-DATE- 19871124 -YEAR- 1987 -DOCUMENT_TYPE- INTERVIEW -AUTHOR- F. CASTRO -HEADLINE- CASTRO HOLDS DIALOGUE WITH STUDENTS -PLACE- HAVANA -SOURCE- HAVANA TELEVISION CUBANA -REPORT_NBR- FBIS -REPORT_DATE- 19880106 -TEXT- Castro Holds Dialogue With Students PA242025 Havana Television Cubana Network in Spanish 0158 GMT 24 Nov 87 [Dialogue with President Fidel Castro and students attending the international student conference in Havana, held on 23 November--recorded] [Text] [Saavedra] My name is Alfredo Saavedra and I am representing the National Union of Colombian Students, UNEC. Commander, it is an honor to be here with you in this hall. I am very happy to be in Cuba. I have two questions. First, I understand that the rectification process seeks to correct a number of Cuba's mistakes and policies. What role will Cuban education play in this process? That is the first question. The second question is: What are Cuba's science and technology policies based on its shortage of materials or natural resources? [Castro] Can you repeat the second question? [Saavedra] The second question is: What are Cuba's science and technology policies based on its shortage of natural resources? [Castro] Well, let me tell you that the rectification process is not just the correction of a number of mistakes in the running of the country. It is a more complex matter that has deeper meaning. We have decided to call it a rectification policy or the rectification of mistakes and negative trends. However, this has much broader implications. We have undertaken a struggle against recent and past mistakes, mistakes made in recent years, in the early years of the revolution, or before the revolution. In fact, we could even talk about the rectification of certain economic concepts that have prevailed in some schools, in some economic technocratic circles, etc. It has also been defined as the search for new solutions to old problems. Those old problems may be as old as capitalism or discrimination against women, for example. Not long ago, on 26 July, we said that the revolution itself was the first major step of rectification in our history. For that reason, I am saying that rectification has very broad implications and concepts. You asked, what is the role of education in this process? I do not know what education you are referring to; whether you are referring to our national education system, the education of man in the revolution, the creation of a revolutionary awareness, or to communist education. I think these types of education play a very important role--not in the rectification process, but in building socialism and achieving the unrenounceable goal of a society that is even more just and superior than socialism; that is, a communist society. I think two aspects of man's education--the education that is instilled from the day-care center to the university plays a very important role. [sentence as heard] However, the education of the people through their mass organizations... [changes thought] We have many extensive mass organizations, from the Pioneers for first grade children to [organizations for] intermediate level students. I think that intermediate level students asked the Congress [15th Congress of the International Union of Students, held in Havana from 16 to 20 November] to consider the role of these organizations in the lives of the people. We have organizations, not just of Pioneers and students--intermediate level students are in FEEM [Federation of Intermediate Level Students], university students are in FEU [Federation of University Students]. Our youths are organized. That is, our revolutionary youths are organized in the Union of Young Communists. Our workers are organized in unions. Cuban women are organized in their federation. Neighbors are organized in the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution; that is to say, in their blocks. Peasants are organized. In sum, we can say that all our people are organized. These organizations participate in the revolutionary process and in the education of the people and the revolutionaries. And there is our party, which must play the fundamental role in instilling a communist conscience. Without instilling a revolutionary and true communist conscience, socialism and communism will not be possible. To rectify means to strive to renew those concepts from which we began to be alienated as a result of exposure to other ideas and some other economic mechanisms. Che said that to build socialism is not simply to produce goods; it is to distribute the goods produced. He stressed the importance of instilling a socialist and communist conscience. Rectification is one of the negative trends we were falling into. [sentence as heard] From a stage where we hardly paid attention to material incentives, where we tried to skip steps, where we forgot the need to apply a socialist distribution formula, we were falling into a more dangerous stage of even worse consequences. We were drifting toward searching for solutions by putting too much faith in economic mechanisms. We tried to solve everything with money. We forgot about the spirit of solidarity that has always inspired our people. It was always an extraordinary spirit of solidarity. We forgot about volunteering--we considered it useless entertainment--and we were more concerned about paying overtime because we wanted to solve everything with money. That tendency, which I do not think has developed only in our country--I warn you--has been a negative one that we are currently fighting in this rectification process. Therefore, education in all senses, particularly political training, the creation of an awareness, and working with people, play an important role. The question regarding the role of politics in view of the country's scarce resources is a good one. I do not know everything, but I think it is a good and interesting question. It is a question each country, especially Third World countries, should ask itself. What role are we going to play in this world? How are we going to develop ourselves? How will we come out ahead? What is our destiny? In what areas are we going to develop? What steps are we going to take to progress, especially under these terrible conditions? There are adverse conditions in Third World countries that turn development into an almost impossible task. It is so impossible that I laugh when I hear the term developing countries. The real term should be underdeveloped countries. The gap between the rich, overdeveloped countries and the so-called developing countries has increasingly widened. Twenty years ago the difference between gross per capita incomes in developed and Third World countries was 20:1. It is now 40 or 45:1, so we are not getting any closer to the developed countries the gap is widening. This creates big problems. The list of countries seeking better conditions for development--now called a new international economic order--is long. Besides seeking better conditions for development, each country must face its own domestic problems. This is a problem of great importance for the youth and for everyone. Students from Third World countries and from capitalist and socialist developed countries must have a clear picture of the world in which they will live. We must say that the world in which we have had to live has been a difficult one, but you have a far more difficult world ahead of you. I am talking about all the problems of the future, especially those related to underdevelopment and poverty. We can talk about problems of ecology, about land turning into desert, about millions of hectares of agricultural land turning into desert, about the erosion of 15 to 20 million hectares of land each year, about the 850 million illiterate people, and about the 111 million children born in the Third World out of the 129 million born in the entire world. We can talk about water and air pollution, the hole in the ozone layer, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, population growth, the billions who have to be fed, and the increasing number of countries that are not self-sufficient. There were about 40 such countries some years ago, and now there are 100. We can talk about the reduction in the number of hectares [per capita for food production] in the Third World countries. From 1/2 hectare in the developed countries... [changes thought] you know, in the developed countries there is much birth control, and sometimes they even have to offer incentives so women will bear children, because they run the risk of reducing their populations... [The figure is] .30 or so--.36, if I remember correctly--hectares per capita for food production. We may talk about the current figure and the one in the year 2000. While the more developed countries with more technology and more productivity per man and per hectare will need more than .30 hectares--more than 1/3 hectares-[per capita for food production], the Third World countries, with less technology and less productivity per man and per hectare, will have reduced this figure to .19. We may talk about energy, housing, and health problems. In a few years, the world will have to face them. It is already facing them, but in a few years they will be even more grave and acute. They are problems that should have begun to be resolved 40 years ago, and the process of solving them still has not begun. I think this is a very important problem that involves all of us. Meanwhile, each of us struggles in our countries to find solutions. You asked me about the characteristics of a country with few resources. It is true we do not have those huge reserves of petroleum in the subsoil, that possibility of producing billions and billions of dollars with a minimum of effort. We have to live off and had to start from our sugarcane agriculture. The cane had to be cut by hand. We had to cut and carry by hand 50 or 60 million tons of cane each year. We invested the effort of 350,000 cane cutters in this. This forced us to undertake tremendous efforts to mechanize this work and to search for a combine that could cut and gather the cane. This forced us to make investments to produce these machines, which reduced the number of cane cutters from 350,000 to 70,000. We have reduced the number by almost 300,000. We had to start with an agriculture that was not mechanized. A great part of the work was done with oxen. The planting and harvest of rice was done manually. Construction was manually done. Loading in the ports was also manual. We have had to make efforts to mechanize the work, to first increase productivity and then to develop a number of essential policies to satisfy our material needs. We obviously also have had to make an effort in science. We created dozens of research centers. In other words, we have not only made efforts to develop, for example, agriculture, the construction material industry, and the machinery industry, which emerged with the revolution and is essential. We are developing the electronics industry so we can find our place in the electronics and computer field. We have an increasing number of very competent comrades in that field. We are advancing in medical research. We are advancing in the development of medical equipment. We are advancing in biotechnology and genetic engineering. There was a discussion here of genetic engineering in another sense. We are working seriously and making a great effort. Some of you visited that center where there are very young scientists who have achieved very important successes and are advancing toward the development of biotechnology. We are working in the field of computer programs, of software. Recently I met with a group of very brilliant comrades in this field. They are drafting development plans in this field, which includes robotics. I told you that we discussed the leading technology. We could talk of genetic engineering, computers, electronics, and robotics. I said we will not ignore these areas, and we will try to find--through a tenacious effort in many fields, but also in science--a place in the world for our country. Twenty or twenty-five years ago it would have been crazy to talk about some of the things I have been mentioning, but nowadays it is no longer nonsense to talk about this. This is a real possibility now. We think that despite all difficulties, and obviously based on our excellent economic relations with the socialist countries--we cannot forget that we have a close relationship with the socialist countries--we are fortunate, because amid this international crisis and catastrophes we will find a place in the world. We will find a way for our people, and we will find a place for our people. However, it hurts us that we do not see clearly yet--not clearly at all--we do not know what place and space the immense majority of the so-called developing--or, as I prefer to call them, underdeveloped countries--occupy. [applause] [Student] I am from the Malawi students association. In my country it would be a crime to read a revolutionary publication, particularly Commander Castro's works. Therefore, I must take advantage of this opportunity to ask a question. My question is: Commander Che Guevara, with his intense political activities, was loved by you, by the Cubans, and all oppressed people in the world. In this regard I would like to ask: From the legacy of this revolutionary, what has the most significance for the youths and students right now? [Castro] Well, I think there are several important things. Thus far Che has given us an impressive example of revolutionary and internationalist spirit and conduct. It will be difficult to find--there are many examples, and there are many values in the world--but it will be difficult to find a symbol in which the main characteristics of the revolutionary and internationalist spirit of our times has been concentrated in such a firm and sound manner. First of all, since the time he joined us--a small group of Cubans trying to carry out the struggle against the Batista dictatorship--he always showed altruism, throughout the years of the struggle. He did not come here precisely as a soldier; he came here basically as a doctor. However, he was a doctor who became a soldier, and he also continued [his work] as a doctor. He quickly stood out for his great courage, unselfishness, altruism, and willingness to die at any time and to offer himself as the first volunteer for any mission. He was also a doctor, because on certain occasions he assisted the wounded; it was a struggle that demanded mobility,; staying in one place was impossible. He not only fulfilled duties as a soldier, but also as a doctor. However, he stood out so much in the organization because of his initiative, and it was in the military that he excelled the most in this war of liberation. He maintained this attitude during the early years of the revolution, when he lived among us, assuming all responsibilities, including the most complex and difficult ones, assigned to him. I commented on his example of integrity, altruism, solidarity, internationalist spirit, and total commitment. I also discussed his political and economic thinking. Many people know Che and view him as an internationalist figure, a combatant, and a romantic figure, but they fail to pay close attention to his political thinking and especially to his economic thinking. Among the tasks assigned to him during the early years of the revolution was the administration of the first industries handed over to the people's control. First a Department of Industries, and later a Ministry of Industries. With his perseverance and theoretical ability to reach the core of problems, very important aspects pertaining to the construction of socialism were brought up: the methods to construct socialism, and the principles that would frame the administration of industries under socialism. These are very novel thoughts; it would take too long to explain these aspects now. There is some material around; perhaps some translated into English, but I am not sure; perhaps that is the case with words I said regarding this specific topic on 8 October, when we marked the 20th anniversary of his death. [sentence as heard] Within the rectification process, we proposed that our students make a deeper study of the political and especially the economic ideas of Che. Perhaps we can also print in English a book based on a very methodical study of his ideas about a great variety of documents. He did not have the opportunity to write a book condensing those ideas. However, the great coherence and depth of his thinking, which was put together by a young Cuban economist, draws our attention. We shall print many copies of this book in Spanish and will translate it into other languages and make it available in other countries, and perhaps translate it into English, which has become the official language. The colonialists left one good thing: a language helping us disseminate information. [applause] I speak English very poorly--with difficulty. I studied it in secondary school and a little at the university. However, at Red Square during the 70th anniversary, I realized that it allowed me to communicate perfectly with Kosygin; not with an Englishman, because an Englishman would speak fast and complicate matters. However, it is different when conversation involves another non-English speaker who shares your problems when speaking in English and speaks slowly. [crowd laughs and applauds] I spoke English slowly with Gromyko. Did I say Kosygin? I meant Gromyko, It was Gromyko. I spoke with him. I myself marveled at the interesting topics we discussed. Therefore, we will translate this book into English; at least into English. If we can, we will also translate it into French, Portuguese, Arabic, and the official languages of the Nonaligned and Third World countries. I use the case of that country located in the heart of Africa, which is facing a complex situation as an added encouragement to discuss this very important law in our country and to show that there is more than one theory and concept on methods of building socialism. [sentence as heard] In that speech, I said that not only in Cuba but also in socialist countries youths should study Che's economic theory. Otherwise, we run the risk of falling into the dogma in which there is one method or system to build socialism. That is why I say Che not only left symbols and an extraordinary image, but also left us a profound political and revolutionary thought process. I believe that any democratic and progressive man in the world must know about this. [applause] [Moderator] We will allow our friends over there to ask questions. That other one; yes, you. [Speaker, in English] Comrade Castro, we represent the Organization of Democratic Youths and Students of Iran. We are all students; we are all studying to build a better future for ourselves and all human beings. However, we are experiencing a very dangerous situation; we live in a world filled with regional wars, under the threat of a nuclear catastrophe. In your opinion, what can youths and students do to help achieve peace and to help those who are struggling for greater understanding and detente? Thank you. [Castro] I remember when the Brazilian comrade requested the floor. He said we had to fight with the people's powerful strength. I think this is an excellent idea. I agree with your concern about the current world situation and the need for the youth and the students to face, fight, and overcome these problems. I think we must fight in many fields. I think we must fight through all the youth organizations; students should fight through all the student organizations, just as citizens should fight through political and mass organizations, and workers should fight through the unions in each country, regardless of the specific circumstances involved. I think world opinion has been increasingly strengthened. It is a strength that plays an increasingly important role. I think this congress and conference is proof of the creation of an awareness, because as the UIS [International Union of Students] president said, notwithstanding religious beliefs and political affiliation, there is a great unity and, I would say, a great consensus regarding several basic problems of our era. I believe this meeting, your presence here, is an expression of what youths should do, because we must think of the power of ideas, which puts the people's will into action. Regarding the general question about what you should do, it occurs to me that you should take action, fight, not let pessimism carry you away, create an awareness and increase that awareness, seek unity and international solidarity as a general formula to face these general problems. I think that to be aware is very important. It is very important to be aware of the problems and their grave nature. However, it is also very important to be confident there are solutions to these problems. We also lived through this experience within our country's small parameters, because as young men, as students, we faced a very difficult task--many thought it was an impossible task. However, we did not give up. One should never give up. One should never quit in the face of obstacles, difficulties, and setbacks. We experienced serious setbacks and what occurred to many occurred to us: It seemed a crazy idea to try to build socialism 90 miles away from the United States. In the end, history will show that we were right, because we have been building socialism for nearly 30 years at the doorstep of the United States. We trust we are on the right path; we trust we are doing well. We have an infinite confidence in the achievements and successes we will have in this rectification process. We trust the results of our struggle. We share in our struggle. Our people's internationalist spirit is, precisely, proof that we believe not only in our own cause but in the causes of others, too. We are therefore optimistic not only about our own people and country, but also optimistic and confident in the just causes of this world. This is how I respond to any youth who asks me: What should I do to solve these huge problems? [applause] [Moderator] Well, I think no one would mind if we give the floor to one of the young women, who have not had an opportunity to talk. Let us give the floor to the comrade who is in the committee, [name indistinct] from the United States. [U.S. student, in English, fading into Spanish translation] Thank you. Comrade Fidel, I am from the Institute for Security and Cooperation in Outer Space, in Washington, D.C. We are working on preventing the expansion of the arms buildup in outer space. Part of our strategy is to investigate what kind of international security system could replace the arms buildup and the current instability, based upon an expanded definition of security, which involves economic and environmental issues. We envision a grouping of representatives from all liberation movements in the world, to monitor activities on earth and in outer space. We have a new sense of political organization and order to face the world challenges. What are your views on how the nations and peoples can cooperate in a system for joint security that will be trusted by all peoples? [Castro] Well, you have an institute to analyze and find a solution to all those problems, and you are asking me [applause] [Castro laughs] to give you an answer in 2 minutes. Of course, I believe the subject you mentioned has tremendous significance. I believe it is the root of the current problem. How can the world move away from such a crazy thing as the arms race and possession of nuclear weapons and start doing something even half rational and sensible? The path that has been followed since the first atomic bomb exploded is well known. There are many books on the subject. It is also known that the United States had the bomb. They held an Allied summit in Potsdam, and Truman did not tell Stalin they had the bomb. They kept their mouth shut and said nothing to their allies or to the ally that had sacrificed 20 million lives in the fight against fascism. They kept the secret--the monopoly--and dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Historically it is known as nothing but genocide. That bomb did not have to be dropped on a city. It could have been dropped on a military or naval installation, thereby wiping it off the map. They wanted to test the bomb with (?people) and to terrorize them in the most brutal way. That is history. I think if the Japanese leaders had had a bit of wisdom--to say nothing of the bad cause those leaders were defending--the same objectives could have been achieved without dropping that bomb on a city. After that, we all know the story: Then came the effort to have a monopoly on a decisive weapon, perhaps with the idea the Soviets would take 30 years to build such a weapon. The Soviets took only 3 years before carrying out their first nuclear tests--they found it necessary to enter that race. I say that historically the responsibility for the nuclear arms race lies with the West--the United States. If they sat down calmly and with dignity and thought things out, they would have to admit this. After that came the myth of the Soviet threat, which was actually the Soviet Union producing nuclear weapons only until a balance was reached. This was really a Soviet technological and economic feat, realized despite the fact they were totally destroyed by the war, for in the case of the United States, not a single factory was damaged. A great part of the Soviet Union was destroyed, and despite all this, it really is admirable how they were able to equip themselves with strategic nuclear weapons. Tens of thousands of nuclear weapons have been stored in this arms race. It is really crazy. Experts say the destructive power of existing nuclear weapons equals 16 billion tons of explosives. It is possible we do not have the money to pay for the quantity of TNT each of us would need to match the destructive power of such a nuclear arsenal--each one of us. They say it is enough to destroy us, I believe, 13 times over--that must be an arbitrary figure. They will not have to kill everyone. The remaining radiation, the ecological problems, will not allow even cockroaches to survive. They say these little creatures are the best suited by nature to survive radiation. We are faced with this situation. How do we get out of it? More nuclear weapons are being built. I believe in this case we have to recognize the USSR's efforts. I would not like you to pretend I am a Soviet attorney or an attorney at the service of the Soviets, receiving a salary to do the job. I say this because I am distrustful. However, thinking calmly and speaking objectively, I must give the current Soviet leadership great credit--particularly Comrade Gorbachev for his really admirable, tenacious effort to end the arms race and forge a path toward nuclear disarmament for the first time. In the near future an agreement will be signed that will be the first in history to destroy nuclear weapons. This is a small part of what needs to be done; the experts say it is equivalent to 5 percent of the existing weapons. Approximately 2,000 warheads will be eliminated between the two sides. I believe Europe, which has become an incredible trouble spot where it is impossible to know how many weapons are pointing in one direction or another, can begin to breathe. It will breathe in a philosophical sense, because enough warheads will remain to prevent them from breathing physically if a war begins. At least we will be able to sleep a little better, knowing there are fewer warheads aimed at one another. This agreement will eliminate medium- and short-range missiles up to 500 km. I believe the importance of this agreement lies in the fact it is the first time a step has been taken in the opposite direction. This is only the first step, it is nothing more than an initial step. I know the Soviets are making efforts to have this first step followed by a second step: the destruction of 50 percent of all strategic missiles. This would be a very important step forward, and I know there is optimism and hope in achieving this second step. Of course, this will depend on the final decision to be adopted by the United States regarding that nation's famous Star Wars plan. Their institute says the plan involves outer space, right? If this is so, I believe that institute in Washington is from another world. [laughter] I assume, however, you propose to prevent outer space from becoming a nuclear weapons base, and to diminish and avoid dangers on earth. The Star Wars plan seems to be closely linked to possible future progress on the path toward eliminating nuclear weapons. It seems that in response to a defense system's attempt to repulse a nuclear attack, the force and numbers of nuclear weapons play an essential role, as experts begin calculating how many weapons can be intercepted, how many must reach their destination, and how many must be fired to make them do so. I hope that in a new climate and a new situation, the obstacles that would hinder this second step related to strategic weapons can be eliminated. Now, apart from all the measures and battles the Soviets are waging--in case I did not understand you, your question was not only about strictly military problems but also about economic problems and how all of this relates to the entire economic situation--is this possible? Recently, during my official visit to the USSR--I arrived in the USSR on the 4th [November]--I could not be present at the solemn session but I received a copy of Gorbachev's speech and I read it very carefully. I found interesting comments regarding these problems, and even regarding theoretical analyses of these possibilities. Gorbachev said that with the new international situation, it would be possible for external factors to determine the most serious characteristics of imperialism's militaristic policies. In other words, they could limit the dangers of imperialism. Gorbachev posed a second question as to whether capitalism would be able to give up militarism, if it would be able to do without militarism. He then posed a third question as to whether capitalism would be able to do without neocolonialism and the unfavorable trade balance. These were his three questions, and they are closely linked to what you are saying. Gorbachev analyzed these questions regarding a certain optimism toward these problems. He also said that an awareness of the catastrophe threatening us could be translated into practical actions by the leaders of those countries. If they could only understand that even if only because of the preservation instinct, if only because of a class' interest in surviving, these countries would be capable of taking practical steps in this direction. He then reasoned that in response to the dangers of fascism, states of different social systems had united. The Western countries, the United States, Great Britain, and others, had joined the USSR to face the threat of fascism. Now, they join in response to such a terrible threat as the disappearance of the world, they are not capable of working together to face this threat. This was immediately followed by several considerations. Gorbachev said, for example, that there had been important modifications in the differences that existed prior to World War II, which led to wars between the imperialists, to wars among the capitalist countries. He said he felt the existence of the socialist camp, and the meaning these wars would have in the modern era had led the capitalist countries to handle their differences without taking them to the extremes of war, and that there had been a new alignment of the world as a function of these countries' economic power. Anyone can understand that there truly has been a new, peaceful alignment of the world. The possibility these modifications could help find solutions was analyzed. Discussing the military-industrial complex, Gorbachev said that after the war, the FRG, Japan, and Italy experienced miracles; they were countries whose military budgets were reduced and were still able to develop their economies. He concluded his analysis saying that on the other hand there was the explosive situation in the Third World, and capitalist leaders had to understand this was intolerable and had to be changed. The most important thing for us, which greatly encourages those of us who have been struggling with the economic crisis, the debt, and the need for funds for Third World development, is that funds earmarked for weapons can be used for development. We have seen these ideas and causes greatly strengthened by the connection the USSR established between disarmament and development. In sum, now the USSR has taken up these causes I have been supporting at the Nonaligned Movement and at all forums where we discuss development and the search for development funds--something very important to us. He [Gorbachev] summarizes it with this phrase: Disarmament for Development. This concept is closely linked with Third World interests to strive for disarmament and to earmark for development some of those resources that will be saved. He, Gorbachev, is seeking an answer to your question. He is seeking it and trying to find it. In practice, he is doing so. There is no doubt that this [missile limitation] agreement is a reality and that the possibility exists to reduce and destroy 50 percent of nuclear weapons. This would be a tremendously important event. We cannot downplay the importance of these events and the hopes they carry. Later, the rest [of nuclear weapons] would be [destroyed] because with those remaining, there is more than enough to kill us many times over. [sentence as heard] I already think this can become a snowball that grows. That snowball will help your noble efforts in Washington to solve these extraterritorial, rather, extraterrestrial problems. I mean extraterrestrial but also extraterritorial because these seem to be things out of this world. These problems are so complex and crazy that they seem to be a fantasy. I see that you are trying to find a solution to them. I recommend [chuckles] that you read Gorbachev's report. I hope you have no political prejudices to read Gorbachev's report. [loud applause] [Question] Dear Comrade Commander Fidel Castro, I am a member of the delegation of the Committee of Korean Students. We all know the Cuban people have always supported our peoples' cause and the Korean youth in the construction of socialism and the reunification of the fatherland. You supported the initiative for North and South Korea to jointly host the 1988 Olympic Games. Our youth will never forget this great solidarity that you have maintained as a constant internationalist. As you know, the 13th World Youth and Student Festival will be held in Pyongyang during the summer of 1989. This festival will be held in Asia for the first time. As the host organization, we want to invite the young students of the most diverse political, philosophical, and religious learnings in the world. In addition, we also want to invite the South Korean students and youths. In this way we want to show the broad, representative, and democratic nature that this festival will have. My question is, how do you assess the importance of the upcoming Pyongyang festival within the development of the movements for these festivals? [Castro] Well, we first have to see how we view the olympiads. I am reminding you that we are fighting for the Olympics to be hosted jointly. I think this is the most just matter. We have defended that issue and will continue to defend it to the end. That is clear. We hope the Olympics can be held in a just manner--jointly hosted. You know the South Korean Government is making efforts to make sure this does not happen. An electoral process, however, is now under way as a result of the great struggle of the people living in Korea's southern sector. This struggle has forced the government to make an opening. It seems there will be a democratic opening. The aspect that worries me the most about that situation, however, is the division between the two largest opposition forces. I am worried this division between the two opposition forces can lead to the victory of a minority that would maintain the current political situation. I believe if there was truly a democratic opening in South Korea, the obstacles could be considerably diminished and we could be successful in our efforts so the Olympics could be jointly hosted with the participation of youths and athletes from all countries. I think this is a very good area for which to request support. It is also a just cause. We have never hesitated in offering this support, even at the risk of not participating in the Olympics. This is one of many just causes we can defend, and I urge all student representatives to support the DPRK's right to cohost the Olympics. Regarding the festival, I have no doubt that it will be a big success. It seems to me that it is very just that this decision will enrich the role and prestige of the festivals. I think it is difficult to find a people in the world who are better organized and prepared to be the host of this youth event. Not too long ago I had the great honor of visiting the DPRK, and I am still impressed with the level of organization I was able to see there. I am impressed with the capacity the Korean people have; I am impressed with their enthusiasm, the colors, and the beauty, as well as the things the people are able to do there. I am convinced that all the youths who visit that country and participate in that festival will gather unforgettable memories and will return to their countries feeling a great admiration for the DPRK people. The truth is that the incredible effort made by the Korean people after the liberation--after the war imposed by imperialism and the country's total destruction--is not very well known. It seems hard to imagine what they have done with that country. Therefore, I have no doubts as to the success of this festival. I do not think any Western or imperialist campaign can tarnish this festival, although they have many publicity resources and practically control and monopolize the news that is disseminated throughout the world. I think the festival will be an important meeting at a moment which is even more important, in this new phase. It will be a total success. This is my impression. [applause] [Moderator] Back there comrades are [words indistinct]. [Translator] Thank you very much [words indistinct]. [Knight, in English with passage by passage translation into Spanish] I am Edwin Knight of the Dominica Labor Youth Organization. Dominica, our country, is where Eugenia Charles, the person who facilitated Reagan's invasion of Grenada, lives. We know that in Grenada, at the time of the invasion, many patriotic Grenadians and heroic Cuban workers died in the struggle to defend Grenada. I think we must acknowledge their contribution. For us it is a shame because today their blood stains Eugenia Charles' hands. It was also revealed recently that she was paid $100,000 for her involvement in the Grenadian situation, according to what the imperialists themselves said in Bob Woodward's and CIA chief William Casey's investigations. Casey has died, already. Anyway, history will show that we, the people, are in the process of dealing with her. My question is as follows. It concerns finances and international financial institutions like the World Bank, the IMF, the Paris Club, etc. We know they are the pillars of imperialism. They are used as means, as a gigantic octopus, which grabs a hold of the developing and underdeveloped countries' economies. We also know that we will struggle... [changes thought] They will resist all forms of change, change of structures, etc. We know they will do anything to prevent the dismantling of those structures. I would like you to tell us, youths and students, the tactics and measures that can be used to establish a new international economic order. Thank you. [Castro] Those institutions indeed act like a gigantic octopus. They are an instrument of imperialist domination over our countries. I truly believe the current situation of those countries that became independent in Africa and many other parts of the world and of those countries that were supposedly already independent is now worse than ever. In the past colonialists generally took care of certain things, things like making sure colonies had railroads or finding out if they needed new roads, education or health systems, etc. At least they spent some money in their colonies. They exploited the colonies, but they did invest some money in them. Today the neocolonial exploitation system is truly worse than the colonial exploitation one. Third World countries are worse off today; they are more exploited. Imperialism has replaced direct possession of those countries or colonies for more refined and worse methods of exploitation. That system is the one used primarily by the IMF and the World Bank. They use it not only as an economic instrument, but as a political one. At the United Nations the United States exerts very strong pressure on all the Third World countries every time it votes. The United States keeps a tally of all the times they vote against a U.S. proposal. Those who vote against a U.S. proposal find themselves with many headaches afterward because they are denied IMF or World Bank easy payment terms or loans. They are even denied the possibility of receiving food from the food assistance programs for the Third World. Therefore, those methods are openly used as political instruments and not only as an economic mechanism. That is precisely the struggle our peoples must fight to change that situation. That situation will not change with speeches, proclamations, or simple arguments. I believe the disarmament agreements are important because they are an objective opportunity that has been opened. One of the first things we must ask ourselves is what the source of funds for development should be. I believe we all agree those funds can only come from the military sphere. All of this is linked to the economic crisis and the foreign debt. What did we think? We thought that because of the disaster the foreign debt crisis signified the Latin American countries, first of all, and all the Third World countries should unite. A true historic opportunity emerged because for the first time all the Third World countries were facing a problem that was directly strangling them. When that debt grew to the huge figure of $1 trillion it became an unpayable debt. There should be no doubt about that. I know there were discussions here about what term to use, about whether to use the term unpayable, and about whether the debt is unpayable under specific conditions. It is unpayable under any conditions. No one should have the least doubt about that. It is not an amoral problem because morality is on our side and not on the creditors' side. The creditors carried out their development at the expense of the blood and sweat of our peoples, who were exploited for centuries. One has to see the origin of the resources for the development of these powers: the gold and the silver they extracted from Latin America and other continents, the exploitation of slave labor, and the extermination of entire populations to accumulate money and to become developed countries. Therefore, from any standpoint the debt problem is analyzed morality is on our side. From the historic, ethical, or legal standpoint morality is on our side. The United States used high taxes as the reason for starting their war of independence. They used to say: no taxation without representation. This is how they began their war of independence. We ask ourselves: What representation did the people have when tyrannical and repressive governments mortgaged their countries for tens of billions of dollars to buy weapons, to wage war, to squander, to waste them, etc.? There were also private companies that contracted debts of tens of billions of dollars; they are now asking the people to pay them. Our position concerning the foreign debt problem is well-known. We say it is unpayable and uncollectable, and this can be mathematically proved, based on every possible theory. It is clear that precisely because of the imperialist pressures and because of our habit of behaving well so the Yankees will not get angry, we use sweet and gentle words to talk about these topics. Therefore, in the international meetings one says: do not put that in [for discussion], put this other thing. I know because we have been struggling in the United Nations and the Nonaligned Movement each time a document is drafted. You had to make a concerted effort to draft your document. The topics have to be interpreted. When the meetings are so big it is not easy to draft documents. That is why when the meetings are very big we say that a final document and declaration should not be issued. We exchange ideas and discuss views, and we are left with the results from all these meetings. The Soviets have now done the same. No document was issued. There was a big meeting in Moscow. It was very broad, almost as broad as this international congress and conference. When a document has to be issued many people have to reach agreement. Some people want to issue a strong document while others do not want as strong a document. The fact is, we support your document because it states something. We are not going to adopt the position of not signing the document. However, there is that phrase, in the current circumstances, but no one knows what the hell the current circumstances means and what circumstances are necessary for the debt to be paid. Of course, the solution is that it is unpayable in dollars. Now then, I know a circumstance in which the debt could be paid: if the Yankee dollar becomes so devalued that it is worth less than the German mark was worth after World War I, when I million marks, a cartload, was needed to buy a pair of shoes. Another circumstance would be if the dollar is devalued as much as the Mexico peso--I think it is at a rate of 2,500 to the dollar--or if it is devalued as much as the Peruvian sol or the Bolivian sucre--which has been at rates of millions to the dollar. Such a circumstance would occur if one day the dollar is worth so little. With all the crazy things they have done this might occur someday, even though it might not seem likely. If the dollar becomes worth so little that one needs a cartload of dollars to buy a pack of cigarettes then I think we could pay the foreign debt. We could pay the foreign debt. [applause] This could be done by those who have the privilege of having their debt in dollars. When the unfortunate country--I say this because this is our misfortune--has its debt in German marks, Spanish pesetas, Italian lire, British pounds, or Japanese yen, then that unfortunate country is in a hell of a fix, as the popular saying goes. Because, what happens? What happens is that we are paid in dollars for our nickel. We are paid in dollars for sugar, and our export products... [changes thought] If we are not paid in dollars the payment is calculated in dollars, and then, well, if you do not get the raw end of the deal one way, you get it another. If sugar continues to cost 6 cents and the dollar is devalued by half, then each ton of sugar exported is worth only half as much. When you have to go to Japan to buy goods you find that the yen has gone way up, and one does not know how many tons of sugar are necessary to buy a bulldozer, for example. Or, if you have to buy something in Spain or in the GDR, or scientific equipment such as that mentioned by the Colombian comrade, it costs a fortune. Medical equipment that cost $1 million in 1985 now cost $2 million. If you sell your products to a given country, when you buy from them it is too bad for you, because when the dollar falls the yen and the mark go up. All because of this new, peaceful international alignment Gorbachev was talking about. So, the problem is really serious. One has to sell increasingly more sugar to obtain fewer yen, fewer pounds, and fewer marks to pay debts in those currencies. Anyone can understand that. Under these conditions those whose debts are in dollars pay those debts in dollars. Those of us who are under a blockade and cannot have debts in dollars have to pay in other currencies. The problem is really unsolvable. The debt is unpayable and uncollectable. One must say so out loud; one must be aware of it. I think even the creditors know this; even the U.S. banks know. This is probably why the debt has been devalued so much. There are countries whose debts have been devalued by 50, 60, and 70 percent. There may be countries that will buy back their debt for a couple of dollars in the end. For a couple of dollars, they may buy their debt, [laughs] because the debt is so unpayable that, in the end, perhaps they will even buy it back. And of course that is what the creditors want: to convert that debt into investments. They want to buy the countries and once again take over their riches, take over their industries, take over their services, and take over everything because of an unpayable debt. So, now we all agree the debt is unpayable and uncollectable. Interest payments come up for discussion. But it so happens these are also unpayable and uncollectable. All governments might commit suicide, political suicide, if they continue on this path, because the situation is becoming very explosive in Third World and Latin American countries. The situation is becoming explosive and unstable. When in 1985 we brought up the problem of the foreign debt at international meetings we proposed the Latin American countries meet and support the first country that would step forward. We proposed supporting the first important country, a country with a large debt, because a country that owes only $1 billion carries far less weight than one that owes $100 billion; the one that owes $1 billion is not paid attention to, while the one that owes $100 billion is listened to. The financial system trembles when payments are suspended. We have said this cause should unite us. We have proposed it many times, and we have addressed ourselves to many governments on this issue. We have to unite around the debt issue. It is the great common cause that must unite us, not only to write off our debts but to create a new international economic order. What was imperialism's strategy? It was the opposite: Dividing all our countries; negotiating today with one, tomorrow with another, the day after with another--negotiating with them one by one. They would meet at the Paris Club to negotiate with one. All against one. All the creditors would meet today to talk with Mexico, tomorrow with Argentina, the day after tomorrow with Brazil, and the next day with Venezuela. And they followed the strategy of division. Latin American political leaders were incapable of uniting against this problem. We urged three essential subjects: Uniting around the debt. The entire Third World cannot be blockaded, unlike Nicaragua or Cuba. The Third World cannot be totally blockaded because those imposing the blockade would be blockading themselves. We insisted on this, on the struggle for a new economic order, and on integration. Those were the three necessary steps if the Latin American and Caribbean countries really wanted to develop and if they were really seeking a possibility of development, because the political leaders were incapable of resolving this problem. In those days we were calling for unity within the countries and among the countries. We had a message for all society. When we spoke with peasants, with workers, with journalists, or with students, we always used the slogan of Unity Within the Country to wage this battle. We said: We must wage the battle for survival, we must unite all internal forces in the country, and we must unite the various countries. Therefore, we believed and still feel this strategy was correct. Actually, however, the Latin American governments were incapable of accomplishing this unification to create a force capable not only of rejecting the debt but also of demanding a new international economic order. What is the new international economic order? There are a number of elements; there are a number of articles; there is a document on the new international economic order that was approved by the majority at the United Nations. That document implies the cessation of unequal international trade. What is unequal international trade? Unequal international trade means that if 25 or 30 years ago perhaps 2 tons of coffee or 1 ton of coffee was needed to buy an 8-ton truck, today it is necessary to have 6, 7, or 8 tons to buy the same truck. Instead of the coffee it could be sugar or any other of the basic products from Third World countries; it could even be copper. Today, one must give two or three times more goods to obtain the same product that was needed 20 or 30 years ago. This is the fateful law of unequal trade, which is also the fundamental element of neocolonialism, which has put us into a worse situation. It has forced us to trade more products each day to receive less goods from the industrialized countries. Unequal trade is a terrible state; it is a tendency which must be reversed. This is one of the issues included in the UN agreement on the new international economic order; it means an end to protectionism, dumping, and financial manipulations regarding currency, as they have done by raising the interest rates whenever it pleased the industrialized countries. Reagan raised interest rates through the U.S. mechanisms and the power of the U.S. economy to get money from all over the world to finance the U.S. arms race. Thus, a country contracted a debt at a 5-percent interest rate, and the interest rates went up to 12, 14, or 15 percent. This is one of the factors that affected the debt growth. The new international economic order means that when a new, synthetic good was produced to substitute for a natural product the interests of the countries that depend on that product would be taken into account so as to not ruin the country and so that some method is implemented to compensate the countries for the damage that could be caused by any technological innovation of this kind. The concept of the new international economic order should be expanded and improved. However, these are the main elements. Therefore, we proposed to annul the debt and to demand--because we must demand--the new international economic order. Actually, there could have been a tremendous battle regarding the debt, to impose a new international economic order, but it would have been necessary to unite the forces. However, the forces were not united; they were dispersed. We have said the democratic opening in Latin America does not have any future unless this problem is resolved. If they [Latin American countries] insist on paying the debt, and if this problem is not resolved, generalized social explosions will occur in this hemisphere. We have said it; we hope that changes can take place gradually, without resorting to violence. However, the appropriate conditions for the social explosions are being created. I have said that today no one can deny that explosives are accumulating in Latin American societies, which will lead to social explosions. I believe that this is one of the elements cited in the Gorbachev report I recently mentioned, in which he speaks precisely about this explosiveness. There is a truly explosive situation in the Third World countries; it exists in Latin America, which makes the situation intolerable. Therefore, if there is not a resolution of the debt problem, if there is not a new international economic order, we will have very serious problems. This is one of the things about which we also warned political leaders from these countries. Who would know better about this than Cuba? The revolution occurred in 1959, and at that time Latin American countries did not owe I cent. As a consequence of the Cuban revolution, the U.S. adventures against Cuba--particularly the Playa Giron invasion--and the fear of revolutions in Latin America, the United States drafted a theory and a policy for social reforms. Imagine, the United States began to talk about agrarian reform. This is a country that had invaded Guatemala in 1953 because it had implemented agrarian reform, a country that blockaded Cuba and organized the dirty war against Cuba and the mercenary expedition just because Cuba had implemented an agrarian reform long before Cuba declared the socialist nature of its process. Simply because Cuba had implemented a radical agrarian reform, the United States decided to eliminate the revolution. However, since the United States saw that the revolution had solidified after the Giron defeat it started to talk about agrarian and fiscal reform, education and housing programs, and about economic aid. They even talked about $20 billion in economic aid. This was in 1960 and 1961: $20 billion in 10 years. At that time, Latin America did not owe a single cent. Its population was one-half what it is today, less than one-half. Today, the population is more than twice what it was. It owes $400 billion. It is obliged to disburse tens of billions of net capital. Indeed, between 1982 and 1986, tens of billions of dollars in net losses, net disbursements of capital, went from Latin America to the industrialized countries by way of interest payments on the foreign debt. As for dividends paid by the companies, the profit on investments drained $132 billion in net capital from Latin America. Can this continent develop in these circumstances, when all it receives must be turned over to the industrialized countries? This situation has had tremendous social consequences, and the students know this. Today, the problems have doubled. The foreign debt now amounts to $400,000 [as heard]; that is, 20 times the figure that Kennedy mentioned for the Alliance for Progress. If more than $20 billion is taken from Latin America each year, how can the situation fail to be explosive? What debt can it pay? What development can there be? This is why per capita production in these countries has decreased in the past few years. This is why the real income of these countries has decreased considerably. In some countries, like Bolivia, the gross domestic product has decreased by 27 percent. Let's not consider Bolivia, which is a country of relatively little industrialized development. Venezuela, an oil country, has had a 22 percent drop in income in this period; Argentina has had a 16-percent drop; Uruguay, 15 percent. The same is true of Mexico, Peru, and other countries. It is a terrible situation. If the Yankees invented the Alliance for Progress 26 years ago, when the situation did not even approach the one that exists today, then one wonders: Are they blind to the problems building up in this hemisphere, to the explosive situation that is being created? It is an objective reality, and I believe it is a problem that this generation of youths will have to face with realities. No solution is in sight. I think that a great historic opportunity to unite forces for this battle has been lost. What will be the solution? No one knows. It is possible the social explosions-...[changes thought], in the final analysis the solutions the leaders have failed to find will be found by the people one way or another, in their desperation. We are not preaching violence. On the contrary, on many occasions we have urged them--the industrialized countries and the whole world--to think about this carefully. That is why I say it gives us great pleasure to see that the Soviet leadership, for the first time--and I say truly for the first time--has taken up this banner, this problem of the foreign debt, the economic crisis, and development, and linked it to the matters of peace and disarmament at a time when very important steps will be taken in this vein. I would say we should support the policy of peace, detente and disarmament with all our strength. We asked: Where will the money to erase the debt come from? We said: We do not want the poor little bankers to go bankrupt. We pity them. It would break our hearts for the bankers to go bankrupt. What we propose is that the governments shoulder the debt owed to their banks, that the governments of creditor countries keep the banks from failing by paying the debt, using a portion of the resources expended for weapons. We also said: We do not want the taxpayers to pay more taxes. It is not necessary, since a portion of the resources squandered on weapons could resolve the foreign debt problem without ruining the banks. We said more: We said tens of millions of workers in the industrialized world are idle because a large percentage of industries in the industrialized world is idle; at the same time there is a need, a great demand in the world for those industrial products for development purposes. But there is no money. We reasoned if the debt were wiped out, if this money paid in interest were invested in development, there would be a new international economic order. In this new international economic order, if the resources used to pay interest were invested in development, in time the idle industries in the developed capitalist world could begin producing, and millions, tens of millions of workers in those countries could be given jobs. After all, it is absurd that, while in one country the workers and productive industrial capacity are partially idle, in another world, billions with great need are unable to purchase any of these [industrial] articles. We specifically brought that up, saying if we canceled the debt and established a new international economic order, Third World countries would then have a purchasing power of some $250-$300 billion per year. I am talking about the value of the 1985 not the 1987 dollar. The 1987 dollar is worth about half of what it was worth in 1985. Now we would have to talk about more dollars. That was rational; that was logical. We did not want to scare anyone; we did not want the bourgeoisie of the other countries to think we were promoting subversion; nor did we want the developed capitalist countries to think we were proposing the ruin of their banks or their economies. That was the path to be followed. Thus, we welcome the support we now receive from the USSR. We welcome their theories at a time when we are taking such important steps. They strengthen our demand. In a nutshell, this is the strategy we had planned for confronting this problem. We were making efforts to find a solution to social problems and the debt issue and to achieve disarmament, peace, and a new international economic order. I do not know what will happen in the long run with institutions such as the International Monetary Fund. It is part of an era. These organizations will have to be reorganized or changed if we truly hope to find peace, detente, and to initiate joint efforts for development. However, these are the great questions remaining to be solved, to be cleared up. I believe this is similar to what was raised by the U.S. space institute, [Institute for Security and Cooperation in Outer Space] comrade. What's the correct name? The inner space [other world] or outer space...? Inner space means that it comes from beyond, from beyond the grave. Does it not? And outer space means that it comes from beyond this planet. [applause] [Santiago] My name is Franklin Santiago, and I am a member of the Chilean delegation attending this very important event. First, in the name of the delegation and with a great deal of pride, I would like to applaud the presence and the words of Comrade Fidel Castro. We also welcome the presence--if my photographic memory does not betray me--of that great Latin American writer, Gabriel Garcia Marquez. [applause] I wanted to ask two questions, perhaps not as complete as some of the questions that have been asked here. As Chileans who have left our country just a few days ago--some of the few Chileans who have been able to leave Chile and come to Cuba--we are worried about the situation in our country. We are worried that after 14 years there are prisoners and missing persons. We are worried because we know there are plans to turn the entire higher education system over to private hands, to destroy the universities. We are worried about the implications of the foreign debt--the infamous foreign debt--for our future, for our personal lives, for our country's future. Since we are worried about all of this, I would also like to ask a question regarding this situation. In 1987, Chilean students, university students, university professors, have developed a movement unprecedented in Chilean history. There has been a standstill for over 3 months; they have challenged all the rules imposed by the dictatorship. They have incorporated into the movement all social issues. They have turned that struggle for econornic rights into a political struggle for the achievement of democracy and for the end of the dictatorship in Chile. They have even been able to solve in practice a problem to which the commander referred some moments ago. That is the problem of unity; in this case, the division in the opposition, which exists in Korea, and which on occasion also occurs in Chile. We have been able to work together for a common cause. We have achieved one of the highest and most significant triumphs in history--or at least in the last 14 years: We have been able to bend Pinochet to our will, and to remove from office a man whom the dictator had appointed rector of the most important university in Chile just a few days earlier. We also were able to promote a national strike on 7 October and a demonstration a few days ago--on the 19th--attended by over 250,000 persons, we have been told. What I am leading to is: What is the role that the Chilean students should play, on the one hand, and the Latin American peoples and the peoples of the world, on the other hand, in promoting these achievements by our peoples in such a manner that we will be able to turn these achievements into the final defeat of the dictatorship and to topple all institutional systems? What is the actual value that Commander Fidel Castro places on this process that is happening in Chile? One last question--and this one is somewhat related to the presence here of Gabriel Garcia Marquez--and that is: What is the role that Latin America should play--and perhaps has this role not been a bit neglected by all of us--in the liberation of the cultural movements in Latin America and the world? Those are my questions, and thank you. [Castro] I think indeed you have reminded us that Chilean students have waged a heroic struggle. They have achieved one of the most remarkable victories of the past 14 years because they were able to organize a movement, remain firm and force the regime to dismiss and remove the university president. All the world feels your struggle is most noteworthy, very successful, and very important at this time. I think it also...[changes thought] everything you mentioned can become a symbol of what the Chilean people can do. You asked: What can the world do? In fact, it would be fair to say one of the current causes that has enjoyed the most solidarity is the Chilean cause. It is supported by all countries--countries from all continents, and by socialist, capitalist, and Third World countries. I see few struggles are so highly regarded and receive so much support. This is because of the trauma caused by Allende's ouster and murder. It is debated if he killed himself or if he was killed. That is of no importance. The treacherous coup led him to his death. If he killed himself before being taken prisoner he deserves twice the credit, even if it is suicide. He killed himself because he did not want to be taken prisoner or to fall into the hands of his enemies. However, that shook the entire world and sparked a solidarity that continue after 14 years. I would even say it has grown. The Latin American peoples have also expressed their solidarity to the extent possible. I think this solidarity is an incentive, a force, and a support expressed in many different ways. Of course, the solution to Chile's problem is in the hands of Chileans and cannot be in the hands of anyone but Chileans. I am absolutely convinced Pinochet is there because the Chileans did not unite. All Chileans are not to blame for this lack of unity, of course. The most progressive, patriotic, and revolutionary forces have always endorsed unity. I am absolutely convinced that if the Christian Democratic Party [PDC], the centrist parties, of which the PDC is the chief representative, had united with the left--and they had to do so to save the country from that sinister tyranny oppressing it--if they had united, Pinochet would not be there. Pinochet is there precisely due to the lack of unity in Chile's opposition forces. I think history will deal harshly with those to blame for the lack of unity. If those forces were to unite, Pinochet would be unable to resist. Although they are divided [chuckles], the Chilean people have waged impressive battles. I have seen some documentaries on what the people do. I have seen women fighting in the streets, standing up to water cannons and tear gas, and engaging in pitched battles against the oppressive force. Students recently waged a major struggle. The resident... [changes thought] in sum, there have been impressive mass movements despite the division. I think this division is really one of the factors that has allowed Pinochet to stay in power for so many years. I think that despite the division, the people can oust Pinochet just as you were able to remove that university president. One way or another the people will impose unity, and one way or another they will sweep Pinochet away. No one can predict how. Many forms of struggle and expressions of struggle are seen through armed struggle, rebellion, resistance, mass movements, and all other means, even through legal political means as is the case with this matter of the plebiscite. I think all weapons are legitimate and all methods are correct to hound and isolate the tyranny until it is toppled. This means even political struggle or even the electoral struggle are legitimate. If Pinochet is still there and wants to be reelected, I feel all means are correct and can have the same goal. I am convinced they will oust Pinochet. The Chilean people will take it upon themselves to oust Pinochet, one way or another. I am convinced of that. My conviction grows stronger the longer he wants to insist on staying in power or the longer he is bent on staying in power. I think Pinochet's days are numbered. This problem could have been resolved a long time ago if they [the Chileans] had united. Unfortunately, some of the forces made it impossible to achieve this unity. I think, one way or another, the people are going to impose this unity. I think Pinochet, with his excessive ambition and stubbornness, will inadvertently help bring about this necessary unity of the people. Perhaps by the next UIS [International Union of Students] congress you will already be free of the Pinochet nightmare and will be able to bring a message of liberation to the students. You can count on our solidarity. [applause] [(Rona)] Comrade Fidel, I am (Lars Rona), a Swedish economist. I work here in your country. As an economics professor, I envy you greatly. You explain economic problems so simply. One spends hours in seminars and conferences, while you, in two words, explain the terms deficit and unequal trade. I never understood those terms quite in that way. You also explain the interrelationship between factors that lead to underdevelopment--the process of permanent underdevelopment, which you explained so well--and external factors, such as dependence, the foreign debt, etc., much better than many books and treatises by experts. Therefore, in this regard, I take my hat off to you, Comrade Fidel Castro, and also extend a tribute on behalf of all the comrade students here. One question. No, two questions, or rather, three questions. In your speech [words indistinct] almost more violent than the later one in Moscow on the 4th of this month, you repeated the question asked by Comrade Mikhail Gorbachev: Can the capitalist system go beyond neocolonialism? I have wondered, upon hearing you on various occasions: Why is the term neocolonialism used instead of the term imperialism in the speeches I read as an economics student? Do you use it to make a distinction, or is it simply a synonym? That is one question. On unequal trade: In the many things I have read by the French economists Emmanuel and (Christian Palois) on unequal trade, an important distinction is made: An unequal exchange of hours and efforts is structurally different from using labor in different countries because of the different productivity rates and prices not in line with the value of the product. You apparently define unequal trade in terms of trade growth [termino de crecencia de intercambio]. We will not go into this matter at length. In other words, you see the dynamic aspect, while the French see trade from a static viewpoint. According to them, unequal trade is something that is just there; you say: No, the problem is that it is decreasing. Do you see a contradiction in that? Third question: external and internal factors, and the dependency debate. I was also in Chile at the time--in the 1970's, the Allende times. There was a great debate about whether the dependency theoreticians were right or whether the theories of others--well, among others, I remember (Marta Hamlecker), an excellent Chilean journalist. [sentence as heard] If I am not mistaken, here in your countries [as heard] many years ago, they said: Don't forget the internal factors. Well, I don't know, Comrade Fidel--the teacher, the professor has told us the principal factor that accounts for the nearly 20-percent decrease in per capita income in Bolivia, Venezuela, Argentina, and other countries--more so in some cases--is the interest payments on the foreign debt, which are earnings that have been taken out of the country. I do not have the figures memorized; I do not know how you remember these figures. I would also like to ask you to explain something about the role of the internal economic policies of the governments of Bolivia, Peru, and Chile--which I do not need to describe--and several others, in which the economic policies of the domestic leadership--in collusion with foreign interests, by the way--determine the negative effect of technological, economic, and, as you just said, financial dependence on the foreign debt. Well, those were the three questions. I had others, but I am not going to talk any longer. [Castro] Is there another question? Do you want to add something? I think the questions you have asked are interesting. You can ask a fourth question. [(Lars Rona)] Thank you, Comrade. No, let someone else take the floor. [Castro] What did he say? [Unidentified speaker] He said to let another comrade ask the fourth question. [Castro] Another one? Don't give others the floor, because night is coming. Well, this issue of whether capitalism can exist without neocolonialism is one of the issues that was broached tonight. To a certain extent it was brought up by a comrade, and I referred to some extent to what Gorbachev said when he asked those questions in his report. That report shows some optimism, and there is no other choice but to be optimistic. If we are not optimistic, however, and if we do not preserve peace, then we will have a disaster. It is really a shame that international student congresses and nonaligned meetings and conferences cannot find solutions to the many problems we face. Well, the congresses and conferences are useful as well as entertaining. Solutions must be found. I think Gorbachev was trying to give a theoretical formulation; he was trying to formulate some theoretical reasonings on which to base his policy and hopes. There is logic in trying to influence all events, objective reality, and objective laws. Of course, there is also logic in mobilizing the people. It is not enough that an idea be correct. One has to struggle so the idea can become reality. Therefore, if we want to live without neocolonialism, we have to prevent it; we must liberate ourselves from neocolonialism, one way or another. Of course, it cannot be by using nuclear weapons, because if we do, then neocolonialism and all of us will disappear. It is a matter of really understanding the need to find a solution to these problems. Of course, it is very significant for us when a super power--one that possesses a large part of those nuclear weapons--talks about reducing those weapons and about linking disarmament with development. It is very significant that it proposes these things. This is the first time we see a superpower talk so clearly about this link between peace and development, between disarmament and development, between peace and the disappearance of neocolonialism, and between peace and a new international economic order. The United States does not want to hear about this. The developed capitalist countries do not want to hear about this. Now then, we do not use the term neocolonialism to avoid the term imperialism. Neocolonialism and imperialism are closely linked. When I use the term neocolonialism, it is to express a form of exploitation that is different from that of direct occupation and exploitation of countries. It is the more economic and even more effective and destructive way in which we are presently exploited. I cannot say which is worse. I cannot say whether colonialism or neocolonialism is worse. People are starving to death today. They are dying from hunger. They are dying from diseases. This is a tragedy. Each year, 14. I million children under the age of 5 die in the world. While we say one word, three or four have died. What do they die from? From curable diseases, such as diarrhea. Children do not die from diarrhea in a developed country, in a country with minimum health levels. Children die from malaria, from respiratory problems, from measles, and from other infections. However, 90 percent of those children could be saved. Perhaps even more could be more saved. With a health system such as the one our country has, 95 percent of those children could be saved. They could be saved with an adequate food system and a minimum of hygiene. Three million people die of malaria each year. The money needed to implement a program to struggle against and control malaria equals the amount of money spent on the military in 12 hours, 12 hours [repeats himself]. I think I read in some newspaper that $2.52 billion, $2.52 billion [repeats himself] is spent every 24 hours. Half of that amount would be enough for the program against malaria. As a result, every 3 days, 120,000 Third World children die of curable diseases. In other words, every 3 days, the Hiroshima bomb goes off in this seemingly quiet and peaceful world in which we live. Every 3 days so many children, who could have been saved, die--equal to the number of children killed in Hiroshima by the nuclear bomb, and practically no one is aware of that. That is neocolonialism; that is the current imperialist policy. Of course, imperialists do not reveal those figures in the mass media. Imperialists are the owners; they have a monopoly on international news. Four or five agencies virtually control all international news. They publish millions of words daily, but they do not publish the truth; they only talk about the wonders, the humanitarian spirit, and the generosity of capitalism and the consumer society, and everything else. However, I ask you to analyze the fact that every 3 days, 120,000 children, who could have been saved, die. We are not talking about 120, 1,200, or 12,000 children. We are talking about 120,000 children. That is a reality. That is neocolonialism, which is the current expression of imperialism. I am really not too shy to use the word imperialism. I use it...[changes thought] You flattered me by saying that I explain things to you in a simple manner. That is what I try to do. When I use the word neocolonialism, I am referring to the situation in the Third World and the current system of exploitation, both of which are part of imperialism. Unequal trade. You said you envy me, because I can explain things clearly. I would say that I envy you for the number of authors you were able to mention and the time you have to study each one of them. I understood you perfectly well. I think there is not really a theory that clearly and scientifically explains the phenomenon of unequal trade. I have asked the comrades of the International Institute of Economics to make detailed studies on this problem to try to explain this phenomenon that we know through experience. What I was explaining before is real. They [not further identified] buy our products at an increasingly cheaper price and sell us theirs at an increasingly higher price. Perhaps in those books you have-...[changes thought] I will use this opportunity to ask you the favor of writing down the names of the authors for me if their works are translated into Spanish, because I will make an effort to read them. I am very interested in knowing the various ways in which they explain that phenomenon. I have tried to explain that phenomenon in a perhaps unscientific but in a simple, logical manner. In conversations and interviews, I have tried to explain some of the factors related to the foreign debt problem. I said: Well, a Colombian or Brazilian worker and his family grow, harvest, and clean coffee beans for hours every day without having electricity, potable water in the house, without having a decent home, healthy food, a good education, or recreation, and yet he produces the coffee that is drunk in New York, California, England, France, and all those countries--or perhaps he produces cacao--and they drink his coffee after lunch, after all their meals, at any time of the day; they eat their cakes, drink their tea, and all those things. I am not only speaking about the bourgeoisie; I am even talking about the workers of these countries. One reads how much they earn. The person who produces coffee gets 10 percent or at the most 20 percent of the price when it is sold to consumers in these countries. However, the consumer can buy all those things because he has a $30 or $40 or $50 salary per day. While the consumer of our products earns $1,500 per month, our coffee producer make $1 per day. He earns $30 or $40 per month. This means that... [changes thought] This is why I would like to look into some of the theories you mentioned here; I would like to know about other viewpoints. However, actions speak louder than words. One would have to explain why this Latin American is trading 40 hours of his work for 1 hour of work performed by an Englishman. This is reality. It would be necessary to analyze all the factors leading to this situation, because this involves an efficiency problem. However, I believe this is not just an efficiency problem. There is a problem involving an unequal exchange of human efforts, because there is no coffee-harvesting machine in the mountains; there is no machine to do this kind of work. It is possible the Englishman may have an automatic lathe efficiently making precise parts. However, the Englishman's efficiency does not help us at all, because it does not lower the cost of the equipment he produces. Whether it be X-ray equipment, other medical equipment, or a lathe to be used here, they will sell it to us at higher prices regardless of how efficiently it was produced. We could add to this the fact that our barefoot men--there in Colombia or in Brazil, where they and their families are starving--are even paying for the arms race and are paying taxes the UK Government will receive and spend on weapons, schools, and all that. This has not yet been explained accurately and scientifically. I believe further analysis is required on this issue, and I invite you to do it. I invite economists to make an in-depth analysis of this problem. We are limiting ourselves to merely mentioning that this phenomenon exists. We would like to find scientific and theoretical explanations for this phenomenon. You just said my explanation was clear-cut and more to the point. You said it reflected the phenomenon with dynamic clarity; it showed the phenomenon of an increasing deterioration. I am going to add something else: Not long ago, I read some reports that make one think and that at the very least reflect the level of the current crisis as regards our countries and their basic products. If we leave out oil, the purchasing power of our basic products is the lowest in the past century. An international organization has made a study covering the period between 1887 and 1987 and determined the purchasing power of our basic export products is now the lowest it has been in a century. I can mention sugar as an example. The current purchasing power of sugar is half of what it was during the 1930's crisis, the severest economic crisis experienced during this century. We refer to the purchasing power of our sugar, the one we export to that garbage dump called the world market. Dumping is practiced. Europe, which used to import sugar, now exports 100 million tons of subsidized sugar. The United States, which until recently imported 5 million tons of sugar, now imports barely 1 million. Cuba alone exported more than 3 million tons of sugar to the United States. When the blockade against Cuba was decreed, our quota was distributed among other Latin American countries to ensure the support of their governments. This helped buy the support of Latin American governments for the U.S. aggressive policy toward Cuba. But this share of the Cuban quota has now been taken from these countries, and not because they proclaimed a socialist revolution or advocated Marxism-Leninism. The United States deprived these countries of their quota out of sheer selfishness. Sugar has now been subsidized. All this has created dark conditions. I refer to sugar, but the same type of problem affects other basic products, in one way or another. It is incredible, but the products of many Third World countries have a purchasing power much lower than they had prior to the great 1930's crisis. This purchasing power is said to be the lowest in the past 100 years, but this is because records for earlier years do not exist. Imagine if they had gone as far back as 1837. I met with a railroaders' congress yesterday. We discussed the development of the Cuban railroads, which started in 1837. Our railroad was one of the first in Latin America. One of the reasons for this development was the good sugar price at the time. In other words, if we were to go back and look at the situation 150 years ago, we would discover the purchasing power of the Third World's basic products is lower than it was 150 years ago. It is the lowest in the past 150 years. This phenomenon requires an explanation. We cannot fold our arms and resign ourselves to it, because this concerns the problem we mentioned earlier. The problem is, how are dozens and dozens of countries going to survive? On what are more than 100 countries going to live? Therefore, these problems call for theoretical and scientific explanations. I think it should be a task for economics or a team of economists, political scientists, theoreticians, historians, and others to resolve these real problems we are experiencing. The issue of the internal and external factors was rightly mentioned. There was only talk of the external [factor]. Throughout this fight against the foreign debt the only thing we discussed was the foreign debt itself. We said if the policies needed to pay that debt continue there will be widespread explosions. I said the military does not want to run the government in many places because those countries have become unmanageable. The military in Uruguay, Argentina, and Brazil turned the government over to civilians, and not just because of the people's struggle. That is, of course, a fundamental factor. The fact that the countries had become unmanageable and were ruined had a big influence. The military in some countries may be invited to run the government, but it does not want to because society has become unmanageable. There was a time when Latin America received hundreds of millions of dollars in loans, had huge revenues, and there was no foreign debt. Business was good then. Those were the fat years, we could say. When the hard times came, however, the military was enthusiastic about returning the government [to civilians]. The military kept for itself some powers we are familiar with. The true fact is that we wondered: Now, [chuckles] who will want to run the government? New military coups are less likely, I said, although you should not rule out social explosions as a result of this tragedy and this crisis. That is what we said about the internal situation. However, you are very right to suggest that all these problems from abroad are greatly aggravated by domestic policies. Too little is available. The overall economies of all those countries are being deprived of everything possible. We have already discussed the money being spent to pay interest. I have spoken about flight of capital, which is to be added to the $132 billion lost between 1982 and 1986. All those who hold pesos in Mexico, soles in Peru, australs in Argentina, or bolivars in Venezuela are afraid of inflation; they fear half the value of those currencies can be lost overnight. Those who hold those currencies try to exchange them for dollars. If they change their money into dollars now they would be making a mistake. So they try to change their money into British pounds, German marks, Japanese yen, and Spanish pesetas to protect their money. The amount of money involved in flight of capital is tremendous. I his is to be added to the losses experienced as the result of dumping and the losses experienced because of unequal trade, which I did not include when I mentioned the $132 billion lost. I have not mentioned the effects of dumping. In other words, to the economic harm caused by extracting $132 billion from the hemisphere we must add the calamities caused by all this, such as capital flight, unequal trade, etc. Of course, all of these internal factors are to be added to the external factors. The primary duty of these countries' leaders is to work and unite to fight these external factors. We are not advocating an internal revolution but rather unity to wage this outside battle as a requirement for survival, for development, and even for socialism. But if we want to construct socialism and you have nothing, you don't have a foot to stand on, you have to start out from total ruin, total poverty, and total plunder; not even socialism can be established. Undoubtedly, domestic policies play an important role in the calamities peoples suffer. Cuba suffers this type of problem to an extent. We have said it is not so serious because we depend on our economic relations with socialist countries. This year was one of the more complex for the revolution. We had to cut imports from the convertible currency area by half. I would like to assess what our people have been doing and the revolution's success. The revolution had not been developed. The revolution implements very important social programs with the help of the masses. Perhaps you have had the opportunity to hear about some of the things being done here. For example, there are the minibrigades that are based on the support of the masses, on the efforts by the masses to resolve social problems, housing problems. It is impressive. The city of Havana has nearly 30,000 minibrigade workers. They have deployed such a massive social force that we said they could build not only a new Havana, but a new Paris. We can mobilize 100,000 people, but we do not have enough materials or programs to carry out. We could do so much construction. When are we doing all this? We are doing all of this precisely during a year in which our imports in convertible currency have been reduced to half of the minimum we thought was necessary for the economy to operate. Although it is true that we have a lot of raw materials coming from the socialist area, we need some raw materials and products that we cannot purchase there and that are indispensable for our production. It is amazing how this country has managed when suddenly, from one year to the next, its imports were reduced by half. It seemed impossible to resolve this difficult situation. The efforts our people make in substituting for imports, in resolving problems, are amazing. Our people work under great tension. We are going through one of the most difficult years. We have been tremendously affected because our imports have been reduced due to all of those factors we have mentioned. Among those factors is the fact that the currencies with which we have to pay have become much more expensive. The currencies we are talking about are the currencies of the countries with which we trade. We do not trade with the United States; we are prohibited from trading with the United States. Therefore, if the dollar drops we cannot take advantage of that and purchase with a dollar that is worth less. We must purchase with currencies that are more expensive. The price of sugar, natural disasters such as drought and hurricanes, and export prices that were severely affected have all forced us to make a tremendous effort. However, you observe that we have not decreased the education budget in our country; rather, it has increased. You do not find a single unemployed graduate among the thousands who graduate every year from our teachers' schools. We have a reserve of 18,000 grammar school teachers who are employed in training professors and teachers. We send thousands to study and pay them their salaries, and we employ the teachers fresh out of school to teach. You don't find a nurse here who is unemployed. You don't find a doctor unemployed here. Our health programs have not been decreased, either. We are graduating more than 3,000 doctors. You have not been able to see the family doctor system yet. We have a really novel primary health assistance system. It is new; such a system does not exist in any other country. It is developing extraordinarily rapidly in our country. Our average life expectancy has increased; the mortality rate during the first year of life keeps decreasing. Our health programs continue to improve; our culture, our sports, and our economy continue developing despite problems because we use our resources rationally, and we do not have flights of dollars here. The only way a dollar can leave is by swimming, by making use of the gulf stream, crossing the gulf, and landing in the United States. [applause] Domestic policy is very important, but at the Nonaligned Movement, the Group of 77, SELA, etc, the only practical way of really uniting the people is to invite them to struggle for matters that are of common interest. We cannot go around telling governments: Hey, stop passing reactionary laws, distribute what you have in a better way, put an end to privileges, impede corruption and theft. We cannot appoint ourselves guides for those countries, and we cannot go around telling them what to do domestically. This is why in those battles we are united with those governments, as united as all of us are here at this conference, despite religious, political, and other differences. That is how we also try to get these countries to join together toward a common goal. But we cannot meddle in their domestic affairs. I completely agree, I perfectly understand, and I think you are absolutely right when you say that domestic policies play an important role. I would say they not only play an important role, they play a decisive role, but this is a matter that each nation must resolve. We want to be united. A priority right now is this struggle for a new economic order to liquidate the debt, to have a possibility of survival, and right now this is more important than social changes because we can do nothing in terms of social changes if we have nothing or very little to share. One good example of just how important domestic policy is is what is happening in Cuba in the face of a very difficult situation. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of any other Latin American country. Their education budgets have been diminishing every year, the budget per student has been going down every year. This is where economic problems first have an impact. The countries with an underdeveloped capitalist system have always a more or less grave situation, regardless of the resources the country may have, and it is always the working people who suffer there. Education, health, food, and the standard of living--all the programs suffer and deteriorate in those countries. What do they spend on education? It is said that the U.S. Air Force spends more money each year than is spent on the education of 1.2 billion children from the Third World. At a moment of crisis such as this it is the workers, the students, the people who suffer the most because of unjust distribution policies, because of the exploitation that exists in those countries. So, I totally agree with your observation. I urge you and those like you to do research. I will take advantage of your question to urge you to find and publish a scientific and theoretical explanation of this problem. [applause] [Speaker] I believe I am interpreting the feelings of all the delegates now when I express to our commander in chief our appreciation for his presence at this student conference. We also want thank the delegates who have been with us all along for this congress, at this conference. There are more than 524 delegates, from 216 organizations and 127 countries, who have been with us during these work sessions. We want to thank them for their presence and to tell them that we and especially our organizations will rise to the challenge of sustaining the same level of energy generated by the 15th Union of International Students Congress and this student conference until they are held again. Thank you very much. [applause] [Castro] I want to apologize because you have questions, interesting questions to ask, but we are running the risk of wearing ourselves out, you and me, the risk of losing interest in this dialogue. And for this reason I find it suitable to put an end to this exchange of ideas. I also want to say that I am very satisfied with the essence of the subjects that have been discussed and with the importance of the questions that have been asked. We could have run the risk of spending time on less important issues. We have been allowed to elaborate on and to talk about issues that are central, essential, in today's world. I am satisfied because it has been well worth the mental effort necessary to accomplish this kind of task and because I believe that of all the debates, of all the dialogues, we have had, this is one of the best in which I have participated. Thank you very much, comrades. [applause] -END-