Latin American Network Information Center - LANIC


Havana, FIEL Network, in Spanish to Cuba, Sept. 26, 1960, 1953 GMT--E

(Summary) Although we have earned a name for talking at length, do not
worry. We will do all possible to be brief and set forth what it is our
duty to say. We will talk slowly, to cooperate with interpreters. Some will
probably think we are much displeased at the treatment of the Cuban
delegation; not at all. We understand perfectly why things happen. So we
are not irritated and nobody should be worried that Cuba will not
contribute its grain of sand too, so the world can understand. We are going
to speak plainly. Sending a delegation to the United Nations--we
underdeveloped countries do not have many resources to spend, unless it is
to speak plainly at this body representing almost all countries of the

The speakers preceding us here have set forth their anxiety over problems
that are of interest to whole world. We are interested in those problems,
but furthermore there is something special in the case of Cuba: Cuba must
for the world, at present, be a cause for preoccupation because rightly
some delegates have set forth here among other problems the problem of
Cuba. And truly, besides the problems of preoccupation to all, Cuba today
has problems that are a preoccupation to it, to our people. There is talk
of a worldwide desire for peace, and therefore it is also a desire of our
people, but this peace the world wants to preserve is a peace we Cubans
have not had for some time.

It has not been easy here to set forth the problems of Cuba. It has not
been easy for us to come here. Why should it be the Cuban delegation that
gets bad treatment? Cuba has sent many delegations to the United Nations.
Cuba has been represented by many persons. And yet it was we who got the
exceptional treatment: We have been confined to Manhattan; the watchword
in all hotels was not to rent us rooms; there has been hostility, and,
under the pretext of security, isolation. Maybe none of you other
delegates, who represent your respective nations, on your arrival here, had
to undergo personally insulting treatment, physical abusive treatment, as
was the case with the head of the Cuban delegation.

I am not here in this assembly agitating. I am just telling the truth. It
was time for us, too, to have a chance to speak. They have been talking
about us for long time. The papers have been talking; we cannot defend
ourselves from attacks here in this country.

Our opportunity to speak the truth is this one, and we will speak it.
Personally abusive treatment, attempts at extortion, being put out of the
hotel we were lodged at--and when we went to another hotel, when we made
every effort to avoid difficulties, refraining from leaving our lodgings,
staying away from every other spot but this United Nations hall, to avoid
difficulties, to avoid problems--yet that was not enough for them to leave
us in peace.

In this country there are many Cuban immigrants. More than 100,000 Cubans
during the last 20 years have come to this country. These Cubans have
devoted themselves here to work, respecting the laws. Naturally they felt
something for their own country, for their revolution, but one day a new
type of visitor began coming: War criminals, sometimes men who had murdered
hundreds. Here they were soon encouraged by publicity. They got
encouragement from the authorities. Naturally this encouragement is
reflected in their conduct. They often cause incidents involving the Cuban
population that for years had been working honestly in this country.

One of these incidents, provoked by those who feel support from the
systematic campaign against Cuba and the complicity of the authorities,
caused the death of a little girl. The fact was lamentable. The Cubans
living here were not responsible; much less were we of the Cuban delegation
responsible. Yet you all must have seen that the papers said that
pro-Castro groups had killed a 10-year-old girl. With the characteristic
hypocrisy of those who deal with the Cuban-U.S. relations, a White House
spokesman at once issued a statement noting the fact, almost accusing the
Cuban delegation of guilt. And of course the u.S. delegate in this assembly
did not fail to join in the farce, sending a telegram to the Venezuelan
Government, another of condolence to the family of the girl, as if he felt
the need to give an explanation from the United Nations about something
that he thought the Cuban delegation was practically responsible for.

When we left one hotel and went to the United Nations office, another
hotel, a humble hotel for Negroes of Harlem, offered us lodging. The offer
came while we were talking with the United Nations Secretary General. Yet a
State Department official did all he could to keep us from lodging in that
hotel. As if by magic, hotels in New York began offering us lodging. Some
hotels that had previously refused lodging even offered now to lodge us
free. But we accepted the Harlem hotel.

We thought we had a right to be left in peace. But no. We were not left
alone. Campaigns of slander began. News spread that the Cuban delegation
had taken lodging in a brothel. For some gentlemen a humble Harlem hotel
for Negroes must be a brothel.

Furthermore, they have tried to defame the Cuban delegation, with no
respect even for the women in the delegation or working with it. If we were
like the men they make us out to be, hope would not have been lost by
imperialism to bribe us. But since they have lost hope long since, after
saying we lodged in a brothel, they should have said the monopolistic
financial capital is a prostitute unable to seduce us, and not exactly a
respectful prostitute.

The Cuban problem--maybe some of you are well informed, maybe some are not;
it all depends on the sources of information. But undoubtedly for the world
the problem of Cuba has arisen during the past two years, a new problem.
The world had had little cause to know that Cuba existed. For many, it was
something like an appendage of the United States. Many in this country,
too, thought Cuba was  U.S. colony. On the map, it was not. On the map we
were in a different color from that of the United States.

In reality, Cuba was a colony. And how did our country get to be a U.S.
colony? It was not by its origin. The men who colonized the United States
and Cuba were not the same. Cuba has a different and cultural origin. Cuba
was the last American country to get rid of Spanish colonialism. At the
last, it had to fight harder. Spain had just one possession left in
America, and it defended it stubbornly. Our little country, little more
than a million people then, had to face alone, for 30 years, an army
considered among Europe's strongest. The Spanish Government mobilized as
many forces against Cuba as had combatted the independence of all South
America. For 30 years the Cubans fought alone for their independence.

John Adams had said Cuba was like an apple hanging from the Spanish tree,
ready to fall into U.S. hands when ripe. Spanish power had wasted away in
our country. Spain no longer had resources for keeping on with the war in
Cuba. Spain was defeated. The apple was apparently ripe. And the U.S.
Government stretched out its hand. A number of apples fell into its hands:
Puerto Rico, the Phillipines, and others. In a tremendous battle the Cubans
gave their blood and lives for their right to be free and independent. The
U.S. people sympathized with the Cuban people. By virtue of a law by the
congress of that nation, it declared war on Spain.

However, the illusion ended in great disillusionment. After two years of
military occupation, the unexpected occurred. Just when the people of Cuba
through a constituent assembly was drafting the fundamental law of the
republic, against there arose a bill in the U.S. congress, a bill proposed
by Senator Platt of sad memory for Cuba. The U.S. Government was given the
right to intervene in Cuba's political problems and also the right to rent
certain parts of its territory for naval stations.

That is, by means of a law emanating from the legislature of a foreign
country, the constitution of our nation was to contain this law. Without
this amendment the occupation forces would not have been withdrawn. Our
country was forced by a foreign legislature to grant the right to intervene
and to rent naval stations and bases.

The nations recently admitted to this organization should remember the
history of our country for the similarities they may encounter. The best
lands for cultivation were acquired by U.S. companies. The U.S. companies
were granted public service concessions, commercial concessions, mining
concessions--concessions of all kinds. Our country was converted from a
Spanish colony into a U.S. colony. Colonies do not speak. Colonies are not
recognized until they have a chance to express themselves. Therefore, our
colony had no voice and the world did not know of its problems. The
geography books contained another flag, another color, but they did not
represent an independent republic. No one was fooled. Not a real
independent republic existed, but a colony where the U.S. ambassador gave
orders. We are not ashamed to admit this, for this is also our pride.

Once again, the Cuban nation had to have recourse to fighting in order to
attain its independence. It obtained it after 7 years of bloody fighting.
Tyrannized by whom? Tyrannized by those who in our country were nothing
more than instruments of those who controlled our country. We shall have to
explain to the representatives of our sister nations of Latin America what
military tyrannies are, we shall have to explain to them how they
(maintained themselves); and explain to them the history of various classic
tyrannies. We shall have to explain upon what national and international
interests they rest.

The military group which tyrannized our country rested upon reactionary
groups. Everyone knows, and even the United States admits, that it was the
type of government preferred by the monopolies, for by means of strength
all demands of the people are repressed. Strikes for better living
conditions and the peasant movements to possess lands were repressed by
force. Hence governments of force were preferred by those who decide U.S.
policy. Therefore, governments of force were maintained in power for a long
time and governments of force are still in power in America.

Of course, everything depends upon circumstances. For example: Now it is
said that they are against one of those governments of force--the Trujillo
Government--but they do not say they are against others: Nicaragua or
Paraguay, for example. Nicaragua does not have a government of force, but a
monarchy almost as constitutional as the British monarchy, in which power
passes from father to son.

An example of a government of force was that of Fulgencio Batista. It
suited the U.S. monopolies in Cuba, but of course, that was not suitable
for the people of Cuba, and with great loss of life and sacrifice the
people threw it out of power. What did the revolution find when it can to
power in Cuba? What marvels did it discover when it came to power?

Thousands of able-bodied men in our country did not have jobs--the same
number as there were in the United States at the time of great crisis,
which almost produced a catastrophe in the United States. In our country
the unemployment was permanent. Three million, out of a total population of
a little more than 6 million, did not have electricity or any of the
benefits or comforts of electricity. Three and a half million persons lived
in huts, cabins, without the slightest conditions of livability. In the
cities the rents took up almost one-third of the incomes. Electric service
and rents were the most expensive in the world. Thirty-seven and a half
percent of our population were illiterate. They could neither read or
write. Seventy percent of the rural children did not have teachers. Two
percent of the population had tuberculosis. Ninety-five percent of the
rural children suffered from parasites. The infant mortality was thus very

Twenty-five percent of the small farmers paid rent for their land amounting
to 30 percent of their incomes, and 1.5 percent of the owners controlled 46
percent of the total surface of land. Of course, the number of beds for the
number of inhabitants was ridiculous, if one compares them with standards
of those countries where medical needs are taken care of. Public utilities
were owned by U.S. companies. Foreign economic groups controlled our

A large part of the trade imports, oil refineries, most of the sugar
production, Cuba's best lands, and the most important industries belonged
to U.S. companies. The balance of payments in the last 10 years--from 1950
to 1960--was favorable to the United States, to the tune of one billion
dollars. And this is not counting the hundreds of millions of dollars taken
from the public coffers by corrupt rulers and deposited in U.S. or European
banks. The poor, underdeveloped country of the Caribbean contributed one
billion dollars in 10 years to the economic development of the most
industrialized country in the world.

This was the situation we encountered. It should not surprise delegates of
many countries in this assembly, for what we have said of Cuba can be
applied to most of the countries represented here. What were the
alternatives of the revolutionary government? To betray the people? Had we
been loyal to the big U.S. monopolies, we would have betrayed our people.

What marvels did the revolution find? The marvels of imperialism. We found
illiteracy, tuberculosis, people suffering from parasites. We discovered
the results of the monopolies.

What were the reserves of the nation? When Batista came to power there were
500 million pesos in the coffers. It was a goodly amount to invest the
industrial development of the country. When the revolution came to power we
found 70 million pesos. Was the United States concerned about the economic
development of the country? No, never. We were surprised. We had heard here
of the U.S. concern for the fate of the Latin American countries, Africa,
and Asia. We were surprised.

What did the revolutionary government do? What crime did the revolutionary
government commit to receive the treatment we have received here, for us to
have such powerful enemies as we found here? The problems with the U.S.
Government did not start at the first. We did not seek international
problems. A revolutionary government wants to work at solving its own
problems, to put into effect a program for the progress of the nation.

The first circumstance that we consider an unfriendly act was that the
doors of this country were opened wide to Cuban criminals, men who had
murdered hundreds of defenseless peasants, who had tortured, who had killed
right and left, and they were received here with open arms. This surprised
us. Why such an unfriendly act toward Cuba? Today we understand the reasons
behind it. That policy did not correspond to proper relations with Cuba.

The Batista regime maintained itself in power with the help of the U.S.
Government. The Batista regime was kept in power with the help of tanks,
planes, and arms furnished by the U.S. Government. The Batista regime kept
itself in power thanks to army officers trained by a U.S. Government
military mission. We hope that no U.S. official will think of denying this
fact. And when the rebel army reached Havana, at a big military camp there
was the U.S. military mission. The army had collapsed, it was defeated and
surrendered. We had the right to consider those foreign military men
prisoners of war. But we merely asked members of the mission to go back
home, for we did not need their lessons, and their pupils were defeated.

Here is a document. It is torn. It is an old military pact under which the
Batista tyranny got generous aid from the U.S. Government. It is important
to know what article 2 says in this agreement: "The Government of the
Republic of Cuba undertakes to make effective use of aid it gets from the
United States in keeping with this agreement for the purpose of
implementing defense plans accepted by both governments, by virtue of which
both governments will take part in important missions for the defense of
the Western hemisphere, and without previous agreement from the U.S.
Government this aid will not be devoted to other purposes than those for
which it was given."

The aid was used against Cuban revolutionaries. This was approved by the
U.S. Government. Even after the embargo on arms, documentary proofs were
obtained that the forces of tyranny had been supplied 300 rockets for use
from planes. When this was presented to the U.S. public, the U.S.
Government found only the explanation that we were mistaken, that fresh
supplied had not been given to tyranny's army, but merely that some
unusable rockets had been exchanged for some that would fit tyranny's
planes. Under this explanation it was not aid--then it must have been some
kind of technical assistance. Why, with these antecedents, giving our
nation cause for dissatisfaction--the arms furnished were obsolete for
modern war--with that type of tanks and planes a continent cannot be
defended, but they can be used to oppress peoples, to defend monopolies.
There hemispheric defense pacts could better be called pacts to defend U.S.

The revolutionary government began its first steps. First, it lowered rents
paid by families by 50 percent--a very fair measure, for some families paid
up to one-third of their income on rent. The people had been victimized by
speculation in housing. The economy of the people had suffered. When the
government lowered rents by 50 percent, was anybody displeased? A few--the
owners of apartment houses. But the people rejoiced, as would be the case
in any country. Here in New York, too. But that did not mean any problem
with the monopolies. Then came another law, annulling concessions the
tyranny government had given to the telephone company, which was a U.S.
monopoly. The revolutionary government annulled those concessions and
restored telephone prices to the former level. The first conflict with U.S.
monopolies began. The third measure was to lower electricity rates, which
were among the highest in the world.

There were more conflicts with U.S. monopolies. We began to appear as
communists. We began being painted red, because we had gone against the
interests of U.S. monopolies. Another law came, an inevitable law,
inevitable sooner or later for all countries in world, the agrarian reform
law. Theoretically, everybody agrees with agrarian reform. Nobody dares
deny it. In underdeveloped countries agrarian reform is a necessary measure
for economic development. In Cuba too, even the big landowners agreed with
agrarian reform, but they wanted it carried out their way. But they would
not have had it at all as long as they could prevent it.

More than 200,000 peasant families lived in the Cuban countryside without
land to grow essential foodstuffs. Without agrarian reform, our country
could not have taken the first step toward development. So we carried out
agrarian reform. It was not a very radical agrarian reform. It was adjusted
to the necessities of our development, to our possibilities for
agricultural development. It was agrarian reform to solve the problem of
landless peasants, of supplies of necessary foodstuffs, of unemployment in
the rural areas, of poverty.

Here came the first real difficulty. In Guatemala the same thing had
happened; when agrarian reform was carried out there, problems came in
Guatemala. I warn the delegates of Latin America and Africa and Asia: When
you enforce fair agrarian reform, be ready to face similar situations to
the one we face, especially if the best farms were owned by U.S.
monopolies. (Applause)

We may be charged with giving bad advice in this assembly. We do not wish
to deprive any body of his sleep. We are just setting forth facts, even if
the facts are of a nature to keep anybody from sleeping.

Then came the question of payment. Notes began coming from the U.S. State
Department. They never asked us about our problems. They never asked how
many were starving, how many had tuberculosis, how many were out of work.
Never. All talk from U.S. representatives was about the telephone company,
the electricity company, and land belonging to U.S. companies. How could be
pay? Of course, the first question to ask was, with what would we pay. A
poor country, with 600,000 unemployed underdeveloped, which has contributed
to the development of a powerful nation, with what could it pay for land
taken under agrarian reform, at least under the conditions they wanted. as
set forth by the U.S. State Department? They wanted prompt, effective, fair
payment. Do you understand that language? That means payment right now, in
dollars, at the price we ask for our farms. (Applause)

We were not yet 100 percent communists. We were appearing a little redder.
We were not confiscating land; we merely proposed paying in 20 years, in
the only way we could--in bonds maturing in 20 years at 4.5 percent
interest, amortizable year by year. How could we pay the price asked? It
was absurd. Anybody can understand that we had to choose between carrying
out agrarian reform or not. If we did not, the horrible economic situation
of Cuba would last indefinitely. If we did, we were exposed to the enmity
of the government of the powerful neighbor to the north. We carried out the
agrarian reform.

Of course, for a representative of Holland or any European country, the
limits we set on farms would be surprising by their extension. Some 400
hectares was set as a limit. In Europe, that is a big landholding. Some
U.S. properties in Cuba were up to some 200,000 hectares. Agrarian reform
cut the limit of landholdings to 400 hectares, and for these monopolies it
was an unacceptable law.

But in Cuba, not just land was held by U.S. owners. Cuba produces much
nickel, all of which was exploited by U.S. interests. Under Batista, the
Moa Bay mining company had obtained such juicy concessions that in five
years it amortized an investment of 120 million dollars. Who granted these
concessions? The tyrannical government of Batista. This is an absolutely
certain fact. Free of all taxes, what would be left by those companies to
us? Just the empty mines, improved land without the slightest contribution
to the economic development of our country.

If the revolutionary government set up a mine law forcing the monopolies to
pay a 25 percent tax on exports of these minerals, the attitude of the
revolutionary government clashed with the interests of the trusts, with the
interests of the international telephone trusts, with those of the
international mining trusts, the United Fruit Company interests, and with
the powerful interests of the United States, which, as you know, are
closely connected.

There then began a new stage in the action against our revolution. An
objective study of the facts, any one thinking honorably with his own head
and coming to his own conclusions, will realize what the revolutionary
government did. The interests affected by the Cuban revolution did not care
about Cuba.

The attitude of Cuban revolution had to be punished. All kinds of punitive
action had to be taken against the revolutionary government.

We swear upon our honor that we had not yet had an opportunity to exchange
letters with the distinguished Premier of the Soviet Union, Nikita
Khrushchev. That is, while the U.s. press and the world news agencies were
telling the world that Cuba was a red government, a red danger 90 miles
away from the United States, that Cuba was a government controlled by the
communists, the revolutionary government had not even had a chance to
establish diplomatic or trade relations with the Soviet Union. However,
husteria is capable of everything. It can make the most improbable
statements, and the most absurd. Of course, we are not going to start a mea
culpa here. What we have done was done quite deliberately. (Applause)

The threats began against our sugar quota. Then developed the philosophy of
imperialism to show its exploiting mobility, its kindness toward Cuba. They
said they were paying a privileged price to the Cuban Government, a kind of
subsidy for Cuban sugar, which was not such a sweet sugar for the Cubans.
They hid the true history of Cuban sugar. They did not mention the
sacrifices imposed, the times Cuba had been attacked economically.

At first it was not a question of quotas, but of customers tariffs--as
between the shark and the sardine, what the United States called
reciprocity. A concession was obtained for products so as to keep British
or French goods off the Cuban market. This happens often among friends. In
exchange for this, certain customs tariff privileges were given. The
tariffs went down, since Cuba was the closest source of sugar. Production
was stimulated and during the war years, when the price of sugar was sky
high in the world, we sold our sugar cheap to the United States, although
we were the only source. When World War One was over, the economy of Cuba
collapsed. The sudden drop in prices brought abut the ruin of the Cuban
sugar interests, which went over to the hands of U.S. banks. When the Cuban
nationals were ruined, the U.s. banks in Cuba got rich.

This situation continued until the 30's. The United States sought to find a
formula reconciling the interests of the supply with the demands of
domestic producers. A quota system was set up. However, when quotas were
established our sales were reduced 28 percent and the few advantages
granted by law were gradually taken away. Of course, the colony depended
upon the metropolis. The economy had been organized by the motherland. The
colony had to be subjected to the metropolis, and if it took measures of
freedom, then measures to crush it were taken. The U.S. Government began
its series of warnings that our sugar quota would be reduced.

Other activities took place at the same time in the United States--the
activities of the counterrevolutionaries. One afternoon a plane flew over a
sugar field, dropping a bomb. That was unexpected. Another time it happened
again, when incendiary bombs were dropped. One afternoon, when a large
number of U.S. tourist agents were in Cuba in a Cuban Government effort to
promote tourism, a plane flew over our Havana capital dropping hand
grenades. Anti-aircraft machinery went into action. Some projectiles
exploded when encountering a resistant object and more than 40 victims
resulted--old people and children were seen with their insides torn out.

Once 80 workers die due to the mysterious explosion of an arms ship,
following efforts by the U.S. Government to prevent European governments
from selling us weapons.

There were 40 victims from a plane flying over our territory. The U.S.
Government denied knowledge of this. When one of our papers showed
pictures, the United States took the plane. Then the United States said
that the persons died from anti-aircraft fire. The U.S. delegate should
know that there are many mothers in the fields of Cuba awaiting telegrams
of sorrow for the loss of their sons from U.S. bombs. (Applause)

The planes came and went. There was no proof. Then a plane was captured.
They said the plane did not drop bombs. How did it happen that the U.S.
authorities knew that the plane did not drop bombs? Millions of pesos were
lost in the burning sugar fields. Many of the poor people who saw their
wealth going suffered burns in fighting the fires caused by bombing from
pirate planes. One day when a bomb was dropped, the bomb and plane exploded
and the revolutionary government picked up the fragments of the pilot and
his papers were wound on him. The papers told everything. The, faced with
irrefutable proof, the U.S. Government gave an explanation to the Cuban
Government. When it was proven that the U.S. plane had left the United
States, the U.S. Government apologized. We were lucky. The United States
did not proclaim its right to burn our fields.

When the incident over Sverdlovsk occurred, the United States did not
excuse itself. It proclaimed its right to fly over Soviet territory. Too
bad for the Soviets. (Applause)

However, we do not have much anti-aircraft defense, and the planes
continued to fly over. Sukarno said that he had also had some problems with
U.S. planes flying over his country. Perhaps I committed some indiscretion,
but I do not think so. (Applause)

At least in this peaceful hemisphere, we are a country which, while not at
war, has had to endure the constant attacks of pirate planes. Those planes
could leave and return to the United States with impunity. We ask the
delegate--and also the people of the United States--to think about the fact
that, according to what the United States has said, U.S. territory is
completely protected against air attack, that its defense measures are
infallible, and that what it calls the free world is completely defended.
If this is true, how can it be explained that planes should leave and enter
U.S. territory without the U.S. Government knowing what these planes are
doing? Either the U.S. Government is lying to its people and the country is
not so well protected, or else the U.S. Government is an accomplice of the
air attacks. (Applause)

The air attacks ended and economic attacks began. What was one of the
arguments used by the enemies of the agrarian reform? They said it would
bring chaos to agricultural production, that production would be reduced,
that Cuba would not be able to honor its treaties with the United States.
The new delegations can get to know some of these arguments: Some day they
may have to deal with them.

It was said agrarian reform would ruin the country. This is not true at
all. Had this been true, had the production of agriculture dropped, then
the U.S. Government would not have needed its attack on agriculture. Did
they believe this? Perhaps. It is possible that without the monopolies they
thought the Cubans would not know how to produce sugar. But had we ruined
the country, the United States could have acted nobly and then could have
said that revolutions could ruin countries. But things did not turn out
that way. Revolutions do not ruin countries, but the imperialist
governments themselves are capable of doing so. Cuba was not ruined, so it
had to be ruined.

Cuba needed new markets for its products. What country does not want to
sell what it produces? What country does not want to increase its
production? Which country does not want more exports? We would like to
increase our exports. All countries want that. It should be a universal
law. Only selfish interests can oppose the universal interest of trade. We
went out to seek new markets, and we made a trade pact with the USSR, under
which we sold sugar in exchange for Soviet products. Nobody will say this
is wrong. Some do not have to ask the State Department for its approval to
make a trade pact with the USSR. We are truly a free country.

When sugar stocks began dropping, to the benefit of our economy, we got the
blow. At the result of the U.S. executive, the U.S. Congress approved a law
giving the executive the power to reduce to any extent the imports of Cuban
sugar. The economic weapon was banished against our revolution.
Justification for this move had been prepared in advance by publicists. At
one blow our sugar quota was cut by about a million tons, sugar that was
already produced for the U.S. market, to take from our country resources
for its development, to reduce our country to impotence, to get political
results. This measure was specifically prescribed by regional international
law. Economic aggression is expressly condemned by regional international
law. But the U.S. Government violates that law, takes away almost a million
tons from our sugar quota. They were able to do that.

What defense did Cuba have? She could go to the United Nations to denounce
plane accidents, constant U.S. aggressions, subversive campaigns against
the revolutionary government. We went to the United Nations. The United
Nations has facilities for looking into these matters. The United Nations
is the highest international body. It even has authority above the OAS.
Besides, we wanted the problem to go to the United Nations, because we
understand the situation surrounding the economy of Latin American
countries, the situation of dependence in their economy. The United nations
took cognizance of the situation and asked the OAS for an investigation.
The OAS met. What was to be expected? That the OAS would protect the
country suffering from aggression, condemn economic aggression against our
country. That was to be looked for.

We were a small American country, which another attacked, as Mexico was
attacked more than once. Mexico was attacked militarily once. It lost a
great deal of territory. Mexicans even jumped from Chapultepec Heights
wrapped in flags rather than surrender. (Applause) That was not the only
aggression. It was not the only time U.S. Marines trod Mexican soil.
Nicaragua was occupied. Cuba, Haiti, and Santo Domingo were occupied.
Guatemala too. Who here can honestly deny that? The intervention by the
United Fruit Company and the State Department in overthrowing the
legitimate Guatemalan Government? We are telling the truth and they know
it. Cuba was not first country attacked or in danger in this hemisphere.
Everybody knows that the U.S. Government has always imposed its law, the
law of the strongest, by which it has destroyed Puerto Rican nationality
and keeps the Panama Canal.

Our country should have been defended but it was not. Why? Here we must go
to the root of the matter. In reality we had no guarantee, although,
according to letter of the law, we were in the right. A little country
attacked by a powerful government had no defense; that is reality. What
came out of Costa Rica? A miracle of ingenious production. No condemnation
of the United States came forth, or of the U.S. Government--I do not want
to confuse them. There was no condemnation of pirate planes, or of economic
aggressions; they condemned the USSR. What an extraordinary thing. There
has been no aggression against us from the Soviet Union. No Soviet plane
had flown over our soil. And yet, in Costa Rica they condemned the Soviet
Union for interference. The Soviet Union had merely said that if our
country was attacked militarily Soviet might would support the country
under attack. The raids on Cuba--nothing was said about them, nothing about
the aggressions against Cuba. (Applause)

We must recall something. It should be of concern to us all. We are actors
in a vital moment of the history of mankind. Sometimes, apparently,
criticism and condemnation of our actions go unperceived by us. But one day
history will judge us for our actions. As for leaving our country
undefended at the Costa Rican Conference, we smile for history will judge
that episode. I say this without bitterness. It is hard to condemn men. Men
often are playthings of circumstances, and we, who know the history of our
country, and its present, we understand how terrible is the dependence of a
nation's economy and life in general on economic might from abroad. It is
enough to note how our country was left undefended, and the interest in not
having the matter brought to the United Nations. With all loyalty to this
institution, we must say that our people know their last recourse is to
resist, when their rights are not guaranteed either in the United Nations
or the OAS. (Light applause)

Little countries still do not feel so sure that our rights will be upheld.
So the little countries, when we want to be free, know we must do it on our
own and at our own risk. When people are united, defending a just cause,
they can count on their own energy; for it is then the case of a whole
people firmly united, with revolutionary conscientiousness, defending their
cause. This should be recognized, for otherwise it would be a great error.

There are the circumstances under which the Cuban revolutionary process has
taken place--the circumstances in which we found the country, and how
progress has been made. But things are changing. Yesterday Cuba was a
country without hope, illiterate, in poverty. It is becoming what soon will
be one of the advanced and developed nations on this continent. The
revolutionary government in just 20 months has created 10,000 new schools;
the number of rural schools have thus been doubled. Cuba will be the first
country in America to have satisfied all its school needs, with a teacher
in the farthest corner of the mountains. Twenty-five thousand housing units
have been built. New towns are being raised. The most important military
fortresses today shelter thousands of pupils. Next year our people plan to
wage their great battle against illiteracy, with the ambitious goal of
teaching the very last illiterate to read and write next year. For this
purpose, organizations of teachers, students, workers--the whole
people--are preparing for an intensive drive. Cuba will be the first
American country to say, in a few months, that no illiterate is left. Our
country is getting the aid of hundreds of doctors who have been sent to the
country to combat disease and to improve hygienic conditions.

Regarding conservation of resources, we can say that in one (month?) in an
ambitious plan for natural resources preservation, some 50 million timber
trees have been planted. Young men without work before, without schooling
before, have been organized and are doing useful work for the nation at the
same time as they are being trained for productive work. Farm production
has achieved something almost unique--production was increased from the
first moment. Why? Because the government converted more than 100,000 small
farmers into landowners. At the same time, it kept up large-scale
production through farm cooperatives--that is, production of big
enterprises was kept up through cooperatives. Most modern technical methods
are possible on them. Our farm production, then, rose from the very

All this work of social welfare--teachers, housing, hospitals--has been
carried forward without sacrificing resources for development. A program of
industrialization is being carried forward. The first factories under this
plan are going up. Formerly, millions of dollars worth of automobiles and
tractors were imported. The value of seven times more automobiles than
tractors was imported, although our country was eminently agricultural.
Some 500 million dollars have been recovered from politicians who got rich
under the tyranny; 500 million dollars in cash and property, gotten back
from corrupt politicians who had been plundering our country. So housing
and school construction was possible, with teachers and doctors sent out to
remote corners--in short, a social welfare program.

At the Bogota meeting, the United States proposed a plan for social
development. What does that mean? A plan to build houses, schools, roads.
Does that solve the problem? How an social problems be solved without
economic problems being solved? How will the families who live in those new
houses live? How will the children going to those schools dress themselves?
How will the teachers be paid? How will the doctors be paid? How will
medicine be paid for? The U.S. Government comes out with a plan for social
progress, in face of the need for economic reform.

It is something that the U.S. Government now pays attention to the needs of
Latin America. Maybe they will say it is a coincidence that it comes after
the Cuban revolution. In the past, monopolies cared only for exploitation.
With one hand they try to crush us, and with other they offer alms to Latin
America, not for economic development but for social development, for
schools which children will not attend, for hospitals that might not be
needed if there were better nutrition. What has made the monopolies
interested in returning even a fraction of what they took out of Latin

We are not bragging. We are not making propaganda here--for the U.S.
President mentioned that some may speak from this rostrum for propaganda
purposes. The U.N. delegates are invited to visit Cuba. We do not close our
doors to anyone. They may visit Cuba and see with their own eyes. The Bible
speaks of Saint Thomas who had to see to believe.

We are not only solving our housing problem, but also our development, for
without this there can be no solution to social problems. Why does not the
U.S. Government want to speak of development? Because it does not want to
fight the monopolies, and the monopolies demand natural resources and
investment markets for their capital. Here lies the big contradiction. This
will not solve the problems. This does not help development of
underdeveloped countries--we are underdeveloped countries are in the
majority here. However, this is not the true solution to the problem. The
U.S. Government cannot propose a plan for public investment for this would
be divorced from its raison d'etre, which is the monopolies.

So far, we have mentioned the problems of our country for these problems
are not yet solved. The Cuban Government is always ready to discuss its
problems with the United States, but the United States does not want to
discuss problems with Cuba. Here is the note sent by the Cuban
Revolutionary Government to the United States on Jan. 27, 1960: The
differences of opinion between the two countries can be solved by means of
diplomatic negotiations. The Cuban Government (wishes) to discuss these
matters without reservation, and says that there are no obstacles to
discussion on the basis of mutual respect and reciprocal benefits with the
government and the people of the United States.

On Feb. 22, 1960, the Cuban Revolutionary Government decided to resume
negotiations on pending matters between the United States and Cuba. It
decided to appoint a committee to start negotiations at a time convenient
to both sides. However, such negotiations would be subject to no unilateral
decisions being taken which would prejudice the Cuban economy and people.
This would allow both governments to study in a calm atmosphere problems
affecting the two governments.

What was the reply of the United States? The U.S. Government said it could
not accept the conditions set forth in the note. The U.S. Government had to
be free to take the steps it felt necessary for the defense of the
legitimate interests and rights of its people, was the reply. The U.S.
Government would not deny to negotiate with the small nation of Cuba, is
what that meant. What hopes did the people of Cuba have to discuss their

It is good that the United Nations takes all this into consideration. The
Cuban people and government are quite concerned over the aggressive
attitude of the U.S. Government toward Cuba. It is good that you should be
well informed. The U.S. Government feels it has the right to promote
subversion in our country. It is sponsoring subversive movements against
the Cuban Government.

Concretely, we want to denounce the fact that on an island in the
Caribbean, a territory belonging to Honduras known as the Swan Islands, the
U.S. Government has taken over the island "manu militaris." U.S. Marines
are there, despite its being a territory belonging to Honduras. And there,
violating international laws, espoiling a sister nation of a part of its
territory, violating international radio agreements, it has established a
powerful transmitter which it has placed in the hands of the war criminals
and subversive groups it maintains in this country. There, moreover,
training exercises are going on to promote subversion and armed landings on
our island. It would be well for the Honduran delegate to the General
Assembly to put forward here Honduras' rights to that bit of its territory,
but that is his business.

However, it is our business that the land should be used as a base of
attack on our territory, and I request that cognizance be taken of this in
the name of the government and people of Cuba. Does this violation of
international agreements mean that Cuba has the right to promote subversion
in the United States? Does the Cuban Government also have the right to
violate U.S. airspace? The United States should return Swan Island to
Honduras, because it has not and every has had any jurisdiction over this

"There exist still more alarming circumstances for our nation. It is well
known that by virtue of the Platt Amendment, which was imposed upon our
nation by force, the U.S. Government assumed the right to establish naval
bases on our territory, a right imposed by force and maintained by force.

"A naval base on the territory of any country is reason for just
concern--first of all, concern that a country which maintains an aggressive
and bellicose international policy should possess a base in the very heart
of our nation and of our island. This obliges our island to run the risk of
a world conflict, of an atomic war, without our having anything at all to
do with the matter, for we have absolutely nothing to do with the problems
of the United States and with the provocations of the U.S. Government.
There exists a base in the heart of our island involving a risk for us in
case of a war.

"But is this the only danger? No. There is another danger which worries us,
since it concerns us more closely. The Cuban Revolutionary Government has
on repeated occasions expressed its concern that the imperialist government
of the United States may take as a pretext this base established upon our
national territory to make a faked attack to justify an attack upon our
country. I repeat; The Cuban Revolutionary Government is greatly concerned,
and says so here, that the imperialist government of the United States will
use a faked attack as a pretext in order to try to justify an attack upon
our country." (Passage in quotes textual--Ed.)

The symptoms are alarming. Here, for example, is a UPI cable which says:
The U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Burke, says that if Cuba tries
to take the Guantanamo naval base, we will fight. According to the U.S.
NEWS AND WORLD REPORT, the admiral said that the navy was worried about the
entire Cuban situation and not only Guantanamo. The admiral added that all
U.S. military forces were worried. The admiral said that the Cuban people
were normally friends of the United States. Then a small procommunist group
appeared which was prepared to change things. Castro has taught the people
to hate the United States and has done a lot to ruin his country. Burke
said: We would react very rapidly should Castro do something against

When questioned as to whether Khrushchev's threat that Soviet rockets would
support Cuba had made him think twice about this decision, the admiral
said: No, because he (Khrushchev--Ed.) will not launch his rockets. He
knows very well that he will be destroyed if he does so--that is, Russia
will be destroyed.

You see how he calculates. Such a calculation is dangerous because this
gentleman is virtually calculating that if we attacked we will be alone,
but this is simply Mr. Burke's calculation. However, we imagine that Mr.
Burke is mistaken. We imagine, admiral though he may be, he is mistaken.

We represent the various nations of the world and it is our duty to be
concerned with the force of the world and it is our right to condemn those
who are playing with the strength of their own people and of the people of
the world. This admiral still thinks we are living in the bow and arrow
age. We are living in the atomic era. He calculates, and the UPI is
preparing a campaign to create hysteria, to divulge some imaginary action
that we may take against the base.

Yesterday another UPI report appeared here containing statements by U.S.
Sen. Styles Bridges, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who
said that the United States must be prepared to save the U.S. Guantanamo
base in Cuba. We have naval forces thee, marines, and in case of attack I
would defend it, because I believe it is the most important base in the
Caribbean, said Bridges. He did not exclude the use of atomic weapons in
case of an attack on the base. What does that mean? It means that hysteria
is being created. We are being threatened with atomic weapons. He should be
ashamed to threaten such a small nation with atomic weapons. (Applause)

With all due respect, we must say to him that world problems are not solved
by threatening or spreading fear. What is our small, humble nation to do
about it? We are there, despite them, and the revolution will go forward,
despite them, and our small, humble nation must resign itself to its fate
and have no fear of his threats about using atomic weapons.

What does this mean? There are many countries that have U.S. bases, but at
least the bases are located there not against those countries' own
governments, which granted the right to have bases, or at least not that we
have heard. Our case is more tragic. It is the case of a base on our
insular territory directed against Cuba, against the Cuban Revolutionary
Government, in the hands of those who declare themselves to be the enemies
of our country and our revolution and our people. In the history of all
bases located throughout the world today, Cuba's case is the most tragic. A
base per force, on our territory which is unmistakable, at a good distance
from the U.S. coast; a base directed against Cuba, against the people,
imposed by force, and as a threat and a worry to our people.

Therefore, we must state here, first, that (this talk?) of attacks is
designed to create histeria and prepare conditions for an aggression
against our country. We have never spoken, we have never said a single
word, implying the idea of any kind of attack on the Guantanamo naval base,
for we are the first to have an interest in not giving imperialism a
pretext for attacking us. And we state this here categorically. But we also
state that from the moment that this base has become (se ha convert) a
threat to our nation's security and tranquillity, and a threat to our
people, the revolutionary government is giving very serious consideration
(esta considerando) to asking, within the canons of international law, for
the withdrawal of the U.S. Government's military and naval forces from this
(lengthy applause breaks into his sentence, and he pauses--Ed.) portion of
our national territory.

And the imperialist U.S. Government will have no choice but to withdraw
those forces, for how can it justify in the eyes of the world its right to
establish an atomic base, or a base that involves a danger to our nation,
on a bit of our national territory where the Cuban people live? How can it
justify in the eyes of the world a right to maintain sovereignty over a
section of our territory? How an it appear before the world to justify this
arbitrary situation? And since it cannot uphold such a right before the
world, when our government makes the request under the canons of
international law, the U.S. Government will have to respect this law. This
assembly must be thoroughly informed of Cuban problems, for we must be
alert against deception and error. The fate of our country is at stake.

Senator Kennedy made some statements that might surprise anybody. He said
the OAS should be used to keep Castro from interfering in other American
states and to give freedom back to Cuba. He said the Monroe Doctrine should
be applied, in all friendship. He said they must inform Cubans that they
sympathize with legitimate aspirations. How did they sympathize before? He
says democracy must be returned to Cuba. What democracy? He says forces
fighting for freedom in exile and in the mountains of Cuba must be
supported and aided, and communism must not be allowed to spread in Latin

If Kennedy was not an illiterate, ignorant millionaire, he should
understand that a revolution cannot be waged against peasants in the
mountains, supported by landholders. He must have seen a Hollywood
production about guerrilla warfare in Cuba. But let what we say about
Kennedy not imply that we like Nixon. He has made similar statements.

(Editor's Note) Here Castro is asked by the President of the Assembly if he
thinks U.S. candidates are suitable for discussion in the United Nations.
(Applause) "I am sure that in this question, the distinguished Cuban
Premier will see my point of view, will see that I am right." (Applause)

I have no intention of offending anybody. We have set forth the problems of
our country. We wanted to inform this assembly on the case of Cuba.

I want to mention other thins summarily. The case of Cuba is not an
isolated case. The Cuban case is the case of all underdeveloped nations.
The case of Cuba is like the case of the Congo, Egypt, Algeria, West Irian,
(Applause) the case of Panama, which wants its canal, the case of Puerto
Rico, of Honduras, which sees a piece of its territory taken. Although our
attention has not specifically gone to other countries, the case of Cuba is
that of other underdeveloped and colonialized countries.

What we have said about the Cuban problems can be applied to rest of Latin
America: The control of Latin American resources by monopolies, which, if
they do not own mines, at least have charge of taking minerals out, as in
Mexico, Chile, and Peru; the case of Venezuelan oil. Monopolies own the
public services in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Peru, and so forth. They own
the telephone services in Chile, Brazil, Paraguay, and so forth; or they
market our products, like coffee in Brazil, Columbia, and Guatemala;
bananas in Guatemala, Costa Rica, and Honduras; cotton in Mexico and
Brazil; or U.S. monopolies own the most important industries.

The economies of the countries depend completely on the monopolies. When
they, too, want to carry out agrarian reform, they will be asked for
prompt, effective adequate pay. And when their delegates come to Manhattan,
they will be insulted and denied hotel rooms, maybe even manhandled by the
police. The problem of Cuba is just an example of what is happening in
Latin America. How long will Latin America wait for development? If the
monopolies have their way, until the end of time. Who will industrialize
Latin America? The monopolies? No.

A U.N. report has shown how private investment capital, instead of going
where it is most needed for development, goes preferably to most
industrialized countries, where it expects the greatest security. The U.N.
report acknowledges that development is impossible through private
investment. Latin American development must come through public
investments, without political conditions. Naturally, nobody wants to
represent a country that does not feel free. Nobody likes to see our
country's independence subjected to any interest other than that of the
nation. If they do not offer us aid, what does it matter? We have not asked
for it. But in the interest of Latin America, we feel we should point out
that aid should not be dependent on political conditions. It should be for
economic development, not social development, which is an invention to hide
the need for economic development.

Latin American problems are like those of the rest of world--Africa and
Asia. The world is divided among the monopolies. The same monopolies we see
in Latin America are also in the Middle East; the oil there is in the hands
of monopolies controlled from the United States, Britain, Holland,
France--in Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, in every corner of the
world. The same thing is true in the Philippines, in Africa. The world is
divided among monopolistic interests. Who could dare deny this fact? The
monopolies do not want the development of peoples; they want to exploit
natural resources and nations. The quicker they get back capital invested,
the better, is their view.

Cuban problems with the imperialistic U.S. Government are the same as Saudi
Arabia would have if it nationalized its oil, or Iran or Iraq; the same
problems as Egypt had when it nationalized the Suez Canal; the same
problems Indonesia had when it wanted Independence; the same as Egypt's
during its surprise invasion; the same as the Cong's with its surprise
invasion. Have the imperialists ever lacked a pretext for invasion? No.
They have always found some pretext.

Which are the colonialist countries, the imperialist countries? Four or
five countries, or rather four or five groups of monopolies, own the
world's wealth. If a figure from outer space came to this assembly, never
having read Marx or the UPI or AP and so on, and asked how the world was
distributed, the world map would show wealth divided among monopolies of
our or five countries; and he would say at once: The world is poorly
divided, it is exploited. And here, where there is a majority of
underdeveloped nations, one could say exploitation has gone for a long
time. The ways of exploitation have changed, but exploitation has not

Khrushchev's speech contains a statement that drew our attention: He said
the Soviet Union had no colonies or investments in any country. Ah! How
wonderful our world would be today if all delegates of all nations could
say the same: Our country has no colony or investment abroad. (Applause)

Wars since the beginning of humanity have come about for one reason: The
desire of one to exploit another's wealth. Once the reason for exploitation
has disappeared, so will the reasons for war disappear. With the
disappearance of colonies and the monopolies, then humanity will have
attained a true stage of progress. Until this stage has been attained, the
world will have to live under the curse of a threat of atomic war, because
there are those who are interested in maintaining exploitation. We have
spoken here of the case of Cuba. We have mentioned the case of the
imperialism close to us, but after all, all forms of imperialism are alike
and allied to each other.

A country which exploits the countries of Latin America or of any other
part of the world is in alliance with the exploitation of the rest of the
nations of the world. There is something which really alarmed us
considerably in his speech made by the U.S. President. 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 U.N. observers or forces."

He would like the members of the United Nations to take positive action on
suggestions in the report made by the Secretary General aimed at creating a
qualified staff within the secretariat to meet the future needs of U.N.
forces. This means that, after considering Latin America, Asia, Africa, and
Oceana as developing areas, he suggests peaceful changes and for that he
proposes the use of U.N. observers or troops. The United States arose from
a revolution against its colonizers. The right of the nations to free
themselves from colonialization or any form of oppression by means of
revolution was recognized by the declaration of July 5, 1775 in
Philadelphia and today the U.S. Government suggests the use of U.N. troops
to prevent revolutionary changes.

He said: "The Secretary General has now suggested that members should
maintain rediness 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 U.N. 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 favor use of that assistance to help them maintain such
contingents in the state of readiness suggested by the Secretary General."

That is, he proposes to those countries which have bases and receive
assistance that the United States is prepared to give them more assistance
for the formation of these emergency forces. In order to cooperate with the
efforts made by the Secretary General, the United States of America is
prepared to give the facilities of planes and ships to transport the
contingents which the United Nations may request in any future
emergency--that is, it offers its ships and its planes for these emergency
troops, and we should like to say here that the Cuban delegation does not
agree with this emergency force, since all nations of the world cannot feel
sure that these troops are not to be put at the service of colonialism and
imperialism, especially when one of our countries might be the victim of
the use of this force against the right of our peoples. Any of our
countries might be the victim of the use of this force against the right of
our people.

Here are several problems upon which the various delegations have spoken.
Simply for reasons of time we should like only to give our opinion.

The problems of the Congo: Of course our stand is anticolonialist. We
condemn the form in which the intervention of the U.N. forces in the Congo
has taken place. These troops did not go there to act against
interventionist forces, for which they were called. Time was given for a
division in the government, and then, while the airfields and radio
stations were being held, time was given for a third man to take over.

In 1934 one of those saviors took over in Cuba--his name was Batista. In
the Congo his name is Mobutu. In Cuba he visited the U.S. Embassy daily. It
seems to be the same in the Congo: Mobutu began to make frequent visits to
the U.S. Embassy and he had long talks with the embassy officials. Last
week he spoke to the Camp Leopold officials. That means that the hand of
colonial interests was clear and obvious in the Congo. Therefore, our
position is that the interests of the colonialists were favored and that
all facts indicate that the people of the Congo, and reason in the Congo,
are on the side of the only leader who was defending the interests of his
nation: that leader is Lumumba. (Applause)

The Afro-Asian countries are maintaining that, in view of this situation,
this mysterious third man in the Congo was called upon to displace, along
with the legitimate interests of the congolese people, the legitimate
government of the Congo. But if a reconciliation is not attained the reason
lies with those who have been able to stand (against) their people.

As for Algeria: We are for Algerian independence. We want its independence.
(Applause) It is ridiculous, as in the case of many ridiculous things, it
is ridiculous for the French to declare that a part of Africa is an
integral part of its territory: This is just nonsense. Algeria belongs to
Africa as France belongs to Europe. This heroic nation has been fighting
for some years. Men are dying in a fight in which there is no doubt as to
which side is right. However, we are not doing anything. If the Algerian
Government--which is a legitimate government since it represents millions
of fighting Algerians--asks the U.N. troops to go there too, we would go
with the same enthusiasm, but with different aims--that is to defend the
interests of the colonies, but not the colonialists.

We are thus on the side of the people of Algeria, as we are on the side of
the colonized nations still left in Africa and on the side of the Negroes
discriminated against in the Union of South Africa. And we are on the side
of people which want freedom, not only politically, but also economically.
There is no political freedom without economic freedom. Political
independence is a lie if there is no economic independence. Therefore, the
desire for economic and political freedom is supported by us.

A flag and a seat in the United Nations is not enough; we here want to
establish another right: The right of the underdeveloped nations to
nationalize, without compensation, the investments by the monopolies in
their respective countries. We support nationalization of national
resources and foreign investments in the underdeveloped countries. If the
highly industrialized countries want to do the same, we are not opposed to
it. (Applause) For nations to be truly free politically, they must be free
economically. We shall help them.

The President of Ghana also made a proposal which we should like to
support. It was proposed that African territory be freed of military bases
and hence nuclear arms bases--that is, that Africa be freed of the danger
of an atomic war. While disarmament is advancing, why not free certain
regions of the world from the dangers of nuclear war? We are learning to
know Africa, but not the Africa shown us on maps or in novels, not the
Africa with semi-nude tribes prepared to fight the white hero. Toward the
Africa of Sekou Ture, Nkrumah, and Nasir, that continent which was
exploited, that Africa which has suffered so much during its history, we
have a duty: To protect against destruction. We must compensate it for what
the west has done to it, we must declare it free of atomic danger. We must
declare it a sanctuary where human life is preserved. (Applause) We warmly
support this proposal, and, on the question of disarmament, we support the
Soviet proposal--and we do not blush at this support. To our way of
thinking, it is a clear and suitable proposal.

We read President Eisenhower's speech. He really did speak of disarmament
or the underdeveloped countries. He did not speak of the problem of
colonies. Americans should read the speeches made by Eisenhower and
Khrushchev so they could see who is speaking clearly and sincerely, and who
are those who want disarmament and those who do not, and why. When has such
an important problem been discussed so clearly.

Arms races have always led to war, as history has shown. Never has the
responsibility been so great. The Soviet Government has taken a clear stand
on this question: Total disarmament. Can more be asked? History shows that
a refusal cannot be given without danger of war. Why should the problem not
come up before the U.N. General Assembly? Why does the United States not
want the matter to be brought up? Why is a committee necessary? It would be
more democratic for the disarmament problem to come up in the General
Assembly, so that it an be seen who does and who does not want disarmament,
who is betraying this desire of mankind.

Let everybody put his cards on the table, so that everybody will know who
wants disarmament and who wants to play with war. Mankind must never be
taken into hectatombs by selfish interests. Our peoples must be preserved
from such Hecatombs, so that what mankind has created shall not serve for
mankind's destruction. The Soviet proposals should be studied, and let
everybody lay his cards on the table. This is not a question of
delegations, but of public opinion. Warmongers must be uncovered and shown
to the world public. The question is one for the whole world. Militarists
must be uncovered. The question must be discussed before the eyes of the
world, in the assembly representing the world, for in a war hundreds of
millions of innocent people would die.

We gather here to represent the world, or at least part of the world, for
the world will not be complete until People's China is represented here.
(applause) One-fourth of the world is absent from this assembly. But those
who are here have the duty to speak plainly and to discuss everything. This
question is more important than all others, such as economic aid--it is the
fate of mankind. Let all vote for peace, or at least let the warmongers and
militarists be unmasked.

Let us fight for peace and disarmament. With one-fifth of what is spent on
arms, the development of all underdeveloped countries could be launched.
The living standards would rise in countries hat now spend money on

Those who want to keep colonies, the monopolies, are the ones who want to
remain armed to the teeth. They are the ones who want to keep control
in Latin America, Africa, and Asia. Colonies were established by force.
Force maintains exploitation. Those who want to keep force, in order to
keep control of natural resources and cheap manpower, are those who want to
keep arms. The colonialists, then, are the enemies of disarmament.

World public opinion must be used to impose disarmament, as it must be used
to impose the right of peoples to freedom. Monopolies oppose disarmament.
The arms race is big business for them, and besides, they need to defend
their interests. Monopolies doubled their capital from World War Two. They
feed on corpses. War is business. Those who traffic in war must be
unmasked. They eyes of the world must be opened to those who make a
business of mankind's fate. We invite other small, underdeveloped countries
especially, and the whole Assembly, to work at this. If the world falls
into war, we would not forgive ourselves if we had spared out energy.

There is the problem of People's China. Other delegations have spoken of
it. We want to say here that it is a negation of the reason for the United
Nation's existence that this problem has not even been discussed here. This
is because the United States does not want that. Many countries have gained
admission here in recent years. It is to deny facts and history to oppose
the discussion here of the rights of People's China, representing 600
million people, to admittance. It is absurd for this problem not even to be
discussed. Why should be play this sorry role of not discussing the
problem, when the representative of franco is here.

(Editor's Note: The Assembly President again interrupts to state that the
chair does not think it is in keeping with dignity to make personal
references to government leaders of member nations. "I hope the premier
will consider this a reasonable rule").

After the fight against fascism, where millions died on the battlefields,
this organization arose as a hope. But there are paradoxes. U.S. soldiers
fell on Guam, Okinawa, and so forth, fighting the same enemy as those men
fighting the same enemy as those men fighting on Chinese soils whose entry
into the United Nations is not even discussed today. While Blue Division
soldiers fought in Russia to defend facism, People's China is denied the
right to even have its case discussed here in the United Nations. Yet a
regime that was a result of nazism and fascism is represented here.

China represents one-fourth of the world population. What government really
represents that nation? It is the government of People's China. It
maintains its government there in the midst of civil war, interfered in by
the U.S. Seventh Fleet. By what right does an extracontinental power use
its fleet to interfere in domestic Chinese affairs for the sole purpose of
preventing the total liberation of the territory? That is illegal. So the
United States does not want the case of China to be discussed here. Well,
we want to set forth our view here and ask the United Nations to give a
seat to the legitimate representatives of the Chinese Government.

We have been honest; we have been frank, without Francoism. (Applause) We
do not want to be accomplices of this injustice committed on the many
Spaniards who for more than 20 years have been (prisoners?) in Spain, and
who fought alongside North Americans in the Lincoln Brigade. We will trust
to reason on all these world problems.

We have exposed our problem here, and it is a part of the world problems.
Those who attack us are those who help attacks on others elsewhere. The
U.S. Government cannot be with the Algerian people because of its alliance
with France; it cannot be with the Congolese because of its alliance with
Belgium; it cannot be with the Spanish people because of its alliance with
Franco. The U.S. Government cannot be with the Puerto Ricans, whose
nationality has been underdestruction; it cannot be with the upsurge of
freedom in Latin American.

It cannot be with the peasants because it is with the big landowners. It
cannot be with the workers because it is allied to monopolies. It cannot be
with colonies because it is allied to colonialists. It is with Franco, the
colonization of Algeria and the Congo; it is for maintaining privileges in
the Panama Canal; it is with German militarism and its resurgence; it is
with Japanese militarism and it resurgence.

The U.S. Government forgets the millions of Jews who were killed by th
Nazis, who are regaining influence today in the German Army. It forgets the
French who were killed fighting occupation, the U.S. soldiers who died in
the war against Hitler and Japan.

It has to curtain the sovereignty of nations to maintain its bases. And
every base is a dagger in the heart of sovereignty. The U.S. Government
must be against the sovereignty of nations in order to maintain its bases
around the USSR. We do not think these problems are clearly explained to
the U.S. people. Suppose the USSR begins to build a ring of atomic bases in
Mexico and Canada; the North Americans would not feel safe.

North Americans should begin to see the problems from others' point of
view. We cannot be the enemies of the North American people, because we
have seen Americans like Carleton Beale and Waldo Frank, weeping over the
mistakes made, over the lack of hospitality shown us. And many other North
Americans feel this--the most progressive writers, and I see in them the
nobility of the first leaders of this nation, like Washington, Jefferson,
and Lincoln. They did not carry out their work so that today their country
should be the ally of monopolies, gangsters, fascists, the most backward
and reactionary relements. They wanted their country to be the champion of
just and noble causes.

We are doing our duty in saying these things at this historic assembly. We
proclaim the right of peoples to nationalism. Nationalism means a desire to
recover resources. We are with all noble aspirations of peoples. We are
with everything that is right; we are against exploitation, militarism, the
arms race, playing with war, and colonialism.

To conclude, we bring before this assembly the main part of the Havana
Declaration. You know this declaration was in answer to the Costa Rican
Declaration. More than a million Cubans gathered, and there, by
acclamation, these principles were proclaimed: Condemning big landholding;
starvation wages; exploitation of workers by bastard interests; illiteracy;
shortage of schools and teachers, doctors and hospitals; lack of protection
for old age; discrimination against Negroes and Indians; inequality for
women; obligarchies that keep our nations in poverty; concessions of
naturally resources to foreign monopolies; governments that overlook the
will of their own people; the systematic deception of people by information
agencies serving imperialism; repressive laws preventing workers and
peasants, students and intellectuals, and great majorities from organizing
to fight for their claims; monopolies and other imperialist enterprises
that plunder our resources.

It proclaims the rights to land, to jobs, to medical care, free education,
the right of nations to enjoy full sovereignty, the right of nations to
reinforce their people to defend against imperialist attacks.

It is necessary to arm the workers, students, the Negro, the Indian, the
young and old, to defend their rights and future. Some have wondered what
is the stand of the Cuban Government. Well, this is our stand. (Applause)