I've been reading Ignacio Ramonet's _Fidel Castro: Biografía a dos voces_ (Debate, Random House, 2006) and I noticed that Fidel, for the first time, makes a few remarks *critical* of el Che's approach in Bolivia. It is very nuanced, but remarkable. There are lessons here for the struggle everywhere.
This is my translation (pp. 269-270): How do you explain the death of el Che? El Che, when he returns from that excursion [an almost 40 day exploratory trip away from his encampment], he finds some problems there. There's a fight between the leader of Bolivia's Communist Party, Mario Monje, who have people there, and one of the leaders of the anti-Monje line, named Moisés Guevara. Monje demands to hold the top position of command, and el Che was very firm, rigid (rígido)... I believe that el Che should have made a greater effort to unite forces. That's my opinion. His character took him... He was very frank and he has an argument (discusión) with Monje, whose cadres had helped the organization, because Inti and others belong to that group. There were some problems. And, something that hasn't been mentioned and that wrecked havoc in the revolutionary movement in Latin America... It hasn't been mentioned and [or?] it has barely been mentioned: the division between China and the Soviet Union, between partisans of the Chinese and those of the Soviets. That divided the entire left and all the revolutionary forces in a historical moment in which the objective conditions were in place and it was entirely possible to undertake an armed struggle, which is what el Che went to carry out there. We had to work hard when we learned that that rift had happened. In December 1966, Mario Monje came here. Then his lieutenant, Jorge Kolle Cueto. I invited them and explained what had happened. Juan Lechín, a labor leader, we invited him too. I spent like three days with him. So, you invited Lechín to Havana? Yes, because they were worried about the rift. I believe that there was no reason [for Monje] to demand the top command position. Simply, there was a lack of, let's say, left hand there. Because, in fact, if Monje had asked for it [directly, instead of intriguing], el Che could have given him the title of General in Chief, or whatever he wanted... There was a problem of personal ambition. This is something a bit ridiculous. Monje had no conditions to lead all that. Did el Che sinned by being too rigid? El Che was super-honest. His problem was super-honesty. The term "diplomacy" -- not deceit, but duplicity, all that was repugnant to him. But, let me tell you, in our own revolution, how many times didn't we discover personal ambitions among our people? Who could they replace? Who had the talent? Foolishness... More than once we had to grant honorary titles and make concessions. It is necessary to have some tactfulness under some conditions, because if you go on a straight line, straight... At that time, the rift between Monje and el Che was damaging. Was it harmful? Very harmful. You have no idea about the efforts we made to preserve unity. To reconcile? You can't imagine how here [in the Cuban revolution], even the things we had to tolerate, errors, big errors. Big errors! Committed sometimes by one or another. We always made critiques, but above all critiques of the deeds, and with a spirit of unity.
