-DATE- 19711201 -YEAR- 1971 -DOCUMENT_TYPE- INTERVIEW -AUTHOR- F. CASTRO -HEADLINE- CASTRO REVIEWS GERMINATING CUBAN SOCIALIST POLIC -PLACE- LIMA -SOURCE- LIMA, GENTE -REPORT_NBR- FBIS -REPORT_DATE- 19720201 -TEXT- CASTRO REVIEWS GERMINATING CUBAN SOCIALIST POLICY [Excerpts of interview with Prime Minister Fidel Castro of Cuba in Lima; Lima, Gente, Spanish, December 1971, No. 157-158, pp 12, 14, 15] Premier Fidel Castro of Cuba visited Lima for a period of five hours and forty-five minutes, triggering an amazing upset of Latin American policy according to some observers. Mainly because in former times the Peruvian government would have waved the bearded leader on his way, arrested him, or simply refused to receive him. Having visited Chile (23 days), Castro landed at International Airport, met briefly with major leaders of the Peruvian Revolution, lunched with them, joshed and cracked jokes, and then faced reporters at a press conference distinguished by a greater number of security and intelligence agents in attendance than newspapermen. In fact the security forces equalled those attached to the late French President Charles de Gaulle. However, leftist organizations such as the General Confederation of Workers spearheaded a warm reception for the Cuban head of state. Eventually, Castro used the familiar personal pronoun "tu" with Peruvian leaders and was embraced by Prime Minister Ernesto Montagne Sanchez when he departed for Buayaquil for his visit with Velasco Ibarra. At 0230 hours, on his return from Guayaquil, the Cuban leader granted an exclusive interview to Gente. One of Gente's editors mingled with the agents, police, and shock forces and conversed with Castro for 37 minutes. The text of the interview is as follows: Question: Commandant Castro, a certain sector of international public opinion believes that the Cuban Revolution was betrayed by its leaders. The argument runs that initially the Revolution was not moved by the Marxist spirit it shows today. What do you think of this assertion? Answer: To begin with it is perfectly understandable. Imperialists habitually stipulate and declare that the Cuban Revolution was betrayed. Of course, it seems from their idea of the forces which, in their minds, embodied the Revolution -- to wit, the revolution of the middle class, exploiters, and the backers of imperialists interests, a revolution which summarily amounts to a mockery. The Cuban Revolution began to incubate more than one hundred years ago with Carlos Manuel de Cespedes. With succeeding periods and at all times in the course of earlier phases there was one line, one goal, one objective: independence. Thus, even then the revolution was against imperialist. Furthermore, our revolution acquired an increasingly radical character with the lapse of time. From the initial ideas of the Cuban 1868 insurrectionists to Marti's ideas there is a long stretch of time. And during the initial phases of that struggle the revolutionaries conceded that the United States had mirrored an ideal for a long period of universal history, thus had attracted pilgrims, and engendered one of the first contemporary liberal revolutions tantamount to a model for other nations. In 1868 some of the insurrectionists even talked to annexation to the Yankee empire. But the revolution acquired a radical character with the endorsement of the masses and the freed slaves, and with the leadership which singularly sprang from the most humble segments of society. Marti himself said that he would entrust his welfare to these impoverished segments and that he admired Karl Marx because the latter championed the poor. So there was the example of increasingly evocative revolutionary thinking. In the beginning Cubans were not disposed to unequivocally endorse the goals of complete independence. However, the savage saga of humiliations, deceit, and interference practiced by the Yankees in Cuba was so extensively experienced that today we were implementing a Socialist revolution, a true revolution under their very noses. And it is something for which they will never forgive us. Question: When was Socialism proclaimed in Cuba? How and why? Fidel Castro's manner of speaking was contemplative. He thought out everything he said. He spoke slowly, allowing himself time to frame his ideas and start his sentences. Outside there was the hum of voices as the Cuban revolutionary replied. Answer: The Socialist policy of our Revolution was announced on 16 April 1961. Naturally, this decision was not framed by a proclamation. Corresponding revolutionary measures were enacted in every sector, starting with Agrarian Reform, plus the measures taken to stimulate the radical revision of our country's economic, social structures. The declared Socialist trend of our revolution caused some surprise. But not in Cuba. It was very simple: we were engulfed in struggle, had been aerially attacked with simultaneous bombardments of our airfields to destroy our small number of planes. In short, aggression and combat had virtually broken out. And at such a time the symbolic pennants must be unmistakably brandished. In the face of imperialist forces preparing to invade us, the revolutionary flag had to be raised with unmistakable clarity vis-a-vis the cowardly, treacherous aggressor. The upshot was that our defenders were at "Giron" to defend their ideas and stances from the standpoint of manifest Socialist policy. They were not there merely to safeguard Cuban sovereignty, the inviolable Cuban territory, and the interests of Cuban workers and peasants. And who can forget the words of Antonio Maceo who said: "Whoever plots to seize Cuba will harvest the dust of its soil saturated with blood, that is, if he does not die in battle." Question: Recently you rejected the position of some intellectuals of the Socialist camp who criticized the Cuban Revolution due to poorly explained incidents connected with the self-criticism of poet Herberto Padilla. Among them was the Peruvian novelist Mario Vargas Llosa who had always identified himself with the Cuban revolutionary process. Perhaps you do not yield to the critics? Fidel wears his classic olive-green uniform with a belt of the same shade at his waist. Two white stars on red and black rhombuses are the only emblems on his wide shoulders. They are the symbolic colors of the "Movement of 26 July." He wears the high-heel rustic black boots used in the country. His rough speech tempers, evens, becomes unruffled and serene as he lifts his somewhat grating voice in response. Answer: From Rome and Paris there are numerous individuals who construct hypotheses, imaginary ones. Many of them are living high on the hog -- not all -- because they are outward or secret CIA agents. And some of them are infantile ... We believe that in keeping with the boundless diversity and complexity of problems there will always be many and varied points of view. That will always be the case! It would be unrealistic to think anything else. And we refer to the existence of a wide spectrum of pseudo-revolutionaries, writers who are the flunkies of imperialism. Some of them refuse to forgive us for our stance on Czechoslovakia. I refer to left-wing writers whose efforts fall flat. In our minds consummate middle-class philosophy and all middle-class liberal ideas equate with some primeval superstition, one entombed by historic events for a considerable period of time. With the exception of Cubans, many of those writers write about the Cuban Revolution. No one can determine how many theorists and interpreters exist. Nevertheless, concerning the situations you referred to -- we will maintain our position! Question: Some news agencies constantly report rather dramatic incidents which -- according to their coverage -- are spawned by certain Cuban citizens desiring to leave the island due to experiencing unbearable situations. What can you tell us about this? The smiling, jovial face of the leader who routed one of the most savage dictators of America, Fulgencio Batista, tightens. He waves his hands, reddens .. and expostulates defensively. Answer: Unadulterated infamy, lies, hypocritical yarns invented by imperialists and reactionaries, the aggressors of Cubans, the newspaper monopolies of imperialism. We have sufficient moral authority to respond to these slanders, these falsehoods! Those individuals who remain unmoved by patriotic feeling and anxious to leave can betake themselves to that consumers' society, that unbalanced society rife with material goods but short on moral values. We have informed those individuals that they can go. Meantime, in Cuba we are bringing up a new generation. Proud of its country, conscious of its freedom, and endowed with a worthy sense of moral obligation. And we have confidence in that new generation. The lists of those who register to go to the United States are exhausted. Few who remain in Cuba choose that alternative. Those who endorse Cuban policy as well as the spirit of sacrifice, labor, and genuine freedom are the ones who stay. And they will add to the dignity of the country we are creating. Question: Why does the Cuban government refuse to rejoin the Organization of American States? Nine hours previously Fidel Castro, grave and preoccupied, had debarked from the aircraft which brought him from Chile. At no time did he appear overwhelmed by the vast enthusiasm shown by the airport crowd. In fact, diplomatic relations between Peru and Cuba were broken and remain unresumed. Nevertheless, as he said at the press conference, human relations remain which have greater significance than official relations. Answer: The Organization of American States is historically slated to disappear. Because it is the historic exemplification of the degree of Balkanization and division that the imperialists have promoted in Latin America. The fact is that an "Organization" of Latin American states should not exist. Only a Union! A Union, not an organization! And this union should germinate initially in each Latin American state. It will not emerge on an agreed day at a determined hour. No. It will be an historic process by means of which the nations will free themselves and come to understand that there is only one truth for each of them, that there is only one future: Union. Some Latin American governments have expressed to the Organization of American States their condemnation of the agressors of Cuba. Others have asserted that penalizing measures should come to and end. What penalties, aimed at whom? Who really should be the ones who endure penalties? The imperialists! Plus the puppet governments who were the accomplices of aggression against Cuba! -END-