We have friends that are more powerful than all the forces in Latin America. The United States knows this; if it attacks us directly it will seriously endanger its own territory. Even so, it has chosen and meticulously followed a policy of isolating us in the Americas. First, it has ensured that our economic ties with the other Latin American countries are weak, except for Chile. Second, it has seen to it that our relations with most of the other Latin American countries have been broken, and it continues to work on this. It appears that the United States will engage in more acts of aggression, like the seemingly imminent one in Jamaica, to keep us from competing—that is, to do away with the influence of the Cuban revolution, to break our contact with others. This is what Jesuits do, putting on long cassocks to hide their desires. The United States is trying to do this with us, cloaking us so nobody will see us and we won’t have any pernicious influence.
It is very important to struggle against this, because our contact with the rest of Latin America also depends on the way in which the Latin American peoples react to imperialism’s attacks, and our safety depends to a great extent on how they react.
We shouldn’t forget that imperialism makes mistakes. Imperialism may or may not know what the Soviet Union is willing to do to defend us, although I think it does know—if it didn’t, we would have been attacked already. But it may be mistaken, and this time we must not let imperialism be mistaken. If it is, imperialism will be totally destroyed, but very little will be left of us. We must be fighters for peace and convinced champions of peace, because we ourselves will be hurt if the peace is broken. At the same time, we must talk freely of peoples’ revolutions.
Although it seems paradoxical, advocating revolutions and peoples’ struggle is the way to defend peace. Imperialism cannot fight against people when they are armed; it has to come to some kind of a compromise. Moreover, it is not profitable for it to test its implements of war against something that does not exist, so it tries to foment wars between other nations. Imperialism wins in the local wars, the wars between nations. In them, its war materiel wins; the countries go into debt, and imperialism sells weapons to one or to both of the countries. In short, everything depends on the circumstances, but imperialism will gain from testing its war machinery, its tactics and its new inventions.
Now, a people’s war has armies that appear and disappear in the early stages and fronts of struggle that don’t exist—a war such as that in the southern part of Indochina, where a death zone has been declared 40 kilometers from Saigon; that is, the guerrillas hold territory just 40 kilometers from the capital. The imperialists can’t maintain this kind of war, and moreover it teaches them nothing. They want to fight with their weapons to defend their privileges; they can’t learn anything from fighting against small units in places where there is no visible enemy. They would have to make war against the Soviet Union, fighting with nuclear missiles and using another, totally different kind of strategy.
Even though it is not really drained—its losses are small—imperialism is losing points of support. We should remember one important thing: the US imperialists are quite foresighted; they aren’t as stupid as they seem. They make mistakes, true, but they aren’t as stupid as they seem. Some years ago they realized their own raw material reserves were decreasing. The United States is a very wealthy country, but its reserves were on the decline, and so it began to seek reserves elsewhere, all over the world.
There are tin deposits close to Indochina and in Malaya. Bolivia also has tin. Peru has deposits of several precious metals, including iron and copper, and there are also large deposits of copper in Chile. Among other things, Argentina has uranium, and I believe the imperialists are taking that, too. Mexico has sulfur. Venezuela has oil, which the imperialist machine needs in order to survive. The United States needs Latin America, in addition to the parts of Asia and Africa it controls to keep itself going.
Why did it fight in the Congo? The Congo has uranium, copper, diamonds—a whole realm of natural riches. The United States fought hard in the Congo; it ousted Belgian imperialism and took over. The United States is applying this policy all over the world, preparing for the future. If we take away its access to resources, take away imperialism’s economic base, we will mortally wound it. You have to remember that imperialism functions outside its own territory. The United States is not a power operating only within its own territory. It has invested capital all over the world and it plays with it, investing and then withdrawing its investments. Weakening imperialism’s economic base will help to break its strength and will contribute to peace—world, global peace—which is what interests us.
We have to try to ensure that imperialism is not mistaken. We have so far warned it of the steps we would take to counter its blows—and we have taken them, which has hurt it. We have warned the imperialists several times. The radio station here in Havana hurts them. The truth hurts them, and that radio broadcasts to all of Latin America. Peasants throughout Latin America listen to the radio; cinema is the only media more influential than radio there. We have taught imperialism about our modest strength, and we must encourage their belief in our strength.
The imperialists are trying to isolate us, but also to attack us, through acts of sabotage like those in recent days and by trying to influence the people so as to create a certain climate. What happened in Hungary [in 1956] is an interesting example of mistakes made by a people’s government, and there a counterrevolution paid for and prepared by the US government was unleashed.
Here in Latin America there was a very similar example, though the relevant government had different characteristics from the Hungarian people’s government. It happened in Bolivia. In Bolivia there was a bourgeois government, headed by Major Villarroel, that opposed the United States. It advocated nationalizing the mines and other measures that the Bolivian people wanted. That people’s government ended in a terrible way: Major Villarroel was hanged from a street lamp in the public square. Why did that happen? Because the US specialists manipulated the weaknesses arising in his government, and all governments have weaknesses, no matter how progressive they are.
We’ve had our weaknesses for some time, and all of you are in part responsible for them, in a very small way, of course; the leaders of the government, who are obliged to be far-sighted, are much more to blame. We took the road of sectarianism—which, more than simply being sectarian, is just plain stupid. We took the road of separation from the masses, of being too rigid, of strictly implementing correct measures and also absurd ones. We took the road of suppressing criticism, and not only the people’s criticism, those who have a legitimate right to criticize, but also suppressing vigilant criticism by part of the party apparatus, which turned into an executive office and, as such, lost its characteristics of vigilance and inspection. That led us to making serious economic mistakes. Remember that economics lies at the base of all political movements, and we made economic mistakes. That is, we took the road imperialism wanted us to take; they want to destroy our economic base by means of the blockade, and we have been assisting them with our own actions.
Why do I say that you’re partly responsible? The Committees for the Defense of the Revolution (CDRs), institutions created for the people’s vigilance and to represent the people’s wish to defend their revolution, were instead imposed on the people as all-purpose dens of opportunism that aroused the hostility of the people. I do think I’m entitled to describe the CDRs this way. Some of them took arbitrary measures, though this didn’t happen so much here in Havana.
The fact is, we have totally ignored and abandoned the countryside, which is our base, the origin and, for two years, the source of replenishment for our guerrilla army, which triumphed over the cities—and we have left it in the hands of the CDRs.
The CDRs are filled with extremists, opportunists of all kinds who never stopped to think about the damage they were causing to the revolution. Imperialism began to work on these weaknesses—always present in the struggle—and as
they worked they became quite successful. In some regions, it created real antagonism between the revolution and sectors of the petit bourgeoisie, who were overwhelmed by revolutionary activities. This is a lesson from which we should learn, and it also constitutes a great truth: that no matter what form they take, security bodies must be controlled by the people.
Sometimes it may seem, and at times it is, absolutely necessary to take prompt (and seemingly arbitrary) measures to counter the danger we are in. Half measures cannot be taken in moments of excessive tension; many people have been arrested without absolute proof that they were guilty. In the Sierra Maestra we shot some people without knowing if they bore full guilt, but it was a time when the revolution could not stop to fully investigate; it had the sacred obligation to win.
As soon as it is possible to restore natural relations among people, we should reestablish those relations, and not continue with the relations of the strong and the weak, based on the precept of “Do what I say.” It is not fair not to do otherwise, and most importantly, we must do it because failure to do so would be politically unwise. Just as the CDRs have become antipathetic organizations, or at least have lost a large part of the prestige and affection they used to command, the security bodies might follow suit; in fact, they have already made similar mistakes.
Our great virtue is that we have never engaged in torture or other similarly terrible behavior that some peoples have fallen into in many other countries in the course of defending correct principles. We established a principle energetically defended by Fidel: that no prisoner, even if they are to face execution, must be touched in any way. There may have been exceptions and I personally know of one, but we continue to uphold and defend that principle. This is extremely important: anything and everything that happens makes the news, including things we don’t publish in the [Cuban] newspapers and things we’d rather not know about. We hear about them later on. When I get home my compañera says, “So-and-so took asylum in an embassy,” or “A soldier shot up a bus.” Everything becomes known. Everybody would find out about abuses and other bad things if there were any, no matter how secretly and far from the public eye they were carried out. The people know and evaluate all such things.
You have a very important role in the defense of the country, but it is less important than the development of the economy. Remember this: your role is less important. For us, it is much more important to have malanga [a root vegetable] than to have you. Even so you have an important role and must carry it out well.
Very hard battles lasting for who knows how long still lie ahead of us, and we must be ready to give our lives for the revolution in one field or another, with greater or lesser urgency, in the more or less immediate future. The battles will continue. I’m no prophet and I can’t tell you what level of tension they will reach or to what degree they will consist of open combat; I hope and wish they will not reach an extreme degree. If they do, neither my actions nor yours will be very important for the final outcome. But if they don’t, and none of us wants them to reach an extreme degree and will struggle to hold imperialism in its place because, as Nikita said, the elephant is strong, although the tiger is still a tiger. Your task of finding out what the enemy is planning to do, and also of passing on what the people think, takes on full importance. You can be great conduits, passing on the people’s feelings to the government.
The leaders of the revolution in Matanzas went through the streets with some rope, saying that INRA (National Institute of the Agrarian Reform) would provide the rope but it was up to the people to decide who should be hanged. There were no reports—at least I haven’t read one—that any such thing actually happened. Those leaders didn’t do their duty correctly. That is like the example of the so-called red terror that people tried to impose against the white terror, not realizing that the white terror existed only in the minds of some extremists. We ourselves unleashed a white terror with our absurd measures, and then we introduced a red terror.
The absurd measures that an uncontrolled revolutionary group took in Matanzas were both saddening and strange. They might be repeated and we must all be vigilant to prevent that from happening. Everything that goes against revolutionary morality is counterrevolutionary—don’t forget that. Anyone who fights against the revolution is a counterrevolutionary, but so is a person who uses their influence to buy a house, an extra car, food beyond their ration book quota and other things the people don’t have, whether or not they flaunt them. That person is a counterrevolutionary and should be denounced immediately. Those who use their influence for their personal benefit or for that of their friends is a counterrevolutionary, and they should be relentlessly pursued and removed. Opportunism is an enemy of the revolution and flourishes wherever the people don’t have control. For this reason it is very important to control the security bodies.
In bodies where control is exercised from far above—where, because of the body’s work, the steps that each of its members takes cannot be controlled—we must be inflexible. Only this is justice and we have made a revolution against injustice; moreover it is politically correct to do so, because those who violate revolutionary morality while speaking of revolution are not only potential traitors to the revolution but are also the worst detractors of the revolution. The people see them and know what they are doing, even when we ourselves don’t know about such things, or don’t want to know. Our revolution, having taken that mistaken path for some months, was destroying the most sacred thing it owns, the people’s faith in it, and we must now work together with more enthusiasm and self-sacrifice than ever, to restore what we destroyed.
It will be a hard task; there is not the same enthusiasm this year as last; something has been lost and must be recovered. It will take a lot of effort, but it will be done, because the will to create beats in the hearts of the people and in the revolution is great. It was easier in the past. After faith has been betrayed or weakened, it won’t be so easy to restore and you must work hard to do this while, at the same time, be inflexible with the counterrevolution. You must be inscrutable about state matters and remain constantly vigilant.
When making analyses you should always consider that Cuba is part of Latin America, that it is directly linked to the rest of Latin America. What we have wrought here is of great historical importance and, even if we didn’t wish it, it will extend to the rest of Latin America. As it has already extended to some peoples, it will extend to others as well. The Second Declaration of Havana will be very important in the development of the revolutionary movements in Latin America. As a document it calls on the masses to struggle, and we should retain our respect for great documents. This Second Declaration of Havana is like a Latin American Communist Manifesto of the period, and is based on our reality and on a Marxist analysis of Latin American reality.
I thought it would be correct for me to touch on Latin America with you this evening. Please forgive me because lack of data kept me from being more convincing and from going into the economic aspect of the struggle, which is so important. It would have been very interesting—for me, at least; I don’t know about you—to examine data demonstrating the extent of imperialist penetration, that brings out the relations between political movements and the economic situations of our countries and clearly shows how reaction corresponds to imperialist penetration and how penetration takes place because of a specific historical or economic background.
The continent shares many features: imperialism’s efforts to penetrate the bourgeoisie in some places in Latin America, the development of the struggles between different empires, and now the absolute US monopoly over the economies of Latin American countries and over Latin America as a whole. The brand name Colgate, for example, is a word repeated in nearly every Latin American nation, just like Mejoral, Palmolive and the names of thousands of other articles consumed here every day. Imperialism uses Latin America as a source of raw materials and as an area of expansion for its monopolies. But this has also unified us, creating a un
ity that must be held sacred and must be defended and strengthened.
As a moral footnote to this conversation, you should study Latin America more. I have noted that generally in Cuba we know more about practically every other part of the world than we do about Latin America, and this is wrong. By studying Latin America, we will also learn a little about ourselves, draw closer together and understand more about our relations and our history. Studying Latin America means studying imperialist penetration—that is, studying its economy. There, you will discover the seeds of everything that is growing and happening now.
Speech to the Argentines Living in Havana
In this speech Che Guevara addresses the Argentine community in Havana during the festivities held on May 25, 1962, the anniversary of Argentina’s liberation from Spain.
Dear compatriots from all over Latin America and those who come from the same province in Argentina as I do and who are here today celebrating one of our patriotic dates:
This moment, which has been repeated many times in the course of our lives, has special meaning—a special tone and color—today. Here, in another Latin American country, in new conditions in Latin America, where we are celebrating another May 25, this time, with no hackneyed speeches and the customary fanfare, without the hollow words with which the rulers of the moment try to make themselves participants in our forefathers’ glory.
Here in Cuba, therefore, May 25 has special significance for us—so special that an Argentine is greeting and hosting you on behalf of the Cuban government and conveying to you its congratulations. The new conditions in Latin America, conditions that have ripened over the course of time, have consolidated this new era in which we live, this new historical moment, in which Cuba has the special glory of being the initiator in Latin America.
The Awakening of Latin America Page 43
