FL1608145788 Havana Television Cubana Network in Spanish 0102 GMT 16 Aug 88

[News conference held by President Fidel Castro with Ecuadoran and foreign
reporters, with Jorge Leon moderating, in Quito, Ecuador, "on the morning
of 13 August"--recorded]

[snip by MIM]
 
 

[Leon] Next on my list I have colleague Francisco Herrera from Channel 8.

[Herrera] [Words indistinct] the world socialist system is sometimes
called--by those who oppose it--a personality cult that focuses on the
permanence of leaders at the head of such governments.

[Castro] Yes.

[Herrera] What would happen in Cuba if Fidel Castro would leave power at
this moment?  How would the Cuban political system stand the absence of its
leader, based on an analysis of the famous personality cult?  Thank you,
Commander.

[Castro] This seems to be a very interesting question, but I could also
ask a question before giving my answer:  What is the personality cult?
Could you define it?

[Herrera] Personally, I couldn't.

[Castro] How is that?

[Herrera] Personally, I couldn't.  I am sorry about my lack of knowledge
in that regard, Commander.

[Castro] Frankly, I also feel a lack of knowledge in terms of being able
to answer the question.  [laughter, applause] I think that the expression
personality cult was coined by the Soviets.  It was a result of some
congress back in the times of Nikita Khrushchev.  When he was analyzing
with Stalin the problems of the USSR, he used the expression, personality
cult.  However, we don't know whether the existence of a statute of a
political personality is an indication a personality cult exists.  If that
is a personality cult, I don't have a single statute in Cuba; I don't even
have pictures in the state offices, or streets called Fidel Castro.  Also,
it is a historical fact that one of the first laws, decrees, or decisions
taken by the revolutionary government was the permanent prohibition of that
because manifestations of that sort began taking place.  We could not honor
the living with any such homage.

If a cult is understood to be a personality, a personal government, then we
cannot talk about a personality cult in our country.  This is because when
the revolution triumphed.  I was commander in chief of a victorious army.
However, even earlier, I had been concerned about [words indistinct] of
collective responsibility, collective management.  Ever since we began the
organization of our movement, in complete clandestinity, we had a group of
leaders who would analyze and make decisions concerning problems.  Certain
abilities were attributed to me.  I even used to discuss the problems with
smaller groups of three people.  I would discuss with them all the problems
related to the plans, and we would discuss the action to be taken in our
country.

If personality cult is understood to be the abusive exertion of power, we
cannot talk about a personality cult in our country.  In our country, power
is shared collectively with the state's leadership, and basically by the
leadership, the party.  Or if personality cult means what I have sometimes
called the law of Saturn--the law that came out at the time of the French
Revolution, and gave rise to someone saying that the revolution, like
Saturn, would devour its own children.

This in fact occurred, because one day the king or the queen would be
beheaded, and the next day it would be the head of Mirabeau or Danton or
Robespierre.  That's the way it went.  We all know a little but about this.
I can assure you that the law of Saturn has not had a chance to be in
evidence in our revolutionary process.  Thus I see so many differences,
such different characteristic, between the processes of the October
Revolution in the Soviet Union and our processes.  I see no similarity.

If by cult of personality, you mean the reelection of leaders when they are
perceived to have the responsibility and capacity or experience to lead
something as difficult as a revolutionary process, then you would have to
speak of a personality cult in many places.  You would have to say there is
a personality cult in France because Mitterrand was reelected.  You would
have to say there is a personality cult in Great Britain because people
elect and reelect Mrs. Thatcher, and reelect her again.  You would have to
say there is a personality cult in Spain because they elect and reelect
Felipe Gonzalez, and reelect him again.  I don't know how long Felipe
Gonzalez will remain at the head of the government.  Sometimes the
socialists say they need a long time [words indistinct] or 20 years.

If that's what it's all about [words indistinct] leaders in power, then you
would have to speak about a personality cult in many countries.

In fact, with all due respect, it could be said that there is a personality
cult in the church because the pope is elected and he continues to be pope,
respected and venerated, for a long time. [applause]

[Herrera] Commander...

[Castro, interrupting] I am trying to answer you question on the basis of
certain elements that might be considered raw material for the personality
cult theory.  Yes, tell me.

[Herrera] Commander, I was asking what would happen in Cuba to the Cuban
system if Fidel Castro left power.

[Castro] Perhaps Cuba would work better [laughter] No one knows.
[applause] I have answered your question.  [laughter]

[Herrera] If you consider that an answer?  Thank you, Commander.

[Leon] I now have on my list (Heba Ponemunski de Lecuan).

[Castro] (Lecuan).  French?  Ah, France, Paris [laughter]

[(Lecuan)] I must say you do not look 62.  [laughter; someone shouts:
"It's his birthday" prolonged applause]

[Castro] Thank you, I had forgotten.  [laughter]

[(Lecuan)] The people and public opinion of Western Europe look with
sympathy and interest on Mikhail Gorbachev's efforts to effect an opening,
glasnost, and apolitical reform of the public institutions in the Soviet
Union, what is called perestroyka.  Apparently, something similar has not
taken place in Cuba.  Is this because conditions in Cuba are different?

[Castro] It's better...[changes thought] Well, thank goodness that
Western Europe is finding something good coming out of the Soviet Union!
[laughter] I do know that since the Bolshevik revolution what Western
Europe has done is to blockade it, surround it, attack it, invade it.  I do
know that they invaded it with millions of soldiers in 1941.  I do know
everything Europe has done as an ally of the United States in the cold war.
That is why I say, thank goodness that capitalist, bourgeois Western Europe
finally thinks something coming out of the Soviet Union is good.  When will
the day come when capitalist and bourgeois Western Europe thinks something
coming out of Cuba is good?  [applause]

So I don't know why people say that there is no similar process; what's
more important, I don't know why people say that there must be a similar
process.  What is there in the history of the Soviet Union and in the
history of Cuba that is exactly the same?  If certain problems arose there
that did not occur in Cuba, why should we in Cuba take all the same
measures taken in the Soviet Union?  Why, if we did so many different
things, if our agrarian reform was different, if we did not parcel out the
big estates and instead worked hard to turn them into modern,
industrialized agricultural enterprises supported by technology?  We had
the vision not to turn the country into a country of minifundia, which
would have (?hurt) Cuba's sugar production.  It must not be forgotten that
Cuba produces food for 40 million people around the world.  Our island is
small, covering a bit over 100,000 square km with a population just over 10
million, almost 100 inhabitants per square kilometer.  And yet is produces
and exports food for 40 million people.

I don't think that we would have been able to speak in these terms if we
had turned the country into a nation of minifundia where we would not be
able to use machinery, technology, irrigation, or the sugarcane harvester
which has saved the labor of almost 300,000 compatriots.

If we had not done this... [changes thought] What we did was maintain
those units, that land, and we developed it.  We gave the land to those who
used it without obtaining a title from the owner [precaristas], to those
who paid for the use of the land [arrendatarios], to those who lived in a
colony on the land and paid for using it [colonos] and so forth.

If we did not have to force collectivism, as Soviet leaders say occurred in
the USSR--and we don't have that kind of problem--then why do we have to
apply measures similar to those used there, where they did have those
problems?  If we have an electoral system that is totally different from
the Soviet system, if in our country the party does not interfere to
nominate candidates for primary elections, in selecting district
delegates...[changes thought] They are selected by the people in an
assembly meeting.  In addition, they are the basis, the foundation, of the
people's government at the municipal, provincial, and national levels.  If
the Soviets decide to carry out a reform in their electoral laws because
they have a different procedure, why should we have to do the same?

If we have attained great success in a certain area, they can also refuse
to do the same.  If we have attained great success in the education and
health of our people, if we have reduced infant mortality to the lowest
rate of all Third World countries, if we have increased life expectance to
the highest levels throughout the entire Third World to the point where it
can be compared to more industrialized countries, and if they had some
difficulties in any of those areas, why should we do the same thing they
do?

We have applied different concepts in education and in many other tasks.
If we have different problems, why should we have to apply the same
solution?

Like I said, if someone has a toothache, why should we treat him for corns;
if someone has corns, why should we treat him for a toothache?

I cannot understand all this campaign to differentiate the Soviets and
Cubans, to sow division between the Soviets and Cubans.  I have discussed
this with Gorbachev because I have excellent relations with Gorbachev and I
have had excellent exchanges of opinions with him for hours on many topics.
I have even said to him:  They're trying to divide us because we do not do
things the same way.  Gorbachev's response was:  Why do we have to do
things the say way?

I want you to know that the difference in relations between Soviets and
Cubans has created no problem between me and Gorbachev.  We do things
differently.  If someone is going to make a mistake, it should be his own
error and not someone else's.

In the past, we are constantly being accused of being a Soviet satellite
and every time we did something they said it was because of the Soviets.
Now they are accusing us of not doing what the Soviets do.  Where have we
ended up?  Where will it all end?  [applause]

What is the second...

[Leon, interrupting] Thank you very much, Commander.  You were...

[(Lecuan), interrupting] I have a second question.  You were seated at the
Congress during the transfer of the presidency, next to the pope's
delegate, the apostolic nuncio.  In the morning you had a friendly talk
with the apostolic delegate but not in the afternoon.  In the afternoon
President Arras was seated next to you.

What are your relations, the relations of the Cuban Government, with the
Catholic Church?

[Castro] I'll have to give you the history of this, although it will be
brief so as not to bore you.  Based on protocol, I had the privilege,
honor, luck, or misfortune--I'm not sure what to call it [laughter]--of
being one of the first people there.  I was there on the first day and the
only other person who was there before me was Colombia's apostolic nuncio.
There was no one else to speak to except the apostolic nuncio.  [laughter]
I truly spoke to him with pleasure.  He was very nice.  We talked,
exchanged views on different things, people we knew, such as a nuncio who
was in Cuba.  We talked of such topics for about 50 minutes.  I also spoke
to other people as they arrived.  I spoke to others.  I saw that people
were very interested in what I did.  [laughter] They wanted to see with
whom I spoke.

They said:  He spoke to him and him.  They were saying this in the
morning.  Now you're telling me that the only thing I did in the afternoon
was talk and I truly gave an enormous amount of attention to the speech by
President Borja.

[Words indistinct] observers gave to some topics, not to those pertaining
to internal matters.  As a guest of this country, I should not give my
opinion on internal matters.

In reference to many international, economic, and political problems and
political concepts in general [words indistinct] I responded to those
matters related to the external situation.  Many times I asked a question
because sometimes the audio fails.  I would ask a question because
sometimes the applause started before he finished speaking.  I would ask:
What did he say?  If I was tested on what I asked I could probably pass,
not with an outstanding grade, but with a satisfactory grade.  [laughter]

I got there even earlier on the second day.  I think that there were two or
three people there on the first day.  On the second day, the only person
there was the nuncio.  I said:  What luck.  I have the nuncio here next to
me. [laughter] When you enter a room that has a curved or semicircular
structure or arrangement during a situation that is so solemn with a
multitude of people in the galleries expressing themselves with so much
fervor, expressing kindness toward the visitors, and they seat you at the
main platform--I was there alone.  I was there by myself for almost an
hour.  The people were talking, expressing their feelings, joy, criticism,
or whatever.

I didn't know what to do with my hands.  I didn't know if I should stick
them in my pockets.  If I should do this with them, if I should cross my
arms like this.  I didn't know what to do.  I spoke to the nuncio.

I said to the nuncio: Msgr. Msgr [repeats himself], do you know how I feel?
I feel like I'm in a Roman circus.  The nuncio said to me:  Yes, but as a
lion.  [laughter; applause] I immediately said to him; No, as a Christian.
[laughter; applause] That's why I couldn't help but appear happy when
others arrived to share that privilege with me.

I was very happy when others arrived--other leaders arrived, such as
Alfonso Guerro--not just because of the sincere feeling of friendship I had
with those who were arriving, but because I saw them as liberators, for
then I wouldn't be the only one there.  I was so enthusiastic as the Latin
American leaders arrived that I almost applauded Shultz.  [laughter;
applause] Wait, wait; it wasn't that I saw Shultz as a liberator
[interrupted by laughter] or someone who would share the attention of that
distinguished public with me.  It was because people said Shultz would not
be there.  Everyone said:  Shultz won't go.  By a certain time, everyone
was saying:  Shultz won't go.  He won't go because of a mural by
Guayasamin.

Even the mural became the most famous one in the world in a short amount of
time.  [laughter] No one could become as famous this fast, not even
Guayasamin.  Even though Guayasamin's paintings are famous before he paints
them, on this occasion, no one could make a painting as famous in such a
short time.  This could only be accomplished by the haughtiness of the
empire, that empire that speaks of liberty and other things.  I sincerely
say that they wanted to mutilate the enlightening though of Guayasamin.  As
a result, cables throughout the world [interrupted by applause]--all
cables throughout the world mentioned Guayasamin's mural.  It might have
taken longer for it to become famous.  They said that Shultz would not
come.  A little applause began, just a little.

I think another Latin American leader entered, another friend, and I myself
began to go like this; [video shows Castro applauding] I think I did it two
or three times.  I even asked:  Who's coming?  They told me it was Shultz
and I just sat there.  [laughter] It's not that I wasn't willing to
applaud for Shultz.  Courtesy demands this and courtesy does not make one
less brave, but I would like to be aware of the situation when I applaud
and not do it erroneously.  [laughter] As you can imagine, I was very
surprised.

I saw Shultz arrive.  He sat down.  He put on his apparatus.  I did not
want to look at him too much so it wouldn't look as if I was giving the
matter so much importance.  [laughter] Every once in a while I would take
a peek over there just out of curiosity.  [laughter] I would look out of
historical, political curiosity.  I wanted to see how he acted, what he
did.  Others paid more attention to him and they told me about it later.
[laughter] They said he arrived and modestly sat down.  He politely sat
down.  They said that after a while he began to go like this to look at
Guayasamin's mural.  [laughter] Shultz himself was very interested in
Guayasamin's mural which he made famous.

Notice how many things happened to me there that day, how good my relations
with the church will be.  [laughter] I have never been more grateful to the
church.  [applause]

Furthermore, our relations with the church are known; our ideas about the
church and religion are known.  There is a widely circulated book written
by Father Beto entitled "Fidel and Religion."  The title is so suggestive
people have bought it because of that.  They have bought it to see what I
have to say about that, not because I am so important, but because the
subject is very important.

My position is known, furthermore, my words to the church and the pope have
always been words of respect.  When the pope tours Latin America and speaks
with the peasants, he sees the poverty and misery, he speaks about agrarian
reform, the need to find land for the peasants.  When he arrives at an
unhealthy neighborhood, such as in Lima, where millions of people live in
very difficult conditions, he speaks of the need for housing, health,
education.  When he sees great unemployment, he speaks of the need to find
work for the nation.  Therefore, he makes statements which reflect what he
sees with his very own eyes.

Generally, I can say that relations with the church are normal in our
country.  This is because our revolution was never inspired by an
antireligious spirit.  I can tell you that I know the history of many
revolutions and in general, they have been in conflict with the church.
You know about the French Revolution, how it came about and developed.
There were three estates.  Among them was the clergy, which later divided.
One part supported the old regime, another part the people and the
revolution.  In almost all revolutions, there was the phenomenon of serious
conflict which even gave rise to bloody episodes.  I can tell you that in
our country no one can talk about an executed priest.  Even on those
occasions when there were conflicts between the revolution and certain
priests, my example (?is) [words indistinct] by the mercenary invasion of
Giron.  Logically, we had to capture the mercenaries who survived [words
indistinct] they weren't imprisoned very long.  Whenever there was a priest
arrested under different circumstances, they were in prison a very short
time.  We took great care to ensure that the revolution did not have the
image of being against religion and church, not only the Catholic Church,
but any church.

There was a nuncio who I liked very much, a Mr. Sachi.  He was there when
certain conflicts arose.  These conflicts were not because of religious
matters but because of the richer persons.  They had been the only ones who
had the privilege of going to church, and when the revolutionary laws came
about, contradictions developed in all those sectors.  Those sectors wanted
to use the church as an instrument against the revolution.  This monsignor
did an excellent and brilliant job in resolving that situation.  That is
why I respect him very much, and I remember him very much.  Among other
things, I also asked the nuncio of Colombia if he was a friend of or knew
Mr. Sachi, and to give him my regards.

Although there certainly were contradictions, the revolution was extremely
careful, not because of the kindness of the revolution, or the paternalism
of the revolution, but as a matter of principle.  The principle of complete
respect for the beliefs of the citizens is an essential principle for us.
It is not a gift from the revolution; it is a right, a principle that the
revolution respects.  [applause]
 
 

[snip by MIM]

[(Steinberger)] Thank you, Commander.  [applause]

[Leon] It is now the turn of (Gladys Ruiz), LIBERACION.

[(Ruiz)] Comrade Fidel, over here.  Comrade Fidel, you are the highest
expression of the struggle of the people for national liberation in Latin
America.  That struggle is what truly unites us.  What steps should be
taken, what social forces should be organized, so that all our peoples can
become aware of this need?  Thank you.

[Castro] I thank you for your generous words describing me.  The question
you asked is not easy to answer in just a few moments.  The question of
what to do in each country is a delicate matter.  I don't want to appear to
be promoting the liberation movements or of giving advise on what should be
done.

I am centering my attention fundamentally on matters that are very common
for all countries, on battles that are indispensable for our liberation,
primarily for our development, our survival.  That is why I have focused my
statements on questions previously mentioned here, such as the foreign
debt, the economic crisis, the new international economic order, the
serious problems that affect our countries.  In a certain fashion, I am
making a general appeal.  We could tell all the sectors, all the democratic
progressive, nationalistic sectors, all those that have interests in
common, that the debt and the economic crisis is affecting the entire
world.

First of all, it is affecting the worker, the peasant.  Unemployment
affects the workers, the peasants, the most humble sectors of the
population.  What affects the national economy affects all sectors.  Some
suffer the consequences of the crisis more directly than others.  No one
suffers as much as the worker.  No one suffers as much as the peasant.  No
one suffers as much as the humble sectors of the population.

We are appealing for internal unity among our countries and unity between
countries to carry out a united battle against the phenomena that affect us
in a terrible way, such as the ones I have mentioned and the phenomenon of
drug trafficking.  This is a new problem created by imperialism.  It is a
new problem created by the society of consumption in the United States.  It
is a serious problem and it even questions the states' reason for being,
their sovereignty.  The problems begin to accumulate.  We have to fight
those problems.

Second, we state the need for profound social changes, at least for social
changes that lighten, improve, change the situation of the poorer sectors,
the sectors that have suffered the most in our hemisphere.  We are placing
the emphasis, in these social changes, on this common battle against those
who exploit us, who plunder us.  Social changes, however, become truly
indispensable in our hemisphere.

I was talking about this topic yesterday with the deputies, who posed
several questions of this kind in connection with these topics.  I
expressed some of my convictions.  For example, classic revolutions--I use
the French Revolution, which will soon be 200 years old, as an example of a
classic revolution; I use the October Revolution during the old empire of
the czars as an example of a classic revolution.  I don't use the Cuban
revolution as an example of a classic revolution, because subjective
factors had a big influence in the Cuban revolution, although there were
enough objective factors to give rise to a revolution.  It was not such a
terrible, desperate situation as the one many Latin American countries are
experiencing at present.  I have told many figures I have met that an
unavoidable duty of the current governing sectors, the present generation
of Latin American leaders is to find a solution to these terrible problems.
Otherwise, our societies are moving toward situations so critical that
objective conditions will be created similar to those preceding the big
social explosions that occurred during the classic revolutions.  Those
classic revolutions were not created by any single individual.  They were
historically created, conditions grew and the lack of foresight by the
rulers made these conditions critical.  For anyone who has studied the
French Revolution--it would be worthwhile to analyze and reanalyze the
situation.  A lot has been written about it.  The economic and social
conditions of French society on the eve of the revolution are known.  The
conditions under the czars are also known.  They gave rise to a
revolutionary explosion.

Furthermore, I have said that if monarchs with foresight had existed in
France--perhaps if Louis XIV, Louis XV, Louis XVI had the foresight, had
been wise, and had been aware of and realized those situations--they might
have been able to adopt measures to avert a crisis of the magnitude that
gave rise to the explosion.  Perhaps the French Revolution would not have
occurred.  I say the same thing about the czars who had introduced reforms
and changes to alleviate the situation of the masses in some way, then
perhaps there would not have been a Bolshevik revolution either.

So, I note--and this is not a subversive proclamation but a warning, the
expression of a conviction--that we are getting close to those situations
that historically, elsewhere, led to the explosions, the classic
revolutions, the uncontrollable, unmanageable social explosions.  I feel
that if all these problems continue to accumulate, if these social problems
continue to get worse; if it can be clearly seen that they are going to
continue to get worse everywhere; if unemployment, underemployment,
poverty, and malnutrition continue to grow--and when you talk about
unemployment and underemployment levels of 40 or 50 percent, you are
talking about a very serious scenario--if these problems are not
produced...[corrects himself] are not resolved, we are going to get closer
to those objective conditions that will give rise to the classic
revolutionary explosions.  I hope that everybody will be aware, will be
wise enough, to promote change--first of all, to solve the objective
problems of our countries' economies, and second, to carry out measures of
justice, equity, and distribution of wealth; to carry out the necessary,
essential social changes to achieve social justice without the need for the
terrible traumas caused by the classic revolutions and, in general, all
revolutions.

I had promised a group of youths in an institution involved with economic
issues that I would talk to them yesterday.  In talking to them, I was
using the example of our homeland, of Cuba, in its last fight for
independence, the struggle organized and led by Jose Marti, one of the most
extraordinary thinkers of our hemisphere.  I don't know if he is
sufficiently known in the countries of Latin America.  When he was
promoting the last fight for independence, it was said that it would bring
bloodshed to the country, that it would lead to violence.  He said that war
was the last resort.  He spoke of the necessary and useful war that had to
be swift and well organized so as to cause the least damage possible.  If
Marti had been told that there were real prospects for Cuban independence
without violence, Marti would have preferred that course.  He only resorted
to war as the last resort when there was no other course possible.

I am also convinced that if Lenin had been told social changes, the changes
he wanted to achieve in his country, were possible without the trauma of a
civil war and violence.  Lenin would have preferred this road.  That is why
I express my conviction, and I think it is the conviction of all true
revolutionaries, that violence is the last resource when there is no other
road, when there is no other possibility for change.  I think that
hopefully, those men who have this responsibility in our hemisphere are
capable of taking these steps and measures to solve these problems while
avoiding the trauma of large social uprising.  Or, on the contrary, the
current governments will play the role enacted by the last kings of France
or the last czars of the old Russian empire.

To complement your idea.  I have added these points of view, these
opinions, these convictions which I stated to the comrades I mentioned to
you in order to express my point of view on this matter.

I think it's a complex problem, a topic which could be discussed much but
within a certain amount of time.  That's what I can say in reference to
your question.  [applause]

[snip by MIM]