Cuba

Although we have been given the reputation of speaking at great length, the Assembly need not worry. We shall do our best to be brief, saying only what we regard it as our duty to say here. I also intend to speak slowly, in order to co-operate with the interpreters. 48. Some people may think that we are highly displeased with the treatment meted out to the Cuban delegation. That is not the case. We understand the reason for these things perfectly and so we are not annoyed. No one need be concerned lest Cuba be discouraged from making her small contribution to this effort to bring about world understanding. We shall continue to do so and we shall speak frankly. 49. It costs a great deal to send a delegation to the United Nations. We of the under-developed countries have very little money to spare but what we have we will spend in order to speak frankly at this meeting of representatives of neatly all the countries of the world. 50. The speakers who took the floor before me expressed their anxiety over problems which are of concern to the whole world. We are also interested in these problems. Moreover, in Cuba’s case, there is another special circumstance: at this moment, Cuba itself is of concern to the world, for various representatives have stated here quite rightly that Cuba is one of the many problems existing in the world at the present time. 51. This is true; in addition to the problems which are today of concern to the whole world, Cuba has problems which are of concern to her, of concern to our people. Reference has been made to the universal desire for peace, which is the desire of all peoples and accordingly the desire of our people also. But this peace which the world wishes to preserve is a peace which we Cubans have been without for a long time. The perils which other peoples of the world may regard as more or less remote are problems and anxieties which are very close to us. It was not easy to come here to lay Cuba’s problems before this Assembly. It was not easy for us to get here. I do not know whether we received special treatment. Can it be that we, the members of the Cuban delegation, represent the worst type of government in the world? Can it be that we, the representatives of the Cuban delegation, deserve the bad treatment which we have received? Why our delegation in particular? Cuba has sent many delegations to the United Nations. Cuba has been represented by many different persons, and yet, these exceptional measures were reserved for us: confinement to the island of Manhattan; instructions to all hotels not to rent us rooms, hostility and, on the pretext of security, isolation. 52. Probably none of the representatives here, who represent not any individual person but their respective countries and who must therefore be concerned over something that applies to any one of them because of what they represent; probably none of them, I say, on their arrival in the city of New York had to endure personal and physical humiliation of the kind which the Chairman of the Cuban delegation had to undergo. 53. I am not trying to stir up feeling in this Assembly. I am merely telling the truth. It was high time for us to get to our feet and speak out. People have been talking about us for many days now; the newspapers have been talking and we have been silent. We cannot defend ourselves from the attacks made on us here, in this country. Now we have an opportunity to tell the truth and we shall not fail to do so. 54. Personal humiliation, attempts at extortion, eviction from the hotel in which we were staying, and our removal to another hotel, after doing everything possible to avoid difficulties, refraining absolutely from leaving our lodgings, going nowhere except to this Assembly hall at the United Nations (on the few occasions when we have been present), and to a reception at the Soviet Embassy, in order to avoid problems and difficulties, even all this was not enough for us to be left in peace, 55. Over the years there has been considerable Cuban immigration into this country. During the last twenty years over 100,000 Cubans have come to this country from their own homeland, where they would have liked to remain always and where they wish to return as do all who are forced for social or economic reasons to leave their country. This Cuban population is employed; they respected and still respect the law and, very naturally, they felt deeply for their country and for the revolution. They never had any problems. 56. But one day there began to arrive in this country another kind of visitor; war criminals began to arrive; there began to arrive persons who, in some cases, had murdered hundreds of our compatriots. At once they were welcomed by the Press; they were welcomed by the authorities and naturally they reflected this welcome in their conduct and that is the reason for their many clashes with Cuban immigrants who had been working honestly in this country for years. 57. One of these incidents, provoked by persons who feel themselves strengthened by the systematic campaign against Cuba and the complicity of the authorities, resulted in the death of a little girl. This was a matter for regret, for all of us. But the guilty parties were not the Cubans who live here. Much less was the Cuban delegation guilty, and yet all of you have undoubtedly seen these headlines in the newspapers saying that pro-Castro groups had lulled a ten-year-old girl; with the characteristic hypocrisy of all those who have anything to do with relations between Cuba and tills country, a spokesman for the White House immediately made a statement drawing the whole world’s attention to this act and to all intents and purposes laying the guilt at the door of the Cuban delegation. The United States representative to this Assembly added the crowning touch to the farce by sending a telegram to the Government of Venezuela and another telegram of condolences to the little girl's family, as though he felt obliged to give an explanation from the United Nations for something for which the Cuban delegation was virtually responsible. 58. But that was not all. When we were forced to leave one of the hotels in this city and come to United Nations Headquarters while other arrangements were being made, a modest hotel here, a Negro hotel in Harlem, offered us accommodation. The offer came during our conversations with the Secretary-General. Nevertheless, an official of the State Department did everything in his power to prevent us from being accommodated in this hotel. 59. At that moment, as if by magic, hotels began to spring up all over New York, hotels which had previously refused to house the Cuban delegation, offering to do so for nothing. Naturally, out of common courtesy, we agreed to go to the Harlem hotel. We thought that we had a right to hope that we would be left in peace. But we were not left in peace. As it had not been possible to prevent our stay in Harlem, a whispering campaign was started at once and the world was told that the Cuban delegation had taken up residence in a brothel. 60. No doubt to some gentlemen, a modest hotel in Harlem, where the Negroes of the United States live, could not be anything but a brothel. But besides this it was a matter of trying to cast a slur on the Cuban delegation, thus showing no respect even for the women members of our delegation or of Its staff. 61. If we were the sort of men that they are trying at all costs to depict us as being, imperialism would not have lost its hope, as it did long ago, of buying us off or seducing us in some way. Since that hope was lost a long time ago — and there was never any reason to entertain it-after it was alleged that the Cuban delegation had taken up residence in a brothel, it had to be recognized that imperialist capital is a prostitute who cannot seduce us, and not exactly "the respectful prostitute" of Jean-Paul Sartre. 62. The problem of Cuba? Some representatives are perhaps well-informed; some of them not so well it depends on your sources of information but there is no doubt that for the world as a whole the Cuban problem is one that has arisen in the last two years; it is a new problem. Formerly the world had little reason to know that Cuba existed. To many people it was rather like an appendix to the United States. Even for many citizens of this country, Cuba was a colony of the United States. It was not so on the map. On the map we were shown in a different colour from the United States; in reality, we were a colony. 63. How did our country come to be a United States colony? Not through its origins; the United States and Cuba were not colonized by the same people. Cuba has a very different ethnic and cultural background, built up over several hundred years. 64. Cuba was the last country In America to free herself from Spanish colonialism, the Spanish colonial yoke, if the representative of the Spanish Government will forgive me, and because it was the last, it had to struggle much more desperately. Spain had only one possession in America left and she defended it obstinately and with every means at her disposal. Our little people, numbering hardly more than one million at that time, had for nearly thirty years to fight alone against an army which was regarded as one of the strongest in Europe. Against our small national population the Spanish Government mobilized a force as large as all the forces which had fought against the independence of all the nations in South America put together. Nearly half a million Spanish soldiers fought against our people's heroic and single-minded determination to be free. The Cubans fought alone for their independence for thirty years; thirty years which laid the foundation for our country's love of freedom and independence. 65. But in the opinion of John Adams, one of the Presidents of the United States in the early years of last century, Cuba was a fruit, an apple, as it were, hanging from the Spanish tree, destined, as soon as it was ripe, to fall into the hands of the United States. Spain’s power had wasted away in our country. She had neither men nor money left to continue the wax in Cuba. Spain was routed. Apparently the apple was ripe and the United States Government held out Its hands. It was not one apple that fell into its hands but several: Puerto Rico fell, heroic Puerto Rico, which had begun its fight for freedom together with the Cubans; so did the Philippine Islands and a number of other possessions, 66. However, some different pretext had to be found for subjugating our country. Cuba had fought a tremendous fight and world opinion was on its side. The Cubans who fought for our independence, those Cubans who at that time were laying down their lives, trusted, completely in the Joint Resolution of the United States Congress, of 20 April 1898, which declared that "The people of the island of Cuba are, and of right ought to be, free and independent". The people of the United States sympathized with the Cubans in their struggle. That joint declaration was an Act of Congress of this nation under which war was declared on Spain. 67. That illusion ended in cruel disappointment. After two years of military occupation of our country. something unexpected occurred. Just when the Cuban people, through a Constituent Assembly, were drafting the basic law of the Republic, another act was passed by the United States Congress, an act proposed by Senator Platt, of unhappy memory for Cuba, in which it was laid down that a rider was to be attached to the Cuban Constitution whereby the United States Government would be granted the right to intervene in Cuban political affairs and, in addition, the right to lease certain parts of Cuban territory for naval bases or coaling stations; in other words, under a law enacted by the legislative authority of a foreign country, the Cuban Constitution had to contain this provision, and it was made very clear to the members of our Constituent Assembly that if no such amendment was made, the occupation forces would not be withdrawn. In other words, our country was forced by the legislature of a foreign country to grant that country the right to intervene and to hold naval bases or stations. 68. It is well for countries which have recently become Members of this Organization, countries now beginning their independent life, to bear in mind the history of our country because of the similar conditions that they may encounter along their own paths, or which those who come after them may encounter, or their children, or their children's children, although it seems that we are not going to get as far as that. 69. The new colonization of our country then began: the best agricultural land was acquired by United States companies; concessions were granted for exploiting our natural resources and mines, concessions for the operation of public utilities, commercial concessions, concessions of every kind which, combined with the constitutional right, based on force, to intervene in our country transformed it from a Spanish into a United States colony. 70. Colonies have no voice. Colonies are not recognized in the world as long as they have no opportunity to make themselves heard. That was why the world knew nothing of this colony or of its problems. Another flag, another coat of arms, appeared in the geography books. Another colour appeared on the maps; but there was no independent republic in Cuba. Let no one be deceived because if we are, we shall only make fools of ourselves. Let no one be deceived. There was no independent republic in Cuba. It was a colony where the orders were given by the Ambassador of the United States of America. We have no shame in proclaiming this because any shame is offset by the pride we have in saying that today no embassy rules our people because our people are governed by the people. 71. Once again the Cuban people had to resort to Strife to win their independence and they achieved it. They achieved it after seven years of bloody oppression. By whom were they oppressed? By those in our country who were merely the tools of those who dominated it economically. How can any unpopular regime, inimical to the interests of the people, remain in power except by force? Do we need to explain here to the representatives of our fellow countries of Latin America what military tyrannies are? Do we need to explain to them how they have remained in power? Do we need to explain to them the history of some of these tyrannies which have already become a byword? Do we need to explain to them on what strength these tyrannies rely, from what national and international interests the military group which oppressed our people drew its support? It was supported by the most reactionary Circles in the country and most of all by the foreign economic interests which dominated our country's economy. Everyone knows — and. we believe that even the United States Government admits this — that it was the type of government preferred by the monopolies. Why? Because by force any demand by the people can be repressed; by force strikes for better living conditions were repressed; with force peasant movements for ownership of the land were repressed; with force the dearest aspirations of the people were repressed. 72. That is why governments of force were preferred by those directing United States policy. That is why governments of force remained in power for so long and still remain in power in America. Clearly, it all depends on the circumstances whether or not there will be support from the United States Government. For example, the United States Government now says that it is against one of these governments of force, the Trujillo Government, but it does not say that it is against any other such governments, that of Nicaragua or of Paraguay for instance. 73. In Nicaragua there is now no longer a government of force but a kind of monarchy, which is almost as constitutional as that of the United Kingdom, in which power is handed down from father to son. And the same would have happened in our country. The Government of Fulgencio Batista was atypical government offeree, a government which suited the United States monopolies in Cuba. But it was not, of course, the type of government which suited the Cuban people. With great loss of life and much sacrifice the Cuban people overthrew that Government. 74. What did the revolution find after it succeeded in Cuba? What wonders did it find? It found, first of all, that 600,000 Cubans fit for work were permanently unemployed — a figure which is, in proportion, equal to the number of unemployed in the United States at the time of the great depression which shook this country and almost led to disaster. Three million people, out of a total population of a little over 6 million, had no electric light and enjoyed none of the benefits and comforts of electricity. Three and a half million people, out of a total population of a little over 6 million, were living in hovels and huts unfit for human habitation. In the towns rents accounted for as much as one third of family incomes. Electricity rates and rents were among the highest in the world. 75. Thirty-seven and a half per cent of our population were illiterate, unable to read or write. Seventy per cent of the children in the rural areas were without teachers. Two per cent of our population were suffering from tuberculosis, that is to say, 100,000 people out of a total of a little over 6 million. Ninety-five per cent of the children in rural areas were suffering from diseases caused by parasites. Infant mortality was consequently very high. The average life span was very short. In addition, 85 per cent of small farmers were paying rent for their lands amounting to as much as 30 per cent of their gross incomes, while 1 1/2 per cent of all the landowners controlled 46 per cent of the total area of the country. The proportion of hospital beds to the number of inhabitants of the country was ludicrous when compared with countries with average medical services. Public utilities, electricity and telephone companies were owned by United States monopolies. A large part of the banking and import business, the oil refineries, the greater part of the sugar production, the best land, and the chief industries of all types in Cuba belonged to United States companies. In the last ten years, the balance of payments between Cuba and the United States has been in the latter's favour to the extent of $1,000 million, and that does not take into account the millions and hundreds of millions of dollars removed from the public treasury by the corrupt and tyrannical rulers and deposited in United States or European banks. One thousand million dollars in ten years! The poor and under-developed country of the Caribbean, with 600,000 unemployed, contributing to the economic development of the most highly industrialized country in the world! 76. That was the situation which confronted us; a situation which is not unknown to many of the countries represented in this Assembly because, in the final analysis, what we have said about Cuba is merely a general X-ray photograph, so to speak, which is valid for the majority of countries represented here. What alternative was there for the revolutionary government? To betray the people? Of course, in the eyes of the President of the United States, what we have done for our people is treason to our people; but it would not be so, for sure, if instead of being loyal to our people we had been loyal to the great United States monopolies which were exploiting our country's economy. 77. Let note at least be taken here of the wonders which the revolution found after it succeeded, wonders which are no more and no less than the usual wonders associated with imperialism, the wonders of the free world for us colonized countries. 78. No one can blame us if Cuba had 600,000 unemployed, 37 1/2 per cent of its population illiterate, 2 per cent suffering from tuberculosis, and 95 per cent of the children in rural areas suffering from diseases caused by parasites. No; until the revolution none of us had any say in the future of our country; until then the rulers who served the interests of the monopolies controlled its destinies; until then it was the monopolies which determined the fate of our country. Did anyone try to stop them? No, no one. Did anyone place difficulties in their way? No, no one. They were allowed to go about their business and in Cuba we are now enjoying the fruits of their work. 79. What was the state of the national reserves? When the tyrant Batista came to power there were $500 million in the national reserves — a goodly sum for investing in the industrial development of the country. After the revolution there were $70 million in our reserves. Does this show any concern for the industrial development of our country? None at all; that is why we are so astonished and we continue to be astonished when we hear in the General Assembly of the United States Government's great concern for the future of the countries of Latin America, Africa and Asia. We cannot overcome our astonishment because, after fifty years of such a regime, we now see the results in Cuba. 80. What has the revolutionary government done? What crime has the revolutionary government committed, that we should receive the treatment we have received here, that we should have such powerful enemies as we have been shown to have here? Did our problems with the United States Government arise immediately? No. When we came to power, were we possessed with the desire to seek international problems? No; no revolutionary government coming to power wants international problems; what it wants is to devote its energies to solving its own problems; what it wants is to carry out a programme, as does any government that is genuinely interested in the progress of its country. 81. The first occurrence that we considered an unfriendly act was the opening wide of the doors of this country to a whole gang of criminals who had drenched our land with blood. Men who had murdered hundreds of defenceless peasants, who did not tire of torturing prisoners for years who killed right and left, were welcomed here with open arms. To us this seemed strange. Why this unfriendly act by the United States authorities towards Cuba? Why this act of hostility? At that time we did not fully understand; now, we see the reasons perfectly. 82. Was this policy consistent with correct behaviour towards Cuba — a correct conduct of relations between the United States and Cuba? No, for we were the injured party, because the Batista regime stayed in power with the assistance of the United States Government, the Batista regime stayed in power with the assistance of tanks, aircraft and weapons supplied by the United States Government; the Batista regime stayed in power through the use of an army whose officers were trained by a military mission of the United States Government. And we trust that no official of the United States will try to deny this fact. At the very moment when the rebel army arrived at the city of Havana, the United States military mission was occupying the principal military camp of that city. That was an army that had been overcome; an army that had been defeated and had surrendered. We could quite rightly have treated as prisoners-of-war these foreign officers who were there assisting and training the enemies of the people. However, that was not what we did; we merely requested the members of the mission to return to their own country, because after all we did not need their lessons, and their pupils there had been defeated. 83. I have with me a document. Let no one be surprised at its appearance, for it is a torn document. It is an old military Agreement, under which the Batista tyranny received generous assistance from the United States Government. 84. Now it is important to notice what this Agreement says in article I, paragraph 2: "The Government of Cuba undertakes to make effective use of assistance received from the Government of the United States of America pursuant to this Agreement for the purpose of implementing defence plans, accepted by the two Governments, under which the two Governments will participate in missions important to the defence of the Western Hemisphere, and will not, without the prior agreement of the Government of the United States of America ..." — I repeat — "... without the prior agreement of the Government of the United States of America, devote such assistance to purposes other than those for which it was furnished.” 85. This assistance was devoted to combating the Cuban revolutionaries. It had therefore the approval of the United States Government. And even when, a few months before the end of the war, there was an embargo in this country on arms sent to Batista, after more than six years of military aid, the rebel army had evidence, documentary evidence, that after the solemn declaration of this arms embargo the forces of tyranny had been newly supplied with 300 rockets, to be fired from aircraft. 86. When our fellow-countrymen living in the United States set these documents before the public', the United States Government could find no other explanation than to say that we were mistaken, and that they had not sent any fresh supplies to the army of the tyranny, but had merely replaced some rockets of the wrong calibre for its aircraft by some others which were of the right size — and which doubtless were fired at us while we were in the mountains. A novel way of explaining contradictions, when they become inexplicable! 87. According to this explanation, it was not a question of military aid. It must then have been a kind of technical assistance. Why were these circumstances displeasing to our people? Everyone knows — even the most ingenuous person knows — that in these modern days, with the revolution that has- taken place in military equipment, the weapons of the last war are absolutely obsolete for a modem war; that fifty tanks or armoured cars and a few outdated aircraft could not defend any continent or any hemisphere. On the other hand, they are useful for oppressing unarmed peoples; they are useful for intimidating peoples. They are useful for the defence of monopolies. These agreements for the defence of the hemisphere, therefore, should rather be called "agreements for the defence of United States monopolies”. 88. The Revolutionary Government began to make its first reforms. The first thing it did was to reduce rents paid by families by 50 per cent. A very just measure, since, as we said earlier, there were families paying as much as a third of their income. The people had been the victims of large-scale speculation in housing, and there had been tremendous speculation in urban land at the people’s expense. But when the Revolutionary Government reduced rents by 50 per cent, there were some who were not pleased, to be sure: those few who owned the apartment buildings. But the people rushed into the streets rejoicing, as would happen in any country, even here in New York, if rents for all families were reduced by 50 per cent. But this did not involve any difficulty with the monopolies; some United States companies owned large buildings, but they were relatively few. 89. Then came another law; a law cancelling the concessions which the tyrannical Government of Fulgencio Batista had granted to the telephone company, which was a United States monopoly. It had taken advantage of the peopled defencelessness to obtain very favourable concessions. The Revolutionary Government cancelled these concessions and restored the rates for telephone services to the previous level. This was the beginning of the first conflict with the United States monopolies. 90. The third measure was the reduction of electricity charges, which were among the highest in the world. Thus arose the second conflict with the United States monopolies. By this time we were beginning to look like communists. We began to be painted red, simply because we had clashed with the interests of the United States monopolies. 91. There followed another law, an inevitable and indispensable law, inevitable for our country and inevitable, sooner or later, for all the peoples in the world, at least for all those peoples of the world who have not yet carried it out: the land reform law. Of course, in theory, everyone is in favour of land reform. No one dares to question if; no informed person dares to deny that land reform is an essential condition for economic development in the under-developed countries of the world. In Cuba too, even the big landowners were in agreement with land reform, provided it was a kind of land reform which suited them, like the land reform proposed by many theorists: a land reform which would not be carried out, for just as long as it could be avoided. 92. Land reform is something recognized by the economic organs of the United Nations, something which is no longer in dispute. In our country it was indispensable; more than 200,000 families lived in the rural areas of our country without any land on which to grow essential food crops. Without land reform our country would not have been able to take the first step towards development. Well, we took this step. We instituted a land reform. Was it radical? It was a radical reform. Was it very radical? It was not particularly radical. We carried out a land reform appropriate to the needs of our development, appropriate to our capacities for agricultural development; that is to say, a land reform which would solve the problem of landless peasants, solve the problem of the supply of these essential foodstuffs, remedy the fearfully high level of unemployment in rural areas, and put an end to the appalling poverty which we found in our countryside. 93. Well, it was at that point that the first real difficulty arose. The same thing had happened in the neighbouring Republic of Guatemala. When land reform was carried out in Guatemala, difficulties arose there. And I must in honesty warn the representatives of Latin America, Africa and Asia: when they plan to carry out a just land reform, they must be prepared to face situations similar to ours, especially if the best and largest estates are owned by United States monopolies, as was the case in Cuba. 94. It may well be that we shall how be accused of giving bad advice in this Assembly. It is certainly not our object to disturb anyone’s sleep. We are simply drawing attention to the facts, although the facts are sufficient to keep anyone awake. 95. The problems of compensation were at once raised. Communications from the American State Department began to pour in. They never asked us about our problems; not even out of pity, or on account of the large share of responsibility they bore in the matter, did they ask us how many of our people were starving to death, how many were suffering from tuberculosis, how many were out of work. No; never an expression of solidarity with us in our needs. The only concern expressed by the United States Government representatives was for the telephone company, the electricity company, and the problem of the lands owned by the United States companies. How were we going to pay? Clearly, the first question to be asked was — what were we going to pay with? "What with?”, rather than “how?”. Do you imagine, gentlemen, that a poor, under-developed country with 600,000 unemployed, with such a high level of illiteracy and sickness, whose reserves have been used up, and which has contributed 1,000 million dollars in ten years to the economy of a powerful country, could have the wherewithal to pay for the land which was going to be affected by the land reform, or at least pay for it on the terms demanded by the American State Department as compensation for the prejudice to their interests? They demanded three things: prompt, effective and fair compensation. Do you understand this language, gentlemen? Prompt, effective and fair compensation. In other words, pay immediately, in dollars, the amount we ask for our land. 96. We were still not 150 per cent Communists. We were just becoming a little more tinged with red. We did not confiscate these lands we merely proposed to pay for them in twenty years, and the only way we could pay for them was in bonds, maturing after twenty years, earning interest at 4 1/2 per cent, which would be gradually redeemed year by year. How could we pay for the land in dollars? How could we pay immediately? How could we pay what they asked for it? It was absurd. Anyone can see that in these circumstances we had to choose between carrying out the land reform and not carrying it out. If we did not carry it out, the appalling economic situation of our country would last indefinitely; but if we did carry it out, we would be exposing ourselves to the enmity of the Government of our powerful northern neighbour. 97. We went ahead with the land reform. One can be sure that to a representative of the Netherlands, say, or any other European country, the limits we set to land holdings would be quite surprising; they would be surprisingly high. The maximum set by our land reform law was around 400 hectares. In Europe, 400 hectares would constitute a large estate. In Cuba, where there were United States monopolistic companies holding up to around 200,000 hectares (200,000 hectares, in case anyone thinks he has not heard aright), in Cuba, a land reform designed to reduce the maximum holding to 400 hectares was something which these monopolies considered inadmissible. But in our country it was hot only the land that was owned by United States monopolies; the principal mines were also the property of these monopolies. Cuba produces a large quantity of nickel, for example. All the nickel was mined by United States concerns. And under the Batista tyranny, a United States company the Moa Bay Company, had obtained such a profitable concession that, in only five years — listen carefully — in only five years it was going to amortize an investment of 120 million dollars. A 120 million-dollar investment' to be amortized in five years! 98. Who was it that gave that concession to the Moa Bay Company, through the intervention of the United States Ambassador? None other than the tyrannical Government of Fulgencio Batista, the Government that was there to defend the interests of the monopolies, and what is more — and this is a fact beyond any doubt whatever — the concession was completely tax-free. What were such undertakings going to leave for the Cubans? Worked-out mines, impoverished land, not even a modest contribution to the economic development of our country. And then the Revolutionary Government enacted a law on mines requiring these monopolies to pay a 25 per cent tax on mineral exports. 99. The attitude of the Revolutionary Government had already been too daring. It had clashed with the interests of the international electric trust, clashed with the interests of the international telephone trust, clashed with the interests of the international mining trusts, clashed with the interests of the United Fruit Company, clashed, as it were, with the most powerful interests of the United States, which as you know are closely interrelated. That was more than the United States Government, that is to say, the representatives of the monopolies of the United States, could stand. 100. It was then that a new stage in the harassment of our revolution began. Can anyone who objectively analyses the facts — anyone who is willing to think for himself and not as the United Press or the Associated Press tells him to think, to think with his own head and draw conclusions from his own reasoning and see things as they are without preconceived notions, honestly and fairly- consider that the things which the Revolutionary Government has done were such as to call for the destruction of the Cuban revolution? No, But the interests affected by the Cuban revolution were not concerned about the ease of Cuba, they were not being ruined by the measures of the Cuban Revolutionary Government. That was not the problem. The problem was that those name interests were the owners of the wealth and natural resources of the majority of the peoples of the world. 101. And the Cuban revolution had to be chastised for its attitude. The audacity of the Revolutionary Government had to be castigated by punitive operations of every kind ranging as far as the destruction of the impudent men concerned. On our word of honour we swear that we had not then had occasion even to exchange a letter with the distinguished Prime Minister of the Soviet Union, Mr. Khrushchev. In other words, at the time when, according to the United States Press and the international information agencies, Cuba was already a red Government, a red menace ninety miles from the United States, with a government dominated by Communists, the Revolutionary Government had not even had occasion to establish diplomatic or commercial relations with the Soviet Union. 102. But hysteria is capable of anything. Hysteria is capable of making the most unlikely and the most absurd assertions. However, let no one think that we are now going to recite a mea culpa. There will be no mea culpa. We do not have to ask forgiveness of any-one. What we did we did very deliberately and above all fully convinced of our right to do it. 103. Then began the threats against our sugar quota. The cheap philosophy of imperialism began to demonstrate its nobility, the nobility of the self-seeker and the exploiter, to demonstrate its kindness towards Cuba, saying that we were being paid a preferential price for sugar, which amounted to a subsidy for Cuban sugar, the sugar that was not so sweet for us Cubans since we were not the owners of the best sugar fields or of the biggest sugar mills. What is more, in that assertion lay hidden the true history of Cuban sugar, of the sacrifices my country had had to bear, of the occasions when it had been subjected to economic aggression. 104. Earlier on, it was not a matter of quotas, but of customs tariffs. The United States, by virtue of one of those laws, or rather one of those agreements between the shark and the sardine which it called a reciprocity agreement, obtained a number of concessions for its products in order that they might be able to compete freely with the products of its friends, the British and the French, and squeeze them out of the Cuban market, as often happens among friends. In exchange, certain tariff concessions were granted for our sugar but the Congress or Government of the United States could modify them unilaterally at will, ' And that is what happened. When they considered it more in their interests to raise the tariffs, they did so and our sugar could not enter the United States market, or it entered at a disadvantage. When the clouds of war gathered, the tariffs were reduced. 105. Obviously, Cuba being the nearest source of supply for sugar, that source of supply had to be assured; tariffs were lowered, production was encouraged, and during the war years, when the price of sugar was astronomical throughout the world, we were selling our sugar cheap to the United States, in spite of the fact that we were its only source of supply. 106. The war ended and our economy collapsed. The mistakes made in this country in the distribution of sugar were paid for by us; prices that had risen enormously by the end of the First World War; tremendous boost to production; a sudden drop in prices, ruining the Cuban sugar mills, which quietly fell into the hands of — guess whom — the United States banks, of course, because when Cuban nationals went bankrupt, United States banks became rich; and so it went on until the 1930's. In the search for a formula which would reconcile its interests in ensuring a source of supply with those of its domestic producers, the United States Government set up a quota system. One would have thought that the quotas would be based on the historic contributions of the various sources of supply to the market, and our country's historic contribution to the United States market had been almost 50 per cent. Nevertheless, when the quotas were established, our share was reduced to 28 per cent and the few advantages granted us by that law were successively withdrawn in subsequent legislation. Naturally, the colony depended on the metropolitan country; the economy of the colony had been organized by the metropolitan country; the colony had to be subject to the metropolitan country and if the colony took steps to free itself, the metropolitan Country would take steps to crush it. 107. Aware of our economy's dependence on the United States market, the United States Government began its series of warnings that it would deprive us of our sugar quota. Concurrently, other activities were taking place in the United States of America, the activities of the counterrevolutionaries. 108. One afternoon an aircraft coming from the north flew over one of our sugar mills and dropped a bomb. That was a strange, an unusual event, but of course we knew where that aircraft came from. 109. Another afternoon another aircraft flew over our sugarcane fields and dropped some small incendiary bombs. And what started in a haphazard fashion was then continued systematically. 110. One afternoon — when a large number of United States tourist agents were visiting Cuba in connexion with a campaign by the Revolutionary Government to encourage tourism as a source of national income — an aircraft of United States manufacture, of a type used in the Second World War, flew over our capital, dropping leaflets and some hand-grenades. Naturally, some anti-aircraft guns went into action. What with the grenades dropped by the aircraft and the anti-aircraft fire, because, as you know, some of the projectiles explode on contact with any hard object, the result was more than forty casualties. There were children and old people width their entrails ripped out. Was this the first time for us? No, children and old people, men and women had often been wiped out in our Cuban villages by bombs of United States manufacture supplied to the tyrant Batista, and on one occasion eighty workers were killed by the all-too-mysterious explosion of a ship loaded with Belgian weapons which had finally reached our country after a major effort by the United States Government to prevent the Belgian Government from selling us arms. 111. Dozens of war victims; eighty families destroyed by an explosion; forty casualties caused by an aircraft that leisurely flew over our territory. The authorities of the united States Government denied that those aircraft; had come from United States territory. What is more, they said the aircraft was standing quietly in a hangar. But when one of our periodicals published a photograph of the aircraft, it was only then that the United States authorities seized it, and immediately issued a statement to the effect that the matter was of no importance and that the casualties had been caused not by bombs but by anti-aircraft fire; and meanwhile those who had committed this foul deed, this crime, were going about the United States undisturbed, and not hindered in any way from continuing to commit such acts of aggression. 112. I take this opportunity of telling the representative of the United States that there are many mothers in Cuba still waiting for a telegram of condolences from him for their children murdered by United States bombs. 113. The aircraft went back and forth. There was no evidence; all right, no one knows what evidence means. There it was — the aircraft that had been photographed and captured; but we were told that that particular aircraft had not dropped any bombs. We do not know how it was that the United States authorities were so well informed. Pirate aircraft continued to fly over our territory, dropping incendiary bombs. Millions and millions of pesos were lost in the burring sugarcane fields. Many ordinary people, the little people of our country, who saw this property that was now truly theirs being destroyed, suffered burns and injuries while fighting the persistent and relentless bombing attacks by pirate aircraft. 114. Finally, one day, while flying over one of our sugar mills, an aircraft was destroyed by the explosion of one of its own bombs and the Revolutionary Government succeeded in collecting the 'remains of the pilot and in seizing his papers, which showed that he was indeed a United States pilot and the aircraft a United States aircraft, and provided complete evidence as to the place of take-off. The aircraft had passed between two bases in the United States. It could no longer be denied that those aircraft were taking off from the United States. 115. This time the United States Government, confronted with irrefutable proof, did give an explanation to the Government of Cuba. Its behaviour in this case was not the same as in the case of the U-2. When it was proved that the aircraft were taking off from the United States, the United States Government did not proclaim its right to burn our sugarcane fields. On this occasion it apologized, it said it was sorry. After all, we were lucky, for the United States Government did not apologize after the U-2 incident; instead, it proclaimed its right to fly over Soviet territory. That is bad luck for the Soviets! But our anti-aircraft defences are not very strong and the aircraft continued their raids until the cane was harvested. When there was no cane left in the fields, the bombing stopped. 116. We were the only country in the world in which this happened, although I do recall that, at the time of his visit to Cuba, President Sukarno told us that we must not think that we were the only ones, that they too had had some problems, that some United States aircraft had also been flying over their territory. I do not know whether I have committed an indiscretion in mentioning this; I hope not. The fact of the matter is that we were the only country in the world, or at least in this peaceful hemisphere, which, without being at war with anyone, had to endure constant harassment by pirate aircraft. And were those aircraft able to enter and leave United States territory with impunity? 117. We invite representatives to give a little thought to this matter, and we invite the people of the United States — if perchance the people of the United States have an opportunity to learn what is said in this hall — to think about the fact that, according to the United States Government's own statements, the territory of the United States is completely guarded and protected against any air raid and that the defences of United States territory are infallible, that the defences of the world they call "free" — although for us, at least, it was not free before 1 January 1959 — are perfect. If that is the case, how does it happen that aircraft — not supersonic aircraft by any means but ordinary light aircraft with a maximum speed of 150 miles an hour can enter and leave the national territory of the United States as they pleas, pass close to two bases on both the outward and return flights, without the United States Government's knowing that these aircraft are entering and leaving? This means one of two things: either the United States Government is lying to the people of the United States and the United States is defenceless against air raids, or the United States Government was an accomplice in these raids. 118. The air raids finally ended, and then came economic aggression. What was one of the arguments used by the enemies of the land reform? They said that the land reform would bring chaos to agricultural production, that production would decline considerably, that the United States Government was concerned lest Cuba might not be able to fulfil its commitments regarding supplies to the United States market. 119. The first argument, and it is a good thing at least for the new delegations here to become familiar with some of the arguments, because the day may come when they may have to answer similar arguments — that the land, reform meant the ruin of the country. That did not happen. Had the land reform meant the ruin of the country, had agricultural production dropped, there would have been no need for the United States Government to intensify its economic aggression. 120. Did they believe what they were saying when they stated that the land reform was going to cause a drop in production? Perhaps they did. It is understandable that everyone should think in the way his mind has been trained to think. It is possible they imagined that without the all-powerful monopolies we Cubans could not produce sugar. It is possible, perhaps they were even sure that we should ruin the country. But it is obvious that, if the Revolution had ruined the country, there would have been no need for the United States to attack us, they would have left us alone and the United States Government would have berm a very noble, a very good Government, and we a group of people who were ruining the nation, providing a living example of the fact that you cannot have revolutions because revolutions ruin countries. But that is not the way things turned out. There is now evidence that revolutions do not ruin countries and that evidence has just been provided by the United States Government. It has proved many things, including the fact that revolutions do not ruin countries and that imperialist governments are indeed capable of trying to do so. Cuba had not ruined itself and so Cuba had to be ruined. 121. Cuba needed new markets for its products, and we might frankly ask any delegation here which of them does not want its country to sell what it produces, which of them does not want its exports to increase? We wanted our exports to increase. That is what all countries want, that must be a universal law, for only self-interest can oppose the universal interest of trade, which is one of the oldest aspirations and needs of mankind. 122. We wanted to sell our products and we were looking for new markets. We signed a trade agreement with the Soviet Union under which we were to sell 1 million tons and bought certain quantities of Soviet goods. Surely no one will say that that is wrong. There may be some who would not sign such a treaty because it would be unpalatable to certain interests. But we did not feel under any obligation to ask the State Department's permission to sign a trade treaty with the Soviet Union because we believed, as we still do and always shall, that Cuba is a truly free country. 123. When sugar stocks began to fall and our economic position was beginning to improve, the blow fell. At the request of the Executive, the United States Congress enacted legislation authorizing the President or Executive to reduce sugar imports from Cuba by whatever amount might be deemed appropriate. The economic weapon was being used against our revolution. The newspapers had already taken it upon themselves to prepare the ground for this policy. They had been carrying on the campaign for some time for it is common knowledge that here the monopolies and the Press are synonymous. The economic weapon was used. At one fell swoop our sugar quota was cut by nearly 1 million tons — although the sugar had been produced for the United States market — in order to deprive our country of the resources it needed for development, in order to reduce it to impotence, and to attain political ends. 124. That action is specifically prohibited by regional international law. As all the representatives of Latin America in this Assembly know, economic aggression is expressly condemned by regional international law. Yet, the United States Government violated that law; it made use of the economic weapon and simply slashed our sugar quota by almost a million tons. There was nothing to stop them. What could Cuba do to protect itself in such a situation? It could go before the United Nations to complain of political aggression, economic aggression and the aerial incursions by pirate aircraft, to say nothing of the United States Government's continual interference in Cuba's political affairs and the subversive campaigns it is carrying on against the Revolutionary Government. 125. We had recourse to the United Nations. The United Nations is empowered to deal with questions of this kind. It is the supreme international organization. It has authority over and above that of the Organization of American States. Moreover, we wanted to bring the question before the United Nations because we known that economically the Latin American nations are dependent on the United States. 126. The United Nations was seized of the question and asked OAS to look into the matter. OAS met. What action was to be expected? That OAS would protect the country that had been attacked; that it would condemn the political aggression, and in particular the economic aggression, against Cuba. That was what we expected. After all, we were a small country in the Latin American community. We were yet another victim of aggression. We were not the first or the last. Mexico had on more than one occasion, been the victim of aggression, including military aggression. The United States seized a large part of Mexican territory after a war during which heroic sons of Mexico wrapped themselves in the Mexican flag and jumped from the ramparts at Chapultepec rather than surrender. Such are the heroic sons of Mexico. And that was not the only act of aggression; that was not the only occasion on which United States forces marched into Mexican territory. 127. There was also intervention in Nicaragua, and for seven years César Augusto Sandino put up a heroic resistance. There was intervention more than once in Cuba, and in Haiti and Santo Domingo. There was intervention in Guatemala. Is there any one here who could in honestly deny the intervention of the United Fruit Company and the United States Department of State in the overthrow of the lawful Government of Guatemala? I realize that there are some who consider it their duty as officials to be discreet in this matter and who are capable of coming to this rostrum with a denial, but in their heart of hearts they know that what I say is a fact. 128. Cuba was not the first country to be attacked; it was not the first country in danger of aggression. Everyone in the Americas knows that the United States Government has always laid down the law, the law that might is right, which it has used to destroy the Puerto Rican nation and maintain its dominion over the island, the law by virtue of which it took possession of, and still holds, the Panama Canal. That was nothing new. Our country should have been protected but it was not. Why? At this point we must consider facts and not forms. According to the dead letter of the law, we are protected; in reality we have no protection whatsoever, for the facts count more than the law set forth in international cedes and the fact is that a small country attacked by a powerful Government had no defence and could not be protected. 129. What happened at the meeting in Costa Rica? By a miracle of ingenuity, neither the United States nor the Government of the United States was censured — and may I say at this point that our feelings towards the people of the United States should not be confused with our feelings towards the United States Government. The Government of the United States was not censured for the sixty flights by pirate aircraft; it was not censured for economic aggression and the many other acts of aggression committed. On the contrary, they censured the Soviet Union. It was an extraordinary thing to do. The Soviet Union had not committed aggression against us; no Soviet aircraft had flown over our territory and yet in Costa Rica they censured the Soviet Union for interference. The Soviet Union had merely said that in the event of military aggression against cur country, Soviet artillerymen could, figuratively speaking, support the victim of aggression. Since when has support for a small country, in the event of an attack on it by a powerful country, been regarded as interference? In law there is what is called an “impossible condition". If the United States considers that it is incapable of committing a particular crime, it is sufficient to say that since there is no possibility of its attacking Cuba, there is no possibility of the Soviet Union supporting that little country. But that principle was not laid down. The principle laid down was that the Soviet Union should be censured for its interference. There was no mention of the bombing of Cuba, no mention of the aggression against Cuba. 130. There is, of course, one thing that we should all bear in mind. All of us here, without exception, are actors and participants in a crucial moment in the history of mankind. Sometimes censure does not seem to strike home. Sometimes we do not heed criticism, particularly when we forget that as persons privileged to play a role at this crucial moment in history, we Shall some day be judged by history for our acts. When we think how our country found itself without defenders at the meeting in Costa Rica, we smile because that episode will be judged by history. I say so without bitterness. It is difficult to blame men. Men are frequently the playthings of circumstances and we who are familiar with our country's history and know at first hand what it is enduring today, understand how terrible it is when a nation's economy and way of life in general are subordinate to foreign economic power. 131. I need only note that our country was left undefended and point to the concern that the question should not reach the United Nations. Perhaps it was felt that it would be easier to obtain an automatic majority in the OAS, although it is hard to see why, as automatic majorities have frequently been obtained here in the United Nations. With all due respect to this Organization, I must say that our people, the people of Cuba, have learned much; they are, and I say this with pride, equal to the task they are undertaking, to the heroic struggle they are waging; they have learnt a lesson from recent international events and they know that at the eleventh hour, when their rights have been denied, when the forces of aggression are marshalled against them, when their rights are not protected either in the Organization of American States or in the United Nations, there still remains to them the ultimate and heroic remedy of resistance. 132. This is why we small countries Still do not feel certain that our rights will be preserved. This is why, when we small countries Seek to be free, we know that we must become free by our Own efforts and at our own risk. When a people is united and is defending a just cause, it can trust in its own strength. In Cuba we are not, as we have been alleged to be, a group of men governing a country. We are a people governing a country, an entire nation resolutely united in an unshakeable revolutionary spirit in defence of its rights. This is something that the enemies of the revolution and of Cuba should know for if they ignore it they are grievously mistaken. 133. This is the background to the Cuban revolution. What is the state of the country? Why have difficulties arisen? And yet despite these difficulties the Cuban revolution is changing what was yesterday a country without hope, a country of poverty, many of whose people could not read or write, into a country which will soon be one of the most advanced and highly developed in the Americas. 134. In a scant twenty months the Revolutionary Government has opened 10,000 new schools, that is, double the number of rural schools which had been built in the previous half century, and Cuba is today the first country in the Americas to meet all its school needs, with teachers even in the most remote mountain villages. 135. In this short space of time the Revolutionary Government has built 25,000 houses in rural and urban areas. Fifty new towns are under construction. The most important military fortresses are being used to house tens of thousands of students and next year our people propose to launch an all-out offensive against illiteracy, with the ambitious goal of teaching every illiterate person to read and-write. Organizations of teachers, students and workers — the entire people- are preparing themselves for an intensive campaign and within a few months Cuba will be the first country in the Americas to be able to claim that it has not a single illiterate inhabitant. 136. Our people now benefit from the services of hundreds of doctors who have been sent to the country districts to fight diseases caused by parasites and improve sanitary conditions in the nation. 137. In another field, that of the conservation of natural resources, we can point with pride to the fact that in a single year, in the most ambitious plan for the conservation of natural resources being carried out in this continent, including the United States and Canada, we have planted approximately 50 million timber- producing trees. 138. Young people, for whom there were no jobs or schools, have been organized by the Revolutionary Government and are today being employed in work that is of value to the country and at the same time are being trained for productive employment. 139. Agricultural production has increased from the very outset. This virtually unique achievement was possible because the Revolutionary Government made over 100,000 small tenant farmers into landowners and at the same time maintained large-scale production by means of agricultural producers’ co-operatives. By tiding co-operatives to maintain large-scale production It was possible to apply the most modern agricultural techniques, and from the very outset production increased. And we have carried through this programme of social betterment and provided teachers, houses and hospitals without sacrificing resources for development. 140. The Revolutionary Government is already carrying out a programme of industrialization and the first factories are now being built. We have used our country’s resources rationally. Thus, Cuba used to import $35 million worth of cars and $5 million worth of tractors, A predominantly agricultural country was importing seven times as many cars as tractors. We have reversed the figures and are importing seven times as many tractors as cars. 141. Close to $500 million has been recovered from the politicians who had enriched themselves during the tyranny. We have recovered a total of close to $500 million in cash and other assets from the corrupt politicians who had been plundering our country for seven years. 142. By making proper use of this wealth and these resources, the Revolutionary Government is able to implement a plan for the industrialization of the country and the expansion of agricultural production and at the same time to build houses and schools, send teachers to the most remote villages and provide medical services, in other words to carry out a programme of social development. As you know, at the recent meeting in Bogota the United States Government put forward a plan. But it was not a plan for economic development. It was a plan for social development, by which is meant, a plan for building houses, schools and roads. Does this solve the problem? How can social problems be solved without a plan for economic development? Do they want to make fools of the people of Latin America? If the houses are built, what are the families who move into them going to live on? Where are the children who are to go to these schools going to get shoes, clothes and food? Surely they realize that parents will not send their children to school without clothes or shoes? Where is the money going to come from to pay the teachers and doctors? Where is the money going to come from to pay for the medicines? One good way of saving money on medicines would, be to improve the people’s diet. Money spent on feeding the people will not have to be spent on hospitals. 143. Now, faced, with the tremendous reality of underdevelopment, the United States Government comes out with a plan for social development. Of course, the fact that the United States Government is showing an interest in the problems of Latin America is in itself something remarkable. Previously, it had completely ignored them. What a coincidence that these problems are now causing it concern! Any connexion between this concern and the Cuban revolution will, of course, be interpreted as purely fortuitous. 144. Formerly, the monopolies sole concern was to exploit the under-developed countries, but with the advent of the Cuban revolution they began to get worried. And at the same time that the United States is attacking us economically and trying to ruin us, it offers charity to the peoples of Latin America, not in the form of resources for general development — which is what Latin America wants — but resources for social development, for houses for men who have no work, for schools which no children will attend and for hospitals which would foe not so necessary if there were, a little less malnutrition in Latin America. 145. After all, some of my Latin American colleagues may feel it is their duty to be discreet here, but I myself can welcome a revolution like the Cuban revolution. At least it has forced the monopolies to return a small part of what they have seized from the peoples of Latin America in the form of natural resources and labour, 146. We are not worried by the fact that we are not included in the United States aid plan. We are not going to get alarmed about that. We have already been settling these problems for a long time. However, some may feel that we are engaging in propaganda here, because the President of the United States said that some Members were going to come to this rostrum for that purpose. Of course, any of our United Nations colleagues is invited to visit Cuba at any time. We do not close the door on anyone; we do not place restrictions on anyone. Any of our colleagues in this Assembly can visit Cuba and see with his own eyes. You all know that chapter in the Bible which speaks of Saint Thomas, who said that he had to see in order to believe. We can invite any journalist or any representative to visit Cuba and see what a people can do with its own resources, when they are invested honestly and rationally. 147. We are not only settling our housing and educational difficulties but also our development problems because otherwise our social problems would remain unsolved. But what is happening? Why is the United States Government unwilling to speak of development? The answer is very simple: it is because the United States Government does not want to stand up to the monopolies and the monopolies require natural resources and investment markets for their capital. 148. That is where the great contradiction lies. That is why the true solution of the problem is not sought; that is why no programmes are being drawn up for the development of the under-developed countries. It is well that this should be stated in all frankness because, in the final analysis, we under-developed countries are in the majority here, in case anyone is unaware of the fact. And, in the final analysis, it is we who can see what is happening in the under-developed countries. However, the real solution is not sought and here there is always talk about the participation of private capital. This, of course, means markets for investments of surplus capital, investments of the kind that are amortized in five years. 149. The United States Government cannot propose a plan for public investment because this would run counter to its very "raison d’être”, namely, the United States monopolies. This is quite frankly the real reason why no genuine economic development programme is being put forward: to preserve our lands in Latin America, Africa and Asia for the investment of surplus capital. 150. Thus far we have referred to the problems of my own country. Why have these problems not been solved? Is it because we do not want to solve them? No; the Government of Cuba has always been ready to discuss its problems with the United States Government but the United States Government has not wished to discuss its problems with Cuba. And it must have its reasons for not wishing to discuss its problems with Cuba. 151. I have here a note sent by the Revolutionary Government of Cuba to the Government of the United States on 27 January 1960. It states: "The differences of opinion which may exist between both Governments as subjects for diplomatic negotiations can be settled effectively by such negotiations. The Government of Cuba is ready and Willing to discuss all these differences, without reservations and in the broadest possible terms. It states categorically that, in its view, there are no obstacles of any kind which prevent the holding of such negotiations through any of the channels normally used for this purpose. The Government of Cuba wishes to maintain and extend diplomatic and - economic relations with the Government and people of the United States, on the basis of mutual respect and reciprocal benefit, and believes that on such a basis the traditional friendship between the Cuban and United States peoples is indestructible." On 22 February 1960, the Revolutionary Government of Cuba informed the United States Government that "... in accordance with its expressed proposal to renew through diplomatic channels the negotiations already begun on matters pending between Cuba and the United States of America, it has decided to name a commission, qualified for the purpose, which could begin its negotiations in Washington on the date which the two parties might agree." "The Revolutionary Government of Cuba wishes to make clear, however, that the renewal and subsequent development of the said negotiations must necessarily be subject to no unilateral measure being adopted, by the Government or Congress of your country, which might prejudge the results of the aforementioned negotiations or cause harm to the Cuban economy and people. It seems unnecessary to add that the adherence of your Government to this point of view would not only contribute to the improvement in file relations between our respective countries but also reaffirm the spirit of fraternal friendship which has bound and still binds our peoples. It would, moreover, permit both Governments to examine, in a serene atmosphere and with the broadest scope, the traditional relations between Cuba and the United States of America." 152. What was the reply from the Government of the United States? "...the Government of the United States cannot accept the conditions for the negotiations stated in your Excellency’s note to the effect that no unilateral measure shall be adopted on the part of the Government of the United States affecting the Cuban economy and people, whether by the legislative or executive branch. As President Eisenhower said in his statement of 26 January, the Government of the United States must remain free, in the exercise of its own sovereignly, to take whatever steps it deems necessary, fully consistent with its international obligations, in the defence of the legitimate rights and interests of its people." 153. In other words, the United States Government does not condescend to discuss its differences with a small country like Cuba. What hope has the Cuban people for the solution of these problems? All the facts which we have been able to observe here militate against the solution of these problems and the United Nations should take careful account of this because the Cuban Government and people are extremely concerned about the aggressive trend which has developed in the policy of the United States Government towards Cuba. 154. It is well that we should be properly informed. In the first place, the United States Government considers itself entitled to foster subversion in our country. The United States Government is encouraging the organization of subversive movements against the Revolutionary Government of Cuba, and we are complaining of this policy here in the General Assembly. Specifically, we wish to complain of the fact that a Caribbean island which belongs to Honduras, known as Swan Island, has been forcibly seized by the United States Government. United States Marines are stationed there, despite the fact that the territory belongs to Honduras. On this island, in breach of international law, despoiling a neighbouring country of a portion of its territory and infringing international broadcasting conventions, the United States has set up a powerful radio transmitter which it has entrusted to the war criminals and the subversive groups it maintains in this country. On that island, too, men are being trained in the tactics of subversion and for armed landings in Cuba. If would be well for the Honduran representative to the General Assembly to claim here his country's right to this piece of its territory. However, that is his own affair. What concerns us is that a piece of territory belonging to a neighbouring country should be seized piratically by the United States Government and used as a base for subversion and attacks against Cuba. I request the Assembly to take note of this complaint which we make on behalf of the Government and people of Cuba. 155. Does the United States Government consider itself entitled to foster subversion in our country, violating all international agreements and encroaching upon our radio wavelengths to the great detriment of our own broadcasting stations? Does this mean perhaps that the Revolutionary Government of Cuba also has the right to encourage subversion in the United States? Does it perhaps mean that the Government of Cuba also has the right to violate United States radio wavelengths? What rights can the United States Government have over our people and over our island? How can it behave like that? Let it give back Swan Island to Honduras because it has never had any jurisdiction over that island. 156. There are other circumstances even more alarming for our people. It is well known that, by virtue of the Platt Amendment, imposed by force on our people, the United States Government assumed the right to establish naval bases on our territory, a right imposed and maintained by force. 157. The existence of a foreign naval base in the territory of any country is a just reason for concern. We Cubans are concerned because, a country which maintains an aggressive and warlike international policy has established such a base in the heart of our island and we are thus exposed to the dangers of an international atomic conflict without being in any way responsible. We have absolutely nothing to do with the problems of the United States Government and with the crises which the United States Government is provoking. And yet there is a base in the heart of our island which involves us in danger should a conflict break out. 158. However, is this the only danger? No. There is another danger which causes us more concern because it is closer. The Revolutionary Government of Cuba has repeatedly expressed its concern lest the imperialist Government of the United States should use this base on our territory as a pretext for self-aggression which would justify an attack on our country. I repeat, the Revolutionary Government of Cuba is greatly concerned — and makes known its concern here — lest the imperialist Government of the United States use self-aggression as a pretext for an attack on our country. And this concern on our part is increasing because the United States is becoming more aggressive and the signs of that aggressiveness are becoming more alarming. 159. I have here, for example, a United Press cable which came to my country, reading as follows: "Admiral Arleigh Burke, United States Chief of Naval Operations, says that if Cuba should attempt to take the Guantanamo Naval Base by force 'we would fight back'. In a copyrighted interview published today in the magazine U.S. News & World Report” (forgive me if I do not pronounce it correctly) "Admiral Burke was asked if the Navy is concerned about the situation in Cuba under Castro. 'Yes, our Navy is concerned not about our base at Guantanamo, but about the whole Cuban situation', Admiral Burke said. He added that all the military services are concerned. 'Is that because of Cuba's strategic position in the Caribbean?' he was asked. 'Not necessarily'. Admiral Burke said. 'Here is a country with a people normally very friendly to the United States, people who have liked the people of this country — and we have liked them. Yet, here has come a man with a small hard core of communists determined to change all of that. Castro has taught hatred of the United States, and he has gone far towards wrecking his country.' Admiral Burke said 'we would react very fast’ if Castro moved against the Guantanamo base. ‘If they would try to take the base by force, we would fight back' he added. To a question whether Soviet Premier Khrushchev's threats about retaliatory rockets give Admiral Burke 'second thoughts about fighting in Cuba', the Admiral said: 'No. Because he is not going to launch his rockets. He knows he will be destroyed if the does — I mean Russia will be destroyed!'" 160. First of all, I must point out that in this gentleman's view the fact that industrial production in my country has increased by 35 per cent, that more than 200,000 Cubans have been given employment, that many of my country's great social problems have been solved, amounts to wrecking the country. It is because of these facts that these people take upon themselves the right to make preparations for aggression. You have seen what a dangerous estimate he makes, for this gentleman calculates virtually that in the event of an attack on us, we should stand alone. That is entirely Admiral Burke's idea. But let us suppose that, Admiral Burke is mistaken; let us suppose that he, although an Admiral, is wrong — then Admiral Burke is gambling irresponsibly with the fate of the world. Admiral Burke and all the other members of his aggressive military group, are gambling with the fate of the world. It would hardly be worth bothering about our own individual fates; but I believe that as representatives of the various peoples of the world, we are in duly bound to worry about the fate of the world and to condemn all those who gamble irresponsibly with it. These people are not only gambling with the fate of my country; they are gambling with the fate of their own country and with the fate of all the peoples of the world. Or does this Admiral Burke believe that he is still living in the age of the blunderbuss? Has this Admiral Burke not realized that we are living -in the atomic age, with its catastrophic destructive force which not even Dante or Leonardo da Vinci with all their imagination could foresee, for it surpasses anything that mankind could ever imagine? Nevertheless, he makes this estimate and the United Press has spread it all over the world. The magazine, the U.S. News & World Report is about to be published. Already they are starting to prepare the campaign, starting to whip up hysteria, starting to reveal the imaginary danger of some attack by us against the base. 161. But that is not all. Yesterday, there appeared another dispatch from the United Press containing statements by the United States Senator Styles Bridges who is, I believe, a member of the United States Senate Armed Forces Committee. He said that the United States must be prepared to maintain its naval base at Guantanamo in Cuba at all costs. He said, “We must go as far as necessary to defend the tremendous United States installation. We have naval forces there; we have the Marines and, if we were attacked, I would certainly defend it for I believe that it is the most important base in the Caribbean area.” 162. This member of the Senate Armed Forces Committee, Mr. Bridges, did not entirely rule out the use of atomic weapons in the case of an attack on the base. What does that mean? It means not only that he is trying to create hysteria, not only that he is systematically preparing the ground, but that he is even threatening us with the use of atomic weapons. Really, among many other things, I am inclined to ask this Mr. Bridges if he is not ashamed to threaten a little country like Cuba with atomic weapons. 163. For my own part, with all due respect I must tell him that the world’s problems are not solved by threatening nor by sowing fear, and that our humble little country is there, no matter how much he dislikes it, and that the revolution will go on, no matter how much he dislikes it, and moreover, that our humble little people will resign themselves to their fate and are not frightened at all by his threats to use atomic weapons. 164. What does this mean? There are many countries here that have United States bases, but at least they are not directed against the very Governments which granted the facilities, at least as far as we know. Our case is the most tragic. There is a base on our island territory which is directed against Cuba and against the Revolutionary Government of Cuba, that is to say, it is in the hands of those who are the declared enemies of our country, our revolution and our people. 165. Of all the bases scattered today throughout the world, Cuba’s is the most tragic case. A base for the use of force, on what is indisputably our territory, far from the coast of the United States, directed against Cuba and the Cuban people, imposed on us by force and constituting a constant threat and cause of anxiety to our people. 166. We must therefore say here, in the first place, that this talk about attacks is intended to create hysteria and to pave the way for aggression against our country, and that we have never said a single word which would imply any kind of attack on the naval base at Guantanamo, because we are the first to be anxious to avoid giving the imperialists any excuse for attacking us. I say this quite categorically. At the same time, I must say that as soon as this country began to constitute a threat to the peace and security of our country and people, the Revolutionary Government began very seriously to consider requesting, under the rules of international law, the withdrawal of the United States Government’s naval and military forces from this portion of our national territory. The imperialist Government of the United States will then have no alternative but to withdraw these forces. For how could it justify to the world its right to install an atomic base or a base which involves danger to our people in part of our national territory, on the island which is the Cuban people's home in this world? How could if justify to the world its right to retain sovereignty over a portion of our territory? How could it stand before the world and justify such an arbitrary procedure? And because it will be unable to justify its right to do so to the world, when our Government makes a request under the rules of international law, the United States Government will have no option but to yield. 167. It is important for this Assembly to be well informed on Cuban problems because we must all be on the alert against deceit and confusion. We must explain all these matters very clearly because they affect the security and the future of our country. I ask therefore that these words that I have said be noted very carefully, particularly in view of the fact that there seems to be no prospect of correcting the erroneous view which the politicians of this country have in regard to Cuba's problems. 168. For example, I have here some statements by Mr. Kennedy which are enough to astound anyone. On Cuba he says: "We must use all the power of the Organization of American States to prevent Castro from interfering with other Latin American Governments and to return freedom to Cuba." They are going to restore freedom to Cuba! "We must state our intention of not allowing the Soviet Union to turn Cuba into its Caribbean base, and apply the Monroe Doctrine." More than half way through the twentieth century this Presidential candidate talks about the Monroe Doctrine! "We must force Prime Minister Castro to understand that we propose to defend our right to the naval base of Guantanamo." He is the third one to speak of this problem. "And we must show the Cuban people that we sympathize with their legitimate economic aspirations ..." Why did they not sympathize before? “…that we know full well their love for freedom and that we shall never be satisfied until democracy returns to Cuba”What democracy? The made-in-America democracy of the imperialist monopolies of the United States Government. 169. In order to understand why there are aircraft flying from United States territory to Cuba, listen carefully to what this candidate has to say:“The forces that are struggling for freedom in exile and in the mountains of Cuba must be supplied and assisted and in other countries of Latin America communism must be confined without allowing it to expand or spread.” 170. If Kennedy was not an illiterate and ignorant millionaire, he would understand that it is impossible to carry out a revolution against the peasants in the mountains with the aid of the landowners, and that whenever imperialism has tried to stir up counterrevolutionary groups, within a very short time the peasant militia has put them out of action. However, he would appear to have read in some novel or seen in some Hollywood film some story about guerrillas and he thinks that it is socially possible to carry out a guerrilla war in Cuba today. 171. However you look at this, it is discouraging, but let nobody think that these remarks on Kennedy’s statements indicate any sympathy on our part for the other candidate, Mr. Nixon, who has made similar statements. As far as we are concerned, both of them lack political sense. 174. We have no intention of departing in any way from the rules which govern conduct in the United Nations and the President may count on my co-operation in order to prevent anything that I say from being misinterpreted. I have no intention of offending anybody. It is to some extent a question of style and above all, a question of confidence in the Assembly. In any event, I shall try to avoid wrong interpretations of any kind. 175. Up to now I have been dealing with the problem of Cuba, which is our basic reason for coming to the United Nations. However, we fully realize that it would be somewhat selfish on our part if our concern was limited to our own specific case. Of course, we have spent most of our time in giving the Assembly information about Cuba’s case, so there is not much left for the other questions, to which we will refer only briefly. 176. Cuba's is not an isolated case. It would be a mistake to think so. Cuba's case is that of all the under-developed countries; it resembles that of the Congo, of Egypt, Algeria, West Irian, Panama, which wants its Canal, Puerto Rico, whose national spirit is being destroyed, Honduras, which is being deprived of part of its territory; in short, although we have not referred specifically to the rest, the case of Cuba is that of all the under-developed and colonial countries, 177. The problems we have described in connexion with Cuba apply equally well to the whole of Latin America. It is the monopolies that control the economic resources of all Latin America. These monopolies, where they do not directly own the mines and control all mining, as in the case of copper in Chile, Peru or Mexico, zinc in Peru and Mexico, and oil in Venezuela, own the public utilities, as in the case of electricity in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Peru, Ecuador and Colombia, or the telephone service as in Chile, Brazil, Peru, Venezuela, Paraguay and Bolivia; or else they control the marketing of our products, as in the case of coffee in Brazil, Colombia, El Salvador, Costa Rica and Guatemala, or in the case of bananas which are grown and sold, as well as transported, by the United Fruit Company in Guatemala, Costa Rica and Honduras, or in the case of cotton in Mexico or Brazil. This economic control is exercised by United States monopolies, masters of the most important industries in the country, which is thus entirely dependent on the monopolies. 178. Woe betide these countries on the day when they too wish to engage in land reform! They will be asked for prompt, effective and fair compensation and if, despite all this, they succeed in land reform, the representatives of these sister countries who come to the United Nations will find themselves confined to Manhattan, unable to take a hotel room, covered with insults and possibly even manhandled by the police. 179. The problem of Cuba is only one example of what is taking place in Latin America. How long will Latin America have to wait for development? Under the policies of the monopolies, it will have to wait till the Greek Calends. Who is going to industrialize Latin America? The monopolies? No. There is a United Nations economic report which explains that instead of going to the countries where it is most needed to establish basic industry to help in development, private investment capital goes preferably to the more industrialized countries because there, according to what is said or believed, it finds greater security. Obviously, the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs has recognized that there is no possibility of development through private investment capital, in other words, through the monopolies. 180. Development in Latin America will have to take place by means of planned public investment made without political conditions, for, naturally, we all want to represent free countries and none of us wishes to represent a country which does not feel itself free. None of us wants the independence of our country to be subordinated to any interest which is not that of the country. Hence, aid must be without political conditions. 181. The fact that we are not offered assistance does not matter. We have not requested it. But in the interest of the peoples of Latin America, we feel it our duty, in the interests of solidarity to make it quite plain that aid must be free of political conditions: public investment for economic development, not social development, which is the latest gambit invented to conceal the real need for economic development, 182. The problems of Latin America resemble those of the rest of the world, of Africa and of Asia. The world is divided among the monopolies. The same monopolies that we see in Latin America are to be found in the Middle East. There, oil is in the hands of monopolistic companies controlled by financial interests of the United States, Great Britain, the Netherlands and France. This is true of Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar and, all parts of the world. The same thing takes place, for instance, in the Philippines. It is the same in Africa. 183. The world is divided among monopolistic interests — who would dare deny this historic truth? The monopolistic interests do not want to see the peoples develop; what they want is to exploit the peoples’ natural resources and exploit the peoples themselves, and the sooner they can recover or amortize their original investment, the better. 184. The difficulties which the people of Cuba have had with the imperialist Government of the United States are the same difficulties as Saudi Arabia, or Iran or Iraq, would encounter if they nationalized their oil. The same difficulties were encountered by Egypt when it, quite rightly, nationalized the Suez Canal; the same difficulties were encountered by Indonesia when it wished to become independent. Instances of the nature of these difficulties are provided by the surprise attack upon Egypt, and the surprise invasion of the Congo. 185. Have the colonialists and imperialists ever lacked excuses for an invasion? Never; they have always been able to find some excuse to their hand. Which are the colonialist countries? Which are the imperialist countries? It is not just four or five countries, but four or five groups of monopolies which possess the world’s wealth. 186. If a person from outer space who had not read either Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto, or the cables of the United Press or the Associated Press, or other monopolistic publications, were to arrive in this Assembly and ask how the world was divided, and then see on the map of the world that the world’s wealth was divided between the monopolies of four or five countries, he would say at once, ”the world is badly divided, the world is being exploited”. Here in this Assembly, where the under-developed countries are in the great majority, he might say that most of the countries represented are exploited and have been exploited for a long time: the form taken by the exploitation has varied, but they have consistently been exploited. That would be the verdict. 187. There was a statement in Mr. Khrushchev’s speech [169th meeting] which particularly attracted our attention because of its intrinsic importance: this was when he said that the Soviet Union had no colonies nor any investments in any country. What a wonderful world it would be, this world of ours now threatened with disaster, if all the representatives of all the nations could say the same: ”Our country has no colonies nor any investments in any foreign country.” 188. Why beat about the bush? This is the crux; this is the crux of the question of peace and war, of the arms race or disarmament. From man’s earliest days, wars have broken out for one fundamental reason: the desire of one side to rob the other of its wealth. When this philosophy of despoilment disappears, the philosophy of war will have disappeared. Colonies will disappear; the exploitation of the nations by the monopolies will disappear and then mankind will have made a real step forward along the path of progress. Until this step is taken, until this stage is reached, the world must live constantly under the threat of being involved in some crisis, in an atomic conflagration. Why? Because certain parties are interested in maintaining this despoilment; because certain parties are interested in maintaining exploitation. 189. We have spoken here of the case of Cuba, Our case has taught us a great deal through the problems which we have had with our imperialism; that is to say, the imperialism which is directed against us. In the last resort, however, all imperialisms are alike and all are allied. A country which exploits the peoples of Latin America or any other part of the world allies itself with the exploitation of the other nations of the world. 190. There was one point which alarmed us very greatly in the speech made by the President of the United States when he said: "In the developing areas, we must seek to promote peaceful change, as well as to assist economic and social progress. To do this — to assist peaceful change — the international community must be able to manifest its presence in emergencies through United Nations observers or forces. I should like to see Member countries take positive action on the suggestions in the Secretary-General’s report looking to the creation of a qualified staff within the Secretariat to assist him in meeting future needs for United Nations forces." [868th meeting, para. 50.] 191. In other words, after considering the developing areas in Latin America, Africa, Asia and Oceania, he advocates the promotion of peaceful change and proposes that United Nations observers or forces should be used to assist it. Yet, the United States came into the world by means of a revolution against its colonizers. The right of the peoples to free themselves by revolution from colonialism or any form of oppression was recognized in the Declaration of Independence adopted at Philadelphia, on 4 July 1776, but today, the Government of the United States advocates the use of United Nations forces to prevent revolutionary changes. 192. The President of the United States went onto say: "The Secretary-General has now suggested that Members should maintain a readiness to meet possible future requests from the United Nations for contributions to such forces. All countries represented here should respond to this need by earmarking national contingents which could take part in United Nations forces in case of need. The time to do it is now — at this Assembly. "I assure countries which now receive assistance from the United States that we favour use of that assistance to help them maintain such contingents in the state of readiness suggested by the Secretary-General." [Ibid, paras. 52 and 53.] In other words, he proposes that those countries in which there are United States bases and which receive United States assistance should receive further assistance for the formation of these emergency forces. 193. President Eisenhower added: "To assist the Secretary-General’s efforts, the United States is prepared to earmark also substantial air and sea transport facilities on a standby basis, to help move contingents requested by the United Nations in any future emergency." [868th meeting, para. 53.] 194. That is, he offers United States ships and planes for these emergency forces. We would like to say here and now that the Cuban delegation is not in favour of these emergency forces as long as all the peoples of the world cannot feel sure that these forces are not to be placed at the service of colonialism and imperialism; particularly when any of them may at any time be the victim of the use of these forces against the rights of our peoples. 195. Herein lie a number of problems which have already been referred to by the various delegations. Simply for reasons of time, I should like merely to place on record Cuba’s views on the question of the Congo. 196. In view of our anti-colonialist position and our opposition to the exploitation of the under-developed countries, we naturally condemn the form taken by the intervention of the United Nations forces in the Congo. In the first place, they failed to act against the intervening forces, the purpose for which they had been summoned. They waited long enough for the first disagreement to arise there. When that was not enough, they allowed time and opportunity for the second dissension to arise. Lastly, during the occupation of the radio stations and airfields they made it possible for the so-called "third man" to come forward — we are already only too familiar with the deliverers who arise in such circumstances. In 1934, one of these deliverers sprang up in our country, and his name was Fulgencio Batista. In the Congo, his name is Mobutu. In Cuba, our deliverer visited the United States Embassy every day and apparently the same thing is happening in the Congo. Is this just our allegation? No, it is reported by a magazine which is one of the monopolies’ most fervent supporters and as such could never be against the monopolies. It could not be pro-Lumumba because it is against him, and it is pro-Mobutu. Nevertheless, it explains who he is, how he sprang up, how he went to work, and finally in its latest issue. Time magazine says that Mobutu became a frequent visitor to the United States Embassy and had long talks with officials there. One afternoon last week, Mobutu conferred with officers at Camp Leopold and won their vociferous support. That night he went to Radio Congo — the same Radio Congo that Lumumba had not been allowed to use — and abruptly announced that the Army was assuming power. All this after frequent visits to and lengthy conversations with, officials of the United States Embassy. This is reported by Time Magazine, defender of the monopolies. In other words, the hand of the colonial interests has been plain and obvious in the Congo, and our view is, consequently, that a mistake has been made, that colonialist interests have been favoured and that all the facts indicate that the people of the Congo, and right in the Congo, are on the side of the only leader who remained there defending his country’s interests, namely, Lumumba, 197. If, despite this state of affairs and the mysterious "third man" who has sprung up in the Congo to oppose not only the lawful interests of the Congolese people but also the legitimate authorities of the Congo, the African and Asian countries succeed in reconciling these lawful authorities in defence of the Congo’s interests, so much the better. But if this reconciliation does not take place, reason and right should attach themselves to the man who not only has the support of the people and of Parliament, but also has stood out against the interests of the monopolies and stood by his people. 198. As regards the problem of Algeria, we are, I need hardly say, 100 per cent on the side of the right of the people of Algeria to independence. It is ridiculous — like so many ridiculous things in the world which have been artificially created by vested interests — to claim that Algeria is part of France. Similar claims have been made by other countries in an attempt to keep their colonies in other days. This so-called "integration" has failed throughout history. Let us turn the question upside down: suppose Algeria was the metropolitan country and it was to declare that part of Europe was an integral part of its territory? Such reasoning is far-fetched and devoid of all meaning. Algeria belongs to Africa as France belongs to Europe. This African people has been fighting a heroic battle against the metropolitan country for many years. 199. Perhaps even while we are calmly talking here, the machine-guns and bombs of the Government or the French Army are attacking Algerian villages and hamlets. Men may well be dying, in a struggle in which it is perfectly clear where the right lies, a struggle that could be ended without disregarding the interests of that minority which is being used as an excuse for denying nine-tenths of the population of Algeria their right to independence. Yet the United Nations is doing nothing. We were in such a hurry to go into the Congo and we are so unenthusiastic about going into Algeria! If the Algerian Government, which is a Government, for it represents millions of fighting Algerians, were to request the United Nations to send forces there also, should, we go with the same enthusiasm? I hope that we should go with the same enthusiasm, but with a very different purpose, that is to say, for the purpose of defending the interests of the colony and not of the colonizers. 200. We are, therefore, on the side of the Algerian people, as we are on the side of the remaining colonial peoples in Africa and on the side of the Negroes against whom discrimination is exercised in the Union of South Africa. Similarly, we are on the side of those peoples who wish to be free, not only politically — for it is very easy to acquire a flag, a coat of arms, a national anthem and a colour on the map — but also economically free, for there is one truth which we should all recognize as being of primary importance, namely, that there can be no political independence unless there is economic independence; that political independence without economic independence is an illusion; we therefore support their aspiration to be free politically and economically. Freedom does not consist in the possession of a flag, and a coat of arms and representation in the United Nations. 201. We should like to draw attention here to another right: a right which was proclaimed by the Cuban people at a mass meeting quite recently; the right of the under-developed countries to nationalize their natural resources and the investments of the monopolies in their respective countries without compensation; in other words, we advocate the nationalization of natural resoures and foreign investments in the underdeveloped countries, and indeed if industrialized countries wish to do the same thing, we shall not oppose them. 202. If countries are to be truly free in political matters, they must be truly free in economic matters and we must lend them assistance. 203. In reply, we shall be asked about the value of the investments and our reply will be to inquire as to the value of the profits from those investments; the profits which have been extracted from the colonized and under-developed peoples for decades, if not for centuries. 204. There is also a proposal made by the President of the Republic of Ghana, in his speech to the General Assembly [869th meeting], which we should like to support: the proposal that Africa should be cleared of military bases and thus of nuclear weapon bases; in other words the proposal to free Africa from the perils of atomic war. Something has already been done in regard to Antarctica. As we go forward on the path to disarmament, why should we not also go forward towards freeing certain parts of the world from the danger of nuclear war? 205. If Africa is reborn — that Africa which we are beginning to know today, not the Africa pictured on the map or in novels and Hollywood films, not the Africa of semi-naked tribesmen armed with spears, ready to run away at the first clash with the white hero, that white hero who became more heroic the more African natives he killed, but the Africa we see represented here by leaders like Kwame Nkrumah and Sékou Touré, the Africa of Nasser’s Arab world, the true Africa, the oppressed continent, the exploited continent, the continent which was the birthplace of millions of slaves, this Africa whose past is so full of anguish. To this Africa we have a duty: we must save it from the danger of destruction. 206. Let the other countries make some recompense! Let the West make' up a little for what it has made Africa suffer, by preserving it from the danger of atomic war and declaring it a free zone as far as this peril is concerned. Let no atomic bases be established there! Even if we can do nothing else, let this continent at least remain a sanctuary where human life may be preserved! We support this proposal warmly. 207. On the question of disarmament, we wholeheartedly support the Soviet proposal [A/4505], and we are not ashamed to do so. We regard it as a correct, specific, well-defined and clear proposal. We have carefully studied the speech made here by President Eisenhower — he made no real reference to disarmament, to the development of the under-developed countries or to the colonial problem. Really, it would be worthwhile for the citizens of this country, who are so influenced by false propaganda, to compare objectively the statements of the President of the United States [868th meeting] and of the Prime Minister of the Soviet Union, [869th meeting], so that they could see which speech contains genuine anxiety over the world's problems; so that they could see which one spoke clearly and sincerely and so that they could see who really wants disarmament and who is against it and why. The Soviet proposal could not be clearer. Nothing could be added to the Soviet explanation. Why should there be any reservations when no one has ever before spoken so clearly of so tremendous a problem? 208. The history of the world has taught us the tragic lesson that arms races always lead to war; at the same time, never has the responsibility been greater, for never has war signified so vast a holocaust for mankind, What did the representative of the Soviet Union say about this problem, which is of so much concern to mankind because mankind's very existence is at stake? He made a proposal for general and complete disarmament. What more can be asked? If more can be asked, let us ask it; if we can ask for more safeguards, let us do so; but the proposal could not be clearer or better defined, and at this stage of history, it cannot be rejected without assuming the responsibility involved in the danger of war and of war itself. 209. Why should this problem not come before the General Assembly? Why does the United States delegation not wish to discuss this problem here in the Assembly? Have we no judgement? Have we no right to discuss the problem? Must a special commission be convened? Why not adopt the most democratic method? In other words, let the General Assembly, all the representatives, discuss the disarmament problem here, and let everyone lay his cards on the table so that it will become apparent who wants disarmament and who does not; who wants to play at war and who does not, and who it is who is betraying the aspirations of mankind, for mankind must never be dragged into a holocaust by sordid and self-seeking interests. 210. Our peoples must be saved from this holocaust, so that everything created by human knowledge and intelligence will not be used to destroy mankind itself. 211. The representative of the Soviet Union has spoken frankly — I say tills objectively — and I urge that these proposals be considered and that everybody put their cards on the table. Above all, this is not merely a question of representatives, this is a matter of public opinion. The warmongers and militarists must be exposed and condemned by world public opinion. This is not a problem for minorities only: it concerns the world. The warmongers and militarists must be unmasked, and this is the task of public opinion. This problem must be discussed not only in the General Assembly but before the entire world, before the great assembly of the whole world, because in the event of a war not the leaders only but also hundreds of millions of completely innocent persons will be exterminated. 212. And it is for this reason that we meet here as representatives of the world, or of a part of the world, since this Assembly is not yet complete; it will not be complete until the People's Republic of China is represented here. Until then, one-quarter of the world's population is absent. But we who are here, have the duty to speak frankly and not to evade the issue. We must all discuss it; this problem is too serious to be overlooked. It is more important than economic aid and all other obligations, because this is the obligation to preserve the life of mankind. We must all discuss and speak about this problem, and we must fight to establish peace, or at least to unmask the militarists and warmongers. 213. And, above all, if we, the under-developed countries, want to have a chance of progress, if we want to have a chance' of seeing our peoples enjoying a higher level of living, let us fight for peace, let us fight for disarmament; with a fifth of what the world spends on armaments , we could promote the development of all the under-developed countries at a rate of growth of 10 per cent per annum. With a fifth of the resources which countries spend on armaments, we could surely raise the peoples’ level of living. 214. Now, what are the obstacles to disarmament? Who is interested in being armed? Those who are interested in being armed to the teeth are those who Want to keep colonies, those who want to maintain their monopolies, those who want to retain control of the oil of the Middle East, the natural resources of Latin America, of Asia, of Africa, and who require military strength to protect their interests. And as everyone knows, these territories were occupied and colonized on the strength of the law of force; by virtue of the law of force millions of men were enslaved, and it is force which sustains such exploitation in the world. Therefore, those most concerned that there should be no disarmament are those interested in maintaining military strength in order to retain control of natural resources, the wealth of the peoples and cheap labour in under-developed countries. 215. We promised to speak frankly, and there is no other way of telling the truth. The colonialists, therefore, are against disarmament. Using the weapon of world public opinion, we must fight to force disarmament on them as we must force them to respect the right of peoples to economic and political liberation. 216. The monopolies are against disarmament, because, apart from the fact that they defend their interests with arms, the arms race has always been good business for them. For example, everybody knows that the great monopolies in this country doubled their capital as a result of the Second World War. Like vultures, the monopolies feed on the corpses which are the harvest of war; and war is a business. Those who trade in war, those who enrich themselves by war, must be unmasked. We must open the eyes of the world and show it who are the ones who trade in the future of mankind, in the danger of war, particularly when the war may be so frightful that it leaves no hope of freedom or deliverance. 217. We small and under-developed countries urge the whole Assembly and especially the other small and under-developed nations, to devote themselves to this task and to have this problem discussed here, because afterwards we should never forgive ourselves for the consequences if, through our neglect or lack of firmness and energy on this basic issue, the world became involved once again in the dangers of war. 218. There remains one point, which, according to what we have read in some newspapers, was one of the points the Cuban delegation was going to raise. And this, naturally, was the problem of the People’s Republic of China. 219. Other delegations have already spoken about this matter. We wish to say that the fact that this problem has never been discussed is in reality, a denial of the "raison d’être" and of the essential nature of the United Nations. Why has it never been discussed? Because the United States Government wants it so? Why is the United Nations Assembly going to renounce its right to discuss this problem? 220. Many countries have joined the United Nations in recent years. To oppose discussion of the right to representation here of the People’s Republic of China, that is, of 99 per cent of the inhabitants of a country of more than 600 million, is to deny the reality of history, of the facts and of life itself. It is simply an absurdity; it is ridiculous that this problem is never even discussed. 221. How long are we going to continue this melancholy business of never discussing this problem, when we have here representatives of Franco, for instance? 222. Will the President allow me to express my opinion most respectfully on this point without offence to anybody? 224. We wish to make some comments about the origin of the United Nations. The United Nations arose after the struggle against fascism, after tens of millions of men had died on the battlefields. From that struggle, which cost so many lives, this Organization emerged as a symbol of hope. Nevertheless, extraordinary paradoxes exist. While American soldiers were falling on Guam or Guadalcanal or Okinawa, or one of the many other islands of the Pacific, men were also fighting on the Chinese mainland against the same enemy, and these same men are denied even the right to discuss their entry into the United Nations. Although soldiers of the Spanish Blue Division fought in the Soviet Union in defence of fascism, the People’s Republic of China is denied the right to have its case discussed here, in the United Nations. And yet the regime that was born of German nazism and Italian fascism and which took power with the support of Hitler’s guns and aircraft and of Mussolini’s "blackshirts" was magnanimously admitted to membership of the United Nations. 225. China contains one-quarter of the world’s population. What Government is the true representative of this nation, which is the largest in the world? Plainly, the Government of the People’s Republic of China. And there another regime is maintained, in the midst of a civil war which was interrupted by the interference of the United States Seventh Fleet. Here it is appropriate to ask by what right the navy of an extra-continental country (and it is worth repeating this here, when so much is being said about extra-continental interference) intervened in a domestic affair of China. It would be interesting to have an explantion. The sole purpose of this interference was to maintain a group of supporters in that place and to prevent the total liberation of the territory. That is an absurd and unlawful state of affairs from any point of views, and constitutes the reason why the United States Government does not want the question of the People’s Republic of China to be discussed. 226. We want to put it on record here that this is our position and that we support discussion of this item and the seating by the United Nations General Assembly of the legitimate representatives of the Chinese people, namely, the representatives of the Government of the People’s Republic of China. 227. I understand quite well that it is somewhat difficult for anybody here to free himself from the stereotyped concepts by which the representatives of nations are usually judged. I must say that we have come here free from prejudices, to analyse problems objectively, without fear of what people will think and without fear of the consequences of our position. We have been honest, we have been frank without being Francoist, because we do not want to be a party to injustice being committed against a great number of Spanish men and women, still imprisoned in Spain after more than twenty years, who fought together with the Americans of the Lincoln Brigade, as the companions of those same Americans who were there to honour the name of that great patriot. 228. In conclusion, we are going to place our trust in reason and in the decency of all. We wish to sum up our ideas about which there should be no doubt, concerning some aspects of these world problems. Our problem, which we have set forth here, is a part of the problems of the world. Those who attack us today are those who are helping to attack others in other parts of the world. The United States Government cannot be on the side of the Algerian people; it cannot be on the side of the Algerian people because it is allied to the metropolitan country, France. It cannot be on the side of the Congolese people, because it is allied to Belgium. It cannot be on the side of the Spanish people, because it is allied to Spain. It cannot be on the side of the Puerto Rican people, whose nationality it has been destroying for fifty years. It cannot be on the side of the Panamanians, who claim the Canal. It cannot support the ascendancy of the civil power in Latin America, Germany or Japan. It cannot be on the side of the peasants who want land, because it is allied to the big landowners. It cannot be on the side of the workers who are demanding better living conditions in all parts of the world, because it is allied to the monopolies. It cannot be on the side of the colonies which want their freedom, because it is allied to the colonizers. That is to say, it is for Franco, for the colonization of Algeria, for the colonization of the Congo; it is for the maintenance of its privileges and interests in the Panama Canal, for colonialism throughout the world. It is for German militarism and for the resurgence of German militarism. It is for Japanese militarism and for the resurgence of Japanese militarism. 229. The United States Government forgets the millions of Jews murdered in European concentration camps by the Nazis, who are today regaining their influence in the German army. It forgets the Frenchmen who were killed in their heroic struggle against the occupation; it forgets the American soldiers who died on Omaha Beach, on the Siegfried Line, in the Ruhr, on the Rhine or on the Asian fronts. The United States Government cannot be for the integrity and sovereignty of nations. Why? Because it must curtail the sovereignty of nations in order to keep its military bases, and each base is a dagger thrust into sovereignty; each base is a limitation on sovereignty. Therefore it has to be against the sovereignty of nations, because it must constantly limit sovereignty in order to maintain its policy of encircling the Soviet Union with bases. 230. We believe that these problems are not properly explained to the American people. But the American people need only imagine how uneasy it would be if the Soviet Union began to establish a ring of atomic bases in Cuba, Mexico or Canada. The population would not feel secure or calm. World opinion, including American opinion, must be taught to see the other side of a question; to look at problems from the other person’s point of view. The under-developed peoples should not always be represented as aggressors; revolutionaries should not be presented as aggressors, as enemies of the American people. We cannot be enemies of the American people, because we have seen United States nationals like Carleton Beals or Waldo Frank, and others, famous and distinguished intellectuals shed tears at the thought of the mistakes that are being made, at the breach of hospitality towards us; there are many Americans, the most humane, the most progressive, and the most esteemed writers, in whom I see the nobility of this country’s early leaders, the Washingtons, the Jeffersons and the Lincolns. I say this in no spirit of demagogy, but with the sincere admiration that we feel for those who once succeeded in freeing their people from colonial status and who did not fight in order that their country might today be the ally of all the reactionaries, the gangsters, the big landowners, the monopolists, the exploiters, the militarists, the fascists in the world, that is to say, the ally of the "most retrograde and reactionary forces, but rather in order that their country might always be the champion of noble and just ideals. We know well what will be said about us, today, tomorrow and always, to deceive the American people. But it does not matter. We are doing our duty by stating our views in this historic Assembly. 231. We proclaim the right of the peoples to integrity and nationality; those who plot against nationalism know that nationalism means that the people want to regain their own property, their wealth, their natural resources. In short, we are for all the noble aspirations of all the peoples. That is our position. We are and always shall be for everything just; against colonialism, exploitation, monopolies, militarism, the arms race, and warmongering. We shall always be against those things. That will be our position. 232. To conclude, in performing what we regard as our duty, I quote to this Assembly the essential part of the Havana Declaration. The Havana Declaration was the Cuban people’s answer to the Declaration of San José, Costa Rica. Not ten, nor 100, nor 100,000, but more than 1 million Cubans gathered together. Whoever doubts it may go and count them at the next mass meeting or general assembly that we hold in Cuba, assured that they are going to see the spectacle of a fervent and informed people, which they rarely had the opportunity of seeing, and which is seen only when a people is ardently defending its most sacred interests. 233. At that assembly, which was convened in response to the Declaration of Costa Rica, these principles were proclaimed, in consultation with the people and by the acclamation of the people, as the principles of the Cuban revolution. "The national general assembly of the Cuban people condemns large-scale landowning as a source of poverty for the peasant and a backward and inhuman system of agricultural production; it condemns starvation wages and the iniquitous exploitation of human labour by illegitimate and privileged interests; it condemns illiteracy, the lack of teachers, schools, doctors and hospitals; the lack of assistance to the aged in the American countries; it condemns discrimination against the Negro and the Indian; it condemns the inequality and the exploitation of women; it condemns political and military oligarchies which keep our peoples in poverty, impede their democratic development and the full exercise of their sovereignty; it condemns concessions of our countries’ natural resources to foreign monopolies as a policy sacrificing and betraying the peoples’ interests; it condemns Governments which turn a deaf ear to the demands of their people so that they may obey orders from abroad; it condemns the systematic deception of the peoples by mass communication media which serve the interests of the oligarchies and the policy of imperialist oppression; it condemns the news monopoly held by monopolist agencies, which are instruments of monopolist trusts and agents of such interests; it condemns' repressive laws which prevent the workers, the peasants, the students and the intellectuals, the great majorities in each country, from forming associations and fighting for their social and patriotic demands; it condemns the imperialist monopolies and enterprises which continually plunder our wealth, exploit our workers and peasants, bleed our economies and keep them backward , and subordinate Latin American politics to their designs and interests. In short, the national general assembly of the Cuban people condemns the exploitation of man by man and the exploitation of under-developed countries by imperialist capital. "Consequently, the national general assembly of the Cuban people proclaims before America, and proclaims here before the world, the right of the peasants to the land; the right of the workers to the fruits of their labour; the right of children to education; the right of the sick to medical care and hospitalization; the right of young people to work; the right of students to free vocational training and scientific education; the right of Negroes and Indians to full human dignity; the right of women to civil, social and political equality; the right of the elderly to security in their old age; the right of intellectuals, artists and scientists to fight through their works for a better world; the right of States to nationalize imperialist monopolies, thus rescuing the national wealth and resources; the right of countries to trade freely with all the peoples of the world; the right of nations to their complete sovereignty; the right of peoples to convert their military fortresses into schools and to arm their workers (because in this we have to be arms-conscious and to arm our people to defence against imperialist attacks), their peasants, their students, their intellectuals, Negroes, Indians, women, young people, old people, all the oppressed and exploited, so that they may themselves defend their rights and their destinies." 234. Some people wanted to know what the line of the Revolutionary Government of Cuba was. Well then, there you have our line.