Fidel Castro: cancel Third World debt, end corporate tyranny
The following is abridged from an interview with Cuba's President FIDEL
CASTRO conducted in January by former UNESCO director general Frederico
Mayor Zaragoza. The full text of the interview was published last month in
Cuba's Granma newspaper.
Question: Ten years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, does the word
``socialism'' make sense any more?
I am more convinced than ever that it makes a great deal of sense.
In Cuba, we have a united country and a party that guides but does not
nominate or elect. The people, gathered in open assemblies, put up
candidates, and nominate and elect delegates from 14,686 districts. They
make up the assemblies of their respective municipalities, and nominate
candidates to the provincial and national assemblies, the highest bodies of
state power at those levels. The delegates, who are chosen through a secret
ballot, must receive more than 50% of the valid votes.
Although voting is not compulsory, more than 95% of eligible voters take
part in these elections. The United States, such a vocal advocate of
multi-party systems, has two parties that are so perfectly similar in their
methods, objectives and goals that they have practically created the most
perfect one-party system in the world. More than 50% of the people in that
``democratic country'' do not even cast a vote, and the team that manages to
raise the most funds often wins with the votes of only 25% of the
electorate.
The US political system is undermined by disputes, vanity and personal
ambition, or by interest groups operating within the established economic
and social model. There is no alternative in the system.
Under capitalism, it is the large national and international companies that
actually govern, even in the most highly industrialised nations. It is they
who make the decisions on investment and development. It is they who are
responsible for material production, essential economic services and a large
part of social services.
The state simply collects taxes and then distributes and spends them. In
many countries, the entire government could go on vacation and nobody would
even notice.
The developed capitalist system, which later gave rise to modern
imperialism, has finally imposed a neo-liberal and globalised order that is
simply unsustainable. It has created a world of speculation where fictitious
wealth and stocks have been created that have nothing to do with actual
production, as well as enormous personal fortunes, some of which exceed the
gross domestic product (GDP) of dozens of poor countries. No need to add the
plundering and squandering of the world's natural resources and the
miserable lives of billions of people.
There is nothing this system can offer humanity. It can only lead to its
self-destruction, and perhaps along with it to the destruction of the
natural conditions that sustain human life.
Question: Forty one years after the Cuban Revolution, and despite all of the
difficulties, it has endured. What is the reason?
Tireless struggle and work. The fact that we have settled for convictions
and acted accordingly; that we believe in humankind and in being our
country's slaves and not its masters. We believe in building upon solid
principles, seeking out and producing solutions, even in apparently
impossible and unreal conditions; in preserving the honesty of those with
the highest political and administrative responsibilities.
How was it possible to withstand the economic and political warfare
unleashed against our country by the mightiest power ever without the
International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, without credits? At a recent
summit meeting in Havana, I somewhat ironically said that it had been
possible because we had the privilege of not being IMF members.
There were times when we were swimming in a sea of circulating money. Our
national currency experienced an extraordinary devaluation and the budget
deficit reached 35% of our GDP. Our peso dropped to 150 to the dollar in
1994.
In spite of this, we did not close down a single health care centre, school,
day-care centre, university or sports facility. Nobody was left without
employment or social security, even when fuel and raw materials
were most scarce.
There was no trace of the customary and hideous shock therapies so highly
recommended by the Western financial institutions. Every measure adopted was
discussed not only in the National Assembly, but also in hundreds of
thousands of assemblies held in factories, centres of production and
services, trade unions, universities, secondary schools, and farmers,
women's and neighbourhood organisations.
What little was available, we distributed as equitably as possible.
Pessimism was overcome. During those critical years, the number of doctors
was doubled and the quality of education was improved. The value of the
Cuban peso increased sevenfold by 1998, to 20 to the dollar, and it has
since remained stable.
Although we have still not reached the production and consumption levels we
had before the demise of socialism in Europe, we have recovered at a steady
and visible pace. The great hero in this feat has been the people, who have
contributed tremendous sacrifices and immense trust. It was the fruit of
justice and the ideas sown throughout 30 years of revolution. This genuine
miracle would have been impossible without unity and socialism.
Question: In view of globalisation, would it not perhaps be advisable to
open the Cuban economy up more to the rest of the world?
We have opened up the economy to the extent that it has been possible and
necessary. We have not gone for the same insanity and follies as in other
places, where the recommendations of European and US experts have been
followed as if they were biblical prophets. We have not been driven by the
insanity of privatisation, and much less by that of confiscating state
property to take it over ourselves or hand it out as gifts to relatives or
friends.
This has happened in both former socialist countries and others that never
were socialist under the pious, tolerant and complicit cover of the
neo-liberal philosophy that has become a universal pandemic.
We have not attempted to commit the folly of adapting Cuba to the chaotic
world of today and its philosophy. What we have done is to adapt those
realities to our own, while fighting alongside many other countries of the
so-called Third World for our right to development and survival.
Question: Nobody questions Cuba's social and cultural achievements, but
would these achievements not be better served by an increase in exchange
with the outside world?
It is true that we have achieved major social advances. There is schooling
for all of our children, and no illiteracy. The development of our
universities is considerable. We have numerous research centres that carry
out important high-quality work.
Every child is given 13 vaccines, almost all of them produced in our own
country, as are most medicines. At the same time, thousands of our doctors
are providing their services free of charge in remote and impoverished areas
of Latin America, the Caribbean and Africa. We are also granting thousands
of scholarships to young Third World people to study in our universities.
No one could imagine what a small Third World country with extremely limited
resources could achieve when a true spirit of solidarity prevails. There is
no doubt that the efforts undertaken by our country could be boosted by an
increase in the exchange with the outside world, to the benefit of both our
own homeland and other nations.
Question: What was the United States' purpose in maintaining the embargo on
Cuba after the end of the East-West confrontation?
They were not trying to influence the revolution but to destroy it. The
demise of the Soviet Union and the collapse of the European socialist bloc
did not take us completely by surprise. We warned our people of this
possibility long before.
In economic terms, Cuba sustained terrible damage. The price we were paid
for our sugar was not that prevailing in the unfair world market; we had
obtained a preferential price, like that applied by the US and Europe to
imports of this commodity.
Supplies of fuel, food, raw material, and parts for machinery and factories
were almost completely cut off. The daily intake of calories dropped from
3000 to 1900, and that of protein from 80 to 50 grams.
Some people could not put up with the difficulties, but the immense majority
confronted the hardships with remarkable courage, honour and determination.
We managed to maintain important achievements, and some were even improved.
The continuing blockade is a painful burden for each and every Cuban. The
Third World nations, as well as most of UN member countries, have repeatedly
demanded the lifting of the blockade. But the US Congress, with the
cooperation of many members of the Republican majority, and even with the
support of several Democratic Party members, has opposed the lifting of this
blockade, which is by far the longest lasting in history.
Question: The US is not the only country imposing all sorts of conditions to
your country. The European Union has also tried to introduce a ``democracy
clause'' in European-Cuban trade relations. What do you think of this
action?
It is significant that the European Union shows much less ``concern'' about
other countries, doubtlessly because they are of a greater economic interest
than we ever could be.
In any case, the political organisation adopted by a sovereign nation cannot
be subject to conditions. Cuba will neither negotiate nor sell out its
revolution, which has cost the blood and the sacrifice of many of its sons
and daughters.
It all depends on what is meant by ``democracy clause''. How many so-called
democratic states are up to their necks in debt? How many allow up to 30% of
the population to live in conditions of extreme poverty? Why should
countries with tens of thousands of children wandering the streets and
countless numbers of illiterate people be treated better than we are? We do
not see why this should be so.
Cuba will never accept political conditions from the European Union, and
much less from the United States. We do not argue about whether the
countries in Europe are monarchies or republics; or whether power is held by
conservatives or social democrats, advocates or adversaries of an idyllic
``third option'', supporters or detractors of the so-called welfare state
which is used as a palliative for the incurable disease
of unemployment.
We do not feel the urge to express our views on the actions of the skinheads
and the upsurge of neo-Nazi tendencies. We have our own ideas about these
and many other issues. But we do not introduce revolutionary clauses in our
relations with Europe. We rather hope the Europeans will work things out by
themselves.
Question: You said to me in Havana in 1997: ``Today there is no need for
revolutions. As of now, the struggle will be for better sharing. Our
objective is no longer the class struggle but the rapprochement of the
classes within the framework of just and peaceful coexistence.'' Do you
still think the same way?
I am not sure that I ever made those exact comments; some of them are quite
distant from my ideas.
I recently attended an international economists meeting in Havana. Among the
participants were representatives of countries where debt servicing accounts
for over 40% of budget spending. There is clearly a great sense of
helplessness in the face of the challenges posed by a globalisation process
marked so far by the fatal sign of neo-liberalism.
At that meeting, the representatives of the Inter-American Development Bank
and the World Bank defended their points of view with complete freedom, but
for many of those present, the conclusions were very clear regarding the
unsustainable nature of the prevailing economic order. It is not possible to
continue along the path that widens the gap between the poor and the rich
countries and produces increasingly serious social inequalities within them
all.
At the moment, Latin American and Caribbean integration is fundamental. It
is only by joining together that we can negotiate our role in this
hemisphere, and the same applies to the Third World countries vis-a-vis
the powerful and insatiable club of the wealthy. Such joining of forces
cannot wait for social revolutions to take place within these individual
countries.
The current world economic order is unsustainable and faces the very real
danger of a catastrophic collapse, infinitely worse than the disaster and
prolonged crisis set off in 1929 by the crash of the US
stock market. Not even the enthusiastic and highly experienced Allan
Greenspan, chairperson of the US Federal Reserve, whose sleepless eyes do
not stray for a minute from the statistical data emanating from
the uncontrollable and unpredictable roulette wheel that is the speculative
system, would dare to claim that this danger does not exist.
A remedy cannot be invented within such a system. From my point of view, the
changes will fundamentally result from the action of the masses, which
nothing will hold back. Nevertheless, nothing will be easy. The blindness,
superficiality and irresponsibility of the so-called political class will
make the road more difficult, but not impregnable.
Question: Is there any hope for the poor to achieve a better life in the
next 20 years?
Humanity is beginning to gain awareness. Look at what happened in Seattle
and in Davos.
People frequently talk about the horrors of the holocaust and the
genocide that has taken place throughout the century, but they seem to
forget that every day, as a result of the economic order we have been
discussing here, tens of millions of people starve to death or die of
preventable diseases. They can wield statistics of apparently positive
growth, but in the end things remain the same, or even worsen in the Third
World countries.
Growth often rests on the accumulation of consumer goods, which contribute
nothing to true development and a better distribution of wealth. The truth
is that after several decades of neo-liberalism, the rich are becoming
richer while the poor are both more numerous and increasingly poor.
Question: At the summit of the Group of 77 in April in Havana, you put
forward a series of ideas to reform of the international order. Could you
repeat those proposals?
I advocated the cancellation of the least developed countries' external debt
and for considerable debt relief for many others. I also spoke out for the
removal of the International Monetary Fund. It is time that the Third World
countries demand to be free from a mechanism that has not ensured the
stability of the world economy.
In general, I censured the fatal impact of the hypocritical neo-liberal
policies on every underdeveloped country, particularly the Latin American
and Caribbean countries. I said that another Nuremberg trial was needed to
pass sentence on the genocide committed by the current world economic order.
Question: That is a bit of an overstatement!
It might be a bit of an understatement. To quote a few paragraphs from my
closing speech at the South Summit: ``People used to talk about apartheid in
Africa; today we could talk about apartheid throughout the
world, where more than 4 billion people are deprived of the most basic
rights of all human beings: the right to life, to health, to education, to
clean drinking water, to food, to housing, to employment, to hope for their
future and the future of their children.
At the present pace, we will soon be deprived even of the air we breathe,
increasingly poisoned by the wasteful consumer societies that pollute the
elements essential for life and destroy human habitat ...
``The wealthy world tries to forget that the sources of underdevelopment and
poverty were slavery, colonialism and the brutal exploitation and plunder to
which our countries were subjected for centuries. They attribute the poverty
we suffer to the inability of Africans, Asians, Caribbean and Latin
Americans -- in other words, black-skinned, yellow-skinned, indigenous and
mixed-race peoples -- to achieve any degree of development, or even to
govern ourselves ...
``I am firmly convinced that the current economic order imposed by the
wealthy countries is not only cruel, unfair, inhuman, and contrary to the
inevitable course of history, but is also inherently racist. It reflects
racist conceptions like those that once inspired the Nazi holocausts and
concentration camps in Europe, mirrored today in the so-called refugee camps
in the Third World, which actually serve to concentrate the effects of
poverty, hunger and violence. These are the same racist conceptions that
inspired the obnoxious system of apartheid in Africa.''
It is urgent that we fight for the survival of all countries, both rich and
poor, because we are all on the same boat. In this regard, I made a very
concrete proposal at the summit: I asked the Third World oil-exporting
countries to grant preferential prices to the least developed countries,
similar to what was done in the San Jose Pact signed 20 years ago by
Venezuela and Mexico, which allows Central American and Caribbean countries
to buy oil on more lenient terms.
Question: Is your opinion about the United Nations as severe?
Not at all, although I consider its structure an anachronism. After 55 years
of existence, it is essential to re-establish the organisation.
The UN should be worthy of its name: the members should be truly united by
genuinely humane and far-reaching objectives. All of the member countries,
big and small, developed and underdeveloped,should have the real possibility
of making their voices heard. The UN should constitute a great meeting
place, where all views can be expressed and discussed. It should operate on
truly democratic bases.
It is important for groups like the G-77 and the Non-Aligned Countries
Movement to act within the UN system. The UN structure should be transformed
so that the organisation can play a major role in today's
world. Social development, for example, is presently one of the most
dramatically urgent needs in the Third World.
Question: Looking at a world map, what changes would you like to make?
I would be thinking of a world worthy of the human species, without
hyper-wealthy and wasteful nations on the one hand and countless countries
mired in extreme poverty on the other; a world in which all
identities and cultures were preserved, a world with justice and solidarity;
a world without plundering, oppression or wars, where science and technology
were at the service of humankind; a world where nature was protected and the
great throng of people living on the planet today could survive, grow and
enjoy the spiritual and material wealth that talent and labour could create.
No need to ask -- I dream of a world that the capitalist philosophy will
never make possible.
________________________
FROM THE LATEST ISSUE OF GREENLEFT WEEKLY
www.greenleft.org.au
ph (03)9639 8622
subscriptions start at $10 for 7 issues (introductory offer only)
--
Leftlink - Australia's Broad Left Mailing List
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.alexia.net.au/~www/mhutton/index.html
Sponsored by Melbourne's New International Bookshop
Subscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=subscribe%20leftlink
Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20leftlink
