, we went nowhere, except to this assembly hall, on the few times that we have come to the General Assembly. We also accepted an invitation to a reception at the Soviet embassy; but generally we restricted our movements in order to avoid problems. But, this was not enough for us to be left in peace.
There has been considerable Cuban immigration to this country. More than 100,000 Cubans have come to this country over the past 20 years because economic reasons forced them to leave their own land, where they would prefer to live and to which they would like to return. The Cubans who came to this country dedicated themselves to work. They respected and continue to respect the laws of this land, but still felt close to their own country and to the revolution.
One day a different type of visitor began to arrive in this country. War criminals began to arrive, individuals who, in some cases, had murdered hundreds of our compatriots. It did not take long for them to gain publicity. The authorities received them warmly and encouraged them. Naturally that encouragement is reflected in their conduct, and is also the reason for the frequent incidents with those Cubans who had arrived many years earlier and who are making an honest living in this country.
One such incident resulted in the death of a child and was provoked by those who support the systematic campaigns against Cuba, with the connivance of the authorities. It was a tragic event. The Cubans who live here were not guilty, and neither were we, who have come to represent Cuba. But you have all seen the newspaper headlines stating that pro-Castro groups had killed a 10-year-old girl. With the typical hypocrisy of those who meddle in relations between Cuba and this country, a White House spokesperson immediately accused us, blaming the Cuban delegation.
His Excellency, the US representative to this assembly, did not miss the opportunity to add his voice to the farce, sending telegrams to the Venezuelan embassy and to the family, as though the United Nations felt obligated to give some explanation for something for which the Cuban delegation was supposedly responsible.
But that was not the end of it. We were forced to leave our hotel, and so a modest hotel of this city, a hotel in the black community of Harlem, took us in.
The offer from this hotel came while we were speaking with the UN secretary general. Nevertheless, a State Department official did everything in his power to stop us from being given rooms there. At that moment, as if by magic, offers arrived from hotels all over New York, even hotels that had previously refused us, and some even for free. But out of elementary gratitude, we accepted the Hotel [Theresa] in Harlem. We felt we had earned the right to some peace and quiet. But no, we were not left in peace.
As soon as we arrived in Harlem, since no one could stop us from staying there, the defamation campaign began. The news was spread that the Cuban delegation had found accommodation in a brothel. For some, a humble hotel in Harlem, a hotel occupied by the black people of the United States must, by definition, be a brothel. So they heaped slander on the Cuban delegation, showing particular disrespect for the female members of our delegation.
If we were the type of individuals that we are constantly portrayed as, then imperialism would not have lost hope, as it did long ago, of buying us off or seducing us in some way. But, since imperialism has lost all hope of winning us over, they should recognize the fact that imperialist finance capital is itself a prostitute that cannot seduce us—and not necessarily Jean-Paul Sartre’s “respectful prostitute.”
So to return to the problem of Cuba: Some of you may be aware—others not, depending on the sources of your information—that as far as the world is concerned, the problem of Cuba has arisen in the last few years. Previously, there were few reasons to recognize that Cuba even existed. For many, especially for many citizens of this country, Cuba was an appendage of the United States, a virtual colony of the United States. Although the map showed something different—Cuba being represented with a different color from the United States—in reality, Cuba was a colony of the United States.
How did our country become a colony of the United States? It was not so by origin. The people who colonized the United States did not colonize Cuba; Cuba’s ethnic and cultural roots were very different, and over centuries these roots have grown stronger.
Cuba was the last country of the Americas to shake off Spanish colonial rule, to cast off, with all due respect to the representative from Spain, the Spanish colonial yoke. Because it was the last, Cuba had to struggle: Spain had one last foothold in the Americas and defended it tooth and nail. Our people, few in numbers, scarcely a million inhabitants at that time, stood alone for nearly 30 years confronting an army considered one of the strongest in Europe. Against the tiny population of Cuba, the Spanish mobilized an enormous number of troops, as many as had been mobilized against the independence struggles of all the Latin American countries combined. Half a million Spanish soldiers fought against the heroic and indomitable desire of our people to be free. For 30 years, the Cubans fought alone for their independence, 30 years that laid the foundation of our love for independence and freedom.
But in the opinion of John Adams, US president at the beginning of the last century, Cuba was a fruit, a ripe apple on the Spanish tree ready to fall into the hands of the United States.
The Spanish power had exhausted itself in Cuba. Spain did not have the soldiers or the economic resources left to continue the fight in Cuba. Spain was defeated. Apparently the apple was ripe, and the US government held out its hands. Cuba was not the only apple to fall. Puerto Rico fell—heroic Puerto Rico which had begun its independence struggle at the same time as Cuba. The Philippines fell, as did several other Spanish possessions.
But the measures required to dominate our country had to be different. Cuba had struggled for independence and world opinion was in our favor. Our country had to be seized in a different way.
The Cubans who had fought for our independence, the Cubans who at that very moment were giving their blood and their lives, believed in good faith in the joint resolution of the US Congress of April 20, 1898, which declared, “Cuba is, and by right ought to be, free and independent.” The people of the United States were supposedly behind the Cubans in their struggle for independence. The US Congress adopted the joint declaration into law, by virtue of which, war was declared on Spain.
This illusion ended in a cruel deception. After two years of military occupation of our country, at the very moment when the people of Cuba, through their constituent assembly, were drafting the constitution of the republic, the US Congress passed a new law proposed by Senator Platt. This stated that the Cuban constitution must stipulate that the United States had the right to intervene in Cuba’s political affairs and the right to lease certain parts of the island for naval bases or coaling stations. In other words, Cuba’s constitution had to include those provisions passed by the legislative body of a foreign country. The drafters of our constitution were clearly told that if they did not accept this, the occupying forces would not be withdrawn. The legislative body of a foreign country imposed on our country, by force, its right to intervene and its right to lease bases or naval stations.
It would be worthwhile for those countries entering this organization, countries just beginning their independent life, to bear in mind our history. They may find similar experiences awaiting them along their own road, if not now, then maybe for those coming after them, for their children or their grandchildren—although it seems to us that it might not be that long.
Thus the recolonization of our country began: the acquisition of the best agricultural land by US firms, concessions of Cuban natural resources and mines, concessions of public utilities for purposes of exploitation, commercial concessions, concessions of all types that, when linked with the constitutional right of intervention in our country, transformed Cuba from a Spanish colony into a US colony.
Colonies do not speak. Colonies are not recognized in the world. Colonies are not allowed to express their opinions until they are granted permission to do so. That is why our colony and its problems were not known to the rest of the world. In geography books there appeared one more flag, one more coat of arms. There was another color on the map, but there was no independent republic. Let no one be deceived, because only fools allow themselves to be deceived. Let no one be mistaken. There was no independent republic. It was a colony where the US ambassador gave the orders.
We are not ashamed to proclaim this from the rooftops. On the contrary, we are proud that we can now say: Today no embassy rules our people; our people govern themselves!
Once again, the Cuban people had to return to fight for independence, and that independence was finally attained after seven bloody years of dictatorship. What dictatorship? The dictatorship of forces that were nothing but the cats’ paws of those who dominated our country economically.
How can an unpopular regime, inimical to the interests of the people, stay in power unless by force? Do we have to explain to our sister republics of Latin America what military dictatorships are? Do we have to outline how these dictatorships have kept themselves in power? Do we have to explain to them the classic history of many of those dictatorships? Do we have to show what kept them in power? Do we have to explain what national and international interests kept them in power?
The military group that tyrannized our country was based on the most reactionary sectors of the nation and, above all, was based on the foreign interests that dominated the country’s economy. Everyone here knows—and we understand that even the US government recognizes—that this type of government was preferred by the monopolies. Why? Because with force you can repress any demands made by the people. With force, you can repress strikes that seek better conditions of work and living standards. With force, you can quell the peasants’ movement demanding land. With force, you can quash the most deeply felt aspirations of a nation.
That is why governments based on force are the governments preferred by the US policy makers. That is why governments based on force are able to stay in the saddle for so long. That is why governments based on force still rule in the Americas.
Naturally, it depends on the circumstances whether the support of the US government is forthcoming or not. For example, it is now said that the United States opposes one such government, that of Trujillo [in the Dominican Republic]. But they are not against other governments based on force—in Nicaragua or Paraguay, for example. In Nicaragua there is no longer just a government based on force; it is a monarchy that is almost as constitutional as that of the United Kingdom, where the mantle is passed down from father to son.
The same might have occurred in our own country. Fulgencio Batista’s regime best suited the US monopolies in Cuba, but it was not the type of government that suited the Cuban people. The Cuban people, with great sacrifice, rose up and threw that government out.
When the revolution triumphed in Cuba, what did we find? What “marvels” lay spread out before the eyes of Cuba’s victorious revolutionaries? First of all, the revolution found that 600,000 Cubans, ready and able to work, were unemployed—as many, proportionally, as were unemployed in the United States at the time of the Great Depression which shook this country, and which produced a catastrophe here. We found permanent unemployment in my country. Three million in a population of just over six million had no electricity and therefore none of its advantages and comforts. Three and a half million people lived in shacks or in slums, without even minimal sanitation. 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 a half percent of our population was illiterate; 70 percent of rural children lacked teachers; 2 percent of our population suffered from tuberculosis, that is to say, 100,000 people, out of a total population of a little over six million, were suffering from the ravages of tuberculosis. Ninety-five percent of children in rural areas were suffering from parasites. Infant mortality was appallingly high. The standard of living was appallingly low. Eighty-five percent of the small farmers were paying rent on their land to the tune of almost 30 percent of their gross income, whilst 1.5 percent of all landowners controlled 46 percent of land in the countryside. The proportion of hospital beds to the number of inhabitants of the country was ludicrous when compared with countries that have even half-way decent medical services. Public utilities, electricity and telephone services all belonged to US monopolies. A major portion of the banking sector, importing businesses and the oil refineries; a greater part of the sugar production; the lion’s share of arable land in Cuba and the most important industries in all sectors belonged to US companies.
The balance of payments in the last 10 years, from 1950 to 1960, has favored the United States vis-à-vis Cuba to the tune of $1 billion. This is without taking into account the hundreds of millions of dollars that were extracted from the country’s treasury by corrupt officials of the dictatorship, which were later deposited in US or European banks. A poor and underdeveloped country in the Caribbean, with 600,000 unemployed, was contributing $1 billion over 10 years to the economic development of the most highly industrialized country in the world!
This was the situation that confronted us. Yet this should not surprise many of the countries represented in this assembly, because when all is said and done, what applies in Cuba is, one might say, a template that could be superimposed and applied to many of the countries represented here.
What alternative was there for the revolutionary government? To betray the people? As far as the US president is concerned, of course, we have betrayed our people. But would he have said the same if, instead of being true to the people, we had been true to the monopolies that were exploiting Cuba?
At the very least, let a note be taken of the “marvels” that were laid before our eyes when our revolution triumphed. These were no more and no less than the usual marvels of imperialism, which are themselves no more and no less than the marvels of the “free world,” as far as we, the colonies, are concerned.
We cannot be blamed for the 600,000 unemployed in Cuba or the 37.5 percent of the population that was illiterate, for the 2 percent of the population that suffered from tuberculosis or for the 95 percent that suffered from parasites. Not in the least! Until that moment, none of us had any hand in the destiny of our country. Until that moment when the revolution was victorious, the only voices heard in our country were those of the monopolies. Did anyone object? No! Did this bother anyone? No! The monopolies went about their nefarious business, and these were the results.
What was the state of the national reserves? When the dictator Batista came to power there was $500 million in the treasury. A decent amount—had it been invested in the development, industrial or otherwise, of the country. But when the revolution triumphed, we found only $70 million. Was any concern ever shown for the economic and industrial development of our country? No, never! That is why we were astonished, and we are even more amazed to hear about the extraordinary concern of the US government for the fate of countries in Latin America, Africa and Asia. And it continues to amaze us, when we have seen the results of that concern over 50 years.
What has the revolutionary government done? What crime has been committed by the revolutionary government to warrant the treatment we have been given here? Why do we have such powerful enemies?
Did these problems with the United States arise at the very beginning? No, they did not. When we came to power, did we desire international difficulties? No. No revolutionary government achieving power wants international problems. What it wants to do is to devote itself to settling its own problems at home; like any government truly concerned with the progress of their country, it wants to improve things for the people.
The first unfriendly act perpetrated by the US government was to throw open its doors to a gang of murderers and bloodthirsty criminals—men who had murdered hundreds of defenseless peasants, who had tortured prisoners for years, who had killed right and left. These criminals were received by this country with open arms. We were deeply stunned at this unfriendly act by the US authorities. Why such hostility? At the time, we could not quite understand. Now we see the reasons clearly.
Was that policy in keeping with proper treatment of Cuba, with proper relations between the United States and Cuba? No! Cuba was the injured party. We were the injured party because Batista’s government was maintained in power with the assistance of the US government. The Batista regime was maintained in power with the assistance of tanks, planes and weapons supplied by the US government. Batista’s government was maintained in power thanks to the use of an army whose officers were instructed and trained by a US military mission. We hope no official of the United States will dare to deny this fact.
When the Rebel Army arrived in Havana at the most important military camp [Camp Columbia] in that city, it encountered the US military mission. We could easily have considered that these foreign officers were training enemies of the people; we could have considered them to be prisoners of war. But we did not. We merely asked the members of that military mission in Havana to go home. After all, we did not need their lessons and their pupils had been defeated.
I have a document here. Don’t be surprised at its worn appearance. It is an ancient military pact, by virtue of which the Batista regime received generous assistance from the US government. It is interesting to note 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 US government in conformity and pursuant to the present agreement, in order to carry out the plans of defense accepted by both governments, pursuant to which the two governments would take part in important missions for the defense of the Western Hemisphere, and unless prior agreement is obtained from the US government…
I repeat:
…and unless prior agreement is obtained from the US government, such assistance will not be devoted to ends other than those for which such assistance has been given.
That assistance was used to fight the Cuban revolutionaries, and to do so, prior agreement from the US government was required. A few months before the war ended, after more than six years of military assistance, an arms embargo was declared on weapons sent to or intended for Batista. Nevertheless, even after this embargo was solemnly declared, the Rebel Army has documentary proof to show that Batista’s forces were supplied with 300 rockets, to be fired from planes.
When Cuban immigrants in this country revealed these documents to the public, the US government simply argued that we were mistaken. They said the United States had not supplied new weapons to the dictatorship; they had merely exchanged some rockets that were the wrong size for their planes for new rockets of a different caliber that were the correct size. These rockets were, as a matter of fact, fired at us when we were in the mountains.
I must say that this is a novel way of explaining a contradiction that can be neither justified nor explained. According to the United States, this was not military assistance. What was it then—some type of “technical” aid?
Why did this make our people angry? After all, even the most naive, innocent, guileless person knows that in these modern times, given the revolution that has taken place in military equipment and technology, weapons from the last war have become obsolete for modern warfare; 50 tanks or armored cars and a few obsolete aircraft cannot defend a continent or a hemisphere. But they are useful to oppress people, especially if those people have no weapons. They are useful to intimidate people; they are useful to defend the outposts of monopoly. These hemispheric defense pacts might better be described as “pacts to defend US monopolies.”
So the revolutionary government began to take its first steps. The first was a 50 percent reduction in rents paid by families—a very just measure since, as I said earlier, some families were paying up to one-third of their incomes on rent. People had been the victims of housing speculation; urban real estate had been the subject of speculation, to the detriment of the entire Cuban economy. When the revolutionary government reduced rents by 50 percent, there were some people who were very upset. Yes, a few people: Those who owned buildings and apartment houses were upset. But the people rushed into the streets rejoicing, as they would in any country, even here in New York, if rents were reduced by 50 percent for all families. But this caused no problems for the monopolies. Some US monopolies owned large buildings, but they were relatively few in number.
Then another law was passed, a law cancelling the concessions granted by Batista to the telephone company, a US monopoly. Due to the defense-lessness of the people, valuable concessions had been obtained. The revolutionary government cancelled those concessions and reestablished normal prices for telephone services. That is how the first conflict with the US monopolies arose.
The third measure was a reduction in the cost of electricity, which had been among the highest in the world. This led to the second conflict with the US monopolies. They were already painting us as “reds,” simply because we had clashed with their interests.
Then came another law, an essential and inevitable law for our people and, sooner or later, for all the peoples of the world. This was the Agrarian Reform Law. Naturally, everyone agrees with agrarian reform—in theory. Nobody would dare deny it; nobody except an ignorant fool would deny that agrarian reform in the underdeveloped countries of the world is one of the essential conditions for economic development. In Cuba, even the landowners agreed with agrarian reform—only they wanted their own type of reform, like that defended by many theorists. They wanted an agrarian reform that was never actually carried out, as long as it could be avoided. Agrarian reform is something that is recognized by the economic bodies of the United Nations; it is something no one can argue with.
In our country such reform was indispensable. More than 200,000 peasant families lived in the countryside without land on which to plant essential foodstuffs. Without agrarian reform, our country could not have taken its first tottering steps toward development. So we took that step. We instituted an agrarian reform. Was it radical? Yes, it was a radical reform. Was it very radical? No, it was not very radical. We instituted an agrarian reform appropriate to our need for development, appropriate to the possibilities of agricultural development. In other words, it was an agrarian reform that would solve the problem of landless peasants; the problem of the lack of basic foodstuffs; the great unemployment problem on the land, and a reform that would end, once and for all, the appalling poverty of the countryside.
That is when the first major difficulty arose. In the neighboring republic of Guatemala the same thing happened. When agrarian reform occurred in Guatemala [in 1954], problems developed. Speaking quite frankly, I would like to draw to the attention of my colleagues from Latin America, Africa and Asia that when they plan a just and fair agrarian reform, they must be ready to confront a situation similar to that which confronted us, especially if the best and largest lands are held by the US monopolies, as was the case in Cuba.
It is possible we may later be accused of giving bad advice in this assembly. That is not our intention. It is not our intention to keep anyone awake at night. We merely want to express the facts, which are enough to give anyone insomnia.
So then the question of payments and indemnities arose. Notes from the US State Department rained down on Cuba. They never asked us about our problems, they never expressed any sympathy with our situation, despite their responsibility for the problems. They never asked us how many people died of starvation in our country, how many were suffering from tuberculosis or how many were unemployed. No. Did they express any solidarity regarding our needs? Never. Every conversation with the representatives of the US government concerned the telephone company, the electricity company or the problem of the lands owned by US companies. The first question they always asked was how we were going to pay, while the first question that should have been asked was not “How?” but “With what?”
Ours is a poor, underdeveloped country bearing the burden of 600,000 unemployed, with extremely high rates of disease and illiteracy, whose reserves have been sapped, and which has contributed to the economy of a powerful country to the tune of $1 billion in 10 years. How were we to pay for the lands affected by the agrarian reform, or at least pay for them under the conditions set by the US State Department as compensation?
What did the US State Department say? They demanded three things: “speedy, efficient and just payment.” Do you understand that language? “Speedy, efficient and just payment.” It means: “Pay up now, in dollars, and whatever we ask.”
We were not 150 percent communists at that time. We were only slightly pink. We were not confiscating land. We simply proposed to pay compensation over 20 years, and the only way we could pay was through bonds, which would mature in 20 years, at 4.5 percent interest, amortized annually. How could we pay for the land in dollars? How could we pay cash, upfront, and how could we pay the price they asked? It was ludicrous.
Under those circumstances, we had to choose between proceeding with the agrarian reform or doing nothing. If we chose to do nothing, then the economic misery of our countryside would continue, and if we carried out agrarian reform we risked incurring the wrath of the government of our powerful neighbor of the north.
We went ahead with the agrarian reform. Clearly, the representative here from the Netherlands, for example, or a representative of any European country, would be surprised by the limits we set to land holdings and estates, because they were so big. The maximum amount of land established by the Agrarian Reform Law was 400 hectares. In Europe, 400 hectares is a true estate. In Cuba, where there were US monopolies that had up to 200,000 hectares—that is 200,000 hectares, in case anyone thinks they misheard—an agrarian reform that reduced the maximum to 400 hectares was outrageous to those monopolies and landowners.
The trouble was that in our country, not only the land was in the hands of the US monopolies, but also the best mines. For example, Cuba produces a lot of nickel, which was exploited by US interests. A US company, the Moa Bay company, had obtained such a juicy concession that in only five years—only five years!—it sought to amortize an investment of $120 million. That certainly was a juicy plum!
Who had given the Moa Bay company this concession—completely tax free—through the intercession of the US government? Quite simply, the Fulgencio Batista dictatorship, which was there to defend the interests of the monopolies. What were these enterprises going to leave for the Cubans? Empty, exhausted mines and impoverished land, without making the slightest contribution to the economic development of our country.
So the revolutionary government passed a mining law obliging these monopolies to pay a 25 percent tax on the export of minerals.
The attitude of the revolutionary government had already been too bold. It had clashed with the interests of the international electricity trust; it had clashed with the interests of the international telephone trust; it had clashed with the interests of the international mining trusts; it had clashed with the interests of the United Fruit Company; it had clashed, in effect, with the most powerful interests of the United States, which, as you know, are very closely linked with each other. This was more than the US government, that is, the representative of the US monopolies, could tolerate.
Then a new stage began in the harassment of our revolution. I pose the question to anyone who objectively analyzes the facts, who is ready to think for themselves and not parrot United Press International (UPI) and Associated Press (AP), who thinks with their own brain and draws their own conclusions, who sees the facts without prejudice, sincerely and honestly: Is what the revolutionary government has done enough to justify the destruction of the Cuban revolution? Surely not.
But the interests adversely affected by the Cuban revolution were not particularly concerned about Cuba; 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 same interests owned the natural wealth and resources of the majority of the peoples of the world. So the Cuban revolution had to be punished. Punitive actions of every type—including the destruction of those insolent Cubans—had to be carried out against the revolutionary government.
Honestly, to that moment, we had not had the opportunity to even exchange letters with the distinguished prime minister of the Soviet Union, Nikita Khrushchev. On our honor, we swear that is the truth. At a time when the US press and the international news agencies who supply information to the world described Cuba as a communist government, a “red menace” 90 miles from the United States, the revolutionary government had not yet had the opportunity of establishing diplomatic or commercial relations with the Soviet Union.
But hysteria knows no boundaries; hysteria can lead to the most unlikely and absurd claims. Yet no one should think for a moment that we are going to intone a mea culpa. There will be no mea culpa. We do not have to beg anyone’s pardon. We have acted with our eyes wide open and, above all, fully convinced of our right to do so.
Threats began against our sugar quota. The cheap philosophy of imperialism revealed its nobility, its egotistical and exploitative nobility. They began to show kindness to Cuba, declaring they were paying us a preferential price for sugar, amounting to a subsidy for Cuban sugar (sugar which was not so sweet for Cubans since we did not own the best sugar producing lands or the largest sugar mills). In their threats lay hidden the true history of Cuban sugar, the sacrifices made by my country, the periods when it had been economically harmed.
Previously, it had not been a question of quotas, but of customs tariffs. By virtue of one of those agreements made between “a shark and a sardine,” the United States, through a so-called reciprocity agreement, obtained a range of concessions for its products, enabling them to compete easily and displace from the Cuban market the products of its English and French friends. In exchange, certain tariff concessions were granted on our sugar which, on the other hand, could be altered unilaterally in accordance with the will of Congress or the US government. And that is what happened. When they deemed it to be in their interests, they raised the tariff, and our sugar was blocked. Or if it was allowed in, it faced a disadvantage in the US market.
As World War II approached, the tariffs were reduced, since Cuba was the source of sugar closest to home, and that source had to be assured. Thus, tariffs were lowered and production was encouraged. During the war years, when the price of sugar in the rest of the world was up in the stratosphere, we were selling our sugar to the United States at a low price, despite the fact that we were the only supplier. At the end of the war our economy collapsed.
We paid for these errors committed in the distribution of our raw material. At the end of World War I, for example, prices rose dramatically. There was tremendous encouragement to production. Then, a sudden reduction of prices ruined the Cuban sugar refineries, which fell conveniently into the hands of—I’ll give you one guess—US banks, because when the Cuban nationals went bankrupt, the US banks in Cuba became wealthy. This situation continued until the 1930s.
The US government, searching for a formula that would reconcile its need for supplies with the interests of its domestic producers, established a quota system. This was supposed to be based on the historical participation of the different sources of supply in the market. The historical participation of my country’s supply would have been almost 50 percent of the US market. When the quota was set up, however, our participation was reduced to 28 percent and the few advantages granted to us by those laws were gradually taken away in successive laws.
Naturally the colony depended on the colonial power. The economy of the colony had been organized by the colonial power. The colony was subordinated to the colonial power, and if the colony took measures to declare itself free, the colonial power would take measures to crush it. The US government was conscious of the importance of our economy to the US market, so it began to issue a series of warnings that our quota would be reduced further.
Meanwhile, other events were taking place in the United States: the activities of the counterrevolutionaries. One afternoon, an airplane coming from the north flew over one of the sugar refineries and dropped a bomb. This was an unprecedented event, but we knew full well where that plane came from. On another afternoon, another plane flew over some sugarcane fields and dropped a few incendiary bombs. These events, which began sporadically at first, continued systematically.
One afternoon, when a number of US tourist agencies were visiting Cuba as a result of the revolutionary government’s effort to promote tourism as one of the sources of national income—a US plane flew over Havana, dropping pamphlets and a few hand grenades. Naturally, antiaircraft guns went into action. There were more than 40 victims, between the grenades dropped by the plane and the antiaircraft fire, because as you know, some of the shells explode on contact. Among the victims were children with their entrails torn out, old men and old women.
This was not the first time, either. Young girls and boys, old men and women, had often been killed, murdered in the villages of Cuba by US bombs supplied to the Batista dictatorship. On one occasion, 80 workers were killed when a mysterious explosion—too mysterious—took place on a ship [La Coubre, in March 1960] carrying Belgian weapons to our country, after the US government made a great effort to prevent the Belgian government from selling weapons to us.
There have been dozens of victims in the war: 80 families were destroyed with that explosion; there were another 40 victims caused by an airplane “peacefully” flying over our territory. The US authorities denied that these planes came from US territory. Moreover, they said that the plane was safely in its hangar. But when one of our magazines published a photograph of this plane in Cuba, the US authorities seized the plane. As expected, an account of the affair was issued to the effect that this was not particularly significant and that these victims had not died because of the bombs but because of antiaircraft fire. Meanwhile, those who were to blame for this crime were wandering about peacefully in the United States, where they were not prevented from continuing these acts of aggression.
I would like to take this opportunity to tell His Excellency, the representative of the United States, that there are many mothers in Cuba who are still hoping to receive a telegram of condolence from the US government for their children murdered by US bombs.
The planes came and went. There was no proof, unless you define what you mean by proof. The plane was right there, photographed and seized. Yet we were told that this plane had not dropped any bombs. It is not known how the US authorities were so well informed. These pirate planes continued to fly over our territory dropping incendiary bombs. Millions upon millions of pesos were lost with the burning of sugarcane fields. Many working people, the humble people of Cuba, who saw this wealth in flames, a wealth that was now theirs, were themselves burned or wounded in the struggle against these persistent and tenacious bombings by pirate aircraft.
Then one day, while flying over one of the sugar refineries, a plane exploded and the revolutionary government had the opportunity of gathering the remains of the pilot. It was, in fact, a US pilot, whose papers were found, identifying the plane as from the United States, with proof about the airfield from which he had taken off. The plane had actually flown over two bases in the United States.
Now it could not be denied that this plane had come from the United States. In view of such irrefutable proof, the US government gave an explanation to the Cuban government. Its response in this case was not the same as it was later in the case of the U-2 [in the Soviet Union]. When it was proven that the planes were coming from the United States, the US government did not proclaim its right to burn our cane fields. Instead, they apologized. We were lucky, after all, considering that after the U-2 incident the US government never even apologized, but proclaimed its right to fly over Soviet territory. Too bad for the Soviets!
At any rate, we do not have many antiaircraft batteries and planes continued to come until the sugarcane was harvested. When there was no cane left in the fields, the bombings stopped. We thought we were the only country in the world where this had happened, although I do recall that at the time of his visit to Cuba, [Indonesian] President Sukarno told us that they, too, had suffered problems with certain US planes flying over their territory. I don’t know whether I have committed an indiscretion in mentioning this; I hope not.
The fact of the matter is that at least in this peaceful hemisphere, our country, while not being at war with anyone, had to withstand the constant attacks of pirate aircraft. Were those planes able to leave and enter US territory with impunity? We invite you to think about this for a moment and we also invite the people of the United States, if by chance the US people have the opportunity to hear about the matters we are discussing here, to meditate on this matter.
According to the statements of the US government itself, the territory of the United States is completely protected against any air incursion and the defense measures protecting US territory are infallible. It is stated that the defense of the “free” world—although, as far as we are concerned, we were not free, at least, not until January 1, 1959—is complete and impregnable. If that is so, how could these little propeller planes that can barely fly 150 miles an hour—I am not talking about supersonic jets—fly in and out of US national territory undetected? How could they pass over two bases, and back over these same two bases, without the US government ever being aware of the fact that these planes were flying in and out?
This means one of two things. Either the US government is lying to the US people and the United States is not impregnable against aerial incursions, or the US government was an accomplice in these aerial incursions.
The aerial incursions finally ceased, and then came economic aggression. What was the argument against our agrarian reform? The enemies of our agrarian reform said that it would cause chaos in agricultural production; that production would diminish considerably and that the US government was concerned because Cuba might not be able to fulfill its commitments to the US market.
That was the first argument, and I think that the new delegations here in the General Assembly should at least become familiar with some of these arguments, because at some time they may have to answer similar accusations, that agrarian reform might bring about the ruin of their countries.
In Cuba, that was not the case. Had agrarian reform brought about the ruin of our country, had agricultural production been reduced drastically, then the US government would not have had to carry out its economic aggression. Did they sincerely believe what they said when they asserted that the agrarian reform would bring about a decline in production? Perhaps. Everyone believes what they want to believe. It is possible they imagined that without the all-powerful monopolies, we Cubans would be incapable of producing sugar. It is possible they even believed that we would destroy our own country. It is clear that if the revolution was ruining the country, the United States would not have had to attack us. They would have left us alone, so that the US government would have appeared as a good and honorable government, while we revolutionaries proceeded to destroy our own country. This would demonstrate that revolutions should not be carried out because revolutions destroy countries.
Fortunately, that is not the case. There is living proof that revolutions do not destroy countries, and this proof has just been supplied by the US government. It has proved many things, in particular, that revolutions do not destroy countries, while imperialist governments do destroy countries.
Cuba was far from being ruined and, therefore, it had to be ruined. Cuba needed new markets for its products. We honestly and frankly ask any delegate present: Which country does not want to sell what it produces? Which country does not want its exports to increase? We wanted what every country wants: to increase our exports. This is a universal law; only selfish interests can oppose the universal interest in commercial exchange, which surely is one of the most ancient aspirations and needs of humankind.
We wanted to sell our products and we went to seek new markets. We signed a trade agreement with the Soviet Union, according to which we would sell one million tons of sugar and we would purchase a certain amount of Soviet products. Surely no one can say that this was wrong. We did not have to ask permission of the State Department in order to sign a trade agreement with the Soviet Union, because we considered ourselves, and we continue to consider ourselves, a truly independent and free country.
When more of our sugar began to be sold, we received a major blow. By request of the executive branch of the United States, Congress approved an act according to which the US president or the executive power could set the appropriate limits for the quota of sugar imports from Cuba. This economic weapon was wielded against our revolution. The justification for this measure had been prepared in advance in the media. A campaign had been conducted over a long period of time, because you know perfectly well that here in the United States, the monopolies and the mass media are completely intertwined.
The economic weapon was used and in one fell swoop our sugar quota was cut by about one million tons—sugar that had already been produced for the US market. The goal was to deprive our country of the resources it needed for development and to reduce our country to impotence in order to obtain a political objective.
Such a measure had been expressly prohibited by regional international law. As all representatives of Latin America here know, economic aggression is expressly condemned by regional international law. Nevertheless, the US government violated that law, wielded their economic weapon and cut our sugar quota by almost a million tons—and that was that. They could do it.
What could Cuba do when confronted by that reality? Turn to the United Nations. Go to the United Nations to denounce the political and economic aggression, to denounce the incursions by pirate aircraft, to denounce the constant interference of the US government in our country’s political affairs and the subversive campaigns against the revolutionary government of Cuba.
So we turn to the United Nations. The United Nations has the power to deal with these matters. The United Nations, in the hierarchy of international organizations, stands at the head. It has authority even above the Organization of American States (OAS). We wanted the problem aired in the United Nations, because we fully understand Latin America’s economic dependency on the United States.
The United Nations took up the question. It sought an investigation to be carried out by the OAS. The OAS met. What was to be expected? That the OAS would protect the attacked country? That the OAS would condemn the political aggression against Cuba, or that it would condemn, in particular, the economic aggression of which we were the victims? We expected this, and had a right to expect it. After all, we are a small nation, a member of the Latin American community. And besides, we were just one more victim—not the first and we will not be the last. Mexico has been attacked more than once militarily. A great part of Mexico’s territory was stolen in a war, during which the heroic sons of Mexico, draped in the Mexican flag, threw themselves from Chapultepec castle rather than surrender. Such were the heroic sons of Mexico!
And that was not the only aggression. That was not the only time that US infantry forces plowed their way into Mexican territory. Nicaragua was invaded, and for seven long years was heroically defended by César Augusto Sandino. Cuba was attacked more than once, as were Haiti and the Dominican Republic. Guatemala was attacked. Who here can honestly deny the role of the United Fruit Company and the US State Department in the overthrow of the legitimate government of [President Árbenz in] Guatemala? I understand there are some who consider it their official duty to be discreet about such matters, and who may even be willing to come here and deny this. But in their consciences they know I am speaking the truth.
Cuba was not the first victim of aggression. Cuba was not the first country threatened by aggression. In this hemisphere everyone knows that the US government has always imposed its own law, the law of the mightiest. In accordance with this law, it has destroyed Puerto Rican nationhood and maintained its control over that island. In accordance with this law, it seized and still holds the Panama Canal.
So this was nothing new. The OAS should have defended us, but it didn’t. Why not? Let us now go to the heart of this matter and not merely consider the surface. If we stick to the letter of the law, then we have guarantees. If we stick to reality, however, there are no guarantees whatsoever because reality imposes itself over and above the law outlined in international codes. And this reality is that a small country attacked by a powerful country was not defended and could not be defended.
What happened [at the OAS meeting] in Costa Rica? Lo and behold, by an ingenious miracle there was no condemnation of the United States or the US government in Costa Rica! (I wish to avoid any misunderstanding here that we are confusing the government of the United States with the US people. We regard them as two completely different entities.) The US government was not condemned in Costa Rica for the 60 incursions by pirate aircraft. The US government was not condemned for the economic and other aggressions of which we have been victim. No! The Soviet Union was condemned! It was really quite bizarre. We had not been attacked by the Soviet Union. We had not been the victims of aggression by the Soviet Union. No Soviet aircraft had flown over our territory. Yet in Costa Rica it was the Soviet Union that was condemned for interference.
The Soviet Union had only said, theoretically speaking, that if there was a military aggression against our country, they could, figuratively speaking, support us with rockets. Since when is support for a weak country under attack from a powerful country regarded as interference? In legal terms, there is something called an impossible condition. If a country considers that it is incapable of committing a certain crime, it can simply say: “Because there is no possibility that we [ie. the United States] will attack Cuba, there is no possibility that the Soviet Union will support Cuba.” But that principle was not followed. Instead, it was established by the OAS that the intervention of the Soviet Union had to be condemned.
And what about the bombing of Cuba? Not a word. And what about the aggressions against Cuba? Not a word.
Of course, there is something that we should remember, which should concern us all to some extent. We are all, without exception, actors and participants in a crucial moment in the history of humanity. At times, criticism apparently does not reach us; we may not be aware of the condemnation and censure of our deeds. This is especially the case when we forget that just as we have the privilege of playing a part in this all-important historic moment, some day history itself will judge us for our acts.
In the face of the refusal of the Costa Rica meeting to defend our country, we can only smile, because history will judge that episode. I say this without bitterness. It is difficult to condemn individuals, who are often just the playthings of circumstance. And we, who know the history of our country and who are also exceptional witnesses to what our country is experiencing today, understand how terrible it is for a nation’s economy and its very life to be subjected to the economic might of a foreign country.
I need only note that my country was not defended at the OAS in Costa Rica. Furthermore, there was a desire to avoid bringing this matter to the United Nations, perhaps because it was felt it would be easier to obtain a mechanical majority in the OAS. That fear is not easy to explain, since we have seen that mechanical majorities also often operate in the United Nations.
With all due respect to this organization, we must say that our people have learned so much in the school of these recent international events, a people equal to the role they are now playing and to their heroic struggle. They know that in the end, when their rights have been denied or are not safeguarded by either the OAS or the United Nations, and when aggressive forces fall upon them, they have the supreme and heroic right to resist.
That is why we, the small countries, still do not feel confident that our rights will be protected. That is why, when we small countries want to be free, we know that we are doing so on our own account and at our own risk. Because, in truth, when the peoples are united, defending a just cause, they can rely only on their own energies. It is not a matter of a few individuals ruling a country, as they have tried to make us appear. It is a matter of a whole people ruling a country, firmly united and with a great revolutionary consciousness, defending their rights. The enemies of the Cuban revolution should know this; and if they don’t know it they are making a big mistake.
These are the circumstances in which the revolutionary process in Cuba has taken place. This is how we found the country and this is why difficulties have arisen. Nevertheless, the Cuban revolution is changing things. What was yesterday a land without hope, a land of misery, a land of illiteracy, is gradually becoming one of the most enlightened, advanced and developed nations of this continent.
The revolutionary government, in just 20 months, has created 10,000 new schools. In this brief period of time, we have doubled the number of rural schools that had been established in 50 years, and Cuba today is the first country of the Americas that has met all its educational needs, having teachers in even the most remote corners of the mountains.
In this brief period of time, the revolutionary government has built 25,000 houses in the countryside and the urban areas. Fifty new townships are at this moment being built in our country. What were previously the most important military fortresses, today house tens of thousands of students.
In the coming year, our country plans to commence its great battle against illiteracy, with the ambitious goal of teaching every single illiterate person in our country to read and write. To that end, organizations of teachers, students, workers—that is, the entire people—are preparing themselves for an intensive campaign to wipe out illiteracy. Cuba will be the first country in the Americas that, after a few months, will be able to say it does not have a single illiterate person in the country.
Today our people are receiving the assistance of hundreds of doctors who have been sent out into the rural areas to fight against the endemic sicknesses, the parasitic diseases, and to improve the sanitary conditions of the nation.
With regard to the preservation of our natural resources, we point with pride to the fact that in one year, in the most ambitious conservation plan for natural resources being carried out in this hemisphere—including the United States and Canada—we have planted close to 50 million timber-yielding trees.
Young people who were unemployed, or who had no schools, have been organized by the revolutionary government and today are gainfully and usefully employed. Agricultural production in our country has registered something almost unique: an increase in production from the very start. Why did this happen? First of all, the revolutionary government transformed more than 100,000 agricultural workers into landowners. At the same time, large-scale production was maintained through agricultural cooperatives, thanks to which we have been able to apply the most modern techniques and processes to our agricultural production. Since the very beginning we have seen an increase in production.
All of these social programs—teachers, houses, hospitals—have been carried out without sacrificing the resources needed for development. At this moment, the revolutionary government is carrying out a program of industrialization, and the first factories are already being built in Cuba.
We have utilized the resources of our country rationally. Previously, for example, cars were imported into Cuba to the value of $35 million and just $5 million was spent on tractors. A primarily agricultural country imported seven times more automobiles than tractors. We have reversed this figure, and we are now importing seven times more tractors than automobiles.
Close to $500 million was recovered in cash and assets from the corrupt politicians who had enriched themselves during the dictatorship. The proper investment of this wealth and these resources is allowing the revolutionary government to carry out its plans of industrialization and increasing agricultural production, to build houses and schools, to send teachers to the farthest corners of the country, and to provide everyone with medical attention. In other words, it is carrying out a real program of social development.
At the recent Bogotá meeting, the US government proposed another plan. Was it a plan for economic development? No, it was a plan for “social development.” What did this mean? Well, it was a plan for building houses, schools and roads. Does this solve the problem? How can there be a solution for social problems without a plan for economic development? Is this how they try to deceive the peoples of Latin America? What will the families live on when they occupy those houses, if those houses are actually built? What shoes or clothes are they going to wear, and what food are they going to eat, when they go to those schools, if those schools are actually built? Perhaps they do not understand that when a family doesn’t have clothes or shoes for the children, the children are not sent to school. With what resources are they going to pay the teachers? With what resources are they going to pay the doctors, or pay for the medicines? If they want a good way of saving on medicines, they should increase the people’s nutritional level so that what is spent in feeding the people will not have to be spent on hospitals.
In view of the tremendous reality of underdevelopment, the US government now comes out with a plan for social development. Naturally it is significant that the US government is now concerned about the problems of Latin America, as up to now, it has not cared at all. Isn’t it a coincidence that they are now concerned with these problems? And the fact that this concern has arisen after the Cuban revolution—they might say this is purely coincidental.
Until now the monopolies have only been concerned with exploiting the underdeveloped countries. But as soon as the Cuban revolution rears its head, the monopolies start concerning themselves with the underdeveloped countries. While they attack our economy and try to crush us, at the same time the US government offers charity to the peoples of Latin America. Not the resources for economic development, of course, which is what Latin America wants, but resources for social development. They offer resources for houses for people without work, for schools that children cannot attend, and for hospitals that would not be necessary if there were adequate levels of nutrition in Latin America.
Although some of my Latin American colleagues may feel it is their duty to be discreet here, they should welcome a revolution like the Cuban revolution, which has forced the monopolies to return at least a small part of their profits from the natural resources and the sweat of the peoples of Latin America.
As you know, we are not included in any of that assistance, and this does not bother us. We do not get angry about such things. We have been solving our own problems for a long time—problems of schools and housing and so on. Some people may feel, however, that we are using this forum for propaganda purposes—the US president said that some people might use this rostrum to make propaganda.
Well, all of my colleagues in the United Nations have a standing invitation to visit Cuba. We do not close our doors to anyone, and we do not restrict anyone’s movements. All of my colleagues in this assembly are welcome to visit Cuba whenever they wish and see with their own eyes what is going on. There is that chapter of the Bible that speaks of St. Thomas—who had to see before he would believe. Well, we invite any newspaper correspondent, any member of any delegation, to visit Cuba and see what a people can do with its own resources when it invests those resources honestly and rationally.
We are not only solving our problems of houses and schools. We are solving our problems of development, because without solving the problems of development there can be no solution to social problems. So what is happening? Why does the US government not wish to speak of economic development? The answer is obvious: Because the US government does not want to quarrel with the monopolies, and the monopolies need natural resources and investment markets for their capital. That is the paradox, that is where the contradiction lies. That is why a real solution for this problem is avoided. That is why there is no development plan for the underdeveloped countries using public monies.
This should be stated frankly, because when all is said and done, we, the underdeveloped countries, are a majority here—just in case anyone was unaware of this fact. And we are witnesses to what is going on in the underdeveloped world. There is so much talk about the contribution of private capital, yet the true solution is not sought. Naturally, this means markets for the investment of surplus capital, such as investments that amortize in five years.
The US government cannot propose a plan for public investment, because this would go against its very reason for existence, which is the US monopolies. There is no need to beat about the bush—that is why no real program of economic development is planned. The goal is to preserve the lands of Latin America, Africa and Asia for the investment of surplus capital.
So far, we have referred to the problems of our own country. Why haven’t those problems been solved? Is it because we don’t want them solved? No, the government of Cuba has always been ready to discuss its problems with the US government, but the US government has not been ready to discuss its problems with Cuba. It must have its reasons for not wanting to discuss these problems with Cuba.
I have here the note sent by the revolutionary government of Cuba to the US government on January 27, 1960. It says:
The differences of opinion between our two governments that are subject to diplomatic negotiation can be settled by such negotiation. The government of Cuba is ready and willing to discuss these problems without reservation and in depth, and declares itself as being unaware of any obstacles in the path of such negotiations through any of the traditional channels, on the basis of mutual respect and reciprocal benefit. The government of Cuba wishes to maintain and increase diplomatic relations as well as economic relations between our two countries, and understands that on this basis the traditional friendship between the peoples of Cuba and the United States is indestructible.
On February 22 of this year the revolutionary government of Cuba wrote:
In accordance with its desire to renew through diplomatic channels the negotiations already begun on issues outstanding between the United States and Cuba, the revolutionary government has decided to set up a commission with the necessary powers to carry out negotiations and discussions in Washington on a mutually agreed date.
The revolutionary government of Cuba wishes to clarify, however, that the renewal and continuance of such negotiations must obviously be subject to the proviso that the government or Congress of your country take no unilateral measures prejudging the results of the above-mentioned negotiations or prejudicial to the economy or the people of Cuba.
It seems obvious that the adherence of your government to this point of view would not only contribute to the improvement of relations between our respective countries but would also reaffirm the spirit of close friendship that has traditionally linked and still links our peoples.
It would also allow both governments, in an atmosphere of calm and with the widest scope possible, to examine the questions that have affected the traditional relations between Cuba and the United States of America.
What was the reply of the US government?
The government of the United States cannot accept the conditions for negotiations expressed in Your Excellency’s note, to the effect that measures not be taken of a unilateral nature on the part of the government of the United States that might affect the Cuban economy or the people of Cuba, be it through the legislative or the executive branches. As President Eisenhower stated on January 26, the government of the United States, in the exercise of its own sovereignty, must remain free to take whatever measures it deems necessary, conscious of its international commitments and obligations to defend the legitimate rights and interests of its people.
In other words, the US government does not deign to discuss matters with the small country of Cuba.
What hope can the people of Cuba have for the solution of these problems? All the facts that we ourselves have noted here conspire against the resolution of these problems. Surely the United Nations should take this very much into account, because the government of Cuba, and the people of Cuba, too, are justifiably concerned at the aggressive turn in US policy regarding Cuba. It is important that the United Nations should be up-to-date and well informed.
First of all, the US government considers it has the right to promote and encourage subversion in our country. The US government is promoting the organization of subversive movements against the revolutionary government of Cuba, and we denounce this here in the General Assembly. Concretely, we wish to denounce that Caribbean islands belonging to Honduras, known as the Swan Islands, have been taken over militarily by the US government. The US marines are there, despite the fact that this is Honduran territory; and in violation of international law, in violation of the international conventions that govern radio broadcasting, it has set up a powerful transmitter, which it has put at the disposal of the war criminals and subversive groups that are sheltered in this country. Furthermore, military training is taking place there to promote subversion and the landing of armed forces on our island.
It would be good for the representative of Honduras here to assert Honduras’s right to that piece of its territory, but that is incumbent on the representative of Honduras. What does concern us is that a piece of territory belonging to a sister country, seized in a pirate-like fashion by the US government, should be used as a base for subversion and attacks against our territory.
I want careful note taken of this denunciation that we make on behalf of the people of Cuba.
Does the US government feel that it has the right to promote subversion in our country, violating all international agreements, invading our airwaves to the detriment of our own radio stations? Does this mean that the Cuban government has a similar right to promote subversion in the United States; that we have the right to violate the airwaves of the United States?
What right does the US government have over us or over our island that it denies to others? Let the United States return the Swan Islands to Honduras; it has never had jurisdiction over these islands.
There are even more alarming circumstances for our people. We know that through the Platt Amendment, the US government took upon itself the right to establish naval bases in our territory, a right imposed on us by force and which has been maintained by force.
A naval base in the territory of any country is surely a just cause for concern. In our case, first of all, because a country that has followed an aggressive and warlike policy possesses a base [Guantánamo] in the very heart of our island. It leaves our island vulnerable in any international conflict or even a nuclear conflict, despite us having no involvement whatsoever. We have nothing to do with the problems of the US government, or the crises that the US government provokes. And yet there is a base in the heart of our island that poses a great danger for us in the event of an armed conflict.
But is that the only danger? By no means! There is an even greater danger closer to home. The revolutionary government of Cuba has repeatedly expressed its concern at the fact that the imperialist US government may use that base in the heart of our national territory to stage an attack against its own forces as a pretext for an attack on our country.
Our concern about this is increasing, because the aggressiveness and the attacks are increasing and the signs are becoming more alarming. For instance, I have here an AP cable, which reads as follows:
Admiral Arleigh Burke, US chief of naval operations, says that if Cuba should attempt to take the Guantánamo Naval Base by force, “we would fight back.”
In a copyrighted interview published today in the magazine US News & World Report Admiral Burke was asked if the navy is concerned about the situation in Cuba under Premier Fidel Castro.
“Yes, our navy is concerned—not just about our base at Guantánamo, but about the whole Cuban situation,” Admiral Burke said. He added that all the military services were concerned. “Is that because of Cuba’s strategic position in the Caribbean?” he was asked.
“Not necessarily,” Admiral Burke said. “Here is a country with a people normally very friendly to the United States, people who have liked the people of this country, and we have liked them. Yet, here comes a man with a small, hard core of communists determined to change all of that. Castro has taught hatred of the United States and he has gone a long way toward wrecking his country.”
Admiral Burke said, “we would react very fast” if Castro moved against the Guantánamo base.
“If they would try to take the place by force, we would fight back,” he added.
To a question whether Soviet Premier Khrushchev’s threat about retaliatory rockets gives Admiral Burke “second thoughts about fighting in Cuba,” the admiral said, “No. Because he’s not going to launch his rockets. [Khrushchev] knows he will be destroyed if he does—I mean Russia will be destroyed.”
First of all, I must emphasize that for this gentleman, the fact that industrial production in my country has increased by 35 percent, the fact that we have given jobs to more than 200,000 Cubans, the fact that we have solved many of the social problems of our country, constitutes the wrecking of our country. Therefore, they take upon themselves the right to set the stage for aggression.
See how they make their calculations. And their calculations are very dangerous, since this gentleman intimates that if there was an attack against us we would be alone. Maybe Admiral Burke thought this up for himself.
But let’s imagine that Mr. Burke is mistaken. Let’s suppose for a moment that Mr. Burke, even though he is an admiral, is mistaken. Then in that event, Admiral Burke is playing irresponsibly with the fate of the world. Admiral Burke and that whole group of aggressive militarists are playing with the fate of the world.
The fate of each of us as individuals is really of no concern. Yet we, who represent the peoples of the world, are duty bound to concern ourselves with the fate of the world, and it is our duty to condemn all those who play irresponsibly with it. They are not only playing with the fate of the people in my country; they are also playing with the fate of their own people, and that of all of the peoples on the entire planet.
Or does this Admiral Burke think that we are still living in the time of the blunderbuss? Does he not realize that we are living in the nuclear age, with disastrous and cataclysmic destructive forces beyond what even Dante or Leonardo da Vinci could have imagined, because they surpass what humankind has been able to imagine in our worst nightmares. And yet, he makes this calculation, which AP then spreads around the world. The magazine has just come out and already the campaign has begun, fanning the hysteria about the imaginary danger of a Cuban attack against the Guantánamo base.
But that is not all. Yesterday, a UPI dispatch was released with a declaration by US Senator Styles Bridges, who, I understand, is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. He said, “the United States must defend at all costs its naval base at Guantánamo in Cuba.” He explained:
We must go as far as necessary to preserve that base and to defend that gigantic installation of the United States. We have naval forces there, we have military forces and we have the marines, and if we were attacked we should defend it, for I consider it to be the most important base in the Caribbean area.
This member of the Senate Armed Services Committee did not entirely discount the use of nuclear weapons in the case of an attack against the Guantánamo base. What does this mean? This means it is not only a matter of whipping up hysteria and the systematic preparation of the right climate, but even of threatening the actual use of nuclear weapons. Among the many questions we should ask this Mr. Bridges is whether he is ashamed of himself to threaten a small country like Cuba with nuclear weapons.
As far as we are concerned, and with all due respect, I must say that the world’s problems are never settled by threats or by sowing fear. And what about our small and humble nation? We exist, whether they like it or not. And the revolution will go forward, whether they like it or not. Our people are not afraid. Our small and humble country must resign itself to its fate. It will not be shaken by this threat to use nuclear weapons.
What does this mean? Many countries have US military bases, but those bases, naturally, are not directed against the governments that granted the concessions—at least, not as far as we know. In our case, we are in the tragic position of having a base within our own territory, directed at the heart of Cuba and the heart of the revolutionary government of Cuba, in the hands of the declared enemies of our country, our revolution and our people.
In the entire history of bases set up around the world, the most tragic case is that of Cuba. This base was thrust upon us by force, in a territory that is unquestionably ours, that is a good many miles from the coast of the United States. It is a base that was imposed by force, that is directed against Cuba and its people, that is a constant threat and a constant cause for concern for our people.
For these reasons, we must state here that all this talk of attacks is intended primarily to create a climate of hysteria and to set the stage for attacks against our country. We have never spoken a single word that could imply any type of attack on the Guantánamo base, because it is clearly in our interest not to give imperialism the slightest pretext to attack us.
We state this here categorically. We have always stated this since the base became a threat to the peace and security of our country and our people. The revolutionary government of Cuba is seriously considering requesting, within the framework of international law, that the naval and military forces of the United States be withdrawn from the Guantánamo base, from that part of our national territory. There will be no option for the imperialist US government but to withdraw its forces. How will it be able to justify before the world its right to install in our national territory a nuclear base or a base that threatens our people?
How can they justify to the world any right to retain a hold over a part of our territory? How can they stand before the world and justify something so arbitrary? And since they will be unable to justify this to the world when our government requests it, then within the framework of international law, the US government will have no option but to abide by the canons of international law.
This assembly has to be kept informed regarding the problems of Cuba and must be alert to attempts to confuse or deceive. We have to explain these problems very clearly because with them lies the security and the fate of our country. That is why we want these matters clearly understood—especially since there seems to be little chance of correcting the opinion, or the erroneous impression, the politicians of this country have regarding Cuba.
Here, for example, I have Mr. Kennedy’s declarations that are enough to astound anyone. On Cuba he says: “We must use all the power of the OAS to avoid Castro interfering in other Latin American countries and force him to return freedom to Cuba.” They are going to return freedom to Cuba!
“We must state our intention,” he says, “of not allowing the Soviet Union to turn Cuba into its Caribbean base, and to apply the Monroe Doctrine.” More than halfway through the 20th century, and this [presidential] candidate speaks of the Monroe Doctrine! “We must force Prime Minister Castro to understand that we intend to defend our right to the naval base of Guantánamo.” He is the third person to speak of this problem. “And we must show the Cuban people that we sympathize with their legitimate economic aspirations…” So why did they not sympathize before? “We recognize their love of freedom, and we will never be satisfied until democracy returns to Cuba.” What democracy is he speaking about? The democracy made by the monopolies of the United States?
To explain why planes from US territory fly over Cuba, pay attention to what this gentleman says:
The forces that are struggling for freedom in exile and in the mountains of Cuba must be supplied and assisted, and in other countries of Latin America, communism must be confined and not allowed to expand or spread.
If Kennedy were not an illiterate, ignorant millionaire, he would understand that it is not possible to carry out a revolution against the wishes of the peasants in the mountains and with the support of the landowners. Every time imperialism has tried to stir up counterrevolutionary groups, the peasant militia has put them out of action within a few days. But it seems he has been reading too much fiction or watching too many Hollywood films—stories about guerrilla warfare—and believes that the social forces exist in Cuba today to conduct [counterrevolutionary] guerrilla warfare.
In any case, this is not encouraging. Nevertheless, no one should think that our comments on Kennedy indicate that we feel any sympathy for the other candidate, Mr. Nixon, who has, in actual fact, made similar statements. As far as we are concerned, both of them lack political brains.
General Assembly President Boland: I am sorry to have to interrupt the prime minister of Cuba, but I am sure that I am faithfully reflecting the feelings of the assembly as a whole when I ask him to consider whether it is right and proper that the candidates in the current election in this country be discussed at the rostrum of the assembly of the United Nations.
I am sure that in this matter the distinguished prime minister of Cuba will, on reflection, see my point of view, and I feel that I can rely with confidence on his goodwill and cooperation. On that basis I would ask him kindly to continue with his remarks.
Fidel Castro: It is not our intention in the least to infringe upon the rules that determine behavior in the United Nations, and the president can depend fully on my cooperation to avoid having my words misunderstood. I have no intention of offending anyone. It is somewhat a question of style and, above all, a question of confidence in the assembly. In any case, I will try to avoid giving the wrong impression.
Up to this point we have been dealing with the problems of our country, the fundamental reason for us attending this session of the United Nations. We understand perfectly that we would be somewhat selfish if we limited our concerns to our specific case alone. It is also true that we have used the greater part of our time informing the assembly about the case of Cuba, and in the little time left, we would like to deal with the remaining questions, to which we will briefly refer.
The case of Cuba is not an isolated one. It would be an error to think of it only as the case of Cuba. The case of Cuba is that of all underdeveloped nations. It is the case of the Congo, it is the case of Egypt, it is the case of Algeria, it is the case of Iran, and finally, it is the case of Panama, which wants its canal back. It is the case of Puerto Rico, whose national spirit they are destroying. It is the case of Honduras, a portion of whose territory has been seized. In short, without specifically referring to other countries, the case of Cuba is the case of all the underdeveloped and colonized countries.
The problems we have outlined in relation to Cuba apply to all of Latin America. The control of Latin America’s economic resources is exercised by the monopolies which, when they do not directly own the mines, control them in other ways, as is the case with copper in Chile, Peru and Mexico; with zinc in Peru and Mexico; and with oil in Venezuela. They are the owners of the public utility companies, such as is the case with the electricity services in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Peru, Ecuador and Colombia, or with the telephone services in Chile, Brazil, Peru, Venezuela, Paraguay and Bolivia. Or, they commercially exploit our products, as is the case with coffee in Brazil, Colombia, El Salvador, Costa Rica and Guatemala; with cotton in Mexico and Brazil; or with the exploitation, marketing and transportation of bananas by the United Fruit Company in Guatemala, Costa Rica and Honduras. Economic control of the most important industries of our countries is exercised by US monopolies. These countries are completely dependent on those monopolies.
Woe to any countries in Latin America, if they too wish to carry out agrarian reform! They will be asked for “speedy, efficient and just payment.” And if, in spite of everything, a sister nation carries out agrarian reform, any representatives coming here to the United Nations will be confined to Manhattan; they will have hotel rooms denied to them; they will have insults poured on them and they may, possibly, be mistreated by the police themselves.
The problem of Cuba is only an example of the problem of Latin America. How long must Latin America wait for its development? As far as the monopolies are concerned, it will have to wait ad calendas Graecas [forever]. Who will industrialize Latin America? It will certainly not be the monopolies. No way!
There is a UN Economic Commission report that explains how even private capital, instead of going to the countries that need it most for the establishment of basic industries, is being channeled to the more industrialized countries, where private capital finds greater security. Naturally, even the UN Economic Commission has had to recognize the fact that there is no possibility of development through the investment of private capital—in other words, through the monopolies.
The development of Latin America will have to be achieved through public investment planned and granted unconditionally with no political strings attached. Obviously, we all want to be representatives of free countries. No one wants to represent a country that does not feel itself to be completely free. No one wants the independence of one’s country to be subject to any interests other than its own. Any assistance must therefore have no political strings attached.
The fact that Cuba has been denied assistance does not matter. We never asked for it. However, in the interests of and for the benefit of the peoples of Latin America we feel bound, out of solidarity, to stress that assistance must be given without any political conditions whatsoever. Public investment must be for economic development, not for “social development,” which is the latest invention to hide the genuine need for economic development.
The problems of Latin America are like the problems of the rest of the underdeveloped world, in Africa and Asia. The world is divided up among the monopolies, and those same monopolies that we find in Latin America are also found in the Middle East. Oil in Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and in every corner of the earth is in the hands of monopolistic companies that are controlled by the financial interests of the United States, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and France. The same situation exists in the Philippines. The same situation exists in Africa.
The world has been divided among the monopolistic interests. Who would dare deny this historical truth? The monopolistic interests are not concerned with the development of the peoples. What they want is to exploit the natural resources of our countries and to exploit the peoples. And they want to amortize their investments or get them back as quickly as possible.
The problems experienced by the Cuban people with the imperialist US government are the same problems that Saudi Arabia, Iran or Iraq would face if they decided to nationalize their oil fields; the same problems that Egypt had when it justifiably and correctly nationalized the Suez Canal; the very same problems Indonesia had when it wanted to become independent. They would face the same surprise attacks that were made against Egypt and the Congo.
Have the colonialists or the imperialists ever lacked a pretext when they wanted to invade a country? Never! Somehow they always manage to find the necessary pretext. Which are the colonialist countries? Which are the imperialist countries? There are not four or five countries but four or five groups of monopolies that possess the world’s wealth.
Let us imagine someone from outer space were to come to this assembly, someone who had read neither Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto nor the UPI and AP cables, nor any other publication controlled by the monopolies. That person might ask how the world was divided, and would see on a map how wealth was divided among the monopolies of four or five countries. They would say: “The world has been divided up badly, the world has been exploited.” Here in this assembly, where there is a majority of underdeveloped countries, they might comment: “The great majority of the peoples, who are represented here, have been exploited for a long time. The forms of that exploitation may have varied, but the peoples are still being exploited.” That would be the verdict.
In the statement made by Premier Khrushchev, a particular remark attracted our attention because of the value that it holds. He said that the Soviet Union has neither colonies nor investments in any country. How great would it be for our world, a world threatened with catastrophe, if all the representatives of all countries could make the same statement: Our country has neither colonies nor investments in any foreign country!
Why labor the matter further? Because this is the crux of the matter. This is the crux of the question of peace and war. This is the crux of the arms race and disarmament. Since the beginning of humankind, wars have emerged for one reason, and one reason alone: the desire of some to plunder the wealth of others.
End the philosophy of plunder and the philosophy of war will end. End the existence of colonies and the exploitation of countries by monopolies, and humankind will achieve a true era of progress.
Until that step is taken, until that stage is reached, the world will live in constant terror of being dragged into crisis and wiped out by a nuclear conflagration. Why? There are those who wish to perpetuate this plunder and there are those who wish to maintain this exploitation.
We have spoken here about Cuba. Because of the problems we have had to confront with imperialism, we have learned that imperialism is always the same, and that all imperialisms are allied. A country exploiting the peoples of Latin America or elsewhere is the ally of others who are doing the same in other parts of the world.
One thing alarmed us considerably in the statement made by the US president:
In the developing areas, we must seek to promote peaceful change, as well as to assist economic and social progress. To do this—to assist peaceful change—the international community must be able to manifest its presence in emergencies through United Nations observers or forces.
I would like to see member countries take positive action on the suggestion in the secretary general’s report looking to create a qualified staff within the secretariat to assist him in meeting future needs for UN forces.
In other words, after considering Latin America, Africa, Asia and the Pacific as “developing areas,” he recommends “peaceful change,” and proposes that in order to bring this about, UN “observers” or “forces” should be used.
The United States itself came into being as the result of a revolution against colonial rule. The right of a people to self-determination, by means of revolution if necessary, to throw off colonialism or any type of oppression, was recognized in Philadelphia with the declaration of July 4, 1776. And yet today the United States proposes to use UN forces to block revolutionary change. President Eisenhower continued:
The secretary general has now suggested that members should maintain a readiness to meet possible future requests from the United Nations for contributions to such forces. All countries represented here should respond to this need by earmarking national contingents that could take part in UN forces in case of need. The time to do it is now—at this assembly.
I assure countries that now receive assistance from the United States that we favor use of that assistance to help them maintain such contingents in a state of readiness suggested by the secretary general.
In other words, he proposes to the countries that have bases and that are receiving assistance that he is ready to give them more assistance for the formation of this UN emergency force. He continued:
To assist the secretary general’s efforts, the United States is prepared to earmark substantial air and sea transport facilities on a standby basis to help move contingents requested by the United Nations in any future emergency.”
In other words, the United States also offers its planes and ships for the use of such emergency forces. We wish to state here that the Cuban delegation does not agree with this emergency force until all the peoples of the world can feel sure that these forces will not be at the disposal of colonialism and imperialism. This is especially the case as any of our countries might, at any moment, become the victim of the use of such forces against our people.
There are a number of inherent problems here, and much has been said on this by various delegations. For reasons of time, we would merely like to express our views on the problem of the Congo.
Naturally, since we oppose colonialism and the exploitation of the underdeveloped world, we condemn the way in which the intervention by UN forces was carried out in the Congo. First of all, these forces did not go there to counter the invading forces, the original reason why they were to be sent. All the time necessary was given to bring about the first dissension, and when this did not suffice, further time was allowed to enable the second division to occur in the Congo.
And finally, while the radio stations and the airfields were occupied, further time was given for the emergence of the “third man,” as they call those saviors who emerge in such circumstances. We know them only too well. In 1934, one of these saviors appeared in our country; his name was Fulgencio Batista. In the Congo his name is Mobutu. In Cuba this savior paid a daily visit to the US embassy, and it seems the same thing happens in the Congo. Don’t just take my word on this. This was published in none other than Time magazine, a major defender of the monopolies, which therefore cannot be considered biased against them. In no way can they be considered to be in favor of [Patrice] Lumumba; they are against him and in favor of Mobutu. Time magazine explains who Mobutu is, how devoted he is to his work, and concludes:
Mobutu became a frequent visitor to the US embassy and held long talks with officials there… One afternoon last week, Mobutu conferred with officers at Camp Leopold, and got their enthusiastic support. That night he went to Radio Congo—
the same radio 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 US embassy. This is what Time magazine says, as the champion of the monopolies.
The hand of the colonialists has been clearly visible in the Congo and therefore, in our view, bad faith has been evident in the Congo and favoritism shown to the colonial interests. The people of the Congo (and this is the reason for the problems in the Congo) support the only leader who remained there defending the interests of his country, and that leader is Lumumba.
This mysterious third man in the Congo was called upon to overthrow the legitimate government and trample the legitimate interests of the Congolese people. In spite of this, if the Afro-Asian countries manage to reconcile all these interests to the benefit of the Congo, so much the better. But if this conciliation fails, then justice and the law will be on the side of the person who not only has the support of the people and the parliament but who stood firm against the interests of the monopolies and shoulder to shoulder with his people.
Regarding the problem of Algeria, I hardly need to say that we support 100 percent the right of the Algerian people to independence. It is ridiculous to pretend—as many vested interests do—that Algeria is part of the French nation. At other times, other countries have made similar efforts to keep hold of their colonies. Such a stance, known as integralism, has been a historic failure. Let’s look at the question in reverse: Suppose Algeria was the metropolis and declared that part of Europe formed an integral part of its territory. This is obviously a ludicrous idea that makes no sense whatsoever. Algeria belongs to Africa, gentlemen, just as France belongs to Europe.
For a number of years this African people has been struggling heroically against the metropolis. While we are calmly discussing matters here, French army bombs and shells are falling over the villages and hamlets of Algeria. And people are dying in this struggle where there can be no possible doubt which side is right. This fight could be settled, even taking into account the interests of the minority living there, which has been used as a pretext to deny the right of independence to nine-tenths of the population of Algeria. Yet we do nothing. We were so quick to go to the Congo, but so half-hearted about Algeria. If the Algerian government—which is a government because it represents millions of Algerians who are fighting and struggling—asks for UN forces, would we go there? And with the same enthusiasm? I wish this were the case, but we would go with a very different purpose: to defend the interests of the Algerians, and not the interests of the colonizers.
We are on the side of the Algerian people, just as we are on the side of the other countries of Africa that are still colonies. We are on the side of the blacks who are discriminated against in the Union of South Africa. We are on the side of the peoples who wish not only to be politically free—because it is very easy to raise a flag, choose a coat of arms, sing an anthem and put another color on the map—but also to be economically free. There is a truth we should bear in mind above all others: There can be no political independence unless there is economic independence. Political independence is a fiction unless there is economic independence, and therefore we defend the aspiration to be economically and politically free, not just the right to have a flag, a coat of arms and representation in the United Nations.
Here, we want to mention another right, a right that was proclaimed by our people at a gigantic public meeting a few days ago. I refer to the right of the underdeveloped countries to nationalize, without compensation, their natural resources and the monopoly investments in their countries. In other words, we support the right to nationalize the natural resources of any foreign investments in the underdeveloped countries. If the highly industrialized countries wish to do likewise, we will not oppose them.
For countries to be truly free politically, they must be truly free economically. And they must be assisted in this aim. We may be asked: What about the value of the investments? We would ask in return: What about the value of the profits that have been extracted from the colonies and the underdeveloped countries for decades, if not centuries?
We would like to support a proposal made by the head of the delegation from Ghana to rid African territory of military bases, and therefore of nuclear weapons bases. The proposal aims to keep Africa free from the dangers of nuclear war. This has already been done in relation to Antarctica. Why, as we advance on the road to disarmament, do we not also advance on the road to freeing certain regions of the earth from the danger of nuclear war? If Africa is to be reborn, it will be the Africa we are learning about today, not the Africa we are shown on the maps, in Hollywood films and about which we read in novels; not the Africa of semi-naked tribes carrying spears, ready to run away at their first encounter with the white hero (whose heroism increases in proportion to the number of Africans he kills); not that Africa, but the Africa which stands here today represented by such leaders as Sékou Touré and Kwame Nkrumah; the Africa of the Arab world, of Nasser. That is the true Africa, the oppressed continent, the exploited continent, the continent from which millions of slaves came, the Africa that has suffered so greatly throughout its history. Toward that Africa we have a duty: to preserve it from the danger of destruction.
Let other nations of the world compensate Africa! Let the West somehow compensate it for everything Africa has suffered, by preserving it from the danger of nuclear war, by declaring it a zone free from that danger. Let no nuclear bases be established there. If we can do nothing else, let that continent become a sanctuary where human life is preserved.
So we warmly support Ghana’s proposal.
On the question of disarmament, we entirely support the Soviet proposal. We do not blush when we say we openly and warmly support the Soviet proposal. We believe it is a correct proposal, with clear and precise terms.
We have very carefully read the speech delivered here by President Eisenhower. He did not speak of disarmament; neither did he speak of the development of the underdeveloped countries; he did not speak of the problem of colonies. It would be worthwhile for US citizens, who are so influenced by false propaganda, to carefully and objectively read the US president’s speech and the speech of the Soviet prime minister in order to see who is truly concerned about the problems of the world; they could then see who uses clear and sincere language; they could then see who wants disarmament and who does not want disarmament, and why.
The Soviet proposal could not be clearer; it leaves nothing to be desired. Why are there reservations when this tremendous problem has never before been so clearly presented?
The history of the world has shown, tragically, that arms races always lead to war. Yet at no time has war entailed such a dreadful holocaust for humanity as at the present time; it follows, therefore, that the responsibility has never been greater. What has the Soviet delegation proposed on this question that is so crucial for humankind? The Soviet delegation has presented a proposal for total and complete disarmament. Can anything more be asked? If so, then ask for it! If further guarantees are required, then ask for them! The Soviet proposal could not be clearer or more precise. It cannot be rejected without taking on the dreadful responsibility for war and everything war entails.
Why should responsibility for this problem be removed from the General Assembly? Why doesn’t the US delegation want this problem to be discussed here, among all of us? Have we in the General Assembly no judgment? Should we remain uninformed about this problem? Does a commission have to meet? Why shouldn’t the problem be discussed in the most democratic way possible? Why shouldn’t all the delegates in the General Assembly discuss the problem of disarmament? Let everyone lay their cards on the table so that we may know who stands for disarmament and who does not, who wants to play at war and who does not. We should know who is betraying humanity’s aspiration for peace and who is not. Humankind must never be dragged into a holocaust because of egotistical and illegitimate interests. Humankind, our peoples—not just ourselves—must be safeguarded from that holocaust, so that everything human knowledge and intelligence has created does not serve to destroy humanity itself.
The Soviet delegation spoke in clear terms, and I am speaking objectively here. I invite you all to study those proposals and to place your cards on the table. This is not simply a question of delegations now; this is, above all, a question of world public opinion. The warmongers and the militarists must be exposed and condemned by world public opinion. This is not just the duty of a minority; this is the duty of the world itself. The warmongers and the militarists must be unmasked. That is the task for world public opinion. Not only must this be discussed in the plenary of the General Assembly, but it must be discussed before the eyes of the entire world. It must be discussed in the great assembly of the world itself. Remember, in the event of a war, those responsible will not be the only ones exterminated; hundreds of millions of totally innocent people will be exterminated. That is why we are meeting here as representatives of the world, or at least part of it, because the world is not completely represented here because the People’s Republic of China is not represented—a quarter of the world is absent from this assembly. But those of us who are present here have a duty to speak frankly and not beat around the bush.
This is an extremely serious problem—a more important problem than economic assistance and all other commitments; this is the commitment to preserve human life. Everyone has to discuss the problem, we all have to speak about it, and we all have to struggle so that peace will prevail in the world.
Above all, if we of the underdeveloped countries want to have some hope of progress; if we want to have some hope that our peoples will enjoy a better standard of living, then we must struggle for peace, we must struggle for disarmament. With one-fifth of what the world spends on arms, we could stimulate development in the underdeveloped countries at a growth rate of 10 percent per annum. With one-fifth! And of course the standard of living of the people in those countries spending their resources on arms would be raised as well.
So what are the difficulties of disarmament? Who is interested in being armed? Those interested in being armed to the teeth are those wanting to hold on to their colonies or their monopolies, those wanting to hold on to the oil of the Middle East and the natural resources of Latin America, Asia and Africa. And in order to defend those interests, they need force. You know full well that these territories were occupied and colonized through force. It was through force that millions of human beings became slaves. And it is with force that this exploitation is maintained throughout the world. Clearly, those who do not want disarmament are those who wish to maintain the use of force, to maintain their control over the resources and the cheap labor of the underdeveloped countries.
I said I would speak frankly, and things must be called by their right names.
The colonialists, therefore, are those opposed to disarmament. We will have to fight, with world opinion on our side, to impose disarmament on them, just as we will have to fight to impose on them the rights of the peoples to political and economic liberation.
Another reason why the monopolies are against disarmament, besides the fact that they need arms to defend their interests, is the fact that the arms race has always been good business. Everyone knows, for example, that the great monopolies in this country doubled their capital during World War II. Like vultures, the monopolies feed on the corpses of the wars. And war is good business. Let’s unmask those for whom war is a business, those who enrich themselves through war. Let’s open the eyes of the world and expose those warmongers who make a business out of the fate of humanity, who trade on the dangers of war, even when war can be so terrifying as to leave no hope of escape for anyone.
To do this, we, a small, underdeveloped country, invite other small, underdeveloped countries, as well as this whole assembly, to fight to bring the problem here for discussion. We would never forgive ourselves if, through neglect or weakness on our part, the world were to find itself increasingly confronting the dangers of war.
There is one remaining point which, as I have read in some newspapers, was one of the points that the Cuban delegation wanted to raise. That is the question of the People’s Republic of China. A number of delegations have already spoken about this. We merely wish to say that the fact that this question has not even been discussed here is a negation of the raison d’être of the United Nations. Why hasn’t it been discussed? Because the US government does not wish to discuss the matter? Why should the UN General Assembly renounce its right to discuss the question?
In recent years, various countries have joined our organization. It is a denial of historical reality and a denial of life itself to oppose discussing the right of the People’s Republic of China—one of the most populous countries of the world—to be represented here. It is simply preposterous and absurd that this matter cannot even be discussed. How long must we play this pathetic game of avoiding this problem in the United Nations, even when there are representatives here, for example, of Franco’s Spain? Mr. President, will you allow me to express my opinion, with all due respect, on this specific point, without offense to anyone?
General Assembly President Boland: I think it is only fair to the prime minister to make clear the position of the chair. The chair does not think it is in keeping with the dignity of the assembly or the decorum that we like to preserve in our debates that references of a personal nature should be made to the heads of state or government of member states of the United Nations, whether or not they are present. I hope that the prime minister will consider that a fair and reasonable rule.
Fidel Castro: I merely wanted to make some comments, sir, on how the United Nations arose. The United Nations emerged after the struggle against fascism, after tens of millions died on the battlefield. From that struggle, which took so many lives, this organization arose as a hope. But there are some extraordinary paradoxes. While US soldiers were falling in Guam, Guadalcanal, Okinawa and many other islands in the Pacific, they were also dying on the Chinese mainland, fighting on the same side as those to whom today we deny even the right to discuss their entry into the United Nations. At the same time, the soldiers of the Blue Division [from Spain] were fighting in the Soviet Union to defend fascism. While the People’s Republic of China is denied the right to put its case to the United Nations, the regime born of Italian fascism and German Nazism, which took power thanks to Hitler’s armies and Mussolini’s Blackshirts, has received the generous accolade of membership in the United Nations.
China represents one-fourth of the world, and is truly represented by the government of the People’s Republic of China. And yet another regime [Taiwan] sits in its place, a regime maintained in power by the interference of the US Seventh Fleet dispatched in the midst of a civil war.
Can we ask here by what right the fleet of one country, and an extracontinental country at that—and let us emphasize the word “extra-continental” because there has been so much talk here about extra-continental interference—can interfere in the purely domestic affairs of China. It would be interesting to hear an explanation for this. It was done with the sole purpose of maintaining a group of US allies and preventing the total liberation of China. And since this is an absurd and illegitimate position, from any point of view, the US government wants to avoid a discussion on the problem of the representation of the People’s Republic to China.
We want it to be clearly noted that we support a discussion of this problem here. We believe the UN General Assembly should seat the legitimate representatives of the Chinese people, the government of the People’s Republic of China.
I understand very well that it is somewhat difficult for anyone here not to be judged according to certain stereotypes. But let me state that we came here free of all prejudice, to analyze the problems objectively, without fear of what others might think of us, and without fear of the consequences of our conduct or our position. We have been honest and frank without being Francoist, because we do not want to be accomplices to the injustice perpetrated against many Spaniards who, for more than 20 years, have been imprisoned in Spain, who fought together with the North Americans in the Lincoln Brigade that went to Spain to raise the name of that great man Abraham Lincoln.
We would like now to sum up our views on certain aspects of world affairs about which there can be no doubt. In doing this, we place our trust in reason and honesty.
We have explained the problem of Cuba, which is part of the world’s problems. Those who attack us today are those who attack others elsewhere in the world.
The US government cannot be on the side of the Algerian people, because the United States is an ally of France. It cannot be on the side of the Congolese people, because the United States is an ally of Belgium. It cannot be on the side of the Spanish people, because it is an ally of Franco. It cannot be on the side of the Puerto Rican people, whose nationhood it has been destroying for 50 years. It cannot be on the side of the Panamanian people, who are demanding their canal. It cannot allow the expansion of civilian rule in Latin America, or in Germany or Japan.
The US government cannot be on the side of the peasants who want land because it is an ally of the landowners. It cannot be on the side of workers seeking better living conditions, in any part of the world, because it is an ally of the monopolies. It cannot be on the side of the colonies seeking liberation, because it is an ally of the colonizers.
In other words, the US government is on Franco’s side. It is on the side of the colonizers of Algeria. It is on the side of the colonizers of the Congo. It is on the side of maintaining its own privileges and interests in the Panama Canal. It is on the side of colonialism all over the world.
The US government is on the side of German militarism and its resurgence. It is on the side of Japanese militarism and its resurgence.
The US government forgets the millions of Jews who died in the concentration camps of Europe at the hands of the Nazis, who are today recovering their influence in the German army. It forgets the French who were slaughtered in their heroic struggle against the German occupation. It forgets the US soldiers who died at the Siegfried Line, in the Ruhr, on the Rhine and on all the battlefields of Asia.
The US government cannot be on the side of the unity and the sovereignty of the peoples. Why not? Because it must suppress the sovereignty of the peoples in order to maintain its military bases. Each military base is a dagger stuck into the sovereignty of a nation; each base is a sovereignty suppressed. That is why the US government must oppose the sovereignty of the peoples. It must constantly suppress this sovereignty in order to maintain its policy of bases around the Soviet Union.
We understand that these issues have not been clearly explained to the people of the United States, but they should try to imagine what would happen if the Soviet Union were to begin to set up a string of nuclear bases in Cuba, Mexico or Canada. They would certainly not feel calm or secure.
World opinion, including public opinion in the United States, has to be taught to understand these problems from another point of view, from other nations’ points of view. The underdeveloped countries cannot always be presented as aggressors; revolutionaries cannot always be presented as aggressors, as enemies of the US people.
We can’t be enemies of the US people because we have seen North Americans like Carleton Beals and Waldo Frank, and other illustrious and distinguished intellectuals like them, who weep at the thought of the errors that are committed, at the lack of hospitality toward us, in particular. There are many humane North Americans, intellectuals, progressive and courageous writers, in whom I see the nobility of the early leaders of this country, such as Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln.
I am not speaking demagogically. I am speaking with the sincere admiration that we feel for those who fought to free their people from colonialism, so that their country would always defend noble and just ideals. They did not fight so that this country would become, as it is today, the ally of all the reactionaries, gangsters, big landowners, monopolies, militarists and fascists in the world. They did not fight so that their country would become the ally of the most backward and reactionary forces in the world.
We know full well what the people of the United States will be told about us today, tomorrow and always, to deceive them. It makes no difference. We are fulfilling our duty by expressing our views and stating these true facts in this historic assembly.
We proclaim the right of the peoples to their territorial integrity and to their nationhood. Those who conspire against nationalism do so because they know it means the desire of the peoples to recover what belongs to them, their wealth and their natural resources.
In short, we support all the noble aspirations of all peoples. That is our position; that is where we stand. We are, and always will be, on the side of the just. We are, and always will be, against colonialism, against exploitation, against the monopolies, against warmongering, against the arms race and against the playing at war. That is, and always will be, our position.
In conclusion, we consider it our duty to bring to the attention of this assembly the essential part of the Declaration of Havana. The Declaration of Havana was the response of the Cuban people to the Declaration of San José [at the OAS meeting in Costa Rica]. It was not made by 10 people, or 100, or 100,000. An assembly of more than a million Cubans made this declaration [on September 2]. Anyone who doubts this can come and count them at the next mass rally or general assembly that we hold in Cuba. You will certainly see the spectacle of a fervent and conscious people, a sight difficult to encounter except when people are passionately defending their most sacred interests.
At this assembly, in answer to the Declaration of San José, the people were consulted and proclaimed by acclamation the following principles of the Cuban revolution:
The National General Assembly of the people of Cuba:
Condemns the latifundium as the source of misery and poverty for the peasants and as a backward and inhuman agricultural system. It condemns starvation wages and the iniquitous exploitation of human labor by illegitimate and privileged interests. It condemns illiteracy and the lack of teachers, schools, doctors and hospitals, and the lack of care of the elderly that prevails in Latin America. It condemns the inequality and exploitation of women. It condemns discrimination against blacks and Indians. It condemns the military and political oligarchies that keep our peoples in abject poverty and block the development toward democracy and the full exercise of their sovereignty. It condemns the handing over of our countries’ natural resources to foreign monopolies in a submissive policy that betrays the interests of the peoples. It condemns the governments that ignore the feelings of their people and yield to foreign dictates. It condemns the systematic deception of the people by the information media that serve the interests of the oligarchies and the imperialist oppressors. It condemns the news monopoly by the instruments of the monopoly trusts and their agents. It condemns the repressive laws that prevent workers, peasants, students and intellectuals, who form the great majority of each country, from organizing themselves to fight for their social demands and patriotic aspirations. It condemns the monopolies and imperialist companies that continuously plunder our wealth, exploit our workers and peasants, bleed and keep in backwardness our economies, and force the political life of Latin America to submit to their own designs and interests.
In summary, the National General Assembly of the people of Cuba condemns both the exploitation of one human being by another and the exploitation of underdeveloped countries by imperialist finance capital.
Therefore, the National General Assembly of the people of Cuba proclaims before the Americas—
and we do so 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 children to education; the right of the sick to medical treatment and hospital attention; the right of youth to work; the right of students to free education that is both practical and scientific; the right of blacks and Indians to full dignity as human beings; the right of women to civil, social and political equality; the right of the elderly to a secure old age; the right of intellectuals, artists and scientists to fight, with their work, for a better world; the right of nations to nationalize the imperialist monopolies, thereby recovering their national wealth and resources; the right of countries to engage freely in trade with all the peoples of the world; the right of nations to their full sovereignty; the right of peoples to turn fortresses into schools and to arm their workers—
because on this question we must indeed engage in an arms buildup. We must arm our people to defend ourselves from imperialist attack
—and to arm their workers, peasants, students, intellectuals, blacks, Indians, women, the young and the old, and all the oppressed and exploited people, so they themselves can defend their rights and their destiny.
Some of you wanted to know what line the revolutionary government in Cuba was following. There it is!