-DATE-
19870628
-YEAR-
1987
-DOCUMENT_TYPE-
INTERVIEW
-AUTHOR-
F. CASTRO
-HEADLINE-
CASTRO URUGUYAN TV INTERVIEW ON AREA CONCERNS
-PLACE-
HAVANA
-SOURCE-
LA REPUBLICA DOMINICAL
-REPORT_NBR-
FBIS
-REPORT_DATE-
19870714
-TEXT-
CASTRO URUGUAYAN TV INTERVIEW ON AREA CONCERNS

PA010251 Panama City LA REPUBLICA DOMINICAL in Spanish 28 Jun 87 pp 18-a,
19-a, 8-a

[Interview with President Fidel Castro by newsman Angel Maria Luna in
Havana; no date given; broadcast by Uruguayan television Channel 10's
"Priority" program on unspecified date, and published by the Uruguayan
weekly EL POPULAR on 20 March 1987]

[Text] Luna: Home again.  As it is already known, tonight we are going to
carry on "Priority" the interview that we held with Commander Fidel Castro
in Havana.

We already held interviews with Felipe Gonzalez, Daniel Ortega, Jose
Napoleon Duarte, and Vinicio Cerezo.  For over a year, we had been trying
to get an interview with this man because we feel that over and beyond any
similar or differing views, he has a substantial influence on this
century's political events.

We must publicly thank and offer our recognition to Foreign Minister
Enrique Iglesias because we were unable to achieve our goal through him.

To interview Fidel Castro is not easy.  Not only because of his personality
but also because of the circumstances that surrounded the recording of this
interview.

In a completely unexpected way, we were told that at a certain moment,
after a reception offered to the Uruguayan political and business
delegation, we were going to get the interview.  This was going to be at a
time when we did not have the technical equipment necessary to do the job.
Therefore, we must praise the effort and intelligence of Jorge Rodriguez,
our cameraman, because without his cooperation, it would have been
impossible to conduct this interview, which had to be done at that moment
or not at all.

You will have the opportunity to be with us sharing the privilege of this
interview granted by Fidel Castro to "Priority."  Castro is the man who
monopolizes the leadership positions of his country.  He is the top figure
of the Communist Party, the Army commander in chief, and the president of
the Councils of State and Ministers in a Cuba that no one dares conceive
without his presence.  Here is the interview with Castro:

[snip by MIM]

Castro: Because Lenin is a point of reference, but they find themselves in
new situations and must interpret those doctrines as the new situations
arise.  There is no doubt that Mikhail Gorbachev is inspired by Lenin's
ideals and that he interprets them and applies them to new situations in
the USSR and the world.

Luna: One must take them into account to distinguish the difference, right?

Castro:  Mmh...

Luna: The ecological [as published] and historical factor, the current
historic times...

Castro:  Yes...

Luna: The previous question I asked was in regard to the indoctrination of
man, but do not think I am trying to formulate a trick question.

Castro: I will try not to fall into any trap, okay?  I know you will not
make me fall into any trap in this or any other sense.

Luna.  To see up to what point Cuba's socialism is not turning into
Fidelism. [sentence as published] That is what one sees in people, on the
streets, in feelings, and through a very special attraction that the people
have for Fidel.

Castro: Let me tell you.  I believe I have played a role in the history of
our revolution.  I have had something to do with the events and in a
certain way I have had an influence on the events, but I do not think the
revolution has been my work.  It is a work I like very much and love very
much, and for which I have fought unceasingly since the first day, but it
is not my work.  I look upon it as the work of an entire people.  You have
mentioned the word Fidelism, but I have never heard the word Fidelism in
this country...

Luna:  No, no, no.  The word is mine.  I tried to interpret...

Castro: So you can see, I have never seen in my country's press,
television, or radio, the word Fidelism, because in my country there really
has been no personality cult and I have felt all my life a real anathema to
what one could call a personality cult.  I recall that one of the first
measures we took during the first days of the revolution was to issue a
decree prohibiting the use of names of living leaders of the revolution in
the naming of streets, or for statues and paintings.  All those things are
ridiculous.  Moreover, we even banned the use of photographs of revolution
leaders.  You are here and if you see a photograph of a leader, it is
because it was taken from a newspaper, a magazine, or a magazine cover, but
never because the government has printed photographs for the people.

That term is never used in our country and I do not believe it will be used
internationally.  I consider myself a humble revolutionary who has made a
humble contribution concerning the application of the revolutionary
doctrine to the concrete conditions of our country, which is 90 miles away
from the most powerful imperialist country in the world.  I have a humble
contribution of actions and ideas to revolutionary practice, I do not feel
that gives me the right to establish a doctrine with the name of Fidelism.
Recently a book was edited containing my thoughts, many of the things I
have said throughout the years.  I took a look at it after it had been
printed and I must confess I am satisfied with all the things I have said
throughout the years.  This is because I was able to ascertain that my
position has been consistent throughout.  I do not know if one can call
that a doctrine, I think it would be too presumptuous to call it a
doctrine.  In my opinion, it is a revolutionary thought that has remained
consistent.  I feel it has been my humble contribution to the revolutionary
movement, let us say.  On the other hand, I feel our people have achieved a
great feat, the feat of resisting successfully for almost 30 years the
siege, the hostility, and the blockage by the most powerful capitalist or
imperialist -- as you prefer -- nation on earth.  It is, of course, an
imperialist country, there is no doubt about that.  We have been doing this
now for 30 years.  What I mean is, all Latin American peoples have become a
little bit more independent as a result of our having struggled and having
faced up to the United States.  I think that as a result of our struggle,
the United States has come to accept a little bit more our Latin American
peoples, to despise them a little bit less, because it has seen how a very
small country stood up to it, was able to stand up to it and to remain
steadfast all these years, and is still doing so.  Yes, I believe it has
been a historic test.  Not mine, but a historic deed of our people that I
am sure, some day the rest of the Latin American peoples will recognize.

Luna: I want to tell you something: When we were coming over here on the
plane, your friend and our foreign minister, Comrade Enrique Iglesias,
enthusiastically defined your personality, stating: "Fidel is government
and opposition at the same time, because self-criticism is always present
in him; also, he is a man we always see speaking about Latin America and
acting on the basis of his thought.  Moreover, he is, without a doubt, one
of the few personalities of this century."  I would like to stress the
first point.  Do you feel like the government and the opposition when you
sometimes become tough with your people and your ministers and you ask them
for more effort and efficiency?

Castro: I would say I devote 90 percent of my time to emphasizing the
errors and deficiencies in things that I feel are being done badly, and I
devote, let us say, 10 percent to the positive things.  I think our
revolutionary process has many positive things and undoubtedly even
extraordinary things about which we are aware.  However, in my view, in
revolutionary practice, rather than feeling satisfied with what is being
done, rather than feeling self-satisfied, it is better to feel
dissatisfied.  It is better to emphasize the errors and the defects than
the successes and the good decisions.  All my life I have been very frank
in analyzing our problems and our actions and I have generally always been
very critical.  In recent years, I have been even more critical because I
became aware of some errors, some negative tendencies we were falling into,
and I felt I had to place much more emphasis on the criticism of the
negative aspects.  In some way, in a revolutionary process, the leaders
have to play the role of government as well as of the opposition.  After
all, what is self-criticism?  One of the essential, fundamental, and vital
principals of a Marxist-Leninist revolutionary is the idea of
self-criticism, the concept of self-criticism.  Self-criticism has to exist
in the nucleus, in the committees of the municipality, in the party, and
above all, the most important thing, in the people and before public
opinion.

It is very hard to criticize oneself, and I honestly tell you I know very
few men who are capable of self-criticism.  Self-criticism demands courage;
not only self-criticism of mistakes one might have committed, but also
self-criticism of the work that the collective, the party, all the
revolutionaries are doing.  I have never had the least doubt -- and I think
it is a revolutionary virtue -- that self-criticism must be Systematically
implemented.  However, self-criticism is one of the rarest and most unusual
things you will find in men s public lives.  It is the rarest thing you
will find in politicians' lives.  Maybe it is because we consistently apply
the principle of self-criticism that some say with irony -- or with humor
rather than irony -- that we play the simultaneous role of government and
opposition.  I would like to have more comrades play the role of opposition
We constantly encourage that spirit of self-criticism.  Rather than
self-satisfaction, I think that self-criticism is what really helps a
revolutionary process advance.  Of course, Iglesias is very friendly, very
affectionate, and very generous in his comments.

Luna:  He really admires you.

Castro: We mutually admire each other.  We knew each other and were friends
for a long time, when he was a prestigious leader of an international
organization, and had not yet held a public position in his country.  He
visited our country many times, and we established a friendship.  We have
spoken many times with Iglesias right here.

I even criticized him because he had not visited us for 2 years; I told
him: Since you became foreign minister, you have not wanted to visit us.
It has been a very pleasant, very interesting, and very constructive visit.

Luna:  Fidel, shall we change the topic?

Castro: No, no.  Continue with whatever topic you want...I like to talk.

Luna: Last week, in this same program, we spoke with Guatemalan President
Cerezo.

Castro: You did not really think we have exhausted the previous topics?  If
there is some doubt...

Luna:  No, simply...

Castro: ..do you want to speak more about Gorbachev?  Perhaps we did not
sufficiently address all of this.  I would like to tell you I have a very
good impression of Gorbachev.  He is a very intelligent, brave, and daring
man.  He is doing extraordinary things in the USSR, especially with a very
self-critical spirit in regard to the problems that the USSR has had during
these years.  He has increased the rate of development in the USSR,
implementing scientific and technical advances.  I think his most important
role is international.  I think if there were really hope that a climate of
peace and coexistence would be achieved in the world, history would have to
honor Gorbachev for this.

He is doing very important things in the Soviet Union.  He is renewing
cadres, and promoting young people and new ideas -- political and economic
ideas.  This is a much more complex field in which it is more difficult to
express an opinion.  I think many of the things that are being done will
bring about great results because all things he is doing will have to
undergo the tests of time.  Perhaps 10O percent will not be achieved, and
perhaps he will not be successful in all things.  We are following with
much interest what Gorbachev is doing.  We really think everything that has
been done in the Soviet Union is of great importance because of the
repercussions they might have in that country -- which is a giant, a giant
of socialism -- and internationally.  However, I really think it would be a
little too premature to issue an opinion.  We will have to wait for the
development of events to analyze each and all of the things he is doing.

Luna: Undoubtedly.  I agree with your statement that we must wait; all
processes are evolutionary, aren't they?

Castro: I know him through our relations and my personal contacts with him.
He is a very intelligent, very honest, very well-intentioned, and a very
talented man.  He is demonstrating it.

Luna: There has been talk, even by TASS, about two great currents of
"conservatives and progressives."  This has evidently resulted from the
initial, outright proposal this "revolution within a revolution," as
Gorbachev's message was characterized.  However, the problem was also
brought out in it.

Castro: He did not talk about a revolution but about a restructuring.

Luna: He talked about restructuring, but the interpreters, the analysts
have said that...

Castro:  You have talked about "conservatives and progressives?"

Luna:  Yes, in a telegram that...

Castro: I thought, instead, that the words conservatives and progressives"
were Western terms [quotation mark as published].

Luna:  TASS also says so.

Castro: When analyzing China's problems, the international news agencies
talk about conservatives and progressives" in their news reports.  I do not
believe this is Soviet terminology.  In the USSR when they talk about what
some people think and some don't they say "conservatives and progressives,"
and I would say this is old terminology.  I do not know if there is [as
published], because...actually, I would feel, I would be suspicious of the
West's sympathy.  I would not feel very pleased if the West began praising
me because I think that, from the political standpoint, the imperialist,
capitalist, liberal bourgeois thinking is -- I say this frankly -- the most
negative, retrogressive, reactionary, and conservative thinking in history.
For this reason, I think we revolutionaries must not allow ourselves to be
manipulated in any way.  We cannot allow anyone to include us in any way in
the category of conservatives and progressives" from the Western
standpoint.  In my opinion, what actually determines if something sounds
progressive is capitalism's point of reference.  The more we move away from
capitalism, the more progressive and revolutionary we are.  The closer we
move to capitalism, the more conservative and reactionary we are.
Therefore, the preeminently capitalist regimes will not be so kind as to
say a revolutionary is progressive.

In any event, I am very suspicious of Western qualifiers.  I doubt that
TASS used this qualifier, but, if it did, it must have been a mistake.

Luna: Independent of the language aspect...

Castro:  Yes, yes.

Luna: ...it may be, it is quite possible that these tendencies do exist,
even for generational reasons, and that they would be called something
different: however, there must have been people who reacted more rapidly,
more slowly, or on a different manner to the changes proposed by Gorbachev,
who said: We must go forward: we cannot fall back and have nowhere to fall
back to.

Castro:  Right.

Luna: I think that the reaction of a 20-year-old man cannot be the same as
that of a 60-year-old or a 70-year-old man.

Castro: It depends, because I am already 60, and I think that my political
views and my attitudes with regard to problems have not changed from those
I had when I was 20.  Yes, yes.  I think that I have become more
revolutionary, a more convinced revolutionary over the years.  I feel more
revolutionary at age 70 [as published] than at age 20, and more at age 60
than at age 30, and I think that I will feel unfortunate the day I wake up
and feel less revolutionary than the day before.  So, this matter of the
international news agencies...

Luna:  Would you be a revolutionary again at 30?

Castro: I would be the same as 30 years ago with the experience I have now.
I think I would do things much better.  I would do the same things as now
but with much more experience and possibly with much more efficacy.

[snip by MIM]