At its peak, in 2009, of the ten Latino countries in South America, eight had left wing governments. Meanwhile, in Central America and the Caribbean there was the Farabundo Martí Front in El Salvador, the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, Álvaro Colom in Guatemala, Manuel Zelaya in Honduras, and Leonel Fernández in the Dominican Republic. In countries like Guatemala, with Álvaro Colom, or Paraguay, with Fernando Lugo, it was the first time in their history that the left had come to power, in the latter case even breaking with centuries of constant bipartisanship.

In May 2008, UNASUR (Union of South American Nations) was born, and in February 2010, CELAC (Community of Latin American and Caribbean States) was created, with 33 members. Of the 20 Latino countries of CELAC, 14 had left wing governments, that is 70%.

The first part of the 21st century undoubtedly saw years of gains. The economic, social and political advances were historic and amazed the world; all this in an environment of sovereignty, dignity, autonomy, with our own presence on the continent and in the entire world.

Latin America experienced not an era of changes, but a real change of era, which also substantially altered the geopolitical power balance of the region. For this reason, it was essential for the powers that be and the hegemonic countries to put an end to these processes of change that favored the vast majorities, and which sought to secure the region’s second and definitive independence.

CONSERVATIVE RESTORATION

Although by 2002, the government of Hugo Chávez had to endure a failed coup d’état, it is really since 2008 that undemocratic attempts to end progressive governments have intensified, as was the case of Bolivia in 2008, Honduras 2009, Ecuador 2010, and Paraguay 2012. Four attempts at destabilization, two of them successful – Honduras and Paraguay – and all against governments of the left.

Starting in 2014, and taking advantage of the change in the economic cycle, these disjointed destabilization efforts consolidated and constituted a true “conservative restoration,” with never before seen right wing coalitions, international support, unlimited resources, external financing, and so on. The revival of the right has deepened and has no limits or scruples. Today, we have the economic boycott and harassment of Venezuela, the parliamentary coup in Brazil, and the judicialization of politics – “lawfare” –, as shown by the cases of Dilma and Lula in Brazil, Cristina in Argentina, and Vice President Jorge Glas in Ecuador. The attempts to destroy UNASUR and neutralize CELAC are also evident and, not infrequently, brazen. Not to mention what is happening in MERCOSUR. Attempts to overcome the failure of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) agreement at the beginning of the century are seen in the Pacific Alliance.

In South America, at present, only three progressive governments remain: Venezuela, Bolivia and Uruguay. The eternal powers that have always dominated Latin America, and that plunged it into backwardness, inequality and underdevelopment, return with a thirst for revenge, after more than a decade of continuous defeats.

THE MAIN PILLARS OF THE CONSERVATIVE RESTORATION STRATEGY

The reactionary strategy is articulated regionally and is based on two fundamental pillars: the supposed failure of the left economic model, and the alleged lack of moral fiber of progressive governments.

Regarding the first pillar, since the second half of 2014, due to an adverse international environment, the entire region suffered an economic slowdown that turned into a recession in the last two years.

The results are different between countries and sub-regions, reflecting the different economic structures and economic policies applied, but the economic difficulties of countries like Venezuela or Brazil are taken as an example of the failure of socialism, even when Uruguay, with a leftist government, is the most developed country south of the Rio Grande, or when Bolivia has the best macroeconomic indicators on the planet.

The second pillar of the new strategy against progressive governments is morality. The issue of corruption has become the effective tool to destroy the national-popular political processes in Our America. The most emblematic case is that of Brazil, where a well-articulated political operation succeeded in removing Dilma Rousseff from the Presidency, only to be shown to have nothing to do with the issues that she was accused of.

There is great global hypocrisy surrounding the fight against corruption.

THE LEFT, VICTIM OF ITS OWN SUCCESS?

The left is perhaps also a victim of its own success. According to the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), almost 94 million people were lifted out of poverty and joined the regional middle class during the last decade, the vast majority as a result of the policies of left governments.

In Brazil, 37.5 million rose above the poverty line between 2003 and 2013, and now form part of the middle class, but those millions were not a mobilized force when a Parliament itself accused of corruption impeached Dilma Rousseff.

We have people who overcame poverty and now – due to what is often called objective prosperity and subjective poverty – despite having seen their income level greatly improve, ask for much more, and they feel poor, not in reference to what they have, worse still to what they had, but to what they aspire.

The left has always struggled against the current, at least in the western world. The question is, is it fighting against human nature?

The problem is much more complex if we add to this the hegemonic culture constructed by the media, in the Gramscian sense, that is, to have made the wishes of the masses functional to the interests of the elites.

Our democracies should be called media democracies. The mass media are a more important component in the political process than the parties and electoral systems; they have become the main opposition parties to progressive governments; and they are the true representatives of business and conservative political power.

It does not matter what suits the majorities, what has been proposed in the election campaign, and what the people – the principal element in every democracy – have decided at the polls. The important thing is what the media approve or disapprove in their headlines. They have replaced the Rule of Law with the Rule of Opinion.

IS THERE A “STRATEGIC CHALLENGE”?

The regional left faces the problems of exercising – or having exercised – power, often successfully, but exhaustingly.

It is impossible to govern by pleasing everyone, and even more so when so much social justice is required.

We must always be self-critical, but it’s also about having faith in ourselves. Progressive governments are under constant attack, the elites and their media do not forgive us any error, they seek to lower our morale, make us doubt our convictions, proposals and objectives. For this reason, perhaps the greatest “strategic challenge” of the Latin American left is to understand that every transcendental work will have errors and contradictions.

(Granma)

Distinguished participants in this ministerial meeting:

It is an honor for our people and government to again host a high level meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement. Two years and seven months have passed since the celebration in this same hall of the 14th Summit of Heads of State or Government in September 2006. On that occasion I said:

“On the sound foundations of our historic victories in the struggle for decolonization and the removal of apartheid and with the rich experience of our efforts in favor of a New International Economic Order and of peace, disarmament and the true exercise of the right to development, the Non-Aligned Movement shall now wage heroic battles against unilateralism, double standards and the impunity of the powerful; for a more just and equitable international order to tackle neoliberalism, plundering and pillage; for the survival of the human species instead of the irrational consumerism of the wealthy nations.”

The challenges identified then are not only still standing but they are now more dangerous and pressing. Therefore, the necessity for NAM to act in a coordinated fashion is today more imperative and crucial.

We are currently afflicted by a deep economic, social, food, energy and environmental crisis that have become global. The international debates are multiplied but they do not engage every country. There is a growing awareness that solutions must be found shortly; however, just and lasting solutions seem elusive.

If we fail to act firmly and expeditiously our peoples stand to suffer again the worst consequences of this crisis, and for a longer period of time.

It is impossible to sustain the unfair and irrational consumption patterns that served as the basis to the current international order imposed by a few that we have been forced to respect. A global order inspired in hegemonic pretenses and the selfishness of privileged minorities is neither legitimate nor ethically acceptable. A system that destroys the environment and promotes unequal access to riches cannot last. Underdevelopment is an unavoidable result of the current world order.

Neoliberalism has failed as an economic policy. Today, any objective analysis raises serious questions about the myth of the goodness of the market and its deregulation; the alleged benefits of privatizations and the reduction of the states’ economic and redistribution capacity; and the credibility of the financial institutions.

In 1979, thirty years ago, when Cuba first assumed the chairmanship of the Non-Aligned Movement, the leader of the Cuban Revolution comrade Fidel Castro alerted on the negative consequences of spending over 300 billion dollars in weapons and on the existence of a foreign debt of the underdeveloped countries that amounted to almost as much.

On that occasion comrade Fidel estimated that, at the time, that figure would have allowed: “…to build in one year 600 thousand schools to teach 400 million children; or 60 million comfortable houses for 300 million people; or 30 thousand hospitals with 18 million beds; or 20 thousand factories providing jobs to over 20 million workers; or placing 150 million hectares of land under irrigation which with an adequate technical level could feed one billion people.”

Of course, nothing was done and the situation has aggravated dramatically. Suffice it to say that currently the annual military expenses exceed the figure of one trillion dollars; the number of unemployed in the world could rise to 230 million during 2009; and in hardly a year –during 2008—the number of people starving in the world mounted from 854 million to 963 million.

The UN has estimated that 80 billion dollars a year for a decade would be enough to eradicate poverty, hunger and the lack of health and education services and houses all over the world. That figure is three times lower than what the South countries spend every year to pay their foreign debt.

The international system of economic relations requires fundamental changes. This was demanded almost 35 years ago by the member countries of our Movement in the Declaration and Plan of Action for the Establishment of a New International Economic Order adopted in the 6th Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly in May 1974.

The solution to the global economic crisis demands a coordinated action with the universal, democratic and equitable participation of all countries. The response cannot be a solution negotiated by the leaders of the most powerful nations without the participation of the United Nations.

The G-20 solution calling for the strengthening of the role and functions of the International Monetary Fund, whose nefarious policies had a decisive effect on the emergence, aggravation and magnitude of the current crisis cannot solve inequality, injustice or the unsustainability of the present system.

The UN High Level Conference on the Economic and Financial Crisis and its Impact on Development scheduled for June 1 to 3, 2009, is the indispensable context to debate and try to find solutions by consensus to this grave situation, and the Non-Aligned Movement should support it.

From its inception, this Movement has shown its willingness to work for peace and security for the community of nations and for defense of International Law. The removal of the weapons of mass destruction, and foremost nuclear disarmament, is still a priority.

The practice of multilateralism requires absolute respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the states and for the self-determination of the peoples. It also demands to dispense with threats and the use of force in international relations, and to do without hegemonic aspirations and imperial behavior. It requires to put an end to foreign occupation and to deny impunity to such criminal aggressions as those of Israel against the Palestinian people.

The Movement should engage in every major debate of the international agenda, in the different venues and multilateral forum and with the broadest participation of its member countries, not to compete with other groups of South countries but to strengthen and complement them.

We need to continue permanently improving the Movement’s working methods. The fulfillment of the Plan of Action we have adopted shall be an indispensable tool to determine our priorities and our tasks.

We should all start working right away to ensure a successful 15th Summit of Heads of State or Government in Egypt next July. We should make a critical analysis of everything done until today and set ourselves new goals and objectives in compliance with current and future problems and challenges.

Finally, on behalf of Cuba I wish to express the appreciation of our government and our entire people for the steadfast and unwavering solidarity of the Non-Aligned Movement with the Cuban Revolution, and particularly for its permanent call for the lifting of the unfair U.S. economic, financial and commercial blockade.

Although the measures recently announced by President Obama are positive they are of limited scope. The blockade remains intact. There is no political or moral pretext that justifies the continuation of that policy.

Cuba has not imposed any sanction on the United States or its citizens. It is not Cuba that prevents that country’s entrepreneurs from doing business with ours. It is not Cuba that chases the financial transactions of the American banks. It is not Cuba that has a military base in the U.S. territory against that people’s will, and so on and so forth, –to avoid making an endless list– therefore, it is not Cuba that should make gestures.

And if they want to discuss everything, as we recently said at an ALBA summit in Venezuela, that is, to discuss everything, everything, everything, we can discuss everything related to us but also everything related to them, on equal footing.

We have insisted that we are willing to discuss everything with the United States government, on equal footing; but we are not willing to negotiate our sovereignty or our political and social system, our right to self-determination or our domestic affairs.

The greatest strength of our Movement lies in its unity within our characteristic diversity. Such has been the major premise of the Cuban presidency in the almost three years of its mandate.

I have no doubt that the Non-Aligned Movement will continue to play a fundamental and constructive role in the international debates. Cuba will keep up its efforts to contribute to that objective.

I wish this Ministerial Meeting every success.

Thank you very much.