ONE HUNDRED HOURS WITH FIDEL
Conversations with Ignacio Ramonet, Third
Edition (2006)
Below are a few selected excerpts from this 718 page book, published by the
Cuban Council of State, of conversations between Cuba's Commander-in-Chief,
Fidel Castro, and Ignacio Ramonet, Editor of the French monthly, Le Monde Diplomatique.
The conversations took place between 2003 and 2005. The book is dedicated to
Alfredo Guevara and Ramonet's sons, Tancrede and Axel. The book isn't yet available in English. (July 2006)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
These translations were prepared by CubaNews
and edited by Walter
Lippmann.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 10 (excerpts) and a few footnotes.
THE REVOLUTION’S FIRST STEPS
AND FIRST PROBLEMS
A transition – Sectarianism – Public trials for
torturers – The Revolution and the homosexuals – The Revolution and black people
– The Revolution and women – The Revolution and machismo – The Revolution and
the Catholic Church
In January, 1959 you did not change things overnight, but started a kind of transitional period instead, right?
We had already appointed a government. I had stated that I had no intentions to be President, a proof that I was not fighting for any personal interest. We looked for a candidate and chose a magistrate who had opposed Batista and had acquitted a number of revolutionaries.
Manuel Urrutia?
Yes, it was Urrutia. He gained prestige. It was a
pity that he was a little indecisive.
Didn’t you want to be President then?
No, I was not interested. What I wanted was the
Revolution, the army, the struggle. Well, if elections had been held at a given
time I could have applied as a candidate, but I was not into that. My interest
was focused on the revolutionary laws and the implementation of the Moncada
program.
So you led the whole war without any personal
ambition to be President right afterward?
Absolutely, I can assure you that. Maybe there were
other reasons in addition to my lack of interest, maybe there was a little bit
of pride involved, something of that; but the truth is that I was not
interested. Remember that I had been presumed dead long before then. I was
fighting for a Revolution and had no interest in a high position. The
satisfaction of fighting, success, victory, is a much bigger prize than any
position, and I was fully conscious of my words when I said I didn’t want to be
President. So we gave that task to Urrutia and really respected his
attributions. Both he and the 26th of July Movement appointed the
Cabinet, and some of that Movement’s leaders were middle class and rather
right-wing, and some others were left-wing.
There are some around who have written their
memoirs, and many of them stayed with the Revolution and have said wonderful
things about how they thought, about their arguments with Che and Camilo.
Did Che mistrust some of those leaders?
Che was very mistrustful and wary of some people
because he had seen what had happened with the strike in April, 1958 and
believed some of the 26th of July Movement leaders had had a
bourgeois education. Che was very much in favor of the agrarian reform and those
people were talking about a quite moderate agrarian reform and about
compensations and other things. We imposed the law on them. We had that kind of
problems then.
Che was not really an accommodating person. There
was also anti-communism, which was strong and had its own impact. In times of
McCarthyism, there were poisonous campaigns here and prejudice was fostered in many
ways. And some of our people of bourgeois origins were not only anti-communist
but also sectarian.
Were they far left-wing?
No, they were communists from the PSP [Partido
Socialista Popular, or People’s Socialist Party], because there had been a
number of Stalin-like methods and doctrines, though not in the sense that there
was any abuse, but there definitely was an urge to control more and more. In
that Party there was this very capable man, Anibal Escalante, who all but took
over the leadership position held by Blas Roca, its historical leader and a
remarkable man of very humble extraction. He was from Manzanillo, had been a
shoemaker, and fought very hard. The communists fought very hard.
Blas Roca had to travel abroad, and then Anibal
Escalante took over as the top leader; I’m telling you, he was skilled,
intelligent, and a good organizer, but when it came to controlling things, he
was a Stalinist to the core. Control is the word we’ll use for everything. He
came out with a policy: “let the petit bourgeois die and let’s take care of the
communists”, for he wanted to put as few communists as possible at risk. And he
was obsessed about screening. He had all the old habits of a stage in the
history of communism when its members had been excluded, as in a ghetto, that’s
the kind of mindset he had, and he screened everyone all the time. Those methods
were applied to people who were otherwise very honest and self-sacrificing.
This Anibal Escalante created a very serious problem
of sectarianism. Ah, but unity prevailed! There’s a reason: I think very few
political leaders would turn a cold shoulder to those horrible things. Serious
mistakes of sectarianism were made. But there was no vanity, only the
Revolution, the need for unity and trust. I stood up for unity under very
difficult circumstances, and I still do. Anibal was not a traitor.
The Communist International and its slogans led the communists to defend unpopular issues of the Soviet Union’s policies, like the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact, the occupation of a part of Poland and the war against Finland. We already talked about that. The USSR applied a policy that set up the bases for all kinds of abuse and crime… They almost destroyed the Party. Mistakes were made in Cuba due to those slogans, or rather than mistakes they led to political lines for which the Party, with its doctrine and its militants who fought and still fight for the workers’ interests, had to pay a high price. But the time came when by virtue of those pacts the Soviet communists seemed to be linked with the Nazi regime… A high price was paid for all those things which were used as an excuse for anti-communism, but as I said they were the most trustable and dedicated people.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Besides, some governments today, like those of Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and others, are introducing progressive measures. What do you think about what Lula is doing in Brazil, for instance?
I obviously sympathize very much with the things
he’s doing. He doesn’t count on the majority in the Parliament and has been
forced to lean on other forces, even conservative ones, to put forward some
reforms. The media have given widespread coverage to a scandal of corruption in
the Parliament, but have been unable to implicate Lula, who is a popular leader.
I’ve known him for many years, we have followed his itinerary, and we have
talked many times. He’s a man of convictions, an intelligent, patriotic and
progressive person of humble extraction who never forgets his origins nor his
people, who always supported him. And I think that’s how everyone sees Lula.
Because it’s not about organizing a revolution but winning a battle: eliminating
hunger. He can do it. It’s about eliminating illiteracy. He can do that too. And
I think we must support him.
Commander, do you think the age of revolutions
and
armed struggle is over in Latin America?
Look, nobody can say for sure that revolutionary
changes will take place in Latin America today. But nobody can say for sure
either that such changes will happen in one or several countries. It seems to me
that if you make an objective analysis of the economic and social situation in
some countries, you can rest assured that there’s an explosive situation. See,
the infant mortality rate in the region is 65 per every thousand births, while
ours is less than 6.5; that is, ten times more children die in Latin America
than in Cuba, as an average. Malnutrition reaches 49% of the Latin American
population; illiteracy is still rampant; tens of millions are unemployed, and
there’s also the problem of the abandoned children: 30 million of them. As the
President of UNICEF told me one day, if Latin America had the medical care and
health levels Cuba has, the lives of 700.000 children would be spared every
year… The overall situation is terrible.
If an urgent solution to those problems is not found –and neither the FTAA nor neoliberal globalization are a solution– there could be more than one revolution in some Latin American country when the U.S. least expects it. And they won’t be able to accuse anyone of promoting those revolutions.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do you regret, for instance, having approved the
entrance of the Warsaw Pact’s tanks in Prague in August, 1968 that so much
surprised those who admired the Cuban Revolution?
Look, I can tell you that in our opinion –and
history has proved us right– Czechoslovakia was moving toward a situation of
counterrevolution, toward capitalism and the arms of imperialism. And we were
against all the liberal economic reforms taking place there and in other
socialist countries. Those reforms tended to increasingly strengthen market
relations within the socialist society: profits, benefits, lucrative deals,
material motivation, all the things that encouraged individualism and
selfishness. So we understood the unpleasant need of sending troops to
Czechoslovakia and never condemned the socialist countries where that decision
was made.
Now, at the same time we were saying that those socialist countries had to be consistent and commit themselves to adopt the same attitude if a socialist country was threatened elsewhere in the world. On the other hand, we thought the first thing they said in Czechoslovakia was undisputable: to improve socialism. The protests about ruling methods, bureaucratic policies, and divorcing the masses were unquestionably correct. But from just slogans they moved to a truly reactionary policy. And in bitterness and pain we had to approve that military intervention.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
You never knew President Kennedy personally.
No. And I think Kennedy was a very enthusiastic,
clever and charismatic man who tried to do positive things. After Franklin
Roosevelt, his was perhaps one of the most brilliant personalities in the U.S.
He made mistakes, as when he gave green light to the Bay of Pigs invasion in
1961, though it was not his operation, but Eisenhower’s and Nixon’s. He couldn’t
prevent it on time. He also put up with the CIA’s activity; during his
administration they designed the first plans to kill me and other international
leaders.
There’s no iron-clad evidence of his personal involvement, but it’s really hard
to believe that someone from the CIA took the decision on his/her own of
undertaking such actions without a prior acceptance by the President. Maybe he
was tolerant or allowed some ambiguous words of his to be freely interpreted by
the CIA.
However, despite the fact that it’s clear to me that
Kennedy made mistakes –including some ethical ones– I think he was capable of
rectifying and brave enough to make changes in U.S. policies. One of his
mistakes was the Vietnam War. Thanks to his enthusiasm and obsessive sympathy
for the “green berets” and his tendency to overestimate the power of the United
States, he took the first steps to engage his country in the Vietnam War.
He made mistakes, I repeat, but he was an
intelligent man, at times brilliant and brave, and I think –I have said this
before– that if Kennedy had survived perhaps the relations between Cuba and the
United States would have improved, since Bay of Pigs and the Missile Crisis had
an impact on him. I don’t think he underestimate the Cuban people; maybe he even
admired our people’s steadiness and courage.
Right on the day he was killed I was talking with a
French journalist, Jean Daniel [director of Le Nouvel Observateur] who
brought me a message from him saying he wanted to talk with me. So a
communication was in the offing which could have perhaps helped improve our
relations.
His death hurt me. He was an adversary, true, but I
was very sorry that he died. It was as if I lacked something. I was hurt as well
by the way they killed him, the attack, the political crime... I felt outrage,
repudiation, pain, in this case for an adversary who seemed to deserve a
different kind of fate.
His murder worried me too because he had enough
authority in this country to impose an improvement of their relations with Cuba,
as clearly demonstrated by the conversation I had with this French journalist,
Jean Daniel, who was with me in the very moment when I heard the news about
Kennedy’s death.
pp.593-594
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do you think that under the Bush administration
the
United States could become an authoritarian regime?
Hardly two thirds of a century ago mankind knew the
tragic experience of Nazism. Hitler had an inseparable ally –you know that– in
the fear he could instill in his adversaries. By then the owner of an impressive
military force, he started a war that set the world on fire. The lack of vision
on the part of statesmen from the strongest European powers at the time, as well
as their cowardice, gave rise to a big tragedy.
I don’t think a fascist-like regime could rise in the United States. Serious mistakes and injustices have been committed –and still exist– within its political system, but the American people count on certain institutions, traditions and educational, cultural and political values that it would be near to impossible. The risk exists at international level. The authorities and prerogatives granted to a U.S. president are such and the military, economic and technological power network of that state is so huge that, in fact, and for reasons totally beyond the American people’s control, the world is currently threatened.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
HOMOSEXUALITY
One of the things the Revolution was criticized
about in its first years is that it was said to display an aggressive,
repressive attitude towards homosexuals, that there were camps where the
homosexuals were locked away and repressed. What can you say about that?
In two words, you’re talking about a supposed persecution of homosexuals.
I have to tell you about the origins of that and
where that criticism came from. I do assure you that homosexuals were neither
persecuted nor sent to internment camps.
But there are so many testimonies of that...
Let me tell you about the problems we had. In those
first years we were forced to mobilize almost the whole nation because of the
risks we were facing, which included that of an attack by the United States: the
dirty war, the Bay of Pigs invasion, the Missile Crisis… Many people were sent
to prison then. And we established the Mandatory Military Service.
We had three problems at that time: we needed people of a certain school level
to serve in the Armed Forces, people capable of handling sophisticated
technology, because you could not do it if you had only reached second, third or
sixth grade; you needed at least seventh, eighth or ninth grade, and a higher
level later on. We had some graduates, but also had to take some men out of the
universities before graduation. You can’t deal with a surface-to-air rocket
battery if you don’t have a University degree.
A degree in Sciences, I assume.
You know that very well. There were hundreds of
thousands of men who had an impact on many branches, not only on the preparation
programs, but economic branches as well. Yet some were unskilled, and the
country needed them as a result of the brain-drain we enforced in production
centers. That’s a problem we had then.
Second, there were some religious groups which, out
of principles or doctrines, refused to honor the flag or accept using weapons of
any kind, something some people eventually used as an excuse to criticize or be
hostile.
Third, there was the issue of the homosexuals. At
the time, the mere idea of having women in Military Service was unthinkable…
Well, I found out there was a strong rejection of homosexuals, and at the
triumph of the Revolution, the stage we are speaking of, the machista element
was very much present, together with widespread opposition to having homosexuals
in military units.
Because of those three factors, homosexuals were not drafted at first, but then
all that became a sort of irritation factor, an argument some people used to
lash out at homosexuals even more.
Taking those three categories into account we
founded the so-called Military Units to Support Production (UMAP) where we sent
people from the said three categories: those whose educational level was
insufficient; those who refused to serve out of religious convictions; or
homosexual males who were physically fit. Those were the facts; that’s what
happened.
So they were not internment camps?
Those units were set up all throughout the country
for purposes of work, mainly to assist agriculture. That is, the homosexuals
were not the only ones affected, though many of them certainly were, not all of
them, just those who were called to do mandatory service in the ranks, since it
was an obligation and everyone was participating.
That’s why we had that situation, and it’s true they were not internment units,
nor were they punishment units; on the contrary, it was about morale, to give
them a chance to work and help the country in those difficult circumstances.
Besides, there were many who for religious reasons had the chance to help their
homeland in another way by serving not in combat units but in work units.
Of course, as time passed by those units were
eliminated. I can’t tell you now how many years they lasted, maybe six or seven
years, but I can tell you for sure that there was prejudice against
homosexuals.
Do you think that prejudice stemmed from machismo?
It was a cultural thing, just as it happened with
women. I can tell you that the Revolution never promoted that, quite the
opposite; we had to work very hard to do away with racial prejudice here.
Concerning women, there was strong prejudice, as strong as in the case of
homosexuals. I’m not going to come up with excuses now, for I assume my share of
the responsibility. I truly had other concepts regarding that issue. I had my
own opinions, and I was rather opposed and would always be opposed to any kind
of abuse or discrimination, because there was a great deal of prejudice in that
society. Whole families suffered for it. The homosexuals were certainly
discriminated against, more so in other countries, but it happened here too, and
fortunately our people, who are far more cultured and learned now, have
gradually left that prejudice behind.
I must also tell you that there were –and there are– extremely outstanding
personalities in the fields of culture and literature, famous names this country
takes pride in, who were and still are homosexual, however they have always
enjoyed a great deal of consideration and respect in Cuba. So there’s no need to
look at it as if it were a general feeling. There was less prejudice against
homosexuals in the most cultured and educated sectors, but that prejudice was
very strong in sectors of low educational level –the illiteracy rate was around
30% those years– and among the nearly-illiterate, and even among many
professionals. That was a real fact in our society.
Do you think that prejudice against
homosexuals has been effectively fought?
Discrimination against homosexuals has been largely overcome. Today the people
have acquired a general, rounded culture. I'm not going to say there is no
machismo, but now it's not anywhere near the way it was back then, when that
culture was so strong. With the passage of years and the growth of consciousness
about all of this, we have gradually overcome problems and such prejudices have
declined. But believe me, it was not easy.
pp.222-225
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(FOOTNOTES)
4. In 1921, when the civil war ended, the Soviet Union was in ruins and its population in the grip of starvation. Lenin then decided to give up war communism and launched the New Economic Policy (NEP), a partial return to capitalism and a mixed economy, and gave priority to agriculture. The outcome was a positive one. Lenin died in 1924 and in 1928 Stalin suddenly abandoned the NEP and moved on to an entirely socialist economy, giving priority to industry in order to “construct socialism in only one country”.
5. An important theoretical discussion took place in
1963-1964 about the Cuban Revolution’s economic organization where the advocates
of Economic Calculation (EC) and those of the Funding Budgetary System (FBS)
opposed each other. The former, headed by Carlos Rafael Rodriguez, Alberto Mora,
Marcelo Fernandez Font and the French Marxist economist Charles Bettelheim
supported and defended a political project of mercantile socialism based on
enterprises managed in a decentralized manner and financially independent which
would compete with their respective goods and exchange money for them in the
market. Material incentives would prevail in each enterprise. Planning,
according to EC supporters, operates through values and markets. Such was the
main road chosen and promoted by the Soviets in those years.
The latter were headed by Che Guevara and included,
among others, Luis Alvarez Rom and Belgian economist Ernest Mandel, leader of
the Fourth International, all of whom questioned the socialism-market matrimony.
They stood for a political project where planning and market are opposing terms.
Che thought that planning was much more than a mere technical asset to manage
the economy. It was a way to extend the scope of human rationality while
gradually decreasing the quotas of fetishism upon which faith on “economic law
independence” found support.
Those who like Che preferred the Budgetary System
favored the bank-based unification of all production units with a single,
centralized budget, all seen as part of a great socialist enterprise (made up of
each individual production unit). No purchasing-and-selling activity based upon
money and marketing would take place between any two factories of a same
consolidated enterprise, only exchange through a bank account registration. The
goods would go from one production unit to another without ever being
merchandise. Che and his followers pushed for and fostered voluntary work and
moral incentive as the privileged –albeit not the only– tools to raise the
workers’ socialist conscience.
pp.648-649
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx