-DATE- 19830812 -YEAR- 1983 -DOCUMENT_TYPE- CONFERENCE -AUTHOR- F. CASTRO -HEADLINE- AUGUST 6 PRESS CONFERENCE -PLACE- PALACE F THE REVOLUTION -SOURCE- HAVANA DOMESTIC TV -REPORT_NBR- FBIS -REPORT_DATE- 19830815 -TEXT- FIDEL CASTRO 6 AUGUST PRESS CONFERENCE FL121437 Havana Domestic Television Service in Spanish 0036 GMT 12 Aug 83 [Press conference granted by Cuban President Fidel Castro to a group of French journalists during a luncheon hosted on 6 August at the Palace of the Revolution in honor of visiting French External Relations Minister Claude Cheysson -- recorded] [Text] [Unidentified journalist] [Words indistinct] since you said the other day that U.S. journalists are good, we would like to begin by asking you whether you have anything to say to the French people. [Castro] You know that our country is composed of Europeans and Africans, a mixture, and a little Indian blood, because in the initial years the Spanish made the Indians work very hard and many of them died. Therefore, we have been greatly influenced by European culture, not the Saxon culture, but the Latin culture [words indistinct]. I would say that the country that had the greatest cultural influence on Cuba, after Spain, was France. That is, just as we feel bonds of affection with the Spanish people, we also feel them with France. Those periods of war in which blood was shed on both sides -- Spanish blood, Cuban blood -- have been left far behind, and we have very affectionate bonds with Spain. We also have very affectionate bonds with France. We feel affection for France, we feel affection for the French people, and we also feel affection for their history. Their history influenced us, to tell the truth. Before I read my first works on Marxism, I had read the history of the French Revolution, which was discussed when I was in the early grades. I did not know very well what it was, what had happened, what the French Revolution was. Later I read and studied it and became very interested in it, and I believe that the history of the 1789 Revolution had a great influence on me. I read many different authors. Sometimes I read these books until dawn when I was a student on vacation and had no homework to do. I also talked about this to Cheysson because later this was the influence, let us say, of the first modern revolution, the French Revolution; that is, revolutionaries against feudalism and despotism. Later, we were also influenced toward socialism as well because Marx himself was greatly influenced and transmitted...retransmitted it to us in two works that are classics for us: "The History of the Civil Struggle in France" and "The Eighteenth Brumaire." Later, the Paris Commune greatly influenced Cuban revolutionaries; not only us, but the Cuban revolutions in the wars of independence of 1868 and 1895. The war of '68 was characterized by a romantic spirit that was influenced...I would say it was influenced by the Jacobins; but it was also influenced by De Lamartine because I see the history of the Girondins reflected in the literary production and speeches of the first fighters for independence. The influence of French revolutionary ideas was reflected in the Cuban independence wars, in our independence fighters. In our own struggle for liberation there were three French influences: The French Revolution, the civil struggles in France and the Paris Commune, and lastly the French resistance against the Nazis. The whole history of the Resistance -- the French clandestine movement -- influenced us as a method of struggle due to the patriotism, the heroism demonstrated by the French. That influenced us in our last liberation struggle. That is, we had three French influences: The Liberal bourgeois revolution, as we call it; the struggles of the socialist revolution in France; and the struggle of the French Resistance [words indistinct]. Therefore, after Spain, France is the European country that has most influenced Cuba. In the field of medicine, we have always looked to France. In literature and the arts, we have always looked to France. It has been said that our food is Spanish and French. Even at the beginning of the last century, many French families arrived from Haiti. They settled in Oriente; some even settled in Pinar del Rio, in Soroa, and in that area. Hundreds of French families cultivated cacao and coffee. They also introduced French agricultural techniques; therefore, after Spain, the country with which we have greatest historical roots is really France. That is why we feel sympathy and affection for the French, not only cultural bonds, but also affection. [Unidentified journalist] Commander, it seems that in this framework the specific relations between the two countries and peoples are headed [words indistinct]. [Castro] I believe so, yes. There were difficulties in French-Cuban relations during the initial years of the revolution due to the independence struggle of the Algerian people. We were very interested in relations with France; they have always interested us, both political and economic relations. At that time a situation existed that, out of principle, out of solidarity, led us to take a firm position, a position of opposition to the official French position and of support for the Algerian fighters. After the Algerian problem had been solved, political relations with France were initiated; they improved. Economic relations as well. These have improved progressively since then. Naturally, the victory of the left in France raised many hopes in our country. Our relations with the left were very close -- our relations with Mitterrand and our relations with the French communists. I would say that relations began to improve with this government many years before the victory of the left. When we received a French delegation presided over by Mitterrand in our country, we considered it a duty and our right to express our affection for the left. Although the victory of the left seemed very remote in 1974, we received the delegation of the Socialist Party with open arms. Mitterrand received much sympathy in our country. It was as if we had guessed that some day the left would achieve power in France. That is, they had begun to develop previously and, I would say, like all of our relations, unselfishly. Our relations with revolutionary movements are unselfish and we welcomed the victory of the left with great joy. We are leftists and I believe that this can be understood perfectly. I believe that this will lead to even better relations with Frande; that is not to say that our relations were bad. Let us say that, even during De Gaulle's administration, these developed (?in good faith). We always sympathized with De Gaulle's spirit of independence. Therefore, [words indistinct) the relations were good. Naturally, there is much more communication and affinity with the leftist government. Consequently, the relations should be better, and they are improving. [Unidentified journalist] (?What relationship) is there in the relations? Are these principally bilateral, or do they permit dealing with a whole series of problems that do not involve just Cuba and France? [Castro] You are right. I believe that relations that are restricted to bilateral matters would not be sufficiently broad. France has responsibilities in the world. I would say that France is not a powerful country, but that it is a great power that has technological development, scientific development, economic development, and international prestige. In my judgment, France can and does play a very important international role. I am very interested in France's concern for Third World problems. In all recent international conferences of the so-called Western developed countries, France is the country that has shown the greatest interest in the problems of the Third World. This is a point where French Government policy and our concern as a Third World country coincide, because we are socialists but we also belong to the Third World. In our international statements, we have always considered the interests of Third World countries because they reflect the historical reality of underdevelopment and because we have a common interest with them and defend them at international conferences. Our condition as a socialist country and our condition as a Third World country are not a contradiction. As I said in New Delhi, over and above political, religious, and ideological differences, we have many things in common with Third World countries that we are keeping in mind and defend. Moreover, we do not defend national interests. We are not very nationalistic -- we are patriots -- but we are not very nationalistic, and we are strongly faithful to our principles. We have often sacrificed our national interests for the sake of the principles of our revolution and our internationalist principles. The North Americans do not understand that, it is very difficult for them. They are a bit accustomed to thinking that national interests should come before any other interest. However, we have said that our homeland is not just Cuba; our homeland is humanity. We are learning to think in terms of humanity. Man first thought in terms of a clan, then of a tribe, then of a feudal group, then he thought in terms of a nation. I believe there is a fine borderline. We are Marxists or believe that we are, and Marxism includes patriotic and national sentiments -- the national sentiment was a great advance. I believe that national sentiment continues to play a large role and should play a large role because, in the struggle against colonialism and neocolonialism, this national sentiment plays an important role. I say that it is still a very progressive idea. A country defends its national interests against foreign oppression. However, I would say that this is the hour of transition; and for us transition -- this change -- means to think not only in national terms but in international terms, in worldwide terms, one could say. Today, nationalism does good in some cases and sometimes it is damaging. It disturbs me when I see politicians entrench themselves behind the banner of national interests. We must reconcile the two interests, the national and the international. [Unidentified journalist] I believe that you discussed the problem of sugar, which is one of the things dealing with [words indistinct] humanity. [Castro] [Words indistinct] with the French? [Unidentified journalist] with the French. [Castro] Well, I do not know whether some of my collaborators or comrades have discussed this. I did not, I did not want to... [Rafael Rodriguez interrupts] Yes, the problem of sugar was mentioned in the talks between France [words indistinct] and now we have again taken up the subject of the participation of both countries as a community and as members of the International Sugar Organization, the negotiations for a new sugar agreement. [Castro] But I, personally, did not bring up this subject. I have been very careful to see that in this delegation's visit, in this meeting, we would above all discuss general problems. I did not want to lay emphasis on our interests. We are interested in sugar, especially if we could reach agreement on the interests of Third World sugar producers with the EEC. This would be very important. I did not want to emphasize economic matters of interest to us while discussing bilateral relations. I would like to see the visit end as something good, not that our hospitality be seen as something material. Mr Cheysson has conducted himself very nicely. He himself brought this up. Perhaps among the rest of the members of the delegation this has been discussed, but it has not been the main topic of our conversations. I would say we have examined international matters, above all those issues of the international situation on which we agree. I would cite as an example France's interest, the European Community's interest in general, in seeking a negotiated political solution to the Central America problem and keeping the problem from worsening, from becoming more serious. U.S. intervention in Central America must be avoided. We are struggling for that for the sake of all the Latin American peoples as well as for the U.S. people. We agree on that. In addition, we discussed the problem of Namibia, the problem of southern Africa [words indistinct]. We agree in our positions. France and Cuba have discussed international economic problems, the international economic crisis, problems derived from it, the interests common to the developed world or, as it is called, the developing world, and the interests of industrialized countries. Third World countries are seriously affected by the crisis, much more so than the industrialized countries; but the crisis also affects the industrialized countries. A solution to these economic problems would help the underdeveloped world and the industrialized world. This creates instability in the Third World; it creates instability in the developed countries. This problem of inflation, above all of unemployment, creates economic stagnation. We are concerned with the high interest rates that have to be paid for credit. We are concerned with the foreign debt of the Third World. We would like to find a solution to these problems and determine what interests are common to Third World countries and industrialized countries, and to Third World countries and European industrialized countries. It must be kept in mind that, when French people travel around the world, in the first place they represent France, but they also represent to a large degree the interests of industrialized Europe as they make contacts. I believe the French delegation has done this in Brazil, Bolivia, Colombia, and Cuba, Latin America; the French delegation has tried to find points of agreement in economic interests between the Third World and industrialized Europe. I believe that there is a point of agreement for all industrialized and underdeveloped countries. A solution must be found to this crisis. I base my statement on the hypothesis that, if there is no solution to Third World's economic problems, there will not be a solution to the industrialized world's economic problems because there will be no markets. There will not be an efficient struggle against unemployment. There will be an underutilization of the industrial capacity of developed countries. They will work at only 60 or 70 percent of capacity. Skilled labor, industry and the enormous market of the industrialized world depend on the developing world because they need the technology and investments. The developing world is an essential market for the developed world. At present, trade among the industrialized countries alone does not solve the economic problem, much less at a time of contraction. There are talks now about a certain degree of improvement in the U.S. economy, also in the FRG economy. But the truth of the matter is that they have started at the very bottom, the cellar. If you are in the cellar and make some strides, you reach the first floor but will still be far away from the 10th floor. In the United States, industrial production went down. In Europe, it came to a standstill, and in some countries there were reductions in industrial production. Beginning at that point, any increases are reflected in statistics. Perhaps there has been a growth rate of 3 or 4 points; not compared to the highest point of production, but compared to this drop. I believe that this [U.S.] economic improvement will be short in duration, very brief. There are no foundations for a lasting economic recovery. What has characterized international economic evolution in recent years has been an increasingly more frequent cycle of drops in production. In the midst of this crisis there can be a small improvement in the United States, perhaps in the FRG and a few other countries, but it does not have a solid foundation. The world economy is like as a drifting ship; it does not have a rudder except the U.S. rudder, which is trying to protect its own interests. We could say that the United States, with its economic and financial policy, its policy of high interests rates, is forcing the rest of the world -- not only the underdeveloped world but also the developed world -- to finance its arms race, to finance its budget deficit. The United States is forcing a second recipe upon us. The first one was during the Vietnam War, when it spent hundreds of billions of dollars without taxes. Who paid for that? The world paid. They printed bills, resulting in inflation. In fact, the world involuntarily financed the Vietnam war. I believe that policy is the fundamental factor of the current crisis. It has various other factors, but that is a very important factor. Now the United States, with its policy of high interest rates and theft of capital, is forcing us to pay for the arms race and the great U.S. budget deficit. That is the advantage of having a powerful economy. The advantage that the dollar is a world currency has imposed on us for the second time the enormous burden of what I would call defending bad causes. I believe that the French can perceive this because the high interest rates are affecting France's investments. U.S. policy affects the value of the French currency. All that translates into trade deficits; it translates into budgetary deficits; it translates into inflation. Despite the fact that France has a developed and powerful economy, it has to endure the attacks of this U.S. policy. This manifests itself in economic difficulties, unemployment. That is a reality. This also applies to Spain, Italy, the FRG, Japan, to the entire industrialized world. These are realities which are a result of U.S. policy. What is happening is that the North Americans are so powerful that governments are forced to handle things with great care, I mean their relations. I know that deep down, in all the industrialized countries, there is a serious complaint regarding this economic policy. Those problems affect the underdeveloped countries much more. They have a huge debt, nearing $700 billion, and that debt is continuing to grow, Many economists have no answer for how that debt is going to be paid. We also have a debt. We will pay it because it is not too big. Eighty percent of our economy is based on trade with socialist countries, where we have good, satisfactory trade relations, both in relation to the prices of our products as well as in relations to imports. If the prices of the products we import increase, the prices of the products we export also increase. I believe this has been a great gain for our revolution. We depend 20 percent on the international economy. The international economic crisis affects us to that degree. We have a debt. We believe we can pay it. We will pay it. For us, this is a matter of honor, of elementary consideration for the banks and financial institutions which trusted us in the midst of a blockade. That is why we are making the interest payments as soon as they come due. But I sincerely believe t hat the great majority of the underdeveloped countries cannot pay their debts; mathematically, it cannot be done. Their economies are stalemated. Their basic products have depressed prices. Trade relations are increasingly more unfavorable. The debts are enormous and their exports barely pay the interest. It is a very serious problem that constitutes a responsibility for the entire world, the developed capitalist countries, the developed socialist countries in the Third World; that is, to find a solution to this problem. It is a tragic problem which could bring about the intensification of the crisis and a great destabilization inside both developing countries and developed countries. It is a tragic problem. Here we have a common position between France and Cuba. I say that, among Western developed countries, the one that shows the most concern for these problems is France. I can see that we have many things in common, many points. I would not say there is 100-percent agreement in international policy but we have not been dotting the "i's" on those things on which we agree in policy but only on those things that are and can be useful in our policy and which could be useful in developing relations with France. I am not speaking only of bilateral relations but also of general relations. It is our common concern, without comparing Cuba to France. France is a power and we are a small country, and if they want to give us a name, we are a small power. [Journalist] Commander, you recently insisted on the need to include El Salvador in the negotiations process. Do you want to do that now or could that be a part of the Contadora process? [Castro] I believe that a negotiated political solution for Central America cannot be considered if a negotiated political solution is not found for El Salvador, because a solution that excludes El Salvador would be a betrayal of the Salvadoran people. In addition, the focus of attention so far has been El Salvador. What is happening is that, as a result of U.S. policy, there has been a change of the focus of attention from El Salvador to Nicaragua, which is a U.S. interest. But the situations of Nicaragua and El Salvador are not comparable, they cannot be compared. There is internal strife in El Salvador, a civil strife not of persons who are crossing the border but of persons who are inside the country. The struggle is 3 years old; it is a strong struggle. There is no internal struggle in Nicaragua; there is no civil war there. What is going on in Nicaragua is border conflicts organized and encouraged by the United States, the so-called secret war of the CIA. These are attacks from the northern border and, to a lesser degree, from the southern border. [Journalist] Have there been invasions? [Castro] Yes, invasions. It is something similar to what took place in Cuba at Giron. At Giron, there was an internal conflict in Cuba as a result of an invasion. That is what is going on in Nicaragua. But that is no excuse to compare the situations in El Salvador and Nicaragua. The solution to the problem in El Salvador is a sine qua non requisite for the solution of the problems in Central America. I believe that the problems in El Salvador can be solved. The revolutionaries have seriously and consistently said so. They are willing to find a negotiated political solution because they are trying to avoid an intensification of the conflict, a foreign intervention. They are aware of the danger of foreign intervention. The Salvadoran revolutionaries are aware of that but are not afraid. They are not afraid. Of course, they would try to avoid it. Even though they are now stronger than ever before, their sense of responsibility for their country, Central America, and Latin America forces them to be willing to find formulas of negotiated political solutions to their country's problem. That is a point that must be respected. [Journalist] Commander, do you feel that, since the Contadora Group's efforts began, since the meetings held by Stone and the Sandinists, since your speech on 26 July, there has been a change in the Central American policy of the U.S. Government? [Castro] There has been something. There has been a certain change in the tone, in the tone of the rhetoric. In action, the policy is being maintained in full. The maneuvers are continuing at a very fast pace, without previous announcement, on Central American territory in Honduras. The deployment of troops to Honduras has occurred. Two aircraft carriers and 19 warships have been deployed off the Nicaraguan coastline. It has been announced that the maneuvers will continue until February, no one knows, indefinitely. No one has ever seen that type of maneuvers anywhere. Maneuvers last 2, 3 weeks, 1 month. Who has ever seen maneuvers that last 6 months? It is an astute, futile move to cover up what constitutes a show of U.S. forces and troops in Central America. Now they say the maneuvers will last 6 months later on they will say 6 years. It is a show of troops and naval forces in Central America. In action, there has been no change on the part of the United States. There has been a slight change in rhetoric. It is a situation of force, of pressure, of psychological war. Unfortunately, the U.S. leaders believe that the statements made by Nicaragua and Cuba are the result of that policy of force. I believe that is a mistake. I am absolutely convinced that Nicaragua will never give in to a policy of force. I can speak for Cuba, and Cuba will never give in to a policy of force. I can also say that seeking a solution can never imply unilateral concessions on the part of the revolutionaries, on the part of Nicaragua, on the part of Cuba. We talk about an honorable, moral solution, based on mutual commitments. That is the only solution that can be achieved. Solutions based on capitulations will never occur. Solutions based on unilateral concessions will never occur. We cannot negotiate the withdrawal of our men because it would be an act of disloyalty to Nicaragua. Nicaragua can negotiate that withdrawal. Nicaragua is receiving our cooperation and, in fact, we support its policy. If it wants to negotiate on any of these points, we will support whatever negotiations Nicaragua conducts. It it wants to negotiate on this basis, we will support it. As a principle, cooperation cannot be negotiated. We cannot negotiate the Salvadoran cause or the Nicaraguan cause. We cannot negotiate the Central American cause. We respect those countries scrupulously; we respect their decisions. We understand if they have to negotiate any other point, and we support them. These points proposed by Nicaragua and Cuba are the key points that have to be discussed. We stand ready to support any negotiations. We are not the ones to decide what to do, or the ones who will negotiate. All these problems can be negotiated by the Salvadoran revolutionaries and the Nicaraguans. We do not negotiate. The only thing we can do is support them in the negotiations. We support them in the search for a peaceful solution and we support their policy. That is different from negotiating their interests or their cause. We can negotiate Cuba's affairs. We cannot negotiate the affairs of El Salvador or Nicaragua. But we have voiced our decision to support their efforts for a peaceful solution and to support the negotiations they develop. In reality, the Central American problem cannot be solved by negotiations between Cuba and the United States, but by negotiations between the Salvadoran revolutionaries and the United States. Their conflict is with the United States. The negotiations between Nicaragua and the United States are proper. They are the ones that have to discuss the problem. It is not important that we cannot discuss for them. We can discuss Cuba's affairs, but the problems of Central America, Nicaragua, and El Salvador must be discussed by the Nicaraguans and the Salvadorans. And it seems to me that things would advance a great deal if those discussions were established. Therefore, we have noted with satisfaction the contacts between Stone and the Salvadoran revolutionary movement, and the contacts between Stone and the movement...[Castro changes thought] and Nicaragua. And if there is contact between this commission headed by Kissinger and the Nicaraguans -- very good -- and if there is contact between Kissinger and the Salvadorans -- better yet. They are involved in their problem, and their fundamental problem is the United States. Nicaragua's problem is the United States. The problem of the Salvadoran revolutionary movement is the United States because, without the support, the logistics, and the advance of the United States, that government would not exist. Both the Salvadorans and the Nicaraguans should talk with the United States. We support that discussion and believe is the key to the problem. No one can talk for them. Is that clear? [Journalist] Commander, can the Contadora Group help in the negotiated solution in El Salvador? [Castro] It can help a lot and it is making an extraordinarily positive contribution, but I am concerned that the Contadora Group has not spoken out about the Salvadoran problem. It has not spoken. [Journalist] [Passage indistinct] [Castro] It is believed that the U.S. move of transferring the focus of attention to Nicaragua was directed at eliminating the Salvadoran problem. I am concerned that the Contadora Group has not clearly defined the need for a solution to the Salvadoran problem, even though it is true that President Belisario Betancur sponsored the meeting between the Salvadoran revolutionary movement and Stone. I believe that was very good. But, officially, the Contadora Group has not made any proposals to solve the Salvadoran problem, which is a key point in finding a solution in Central America. [Journalist] Have you talked about that with the French foreign minister? What is his position? [Castro] Well, I can speak for ourselves. We have explained our position regarding Central America. We are pleased with what the French foreign minister said, but I can only speak for Cuba; I cannot speak for the French side. [Journalist] If you will allow me to change the topic... [Castro] Well, I will not hold you to any... I believe the reality is what counts. I will answer briefly. [Journalist] In France, there have been many dirty campaigns on human rights. Today, there was an article in a magazine by a man named Valladares. Can you say something to the French people on human rights? [Castro] I would like to know who paid for that campaign. Somebody must have paid for it. We do not pay a single cent for propaganda. In France, we have friends, but the right has some influence on the French press, which is very unfortunate. The U.S. mass information media have a great influence in France. UNESCO referred to that problem when it discussed the information media monopoly. We are vaccinated against that; we are used to that. It is a disease, but we are immune to that disease. It does not make us nervous; it does not make us lose any sleep. We have been able to resist it because we have a vaccination against it. We are looking for a good vaccination against that system of publicity aimed at blemishing a country's image. We have to say two things about Valladares. He was a member of the Batista police force. We have the documents to prove it. Valladares was sentenced for acts of counter-revolutionary terrorism. He was not handicapped. He faked it. The whole international campaign was based on the fact that he was handicapped, but he was not. He was called a poet, and he was not a poet. Many of his verses were written abroad. If he is a poet, we are happy for it and wish him well. It has been said that all of us are part poet and madman; that is the truth. Perhaps the French people would understand better if I remind them that they are holding Klaus Barbie. What is his name? Klaus Barbie. What the French people want is that justice be done, that he be condemned. Of course, I am not comparing Valladares to Barbie, because Valladares was not a member of the German Gestapo, and I have no proof that be perpetrated any crimes against the revolutionaries. He was simply a member of the Batista gestapo, which perpetrated many crimes. He was a youth who today is a great intellectual, a poet. He was a Batista policemen who became a policeman at the time of the greatest repression against the people. Later on, he plotted against the revolution and consistently participated in terrorist activities. Well, I believe the French have a bitter memory of the Nazi occupation, the repression, and the Gestapo and the crimes they perpetrated. They tried and sentenced everybody they were able to put on trial. Even now, after nearly 40 years, they still continue to look for Nazi henchmen to put them on trial. What would you say if a major international campaign were conducted to seek Barbie's freedom, a major worldwide campaign saying that Barbie is an intellectual, a poet, a writer, a victim of great injustice, and that his human rights are being violated if he is condemned there? What would the French people say if we asked for his freedom? This is just an example. We are not going to ask for the freedom of the most insignificant member of the Gestapo. We are not going to ask for anything for the most insignificant collaborator because we feel a collaborator is a traitor who caused the death and blood of many. If you ponder a little about your own experiences, you will realize that we are also touchy regarding the people who collaborated with Batista and perpetrated crimes. In addition, it was demonstrated that there was no such handicap. It was all a lie. It was a major propaganda ploy. Somebody paid for that propaganda. However, we... [leaves thought unfinished] It was the CIA and the U.S. imperialism. Surely it is them. There can be some people of good faith who at a certain moment might believe, and there are many people who are misled. But that is the truth. We have known that for a very long time. How much money does the CIA spend? It must be tens of billions of dollars. What do they use it for? For wire tapping equipment? That is not expensive. The cost of electronic equipment has gone down recently as a result of technology, microelectronics, and progress made with mass production. The CIA spends much money on publicity, very much. We know that better than the French. But that also has an impact in France. It does make a difference in France and in many other places. What are the problems of human rights? None, he was sentenced on the evidence. We were generous because he deserved a more severe sentence. Now, France has solved his problem. Because of our consideration toward and friendship with France, because of the problem created, we decided that the world would not come to an end if we set this liberator, this poet free. We solved the problem. They [CIA and U.S. imperialism] conducted a major campaign and will always conduct campaigns. So long as they conduct major campaigns in defense of people who are counterrevolutionaries, people who have broken our laws, we will maintain a firm position. We are not frightened by such campaigns. We have no human rights problems. They have disappeared here. No one is tortured here. No one is murdered here. In 25 years of revolution, despite the difficulties and dangers we have confronted, there has never been anyone tortured or murdered in our country. The enemy might say differently, but it is not true, and that is the truth. Some day when honest historians analyze these 25 years of revolution, it will be demonstrated that perhaps this is the only revolution which never broke the law. We have laws that punish because we have to defend ourselves. But it will be demonstrated that we were not repressive, that we were not criminals, that we were not torturers, and that not a single person has disappeared in our country, not a single one. There is not a single case of torture in our country. The day when honest historians review and investigate all this, the truth of all this will be demonstrated. One should ask: How many revolutions have had the cool head and moderation that our revolution has shown, despite being under threat of death by imperialism for over 25 years. Our moral values are very strong. We have the masses to defend us and support us, masses which struggle against espionage, against sabotage. Whenever someone is arrested, we know more than they do. We probably know that they met on 3 January at a house whose address they do not even know, not even the time or with whom they met. But we do know because among those meeting there we have someone who defends the revolution. We know the time and place better than be because he cannot remember. We always have that evidence. They have no moral values. Let us not say that the Cuban counterrevolutionaries are fanatics because, in reality, they are mercenaries. The CIA does not conduct any task based on recruiting sympathizers. We know that the CIA does everything based on cash. We have great experience in that. They pay salaries, some $5,000, $10,000, $50,000. After all, they make it appear that any felony, any lie, any dirty business was perpetrated by someone else. Everything the CIA does is based on cash. We can say we have never paid a penny to anyone. The people's cooperation is spontaneous. Throughout the world, those who cooperate with us do it based on ideals, principles. We have never spent a penny on that, which is the great difference. That is why we have been able to resist despite all the science and technology that the CIA, the Pentagon, and the United States have. The fact that we are 90 miles away from their coastline and they have not been able to crush us and will not be able to crush us demonstrates that difference. We are sure that a nation determined to defend itself cannot be crushed, just as the Spanish and French were not. I ask you: What would have happened in France? Or what happened in France after the occupation, after the betrayal, after the surrender of the country? The people were unarmed, but the following day the struggle began, resistance grew. There is no other way. Now I ask you a question: If there had been no Normandy invasion, would you have continued under Nazi domination without struggling? If there had been no war -- a decisive factor in the defeat of Nazism -- the invasion of the USSR by Hitler, would Europe have accepted Nazi domination for centuries? How long would the Nazi domination, the Nazi slavery in Europe, the Nazi racism, the extermination of human beings because of racial and political reasons have lasted? Would Europe have resisted that? Let us suppose that no army would have participated in the war -- would the Nazi domination have survived? You know that the answer is no. We also know that U.S. domination by any means would not survive, not even if it invaded and occupied our country. We are sure of that. What has defended us? No army has defended us. We have defended ourselves, and we will defend ourselves. Nevertheless, we are conscious of our strength. There are technical means to neutralize this or that weapon but there are no technical means to neutralize a fighting nation. There is Vietnam, to cite an example. There are millions of us ready to defend the country and the revolution. Why? Because there is moral strength that can only be defended with moral strength, with political strength, with ideology, with profound conviction. I am not trying to convert others to our convictions. We believe in our convictions and defend them with all our strength. I believe we are invulnerable. We do not frighten. Of course, it is lamentable that the U.S. Government feels that our statements are a result of its policy of force. On that path they will reach a point when they will see they are absolutely wrong. Revolutionaries do not give up or surrender when faced with a policy of force. I have to go to bid farewell to my son if you do not want to harm my relations as a father. [Castro gets up and begins walking away] That problem has not been taken up yet. It is not imminent. [Journalist] Could I ask you a question? It is an important question. [Castro] All chiefs of state are the same. We never say one is more important than another. What do you work for daily? [Castro does not stop for the question] -END-