-DATE- 19841215 -YEAR- 1984 -DOCUMENT_TYPE- SPEECH -AUTHOR- F. CASTRO -HEADLINE- CASTRO DISCUSSES IMMIGRATION AGREEMENT WITH U.S. -PLACE- CUBA -SOURCE- HAVANA TELEVISION SVC -REPORT_NBR- FBIS -REPORT_DATE- 19841218 -TEXT- CASTRO DISCUSSES IMMIGRATION AGREEMENT WITH U.S. F1150210 Havana Television Service in Spanish 0100 CMT 15 Dec 84 [Speech by President Fidel Castro to report on the U.S.-Cuban immigration agreement reached on 14 December; place not given -- live] [Text] Compatriots: A few days ago, during the closing of the Federation of Secondary School Students congress, I reported that talks between Cuba and the United States on immigration matters had begun. Today, I can report that the talks have ended and that this afternoon an agreement was reached. We would have liked to have announced this television appearance ahead of time, but in reality the agreement was reached at 1340. Furthermore, it was agreed to make the announcement at 1600, which is why we did not have much time to announce my appearance on television. Today, we have been very busy with the delegation headed by our great friend, Comrade Mengistu. I am dressed this way not because it is a special occasion, but because from here I will immediately leave for a reception in honor of the visiting delegation. I will begin by reading the communique signed this afternoon by Cuban and U.S. representatives. It reads as follows: The talks between representatives of the Republic of Cuba and the United States regarding immigration matters concluded today with the adoption of agreement for the normalization of immigration procedures and thus ends the abnormal situation which has prevailed since 1980. The United States will renew the issuance of preferential immigrant visas to Cuban citizens residing in Cuba up to 20,000 each year, especially to relatives of U.S. citizens and Cubans permanently residing in the United States. The U.S. side expressed its decision to set in motion, with the Cuban authorities' cooperation, all necessary measures to make sure that all Cuban citizens residing in Cuba, who qualify according to U.S. laws for immigrant visas, may enter the United States, up to 20,000 immigrants per year. For its part, the United States will continue to grant immigrant visas to Cuban residents who are U.S. citizens' parents, spouses, and children who are single under 21 years old, and not include these visas in the yearly limit of immigrants previously mentioned. Cuba will accept the return of those Cuban citizens who arrived in the United States from the Port of Mariel and who have been declared ineligible to enter legally into the United States. The number of these persons is 2,746 and their names appear on an approved list. The return of those persons will be carried out under an orderly reentry program with the cooperation of the two countries' immigration authorities. The process will take place in phases and in an orderly fashion until all identified persons appearing on the approved list have returned. The repatrations will take place at a rate of 100 persons each calendar month, but should 100 not return during a particular month, the difference may be used in subsequent months, provided that no more than 150 persons return any calendar month. The United States indicated that measures were being taken to give legal status as permanent residents, beginning now and with retroactive effect of approximately 30 months, to Cuban citizens who arrived in the United States in 1980 from the Port of Mariel. The two delegations expressed concern over the status of those persons who have been released from prison after serving time for activities termed by Cuban penal laws as crimes against state security and wish to reside permanently in the United States. The United States will facilitate the admission of those persons and their immediate relatives through a program to be carried out within the framework of pertinent U.S. legislation. The U.S. delegation said that toward that end, necessary steps have been taken for the admission of up to 3,000 such persons during the 1985 fiscal year, including their immediate relatives. The extent of the program and its possible expansion in subsequent fiscal years will be determined on the basis of experience gained throughout the process and the willingness expressed by the two sides to develop this program in such a fashion that will make its continuation possible until fully completed in the shortest time possible. The representatives of the Republic of Cuba and the United States agreed to meet again no later than 6 months from now to review the progress of the implementation of these agreements. I want to analyze the background of this accord. Discussion of immigration relations, or the normalization of immigration relations between the two countries, began after the Mariel incident in December 1980 with the Carter administration. The first contacts and discussions on this subject were held in December and January of 1981, but only for a brief time. The new administration entered at the beginning of the year, and the contacts and exchanges on this matter were suspended until May 1983. In May, we received communications from the U.S. Government asking Cuba to accept the return of those Cuban citizens who had arrived in the United States from Mariel Port, and who in their criteria and laws were considered as inadmissible. At this time a list was sent of some 800, and it was announced that this number would be several times larger, and the Cuban Government was asked if it could accept those people which they considered inadmissible or excludable, because the United States could not provide them with immigration visas to enter the country because U.S. laws stated that an indispesable requirement was the acceptance of the principle of the return of those so-called excludables. At that time, the Cuban Government answered that we were willing to discuss this problem, jointly with all the other immigration problems which have affected relations between Cuba and the United States. This is to say, we could not accept the principle of simply returning those excludables without discussion, analysis and the resolving of the rest of the immigration problems. In March 1984, the U.S. Government sent a letter to the Cuban Government saying it was willing to discuss this problem of excludables and the rest of the related immigration problems between the United States and Cuba. This took place this past March. The Cuban Government studied the proposal, and took into account that the U.S. election period was starting, and concerned that this complex and delicate matter could turn into an election issue in the United States, thus making it more difficult and perhaps compromising the possibility of a reasonable solution, we responded that we accepted studying and discussing this matter with the United States, but that we preferred to wait until after the U.S. elections, for the reasons I have already mentioned. Later on, during Jackson's visit to Cuba, at the meetings held on 26 June, this matter was presented among the 10 points which Jackson brought, and which were described as important matters -- according to what he indicated and said -- toward improving relations between the United States and Cuba. We explained to Jackson that the U.S. Government had contacted us in May, proposing to hold these talks, and that we had agreed, but had postponed them until a date after the elections, because of the reasons which I have already explained. However, if both parties agreed and if it was in the interest of the United States and the U.S. people to find a solution to this problem, we were willing to discuss this matter even before the elections. At the press conference on the night of the 26th, I explained our position on this matter, and stated our willingness -- I publicly stated it -- to discuss this issue, if both parties agreed. In a matter of hours, 24 or 48 hours, before Jackson's departure from Cuba, the U.S. Government indicated its willingness to discuss the problem immediately, exactly as we had proposed. The response was not immediate. It took a few days to arrive, because we had asked Jackson to communicate with the most probable opposition candidate at that time, who was Mondale, and to seek his views and his approval because we had indicated that we were willing to do it on a bilateral basis. Of course Jackson was in complete agreement and as soon as he was able to talk with Mondale and inform him about the matter and get Mondale's approval, he communicated with us and informed us about it. As soon as this requirement was fulfilled, which seemed indispensable to us, we communicated with the U.S. Government, expressing our willingness to begin discussing the question immediately. The United States proposed an initial encounter between the delegations of the two countries for 12 July. We immediately organized the delegation, presided over by Vice Minister Alarcon, to go to the United States. The site of the meeting was discussed. For us it was not an essential matter, whether it be in Havana, in New York, in Washington, anywhere, we made no objection. We said we were willing to meet there, if it would facilitate the discussion. They were not able to decide whether it should be here or there. We had no concern in this area. And in this way the talks on this subject began on 12 July. They met on the 12th and on the 13th, both delegations put forth their positions. I will not go into detail but work was started in this direction. Later the second meeting occurred on 31 July and 1 August of this year. The U.S. delegation was presided over by Mr Kozak, I understand that he was a political adviser in the State Department. Advances were made in this second meeting despite the complexity of the matters. However, the two delegations worked hard. Comrade Alarcon explained to us that they worked for many hours without rest and every point was discussed in detail. They returned to Cuba in early August. We can really say that progress had been made. Nevertheless, in the first half of August, certain difficulties arose, which led to the interruption of the negotiations. This interruption lasted approximately 2 months, the rest of August, September, and part of October. In mid-October, as a result of an exchange of messages between the two countries, it was decided to renew the talks. So the United States at the end -- in November -- and to say...[changes remark] It was agreed to renew the talks in November. In the month of November, the United States proposed as a date the days of 28 and 29 of that month. Our delegation departed for New York and on 28 November, the third round of talks began. This round was prolonged until 5 December. Hard work was done for practically a week. Our delegation was in constant communication with our country, and each point, each question was analyzed carefully, and during that time considerable progress was made. They were able to make a draft agreement. The delegation returned to Cuba and a fourth meeting was set for 13 December, yesterday. They worked all day yesterday and our delegation maintained constant contact with our country. They were analyzing the details and the words about the text that had been written. They worked all night, later I will explain why it took so long, until 0140, when they agreed. I tell you the work was hard and detailed on the part of the two delegations. There were points that were discussed a great deal. In the first place, there was the point dealing with the concept of excludables. If the legislation is studied, the fact that an entry is considered illegal in a country, makes those who enter that way excludables, and all those who left from Mariel could be considered illegal. The first point to be discussed was determining who were the excludables. The U.S. side expressed -- I do not want to go into very much detail, because I do not want to commit an indiscretion, but this is important -- the U.S. side expressed its intentions to resolve the legal status of the large majority of those who arrived from Mariel, and that the number of excludables, according to the judgment of the U.S. authorities, was limited. Then it was necessary to determine that number and identify those so-called ineligibles. Throughout the process, several lists were submitted, one, two, three. Our delegation went over these lists and work was done in our country in connection with these lists. The first thing we were interested in was to identify if they were persons had really left through Mariel. Even during the period when the negotiations were interrupted, the exchange of information on the lists continued. Our personnel worked hard in the very careful examination of those lists and great progress was made during those months in identifying all those persons. Sometimes it was a name, a surname, or not much information was available. There were cases of repeated names by mistake. In that manner the lists were purged, after the first one, the second, and so on. However, that work continued until today's early morning hours. Agreement had been reached in most every point, but the lists needed to be purged of all possible mistakes, repetition. The comrades in New York worked all last night and this morning. Plans had been made to end this process at about 1200 and the announcement made at 1500. In reality, it was almost 1400 when the exact number of persons was determined. This chapter of the lists, the definition, and the identification of the ineligibles caused a lot of work and took a lot of time. Another point which was discussed at length was the one dealing with the time needed for the return of these persons. The U.S. point of view was to return them in a 6-month period. Our point of view was that it should be done in an orderly and careful fashion, because the return of these persons and their assimilation [into our society] would take a longer time. We believe that even the United States itself needed more time to adopt all legal measures dealing with the return of these persons. We proposed that the return should be carried out at 50 per month. In the end agreement was reached on 100 per month. If in 1 month 100 are not returned, say, 30 are missing, they could come the following month. If more were missing they could all come, up to a maximum of 150. Another matter was that even though 20,000 per year were mentioned, we voiced the need for establishing a maximum of 20,000. These are relatives of U.S. citizens. Besides, we have those who had been imprisoned for counterrevolutionary activities as part of this program. In reality after a careful examination, it was impossible to establish a minimum. According to the laws, an exact figure could not be determined because each case had to be examined. We understood that the argument was justified, which was the reason for a paragraph stating that the two sides would make every effort to achieve the best use of the quota. Agreement was reached on this point. On another subject, everything had to be carefully examined to avoid conflict with U.S. laws which would hamper its implementation, because it would require changes in the laws, congressional resolutions, a complicated and delaying process. It was necessary to examine every point of U.S. law, because these people are there in the United States and the United States will admit those being reunited with relatives of those who emigrated from this country. For this reason it was necessary to pay great attention to all U.S. laws dealing with this. In the end agreement was reached and a formula satisfactory to the two sides was found. These immigration problems were responsible for an abnormal situation for nearly 26 years. Not only since 1980 -- of course in 1980 there was an abnormal situation -- but since 1959 there has been an abnormal situation. We were very careful to maintain the greatest secrecy on the reason for the talks. In the United States there were some leaks on what was being discussed, and certainly the press agencies were placing special emphasis on the return of the so-called excludables because they were mentally ill or because they were criminals. I believe it is my duty to explain very objectively something which is well known by all our people. On these two myths, I believe that, in a deliberate manner, international propaganda has made much of the mentally ill and the criminals -- much talk of the mentally ill who were taken out of hospitals and sent through Mariel. I want to once again reiterate, that not one single mentally ill person was taken out of our hospitals and sent to the United States through Mariel. In the first place, because our country places much attention on the health of our people, and has made enormous efforts to attend to each of the citizens of our country, free of charge, whoever it may be, cost what it may, it is absurd to think that someone would resort to taking someone ill out of an insane asylum and sent them to the United States or to any other country. We have too much respect for this. An ill person of any type is so sacred to us and forms such an essential part of our philosophy, conduct, and in our revolution's history, that no one would even try or even accept such a thing. All of this forms part of the [words indistinct] and myths, but this is one of the points which was much emphasized and propagandized overseas. If a mentally ill person left here, it was because a family member claimed him and nobody knew about it. The families said they wanted that one, that one, and so on, and if an ill person left here, it was an exception for that reason or because nobody knew about it. Those types of people were not included in the categories of those who left from Mariel. A few may have become ill while there, in those 4 or more years. We even have reports that some of those who were imprisoned there later developed these types of problems. In a group of more than 125,000 people, in any part of the world, in 4 years, some mental problems will arise in some people. That is why I say that those who may fall in this category, fall there because a family member perhaps claimed him, and nobody knew of the illness, or because they became ill later on. This is the historic, objective, and rigorous truth. Nobody here from a mental hospital was sent to the United States. I want to emphasize that. Secondly, criminals did not leave through Mariel. The whole world knows this as well. If some did leave, it was the exception, because nobody knew or saw them. Through error or confusion perhaps, but never was the idea broached of sending criminals to the United States, because of a fundamental reason. In our own country's security and society, it is impossible to exonarate a person who commits a crime and then give him the pleasure of traveling to the United States or another country. If there were such cases, they were the exception and nobody knew about it. That was precisely one of our guidelines, about this type of people not being authorized to travel to the United States. I repeat because of the very security of our people. This becomes something very simple, an attempted murder or murder, or something of this nature, are very serious crimes, and severely penalized under our laws and we cannot incur the irresponsibility of exonerating such persons. Several categories of citizens left from Mariel. Some of them wanted to be reunited with family members, but mostly those who left through Mariel were of the types who went to the Peruvian Embassy. Indeed, many who were in the Peruvian Embassy left through Mariel. I remember the applause, the solidarity, the sympathy, and the great international campaign which was unleashed when those persons entered the Peruvian Embassy. After the incident, which cost the life of a guard, they called them dissidents and we said they are not dissidents. Those people did not enter for political or ideological problems. As a rule, those people are antisocial. We said this and we explained it. They are individuals who did not want to work or individuals who did not adapt to the laws or to discipline, or the spirit of sacrifice of the people. It was not a question of ideology. Generally, they were not dissidents, they were antisocials. They tried to make this seem like a matter of dissidents. The campaign was worldwide. Anyway, I was happy to have those who wanted to receive them do so. And several countries went as far as to establish a UN commission. Costa Rica said: Let them come; and Peru said: Let them come; Spain said: Let them come. And we said: Fine, have all you want. Well, the facts do not bear this out. These individuals did not want to go to Santo Domingo or Central America or South America. These individuals wanted to go to the United States, the paradise, the ideal really, for this kind of people. I am not going to say that they are all alike. There are other people that I cannot categorize as antisocial. I can say that they are insensitive to the revolution, to the fatherland. They are individualists who only think of their personal interests because they do not have the spirit of sacrifice. They are afraid of the risks of living in Cuba. Even this factor has had an influence. These people have been afraid. It is known that at the beginning of the revolution, many families sent their children to the United States when they believed the idiocy that they were going to be deprived of control over their children. These were contributing factors, also the fact that here, it is necessary to struggle and work in a developing country or an underdeveloped country, which experienced colonialism for centuries and neocolonialism for decades and that the United States is a country with a much greater degree of development than ours. There have always been people who were ready to immigrate from a developing country to another where there are better material conditions or greater wealth. These people did not want to go to another Third World country, they wanted to go to the United States. Those were received in Peru with applause, not from the Peruvian people, of course, but from the authorities. They paid for their passage and they kept them in a park. (They played the part of hunanitarians, of civilized people, who were helping those people escape from socialism, who saved them from Cuba. It was a 4-year experience, sufficient to prove what we said: that those "heroes" were not dissidents but rather antisocial, and later they began to behave typically. They destroyed that park. None wanted to stay in Peru. They all tried to go to the United States. Finally, they organized demonstrations and conflicts and even blackmail and they did not want to abandon the park. In return for leaving the park after 4 years, they demanded visas from the government to go to the United States. What did they prove? Well, people with that spirit, with that mentality, who were believed to be heroes publicized throughout the world were of the same type as many of those who want to leave and who left from Mariel. There are other circumstances. There are activities that are crimes in Cuba but not in the United States. For example, prostitution is against the law in Cuba but not in the United States. Gambling is against the law in Cuba but not in the United States. The use of drugs is against the law in Cuba but not in the United States. There are cases of people who are criminals according to Cuban law but not according to the U.S. laws. Some of this kind of people left from Mariel, but they were not in the category of mentally ill or in the category of being guilty of violent crimes. Some of them have subsequently committed violent crimes in the United States, as occurs anywhere. There are people everywhere who have never committed a violent crime and one day they commit one. There might be that kind of people there who have committed that type of crime. However, individuals who were in the category of having committed violent crimes were not among those who left from Mariel. That is the historical truth. All this situation has a long history, as I said. All this abnormal situation regarding the migration between the United States and Cuba has been going on for nearly 26 years. It began on 1 January 1959 when dozens, hundreds of torturers and murderers who committed atrocities against thousands of citizens in this country and who committed all kinds of crimes -- some killed 20, 40, 50 -- left for the United States. Where did the Ventura's, the Carratala's, and all those people go? To the United States. Hundreds of them left fleeing revolutionary justice. Those people had committed acts of genocide in our country, but they were received, given shelter, and protected from the very beginning by the United States. Those people were criminals. If any criminals left this country, they did so on 1 January. And they were real criminals, dangerous criminals. They left by the hundreds; they left on ships, on planes. They had no problems. And so did all sorts of thieves and embezzlers; real thieves. I am not speaking of a man that stole something, a piece of furniture, a suitcase. I am not saying that a person who does this is honest or did well, but those were men who stole tens of millions of pesos from this country and these were the men that on 1 January took off for the United States. Those were real thieves, not minor thieves. They were the owners of the casinos, the owners of the cheap gambling places, of the lottery, of the drug business, all of them left for the United States and were very well received. They were worse than those who left from Mariel. This cannot be questioned. And all this began on 1 January. After this, and despite the fact that the legal departure was authorized, anyone that could steal a boat would head for the United States and he and the ship were well received. Whoever stole a plane was well received, along with the plane. Dozens of Cuban planes were taken from the country and if we are going to speak the truth then we must say that the history of hijackings began in Cuba, against Cuba. The world did not know about hijackings. It was after the triumph of the revolution when anyone who stole a plane was received as a hero in the United States that the ill-fated method of hijacking became popular. It was back then and for those reasons that the hijackings began but no one could foresee how far this phenomenon would go. They even awarded prizes of thousands of dollars to anyone who stole a plane from Cuba and took it to the United States. And the United States accepted all these people I have mentioned; they began to stimulate the departure from the country. Before the revolution the quota to enter the United States was limited. Only a few thousand could enter when there were many people waiting for the chance to go and work because they were unemployed. In the past those who did not have jobs wanted to immigrate and then those who did not want to work wanted to immigrate. After this the counterrevolutionary, the subversive, activities began against Cuba. There was a long period of recruiting among the people who had left Cuba. They were taught to handle explosives, weapons. They began to introduce weapons and explosives into our country. They were introduced by sea and by air. Plans for sabotage were drafted, counterrevolutionary groups were introduced in Escambray, Pinar del Rio, and other provinces in our country. The plans to sabotage our economy began. I am not inventing all this; all this was written about and proven by the U.S. Senate committees that were investigating this whole period. It was the time when the plans to murder the leaders of the revolution began. They tried to kill me by using all sorts of means. With chemical poison, disease, with rifles with telescopic sights, with explosives, with everything, and I am not the one saying it, the U.S. Congress, the U.S. Senate said this. It was a long period during which organizations were created, hundreds of counterrevolutionary organizations were created. Four persons would meet, decide on an acronym, a name, and ask the United States for help. Then came the Giron invasion. They came, armed to the teeth, supported by bombers, cannons, and so on, ready to invade the country at the service of a foreign power. They were the dangerous ones; they were criminals in the worst sense of the word. They murdered children, they murdered families. I wonder what could have happened and like many more they would have killed because among them there were men like Calvino, do not forget him, he was one of Batista's most famous henchmen. How many more people would they have tortured and murdered? Thousands. They were really dangerous. However, we returned them to the United States and they were received with pleasure, with honors, and with great pomp. Then came a long period of irregularities. As I said, before the revolution there was a limited quota, but after the triumph of the revolution they opened their doors to anyone who wanted to go there. They did not care whether it was 50,000 or 100,000; they took the technicians, the engineers, the teachers, professors, doctors, they took half our doctors and we faced that challenge. We began to prepare more technicians and more doctors and here is where our struggle began with the development of our universities. Ah, back then they took our elite; our intellectual elite who could not adapt to the conditions of sacrifice and struggle of a revolution. Yes, at the beginning they took many of these people from our country and we warned them about this. Before the Peru and Mariel incidents they took our technicians and intellectuals and now they are taking antisocials and it is not the same. We warned them about this. Then the October crisis in 1962 and all the flights from the United States were stopped. There were dozens and dozens of families with permission to leave and they were just left here. There were no flights; no one could leave. There was a blockade throughout Latin America; Mexico was the only exception. They did not have anywhere to go, and this prompted the illegal departures. Every time some of these people arrived in little boats or in fishing boats -- they hijacked dozens of these little fishing boats -- there was great publicity and a great campaign and this was what [Unreadable text]ed Camarioca. After this a solution was found and all those people waiting to leave were able to do so. This was then followed by another blockade and the policy to prompt illegal departures continued. We warned about this on many occasions but it was used as a political weapon. A person would do anything, murder someone, just to take his boat. He would hijack a boat and arrive in the United States and go unpunished. On several occasions, we warned them and told them that this had to be stopped and if not, it would create problems. Then, at last, this whole episode ended with the Mariel incident. I believe that these problems should have been solved 20 years ago, but because of a lack of maturity, common sense, responsibility, capacity to foresee the outcome, this policy was maintained for many years. This is the objective truth. Well then, what changes have come about? Important changes. We can all recall that mercenaries were not only trained and organized to commit crimes and carry out sabotage in Cuba but also to commit them abroad and against Cuban installations, against Cuban officials at the UN, Canada, Mexico. These mercenaries would leave the United States and murder a companero of ours and then would return to the United States and continue to walk the streets of the United States freely and unpunished. We still remember those who committed the atrocious crime, those who sabotaged the plane in Barbados. Those men had been trained in these techniques by the United States. That is the truth. This policy cost many lives and they were never brought to trial. There was never an important, real, or objective change during these past 4 years of this administration, whose hostility against us is well known. However, it did adopt measures against the groups, trained back then by the CIA, who were carrying out terrorist attacks against the Cuban personnel stationed in the United States. It was the first time that an effective measure was adopted. Only recently one of the most important ringleaders was arrested, tried, and punished. Today, we can say that those men do not operate as they please within the United States. They have had the basic common sense to try and protect the order in the country because if a precedent is established in which everyone can do as he pleases, then all kinds of phenomena could be unleashed. That is a fact. The second fact is that for the first time in this long period of time, measures were adopted against the illegal departures from Cuba and illegal entries into the United States. Measures have been adopted, however, at times there has been some hesitation. Not too long ago a group of stateless persons hijacked a boat in Varadero and threw the captain overboard when they were many miles offshore. Miraculously, he escaped,and they reached the United States. They were sent to some camps; there was a lot of propaganda; but some measures were taken. We discussed the case and were asked to send the captain to present charges. The captain went once, and he will go to the United States again. This took place some months ago, and there are some other cases. We know that the United States is no longer interested in promoting illegal departures from Cuba. This is a second fact, and it was one of the factors that we took into consideration when we discussed this agreement. In the third place, and this is a credit for Cuba, we have, thanks to strong measures adopted in our country against the hijacking of airplanes, been able to virtually solve the problem of airplane hijackings. This was one of the most worrisome problems for the U.S. people, due to the insecurity that they had about the fact that anyone carrying a bottle of gasoline, or a bottle of water, could say he would blow up the airplane if he was not taken to Havana. Even though the formal agreement between the countries had been broken after the Barbados affair, we have taken measures during these last years, measures that have become increasingly more strict, against hijackers. We had two hijackings in 1981 and the perpetrators were sentenced to 10 years. In 1982 we had 5 hijackings, and the perpetrators were sentenced to 12, 15, and 20 years. in 1983, we had 11 hijackings; 10 came from the United States, and the perpetrators were sentenced to 10, 15, and 20 years. In 1984, we had four hijackings; one came from Brazil, one from the United States, and two from Colombia. One group is still awaited trial; the rest have been given 15-year sentences. Cuba has been the one to solve the problem of the airplane hijackings in the United States. It was a diabolical invention carried out early at the beginning of the revolution, against Cuba. This is the unquestionable truth. How, conditions have been created for the first time in this 26-year period so that the immigration relations between two neighboring countries may function in a normal way. These conditions have been created for the first time so that [words indistinct] measure adopted by the two parties in this agreement, to stop the hijacking of airplanes. This benefits them more than it benefits us because they have many more airplanes than we do. The fact that no airplane hijacking has gone unpunished has guaranteed their almost complete disappearance. If someone still does not know or understand this and hijacks an airplane, let him know that he will not be received like a hero in this country. He will be exemplarily punished. The conditions have been created to eradicate all the illegal departures or the attempts for any illegal departure, to eradicate the tolerance and heroes welcome for those who hijack boats or try to illegally enter the United States. I suppose that the United States will be interested in maintaining these conditions and in completely discouraging any illegal departure because 25 years of bitter experience is more than enough. Conditions have been created to stop the impunity of terrorist attacks on Cuban officials and installations. This is a lengthy evolution from that period in which boats departed from Miami to attack refineries, depots, ports, and ships in our country. We have walked a lengthy road and created the conditions and bases for the normalization of these immigration relations. I have mentioned that those who have relatives and wish to join them in the United States will now be able to leave, according to our guidelines and tradition throughout these 25 years. We have asserted that carrying out a revolution and constructing socialism is a task for free and conscientious men. When we talk about willingness, we talk about willingness to build socialism in a conscientious way. We have never been interested in those who dream about a fantasy and the consumer society, its vices, or any thing from that capitalist society. We have never been interested in them but opened the doors so that they may leave the country. We have normalized this situation, according to our traditions. If there is someone with an important job or post, and there is no one to immediately replace him, well, we will delay his departure as long as necessary, until we can find a substitute. We are not concerned about this. However, the doors have been left open. This refers mainly to those who have relatives, because they have priority. I believe that those who are in this situation will take this as good news and it is also good news for us; they will be able to join their relatives. Unfortunately, we cannot offer them a reunion here because our country is struggling for its development and has need of housing installations. Logically, those who are working here get first choice, so we cannot consider any reunions here for the time being. The reunion should be there. Those who have been imprisoned for counterrevolutionary activities... [changes remark] I said earlier that there were 300 organizations here in the beginning; there were thousands of members. They were not 50,000 or 30,000 as they said, but they were approximately 15,000. This was a fact early at the beginning of the revolution. However, they left, basically due to the revolution's plans and due to the revolution's generosity. This was made possible by reducing their sentences and in other ways. We show that there is a general rejection among the people toward those involved in interrevolutionary activities, and this mistrust is logical. A few cases have been able to overcome this, with a lot of effort. We have always asserted, of course we have always asserted, our willingness to authorize the departure of all those who have been punished for counterrevolutionary activities, along with their families, so that they may live there. Of course, all of them feel that the United States has an obligation to them because the United States has encouraged them to carry out counterrevolutionary activities. They feel they have the right to go there and receive some kind of recognition for their efforts. I imagine that this will be good news for them too and for us, too. Those who are relatives of U.S. citizens fall into another category. Our responsibility will be to receive the 2,746 who the U.S. authorities consider as unacceptable or rejectable. They will be received within a reasonable period of time. Possibly many in the United States thought that we would not want, or be able, or dare to discuss this issue and find a solution to the issue, knowing as they do about the people's revolutionary zeal and their deep rejection of these elements who abandoned the country in one way or the other. They don't know about the people's identification, the ties, and the deep confidences in the leadership of their party, nor do they know about the confidence of the party leadership in the people. They would probably be surprised. That is what it is all about. For us, this is simple. [chuckles] We have tackled more difficult tasks and problems. We have all the moral courage. Yes, we have it. They made the U.S. people believe that these guys were draculas, fearsome people. In fact, they were not so fearsome. I already said that the really fearful ones, the ones who did terrible things, the ones who committed great robberies, went there and were applauded and honored. I must say that these people, and I sincerely believe it, those people are only slightly dangerous. Modestly speaking, they do not belong in the big leagues. They are small time; they are not first class. They do not constitute a danger to our country. Well, what are we going to do with these people who will return gradually? We are determined to comply strictly with all agreements. We will not use any kind of subterfuge or obstacles. Nothing doing, we are serious. Seriousness is a characteristic of our revolution, which does what it wants to do in a committed fashion. First of all, as they return, we will place them in quarantine because there are diseases in the United States that do not exist here, such as AIDS. Of course, we could be the recipient of any diseases in the Western world. However, that possibility is greater through the thousands of people going and coming back from the United States and the thousands of people who come here as tourists from the Western world. Nevertheless, we want to eliminate any possibility that those diseases will enter through this means. We will use all of our country's medical experience. First of all, we will place them in quarantine and give them a strict medical checkup to see if there is a single case of disease. In this way, we can proceed to take the proper therapeutic measures, including isolation against AIDS, that is, sanitary measures. We have enough tine to do this; if 1,000 come, [corrects himself] if a maximum of 100 return, then we have time to implement these measures. We are determined to follow this policy. If the individual is sick because he was already sick when he traveled there and nobody was aware of this; or perhaps he got sick there, which is more probable, we will be able to carefully investigate all this when we receive the information. We could not get all the information because these people (?live) in different parts of the United States. One of the most difficult achievements was the list. We wanted all specific details. It was not possible. We are interested in knowing whether an individual left from Mariel or not; whether the person is Cuban or not. We even agreed that if there is a coincidence or name confusion and an individual comes back without fulfilling the qualifications, he would be sent back to the United States. We agreed to that in the so-called implementation act of the agreement. If the person involved is mentally ill and afflicted with any other disease, then he will be sent to a hospital. He will receive full medical treatment as all sick people do here. Our hospitals are famous around the world; our hospitals are recognized around the world. It would not hurt us to give medical treatment to a person even if he got sick there. What we are sure of is that they will receive better medical treatment here than in the United States and it would cost nothing. If it is possible to cure this person, then this person will be cured because many mentally ill individuals are cured in our hospitals. It doesn't matter if he is a citizen or not. To the extent of our capabilities, it would not hurt us to treat a U.S. citizen in a hospital for the mentally ill in Cuba. Those people will receive all due medical treatment. If the individual has been in jail since arriving in the United States... [changes remark] There is a group of people who left Mariel and who have spent more than 4 years in an Atlanta jail. They have been in a foreign jail. Those people who have not committed any crimes in the United States and who return will undergo a medical exam. We will find them jobs and will help them rejoin society and make sure they do not have problems in the process of doing so. Anyone who committed a crime in the United States, any significant crime, and most importantly, anyone who committed a bloody crime, should not remain unpunished. This is basic ethics and security reasons lead us to think that anyone who has committed a prime in the United States or in any place in the world should not remain without due punishment. It is unthinkable that we would allow those who have committed bloody crimes to return here and be sent out on the streets. That is unthinkable. Therefore, even though there is no agreement and treaty regarding this, those people will be appropriately punished in our country. If they committed minor crimes, or crimes that are punishable here, they would have to face the corresponding punishment, the punishment agreed upon or the punishment in keeping with our laws. We will consider the legal aspects that correspond to each case. That is the purpose, if it applies. We have agreements with many countries; if a crime is committed abroad, it may be tried here. We do not have this commitment. This is an ethical matter. That will be the policy to follow in these cases. No crime will go unpunished. U.S. authorities have committed themselves to sending all documents, all details, and all evidence concerning these people. When a crime is confirmed, that crime will not go unpunished. That is the policy that we will follow. They are talking of 2,746. They just cannot send us all those people. I imagine that many of them who have spent the past 4 years in prison will certainly decide of their own free will to return because if they have not committed any crime in the United States, they can be free in our country. I do not think they have too much sympathy for the consumer society after spending 4 years in a maximum security prison. But independent of their sympathy,the policy I outlined will simply be applied to them. It will probably be difficult for the U.S. authorities to send them. Obstacles of all sorts can come up; legal obstacles plus other pretext. Some say that if they return they will suffer political persecution. There is no political persecution here. The mere fact that they are being sent back has absolutely no political implication. These persons will be treated most humanely here and in accordance with the principles of the revolution in line with the policy we have outlined. How many will be able to come? We will see and we will comply with our promise. If they cannot come, at least the people of the United States will be aware of the historical and moral fact that if all these men, who are considered criminals and dangerous, do not come, it is not because we do not want to receive them since we approved rational and equitable agreements. We are willing to receive,them. I do not think this is a problem the revolution cannot solve adequately according to the morality and authority that characterizes it. The discussions, I must honestly say, were characterized by hard work. Both delegations worked hard. Talks were serious, responsible, respectful, and there was the desire to find solutions. Days ago we commented on the existing situation in the world of mankind's worry about what lies ahead in the next years, particularly in the next months, and what will be decided about our future. I will not repeat here those words and reasonings. However, much more urgent and important conversations will be held in the next few weeks. Our talks were limited to a specific problem: the immigration problem. We did not discuss any other problem. We are not in a hurry to discuss any other problems. We are calm, serene, firm, and strong. We are not going to plead for anything from anyone. Our constructive positive, and receptive attitude does not imply an eagerness to negotiate; this we can clearly state. There will be more significant and important conversations and the world is waiting to see if these will bring a ray of hope. Talks are going on in Central America, with Contadora. There are talks between the revolutionary forces and the Salvadoran Government. There are talks between the United States and Nicaragua in Manzanillo. In January the very important talks will begin in Geneva between the USSR foreign minister and U.S. secretary of state, Gromyko and Shultz, respectively, on matters of tremendous significance. There are talks on the problems of South Africa. There are talks in other parts of the world on various subjects which have to do with peace and with the world's economy. Let us hope that the same spirit that has prevailed in these talks prevails in the other talks in the weeks and months to come, that will take place in the world. Let us hope they can reach rational results. This is possible. When you discuss things without arrogance, with seriousness, responsibility, and goodwill, you will be able to find solutions. As I said the day I talked to the students, nothing gives us the right to build hopes. We must realize and be conscientious that the world's current situation is dangerous and critical and that the problems are difficult and complex. I repeat that we should not build any hopes. We in particular, should not neglect our defense, nor lower our guard in the least. I must say that the talks were always specific about a difficult and complex problem, which represents a constructive and positive fact. Thank you. CUBAN GROUPS IN U.S. 'ANGERED' BY AGREEMENT FL171635 Havana Domestic Service in Spanish 1145 GMT 17 Dec 84 [Text] News on President Reagan's agreement with Cuba has provoked anger and strong opposition among Cuban counterrevolutionary groups, according to the UPI News Agency. The EFE News Agency said there was fear among those organizations; leaders that the immigration accord would be the first step toward the reestablishment of relations between Washington and Havana. They denounced the Republican administration's hypocrisy for waging a verbal war with Cuba and, at the same time, negotiating with it, according to EPE. Luis Lauredo, president of an organization called Cuban-American Democrats, said that in his opinion immigration talks will end in some kind of Cuban Government diplomatic recognition. He added that this will reveal the hypocrisy and two-faced policy of this government, referring to Reagan's administration. A columnist from the DIARIO DE LAS AMERICAS, which is published in Spanish in Miami, said he was very worried by the meaning of the Cuban and U.S. accord regarding the normalization of migratory matters. He said: I fear this is a first step of a new strain, calling the step given by Reagan unfortunate. -END-