This is an archive of the former website of the Maoist Internationalist Movement, which was run by the now defunct Maoist Internationalist Party - Amerika. The MIM now consists of many independent cells, many of which have their own indendendent organs both online and off. MIM(Prisons) serves these documents as a service to and reference for the anti-imperialist movement worldwide.
We defend the right of Cuba to live free from U.$. intervention; we oppose the U.$. blockade. However, we do the same for all Third World countries. Many in the United $tates support Cuban independence and not the independence of other bourgeois leaders of sovereign nations, because they mistakenly believe Cuba is "socialist."]

-DATE-
19880228
-YEAR-
1988
-DOCUMENT_TYPE-
INTERVIEW
-AUTHOR-
F.CASTRO
-HEADLINE-
INTERVIEW WITH MARIA SHRIVER
-PLACE-
HAVANA
-SOURCE-
HAVANA TELEVISION SERVIC
-REPORT_NBR-
FBIS
-REPORT_DATE-
19880303
-TEXT-
Castro Interview With NBC Reporter Shriver

FL291408 Havana Television Service in Spanish 0134 GMT 28 Feb 88

[Interview with President Fidel Castro by NBC reporter Maria Shriver on the
night of 24-25 February in Havana; questions in English with Spanish
translation; answers in Spanish with English translation--recorded]
 

[snip by MIM]

[Castro]  Well, we support the peace plan and the idea of a political
solution.  We did even before the Arias plan, because the Contadora plan
came before the Arias plan.  The Contadora countries worked very hard.
They were first four, then four more.  There was Peru, Uruguay, Brazil,
Argentina.  They were seeking a political solution.  We have always
supported a political solution.  The Arias plan moves in that direction,
which we believe is the correct one.  We support that plan.

[Shriver]  Do you think the Arias peace plan will work?

[Castro]  Well, the Arias plan has already played a role, inasmuch as it
has paved the way for important steps--talks, negotiations.  It has
influenced the evolution of events.

[Shriver]  What has been the most important influence, in your opinion

[Castro]  It got the Central American governments to talk.  I think it
awakened a sense of independence among the Central American governments to
a greater or lesser degree--in the case of Guatamala, to a high degree.  I
believe the Guatemalan Government has observed an independent
position--Costa Rica's stance to a high degree, also.

Up to the Arias government, Costa Rica had collaborated with the
counterrevolution.  Counterrevolutionary bands were moving on the
Nicaragua-Costa Rica border.  The CIA supplied and aided the bands from
Costa Rica.  Arias assumed a nobler stand, an independent stand.  He
understood the interests of Central America and changed the policy of the
previous governments.  So, three governments that had a constructive
position got together.  They were Costa Rica, Guatemala, and Nicaragua--El
Salvador, to a certain extent, since it has a strong revolutionary movement
within its borders.  It was interested in seeing what specific kinds of
advantages it could extract from the situation.  The Honduran Government is
very much subjected to that of the United States.  It is quite interested
in the money it receives in its role as a counterrevolutionary base.  The
Honduran Government was the most timid supporter of the plan.  Therefore,
in this sense, the Arias' initiative played an important role.  I think the
Nobel Prize jury understood the importance of his role and opted to support
the movement by granting Arias the Nobel Peace Prize.  Although peace has
not been achieved, the effort has been positive.

I feel the country that has made the biggest contribution to this peace
effort has been Nicaragua.  It's the one that has made the biggest efforts,
and I can attest to that.

[Shriver]  Why?

[Castro]  Well, because it is the country that is being attacked.  It is
the victim of a dirty war that has cost tens of thousands of lives--as much
as if a dirty war in the United States had cost it 3 million lives.  fifty
thousand Nicaraguans are the equivalent of 3 million Americans.  Imagine if
someone had waged a dirty war against the United States that would have
meant the loss of 3 million lives, one that would have caused hundreds of
billions in losses.  That's what this dirty war has cost Nicaragua.  It is
involved in that war.  It is being attacked.  It is a kind of sustained
Giron.  It has cost many lives and sacrifices.  And yet Nicaragua made
concessions in the midst of a war situation.  It allowed newspapers at the
service of the counterrevolution and U.S. interests to open.  Those
newspapers defend the cause against national interests.  Nicaragua made
concessions of all sorts, of all sorts, [repeats himself] to show its good
faith, its good will.

[Shriver]  You equate war in Nicaragua to the Bay of Pigs?

[Castro]  The dirty war is worse.  Much worse.

[Shriver]  But it's similar?

[Castro]  From the political point of view, it pursues the same objective.
There was a dirty war here, too.  but we were an island.  We did not have
borders on the north or the south.  The weapons had to be supplied by sea
or by air.  We quickly mobilized the entire population and we armed the
people in the mountains, in the valleys, everywhere.  Despite this, we had
to fight for 5 years to liquidate the counterrevolutionary bands.  It is
not easy.  It's enough to have the support of a minority; they can hold on
indefinitely.  Especially when the United States supports them and when
they think that sooner or later the United States will intervene, will
invade.

For us it meant 5 years of fighting.  It was not only Giron.  We had Giron
and we had the dirty war:  sabotage, armed gangs in all the country's
provinces.  In that sense, they are similar.  However, Nicaragua has a
smaller population, has more land, more mountains, borders to the north and
the south.  Nicaragua is harder to defend than the island of Cuba.

[Shriver]  You mention an opposition press in Nicaragua that allowed that.

[Castro]  A counterrevolutionary press at the service of U.S. policy.

[Shriver]  That is something that doesn't exist here.  Do you think it was
a mistake?

[Castro]  It does not exist nor will it ever exist.  Let no one even dram
about it.  We eliminated privately owned mass media here.  The mass media
belongs to the people, the party, the youth.  Workers have their own
newspaper, peasants have their own paper, women have their own paper.

[Shriver]  There will never be an opposition press here.

[Castro]  There will not be a so-called press, a press at the service of
the interest of Cuba's enemies, of the enemies of the revolution.  A press
which is at the service of the U.S. policy does not exist and will never
exist.  I have to tell you this very honestly.

[Shriver]  I will come back to that later.  Do you think it was a mistake
for Daniel Ortega to allow that?

[Castro]  No, I do not think it was a mistake.  It was not a mistake
[preceding word rendered in English] as she says.  [Castro comments to
interpreter] I do not think it is a mistake.  I believe the situation in
Nicaragua is different.

[Shriver]  You would have not done it.

[Castro]  I do not know.  I shouldn't pass judgment on that.  We have never
done it.  That is all I can say.  Now, Nicaragua is in the midst of this
whole Latin American movement, of this Latin American effort to resolve a
Latin American problem, in the midst of this entire peace effort.  I
believe it might imply a big sacrifice, but I cannot criticize what they
did.  [Words indistinct] after the Esquipulas I meeting, Daniel came here
and explained the talks, the agreements, the policy, and we supported him.
We as a principle [words indistinct].  If they want to open a newspaper, we
will support them.  If they want to open 10, we will support them.
Whatever they do, if they want to hold Western-style elections as they do
in the United States, we will support them.  We will support what the
Sandinists do.

[Shriver]  Regardless of what they do.

[Castro]  Yes.  That is the duty of friends and brothers.  We admire what
they have done.  They have shown courage within a mixed economy and
multipartyism concept.  Those were the banners of the Sandinist revolution.
I believe it is possible to have those so-called opposition parties, which
are against the revolution, and this counterrevolutionary press at the
service of the United States--because the paper and the money of the press
is paid by the United States.  It is possible.  But we do not have and will
not have mixed economy and we do not have and will not have multipartyism.
Our people are very united.  Marti did it in the independence war.  He
organized the party of the revolution and all revolutionaries.  We have the
party of all revolutionaries here.  I categorically say that we are not
planning on having any kind of multipartyism or any type of mixed economy.
Our revolution went deeper than (?dictatorship).  It reached a point of no
return.  We are totally pleased with what we are doing.

[Shriver]  Let me back over to Nicaragua for a moment.  How do you describe
your relation with Daniel Ortega?

[Castro]  They are very friendly relations.  They are so not only with
Daniel. You tend to personalize political processes.  You say Castro's
Cuba, Daniel Ortega's Nicaragua.  Cuba is not Castro's and Nicaragua is not
Daniel's.  The Americans tend to identify the processes with an individual.
[Words indistinct]  I have good relations with Daniel.  I have a very high
opinion of him.  He is very intelligent.  I have excellent relations with
all the leaders and with all Nicaraguan revolutionaries.  I have a friendly
and brotherly relationship.

[Shriver]  Many people say he is a protege of yours.

[Castro]  I believe there is no revolution that is a protege of another,
because one of the strongest feelings in any country, whether is is big or
small--but it is even greater in the smaller countries than in the big
ones--is the sense of independence, of national dignity.  It is very strong
in them, in us, and in all of our countries.  And the excellent countries
among revolutionaries all over the world, with progressive countries, is
that we have never treated those countries with hegemony, we have never
treated them as being dependent on us.  We have always respected their
ideas.  I am going to tell you the secret of our relations with
revolutionaries throughout all these years.  It is the respect of ideas,
opinions, views, and independence of each revolutionary organization.  This
is the secret of our excellent relations.

[Shriver]  There are those who say that you advise Daniel Ortega and that
one of the pieces of advice you gave him is to manage the United States
with moderation.

[Castro]  I do not know where that came from.  I can tell you the
following. It is a practice I follow.  I never give anybody any advice
unless someone asks for it.  I do not give my opinion on what they are
doing unless they ask me for it.

[Shriver]  Has he asked you?

[Castro]  He has asked many times.  Among revolutionaries we ask each
others opinions.  Because of age, of experience... [changes thought]  They
can ask us for our views.  Panamanians have asked us for our views on the
political problem.  Nicaraguans have asked for our views--views, not
advice.

[Shriver]  Has Daniel Ortega asked you your opinion on how to deal with the
United States?

[Castro]  No. Not that I recall.  Our relations go back many years, since
they were fighting in the mountains, since long before the triumph of the
revolution.  They were very close relations.  It would be wrong to tell
them not to make mistakes.  We have not made any mistakes regarding our
relations with the United States.  I do not think we have made any mistakes
[words indistinct] absolutely nothing regarding our relations with the
United States.  So it would be very difficult to tell Ortega not to do what
we did because what we did was necessary for the Cuban revolution to
survive.  If we had not done it, the revolution would not have survived in
front of a country as powerful as the United States.  Had it not been
because of the firmness of the revolution, the determination to go ahead,
our revolution would not have survived.

[Shriver]  You never think that in this almost 30 years you have been in
power you have made one mistake regarding the United States?

[Castro]  Strategic errors, no.

[Shriver]  You were young, you needed power, you were inexperienced,
rebellious.  Looking back...

[Castro, interrupting]  Had we been this mature at the beginning of the
revolution perhaps we would have managed the situation a little more
cold-bloodedly, with more wisdom.  Of course, more experience would have
logically helped us more.  If we didn't have experience, the United States
had less, because the United States was not prepared to accept the idea of
an independent country in Latin America, a revolutionary country in Latin
America, and a socialist country in Latin America.  They were not mentally
prepared for that.  It had much less experience.  If mistakes have been
made here, the United States has made many more.  I believe that if we were
to begin the revolution now, we would do the same basic things.  Maybe we
would use more diplomacy, we would have been more calm.  We would have
treated such an inexperienced country with a little more patience and
wisdom.  Do you understand?

Today the United States is also more experienced.  At that time it had
nothing to do with China.  China was the Red threat, the yellow threat, the
threat of all colors.  They wouldn't even talk about China in 1959, 1960.
Nothing.  The USSR was the evil empire and had no relations.  Today U.S.
relations with China [words indistinct], relations with the USSR are
excellent.  We are left with the honor of being one of the few adversaries
of the United states.

[Shriver]  That's an honor?

[Castro]  Of course it is an honor.  Because for such a small country as
Cuba to have such a gigantic country as the United States live so obsessed
with this small island, a country that no longer considers itself an
adversary of the USSR or adversary of China and considers itself an
adversary of Cuba--it is an honor for us.

[Shriver]  The Soviet Union no longer has the honor?

[Castro]  Well, it seems it has the honor of having friendly relations with
the United States, for which we are glad.

[Shriver]  So it has a different kind of honor.

[Castro]  It is a different kind of honor.  Someday we might also have the
honor of having good relations with the United States.  For the time
being, we have the honor of being a great adversary of the United States.
At least we are firm adversary, an adversary that does not give in, that
does not give, and a very morally strong adversary.

[Shriver]  And that makes you proud.

[Castro]  We have no other choice of being proud of that.

[Shriver]  What could the United States do to make sure that the Arias
peace plan works?

[Castro]  Well, the administration would have to be persuaded that the
dirty war leads to no solution.  I know the Sandinists.  They are very
patriotic, very nationalistic, and very courageous, very courageous.
[repeats himself] They are not going to be able to do away with them, with
the dirty war.  If that dirty war goes on, hundreds and hundreds of more
people will be killed.  If a U.S. intervention takes place, then hundreds
of thousands would be killed.  So the administration would have to be
persuaded to simply accept a peace policy, because the administration's
policy is to destroy.

I believe the Congress' attitude has been positive, constructive.  I
believe that what the Congress has done by rejecting the proposal for more
funds is one of the most constructive things that has been done to achieve
peace in Central America.  I believe the U.S. people maintain a good
attitude.  I understand that most of the U.S. people oppose the dirty war
against Nicaragua and that many people in the United States oppose that
wrong, inappropriate, obsolete policy followed by Reagan as to Nicaragua.
I believe the Americans are doing what they can when the majority of the
people oppose that.  I believe the people who think in the United States
must struggle to continue to oppose this warmongering dirty war venture.

[Shriver]  If the Arias peace plan called for all foreign military aid to
end, would you withdraw your support to Nicaragua and try to help [words
indistinct]?

[Castro]  We give Nicaragua different kinds of help.  We given them
political aid...

[Shriver, interrupting]  I am talking about military.  Would you be willing
to withdraw your military support?

[Castro]  We have a number of advisers and instructors.  They played a more
important role at the beginning when the Nicaraguans did not have an army
and didn't have cadres to organize the [words indistinct] force.  I believe
our aid was important during that period of time.  today it is no longer as
important.  It is more a matter of moral solidarity.  We cannot withdraw
unilaterally our military personnel there.  We do not have troops there.
there are instructors and advisers.  Actually, we do not have troops, we
have no military units in Nicaragua.  Unilaterally we cannot do that.  But
we accept and support what the Nicaraguans decide to do in this regard.

[Shriver]  Under what conditions would you do that?  Under what conditions
would you withdraw your military support?

[Castro] Under the conditions the Nicaraguans establish.  When Daniel
Ortega came here after the first Esquipulas agreement we issued a joint
statement.  We expressed the willingness to withdraw foreign military
personnel to the extent to which the United States withdraws its own.  Now
then, if Esquipulas [words indistinct] on withdrawing all military we would
welcome it wholeheartedly.  We would agree with it.  But we will only do it
if the Nicaraguans agree.  We will not do it unilaterally.  The withdrawal
of all foreign military personnel from Central America is an excellent
idea.  We support it.  I am sure the Nicaraguans will support it as well.
But the Nicaraguans have the last word on this.  We cannot say on our own:
I will withdraw personnel.  We will do it if they consider it necessary.

[Shriver]  You would also withdraw from El Salvador?

[Castro]  We have no military advisers or instructors at all.

[Shriver]  Any support?

[Castro]  Well, support, yes.  Why should I deny it?  We will give the
Salvadoran patriots all the support we can give them.  Now, if there is
peace, we support peace.  If the Salvadoran revolutionaries hold
discussions with the Salvadoran Government and reach a peace agreement, we
will support them.  We would actually welcome it.  But as long as there
isn't a peaceful solution, and as long as the Salvadoran patriots struggle,
they will receive our sympathy and support to the extent of our
capabilities.

[Shriver]  How would you describe your support?

[Castro]  It depends.  We give them political and moral support.  That is
the fundamental support we give the Salvadorans, because the Salvadoran
revolutionaries have managed to become self-sufficient in weapons and to
resist the enormous flow of economic and military resources the United
States has given to the Duarte government.  They are admirable.  Among the
revolutionaries that I admire most in the world are the Salvadorans because
of their courage, ability to resist, heroism, intelligence.  They are
admirable people.  There is little we can teach them becasue today we can
all learn from the Salvadorans.  We ourselves have learned from them.  How
such a small country, 20,000 square km in area has been able to keep up a
resistance for almost 8 years against genocidal armies backed by the United
States.  We have learned military tactics from them.  At the beginning we
taught them.  Today, we are learning from them.  Today, we are learning
from their experience.

[Shriver]  What are you learning?

[Castro]  Tactics.  How they have managed this.

[Shriver]  What kind of tactics?

[Castro]  Military tactics; their ability to disperse, to regroup, to
resist.  They have proven the endless possibilities of the people in their
struggle.  If at the beginning, during the first few years, we could teach
them, today they are teaching us.  They can teach us in irregular warfare.
I am not saying that in normal warfare they know more than we do.

[Shriver]  Let me back up to my original question.  If the Arias peace plan
did call for the end of all foreign military support, including the United
States' everybody, you would be prepared to withdraw your support?

[Castro]  I think that if all military support and all direct or indirect
participation ceases in Central America, we would totally agree.  We would
totally agree, [repeats himself] without any discussion.  Let all sorts of
military activities, advisers, or military aid cease.

But as long as it gives incredible amounts of aid to the genocidal
government of Duarte, the United States cannot demand that others stop
helping the Salvadoran revolutionaries.  If the government [words
indistinct] considers itself of helping the counterrevolutionaries in
Angola, in other countries, in Nicaragua, in other countries, what moral
right do they have to ask revolutionary countries not to help the
revolutionaries in El Salvador?  When the United States sets the example of
not waging dirty wars, of not helping the counterrevolutionaries against
established governments, of not requiring others not to help the
revolutionary movement...

[Shriver, interrupting]  Are you just helping all these other places just
because the United States is doing the opposite?  You sound like you are
more...

[Castro, interrupting]  No, no. We help the Salvadoran revolutionaries
because it is just cause, because of principles.  But since you asked me if
we were willing to accept the rule that no one would help no one, I would
agree to that, that the revolutionaries not help the revolutionaries, and
that the United States not help the counterrevolutionaries anywhere--we
would agree then.  That was not the reason.  But if that principle was set
forth, and the United States would commit itself to do so, we would also
commit ourselves to do that.  Is that clear?  The reason for one thing was
not the same for the other.  But the question is, would we be willing to
adhere to this principle, and I say yes.

[Shriver]  Do you think the Arias peace plan should ask that?

[Castro] What should it ask?  Yes.  It would be great if the Arias plan
asked that, the end of all the business of military aid to Central America.

[Shriver]  For everyone.

[Castro]  For everyone, and we would accept the principle.

[Shriver]  You brought up Angola.

[Castro]  Yes.

[Shriver]  How many troops do you have in Angola now?

[Castro]  Enough to deal with the problems there.  The necessary ones.

[Shriver]  Forty thousand?

[Castro]  No, I will not give you figures.  I am sorry, but there is no
reason for me to give you that information.  I know very well the attitude,
man by man, weapon by weapon, but I cannot please you.  I can tell you that
we have enough to face the South African adventure.

[Shriver]  It is estimated that there are approximately 40,000 Cubans.  You
don't know, you don't want to say.  You know.

[Castro]  That could be a more or less estimate.  Sometimes estimates are
far from the reality.

[Shriver]  For a long time you wanted to become part of the ongoing talks.
In January you took part in them.  How are you going to use the Cuban
position at the bargaining table to reach an agreement in Angola?

[Castro]  I believe the Angolan issue is quite clear for us.  We are in
Angola because we have helped Angolans fight South Africa.  Many countries,
many people speak of apartheid, of racism, fascism, but the only country
that has really helped with men to struggle against the attacks of
apartheld and racism is Cuba.  Therefore, I believe the most honorable and
noble mission any country has undertaken is the one conducted by our
country in Angola.  Despite the fact that it is a small country, we have
maintained ourselves firmly there for almost 13 years.

[Shriver]  At great cost.

[Castro]  Well, that is possible because we have people willing to go.
[Words indistinct] how can such a small country do something like that if
they do not have foreign currency, if they do not have a strong economy, it
is not a rich country?  We are not wealthy in money but we are wealthy in
awareness, in internationalist spirit.  We are a very wealthy, generous
people.  Since you asked me for a figure, I can tell you that about 300,000
Cubans have gone through Angola on a voluntary basis during these 13 years.
I ask myself if there is any other country with the political and
revolutionary quality of ours.  We are such a small country, yet 300,000
citizens have gone there to fulfill military internationalist missions.

[Shriver]  But let me ask you, Mr. President, how are you going to use your
position now as part of these on going talks to bring an end to this?

[Castro]  I am going to answer you.  I was explaining to you.  In Angola we
have no strategic interest.  We are not a big power.  We have no economic
interest.  We do not have a single piece of property in Angola.  Our aid is
absolutely loyal, disinterested, with solidarity, with internationalist
spirit.  Therefore, whenever there is peace in Angola, the ones to benefit
the most are us.  We have never opposed a political solution in Angola.  We
have always supported the decisions made by the Angolan Government.  If the
Angolan Government wants to reach a political solution, we will support it.
In that sense the initiative is in the hands of the Angolan Government, and
we support it.  We saw that the talks between Angola and the United States
followed a path that was not equitable.  The delegation came before the
Angolans and asked them for concessions.  The Angolans would make certain
concessions but they offered nothing.  They would say they were going to
talk with the South Africans to see if they agreed.  So they asked for more
and new concessions.  They demanded unilateral concessions from Angola
while South Africa continued with its intervention in Angola.

We realized that as part of the conflict our participation would help the
Angolans and the negotiations.

[Shriver]  How has it helped?

[Castro]  We could help to find a formula that would deceive nobody,
because sometimes the formula proposed to the Angolans deceived the
Angolans.

[Shriver]  What is the formula?  Now that you are there, you are part of
the talks, what is the formula?

[Castro]  In common agreement, because we do not have a unilateral
position--nor can we have it--we reached an agreement with the Angolans.
To come out of the stagnation of the talks, we proposed a global solution
to the problem.  In exchange for a global solution, we were willing to
accept the idea of a complete withdrawal of Cuban troops.  That was an
important step, because the troops in the south were always discussed.  The
troops in the north were not discussed.  These would stay there
indefinitely.  But the negotiations had come to a deadlock.  Therefore,
Angola and Cuba took a step forward so as to unlock the negotiations.  In
the face of a global solution, we were willing to accept the idea of total
withdrawal in a prudential period of time to be determined.

Now then, what were the requirements for a global solution from our point
of view?  First, the cessation of all interference in Angola's internal
affairs.  In two words: the cessation of any dirty war against the
legitimate Government of Angola on the part of the people who were
responsible for that dirty war.  They are South Africa and the United
States.  The application of UN Resolution 435.  International security
guarantees for Angola.  In that case, Angola in Cuba, in common accord,
would proceed to withdraw all military personnel, all Cuban troops in
Angola.

[Shriver]  What's the timetable?

[Castro]  Well, what was agreed was the following.  Right now there is a
certain--I will not say stagnation--there are certain things that have yet
to be clarified.  The Americans are asking the Angolans for a timetable.
But the Angolans say the timetable is the last item.  They say the
timetable will be the result of the negotiations and that it implies the
resolution of the items they have presented; and end to the dirty war,
which is very legitimate; the application of 435...

[Shriver, interrupting]  Why can't they happen simultaneously?

[Castro]  They could happen simultaneously.  But I am saying that there is
a misunderstanding.  The Angolans are waiting for one thing, and the
Americans are waiting for another.

[Shriver]  So, how are you going to help resolve the situation?

[Castro]  We are part of the Angolan delegation.  We have worked in mutual
agreement, and we will continue doing so.  We will continue working to find
a [words indistinct] Angolans have said, why are they asking me to prepare
a timetable when they have not yet given me the assurance that there will
not be any interference in Angola's internal affairs, or any dirty wars.
That is what they are saying, which is very fair.  Now, there is somewhat
of a misunderstanding.  That is that each party is expecting something from
the other, I think, anyway, that some steps must be taken in the near
future to overcome this misunderstanding.

[Shriver]  So, if they were given assurances, what would their timetable
be?

[Castro]  We have to discuss that with the Angolans.  We also have to
discuss it with the Americans who are acting as intermediaries.  Because
the problem here is that the United States to a certain extent is an
intermediary, and at the same time it is a belligerent party.  It is a
godfather of the dirty war, a participant in the dirty war against Angola,
and as such is actually part of the problem.  It is a country interested in
playing what they call a mediating role, so it plays the role of mediator.
But the United States is playing a double role:  on the one hand the role
of mediator, and on the other as part of the conflict.

[Shriver]  So, there is no calendar and things are deadlocked?

[Castro]  At this moment there is a certain misunderstanding.  It is not
that they are deadlocked.  A lot of progress was made at the meeting in
Luanda, progress was made.  But these items remained.  The Angolans were
asking the Americans if the principle of noninterference in the internal
affairs of Angola could be established; that is, if it would stop
practicing the dirty war.  The Americans were asking Angola and Cuba for a
timetable.  That is were we are.  It is not an unsurmountable
misunderstanding.  I think both sides can make progress.  The United States
can make progress if it agrees to guarantee it will not interfere in
Angola's internal affairs, and Angola can make progress, along with Cuba,
if it draws up a more or less simultaneous timetable.

[Shriver]  General Secretary Gorbachev has spoken recently about the need
for communist bloc nations develop a fresher approach on the conflicts in
the world--Afghanistan, Angola.   Do you share that view, or are you out of
step?

[Castro]  Yes, I share that view.  I don't think any two problems are the
same.  The Afghan problem is not the same as Nicaragua's nor is it the same
as Cambodia's or Angola's.  There are many problems in the world.

[Shriver]  What would your fresh approach be?  What is your fresh approach?

[Castro]  I share the Soviet peace policy.  I believe its concern for peace
is one of the most constructive things that has happened in recent times.
I believe it has destroyed myths, barriers, and to a certain extent it has
given way to a very important opening in an area in which only the first
steps have been taken, the first steps have been taken.  [repeats himself]

[Shriver]  But you share their desire, their views to get out of conflicts.

[Castro] Without any doubt.  We agree in the search for international
detente and in working on the search to find the solution to regional
problems.  We are in agreement.  Now, it all depends on how that is
interpreted.  If the United States considers detente as peace between the
United States and the USSR, between the United States and china, and war
against small countries, then there will be no solution to regional
problems.  If the United States shares the desire to look for the solution
of regional problems, then solutions will be found to regional problems.
It depends on the approach of the United States to this problem.  If the
United States wants to eliminate revolutionary governments such as
Nicaragua, the Nicaraguans will never give in.  If the United States wants
to eliminate the revolutionary regime in Angola, The Angolans are not going
to surrender.  Do you see?  The approach from this side is not enough, but
the approach of the other side is also important.  It is not only the
approach of the USSR and socialist countries; the approach of the United
States is very important.  Is it perhaps an opportunistic approach?  Does
the United States want to make peace with the large socialist powers and
make war with small socialist countries?  Does the United States want to
continue its war against Cuba, Nicaragua, and Angola?  We will continue to
fight.  There is not the slightest doubt that we will continue to fight as
long as it is necessary.

[Shriver]  As the United States develops better relations with the Soviet
Union, do you feel left out?

[Castro]  Not at all.  We would very happy because everything that benefits
international peace indirectly benefits us.  Everything that benefits the
development of the Soviet Union and the socialist camp benefits us
indirectly.  It is very useful for us.

[Shriver]  In what way?

[Castro] Not to mention our sense of responsibility, which makes us aware
of the seriousness of the risks of a nuclear war; they have existed and
still exist in the world.  Aside from that, in every sense, I believe the
Soviet peace policy is useful for all mankind.

[Shriver]  But when you see Ronald Reagan...

[Castro, interrupting]  If the money the USSR and socialist countries have
to invest in weapons is saved, they can invest that money in their own
development and in cooperation with Third World countries.  So all of us
Third World countries benefit.  If this speeds up the technological
development of the Soviet Union, the countries that have good relations of
cooperation with the Soviet Union would also benefit.  So it is very
beneficial for all and even for us.  But I do not trust the ideas of the
current administration.  I do not trust them, I mistrust the opportunistic
attitude the U.S. Administration might have.  Maybe their approach is to
achieve peach with the big socialist powers and to wage war on the
progressive and socialist countries of the Third World.  That could be the
case, because there is a report around by a group of Pentagon advisers who
talk of developing conventional weapons, low-intensity warfare, with the
objective of promoting the dirty war against progressive governments, and
at the same time...

[Shriver, interrupting]  Like you, like you?

[Castro]  Yes, Cuba, Nicaragua, Angola, Ethiopia, and other countries.  And
at the same time, at the same time...

[Shriver, interrupting]  Do you think the United States is planning to
invade you?

[Castro]  We'll talk about that later.  And at the same time, helping
reactionary governments against the revolutionary movement.  I do not have
the complete report, but I could perhaps get it.  Maybe Kissinger and
others who have worked on it might be good enough to send it to us.  I
don't think it's a secret document because the press has already talked
about it.  So, I am mistrustful, and I suspect that the opportunistic idea
exists in the minds of some people in the United States to make peace with
the big socialist powers and war on the small progressive and socialist
countries of the Third World.

[Shriver]  You are talking in particular about President Reagan.

[Castro]  You had a specific question.  What was it?  I am talking about
this administration and the one to come.  No one knows what kind of
administration is coming next.  These are Pentagon advisers who are putting
forth this theory.

[Shriver]  My specific question was, do you think the United States is
planning to invade Cuba.

[Castro] I don't think so, I don't think so.  You know why?  Because it
can't.  If the United States invades Cuba, it's going to break its teeth.
It's not that we are going to sink the U.S. flotilla or even destroy the
U.S.  Air Force.  This country has organized itself in such a way, it has
come together in such a way, and it has prepared itself in such a way, that
if the United States tries to invade Cuba, it's going to break its teeth.
It is going to have to fight millions of men and women, and even children.
No matter how powerful, the United States can't do that.  It would need
millions of troops.  It would have to pay such a high price that I feel you
Americans would not allow it.  Therefore, I'm not worried.  There might be
a madman.  Any government could go crazy.  Therefore, we cannot trust
logic.  Logic indicates it can't do it.  But we are not afraid, because we
feel very secure.  We have an organized and armed people.  We are an
impossible bone to swallow.  So, in that sense we are at ease.  And we are
going to remain always alert, always prepared; we'll always have sufficient
resistance capacity so that we might be respected.  We would prefer...

[Shriver, interrupting]  You sound like a country taunting the United
States.  Like someone that's taunting them.  Try me, try me.

[Castro]  What for?  We have no particular interest in doing so.  We are
not taunting them.  I am answering a question, whether we are afraid of an
invasion.  And we say, no.  We feel capable of resisting U.S.
intervention.  Not now, after 30 years.  We have millions of organized and
trained men and women all over the country, from one end to the other.

[Shriver]  Let me back up to talking about...

[Castro, interrupting]  So no matter how powerful it might be, the United
States could break its teeth against this resistance.

I am not taunting or daring them.  We don't want conflict.  On the
contrary, we want knowledgeable peace-loving, intelligent people who won't
go berserk.  I am answering your question.  Don't tell me that I am
challenging the honor of Americans.

[Shriver]  OK.  You know that General Secretary Gorbachev has made many
changes in the Soviet Union, a more open society, glasnost.  What effect as
that had in Cuba?

[Castro] Well, I would like to tell you the following.  Everything that the
Soviet Union does has an effect everywhere.  It is a big country.  It has
an effect on Europe, the United States.  It has a great effect on the Third
World, the socialist countries, and Cuba, as well.  Do you understand?
Now, our country made the revolution on our own.  No one made the
revolution for us.  We did it ourselves.  Even when the revolution started,
we did not know a single Soviet.  When this revolution triumphed, we did
not know a single Soviet.  Our country has always acted independently.  Our
policy has always been to take advantage of every useful experience other
revolutionary countries have had.  But we cannot blame anybody for our
mistakes.  Our mistakes are ours just as Soviet mistakes are their own.
Each revolutionary country has the right to make its own mistakes and to
rectify those mistakes.  We respect the criteria of every other
revolutionary, Marxist-Leninist parties.

Thus, the Chinese did a lot of things for a number of years.  One day they
felt they had to implement new policies, make changes, that they had made
mistakes.  We observed those (?mistakes).  That doesn't mean we are going
to right away start doing what the Chinese used to do and what they did
afterward.  The same holds true for the Soviet Union.  We did not have to
make their mistakes.  At the same time, when they decided to rectify those
mistakes, we had no reason to mechanically copy everything the Soviets did.

[Shriver]  What mistakes are you talking about?

[Castro]  Well, the mistakes that Gorbachev is talking about.

[Shriver]  He's opening up society.

[Castro]  He says there was technological stagnation, too much bureaucracy;
he said that at one time there was a personality cult.

[Shriver]  He's allowed the people to criticize the government.

[Castro]  We have not had this type of problem.  We have not had this type
of problem here.

[Shriver]  But a lot of people say...

[Castro. interrupting]  Those are Soviet problems, and the Soviets are
trying to resolve their own problems and rectify their own mistakes.
Soviet mistakes are different from our own.  Soviet history is different
from outs.  The idiosyncracies of the Soviets are different from ours.
Soviet institutions are different from ours, although we start out with the
same principles.  They rectify their mistakes and we rectify our own.  We
have been doing this for quite some time.  I was talking to you about that
today, the many things we are doing.  We are very happy.  I feel all
revolutions have to rectify mistakes, especially socialist revolutions,
because they are very new.  They are very new.  [repeats himself]  They
have made mistakes.

[Shriver]  There's no glosnost here, then.

[Castro]  Yes, there is glosnost here.  There has always been.  Always.
There's no more self-critical party in the world than the PCC.  There's
none.  Look at historical records.  There's none.  That's glosnost on a
large scale.

[Shriver]  But glosnost is open, open.

[Castro]  Yes, it's the same thing.  Opening, criticism, self-criticism.
Yes, sir.

[Shriver]  But an open society.

[Castro]  We have always practiced... [change thought] What's an open
society?  A society like that of the United States?

[Shriver]  Is Cuba an open society?

[Castro]  What?

[Shriver]  Is Cuba an open society?

[Castro]  Cuba is a revolutionary society, a united society.  In certain
aspects it is more open than Western societies.  In many aspects.  We make
possible, turn into reality many of the people's aspirations that are not
possible in Western countries.  I was saying that what the Soviets do is
apply Soviet formulas to Soviet problems, and what we Cubans do is apply
Cuban formulas to Cuban problems.  Do you want to know anything else about
that?

[Shriver]  Well, certainly you are aware that a lot of people think this is
not an open society, that there's no freedom of the press, that there's no
opposing political party, that people are not free to criticize the
government.

[Castro]  And do you think the Soviets are going to create opposition
parties inside the Soviet Union?  To think that is to delude yourself.  Do
you think...

[Shriver, interrupting]  What about Cuba?

[Castro]  Cuba is not planning to do it really.  But I don't think the
Soviets are going to do it either.  I have never heard Gorbachev talk
about organizing new parties in the Soviet Union.  I have never heard
Gorbachev talk about partisan plurality.  I have never heard Gorbachev talk
about establishing a society similar to the United States in the Soviet
Union.  They are very different.  You call American society an open society
because you suffer from the mythomania that you have a so-called democratic
system and think that the only democracy in the world is yours.  We have a
different system.  But I don't think there will be partisan plurality in
the USSR.  If, in order to call it an open society, you need to have
artisan plurality, a mixed economy, etc., than I have never heard Gorbachev
talk about it.  That's an incorrect interpretation of Gorbachev's ideas.
He wants to have a more democratic society.  He wants the people to
participate more in problems, decisionmaking.  He wants the people to get
more information.  He wants...

[Shriver]  What about more information for the Cuban people?  What about
being able to read opposing views?

[Castro]  We simply don't have an opposition here.  There's only a tiny
number of people instigated by the U.S. Interest Section.  That's not
opposition.  [chuckles]  A few people instigated by the U.S. Interest
Section.

[Shriver]  But, Mr. President, there are people who disagree, who are not
instigated by the United States.

[Castro]  You can ask our newspaper.  Our newspapers are critical.

[Shriver]  There's no opposition paper here.

[Castro]  That's because there's no private ownership of the media.  The
opposition here is within the party and within the mass organizations.
There are the newspapers of each one; and they are critical, increasingly
critical.  We want our newspapers to be increasingly critical.  But it is
criticism within the revolution, not criticism against the revolution.

[Shriver]  Why?

[Castro]  Simply because the people are the ones in power.  We don't accept
the idea of a counterrevolution.  Counterrevolution is a concept of the
U.S. Administration.  We don't accept the idea of counterrevolution.

[Shriver]  But why can't...

[Castro, interrupting]  Our revolution can be made more perfect.  We accept
opposition within the revolution; we do not accept opposition against the
revolution.

[Shriver]  But Cubans are still Cubans and could disagree with the
government.  Why can they not offer an opposing view?

[Castro]  Well, they can disagree with a lot of what the government is
doing or what a government official is doing.  But that doesn't mean they
disagree with the revolution.  We act on the premise that our people are
revolutionary.

[Shriver]  But what if they do disagree with the revolution and they're
Cubans, why can't they stay here and voice their opinion?

[Castro]  And be against the revolution?  No one is forbidding them from
leaving.  No one is forbidding them from staying.  No, no.

[Shriver]  But they would like to stay; they're Cubans.  They would like to
work and stay in Cuba.

[Castro]  And they want capitalism?

[Shriver]  No, they want perhaps different changes in the society.  They
want a chance to be free to express themselves.  They want a chance to get
books here to study.

[Castro]  What's freedom, what's freedom here in Cuba to you?  To serve the
interests of the United States?

[Shriver]  What is liberty for you?

[Castro]  What our people possess today:  dignity, rights, independence,
honor, principles, moral values, unity, solidarity, fraternity, true
freedom.  You're going to tell me that the millionaire and the begger have
the same freedom?

Those who have millions in the banks and the ones who sleep in doorways in
New York?  Where's the freedom of the blacks, the Chicanos, those who sleep
in the street, the poor, the exploited in the United States?  Where's the
freedom?

[Shriver]  They have the same freedoms in the United States.  They have the
same freedoms to voice their opinion, to criticize the administration.

[Castro]  That's what the Constitution of the republic says, but there is a
terrifying inequality.  It is the inequality between the millionaire and
the begger, the rich and the poor, the one who has a lot of money and the
one who doesn't.  Your society is the society of inequality.  So, when
there's no equality, there cannot be freedom.  Where there's no equality,
there cannot be democracy.  That's the concept, the mythomania you suffer
from in regard to Western and U.S. democracy.

[Shriver]  But the millionaire and the beggar both have the same freedom to
express their opinion, to criticize.

[Castro]  I have never seen a beggar written up by the big television
networks in the United States.  I have never seen it.

[Shriver]  Absolutely.  There are reports about people who are homeless who
voice criticism of the government.

[Castro]  Listen, you are confusing freedom of the press with freedom to
own the mass media.  If the owners of your station, NBC, don't want it, you
don't do the program.  They look for someone else and they have you do the
program.  [sentence as heard]

[Shriver]  But I am free on NBC.

[Castro]  Yes, but the newspaper owners are the ones to decide who writes
in the paper, if they don't agree, they are fired.  The owner of the paper,
the station, has the right to allow or dismiss those who write for their
paper.  It's private property of the media.  I believe the real right
should be that the mass media belong to the entire people and not to the
owners.  That's a difference of opinion we have.  They call freedom the
freedom to own the media.  But the director decides what gets published.
If the director wants, you do this program.  If the director doesn't, you
don't.  That's the truth.  If the director wants you to, you have a
program.  If the director doesn't want you to, you don't have a program.
Many poor people, Puerto Ricans.  Chicanos don't have a program.  If you
don;t own your program, you work there as long as the company allows you
to.  Yet you call that freedom.

[Shriver]  I want to talk to you about something different than freedom of
the press, because it's a different subject.  On the record of human rights
in Cuba, the State Department has said it has seen indications that things
are changing here but there is still a lot more that needs to be done.  You
now tolerate some human rights organizations here in Cuba, but they want to
be legalized.  Why don't you legalize them?

[Castro]  There is a small group of counterrevolutionaries,  former
counterrevolutionaries here who are manipulated by the U.S. Interest
Section.  There is no human rights organization here but a organization of
liars and slanderes.  That is what there is here.  It will never become
legal.  That is illusory.  It is a group of slanderers at the service of
the U.S. Interest Section.  That is what there is here.  There have been no
changes here.  We thank the State Department very much for stating that
there have been changes, but there have been no such changes here.

[Shriver]  There have been no changes in regards to human rights?

[Castro]  There is absolute respect for the human rights of citizens.  I
believe that no country in the world [words indistinct] with your idea of
human rights.  But there is no single country in which human rights are
respected more carefully.  There is no country in the world, there is no
revolution in the world that has been more observant of human rights than
our country.

[Shriver]  But, Mr. President...

[Castro, interrupting]  This campaign alleging abuses and violence--they
are lies.  The publicity machinery of the United States and the West has
echoed them.  They are shameful slanders.  Talk to the people, talk to the
people.  [repeats himself]  All those people you say today, talk to them
and ask them if they have ever suffered needs, if there has ever been
violence against a prisoner, if there has even been torture here.  When
tortue is mentioned here, our people are being insulted.  Our people would
not tolerate anything like that because the people are educated,
cultivated, revolutionary.  That is a shameful slander.

[Shriver]  Mr. President, there are people who have spent time in your
jails who have talked about it, who also say they have been tortured, they
they have been beaten.

[Castro]  That have been what?  [Interpreter says:  "Tortured"]  Ask the
people.  Because the best witnesses are the millions of citizens of this
country.  Ask a worker, as a peasant, ask a university student, ask
intellectuals if there has ever been an assassination, a missing person, a
tortured person in this country.  That is a lie.  If you want to believe
them, [words indistinct] but that is a big lie.  Lies do not turn into
truths by simply repeating them.  That is a fascist principle, [words
indistinct] that the U.S. propaganda is using by repeating, repeating, and
repeating wicked lies.  The people are our best witnesses.  To speak of
tortue in this country is to insult the people of Cuba because our people
would not tolerate it.

[Shriver]  So, the people that spent time, the political prisoners, [words
indistinct] they lie about it?

[Castro]  Yes.

[Shriver]  They all lie.

[Castro]  Not all of them, there are only a few, there are only a few.
[repeats himself]  there are a few who have been echoed by the Western
propaganda.  There were thousands of prisoners here, and with reason.
[Word indistinct] very serious crimes, those who landed in Giron, some
1,300.  they came to invade a country at the service of a foreign power.
What could we do, sit idly by?  What would you have done if 10,000
Americans at the service of Cuba invaded the United States?  Would you have
called them patriots, freedom fighters?  How many years in jail would you
have sentenced them?  For example, a hijacker is sentenced to 40 years.
The two Cubans who hijacked a plane--in order to help end disorder we sent
two Cubans back to the United States so they could be tried.  They were
sentenced to 40 years.  They have not allowed the family to visit them a
single time.  You call someone a terrorist and sentence him to 40 years.
If someone (?builds a bomb) or conducts terrorist actions, acts of
sabotage, is a spy at the service of the United States, we cannot punish
them?  Why do you punish those who you consider a traitor, spy, enemy of
the United States?  Why can't you understand that we punish here those who
have been traitors, spies, saboteurs, terrorists, plane hijackers?  Why
does the law have to be one way there and a different way here?  Why is the
ETA [Basque Fatherland and Liberty], which struggles against the state,
punished in Spain?  Why are the Red Brigades and those who fight against
the state punished in Germany, France, Italy?  Why does England sanction
the Irish who fight against the British domination?  You in the West can
sanction and we, a Third World country, a revolutionary country, cannot
sanction.  Why is that?  Why is it in your case a terrorist is a terrible
thing, but when terrorism is carried out against a revolutionary country
they are considered a patriot, freedom fighters?  Where is the logic of
that?

[Shriver]  Mr. President, are people who criticize the government, who
write things against the government, are they counterrevolutionaries?
Should they go to prison?

[Castro]  I speak against the government, many people criticize the
government.

[Shriver]  Yes, but you are the head of the government.

[Castro] No one here has every been arrested for criticizing the
revolution.  That is a lie.  That is simply a lie.  Criticism against the
government is not the same thing as activities against the revolution,
sabotage of the economy or sabotage of agriculture.  You cannot forget that
we have had against us the most powerful country in the world encouraging
the counterrevolution here.  Why should we have to guarantee impunity at
the service of a policy that attacks our country?

[Shriver]  But these are not United States' inspired people.  These are
regular Cubans who went to prison for being in opposition to the
government.

[Castro]  Where are they?

[Shriver]  In prisons, some of them.  Some have gotten out.

[Castro]  That is a lie.  Find them.  Find the ones who are in prison.  It
is a lie that they are in prison for having an opinion, a view.  The people
who are in prison are there becasue of their activities and
counterrevolutionary crimes, not for having opinions or critical views,
because our people are characterized as having a truly critical spirit.
One of the people who expresses themselves most openly and critically are
the Cuban people.  So all that is a lie.  It is myth made up by reactionary
propaganda, U.S. propaganda against Cuba.  That is what it is.  I simply do
not accept that.

I would say that one of the most vicious slanders of this whole myth that
has been made up, of this deceitful propaganda against Cuba, which attacks
us, is that we [words indistinct].  No other government has done more for
its people than Cuba.  No other government has made greater contributions
to the human rights of a citizen than what our country has done.  Only by
reducing the rate from 60 to approximately 13.2 children who died every
year per 1,000 births in our country, we have saved the lives of over
300,000 children.  Life expectancy was 55 years.  It is now almost 75 years
in our country.  Our country was an illiterate country.  Now there isn't a
single child without schooling, an adolescent without schooling, or a
citizen without medical care.  There isn't a single individual who doesn't
have the same opportunities to study and develop as everyone else.  We have
not only helped our people.  Over 2,000 Cuban health workers are providing
their services in 30 countries around the world.  We have 24,000 students
with scholarships from over 80 Third World countries.  So, we have not only
worked for us.  This is a country where you do not have beggars, barefoot
children, or abandoned and deserted people.  This is a country where you do
not find any gambling, prostitution, or drugs.

When Western countries free their societies from all those aberrations and
all those things, when they do away with exploiting women, when they do
away with racial and women's discrimination, when they do away with that,
let them then speak about human rights.  The police or public authorities
in Cuba have never broken up a demonstration.  What you see everyday in the
United States, England, Spain, France, Italy, and the FRG is repression of
workers who are on strike, pacifists, and people who go on demonstrations.
There is not a single time in almost 30 years that tear gas has been used
against the people.  Not a single time in 30 years have we fired a shot,
hit anyone, fired a rubber bullet.  And we see that everyday in France,
Italy, England, the FRG, and the United States.  When you put an end to
teargassing, beatings, dogs, water-hoses, and when you put an end to all
that repression then speak about human rights.

In Cuba that has ever happened.  Not even once.  I believe that we respect
human rights much more than the so-called democratic societies.  When
you stop looting the Third World by selling more and more at a high price
and buying at a cheaper prices, when you stop 120,000 children from dying
of hunger and lack of medication in the Third World--120,000 every 3
days--then let the Western countries talk about human rights.  Becasue now,
I believe they do not have any moral right to talk about human rights.

[Shriver]  You have let individuals from different human rights
organizations into your prisons.  If the International Red Cross, which is
the internationally recognized organization which monitors human rights
conditions, would like to come and see the prisons, would you let them in?

[Castro]  We would have no objection.  We would have no objection to
opening our doors and letting them come and see our prisons.

[Shriver]  The International Red Cross?

[Castro]  We really would have no objection.  What we would not do is do it
under pressure.  We would not do it on anyone's demand.  But we have
nothing to hide.  And we would have no objections to show our prisons to
those who come here in good faith.  Many Americans have come, several
organizations have come, and we have shown them our prisons.  We have shown
them everything we have to show because we have nothing to hide.  There is
a category of prisoners here called plantados.  In what country of the
world do those prisoners exist?  Only in Cuba.  These plantados do not
exist in the United States.  When a prisoner in the United States does not
want to get dressed, he has to get dressed.  In France, the FRG, Italy,
Spain, the United States, all around the world, when someone does not want
to put on the uniform, they put the uniform on him.  We have never even
done that.  The mere existence of the so-called plantados is the most
[words indistinct] of that whole campaign against Cuba.  Only in a country
where a not a single finger has been laid on a prisoner can this plantados
category exist.

[Shriver]  But it is good news to know that you will allow the
International Red Cross to come in and [words indistinct].

[Castro] We have no objections because we have nothing to hide.  What we do
not accept is anyone assuming the right to inspect us.  It's not the same
thing for us to be willing to open our prisons to show what we have here.
They will see that the most humane penitentiary system in the world is this
one.  They will see, they will be able to confirm this.  In this country
prisoners are trained, they are paid for their work.  This is done with
common prisoners, general prisoners, common prisoners.  In this country we
help the prisoners' relatives.  What other country has ever done this?  We
have done this since the beginning of the revolution.  We helped the
children of the bandits who were up in arms in the mountains at the service
of the United States.

[Shriver]  Speaking of plantados, do you plan to release all of them?

[Castro]  We have released almost all of them already.  There may be a few
dozen left.

[Shriver]  But how about all

[Castro]  Well, there is no reason for us to have release them all.  Some
are more dangerous than others.  We do not want to release people who will
later go to El Salvador and kill a bishop.  We do not want to release
people who will later go and destroy a plane in flight.  We do not want
to release people who would go and kill Nicaraguans.  We do not have to
release them.  We have released most of them.  There are some dozens left.
The overwhelming majority has been released becasue of efforts made by the
U.S. Catholic Church, because of humanitarian efforts made by various
organizations.  We did it not because we had to, not because we had to.
[repeats himself]  I believe that when the United States ceases its
hostility against Cuba, when the United States stops conspiring against
Cuba, then it will be very easy for us to say that we are going to release
all those who remain in prison.

Do not forget, you think the United States is a friend of ours, that there
are normal relations between the United States and Cuba.  But there is
hostility, a constant campaign encouraging the subversion.  The United
States encourages sabotage, subversion, counterrevolutionary activities
through many radio stations.  We will never disarm ourselves.  We will
never disarm ourselves, nor will we sit idly by.  We will always be in a
position to defend the revolution at the necessary price.  We will do it as
part of our principles, as we have always done.

Imagine!  You have turned a Batista policeman, a terrorist like Valladares,
a terrorist who was arrested with a bag of dynamite supplied to him by the
U.S. Embassy, you have made him them head of the U.S. Delegation to the UN
Human Rights Commission.  Never in history had such a shameless thing been
seen.  Never had such a crazy thing ever been seen.  The United States, the
country that speaks of democracy and human rights, has placed a Batista
policeman at the head of its delegation in Geneva.  We have all the
evidence.  A terrorist has been appointed head of the delegation.  Can a
country that does this be serious?

[Shriver]  Do you think the United States will be successful in pressuring
other countries to sponsor the movement to look into human rights in Cuba?

[Castro]  The United States had never applied such monstrous pressure on
other countries.  We know this because the countries themselves tell us.

[Shriver]  Do you think they will...

[Castro, interrupting] Let me explain!  I can't give you a definite answer
because I am not a fortune-teller.  I say that the United States is using
all its influence, using all its resources to pressure, not is NATO
allies--NATO allies behave like a mafia in regard to this slanderous U.S.
policy--but to place enormous pressure on Latin American countries and
other Third World countries--economic, political, and all kinds of
pressures.  It is telling them they have to vote in a certain way.  The
power of the United States will be tested.  I know there are many countries
that are irritated, angry, and humiliated.

Shultz and the U.S. State Department have become aware of their own
stupidity.  They know they have appointed a terrorist and a Batista
policeman as the head of the commission.  Shultz sent a letter--we have it
here--to numerous U.S. embassies explaining that Valladares is not a
policeman, that it is false, that Valladares was never convicted for
terrorism.  Fifteen lies; they are here.  They State Department has said 15
lies about Valladares.

[Shriver]  Mr. President, let's not argue about politics, let's not argue
about politics.  [repeats herself] [passage indistinct]

[Castro]  This document is a letter from Shultz.  What does he try to
prove?  That it is a lie that Valladares was a Batista policeman.

[Shriver]  Let's not argue about that.  Let me ask you something
constructive.  When will the International Red Cross be allowed to come?

[Castro]  I told you we had no objections.  But that does not mean we are
going to...

[Shriver, interrupting]  Could they come next week?

[Castro]  This is a declaration of principle.  I am not going to make a
commitment that we are going to received them as a result of this
interview.  We do not handle things like that.  We do not make decisions
during a news interview.  In a news interview we can make a declaration of
principle.  We will not allow ourselves to be inspected by anybody.  But we
have no objection to showing our prisons to all people of good faith, and,
if necessary, to the Red Cross.  What I cannot do is let the news that, for
instance, we'll make the decision the day after tomorrow, come out in a
press interview.  I'm very sorry, but I can't give you an answer.

[Shriver]  You won't give them a time?

[Castro]  I have already made a declaration of principle.  To me that's
enough.

[Shriver]  OK.  Let me move along to the Olympics.  You've chosen not to
attend the Olympics in Seoul.  Do you regret that decision?

[Castro] No, not at all.  It's a question of principles.  Olympic games in
Seoul are like an Olympics at the Guantanamo Naval Base occupied by the
United States.  If the socialist countries did not go to Los Angeles
because of security considerations, I ask myself if there's more security
in Seoul than in Los Angeles.  I don't think so.  We did not go to Los
Angeles out of solidarity with the socialist countries.  We are not
planning to go to Seoul, first of all, because of principles.  We believe
that manipulated games do not contribute to peace nor do they contribute to
the unity of the Korean people.  We favored the cohosting of the Olympics.
We have worked a great deal in that direction.  We worked with North Korea.
We worked with the Olympics Committee to find a solution to the problem so
that the two Koreas could get together and share the Olympics as a single
nation, and so we could all work for the success of the Olympics.  We made
a big effort in that direction, but it did not bring results.  A few
ridiculous events were offered to the DPRK.  We had hopes for a democratic
opening, following the huge demonstrations and the big police repression of
the workers, the students, the people.  We had hopes for a democratic
opening.  This democratic opening did not occur.  It did not occur, nor was
there cohosting.  For us, it is not the honorable thing to do to attend
these Olympics.  We simply said we would not register and we would not
attend.  That was the decision we made.

[Shriver]  And there's nothing that would make you reconsider, the fact
that the Soviets are going and other communist countries are going?

[Castro]  We are an independent country.  We are very mindful of our
independence and very proud of our independence.  If the socialist
countries feel they should go to the Olympics--all this I discussed with
the socialist countries.  They know my opinion, they know my views.  I
brought up this matter at the meeting of party secretaries.  They know what
I think.  It is no surprise to them.  If they think they should go, I
respect their view.  However, Cuba does not think it is honorable to go.  I
believe it would be lacking in solidarity with the people of the DPRK.  We
do not exchange principles for a few gold medals.

So, if the socialist countries did not go to Los Angeles because of
security considerations, I wonder if there's more security in Seoul than in
Los Angeles.  I see a contradiction in that, but I respect the decision
made.  We are a sovereign, independent country with its own view.  We were,
we are, and we will always be.  Those who think we had to go to Seoul
because the USSR and other socialist countries decided to go to Seoul are
deluding themselves.  Those who think that way have no idea of a country's
dignity and sovereignty.

[Shriver]  Do you worry that the decision might cost you the Pan-American
Games here?

[Castro]  It would be a great injustice if something like that happened.
We have not violated any Olympic regulation.  We have simply not
registered, and no one has ever been sanctioned.  Our first rights were
taken away from us once.  They were given to Indianapolis.  Yet the United
States had boycotted the Moscow Olympics.  If the United States boycotted
the Moscow Olympics, how could there be an Olympics in Los Angeles?  If it
boycotted Moscow, why were there Pan-American Games in Indianapolis?  They
could take the games away from us, but it would be a tremendous injustice
and would greatly harm Latin American sports.  But we don't care.  We
really don't care. No one is going to pressure us and make us bow our heads
by threatening us with taking away the Pan-American Games.  No country in
this hemisphere has done more for sports than Cuba.  No country has
developed sports so much.  No Latin American country.  We won more medals
at the Olympics--or rather, the Pan-American Games--than all the other
Latin American countries together.  Doesn't a country that has done this
much for sports deserve to host Pan-American Games?  We believe so.  They
can take them away, but we are not worried.

[Shriver]  On the record, there is nothing that would make you reconsider
your decision?

[Castro]  Samaranch wrote me.  He said he would keep working hard to find a
solution.  We are happy about that.  If he finds a solution satisfactory to
the DPRK, then we will support him and we would participate.  But I don't
see many changes of that.  So many efforts have been made to find a
solution with no results that I don't know if at this point a formula is
possible.  Anyway, Samaranch is keeping at it, and I think this is
positive.  If he is successful, we'll be glad.  We would go in that case,
but that is not very probable.

[Shriver]  If he took away the pretense that North Korea was cohosting the
games, [as heard] then you would go?

[Castro]  Yes, we would go.  Of course.  I hope such a solution is found.
That is what we wanted, and that is what we have been endeavoring to do.

[Shriver]  You are aware of this, but I'll ask you.  Pat Robertson, who is
running for president of the United States, has said there are Soviet
missiles in Cuba.  If he were sitting here, what would you say to him?

[Castro]  To whom, Pat Robertson?  I don't think he would say it if he were
sitting here.  No one can.  He may say that lie there, during a political
debate.  But in front of me, a man who respects himself will not say that.
Then, I would tell him to go to the doctor.  If he comes here and tells me
we have intermediate-range missiles, nuclear missiles in Cuba--we have
neither nuclear nor conventional--I would suggest he see a doctor, a
psychiatrist.  I don't know, this is madness.  As I told a journalist of
USA TODAY, this was a Walt Disney fantasy.  You are told just about
anything, and at times you believe them.  I am amazed at the things you
believe.  It is incredible how the country which has the most numerous mass
media is the worst informed country of the world.

[Shriver]  Might you, in the context of a U.S. Soviet arms agreement, allow
the United States to inspect the bases here?

[Castro]  What bases?

[Shriver]  To come here to inspect to make sure that there are no missiles
here?

[Castro]  No.  If the United States allows us to inspect them, we would
allow the United States to inspect us.  But the unilateral right of the
United States to inspect Cuba--that's absolutely impossible.

[Shriver]  We know a lot about what the United States would like for Cuba
to do to improve relations with Havana.  But what would Cuba like the
United States to do?

[Castro]  You have asked me a very difficult question.  I would have to
become Reagan's adviser, or adviser, perhaps, of some future U.S.
president.  Well, if you like, I will advise him.  I am willing to advise
him.  You let me think, and I will not charge him anything to tell him
about not only what the United States should do to improve relations with
Cuba but with Latin America and the Third World.

[Shriver]  Now, Cuba in particular.

[Castro]  I would tell them to accept the existence of an independent and
sovereign country, to accept the existence of a socialist country.  I would
tell them to forget any ideas about imposing conditions on us.  Along that
path, relations between the United States and Cuba will never improve.

[Shriver]  You will never change anything in order to achieve relations
with the United States?

[Castro]  Change what, for instance?

[Shriver]  Your dependency, your relationship with the Soviet Union.

[Castro]  We will not sacrifice our relations with the Soviet Union under
any conditions.  First of all, it would be ungratefulness, opportunism, and
stupidity.  Never will the relations between the United States and Cuba
have the same characteristics as the relations between the USSR and Cuba.
These are relations based on principles and solidarity.  We can never
expect from a capitalist country that type of relationship with us.
Therefore, we will not do it.  We would be ungrateful and stupid.  Who was
it in the French Revolution?  I think that a counterrevolutionary leader
had been murdered.  Someone, I think it was Talleyrand, said:  More than a
crime, it is stupid.  Therefore, for us to sacrifice our relations with our
Soviet friends in order to improve our relations with our enemies, the
United States, more than a crime, it would be stupid.

[Shriver]  So, you'll never stop seeing the United States as an enemy.

[Castro]  No, no.  It is the United States that sees us as an enemy.  We
have not set ourselves up as an enemy of the United States.  But the United
States has set itself up as our enemy.  Not the people of the United
States, but the Government of the United States.

[Shriver]  Yet you talk about the United States as your enemy.  Is there
anything that can be done to change that relationship?

[Castro]  Well, I can say that it's the government that has set itself up
as our enemy.  I am not confusing the government with the people of the
United States.

[Shriver]  Is there anything that can change the relationship between the
U.S. Government and Cuba so the two countries would no longer be enemies?

[Castro] I think it would be necessary for both sides to want to improve
relations.  For our part, we are willing to do it.  Now, we would have to
ask the present U.S.  Government whether it is willing.  Some steps have
been taken.  You can't say that no steps have been taken.  You know, this
administration is very contradictory.  A step was taken once--the U.S
Interest Section.  It was set up during the Carter administration.
Unfortunately, this was accompanied by intensive CIA espionage.  In this
instance, we acted more wisely.  We totally forbade all espionage activity
from our interest office in Washington.  We never did it, not once.  Yet,
when the U.S.  Interest Section opened here, it engaged in espionage from
the very 1st day.  We did as the fisherman does.  We gave them plenty of
reel for years.  We collected all the evidence.  We collected all the
evidence. [repeats himself] When we had all the evidence, we had no choice.
We warned them two or three times.  You are spying.  We warned them two or
three times.  In the end, we had not choice but to present all the
evidence.  Of course, the United States is a country with press freedom.
Yet I can't figure out why not a single word of Cuba's charges was printed.
Cuba had all the evidence.  One of the biggest scandals in the history of
espionage occurred less than half a year ago.  There was all sorts of
evidence, but not a single world was published in the United States.  What
do you think?  It's the country where press freedom reigns.

There are also some very paradoxical things, not just concerning press
freedom.  We are talking about human rights just a while ago.  The United
States talks about human rights.  And yet it does not allow a single
medication to come to Cuba.  If medication from the United States can save
a life, that medication cannot come to Cuba.  If it can cure a cancer, the
person will not be cured. If it can ease someone's pain, that pain will not
be eased.  That country, which so defends human rights, forbids the import
of medical equipment and medication in this country.  Tell me if that gives
the United States any moral right (?to talk) about human rights

[Shriver]  That's because of the trade embargo.

[Castro]  The embargo.  Can a country that does that speak of human rights
and can it make demands of a small country which it is blockading and
refusing technology and medication?  Can it speak of human rights?  Come
on.

[Shriver]  Let me switch gears a moment.  Back in the early sixties there
were reports about many assassination plots against you.  Who do you hold
responsible for those?

[Castro]  You've asked a difficult question.  I believe Kennedy had bad
advisers.  Someone advised him badly.  That's my opinion.  Or perhaps
people who interpreted some remark by Kennedy.  I don't know if Kennedy
might have said once:  We have to get rid or Castro.  Perhaps Kennedy said
it in political terms.  We have to get rid of Castro politically.  But
maybe some people thought that meant getting rid of Castro physically.
Those were the first reports we heard.  However, the assassination attempts
began before the Kennedy administration.  The CIA started the dirty war in
the Eisenhower years.  Kennedy did not start the dirty war against Cuba.
Eisenhower, the CIA, the Pentagon started it a long time before Kennedy
came to office.  What has been historically proved is that there were plans
to physically eliminate Cuban leaders, myself included, during the Kennedy
administration.  That was confirmed.  What hasn't been confirmed is that
Kennedy gave the order.  What hasn't been confirmed is that Kennedy had
that intention.  The talk is about interpretations of things (?that are not
certain).  I want to tell you...

[Shriver, interrupting]  What do you think?

[Castro]  I find it difficult to believe that Kennedy might have assumed
that responsibility.  It doesn't fit the image I have of him, his
character.  It doesn't fit.  I feel there might be a problem of
interpretation and there might have been actions taken by people who wanted
to resolve the problem along those lines.  Anyway, we must consider the
following, as I was telling you this afternoon:  Kennedy inherited the
Giron invasion.  It was not his idea.  He did not organize it.  After the
Bay of Pigs he was very angry.  In a way, he felt humiliated.  We were not
to blame for that.  What we did was defend ourselves.  So all this anger
might have created an atmosphere conducive to plans of this nature.

Independently of what might have happened, it does not change my opinion of
Kennedy.  I have a positive opinion of Kennedy.  He was an intelligent,
truly brilliant man.  After Roosevelt, he was the only president of the
United States who had a Latin American policy; the Alliance for Progress.
It was an intelligent policy seeking to check the spread of the Cuban
revolution.  The trauma produced by the Cuban revolution, the fact that a
revolution had taken place so close to the United States, awakened the fear
that there might be objective conditions for revolution in Latin America.
Kennedy did not conceive a repressive strategy.  Instead, he came up with a
strategy of social reform to check revolution in Latin America.  He spoke
of agrarian reform, fiscal reform, education and health programs--many of
the things that we have done.  He offered economic aid--$20 billion.  Latin
America did not owe a single cent then.  The problems of Latin America are
bigger now.  It has double the population, $400-billion debt.  It is a
volcano where problems are accumulating.  There's no policy for Latin
America.  Kennedy was the last president to have a policy for Latin
America.

I do not have a bad personal opinion of Kennedy.  I am not telling you this
because you are a relative.  If you have read other interviews, my
statements, you will see that I have also spoken of Kennedy with respect.
As I was telling you this afternoon, I must acknowledge that he did not
commit the worst of mistakes.  That would have been sending the Marines to
Cuba.  That is, I must acknowledge that he acted calmly, serenely, and that
he did not make that big mistake.  He might have erred in not stopping the
invasion, because he did not yet have enough authority, enough experience.
He did not stop it.  That could have been his mistake, but he avoided a
much bigger mistake.  He could have sent the Marines in.

[Shriver]  There are theories that have existed for years that you knew
about the assassination plots in the early sixties, that you held President
Kennedy responsible, and that you, in turn, were involved in his
assassination.  Did you have anything to do with it?

[Castro] I believe... [changes thought] I can't answer that question
because I can't accept such an accusation or doubt.  Therefore, I will not
stoop to deny it.  What I can tell you is the following.  News reached us
daily of CIA assassination plans before and after Kennedy.  I can even tell
you the following : First, to plan an action against the president of the
United States was an irresponsible, insane action.  I believe it would be
farfetched to think that a responsible leader, a revolutionary who is aware
of his responsibilities, would come up with such madness, because this
would be political madness.  It's not just a question with ethical, moral
implications.  It's a question with serious political implications.  A
leader of a small country who would plan the elimination of the president
of the United States would be acting irresponsibility.  It can never be
said that the leaders of the Cuban revolution have acted irresponsibly.
They are firm, brave, determined, but never irresponsible.  I can tell you
that.

Second, the day Kennedy was assassinated, I was meeting with a Kennedy
envoy.  He was a French journalist, (Jean Daniel), who had spoken at length
with Kennedy.  That was months after the October crisis.  Kennedy was still
feeling the trauma of the grave danger experienced in those day.  So,
Kennedy wanted to get in touch with me.  He sent me a message with this
journalist.  He told me he had a message from Kennedy.  That same evening I
took him with me to Varadero, so we could talk at our leisure there.

We were talking.  He was telling me all about Kennedy's conversation, when
we heard the news of Kennedy's assassination of the radio.  What I can tell
you is that I felt very bad.  Kennedy's death hurt.  I say in Kennedy an
intelligent, capable adversary.  I felt an emptiness the day Kennedy was
killed.  I was really hurt.  I must tell you in all honesty.  It seemed to
me that it was a death with no dignity, an unfair death.  Time passed and
strange, odd things occurred.  Oswald's murder.  Oswald in jail, Oswald
killed.  I later read a book--I think it was Sorenesen's--about the death
of the president.  It was Sorensen, wasn't it?  Yes.  A long book. I read a
thousand pages, because I wanted an explanation.

Now, when Oswald's name came up, someone reported that an individual with
the same name had tried to visit Cuba and had asked for a visa at the
Mexican Embassy.  It was a routine request.  I never knew anything about
it.  The Foreign Ministry was informed.  We were denying all those visas
because we were mistrustful.  Here's an American wanting to come to our
country.  What is he coming for?  Why is he coming?  Unless it was someone
well known, we were not granting visas.  So this individual went there.  He
asked for a visa but he was denied a visa.  No one thought about it again.
But then the name started to appear.  On top of it, this man was married to
a Soviet woman.  So, imagine!  What if this man had come to Cuba on a
routine visit and then had gone back to the United States and assassinated
Kennedy?  They would have tried to implicate us.  I sometimes ask myself if
someone, diabolically, did not plan all this, someone half mad, someone
mentally ill.  He might have been manipulated.  No one can tell, no one can
tell if it was an individual reaction.  It seems that he was the one who
shot him.  It seems.  It might have been the act of an individual.
However, there are people like this who can be manipulated.  There are
people who act on their own.  This young man who tried to assassinate
Reagan apparently acted alone.  It was said that he was in love with an
actress, that it was a case of unrequited love.  He wanted to be famous.
He almost killed Reagan.  This kind of madman can exist anywhere.

Now, the most probable thing is that if we had heard that someone was
planning to assassinate Kennedy, we would have alerted the U.S. Government.
We would have warned them about the danger.  That's the most probable
thing.  It did not happen that way because we never heard about it.  But I
don't want to talk about our conduct in that respect, how we interpret our
obligations.  If we hear that someone is trying to assassinate Reagan, you
can rest assured tat we will alert Reagan, because I feel a responsible
government cannot hear of such a report, learn of such a report and not
warn somebody.  You can rest assured.  And I believe the U.S. Government
knows it.  I think there cannot be any sane, serious person in the United
States who can believe that Cuba had anything to do with Kennedy's death.

Not even Batista.  We were the enemies of Batista.  We could have killed
Batista.  However, we are politically against tyrannicide; we never
practiced tyrannicide.  We never believed that the death of a man would
change a society.  Therefore, we had the strength to attack the Moncada
Barracks with 160 men, to wage war.  We could have ambushed Batista and
killed him.  There's not a single indication in the entire history of the
revolution that the 26 July Movement, which we organized and led, had
planned to assassinate Batista.  And yet Batista had killed thousands of
our comrades.  Therefore, in philosophical terms, we have never
contemplated tyrannicide.  Never.  If we did not do it with Batista
here--it would have been easy--why do it with a president of the United
States.  Men have their ideas, convictions, history.  That cannot be
ignored.

[Shriver]  Let me ask you one or two final questions.  Your good fried, the
novelist Garcia, or rather I should say, your good friend, the writer
Garcia Marquez, says you are an example of the solitude of power.

[Castro] Those are the theories of Garcia Marquez.  Those are his theories,
and I respect them.  He even wrote a prologue for the book of an Italian
journalist based on an interview with me, in which be elaborated on this
theory.  He says I feel the solitude of power.  He says he feels the
solitude of power.

[Shriver]  Do you?

[Castro]  I don't feel it.  I don't feel it because I don't feel I am in
power.  I feel I am among the people.  You were able to come along with me
to various places today.  I have a lot of contact with the people.  I talk
to thousands of people every month.  Thus, I cannot feel solitude in any
way.

I might experience some of the stress of power, the sacrifices power
entails.  I might feel the torture.  You who speak of human rights, look
how many lights you have in here.  It's tremendously warm.  Lights
everywhere.  They say that practitioners of torture do this kind of thing.
They set up unbearable lights.  I must make some of these sacrifices.  But
that's Garcia Marquez' theory.  I respect it, but I do not share it.  I
have a lot of contact with the people and Garcia Marquez knows it, although
he has never made a tour with me as you did.

[Shriver]  You visit these people, but when you finish visiting them you're
along.

[Castro]  I have many things to do when I finish.  But I am keeping these
to myself.  They are private.  But I'm never alone.  I don't know what the
solitude of power means.

[Shriver]  Do you know what solitude means?  Power isn't lonely?

[Castro]  I told Garcia Marquez one day--he asked me, what would you like
to do now?  I told him, I want to sit on the malecon [seaside drive] or
stand on a corner.  That's true.  He wrote this in his prologue.  You see,
sometimes you feel like doing the same things other people do.  Normal,
simple things; to sit on the Malecon and (?look out to sea)--something I
can't do.  But I have been resigned to this lifestyle for a long time.  It
doesn't prevent me from having... [changes thought] I know a lot of people,
wonderful people.  There are millions of excellent people among the
population.  I feel happy in contact with all those people.  You were able
to see it.  We went to places where my visit had not been announced.  I
have a lot of contact with the people.  I have the privilege of knowing a
lot of good people, people whom I love and people whom I admire.  I not
only love our people; I admire our people.  Our people possess great
virtues, great qualities; they are noble, generous, solitary,
internationalist.  I told you what they did.  When they asked for teachers
for Nicaragua, 30,000 volunteered.  When the counterrevolution killed some
teachers, 100,000 volunteered.  All teachers.  Our people really possess
great qualities.

You were asking me if aid to Angola was costly.  This is not so.  We have
the people.  We don't have the money, but we have the people to do things.
We pay the wages of the people in Angola.  That is, we do not spend foreign
currency, which is what we are most short of.  It has been said, and it is
a lie, that we are paid to have our troops there.  I believe that a drop of
the blood of an internationalist combatant--either soldiers or
civilians--is not worth all the gold in the world.  We can do it because we
have a great, wonderful people.  They have been forged in the revolution.
I am proud of the qualities of our people.

[Shriver]  And no loneliness in power.

[Castro]  No loneliness in power.

[Shriver]  Let me ask you one or two more questions.

[Castro]  Ask anything you want.  We can spend two or three more rolls of
film.  Don't leave anything unasked.

[Shriver]  We were looking at the museum today, the Revolution Museum, and
there was a part of a U-2 plane.  There is a theory that there was a
second U-2 shot down during the Cuban missile crisis, and that the Cuban
shot it down.

[Castro] There was only one plane shot down during the last days of the
crisis.  We did not shot down the plane.  We maintained that we should not
allow low altitude flights.  We warned the Soviets and everybody else that
we would not allow low altitude flights, and that we would fire.  We
mobilized all our antiaircraft artillery.  That morning, when the planes
were sighted flying low, our antiaircraft batteries opened fire everywhere
against these planes.  That was in the morning.  But we did not have
missiles.  In view of this situation, a Soviet missile battery opened fire
and shot the plane down.  What caused this?  The fact that they really
[words indistinct].  We opened fire in the morning.  If they want to blame
us, we accept.  We gave orders to our antiaircraft batteries to open fire
on all low flying plants.  But we did not have surface-to-air long-range
missiles.  Those were in the hands of the Soviets.  It was Soviet officer
who fired.

[Shriver]  There was no second plan shot?

[Castro]  There was no second plane, but if any others had flown low, there
might have been a lot of planes downed.  We did order our antiaircraft
batteries to open fire.  But it wasn't that plane.  They opened fire and
the planes quickly retreated.  However, Cuba did not give the order to fire
the missile because it was not under our control.  If it had been under our
control, we would have given the order to shoot.  So, we are not avoiding
responsibility.  What we cannot claim is the historical credit of downing
the plane.  We cannot usurp that credit away.

[Shriver]  Did you feel betrayed by Khruschev in the Cuban missile crisis?

[Castro]  No, we did not feel betrayed, but I was very angry, very
displeased, because we believe what he did was completely wrong.

There were two errors.  One was to speak about the missiles in Turkey.  It
was absolutely incorrect to exchange the missiles in Cuba for those in
Turkey.  That was immoral and unacceptable.

Second, it was incorrect to decide to withdraw the missiles without
discussing it first with us.  I understand this was a big situation; that
it was tense, dangerous, but the idea that the missiles be withdrawn
without consulting Cuba was not acceptable.  We would not have opposed
this, but we would have demanded conditions.  And I think he could have
said that he was willing to withdraw the missiles if guarantees were given
that were acceptable to Cuba.  Then we could have discussed this.

But this was not done.  The Guantanamo Base remained.  The acts of piracy,
the dirty war, the subversive plans--all this continued.  So we were
justifiably irritated and in disagreement.  We did not allow our bases to
be inspected.  We said that no one could inspect us here.  The Soviets
agreed with the Americans.  They inspected the ships.  But we did not
accept the inspection of our territory as a matter of principle.

[Shriver]  If Khruschev angered you, did he humiliate you?

[Castro]  No, to tell the truth, Khruschev was a good friend of ours.
Khruschev was the one who initiated political and economic relations with
Cuba.  He was extraordinarily generous and friendly with our country.  I
would say that everything he did was good for our country.

The only point on which we totally disagreed was the manner in which he
handled the crisis at the end, ignoring Cuba.  It was done in a strange
manner.  Speaking of missiles in Turkey, talking about withdrawing missiles
in Cuba without consulting us.  He had to consult us because we had
agreements that were signed by the two countries.  He not only had a
political obligation but also a legal responsibility to consult us, but he
did not.