Fidel Castro at Congress on Culture & Devel, 6/11/99 - Full Engl.Text
 

 Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit


                    CUBANEWS FROM RADIO HAVANA CUBA

                        E-mail: rhc@radiohc.org
                        http://www.radiohc.org

 
June 23, 1999 
English Translation of Full Text 

FIDEL CASTRO SPEAKS TO CONGRESS ON CULTURE & DEVELOPMENT, June 11 1999

Radio Havana Cuba brings next the full text of the speech given by 
Cuban President Fidel Castro Ruz in the closing ceremony of the 
first International Congress on Culture and Development at the
International Convention Center, June 11, 1999:

Esteemed ministers and culture leaders in the countries 
of Latin America or Ibero-America, 

Distinguished guests, 

Dear delegates to the first International Congress on 
Culture and Development:

During four days those of you who took part in the Congress have worked
hard. Happily, your efforts coincided with the ministers' and culture
leaders' two-day meeting --on the 10th and 11th-- preceding the
Ibero-American Summit conference to be held in the month of November. We
have tried to be informed of what you have discussed and what the debates
have been like.

It seems to me that the organizers are satisfied with the results of both
meetings.

Among the subjects discussed --and undoubtedly there were many and of great
value-- some caught my particular attention. I find they are among the
subjects related to culture and politics that I mostly appreciate. For
example, the need for states to promote a correct policy of environmental
education; the importance of history to convey values and defend the
peoples' identity; the need to reject colonialist or hegemonic models; the
advisability of avoiding damages to the national identity from tourism; the
necessity to meditate on the current world, to build a public awareness and
to transmit ideas which I consider of basic importance; the urgent need to
foster a true revolution of man's ethic through his education and the
implementation of the right cultural policies. This is really the first time
that I see this last subject so clearly formulated.

Finally, there is an item 12, which I do not know if absolutely everybody
will agree with but at least I do, and it reads: "The capitalist economy
cannot guarantee the prospective development of humanity because it does not
take into account the cultural and human losses that result from its own
expansion". I would go a little bit further and say that not only does it
not guarantee the prospective development of humanity but that, as a system,
it puts at risk its very existence.

You urged me to say a few words the day that the Congress opened and I
touched on an essential point related to the transfer of ideas.

I do not know how much discussion there has been on the ways to implement
that principle. I do know, however, that as a fundamental part of the
integration policy that is up for debate you have raised the need for
culture to be given a priority over the other objectives of that
integration.

We feel that, united we would be worth the sum of many and very rich
cultures. In this token, when we think about Our Americas, as [Jose] Marti
called it, the Americas down from the Rio Bravo [Rio Grande] --although it
should have been from the Canadian border because that portion also belonged
to our Americas until an insatiable expansionist neighbor seized the whole
territory of the west of what is today the United States of America-- it is
that integration which I have in mind, but including the Caribbean nations.

The Caribbean nations are still not present in these Ibero-American Summit
conferences. Fortunately, all Latin American and Caribbean countries will,
for the first time, meet with the European Union in Rio de Janeiro on the
28th and 29th of this month. So, the family is already growing although, in
general, the Caribbean nations have been the last of the forgotten as we,
Latin Americans, also were and still are forgotten.

The sum of all our cultures would make up one enormous culture and be a
multiplication of our cultures. Integration should not adversely affect, but
rather enrich, the culture of everyone of our countries.

In this context, when we talk about unity we still do so in a narrow
framework. But I like to go beyond that. I believe in the unity of all the
countries in the world, in the unity of all the peoples in the world and in
a free unity, a truly free unity. I am not thinking of a fusion but of a
free unity of all cultures in a truly just world, in a truly democratic
world, in a world where it would be possible to apply the kind of
globalization that Karl Marx talked about in his time and that [Pope] John
Paul II talks about today when he speaks of the globalization of solidarity.

We still need a good definition of what the globalization of solidarity
means. If we take this thought to its final consequences we will realize
that item 12 is a reality because I wonder if the capitalist system can
guarantee the globalization of solidarity. No one speaks about the
"globalization of charity", which would be very good in the meantime, but
let us hope the day will come when charity is unnecessary. That will be the
day when the sentiments of solidarity become universal and the spirit of
solidarity goes global.

I say this to make it clear that I am in no way a narrow nationalist or a
chauvinist. I hold man in a higher concept and cherish more ambitious dreams
for the future of the human species, which has gone through so much hardship
to end up being what it is today, and accumulated such knowledge as it has
today, while still not deserving the description of a truly human species.
What we presently have is still very far from that but, perhaps, the further
it seems, the closer it actually is, since this humanity is going through a
colossal crisis and it is only from colossal crises that great solutions may
come.

That is what history has been teaching us so far, up to this very moment
when the real globalization, which was not even mentioned a few years ago,
has been made possible and inevitable by the enormous advances in science,
technology and communications. People communicate with one another in a
matter of seconds, wherever they are.

Suffice it to say that it is more difficult for me to communicate with our
minister of Foreign Affairs here than with our ambassador in the United
Nations. The ambassador there has a cellular phone and even if he is in the
meeting room beside his colleague, the U.S. ambassador --with an empty seat
between them-- he can talk over the phone. Just today, when the phone
connection was made and I asked where he was --whether in the mission, at
home or in the United Nations-- he said: "I am in the car." I said: "In the
car! But I hear you so well!" He said: "Yes, we have stopped at the traffic
light now." And we continued talking for several more minutes. It is
incredible, really.

Technological advances explain the accuracy of the famous satellites guiding
the missiles and the smart weapons which are not so smart that they do not
fail disturbingly often, that is, if they actually fail unintentionally.

The incident with the Chinese embassy [in Belgrade] seemed so strange, so
bizarre; then in trying to explain it they said the problem was that they
had been bombing guided by some old outdated maps. So, due to some outdated
maps a bomb could have fallen here too, in this meeting room.

Money moves rapidly, too, and speculative operations with currencies are
carried out at great speed for a trillion dollars every day; and they are
not the only speculative operations taking place, nor is it only with
currencies they speculate.

At the time of Maghellan, it took I do not know how many months to go round
the world and now it can be done in barely 24 hours.

Me too, I went round the world not long ago, stopping off in Denmark, China,
Vietnam, Japan, Canada and back to Havana. I then began playing with the
numbers and doing some calculations and I realized that flying East, on a
faster plane than mine, it is possible to leave China early on Monday
morning and arrive in Havana on Sunday afternoon.

We have seen the world change in a few decades.

If you do not mind I will introduce an issue, just like you have introduced
many others, and I would call it Culture and Sovereignty.

I will rely on concrete facts and I am not talking theory or philosophy but
things that we can all see, that even a near-sighted person can see: namely,
that there can be no culture without sovereignty. [Minister of Culture] Abel
[Prieto] outlined how a handful of brilliant personalities succeeded in
saving the national culture from American neocolonialism and hegemonism in
Cuba.

Another country has more merit than we do: Puerto Rico, which has been a
Yankee colony for 100 years now but where neither their language nor culture
have been destroyed. It is admirable! (APPLAUSE)

Of course, imperialism has today much more powerful means to destroy
cultures, to impose other cultures and homogenize cultures --much more
powerful means. Perhaps, at this moment, it can be more influential in 10
years than it was in the past 100 years. However, the example I gave you
sheds some light on the peoples' capacity to resist and on the value of
culture. The Puerto Ricans were deprived of all sovereignty and, despite
everything, they have resisted.

Although it is possible to find examples to show that there can be culture,
or that a certain degree of culture can be preserved without sovereignty,
what is inconceivable or unimaginable in today's world and toward the future
is the existence of sovereignty without culture.

While you, Congress delegates, ministers and government leaders of culture
in Ibero-America were here yesterday involved in your debates, a great
battle was being fought at the United Nations for sovereignty and we would
say a major battle for culture, too. Yes, because I say that, today, the
means in the hands of those who dominate the world economically and almost
politically are much more powerful than they ever were.

That great battle had to do with the Security Council meeting which
discussed a draft resolution on the war unleashed against Yugoslavia,
basically against Serbia. In my view, it was a historic battle because
imperialism and its allies --or better still, imperialism and those who
support it against their own best interests-- are waging a massive struggle
against the principle of sovereignty, an awesome offensive against
sovereignty.

We could see this coming. After the collapse of the socialist camp, the USSR
disintegrated and a single superpower remained in the world. It was
noticeable that that superpower --of well known origins whose diabolical
methods and principles are also very well known-- could not refrain from
trying to use all its vast power to impose its standards and its interests
on the world, carefully at first and then by increasingly stark means.

We are already looking at an imperialism that is using all its might and
force to sweep away anything that stands in its way and culture is one of
those things very much in its way. They are the owners of the vast majority
of the communication networks, that is, 60 percent of the world
communication networks and of the most powerful and unrivalled television
channels. And, they have the almost absolute monopoly of the films shown in
the world.

It can be said that France, which is fighting an almost heroic battle to
preserve its culture as much as possible against the United States cultural
invasion, is the only country in Europe, that I know of, where the American
films shown account for less than 50 percent of the total. In the other
countries of the Old Continent, it is above 50 percent. In some of them it
can be 60, 65, 70 and even 80 percent. As for television series, it is 60,
70, 80 and 90 percent, so that about 70 percent of the television series
shown and 75 percent of the video cassettes distributed are from the United
States; these figures that you must have heard before. Ramonet [a French
journalist] writes about those figures. It is an almost absolute monopoly.

There are major Latin American countries where 90 percent of the films and
series shown come from the United States and you know the characteristics of
what comes there. Very little material comes from Europe, so in those
aspects there is a total cultural colonization by the United States.

It goes without saying that, in our case, it is extremely difficult to find
films of some moral and cultural value. How do we escape from films that
show violence, sex and the Mafia almost exclusively? How do we escape from
so many alienating and poisonous films that they distribute throughout the
world? It becomes difficult for us, for our television practically without
commercials, as I said to you, to find films to show on weekends; and people
are often critical of what is shown. On the other hand, they are copies
because we should say, in all sincerity, that as we were blockaded and all
our imports prevented we found ourselves forced to copy.

Some things are easy to copy, including films, and I think that the comrades
in our prestigious ICAIC [Cuban Films Institute] in the early years --and
rightly so, it is a historical merit-- specialized in copying U.S. films.
Then, there were some good ones, I mean, in the past there used to be more
good American and European films. They were worth watching.

The commercial spirit has so pervasively penetrated culture as to become
overwhelming. Which country in Europe can spend 300 million US dollars or
more on a film? Which country in Europe can make profits of $500 million, or
even $1.2 billion trading on paraphernalia related to a film? Those are
companies that exploit everything, and the sales of goods associated to an
expensive and highly publicized film actually give them higher profits than
the screening of the film.

Actually, those films can cover all their costs and produce high profits in
the United States market alone. Therefore, as you can easily understand,
they can sell the films much more cheaply anywhere in Europe or the world.
Who can compete with them?

Still, those European countries, some of them in a real cultural shock and
others relatively indifferent to the phenomenon, who with their unity and
integration expect to develop their economic, technological, scientific and
cultural possibilities, --practically as a necessity for survival-- even
those countries support the imperialist policy. They are supporting a policy
aimed at sweeping away the principles of sovereignty. And it is not the case
of very small countries, small islands or very poor underdeveloped nations
whose per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is 200 or 300 US dollars a
year, but rather countries whose per capita GDP is 20, 25, 30 and even
40,000 US dollars.

They, of course, are giving up national sovereignty to the extent that they
are uniting, opening borders, applying the free circulation of capital, of
workers, of technicians and creating common institutions that provide
advantages only for the European countries. The South countries must arrive
in little boats and enter illegally.

Those countries are giving up their national currencies, and with good
logic, in order to adopt a common currency. That is different from adopting
a foreign currency governed by the U.S. Federal Reserve System which is
tantamount to annexing the country to the United States.

What would become of us, who have, at least, demonstrated that it is
possible to resist a double blockade and such a difficult period as we have
gone through during these years? How would that have been possible without
our own currency? To this I would add, as in passing, that we have revalued
our currency seven times. From 1994, when one US dollar bought 150 pesos, to
1999 or the end of 1998 --let us say almost five years; the whole of 1994
should be counted-- we have revalued the currency seven times. Today, one US
dollar can only buy about 20 pesos. No country has done that, I tell you.
None!

The formulas of the [International] Monetary Fund, all the recipes that it
imposes and that you know so well, where do they lead? Sometimes, through
privatization or savings the countries are able to accumulate major reserves
to protect their currency but then, in a number of days or weeks, they lose
everything. We have seen that happen in a matter of days. We neither have
nor need those enormous reserves. Other countries have them and lose them.

There is only one country --one single country in the world!-- that does not
even need a reserve because it prints the banknotes that circulate
throughout the world; the country that, as we have said on other occasions,
first converted gold into paper by unilaterally suspending the free
conversion of its banknotes and which changed the gold in its reserves for
the paper currency that it printed --a currency accepted by everybody for
its equivalent value in gold. Later, then, it converted the paper into gold,
the miracle dreamed of by the alchemists of the Middle Ages. In other words,
they print a piece of paper that circulates as if it were gold. I am
explaining the phenomenon in a simple way although the procedure is more
complicated than that.

They use Treasury bonds and apply different mechanisms. But, in essence, the
fact is they can afford it because they print the currency that circulates
worldwide, they print the banknotes kept as a reserve in the banks of every
country in the world. They print the paper, they buy with it and the others
keep the paper --a large part of it, not all of it, of course. Therefore,
they are the ones who print the world's reserve currency.

That is one of the reasons for the emergence of the euro. Let us say that it
is an attempt to survive against that privilege and against that monetary
power so that no speculator can come along and do to any European country as
they did to the United Kingdom, France, Spain and others when their
currencies were devalued after they fell prey of enormous speculative
operations. Actually, when some American megamillionaire wolves get
together, no country can resist their speculative attacks. The pound
sterling, a currency queen not so long ago, was brought to its knees in a
matter of days.

That can give you an idea of what I mean. That country --well, there is
hardly any need to say it-- is the United States of America, the only one
protected. Others, faced with the continuous and incessant devaluations,
crises, catastrophes and flights of capital, in their desperation begin
considering the idea of suppressing their national currencies and adopting
the US dollar which is governed by the United States Federal Reserve.

Now, could our country survive if we had such a system? That is, if our
currency were the US dollar and this country blockaded and unable to acquire
dollars were to buy the peasants' products --chicken, eggs, mangoes-- in US
dollars, could this country exist? Based on what we have had to go through
and what we have learned, we realize that in our conditions, if we did not
have our very modest peso, which we have revalued, as I said, seven times,
we would not have been able to revalue in the slightest. Practically all the
schools would have been closed here while not a single one has been closed,
and all the hospitals while not a single one has been closed. On the
contrary, in this special period, we have increased the country's medical
staff, especially the doctors working in the community but also those
working in the hospitals by a figure that comes to approximately 30,000 new
doctors. All this despite our great economic difficulties, lack of resources
and often even of medicines, although we have the basic ones.

Today, a newspaper reported that in a central province of the country, not
in the capital but in Villa Clara, infant mortality in children under one
year was 3.9 for 1,000 live births. If we consider Washington, the United
States capital, for example, its infant mortality rate is four or five times
higher than in the Villa Clara province. There is one area, the Bronx, where
it is 20 for 1,000 live births and other places in the United States where
it is 30 for 1,000.

Our national average of infant mortality is lower than the United States
national average by at least two or three percentage points. They are at
perhaps 10 or 11 and our hope this year is to reduce it to 7 for 1,000. Last
year, it was 7.1.

Needless to say that it is due to the efforts made that not a single
day-care center has been closed. Not a single family doctor's office has
been closed. The number of doctor's offices has increased by many thousands
during the special period. We have been able to do this, of course, because
there is a revolution, there is a united people, there is a spirit of
sacrifice and there is an extensive political culture.

When we speak about culture we do not forget the political culture. It is
one of the sectors whose development is badly needed and which is very much
lacking in the world. It is impossible to believe or imagine that an average
person in the United States has a higher political culture than a Cuban or a
European. I admit that Europeans have a higher political culture than
Americans but, in general, Europeans do not have a higher political culture
than Cubans. That is for sure. You could even have a contest to compare the
European average political knowledge and the Cuban average, a contest
between people who unfortunately live alienated by millions of things and
people who do not live like that.

In our Latin American countries, sometimes necessity and poverty help in the
development of a political culture higher than in those very rich countries
that do not suffer the calamities that we do. That is why, in the Latin
American teachers' Congresses held in Cuba with thousands of teachers in
attendance they constantly speak of the horrors of the neoliberalization
that cuts off their budgets; and, in the medical Congresses they do
likewise, as in the students Congresses or any congress for that matter,
because they see it every day and they are conscious of it. Of course, awful
things happen in Latin America that have not been seen for quite some time
in Europe where the unemployed enjoy benefits that, according to some, allow
them to vacation abroad for 15 days and more a year.

Where none of that exists, people suffer much more. We have more fertile
ground to become politically cultured. In our case, we also have the
experience accumulated by the country in very difficult battles against
imperial aggression and in very great difficulties; and difficulties make
good fighters.

But, all that notwithstanding, we could have done none of what I am telling
you if we did not have a national currency that helps us to redistribute,
and also many free services.

Of course, you compare it with the US dollar and there comes the misleading
formula of the exchange rate between the US dollar and the Cuban peso in the
Exchange Bureaux. And, if they say that it is 20 to 1, then somebody earning
300 Cuban pesos is said to earn 15 US dollars. If it was in New York, to
those 15 US dollars you would have to add 1,000 to 1,500 US dollars to pay
the rent, another 500 to pay for public health services --this is about
2,000 already-- another 500 or 1,000 for education, depending on the
educational level because there are university courses there that cost
30,000 dollars a year. The add some 750 dollars more for the free education
given to children, adolescents and young people here and the total could be
some 2,750 US dollars, plus 15 that would be 2,765 dollars. All this is very
misleading, is it not?

If you take into account that all children in Cuba up to the age of seven
receive a liter of milk for 25 cents of a Cuban peso, then this would be a
child or a family that is paying only 1.3 [1.25] cents of a US dollar out of
the supposed 15 US dollars, for a liter of milk, and similarly for other
essential food. Unfortunately, there is not enough food but there is a
certain amount that, measured in dollars, are bought at a minute price.

If you go to our stadium, you can watch an important baseball match for 50
cents or one peso at most. If you go to Baltimore, where our team played the
US team, of the 45,000 fans there, the ones who paid the least paid 10 US
dollars and the ones who paid the most paid 35. To watch a similar
performance a hundred times, a Cuban pays a maximum of 100 pesos. An
American must pay 3,500 dollars. The same applies to a lot of other
activities and services. But our system, with all those characteristics,
could not have had such achievements without a national currency.

Well, so far this long disquisition on the importance of a national currency
and the delirious things crossing the minds of those considering the removal
of the national currency.

There in Europe, when they talk about sovereignty, they cannot have the same
concept we do. They are uniting and giving up many of the attributes of the
nation state to a supranational state, to a supranational community. Other
countries elsewhere in the world should do that and we, Latin Americans,
should do that, too. If not, we will not advance even three yards. In fact,
we will go backwards more yards every year if we do not integrate. In the
light of what is happening in the world, it is not something to preach but
rather to build an awareness about, to transmit a basic idea.

Actually, there is a very close powerful neighbor who wants to integrate us
into it. Of course, this is to have access to our natural resources and the
cheap labor of hundreds of millions of Latin Americans producing jeans,
shoes, T-shirts, handicrafts that are very labor-intensive. Meanwhile, they
keep the cutting-edge industries and the brain drain continues. Right now,
they are talking about hiring 200,000 highly qualified foreign workers for
their electronic industries, preferably Latin Americans. And so, they take
away those highly qualified people that you train in the universities, the
most scientifically talented. They give visas to them all right. These do
not need to become wetbacks or illegal immigrants.

If there is a good artist, an excellent artist who can be exploited
commercially, he is coaxed to go there. They cannot coax a great writer like
Garcia Marquez because Garcia Marquez might be coaxing them (Applause). At
the very least with the high value of his works he might take a substantial
part of the banknotes they print. Actually, a good writer can work in his
own country, he does not need to emigrate but in many areas of the arts it
is not the same and they are coaxing the best talents to go there; many of
them, at least. A man like Guayasaman could not be bought, not with all the
money printed by the Federal Reserve. There are men who cannot be seduced
with any money, men and women --I rather add those two words than be accused
of gender discrimination-- and we have them here. We have them here! I do
not need to mention names, they are humble men and women who are worth more
than all the gold in the world. That is a fact.

I am explaining all this because they can help understand these phenomena of
sovereignty, this battle. Because there are so many lies, so much demagogy,
so much confusion and so many methods devised to disseminate them that an
enormous effort should be made at constant clarification. If some things are
not understood, the rest cannot be understood.

They talk about flight of capital, about volatile capital such as the
short-term loans, as if those were the only kind of volatile capital. In any
Latin American country, the volatile capital suddenly goes. But, alongside
the volatile capital goes all the money saved by the country's savers
because if some people withdraw their money for fear of a devaluation or so,
the others rush to the bank, change it for US currency and transfer it to
the U.S. banks where the interest rate is higher or lower, depending on the
situation.

So, all the Latin American and Caribbean money is volatile capital. Let us
be well aware of this. Volatile capital is not limited to those short-term
loans with a high interest rate that are then quickly withdrawn by the
owners when faced with a risky situation. Any money can become volatile,
except for Cuban money; there is no way our money can become volatile. If
they want to take it away we shall be delighted. The liquidity would
decrease and the value of the peso would increase.

Now the Europeans are uniting. They do it to compete with their competitor.
They talk about being partners but the United States does not want to be
anybody's partner. At any rate, our neighbor wants to be a privileged
partner. It constantly takes measures against Europe: banning the export of
cheese for such a reason or other or whatever other meat products because
they use certain fodder. They are always fabricating pretexts. Right now,
because of the banana and a resolution from the World Trade Organization
which is nit unbiased, they have punished European exports for a total of
about 500 million dollars. They take measures every day or threaten to take
them. They are always wielding that weapon. Indeed, it is very clear to
anybody who does a little thinking that Europe must compete very hard with
them.

We welcome this Caribbean and Latin American meeting with the European Union
that I previously mentioned. It is good and it is convenient. I think that
it is convenient for Europe, it is convenient for the Caribbean and for
Latin America as well. And let us hope that the euro is strengthened. It has
now dropped a little. It is enduring the consequences of that adventurous
and genocidal war --to call it by its true name.

It suits us that there is another reserve currency, so that there are two
and not just one in the world. If only there were three. It suits us that
there is more than one strong and stable currency.

I hope that, among the many historical acts of madness committed in this
hemisphere we do not end up adopting the US dollar as a circulation
currency. It is a currency entirely managed from the United States by the
Federal Reserve and they are not going to accept any Latin American
representative there. Because if they were willing to accept in their
Federal Reserve System a representative for each Latin American country,
even we would send them one, if we were allowed to, of course.

Obviously, that is a utopia. Of course, they are not going to welcome
anybody, not even from the richer and more developed countries with a higher
GDP, not even from Brazil, Argentina or Mexico, to mention the largest
fraternal countries of Latin America. They are never going to accept our
representatives in their Reserve System. The Latin American and Caribbean
destiny is in danger but everything is not lost, far from it, we can still
fight.

I hope you understand, European comrades, that the concept of sovereignty
cannot be the one openly and shamelessly defended yesterday by a European
representative for the first time since ideas began to be debated and
doctrines developed against sovereignty. Europe, in general, is quite
committed to that anti-sovereignty doctrine promoted by the imperialism of
the superpower.

This explains that a European country --whose ambassador spoke at the United
Nations in a way nobody had ever spoken there-- could regard as
anachronistic the United Nations Charter and the principle of sovereignty
and non-intervention, something fundamental in international law. Those who
so express themselves have practically renounced sovereignty and will enjoy,
in an near future, a simple national autonomy within a supranational state,
with a supranational parliament and a supranational executive.

Even now, as a reward for his glorious wartime exploits and forgetting those
who died and the millions who have suffered and will keep those wounds for
life, they have created the position of European Minister of Foreign
Affairs; a prize for an outstanding character who seriously believes that he
is what he is not and who acts like he really is. I mean the great Marshall
and Secretary General of NATO.

Do you not know who that is? Have you ever heard of him? He was a minister
of Culture in a European country. He is Javier Solana. Did you know not that
he was a minister of Culture? I met him at an Ibero-American summit in
Spain, he awaited me at the airport and I chatted with him for a few minutes
as protocol demands. He was at the time a peaceful minister who actively
participated in anti-NATO demonstrations. Today, he is the Secretary General
of NATO and a field Marshall. He must really be at least a field Marshall to
give orders to the American Generals. Now, they are making him a sort of
European foreign minister.

Our comrades are asked by the press: Are you not worried that they have
named him Europe's minister of Foreign Affairs? We, in fact, do not tend to
worry about anything, nor do we exchange principles for interests or
convenience. But we might answer that we would rather have him as a minister
of Foreign Affairs than as a NATO field Marshall. I do not know what his
power will be as a minister of Foreign Affairs but we know only too well the
power that he claims as a NATO Secretary General.

We have all the statements he has made, both before and during the war, and
I know few people as attached to the doctrine of violence who use such a
threatening style, with such a merciless and tough language. Obviously, he
has a very great responsibility which he assumed when he formally ordered
U.S. General [Wesley] Clark, head of the NATO military forces in Europe, to
start bombing at such and such an hour and at such and such a point, after
the NATO countries had given their Secretary General the power to start the
war when, in his view, the diplomatic procedures had been exhausted.

In his capacity as Secretary General he issued orders and made statements
almost constantly during more than 70 days of brutal bombings. They were all
threatening, arrogant, abusive, almost cynical statements. Then, after the
Security Council's meeting yesterday he issued the last of his assumed
orders: the cessation of the bombings. All this with the corresponding
theatrical overtones.

How obedient those American Generals! A model of discipline such as history
had never seen! They immediately attack or they immediately cease to attack
because a distinguished ex-minister of Culture gives the order.

Can the countries of the European Union have the same concept of sovereignty
as Mexico, Cuba, the Dominican Republic or any small Caribbean island, like
a Central American country or like Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru,
Brazil, Argentina or a south-east Asian country like Indonesia, Malaysia or
the Philippines? Can they have the same concept as the vast majority of
countries in the world which are dismembered?

When we are all integrated in a Latin America and Caribbean union, our
concept of sovereignty will be different. We will have to give up a lot of
those principles to obey the laws and the administration or the decisions of
a supranational state.

Moreover, a Marxist can never be a narrow national chauvinist. A Marxist can
be a patriot, which is different, and love his or her homeland, which is
different, too.

A long time before today, there were men who dreamed, like [Simon] Bolivar
almost 200 years ago, of a united Latin America. There were men, like [Jose]
Marti who, more than 100 years ago dreamed of a united Latin America. At
that time, when Bolivar proclaimed his dreams, Latin America was not made up
of free independent countries, not yet.

In fact, the first independent country following the United States of
America was Haiti, a country that provided material assistance to Bolivar in
his struggle for Latin American independence and which also contributed,
with its ideas and exchanges, to consolidate Bolivar's consciousness about
the impossibility to defer the slaves emancipation which was not attained
after the first triumphant independence movement in Venezuela.

As you know, there was in the United States a struggle for independence and
a declaration of principles in 1776. But, it was only after almost 90 years
and a bloody war that the emancipation of slaves was formally declared. Of
course, the slaves situation was often worse off afterwards since they were
no longer any master's property, they were no longer their owners' assets
so, if they died, the former masters did not lose a dime. Previously, if a
slave died, his or her master lost what the slave had cost him in the
infamous auction. Later, as it was the case here too, and everywhere, they
were practically worse off.

In Latin America, slavery as a system disappeared at a much earlier stage
than in the United States. There were men who dreamed about those things.
There were men who, for the creation of a great, united and strong republic
dreamed that each of our current countries, without renouncing their
national sentiments, would lay down their prerogatives or aspirations to the
separate national independence of each of them.

There were not even independent states when Bolivar dreamed of a united, big
and powerful Latin American state based on our similarities, such as no
other group of countries in the world have in terms of language, ethnic
groups of similar ancestry, religious beliefs and general culture.

Religion is also a part of culture. When we see the invasion of Latin
America by fundamentalist sects --these things are known, these ideas
emerged during the cold war-- I wonder about this invasion that wants to
divide us into a thousand pieces. Why is there this fundamentalist invasion,
by hundreds, even thousands of religious denominations that are not at all
ecumenical, that are different from the traditional Christian religious
denominations which have an increasing ecumenical spirit?

When I was a student there was nothing ecumenical about them. Really, when
the Pope visited us, in my welcoming speech, I praised the current
ecumenical spirit of his church. I recalled that it was not like that in my
early youth, from first grade until I graduated from high school when I
studied in Catholic schools. As a rule, I was a boarding student except for
very short periods when I was a day pupil. Relations among the traditional
churches have changed a lot since then.

Now I wonder, why do they want to fragment us with this invasion of
thousands of non-unitary sects? As we understand it, in Latin America common
religious beliefs constitute an important element of culture, identity and
integration. It is not that there has to be a single church --far from it--
but pro-unity churches, ecumenical churches. Such elements should be
preserved.

We, Latin Americans, have many more things in common than the Europeans. Unt
il not long ago, for centuries, they were warring against each other. There
was one war that they called the Hundred Years War, and wars of every kind:
religious, national, ethnic wars. Those who know a bit of history know that
only too well.

The Europeans have transcended all that because they have become aware of
the importance of unity. It must be said, really, that the Europeans became
conscious --their politicians, in general, did-- of the need to unite and to
integrate and for around 50 years they have been working to that end. We
have hardly even started.

The United Nations Charter and the principles of sovereignty are absolutely
indispensable and crucial for the vast majority of peoples in the world,
especially for the smallest and weakest who are still not integrated into
any strong supranational grouping in the current stage of extraordinarily
uneven political, economic and social development of the human community.

The United States, captain and leader of the doctrines fostered by NATO,
wants to sweep away the foundations of national sovereignty. It simply wants
to take possession of the markets and natural resources of the Third World
countries including those that were part of the former Soviet Union, like
Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and others, while it is already almost
the master of the great oil reserves of the Caspian sea. It wants to play
the role of a new Roman worldwide super-empire which, of course, will last
much less than the Roman Empire and the reach of its ambitions and its
clumsiness; and it will meet with universal resistance.

Nonetheless, it is preparing for the development, consolidation and exercise
of an boundless empire. Some American analysts and writers from the same
group as Ramonet --and Ramonet himself-- denounce the cultural invasion, the
almost total dominion over the mass media and the cultural monopoly they are
trying to impose on the world thus showing the way the empire's most fervent
theoreticians consider culture to be the nuclear weapon of the 21st century.
But, there is no need to be so well informed to realize this. It can be seen
clearly in everything they do and in the way they do it.

The empire's pretexts? Ah, humanitarian reasons! Human rights is one of the
reasons they give for which it is necessary to liquidate sovereignty and
internal conflicts that must be resolved with "smart" bombs and missiles.

Whose proposal is this? Looking back, recalling what happened in our
hemisphere in the past few decades, who fathered all the coups d'itat? Who
trained the torturers in the most sophisticated techniques? Who was
responsible for there being relatively small countries where more than
100,000 persons were vanished and a total of about 150,000 were killed? Or
the fact that, in other nations, tens of thousands of men and women had a
similar fate? I am talking here only about people who were vanished after
horrible torture. Who trained the sinister culprits? Who armed them? Who
supported them? How can they now claim that national sovereignty must be
removed in the name of human rights?

A few years ago, they killed four million Vietnamese by dropping millions of
tons of explosives on a country that was 15,000 or 20,000 kilometers away.
For a long time they kept fiercely bombing with the result of four million
people dead and a large number disabled for life. Now, they are asking that
sovereignty be removed in the name of human rights.

In Angola, for example, who armed UNITA which for more than 20 years
massacred entire villages and killed hundreds of thousands of Angolans? We
know very well who did it because we were there a long time supporting the
Angolan people against the South African racists. They are still killing
there and their favorite leader has hundreds of millions of US dollars in
the banks --I do not know who launders the money-- part of which is used to
buy weapons, much to the pleasure of arms manufacturers. He controls
extensive areas that are very rich in diamonds and has a personal fortune of
hundreds of millions of US dollars.

Likewise, there has been no repressive government in the world that the
United States would not support. How could the apartheid regime have seven
nuclear weapons? They had seven when we were there, on the Namibian border
and, the United States intelligence service, which knows everything, did not
know about it! Did it not know? And, how did those weapons get there? This
is one question that could be asked and one of the things that will be known
in full detail one day when some documents are declassified, because the day
will come when absolutely everything will be known.

One could also ask where those seven nuclear weapons are because their
manufacturers say they have been destroyed. That is all that those of the
apartheid regime would say. The ANC leaders do not know. Nobody has answered
that question. But, again, there are still a lot of questions that have
never been answered.

Who supported Mobutu [Sese Seko]? The United States and Europe did. Where
are the billions that Mobutu took from the Congo? Which bank is keeping
them? Who protected and looked after him or inherited his immense fortune?

I could go on offering many similar examples. Who supported the acts of
aggression against the Arab countries? The United States did.

I am in absolutely no way an anti-Semite, far from it. But, we have been
very critical of the wars against the Arab countries, the massive evictions,
the diaspora of Palestinians and other Arabs. Who supported those wars? And
there are many other overt or covert wars and other similar incidents that I
am not going to mention which have been done and continue to be done by
those who want to sweep away sovereignty or the principles of sovereignty,
in the name of humanitarian reasons. Of course, that is only one of the
pretexts but not the only one as we see in Africa.

The Africans themselves are rightly concerned about tackling the problems of
peace in their continent. They are trying to unite. They have a strong sense
of unity. They also have their regional groupings and are trying to settle
their conflicts. But who occupied and exploited Africa for centuries? Who
kept it in poverty and underdevelopment? Who drew those border lines that
cut through ethnic groups now separated by them?

With great wisdom, really great wisdom, the Africans, from the time they
started emerging as independent states, set out the principle of the
inviolability of the frontiers whereby the inherited borders were sacred.
Otherwise, a huge number of conflicts would have unleashed in Africa.

The colonial powers created all that. They are responsible for centuries of
exploitation, backwardness and poverty. Are we going to resort to a racist
interpretation of the reasons for the poverty of those African peoples when
it is a known fact that, in that continent, various civilizations had
attained remarkable progress at a time when in Berlin, Paris and many other
places of civilized Europe there were only wandering tribes? A thousand
years before, there already existed a civilization in Egypt, Ethiopia and
other parts of Africa.

The United States emerged as a nation only 20 centuries later. What is the
cause of that poverty if not the colonialist, slavery, neo-colonialist,
capitalist and imperialist system that reigned in the world in the past
centuries? Why could those peoples not benefit from the fruits of science
and human progress? Those who exploited them for centuries are guilty for
this.

At one time, they also had China semi-colonized and humiliated. It is common
knowledge that, in the past century, they used cannon shots to open up
Japan's ports to world trade. It is a known fact that the British empire
sent its troops to conquer a portion of Chinese territory and, in a
coalition with other European powers and the United States, it sent troops
as far as Beijing. Thus came the opium war, invasions and wars to sell
opium.

Now they want to invade countries where poppies are planted, and not by the
country but by a number of hungry and sometimes desperate people.
Impoverished nations, aware of the huge market for drugs in the United
States --one which was not created by a Latin American country or any other
nation in the world-- plant poppies or coca for the colossal consumption of
the industrialized and rich countries.

The question could be asked of how much drug per capita is consumed in the
United States of America and in Europe. Possibly much more than in Brazil or
Argentina, Uruguay or Paraguay, Central America or Mexico, or even in
Colombia itself. The market is up North. It was a disgrace for our
countries, those where the crop arose, that there was such a high demand in
the United States.

This is important because yesterday was hardly the first time that they
publicly tried to promote the doctrine that they have been elaborating
against sovereignty, that they have been discussing among themselves and
with other NATO members, the one they have been advancing little by little,
step by step.

The so-called global threats are also considered enough reason to fully
justify an intervention. We will quote four of those threats: drugs,
terrorism and the possession of weapons of mass destruction. Of course, this
has nothing to do with them. They can have all the weapons of mass
destruction they want, thousands of nuclear weapons, as it is the case of
the United States. They can also have rockets that, with great accuracy,
they can position anywhere in the world and a whole arsenal of laboratories
devoted to producing biological weapons --they have used biological weapons
against us-- and any other kind of weapons. They have reached agreements
among themselves to eliminate chemical and biological weapons. But, at the
same time, they develop other even more deadly weapons.

According to the doctrine described, a Third World country could have a
nuclear weapon and, for that reason, become the target of a sudden air
strike and invasion. And, what about all those who possess nuclear weapons?
It is a matter of wars, either pre-emptive or punitive, to preserve the
monopoly of nuclear weapons and other kinds of weapons of mass destruction
which are very far from being humanitarian.

The fourth reason is the massive violation of human rights.

Up to now, the great promoter, the great patron, the great fatherly educator
and supporter of those who committed massive violations of human rights has
been the United States of America. Massive destruction of the infrastructure
and economy of a country, as it has just happened in Serbia; genocide using
bombs to deprive millions of people of crucial services and their means of
life; genocidal wars like the one launched against Vietnam. They were the
culprits.

I am not talking of the time when more than half of Mexico was conquered. I
am not talking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a terrorist experiment into the
effects of nuclear weapons on cities where hundreds of thousands of people
lived. I am talking about things that have happened since World War II. Who
were their allies? Why did the Franco government in Spain remained in power
for almost 30 years after the end of a world war against fascism that lasted
six vicious years and cost no less than 50 million lives? Because he had the
support of the United States which wanted to have military bases there. Who
supported utterly repressive governments in countries like Korea? They did.
Who really supported the massive carnage of ethnic groups like Chinese, for
example, or of communists or left-wing people in Indonesia? They did. Who
supported the horrendous apartheid regime? They did.

There has been no bloody and repressive government, no massive violator of
human rights that has not been their ally and has not been supported by
them. In the case of Duvalier --to give you an example closer to home-- who
supported him? They did, until one day when they intervened in Haiti to
overthrow him, for humanitarian reasons.

Do you realize what I mean? It is the development of a whole philosophy
aimed at sweeping away the United Nations Charter and the principles of
national sovereignty. The doctrine can be divided into three categories of
intervention: humanitarian interventions due to internal conflicts;
interventions due to global threats, which we have already described, and
interventions due to external conflicts, to which are added the very
confusing Yankee concept of "diplomacy supported by force". This means, for
example, that if Colombia cannot solve its internal conflict --a difficult
battle, of course-- if it cannot achieve peace, for which many are working,
including Cuba, this could become a reason for intervention. At the same
rate, if it does not succeed in eradicating drug cultivation it could be the
target of an armed intervention.

I have tried to collect precise information on what is happening with drugs
in Colombia, how encompassing the phenomenon is and how many hectares of
drug are planted. Some have told me that there are about 80,000 hectares of
coca, just coca. It has been growing. And some have talked to me about up to
a million people working in the cultivation of coca and the harvesting of
leaves.

I asked about coffee and they told me that there are problems because the
salary of a coffee harvester can come to 10 or 12 US dollars while those who
harvest the coca leaves or clean the plantations, weed the crop and do other
similar activities, earn five or six times higher wages.

What I do not know yet is whether they fertilize it although that is,
seemingly, a natural process. Perhaps, with a certain regime of rain and
climate the coca plant fertilizes itself. Maybe it is like the marabz. The
marabz is a very harmful plant for agriculture here, terribly aggressive and
thorny. It reproduces and spreads easily. It cannot be used to feed the
animals but it is a leguminous plant, so it does not need to be fertilized.
It feeds itself from nitrogen through the nodular bacteria in its roots.
Apparently, something similar happens with the coca.

Can you imagine what the situation must be like in a country where a million
people in the rural areas can earn 50, 60, 70 US dollars in the coca fields
while the same working day in other crops would bring them 10 US dollars at
most? And, at harvest time --and coca can be harvested three times a year--
it is only a matter of pulling off leaves.

Trying to learn about this I have almost become an expert by now, just by
asking questions. I say: "Tell me, explain to me, are they all small
plantations?" They tell me: "No, there are large estates of hundreds of
hectares and plantations of as much as thousands of hectares". I ask: "How
much earns, for example, somebody with a hectare of coca?" "That one
receives the least," they say. The others receive more: the ones who turn it
into the basic paste, the other ones who refine it and, fundamentally, those
who market it. Before that phase, many airlines, transport companies and
firms providing other services obtain high incomes. When such a cancer is
introduced in a society it becomes a real tragedy, in every sense, because
the danger that internal consumption may spread is multiplied.

We are striving against it ourselves. You were saying that tourism should
not affect culture or damage the national identity but it can sometimes
damage health, if prostitution, for instance, is promoted.

When I talked to you about the US dollar, I told you that it circulates
here. The measures that we have had to take made its circulation necessary.
Well, but that dollar neither escapes the country nor becomes volatile. It
is a dollar that circulates here whose value decreases every day. It has to
do with a historical stage. At the moment, we are not so interested in
lowering its value, rather, depending on the resources available, we are
interested in raising wages in Cuban pesos, without letting the peso lose
its current parity in US dollars.

It is good not to be a part of the International Monetary Fund!

The truth is that the circulation of the US dollar, coupled with the
unrestricted entry and exit of a lot of visitors, can encourage the drugs
trade and the cultivation of drugs which forces us to be very watchful.

Taking back the problem of Colombia, somebody told me: "One hectare of coca
can provide an income of up to 4,000 US dollars." I said: "And if it were
planted with corn, in that tropical and rainy plain?" You all know that the
Colombian plains are not a corn-growing area. The corn-growing area is a bit
further North, at the same height as the central plains in the United States
and also at the height of Europe, although corn originated in this
hemisphere, in Mexico, Central and South America. Therefore, I assure you
that planting corn there without fertilizers or anything would hardly give
the peasant one ton per hectare. A ton of corn on the international market
is worth more or less between 100 and 150 US dollars. In Argentina and other
places, the export price has decreased to 90 US dollars. We have to import
them so, we know the cost of each of these grains.

I have not talked about wheat which cannot be planted there. Corn, for
example, can be planted for self-consumption or to market it. How much is
the producer paid for his ton of corn that the middleman then sells in the
market? On the other hand, if custom barriers are also removed then the
grains produced abroad would enter freely. That is what the United States
wants from its trade agreements with Latin America.

In that case, the Colombian would eat American corn because it is produced
cheaper than Colombian corn. They obtain six, seven or more tons and
cultivation there is very mechanized. They produce it cheaper than the
French. The French should be careful about American corn because they will
put it in France at a lower price than it costs to produce a ton of corn
there. That is why agricultural issues become the great obstacle for the
free-trade agreements.

The Yankees are reckoning: "I will give you some industrial advantages as
soon as possible. I will give you an X number of years for you to start
reducing the tariffs on the grains that I will export until the day that
entry is unrestricted." We know very well what is going to happen: these
countries will end up with no corn farming, then corn will be very expensive
and to the extent that the price rises there will not be any other corn but
the American's.

But, how much would our farmer earn after changing a hectare of coca for one
of corn? Instead of 4,000 US dollars, he would earn whatever he is paid for
his corn by a middleman or by a chain of middlemen. It might be 60 or 100 US
dollars. So, where are the possibilities for alternative crops?

They have already created a drug culture. They have alienated millions of
people with their voracious market and their money-laundering. It has been
the United States banks that have laundered the vast majority of the funds
coming from drugs. They are not just a market but practically the
financiers, the drug money launders. Moreover, they do not want to spend
money to really eradicate the growing of coca or poppies, although they
invest billions in repressive procedures.

I think that, theoretically, there might be a solution but it would cost
billions of US dollars, even if those resources were rationally invested.
What are they going to do with the men who live massively on drug growing.
Are they going to be exterminated? They could also go there themselves and
invade that country on account of "a global threat" even if the drug problem
cannot be controlled with simple repressive measures. Of course, invading it
would be madness because the heat in the forests of the Colombian plains
would finish off their soldiers used to drinking Coca-Cola on combat
missions, cold water at every hour, ice cream of the best quality. Actually,
Vietnam is a well known case in point and they get more and more used to
every kind of luxury and comfort.

The mosquitoes and the heat would almost suffice to finish them off but they
could cause a real disaster if they intervened there to eradicate drugs.
Certainly, that would not be the kind of war to use B-2 bombers because the
coca crops cannot be fought with laser-guided bombs, smart missiles or
planes. There, they would surely have to go in with ground forces, either to
wipe out an irregular force in the jungle or to eradicate crops. On the
other hand, since they describe guerrilla warfare as terrorism, insurgency
and a great risk --practically a global threat-- there we have a country
with two possible pretexts for intervention. I am talking of two categories:
internal conflicts and drugs. Two causes for intervention according to the
theories they are trying to impose.

Would an invasion or the bombing of Colombia solve the internal conflict? I
wonder if NATO could solve that problem now that it is establishing the
right of action beyond its borders. In principle, they agreed on that during
the 50th anniversary celebration. Along such lines you can imagine so many
cases. Is there anybody who believes that could be the solution?

I know, through opinion polls, that in their desperation at the violence and
the problems in the country, not a few people in Colombia itself --actually
a number of people worth taking into consideration-- have expressed support
for the idea that, if there is no other solution to the violence, it be
resolved through the intervention of an outside force.

Of course, the fighting and patriotic tradition of the Colombian people
should not be overlooked. I am sure that such an act of madness against a
country like Colombia, in the style of what they did in Serbia, would be a
disaster, absolute madness. But, no one knows, really, since International
law, the principles of respect for sovereignty and the United Nations
Charter no longer provide a reliable coverage and that could be a decision
taken on their own by a Mafia armed to the teeth, which is what NATO has
become.

The rest of the countries, ours included, cannot feel safe. Not at all! And
there is the risk of insane actions that cost millions of lives. I am sure
that an invasion of Colombia, that is, the implementation of this doctrine
in Colombia would cause millions of deaths. That is a country where violence
is rampant, where 30,000 people meet a violent death every year --a figure
that is well above the average of violent deaths in the rest of Latin
America.

Now, would an invasion by NATO forces solve the problem? No, but then, they
would come say as Solana did: "Diplomatic or peaceful ways were exhausted."

As Latin Americans, we should try to cooperate with Colombia, with the
country itself (APPLAUSE), to help it achieve a fair peace, one that would
benefit everybody.

There are formulas that, in my view, are so complex and difficult that I
would tend to call them utopian because there is not one war there but three
or four. There are significant guerilla forces with political motivations
but divided into two organizations fighting on their own. There are
extremely repressive paramilitary forces at the service of the landowners
and there are the forces of the drug growers, people armed to shoot down the
crop-spraying helicopters, for example.

Colombia's situation is really complex. I have mentioned it in the context
of the theories that I have described and the consequences that they might
have.

We should all help! It should never be said that the diplomatic and peaceful
ways have been exhausted, the discussions should never stop. A process has
already begun. Venezuela wants to cooperate. We cooperate to the extent of
our possibilities and so do other countries. Colombia's domestic problems
have no solution other than a political and peaceful settlement. This is
crystal clear to me. Let us help the Latin Americans find these solutions!

If one day we had a federation of Latin American states, if there were
unity, we would give up many of the attributes of our sovereignty. Then,
domestic order would become the prerogative of a supranational state that is
ours and does not belong to a foreign superpower that has nothing to do with
us (APPLAUSE) or to a powerful Europe.

We want to involve in friendly relations with Europe, also in trade, science
and technological development but it also has absolutely nothing to do with
the domestic problems of our countries. We would surely be capable of
solving our domestic problems ourselves politically, without bombings,
destruction and bloodshed. We do not need anyone to do it for us.

Why are they going to demolish the principles of the United Nations? I could
begin by exploring some examples. It would occur to me to ask how the NATO
doctrine would apply to Russia, for example, if a conflict broke out there
like the one in Chechnya or various other conflicts that might arise from
the fact that the state is made up of numerous different ethnic groups that
also have different religious beliefs. Also, an internal conflict might
arise among the Slav Russians themselves because some are communists and
others are liberals or neo-liberals or some position in between. And then
what? Would they invade Russia? Would they unleash a nuclear war?

Russia was a superpower. There used to be two superpowers. Today, there is
one superpower and one power. What makes the difference? That the power can
destroy the superpower three or four times over and the superpower can
destroy the power 12 or 14 times over. In other words, quite a few more
times over. But just once is enough, is it not? Can they go about applying
such theories?

At the UN Security Council they have had intensive discussions. A draft
resolution has been passed by that body. If you would bear with me, really,
I could tell you some even more interesting things. But I want to finish
with this, I mean, the matter of the doctrines that are being developed.
That is why I asked the previous question.

I will ask another: If there is a conflict in India, it might be a border
conflict --right now, there is artillery fire on the Indo-Pakistani border--
can the doctrine be applied there? Would it apply where there are more than
a 100 million Pakistanis and, on the other side, almost a billion Indians,
from many different ethnic groups? Can such a deranged theory be applied in
countries that, furthermore, possess nuclear weapons? I do not know whether
they have 50, 100 or 20 nuclear weapons. But just 20 would be a huge amount
and the war could become nuclear. How many would die enforcing this American
formula inexplicably supported by Europe? Total madness!

I will go a bit further: What if the conflict is in China, where there are
different ethnic groups, in a country with a population of more than 1,250
million and with an extraordinary war experience, courage, fighting spirit.
This is the case with every people, of course, but the Chinese were forced
to confront many acts of aggression and difficulties.

We also remember that during the Korean War as [General] MacArthur's troops
were approaching the Chinese border and some were already talking about
attacking the other side, a million Chinese combatants crossed the border
and reached the present demarcation line. One million! Of course, the number
of fatal casualties could have been --I cannot guarantee the exact number--
perhaps, up to 200,000 Chinese soldiers. The United States already had all
sorts of bombers and other weapons but the human masses could not be
contained and they would not have been able to achieve victory, not even
with nuclear weapons.

How would the doctrine apply in China, a country they are constantly
harassing with campaigns about human rights as they do with our own country?
There have been some significant problems there widely exploited by Western
propaganda. But, imagine how confused those young people were who took as a
symbol the Statue of Liberty, as it stands at the entrance of the port of
New York. They must have been widely alienated to choose what has become a
symbol tainted by the hypocrisy and voracity of an empire that goes around
suffocating and insulting every idea of justice and true human freedom.

It is striking that this happened in a country with a culture thousands of
years old and a much more solid identity than that of any of us, that is, a
more integrated country, more distant from the West in terms of language,
culture, traditions and many other things. It is not a country like ours,
which has a lot of ingredients from Western customs and culture, but a
country that has often been humiliated and where an extraordinary social
revolution eradicated age-old famines. It is a country that in barely 50
years raised to its current prestige and the impressive place it occupies in
the world.

How would they solve it? If they feel like it, the imperialists and their
allies could declare any incident that occurs in areas of China that have
been turned into bones of contention a massive violation of human rights.
Buddhist Tibet, for instance, is mentioned and certain Muslim minorities in
the north-west. We closely follow, through the international press
dispatches, China's constant harassment by the West. Any domestic political
problem could be considered a massive violation of human rights. They
constantly go to great lengths to provoke it, moved by petty propaganda
purposes and the stupid attempt to do with China what they did with the
USSR. They simply fear that great nation.

Of course, the Chinese are wise politicians --that is why people talk about
the Chinese wisdom-- and they do not easily make the mistakes that a team of
serious and skilled leaders should not make. They would not invade a country
to take it over. They are, indeed, very zealous in matters relating to their
own affairs. They strictly follow the principle of non-interference in the
internal affairs of other countries. For many years, they have been
demanding the return of Taiwan to Chinese territory but they are ready to
wait peacefully for a hundred years. Their mind set is that of a
millennia-old patience, so they talk about what they intend to do in the
next 50 or 100 years as if it were tomorrow or the day after.

Any of these problems might be an excuse to send B-2 bombers, all sorts of
missiles and laser-guided bombs. Some of the principles of their absurd and
arrogant doctrine could serve as an excuse to attack China. Is that not an
insane proposition? I am no longer talking about Colombia, I am talking
about China, I am talking about Russia or India or the conflict between
India and Pakistan. We will see if those in NATO and their Marshall --their
leader or Marshall Secretary General-- are really excited enough to solve
the conflict in Kashmir with a "humanitarian intervention".

I ask: What is that doctrine for? Why think about such methods? Whom are
they going to apply them to? Only to smaller countries that have no nuclear
weapons and to the rest of the world, wherever there might be a problem
among the many that constantly arise.

Such formulas do not apply to us, just in case anyone thinks that we are
concerned by what might happen to us. Putting aside all conceit or
boastfulness our country, which has endured such hard trials, can sing The
Pirate's Song: "And if I die / What is life? / I already gave it up / when
the slave yoke I shook off/ as any brave man ought."

I still remember some of those lines which were in The Hundred Best Poems in
Spanish Language. Nowadays, you do not see such books around much but at a
certain time when we did not have many works of literature I took to
learning such poems almost by heart and I still remember some of them.

We, Cuban revolutionaries, can say: "And if we die, what is life?" And there
are a lot of us, Cuban revolutionaries. We know that no true revolutionary,
no true leader of the Cuban revolution would hesitate to die if our country
became the target of an aggression. (APPLAUSE)

I will say more, because we deeply analyze all their technology and their
tactics and there is no war, big or small, and no criminal and cowardly
bombing that we have not studied well. Aside from the fact that it will not
be easy for them to find an excuse.

They are always inciting and scheming against Cuba, trying to stir up
conflicts inside our country. They go to great lengths to create any kind of
internal conflict that would justify monstrous crimes like they have just co
mmitted against the Serbs.

Those irresponsible people who in our country put themselves at the service
of the United States and receive a salary from the U.S. Interests Section
are really toying with sacred things. They are toying with the lives of our
people and they should be aware of that. The empire, knowing that Cuba would
not give in, longs to accumulate enough forces with its blockade, its
propaganda and its money to create internal conflicts. We are not talking of
family remittances, we are talking of the United States government money. It
has been publicly recognized there as well as in its own laws or amendments.
They have recently declared that any American can send money to any Cuban.
They have practically said: "Let each American buy a Cuban." And I said to
myself: "We should raise the price (LAUGHTER) since there is one Cuban to 27
Americans."

They authorize family remittances but no more than 300 US dollars every
three months. Cuba is the only country in the world with such restrictions.
No, they do not raise by a dime the amount authorized for people of Cuban
descent to send remittances to their relatives but they invite Americans to
send remittances to any Cuban. Perhaps, they will work through the telephone
book, I do not know. They also give money to whatever small group or
faction, to anyone. In their eagerness to stir up conflict, they have so
declared and they have passed legislation about sending money. It is a
serious matter. Extremely serious!

In their arrogance and disdain, they do not accept that Cuba is resisting.
It is so hard for them to accept that they would like to vanish us from
Earth, like they tried to do with Serbia. It is just that here it is
different, or rather not. I would absolutely not question the Serbs' heroism
and courage. Absolutely not. A country is not braver than any other, what
makes people brave are their convictions and certain moral values.
(APPLAUSE) It can sometimes be a religious conviction that leads a person to
martyrdom, or it can be a political conviction served with religious fervor.

For example, our doctors who are in very isolated places in some countries
of this continent or in neighboring Haiti show a heroic attitude, the
morality of missionaries, like true priests working for human health,
pastors at the service of life, of values. I was reading today that some
journalists had left for Haiti in order to inform the people and the
relatives of those stationed there on the work that they are doing in the
remotest places. Many of those doctors are women, some with children here,
and they work in faraway places which can sometimes only be reached after
three days of walking through swampy ground.

Some people have been contesting or rather trying to create unrest about our
doctors in one of those fraternal countries. They are disputing our doctors'
degrees. Ah!, but as soon as they ask, we will humbly and immediately
forward them the curriculum vitae of each of those doctors and the grades
they obtained in school, at the university, the specialist courses they have
done, the surgeries they have performed, the lives they have saved. It would
be wonderful to send the records of every one of them!

Our doctors are working there with humility and dedication in compliance
with agreements signed by the governments. They are not there as an
imposition. The moment any government tells us that their presence is
inconvenient or that it creates any political problems, we shall immediately
withdraw our doctors. This is it. But they work as missionaries, it could be
said like true heroes. We know this very well because we are informed of
what they are doing and we talk at great length with some of the people in
charge of their activity when they come here. Our doctor's work is the
expression of their own values.

We can say with satisfaction that if the World Health Organization wanted to
implement a health program, or Europe, even our neighbors up north if they
wanted to salve their consciences a little and were ready to contribute with
the medicines, we would be able to send 10,000 doctors wherever they are
needed in Latin America. We also have doctors in the north of Sub-Saharan
Africa, working there for free in an ambitious health program.

If this country --I have to say it again-- if we sent one out of every three
doctors on such missions, the two remaining would carry out their work and
health care in our country would not be hurt. And, if we sent one out of
every three we would still be the country with the highest rate of doctors
per capita among all countries in the world --higher than industrial Europe,
higher than Sweden, higher than Denmark and, of course, higher than the
United States, Canada and other great industrialized nations. Yes, a poor
and blockaded country can also do things. This is a fact. And we have more
teachers too and possibly more art instructors per capita than any of those
countries.

I state the same thing about sports because we have about 30,000 qualified
physical education and sports teachers, most of whom are university
graduates. They know not only how to palpate a muscle but they know what
muscle it is that they are palpating because they have a university
education.

We also have another small merit, which is the highest number of gold medals
per capita in the Olympic Games. And we shall continue to have them, even if
the games go professional because we have just proven that our modest
amateur sport can compete with good professional teams. It is obvious that a
small and poor country can do things. They are wrong to underestimate us.

Really, this is not bragging; on the contrary, we prefer to discuss our
mistakes, to criticize ourselves but after seeing the insolence, the
demagogy, the lies and the slanders against Cuba we have no other choice but
to talk about some of the things we have done. Anything else would be
foolish, I mean, boasting here about what we have done. We are rather very
critical of ourselves for not having done more and for not having done it
better. That is how it is. I am saying it in all honesty. I think that one
of the reasons for the resistance and the survival of the revolution is that
the leaders here are never complacent. We hope and we dream that they will
continue the same way in the future as well. And, of course, we have great
confidence in our people.

I was telling you that if it occurred to them to carry out one of those mad
actions against us, they would not only find the people I have described but
one with a sound political culture and important, sacred values to defend.
This fight has been going on for many years and I can tell you that we will
not ask for a truce. No truce! (APPLAUSE) The people in charge of this
Revolution would die rather than make a single concession of principles to
the empire. (APPLAUSE)

Rather than relinquishing a single atom of our sovereignty, those of us
responsible for leading our people in peace and in war, in every endeavor,
we would not survive capitulation. We are deeply committed to what we have
done all our lives and because we feel it very intensively, because our
commitment rests on convictions and values, we would stand right under the
bombs rather than surrender.

In such an adventure it is not difficult to die. There is no greater glory!
At least we would be setting an example for others! The Yugoslavian people
set an example. They resisted the most unbelievable bombings for almost 80
days, without hesitation. We knew about the spirit of the people there
through our diplomatic representatives.

I do not intend to criticize anybody. I respect the decision that any
government might take and it does not escape me that decisions are difficult
under certain circumstances. But, for us they will not be at all difficult
because we solved that problem a long time ago. If they were to do that
here, they would be defeated, as simple as that. Not even a genocide would
give them victory because there is a limit to their killing capacity, and I
firmly believe that, if the aggressors had had to extend those bombings for
15 or 20 more days, the world and the European public opinion would not have
accepted it. A few days before the famous peace formula was imposed on
Yugoslavia, the world opinion was increasingly turning against the
aggressors, I have a large number of newspaper articles reflecting exactly
that.

Of course, nobody would have been able to impose that on us because we have
been here alone, all by ourselves, all alone for a long while, near the
mightiest power that ever existed. So, who could come here to impose it on
us?

Nobody could. And we do not need any mediator. Honor is not negotiable! Our
homeland is not negotiable! Dignity is not negotiable! Independence,
sovereignty, history and glory are not negotiable! (PROLONGED APPLAUSE)

There would be no negotiating with us for a cessation of bombings. I will
advance that if they started bombing some day, they would have to continue
for a hundred years if it was a war from the air they wanted to make; or
they would have to stop dropping bombs because as long as there were a few
combatants still alive in this country, they would be forced to send ground
troops. I would like to know what would happen if they did that.

As I was saying, we do not do anything foolish that they can use as an
excuse. You can see how patient we have been with that [Guantanamo] base. It
is a small piece of Cuban land and we have every right to have it back. The
people here have had quite a radical view of the issue. Not us, we are
patient. We say: "No, it is much more important to liberate the world than
to liberate that beloved piece of land that we will never give up." They
would have loved it if we had started a strong national movement claiming
the base in order to have an easy pretext for their adventures, to deceive
US and world public opinion, to say that we have attacked them. Before
concluding, I will show you some things in this respect. But they have never
had the remotest chance of saying that Cuba has been hostile or aggressive
toward the American military personnel stationed there.

What can they say about us on humanitarian issues? That we have not a single
illiterate, that we have not a single child without a school, not a single
person without medical care. That there are no beggars here although there
are sometimes irresponsible families who send out their children on errands.
That is associated with tourism and it affects, if not our identity, at
least our honor. There is nobody abandoned in the streets.

What can they say? That we have a massive number of excellent doctors as I
have been telling you about. What else can they say? That we can save
hundreds of thousands of lives each year in our hemisphere and in Africa.

What did we tell the Haitians? That we are willing to put forward a plan to
save some 30,000 lives a year, 25,000 of them children's lives.

What was our proposal to the Central Americans? A plan to save, every year,
as many lives as the hurricane took, if it actually took 30,000. That figure
decreased later because many that were missing began to show up. As we said,
the lives that could be saved every year could be as many as those taken by
the hurricane, if the highest figure announced was true --and that is a
conservative estimate. The truth is that, on that program, we were ready to
contribute the required staff and we asked that any industrial country, no
matter which, contribute the drugs. Why is it that all those spending so
many billions on bombs and genocide do not use a little money to save lives?

I told you the other day about how they attributed loathsome things to us
and I mentioned a number of them. I told you and I will repeat it now: Not a
single person is tortured in this country! Not a single political
assassination! Not a single vanished person! Forty years have already passed
since the triumph of the Revolution despite all the conspiracies and all the
efforts made to divide us, to subvert the Revolution. They have crashed
against our people's iron-like unity and patriotism, against their political
culture. All this under extremely difficult circumstances.

I am absolutely certain that very few people would resist the almost 10
years that we have resisted after loosing all our markets and supply sources
and with a tightened blockade. They underestimated us.

Also, if they carried out one of the acts of madness mentioned, they would
be underestimating us and I do not think they underestimate us quite that
much, I really do not. I will say no more. We are not defending ourselves
here but the right of other peoples who do not have our possibilities or our
unity or the fighting capacity that we have as an organized and prepared
people.

I already told you, and I am not dramatizing, that we have no need for that
kind of new specialist who emerged from this war in Yugoslavia with the
category of mediator. They can come only to report that they will proceed to
suspend the bombings or withdraw troops or to cease all hostilities. This
much we dare say: No weapon has been invented that can conquer man! We are
not afraid of those repulsive and cowardly wars where they do not risk a
single life! They are nauseating, disgusting but they only make us better
socialists and better revolutionaries. That is all. (APPLAUSE)

I was telling you that an important battle was fought at the United Nations.
Here is the famous Resolution. They are incorrigible cheats, mediocre and
incompetent politicians. I brought some papers but I will just use a few
things I underlined.

Well, this is the agreement that was passed, the draft Resolution. Who
sponsored it? Germany, a NATO country; Canada, a NATO country; the United
States, a leading country and chief of NATO; the Russians are among the
sponsors because they reached previous agreements in the Group of Eight but
they made a critical speech there; France, a NATO country; Italy, a NATO
country; the Netherlands, a NATO country; the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland, a NATO country. I counted them and I saw that
there were seven NATO countries among the 12 sponsors of the draft in the Se
curity Council --seven countries involved in the aggression.

There was also, Gabon, a French neocolonial dominion and Slovenia, a former
Yugoslav republic. This was the first one that --heedless of the
constitutional rules set forth when the Yugoslav Federation was created
recognizing the right to secession and the procedures to accomplish it--
encouraged by Germany and Austria unilaterally declared its independence
avoiding any legal formality. Yes, there had undoubtedly been previous
groundwork. On the other hand, it was disintegration time!

One of the republics separated constitutionally through a plebiscite. That
was Macedonia, but Slovenia declared its independence on June 25, 1991. In
Europe, there were doubts over what to do. Later on came Croatia's
declaration of independence, that is, two splits avoiding all constitutional
procedures. And this, as our ambassador to the United Nations said, was
promoted by some European countries and later unanimously supported by the
West.

This is important because when that country emerged --the heroic Yugoslavia
that kept even Hitler's troops at bay-- the Socialist Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia lived in peace, despite centuries-old national, ethnic, cultural
and religious struggles. That area of Yugoslavia, between the Ottoman Empire
and the Austro-Hungarian Empire, was a battlefield. It is well known story
that the Ottomans reached the outskirts of Vienna.

We have been reading a lot of background information and, really, there were
people who contributed to the so-called ethnic wars that broke out in the
1990s, people who helped, certainly not on purpose since I do not attribute
it to a premeditated and cynical concept but to irresponsible acts. Anyway,
they unleashed the disintegration of Yugoslavia and it all began, as I said,
with Slovenia on June 25, 1991 when avoiding any legal procedure Slovenia
declared its independence and its leaders took command of the troops
corresponding to that republic, since every republic had its self-defense
troops; they were about 40,000 men. As I understand it, some 2,000 young
draftees from the neighboring Croatian republic left for Slovenia. There was
practically no combat. There were only such pressures.

The disease began to spread. Another republic, Croatia, did the same. In
that case, more violent conflicts broke out.

What happened? These republics could very well have followed the
constitutional procedures. Yugoslavia was no longer a socialist country. It
was a country that had established all the capitalist and market standards.
It was not the old Yugoslavia of [Marshall] Tito and of a later period. It
was a capitalist country with the multi-party system officially recommended
by the West.

A very influential factor was that in 1981, ten years before this happened,
Slovenia's GDP was five times the per capita GDP of the rest of Yugoslavia.
They began to feel that the poorer republics were a burden and they were
encouraged to move toward closer economic integration with the West. Some
supported them --as I said-- some gave them weapons at that stage, even
before they had declared independent. One of their leaders has admitted this
much.

On June 21, 1996, in a program on the Ljubljana television specially devoted
to the fifth anniversary of independence, President Kucan conceded that
"Slovenia was already building up its army before 1990 in anticipation of a
war." In the same interview, the Slovene president added: "The European
Union played a great role in making possible the breakup from Yugoslavia."

This is real history. I do not want to offend anybody nor do I mean to hurt
anyone. I abide by the facts, the historical facts that we have been looking
at again together with some information we already had when this conflict
broke out.

It was irresponsible and truly criminal to encourage and support the
disintegration of that country which had achieved the miracle of living in
peace for 45 years.

There were different factors bearing on the situation there, both economic
and of a nationalist character, and there were a lot of people in Europe who
understood the potential consequences. I have spoken with European leaders,
European politicians who understood that this was very risky. However, one
day two countries, specifically Germany and Austria, officially recognized
Slovenia and Croatia and, immediately, the rest of Europe followed, thus
beginning all sorts of conflicts that we now know about.

There were difficulties in Kosovo where there was a strong nationalist
movement. The Albanian Kosovars or Kosovar Albanians were already a large
majority. I remember that even when [Marshall] Tito was alive, many Serbs
had migrated to Serbia because they felt unsafe. In 1974, the Constitution
was amended and Kosovo was granted autonomy --I have not read that
Constitution-- but that is precisely the Serbs' birthplace. There are many
historical sites there that they value highly. Some of those sites have
suffered with the bombings. But I do not know whether that Constitution
--that I am trying to obtain-- which granted autonomy to the Kosovo
province, gave it the right to secession, as it did with the republics.
Anyway, it was not declared a republic but an autonomous province. I assume
that it did not have that right recognized and that, in any case, there
would have been a process, like in Macedonia.

What began in 1991 has continued until today and nobody knows when it will
end. There were all sorts of wars and blood was unquestionably shed from
both sides. That is the truth, as I see it.

Now then, instead of starting to supposedly straighten out those countries,
it would have been better if they had not been disrupted, if they had not
been disorganized. Of course, living standards were largely different in
Macedonia and Slovenia, very different. There was a Constitution by virtue
of which the Socialist Federal Republic was established. It had the word
"socialist" before but more or less after the perestroika it was removed,
that much is clear. Its present name is Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. That
is, the name of what is left because what remained was Serbia and Montenegro
since Kosovo was not a republic. What is left is called the Federal Republic
of Yugoslavia, is it not? I have some papers here but I will not be looking
for the exact name. We even have here the UN Security Council resolution:
"Federal Republic of Yugoslavia," that's it. The word "socialist" was
removed long ago.

The government may call itself socialist because you know that there are
many governments where there are socialist parties but the countries are not
socialist. There are socialist parties in many places and in the government,
but this does not mean that the country is socialist or that it plans to be
so. They are countries with free enterprise, neo-liberalization, pure
capitalism.

As for Yugoslavia, our position is based on principles, both with respect to
Serbs and with respect to Kosovars. We defend their right to autonomy.
Moreover, we defend not only their right to have their own culture, their
religious beliefs, their national rights and feelings but also if one day
the Kosovars of all ethnic groups and the rest of Serbia decided to separate
peacefully and democratically, once an equitable and just peace has been
achieved and not one imposed from outside by means of war, we would support
them.

No one knows what will happen with Montenegro. During the war Montenegro
behaved the best it could for NATO's taste. It volunteered some criticisms,
some opposition, and perhaps that is why its quota of bombs was much lower
than Serbia's. I have read many messages sent by the aggressors to
Montenegro encouraging it to secede and it was accorded special treatment
during the war. All the bombs were for Serbia.

When the agreement reached by the Group of Eight refers to substantial
autonomy for the Kosovars, one could ask: Does it mean the kind of autonomy
that Macedonia used to have? We do not know but, in that case, there would
be a peaceful road to independence. There are many aspects on which Serbs
and Kosovars can agree. It is beyond question that most of the Kosovo
population are not Serbs. The Serbs constitute a minority and it is very
likely that after this dreadful war Serb civilians will follow the Serb
troops out. It is apparent. News have come that they were exhuming their
dead because it is part of their traditions to migrate with the remains of
their ancestors.

I do not know what they will do. Messages are being sent discouraging a
massive migration and violence against the Serbs living there. Those risks
exist at the moment. Many are claiming victory but, who is accepting blame
for all the factors that led to this situation and all the ethnic conflicts?
A horrendous crime they are calling a victory. A victory they would have to
be ashamed of because from the moral point of view if we are to talk about
victory and defeat, the morally defeated were those who waged a cowardly war
and dropped 23,000 bombs over Serbia, some of the most sophisticated,
destructive and technologically advanced bombs. What a victory!

Our UN ambassador estimated that the NATO countries' GDP is 1,013 times
greater than Serbia's and that the Alliance member countries have 43 times
more regular troops. But, regular troops are useless in an air war like it
was waged there. The difference was zero to infinite. Bomber planes arriving
from the United States were able to drop bombs from great distances without
running the slightest risk. It was a war that lasted 80 days and in which
23,000 bombs were launched against a country while the aggressors did not
have a single combat casualty. It was the first time in history that
something like that happened.

It must be said that this war, of which nobody can be proud, is a cowardly
war, the most cowardly of all wars ever waged. The alleged victory was
morally Pyrrhic and the war a genocide.

Why was it a genocide? What is a genocide? The attempt to exterminate a
population: you either surrender or face extermination. How long were the
bombings going to last? They were talking of up to October or November but
that was idle talk. We know very well how many European leaders felt. Many
newspaper articles were published on the growing discontent and opposition
to the bombings in Europe and even in the United States. And there was even
greater opposition to ground troops involvement. In my view, NATO was in no
condition to continue that bombing much longer. Neither Europe nor the world
would have tolerated it. NATO would have broken apart if it had persisted on
that path.

As I said that we had three comrades there with a cell phone, working day
and night, round the clock, under the bombs and with the air-raid sirens,
even when there was no electric power. We always asked them about the morale
of the population, about the prevailing spirit. The people there covered the
bridges with crowds; men, women and children went there so that they would
not be destroyed. That was the case of the last bridge standing in Belgrade.

The NATO planes attacked all the bridges and there were times when it mostly
attacked the electrical network. It destroyed virtually all the power plants
leaving millions without light and energy. Imagine a house, if they had
something to cook, how could they if there was no fuel, no light, no water?
All those pumping systems operate with electricity. Take away the
electricity and the cities are left without water. Destroy all the bridges
and the cities are left without any supplies whatsoever.

When the electrical service, for example, is rendered useless a whole lot of
basic services become useless too. Imagine intensive-care units without
electricity or water; hospitals without electricity or water; schools
without electricity or water; households, medical and educational
facilities, all facilities and supplies cut off. So, it was not a war
against the military, it was a war against the civilian population.

Then it occurred to Marshall Solana to make a solemn statement, that
"electric facilities were absolutely military objectives". No one should be
so arbitrary with words, ideas and concepts to justify a genocide. All means
of life were under attack. The main workplaces were destroyed so half a
million Serb workers were left jobless and it is not known how many more
will be. Hospitals, schools, embassies, prisons, Kosovar convoys were
attacked. They said that these had been failures.

I remember reading a dispatch about a General in the British air force who,
after 15 or 20 days of bombing, said: "Well, it is just that our pilots have
been very restricted up to now. Now, each plane will simply go hunting a
target." They went hunting targets, whether it was a convoy of Kosovar
refugees they attacked mistaken for Serb troops, or a prison where they
killed 87 people; also, maternity and pediatric hospitals. There is a very
long list of such incidents. Above all, admitting that a bomb might have
been dropped by mistake, the destruction of all the bridges and electric
systems could not be, and was not, a mistake.

What would have happened if the Serbs had continued resisting? How long
could they have prolonged such barbarian actions?

They UN Security Council adopted a draft resolution. Of its 12 sponsors,
seven belong to NATO, another is a neo-colony of one of the seven NATO
co-sponsors and another one triggered the disintegration of Yugoslavia in
1991. There is also Japan, a member of the group of the seven richest
countries --and this draft was by the Group of Seven-- and the Russian
Federation, which took part in the meeting of the Group of Seven plus Russia
that agreed on a peace plan and sent its emissaries to Belgrade to submit it
and Ukraine, a Slav country separated from Russia although it keeps normal
relations with it and very good relations with NATO. These are the 12
sponsors of the draft resolution submitted to the UN Security Council and
produced, in this case, by the Group of Eight.

What happened can be seen clearly, in strict chronological order.

Marshall Solana gave the order for the attack and the disciplined U.S.
Generals, who were leading the operation, began the attacks on the night of
March 24. They were completely certain that the attacks would only last
three days. Look at how senseless and shortsighted, irresponsible and poor
calculators they were. They estimated that Serbia would immediately
surrender after three days of bombings. The fourth day went by, then the
fifth, the sixth, the seventh...

We have some interesting documents that might be published some day, various
messages in different directions where our role as prophets shows, and the
events unfolded exactly as we predicted on the basis of an elementary
calculation of what was going to happen. We were familiar with the
Yugoslavs' traditions: they fought against 40 of Hitler's divisions and
among the countries that took part in that war it was Yugoslavia that had
the highest percentage of dead compared to its total population. The Soviet
Union had about 20 million, as was always said, with a population of about
250 million. Higher figures were given later but 20 million was the one
always reported, a round figure. The Serbs must have had some 1,700,000 dead
in that war. I cannot tell you right now how accurate that figure is but I
do know that it was the country that suffered the highest number of dead
with relation to its population. They fought then using methods of irregular
warfare and a concept of fighting with the involvement of all the people.

Right now, the Serb troops are withdrawing from Kosovo with almost all their
tanks, cannons and armored vehicles. It is amazing! It is amazing that
complete units are being withdrawn, as shown on television, despite the
density and the intensity of the attacks launched against them. They were in
perfect conditions for ground combat.

I really believe that they should have developed other concepts. I say this
in all sincerity. This is an issue to which we have given a lot of thought.
They had complete units although this was not a war of conventional Serbian
war units against NATO units. They could have used tanks, cannons and
whatever they wanted but with the units organized in unconventional ways.
Perhaps, or almost certainly, they had them deployed in a way that was
absolutely appropriate for the type of war they might have had to wage. We
have no information on what they did and how they did it.

We knew beforehand what was going to happen, namely, that they were going to
resist. If it had not been for the pressures they came under from friends
and enemies alike, which seems to have been enormous, possibly the Serb
leaders would have continued to resist. I will say no more. The people would
surely have resisted indefinitely. NATO would have had to decide on a ground
campaign or else suspend the bombing and in a ground war it would not have
been easy for NATO to overcome the growing political obstacles nor would the
war ever have ended. That is my point of view.

Well then, the draft resolution by NATO and the Group of Eight was adopted
and the bombings stopped. In one of its sections, the resolution adopted
reads, and I quote, that the UN Security Council:

"Decides on the deployment in Kosovo, under United Nations auspices, of
international civil and security presences," the words seem so harmless,
"... and welcomes the agreement of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to
such presences." Well, it does not say what presences. International
security forces, it does not say whose.

It later reads that it: "Requests the Secretary General to appoint, in
consultation with the Security Council, a Special Representative to control
the implementation of the international civil presence." The question is who
is in command there? The United Nations leads the civil presence, "and
further requests the Secretary General to instruct his Special
Representative to coordinate closely with the international security
presence to ensure that both presences operate towards the same goals and in
a mutually supportive manner."

It asks its man to coordinate with the leaders of those troops while still
not saying which troops --a civil leadership which is the one under the
orders of the United Nations-- and it asks the civil representative to
coordinate with the security forces, in case they pay any attention to him.

"Authorizes Member States and relevant international organizations to
establish the international security presence in Kosovo as set out in point
4 of annex 2 with all necessary means to fulfil its responsibilities under
paragraph 9 below."

It authorizes, they are not under its command. It invites, knowing
beforehand who were invited. It is said that many are called but few are
chosen.

"Affirms the need for the rapid early deployment of effective international
civil and security presences to Kosovo, and demands," a terribly strong
word, "that the parties cooperate fully in their deployment." In other
words, that the different countries cooperate fully. We are also ready to
cooperate if they want doctors but not one soldier because that is not an
internationalist or a peace mission. It is an imperialist mission with very
specific objectives. We are ready to cooperate to save lives. As for the
rest, the decisions taken by each one do not concern us.

It is known, however, that the British will have 13,000 troops in Kosovo
--the main forces-- with a British General in command. The number of
Americans is unknown. Some marines have already landed in Greece --they will
probably arrive in the thousands. The French too, and all the aggressors.
The figure of Russians is not public although it is known more or less how
many Russians are already there; a press dispatch has brought the news that
somebody said that there could be between 2,000 and 10,000. Who is
commanding them? We will see because this is a bone of contention.

As to the possibilities for the presence of Russian soldiers, a statement
was made yesterday by the current Russian prime minister [Stepashin] which
reads: "The armed forces are in such a catastrophic state that the
military-industrial complex and the army are barely surviving. We must
remember this in next year's budget." What will be next year's budget?
Nobody knows. Even if it is catastrophic, they would have to cover the costs
of the troops which will come to 4,000 or 5,000. If they get to 5,000, they
would only be 10 percent of the so-called security forces.

What is well known is that regardless of who accompanies NATO, it will be
NATO that will have 90 percent of the occupying troops under its direct
command, and not only its own troops but also the accompanying troops. There
will be countries, such as Ukraine, that will offer some soldiers. A Latin
American country might offer a small group of soldiers, some young draftees.
But, NATO will have everything there in addition to the thousand planes that
took part in the bombing.

The Russians will, at most, have a helicopter, a light aircraft to fly from
one place to another. (LAUGHTER) The Ukrainians might have some jeeps and
maybe even a helicopter. NATO will have everything on air, land and sea and
command over everything. The discrepancy now is with the Russians who are
embittered, humiliated and threatened, that is the truth. Actually, with
that precedent anybody might think that any day now missiles, laser-guided
bombs and millions of other things could begin falling on them, especially
when it has been admitted that "the armed forces are in a catastrophic
state", which does not exclude the fact that the strategic missiles do work
and they have thousands of them. Yes, they have thousands of strategic
missiles. They are a nuclear power and, of course, all that is expensive.

The UN Security Council: "Welcomes the work in hand in the European Union
and other international organizations to develop a comprehensive approach to
the economic development and stabilization of the region affected by the
Kosovo crisis, including the implementation of a Stability Pact for South
Eastern Europe with broad international participation in order to further
the promotion of democracy, economic prosperity, stability and regional
cooperation."

The adopted resolution does not say: The international community should
contribute to rebuilding everything destroyed there, whether Kosovar or
Serb. No, what the NATO leaders are declaring is that the government that
made an agreement with them, and yielded to the advise or the pressures of
the Group of Eight's mediators, must step down now and appear before the
International Tribunal for Yugoslavia where it has been accused.

Not a word about building anything in Serbia. About Montenegro, they do say
that it will receive suitable treatment, that it has behaved very well and
accepted refugees. But, nothing about Serbia. Before, they dropped bombs on
them for having such a government and now, for the same reason, they will
not help them to feed themselves, and that after all the destruction. Look
how noble, how generous and humanitarian the United States and NATO are! Do
you not think? What is the fault of children there aged from zero to one,
10, 15 years old? What is the old people's fault ? What is the fault of the
pregnant women, the retired, ordinary men and women who have lived through
such a traumatic experience?

Often, the most traumatizing about a bombing is the explosions, the noise.
The Nazis, who have been quite well imitated in this merciless war --and I
say this from my heart-- used some terrifying sirens in their Stuka planes
when dive-bombing their targets. I remember that war. I had just turned 13
when it began but I was interested in all the news and I read about it. I
remember the war almost as if it were yesterday. In their combat planes,
they had some sirens that made a hellish noise aimed at sowing fear, panic
and disarray while they dropped their bombs, which were not at all like
those of today. They were toy bombs compared to those dropped by NATO over
Serbia.

The terror of bombings produces lifelong trauma, much more so in a child of
three, four, five, six, seven, eight years, who remain day after day and
every night under the noise of the sirens and the explosions. Would any
doctor, any psychologist dare say that those children and millions of people
will not endure a lifelong trauma with the terror they lived under for 80
days from the air-raid sirens plus the hellish roar of the combat planes
engines as they flew at ground level, which is much more deafening than the
Stuka sirens and with much more powerful explosions than those of the Nazi
bombs?

Yet, they must now be punished: not one dime to rebuild a school of those
they say were mistakenly destroyed, not one hospital, not one power plant.
What are they going to live on? Well, now it is a hunger bombing. An
agreement was signed with certain leaders who will handle things and they
will know what they are doing. But, I consider it a crime to deny even a
handful of wheat to the Serb people after dropping 23,000 bombs and missiles
on them. Then, if the man presiding Serbia remains in government for three
months or six or if he simply stays longer, a year --I do not know, nobody
can foretell-- the people will be subjected to a genocidal war for a year,
all the civilians, all those who are in no way responsible for any ethnic
cleansing or for the masses of refugees.

There were 20,000 refugees but when the massive bombings began people
withdrew for many different reasons: out of fear or because they were afraid
of being evicted or suppressed, or maybe because they were terrified by the
bombings or afraid of dying. You can never say it is only one reason. What
is the fault of the children, the civilians, the hundreds of thousands who
were left jobless and other workers, the peasants, the farmers, the
pensioners, the civilian population in general? What is their fault, really?
It is a crime to keep them waiting until the government changes. To make
them wait for a month is 30 times more criminal and a year would be 365
times more criminal. Each day that they are denied food is a crime.

I remember that during our liberation struggle we had an enemy force under
siege, with no water or food because we had cut off their water supply and
they had run out of food. Our combatants handed their cigarettes and their
food to the exhausted soldiers who surrendered because a sense of chivalry
had been created in the revolutionary troops and there was a policy in place
for treating the enemy. If a policy like that does not exist, a war cannot
be won. If you mistreat your enemies, if you torture them, they will never
surrender. They will fight to their last bullet.

We had a strict policy in that sense: after 24 or 48 hours, they were set
free. At the beginning, they fought very hard. Later, when they realized
they were lost, they parleyed and the officers were allowed to leave with
their pistols. We did not want to make them go hungry nor could we give them
what little food we had. At times, we called in the International Red Cross,
as we did during the last enemy offensive when we took hundreds of prisoners
in two-and-a-half months of combat. During the war, we ended up with
thousands of prisoners that we had taken in combat. Entire units were
besieged and we treated them gently because they were our arm suppliers.

We did not receive arms from anybody during our short but intense liberation
war while fighting against quite powerful forces but it did not occur to any
of us to surrender. At a certain time I only had two rifles and other
comrades were left with five. We were two armed groups when we met again,
after a significant setback, to resume the struggle. Comrade Razl's group
had five rifles and four men and my group had two rifles and three men. In
total, we were seven men with seven rifles but we were not discouraged.
Twenty-four months later, we attained victory.

This is not self-glorification. It was a real situation that we had the
privilege to live through and I cannot help but remember it at this moment.
When there is a will, when men are not discouraged, when they believe in
what they are doing, no setback will make them back down!

As I said, our supplier was Batista's army, organized, equipped, trained and
also advised during all that time by American officers. It was not an army
to look down on, not at all. They believed themselves to be the masters of
the world. We had to endure great needs but we gave our enemy prisoners our
food and even our medicine.

We have the right to ask ourselves about that Serbia destroyed by NATO, if
the West is going to refuse a handful of wheat to a pregnant woman in a
country that is said to have surrendered and accepted every condition and
still more conditions than those demanded by the Group of Eight? Is that
correct? Is that fair? Is that humanitarian? I needed to ask those
questions.

I already told you that they were arguing over who was going to lead that
security force. Of course, there is in the first place the speech delivered
yesterday in the United Nations by the U.S. ambassador. Actually, that
Security Council agreement does not say under whose command the security
forces are going to be. It only calls for them to go and it is known
beforehand who can go and who will go.

Now the Yankees are interpreting the agreement. There comes the time for
interpretations! This resolution establishes an international security force
in Kosovo. Now here is the catch. In his speech, the United States
representative says, among other things: "The authorities of the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia accepted that KFOR," I do not know how to pronounce
it but that is the acronym --I do not know if it is in English or in what
language-- "the Kosovo International Security Force will operate with a
unified NATO chain of command," this was just yesterday, after the
resolution, "under the political direction of the North Atlantic Council, in
consultation with non-NATO force contributors."

It is NATO and under the direction of the North Atlantic Council, in other
words, the NATO Council. Who gave them permission? The Security Council? No.
This demand was contained in the agreement of the Group of Eight meeting of
May 6. Because, on May 6, when they saw that the bombings were continuing
through March and all of April, forty-odd days had passed, three days many
times over and there was not the least sign of capitulation, they began to
worry. Many of those in NATO began to make up things and they put up a Group
of Eight meeting that took place on May 6, that is, 44 or 45 into the
bombings, and they adopted certain agreements. The Russian prime minister
had still not been changed but before that change took place somebody had
been appointed as special envoy of the Russian government for the so-called
peace efforts.

I am not criticizing that, of course. I think it was very appropriate that
the Russian government did everything possible to try to find a political
solution to the conflict. That conflict could not have a military solution
and they were not in any condition nor they had any possibility to help the
Serbs militarily, only with nuclear weapons and that is out of the question.
Nobody would agree to that. That form of support would have seemed to us
absolutely insane and impossible and it would have been a worldwide suicide.

But, it was obvious that the Russians did not even have the possibility of
sending a plane with ammunition to Serbia. Nothing could be sent by land or
sea. Hungary, a new NATO member is there on the border. There are other
similar countries there. Nothing could be sent by land; nothing by air;
nothing by sea. They had nothing but their nuclear weapons left and, let us
say, political support, the firm denunciation of it all.

There was the Agreement of the Group of Eight under which a peace plan was
adopted, a peace plan that after thorough discussions, was signed on May 6
and adopted or accepted by the Yugoslavs on June 3, that is, almost a month
later. After its approval in May, many efforts were made: [President]
Ahtisaari, from Finland, comes and goes, the same as Chernomyrdin. There
were American envoys and Russian envoys until June 3, when during a visit to
Belgrade the Russian envoy and the President of Finland convinced the
President of Yugoslavia to accept the formula.

It has been said that the President of Finland went out and the Russian
envoy once alone was finally able convinced the President of Yugoslavia.
Some day we shall know what they said and how they said it. So, I am not
criticizing the Russian peace efforts, that is quite different from the
question of Yugoslav leaders accepting the conditions imposed on them. I
have my personal view of the different things that might have happened. I
will just say that in spite of its immense power, NATO's position was
already weak because you cannot go on bombing and killing every day before
the eyes of the whole world that is watching a live show of what is going
on. There comes a moment when the killing becomes too scandalous and
intolerable.

But nobody there talked about who was going to command the troops. That
would be discussed later. Until the last minute, when the resolution was
about to be submitted to the Security Council, the Russians opposed the idea
that the troops taking part in the aggression be allowed there --that was
also the Yugoslav position-- and that there should be a single command under
NATO. The mediators had to consult the Chinese, and the Chinese had reasons
to be irritated by the method, the procedure used by NATO, the attack on the
Chinese Embassy, all those things.

The Russians agreed to discuss the draft first in the Security Council and
then discuss the organization and distribution modalities, the question of
security forces in Kosovo. Giving in first to something and then discussing
another important issue is not good tactics. You give in and when you start
discussing then they ask for more. No, sir, take a few more minutes to get
things straight before supporting the agreement, before renouncing the right
to veto and voting in favor.

I know of Russian leaders who have made serious and honest efforts to find a
solution to a really complicated and dangerous situation. They have weakened
themselves a lot politically and people do not respect them like before.
That is why nobody knew who was going to lead the troops.

But the Americans rapidly found a solution which is found in the speech
delivered by the United States representative in the Security Council. Look,
they were discussing in Macedonia with the representatives of the Serb
troops in Kosovo. They discussed for a whole day but did not reach an
agreement. They returned for a second day of discussions and used the
situation to request a false permit. And now a new finding which was
disclosed yesterday: the role of NATO had already been authorized.

It was not the Group of Eight or the United Nations or the Russians who
agreed. They discussed with those Serb military chiefs in Macedonia and,
according to them, the authorities of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
accepted that KFOR operated with a unified NATO command under the political
leadership of the North Atlantic Council, that is, the Yugoslavs gave them
permission. There is evidence that they have made fools of the Russians. A
cable revealing this was broadcast today showing that the Russians did not
like it at all.

I am abusing your patience telling you a story but, after all, your presence
here is voluntary while I have no other choice but to finish when I can,
when I am through with what I have to say. (LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE) Do not
get any ideas, I do not make any extra money for this job which requires an
effort. What I want to do, since they brought me here --it is your fault, I
did not volunteer-- (LAUGHTER) is to complete the ideas I want to present
which can be useful to our people, too. I cannot forget them, they would
like to know many things and this is an opportunity to tell them although it
might take some time.

They solved the problem. Who? The vanquished. Nobody else authorized the
Americans and NATO and the British Generals who discussed with them, of
course, following strict orders from Marshall Solana, with due respect to
the new Minister of Foreign Affairs of Europe, the pre-united Europe. He is
a pre-Minister of a supranational pre-authority. These are the tittles, more
or less, strictly speaking.

Right away, the United Kingdom takes the floor and here is another
underlined excerpt: "The authorities of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
and the Serb Parliament have now accepted the principles and demands set out
in the G-8 statement of May 6 and in the Chernomyrdin-Ahtisaari paper."

"This resolution and its annexes clearly set out the key demands of the
international community." They are the international community --NATO is--
to which Belgrade must now oblige.

"They also provide for the deployment of an international civil presence,
led by the United Nations, and for an effective international security
presence to re-establish a safe environment in Kosovo (...) That is why NATO
has made clear that it will be essential to have a unified chain of command
under the political direction of the North Atlantic Council" --not the
United Nations-- "in consultation with non-NATO force contributors. This
force, with NATO at its core, will be commanded by a British General. The
United Kingdom will provide the leading contribution, at least 13,000
troops."

"To have come this far, to have secured Belgrade's acceptance of all our
demands, required a huge diplomatic effort. My government pays tribute and
expresses its gratitude to Mr. Chernomyrdin, President Ahtisaari and Mr.
Talbot for their outstanding contribution. The positive engagement of the
Russian Government, via its Special Envoy and in the preparation of this
Resolution by Ministers of the Group of Eight has been vital." They start by
saying that the Yugoslavs authorized NATO to lead the security forces.

Were the Russians happy? Ah, no! I did not bring that cable, unfortunately.
But today there were news from Europe that a Russian force of about 500
paratroopers who were in Bosnia in over 20 armored vehicles, trucks and some
tanks moved forward, crossed over Serbia and were marching towards the
Kosovo border to await there the entrance of different forces, that is, the
solution of the problem of how forces were going to be distributed and, of
course, they have said that Russian forces will not accept NATO command.

They must have been irritated when, without saying a word to anybody, 24
hours before the resolution and the American interpretations, they sent a
column of paratroopers in armored vehicles who have not crossed the border,
so far. Undoubtedly, this is an answer to all these interpretations. They
hate accepting the idea and I suppose that domestically, in their own
country where all this has been very traumatic, it must be very difficult
for the Russian leaders to accept that their troops there --whether they are
2,000, 4,000, 5,000, with or without a salary-- be under NATO orders. It is
only tricks and more tricks on the part of those who unleashed that dirty
war. That is how it has all been.

These are the two main leaders, of course: the United States and the United
Kingdom. They are also the two countries bombing Iraq every day. Nobody
remembers this but it happens every day. It has become a habit, a daily
shooting exercise to preserve their right to bomb every day. That is
something they do on their own, and with all these problems nobody even
remembers.

We had denounced that Yugoslavia had been turned into a shouting range.

In a declaration on June 1st -- that is just nine days ago, before the
government of Yugoslavia accepted the Group of Eight plan -- Cuba issued a
Declaration including different items. Among other things, reference was
made to what was going on there day by day, each target, the attacks. That
Declaration said inter alia:

"Yugoslavia has become a military testing ground. Planes taking off from the
United States drop their deadly load on the Serb people, refuel in midair
and return to their bases non-stop. Missiles are air-launched at a distance
off the range of anti-aircraft. Unmanned aircraft are bombing hospitals with
patients inside, households with people inside, bridges full of pedestrians
and buses with passengers."

Anybody could say that it was an uncalled for denunciation on our part. But
it so happens that yesterday --June 10, about nine days later-- in
Washington, a France Press cable by Benjamin Kahn, reported:

"NATO bombings in Yugoslavia against military targets and civil
infrastructure allowed the US Air Force to test several high-tech weapons,
upgraded since the 1991 Iraq War.

"Intelligent bombs designed to set their trajectory in flight were used in
the Gulf War but the new upgraded versions were used in Yugoslavia and in a
bigger number than ever before.

"Computer-guided bombs allowed the United States to kill thousands of
Yugoslav soldiers from far away, without risking their pilots or ground
troops."

And it goes on:

"Analysts affirm that the massive use of new Cruiser missiles and other
state-of-the-art weapons will continue growing as a result of the search of
the US military to upgrade their capacity to attack beyond the reach of
enemy defense.

"Another breakthrough since the Gulf War was the building-up of missiles
noses with titanium to allow them to run through thick layers of cement and
explode causing greater damage.

"The new generation of B-2 Stealth bombers --the most expensive of all--
also made their debut in Yugoslavia.

"At a cost a 2.2 billion dollars each, B-2s of a super-sophisticated
technology, manufactured by Northrop Grumman, Boeing and General Electric,
flew from a base in the state of Missouri and eluded the Yugoslav
anti-aircraft defense and dropped many satellite-guided bombs in each
flight."

Today there are new facts. A dispatch reported that in three sorties such
bombers hit 20% of their targets; 20% of the targets hit by bombs and
missiles. They have been talking about that.

I believe that Mr. Clinton went today to this air base to congratulate
warmly and fraternally the super-heroes who, always out of reach of enemy
weapons, killed hundreds or thousands of persons or caused who knows what
sort of destruction. An exercise in new technology, and by air. They did not
land midway. B-52s, flying straight from US territory, dropping tons and
tons of bombs. They had to be tested using real fire against real targets.

"Bombs dropped by B-2 JDAMs --also new-- use a GPS orientation system
weighing 450-900 kilos and costing 18,000 dollars each." Rather cheap for an
aircraft that, according to the Washington reporter, costs 2.2 billion. With
2.2 billion, according to the programs I have been telling you about, you
can estimate the hundreds of thousands of lives of children, and people in
general, in Haiti, in Central America and similar places who could be saved
in a few years. You can almost estimate how many lives can be saved in one
year. (RECKONING) This can be more than 400,000. Saving a child's life never
costs more than 500 US dollars: from a child who dies for lack of a vaccine
worth 25 cents to another who dies from lack of rehydration salts, etc. Let
us say 500 US dollars, an exaggerated figure. With 500 million US dollars
you could save almost 1 million people, if there are doctors and medicines.

With 1 billion US dollars, 2 million children can be saved; with 2 billion
US dollars, 4 million children; with 2,2 billion US dollars, you could save
the lives of 4.4 million children. Everyone knows, including the World
Health Organization, that about 12 million children die of curable diseases,
10 to 12 million children. I do not recall exactly the latest figures.

Almost half of those dying in one year could be saved with the cost of a
single aircraft. It would really be humanitarian to invest the cost of one
of these planes in saving the lives of almost 4,5 million children by
conservative estimates! Because in the programs we are designing doctors
work for free. We pay our doctors here, with our currency. We do not have to
spend US dollars because they are paid in our own currency and recently all
doctors wages have been raised. As for NATO, it is surely setting a
humanitarian record!

It is very sad the way they manipulate people with lies and demagogy.
Actually, you should not leave without these few facts I still have here to
share with you.

I say that there are three basic ideas. I have spoken of the Group of Eight.
I already