What is happening today against Venezuela and Nicaragua reminds me of the same OAS, conniving and servile to the dictates of the United States, and its attacks on Cuba in the year 1960, 12 months after the Revolution triumphed.

It was back then, at the VII Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, in San Jose, Costa Rica, that the Organization urged member states to condemn the island, as part of U.S. government attempts to create a political and diplomatic context that isolated Cuba, and thus mask the planned military attacks prepared by the CIA, contained in the secret directive “A Program of Covert Action Against the Castro Regime,” approved March 17, 1960.

How can we forget – given that Washington has recently set up the same scenario, this time accompanied by a fierce media campaign, against Latin American nations such as Venezuela and Nicaragua – the Cuban position at the Costa Rican OAS meeting of 1960, voiced by the “Chancellor of Dignity” Raúl Roa García. How can we forget the exclamations of an entire people: “With or without the OAS, we will win the fight!”

Referring to the OAS decision to isolate Cuba, Comandante en Jefe Fidel Castro said that the meeting in Costa Rica was a lesson for the peoples of America, who will never forgive the betrayal of those who offered the rights of the Cuban nation to the empire on a silver platter.

Those who signed the document “will go down in history as the Judas Iscariot of the Americas!” Fidel said then.

There are plenty of examples to show that the OAS is nothing more than an imperialist instrument, acting in an interventionist way against the peoples of the region; just as there are to unmask a traitor like Luis Almagro, who has become Latin America’s most fanatical enemy, and the most submissive of the U.S. government’s lackeys.

The latest campaign by this discredited institution has been its interventionist efforts against two democratically elected governments of the region: those of Venezuela and Nicaragua.

The OAS has surpassed all expectations with regard to the Bolivarian nation, dictating disrespectful and crude resolutions, leading a media war to destabilize the country and create real chaos in the region.

Revealed for what he is, Luis Almagro recently tweeted: “We welcome the assumption of Guaidó as Acting President of Venezuela under Article 233 of the Constitution. He has our support, that of the international community and that of the Venezuelan people.”

This was the first reaction of the OAS and its secretary general to the statements of the president of the National Assembly of Venezuela (in a state of contempt), Juan Guaidó, that he would assume the presidency of the Bolivarian nation, after describing its legitimate President, Nicolás Maduro, as an “usurper.”

This is undoubtedly part of an escalating war against Venezuela, and a shameless means of interfering in its internal affairs.
AGAINST NICARAGUA

Regarding another sovereign state of the region, Nicaragua, the OAS invoked the Inter-American Democratic Charter, which may lead to the suspension of Central American country from the organization, as reported by EFE.

Luis Almagro’s speech at the last meeting of the OAS, in addition to being long and meddlesome, exposed him as the liar he is. Just as it did 60 years ago against Cuba, the OAS is now fabricating an interventionist farce with statements like: “In a democracy, there can be no repression, nor violation of the human rights of opponents, students, politicians, campesinos, civilians and minors.”

The interesting thing about all this is that within the same OAS that lacks all credibility, are representatives of countries like Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia and others, the daily settings of repression against students, workers, teachers, indigenous people, and where hundreds of social leaders are assassinated. All this is done in the name of democracy, just like that defended by the Judas, Luis Almagro.

Our peoples, in some cases confused by the current reactionary attack mounted from Washington and seconded by the OAS, will unmask the traitors who vote against Venezuela and Nicaragua today, as they did against Cuba. And I am sure they will do so in the future, as long as we act promptly and unite to discredit the OAS, Luis Almagro and the self-proclaimed Lima Group.

(Granma)

Taking advantage of the occasion in Washington, where the General Assembly of the Organization of American States (OAS) met June 4-5, Pompeo offered the same discourse as that of 195 years ago, with the same themes of continental domination expressed on December 2, 1823, in the well-known Monroe Doctrine, summarized in the phrase “America for the Americans.” Thus he spun a web of lies and insults about Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba.

Like someone who, without explanation, jumps from one topic to another, he lashed out against the island which has built a socialist Revolution just 90 miles from the empire, the same where children are shot down because guns finance the government, and its presidential campaigns.

It was disturbing to hear Pompeo state: “Young Cubans born under a dictatorship are uninterested in hollow revolutionary slogans. They demand educational opportunities free from political constraints or a totalitarian regime’s repression.”

And he added: “They want what youth everywhere else wants: opportunities to use their talents, to exercise their voice, achieve their potential, and build a bright future for themselves. As democratic societies, we must support young people in Cuba and elsewhere in the hemisphere in their hopes for democratic change.”

Pompeo consciously lies, because he knows that the Cuban state guarantees children’s education up to University without charging a penny, while young Americans can’t be sure if today will be their last day at school, as a shooting massacre could happen at any time.

Young Cubans express their support for the continuity of the Revolution not in slogans, but in deeds. A total of 87.6% of deputies to the Cuban Parliament were born after the triumph of January 1, 1959, and close to 90 deputies are aged between 18 and 35 years old. What hurts the empire, Pompeo, his boss, and the OAS, which ultimately represent the same thing, is that at the “Phoney” Summit held in Peru in April, it was those same young people who raised their voices in defense of the humane, revolutionary and socialist work of their homeland and cried out for an America as Bolívar and Martí dreamed.

Pompeo forgets, or pretends to, the performances in recent days of some 200 Cuban artists at the Kennedy Center. There, in this cultural hub of the U.S., presented were young creators from the island who represent the result of its national arts education system, an indisputable example for the region and the world. The Havana Lyceum Orchestra of the University of the Arts, and the National Ballet of Cuba, which performed for the first time in the United States 40 years ago, precisely at the Kennedy Center, are examples that demonstrate that, as a result of solid training, young Cubans can appear on global stages, without restrictions being imposed by their government.

And this is the case not only in the cultural sphere. There are numerous young Cubans who, shortly after graduating from the island’s Medical Schools, carry a message of humanism to places around the world, saving the lives of those who, otherwise, would be lost, as their countries do not provide universal, free healthcare.

Meanwhile, Mike Pompeo tries to ignore the young Cubans who enter universities each year, to begin degrees in social sciences, economics, and the exact sciences, and then decide, due to the inspiration gained, to train the generations that follow behind them. In short, he forgets and ignores too many things about the Cuba we defend.

(Granma)

The United States recently submitted another Resolution to suspend Venezuela from the Organization of American States (OAS). However, the proposal failed to secure the 24 votes needed to pass, with 19 in favor, four against and 11 abstentions.

According to Telesur, Venezuelan Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza noted that U.S. Vice President Mike Pence called on all countries to vote in favor of the Resolution against Venezuela, however, “Not even with all that pressure could they defeat the dignity and courage of the peoples of the Caribbean,” he stated.

“There is a very clearly-defined script, a format, in the OAS, and we have the right to withdraw when we so choose,” stated Arreaza, referring to the process launched in April 2017 by Venezuela to leave the organization.

Regarding the Bolivarian nation’s withdrawal from the OAS, Arreaza noted that his country will comply with its responsibilities and commitments to the organization, adding that: “The Venezuelan people are proud and happy with the decision announced last year and which will be completed in 2019. We cannot continue within an organization which violates international law.”

(Granma)

An article by columnist Carlos Fazio recalls the previous coup attempts against the legitimate and constitutional government of Venezuela, which, he says, Washington with the support of its regional acolytes wants now to overthrown ‘under the banner of multilateral humanitarian intervention under the umbrella of the OAS.’

He emphasizes that the new scenario of aggression is the Summit of the Americas, scheduled for April 13 and 14 in Lima, Peru.

There, they pretend to set off a new political-diplomatic escalation combined with clandestine psychological actions related to the Fourth-generation warfare (4GW), which will once again try to use the mass media under private monopoly control as armies of conquest.

Fazio also refers to the planned use by Washington’s covert war propaganda against Bolivarian Venezuela.

(Prensa Latina)

This was a fully conscious and calculated move. The OAS, through a meeting of its Permanent Council, finally adopted a resolution to this effect on April 3, the same that it attempted to adopt in May 2016, and later that same year. Only Paraguay supported the first draft of this resolution, and on its presentation for the second time, the Vatican recommended that the dialogue established between the Venezuelan government and opposition forces continue.

The position of Bolivia, not as an ally of Venezuela, but invested with the authority of the presidency pro tempore of this Permanent Council, was disregarded, violating the institutionality of the Organization, as established in Article 6 of its Rules of Procedure, which reads: “In the event of the temporary absence or impediment of the chair, the vice chair shall serve as chair; and in the event of the absence or impediment of both, the principal representative with the greatest seniority shall preside.”

Neither were absent. Bolivia, as chair of the Council, had suspended the special meeting to consider recent events in Venezuela, as it considered the session unconstitutional. However, the meeting went ahead, with Honduras playing the role of “interim president”, as the longest serving representative in the body. Thus the OAS functions today, regardless of whether its own internal order is altered or not, whether its acts are democratic or not, whether or not it complies with its own procedures.

The OAS, together with a powerful and orchestrated machinery of media outlets, find it difficult to recognize that there was a coup d’état in Venezuela in April, 2002; that what occurred in Bolivia in 2008, when four state governors incited protests against President Evo Morales, was also an attempted coup; that the same was the case in 2009 in Honduras, against Manuel Zelaya; that in 2010 police and military attacked President Rafael Correa, in Ecuador; and that in 2012, the substitution in Paraguay of Fernando Lugo by the country’s Congress was a parliamentary coup, just like that perpetrated against Dilma Rouseff, in Brazil. However, the announcement by the Venezuelan Supreme Court of Justice (TSJ) that it would assume determined functions of the National Assembly, currently in a state of contempt – which by no means signaled the dissolution of the country’s parliament – led to an explosion of accusations regarding a supposed “coup” across different television broadcasters, news agencies and the internet. The OAS was quick to assume the role of “savior”, perpetrating its own institutional coup, and declaring the “unconstitutional alteration of the democratic order” in the country.

The truth of the matter regarding the OAS is serious and incredible. After almost 70 years, the history of this Organization continues to be shameful, as we outline below:

At the San Francisco Conference, during which the United Nations was founded (April, 1945), U.S. diplomacy, backed by Latin American countries, defended the “autonomy” of the Inter-American System – created one month earlier at the Inter-American Conference on Problems of War and Peace, in Chapultepec – and succeeded in preserving the settlement of disputes by means of “American” methods and systems, through Article 51 of the UN Charter.

The Río de Janiero Pan-American Conference (August, 1947) adopted a resolution that gave rise to the tool that would give life to this permissive UN clause: the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (ITRA), which reaffirmed the principle of continental “solidarity” as proposed by Washington, in order to confront and take the necessary measures faced with any situation that would endanger “its peace” in the Americas, including the use of force. Thus U.S. will was imposed on the continent, constituting a permanent threat to the sovereignty of Latin American countries.

The OAS was later founded in May, 1948, at the International Conference of American State, in Bogotá, amid the bloody context of the assassination of the liberal and hugely popular Colombian leader, Jorge E. Gaitán. The result was a huge uprising known as the Bogotazo, which was brutally repressed and served the U.S. to manipulate the course and results of the Conference, attributing the Bogotazo deaths to the “rise” of the Soviet Union and communism, and emphasizing the threat such forces posed to democracy.

Even since, the OAS’ rhetoric concerning the principles of independence, national sovereignty and human rights, has been a dead letter.

In 1954, Guatemala was invaded by mercenary troops organized by the CIA, who overthrew the government of Jacobo Arbenz. The OAS had previously adopted a resolution introducing the variant of regional collective intervention, in express violation of both its own Charter and that of the UN.

Even more serious doubts were cast on the OAS following its support for the invasion of Playa Girón in 1961, and its moves in the political-diplomatic sphere to isolate Cuba, which culminated with the island’s expulsion from the Organization in January, 1962, and the rupture of diplomatic relations with countries of the region.

U.S. marines disembarked in Santo Domingo, the Dominican Republic, in April, 1965, to prevent the victory of the popular constitutionalist movement. The OAS sent its Secretary General, the Uruguayan José A. Mora, to the Dominican capital with the supposed purpose of obtaining a truce, in order to gain sufficient time to adopt a decision that would make it easier for the U.S. military to take control of the country. After multiple efforts, the U.S. narrowly secured the adoption of a resolution that established the creation of an Inter-American Peace Force, resulting in the first OAS-backed collective intervention in a country of the region.

March, 1982, brought the British intervention that began the War of the Malvinas (Falklands War), the first aggression by a non-continental power against a country of the Inter-American System, which, according to the ITRA, should result in continental solidarity with the injured party. However, the U.S. politically and militarily supported Britain and imposed economic sanctions against Argentina. Meanwhile, the OAS put off a response, adopting a half-hearted resolution calling for an end to the conflict before, just a month later, condemning the armed attack and urging that the measures applied against Argentina be lifted.

In October, 1983, a military coup overthrew Grenadian Prime Minister, Maurice Bishop, who was assassinated by coup plotters. The U.S. again sent an invading force of 1,900 marines to the country. The principle of non-intervention once again proved void. The majority of OAS members approved this action as a “preventive measure”, while others rejected it.

The OAS was silent before the death of Salvador Allende and in the face of the assassination and forced disappearance of tens of thousands of South Americans during the dark era of Operation Condor. It failed to promote peace in Central America in the 1980s, in a conflict that claimed close to 100,000 lives. Nor did it support the investigations to clarify events surrounding the suspicious death of General Torrijos in Panama.

On September 11, 2001, as the twin towers collapsed in New York, the Inter-American Democratic Charter was enacted, which established the rules that countries were obliged to follow as members of the bloc. Previously, one could not be a Marxist-Leninist; now, bourgeois representative democracy and the “almighty” market economy had to be adopted as a requisite.

This is the same Charter the OAS intends to apply against Venezuela today. The same country that since the election of Hugo Chávez and the beginning of the Bolivarian Revolution has carried out 22 electoral processes: “As a matter of fact, of the 92 elections that we’ve monitored, I would say the election process in Venezuela is the best in the world,” stated former U.S. President James Carter. The OAS Secretary General Luis Almagro’s attempts to apply this Charter are not a deranged, obsessive act, but simply form part of the miserable mission for which the OAS was created. An article written by Argentine journalist Telma Luzzani published March 30, in Tiempoar, four days before the latest OAS meeting on April 3, unmasks the former Uruguayan foreign minister and the institution he heads.

“There is a very serious accusation against the current OAS Secretary General, Luis Almagro, which implicates him in a commando operation planned by the Pentagon against the government of Venezuela. The information is contained within a document entitled Venezuela Freedom-2 Operation, dated February 25, 2015, and signed by the chief of the U.S. Southern Command, Admiral Kurt Tidd. It should be noted that the United States never questioned its authenticity or the agreement between the Pentagon and Almagro,” Telma reports.

“It consists of 12 points and proposes, among other things, a siege and suffocation approach against the Nicolás Maduro government and, in the internal political sphere, insistence on a transitional government and the measures to be taken following the fall of the regime, including forming an emergency cabinet,” the article continues.

The eighth point directly involves Almagro. “At the international level, we must insist on the application of the Democratic Charter, as agreed with Luis Almagro Lemes, Secretary General of the OAS,” the text reads.

As Telma notes, this would explain Almagro’s focus, since taking up his post in the OAS, on overthrowing Maduro’s government. “Every day Almagro condemns the imprisonment of the Venezuelan, Leopoldo López, (who, political scientist Atilio Borón has noted, would almost certainly face life imprisonment if he had carried out the same acts in the United States, rather than just 13 years incarceration), but he does not say a word about the murders of social leaders in Colombia, or the crimes committed on a daily basis in Honduras or Mexico, nor the accusations of persecution voiced by social and leftist organizations against the government of Horacio Cartes in Paraguay,” the journalist stresses.

One can imagine what Hugo Chávez would say, just as he did during his infamous speech in the UN General Assembly: “it smells of sulfur.”

(Granma)

Also implicated in the scheme were former President of Mexico Felipe Calderón, and Chile’s ex Minister of Education, Mariana Aylwin.

In Bolivia, President Evo Morales expressed his admiration for the Cuban people who prevented imperialist intervention in their country and frustrated a provocative scheme hatched by right wing organizations in the region.

“Thank you for upholding the dignity of the people of Latin America,” wrote the Bolivian leader on his Twitter account.

Meanwhile Nicaragua’s Friends of Cuba Association (AAC) condemned the actions intended to provoke the country, describing them as vicious.

We consider preposterous the plan to try and violate Cuba’s sovereignty under the ridiculous pretense of awarding Almagro a prize, noted the AAC in a statement cited by Prensa Latina.

The text also read: “Not satisfied with discrediting the Cuban government or with committing any kind of vile act against the Cuban people, they now wish to enter Cuban territory to honor an enemy of the people.”

The AAC condemned those wishing to provoke and interfere in Cuba affairs, noting that since 1959 the country, with its revolutionary government led by Comandante Fidel Castro, decided to never again be the victim of imperial violations, or suffer abuse or mistreatment at the hands of its lackeys.

The organization reiterated its rejection of this recent provocation, describing it as “stupid and crazy.”

The AAC noted that the Cuban government would never allow this disgraceful act of honoring the enemy, or be forced to ingratiate itself with the OAS, a body which has never served the peoples of the Third World, and to which the country has no need to belong to, highlighted the AAC.

The Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN) also expressed its solidarity with Cuba in the face of what it described as provocations and interventionist media maneuvers against the island.

In a statement, the progressive Salvadoran political party emphasized its rejection of the media show “against the sister Republic of Cuba, through the alleged organization of an awards event for people linked to destabilization groups.”

The FMLN noted that such media and political provocations represent another defamation campaign seeking to damage Cuba’s excellent relations with countries in the region.
Photo: TELESUR

“We reject any attempt to intervene in the internal affairs of a sovereign state and support Cuba’s decision, based on its right as recognized by international law, to decide who it does, and does not, allow into its territory,” read the organization’s statement.

The FMLN went on to reaffirm its “solidarity and support of the Cuban government and people, who continue fighting for a more just and equal society, and whose dignity, solidarity, and non-negotiable defense of their sovereignty and self-determination, have won them the respect and admiration of the peoples of the world.”

Meanwhile, the Cuban Embassy in Chile issued a declaration categorically rejecting the “serious international provocation” against the country’s government.

“The scheme, rejected by the people, was organized by an illegal anti-Cuban group acting in violation of constitutional order and with the support and financing of foreign politicians and institutions,” stated the country’s diplomatic mission in the Chilean capital.

“The Cuban Embassy in the Republic of Chile declares that the Cuban government, respecting the memory of former President Patricio Aylwin, in a discrete and constructive manner, did everything within its power to inform, dissuade, and prevent the consummation of the provocation, and deeply regrets its manipulation for internal political means within Chile,” noted the Cuban mission.

It likewise stressed that Cuba exercises its sovereign right to make decisions regarding the entrance of foreign citizens into national territory and defend itself against these types of interventionist acts, aimed at subverting the country’s current legal order.

SOVEREIGNTY & RESPECT

The majority of comments posted on Granma’s webpage recognized Cuba’s position as one based on principles of sovereignty and respect.

“Fitting response ,Cuba, your people will never be humiliated,” wrote Roberto Llonch.

Meanwhile, a user named Francisco added that the whole episode was just a pretext to bring together the ultra-right in Latin America against Cuba in our own country.

“Not one step back in the face of right wing threats, out-dated imperialism and murderers,” stated José Luis Valdés Lozano.

Jesús Alquisira highlighted the dignity of the Cuban people, the product of a victorious revolution which no one will ever be able to destabilize, least of all the lackeys of the international right.

For her part, Efi Barrera praised Cuba’s integrity, describing the country as “noble and brave,” and posing the question: “When will they learn that Cuba must be respected? If democracy means the right of the majority to decide, then we Cubans have already decided on socialism.”

Likewise other users noted that the OAS continues to serve the interests of pro-U.S. oligarchs and imperialists.

Granma also received messages of solidarity from other countries across the world. Antonio Rodríguez from Paraguay for example, expressed his whole hearted support for the Cuban government’s actions.

“It would be stupid to allow someone into your house, with the express aim of generating conflicts with those who live there,” he stated.

Meanwhile, Bianca from Uruguay noted that “As an Uruguayan I’m ashamed of Almagro’s behavior. He is clearly a puppet serving imperialist interests.”

At the same time Iván Quintana, also from Uruguay, stated, “What can we expect of a traitor like Almagro, a lawyer whose only principle is money, unfortunately this lackey is from my country.”

On the other hand, Belén Araujo Díaz from Mexico noted, “I have always admired the dignity of the Cuban people;” while user Emiliano from Argentina posted, “A big salute to the Cuban people, an example of love for the homeland.”

(Granma)

The executive that emerged from the parliamentary coup which ousted President Fernando Lugo showed some impatience yesterday to verify whether Insulza’s proposal, equivalent to leaving everything as is, had any support at all among member states of the organization.

However, Insulza’s report only received well expected support from the U.S. government, through the Assistant Secretary of State Roberta Jacobson, jubilant with the opinions expressed by the Secretary General of the Organization of American States (OAS).

The Foreign Minister of the current government of Paraguay, Jose Fernandez, told reporters he hoped that a decision would be made at the next meeting of the regional body on Friday.

Meanwhile, one press outlet insisted that there was fear at the Foreign Ministry about the possibility of a majority of the OAS member countries opting to condemn Paraguay.

More discreetly, taking care not to hammer at the theme, President Federico Franco responded to press questions by saying that he hoped the OAS decision would be respectful of the sovereignty of Paraguay.

Nothing else went well for the current government, isolated internationally since the removal of from office of the constitutional president.

The press highlighted the opinion of the Brazilian Foreign Minister Antonio Patriota, who recalled that the report from Insulza is just a personal opinion and reconfirmed the position of the Southern Common Market (Mercosur) in the face of the institutional breakdown.

The Paraguay group Resist, composed of citizen organizations opposed to what they call a de facto government, also played down the importance of Insulza’s statements and reiterated that the first condition for resolving the crisis must be the reinstatement of Lugo in his post.

Finally, similar statements were made by leaders of the Guasu Front, the coalition of parties and organizations that put Lugo in the presidency in 2008 and are developing a plan for street demonstrations in that direction.

• Described as biased and intentionally far from the country’s reality by some Paraguayan politicians and social organizations, the report pretends to alienate any kind of condemnation to the parliamentary coup that removed Constitutional President Fernando Lugo from office. After Insulza’s statements were analyzed by different OAS member governments, a new special regional meeting will be held, to adopt a definitive resolution about the issue.

One of the aspects so far is the rush of the current Paraguayan government to hold a new meeting to achieve a statement at least kind of action with which the democratic institutionality was interrupted.

Paraguay’s Ambassador to the OAS Hugo Saguier did not publicly hide the rush for getting on Friday the call to new deliberations to try to reach a favorable accord in that occasion.

The diplomat and his government are actually trying to give a little time to the State members to coordinate positions about Insulza’s report, from which criticisms begin to be discussed.

In short, the coming days will be the scene of the definitive reaction of the continent’s countries in this new situation for Paraguay.

Raúl Castro.-…Remember, you have to give me the floor so that I can thank everyone, especially those who have spoken, –and that includes Daniel, because he will speak likewise, as he has done throughout his life as a revolutionary– on behalf of the people of Cuba, for all the expressions of solidarity and support for our Revolution, for our people, and I think also for the Leader of the Revolution, comrade Fidel Castro, who is listening to us directly (Applause).

I won’t go on for too long, I shall be speaking at other points.  I also have to speak –according to what I was told– at the mass rally in the Square.  I’m not sure yet how that will be.  Are we going to speak over there in the Square?

Hugo Chávez.-  Yes.  We are asking you to speak on behalf of everyone.

Raúl Castro.-  No, that’s a very high responsibility.  Perhaps it should be the main host.

At any rate, I think that what we have heard here this afternoon, that doesn’t surprise us; we know that the entire world –except the United States, its main ally Israel and some other country that has occasionally abstained or even voted against at the UN General Assembly– the entire planet condemns the blockade.

I don’t wish to talk about the OAS, I’ve already spoken in Sauípe, and at the Rio Summit meeting, right?  And furthermore, our friend Zelaya will be meeting with all the delegates at the end of May, beginning of June; I don’t wish to answer to what Mr. Insulza recently said because comrade Fidel answered him a few hours ago.

We can say many more things about the OAS.  One could say that the OAS has been oozing blood right from its very inception; Cuba is an example, but before Cuba there were many more.  Venezuela for example; I was in prison after the attack on the Moncada Barracks, in 1954, and I heard about the intervention in Guatemala.  Why?  Because an honest president who had been a colonel in the Guatemalan army, Jacobo Arbenz, once he had won the presidency abiding by the rules of the game set by the Americans in that country, and the ruling classes in  other countries in the world, he won the elections and he wanted to hand over a little bit of land to the natives, the aborigines, the descendants of the great Mayan culture.  And what happened?  Three individuals: Eisenhower, his Secretary of State Foster Dulles and his brother Allen Dulles who was the head of the CIA and also its founder, these three decided to launch that mercenary operation, with a certain Castillo Armas as the chief.  Almost all of us here today know that story.  Just seven years had gone by, no more, when in 1961, on a day like yesterday, the bombings of the main cities in the country and two air force bases started.

A day just like today –as it was already pointed out here– at the funeral of the victims of those bombings, 48 years ago, Fidel proclaimed socialism when the aggression was already evident, and a mass of people, among whom there were regular citizens, simple folk, I mean workers, students, peasants, the Rebel Army which had defeated the Batista tyranny two years earlier, the police, held their weapons up high in support of that decision, and on the following day they went out to shed their blood to defeat that aggression I spoke of.

Why were we attacked?  That aggression was planned by the same trio that had attacked Guatemala seven years earlier, before the word ‘socialism’ had even been mentioned in Cuba.

Four and a half months after the triumph of the Revolution, on May 17, 1959, the first Land Reform Law was passed in our country; it was the most important law after the triumph of the Revolution, up to that moment.  I say that that is our Rubicon; crossing it meant the death penalty for the Cuban Revolution by those who seven years earlier had decided to invade Guatemala; of these, Foster Dulles was a lawyer for the United Fruit Company, the same one which in Cuba was known as the United Sugar Company, and part of their lands were affected by that land reform.

Now I am very briefly talking about recent history and in Sauípe, Brazil, I mentioned the more than 5,500 dead, more dead than maimed, as a result of the state terrorism unleashed by the United States against Cuba.  The list is endless, from the hemorrhagic dengue epidemic that affected hundreds of thousands of people simultaneously, inundating our hospitals all over the country; international health organizations say that’s impossible to have been a so-called ‘normal’ epidemic.  I am not going to speak about the plane off Barbados and the 73 victims who died, among them the Cuban youth fencing team who had flown out of Venezuela where they had just won all the gold medals.  I’m not going to speak about those who fell at the Bay of Pigs.  On a day like yesterday, our comrades were beginning to die in the bombings, starting from the dawn of the next day 48 years ago; dozens of comrades died since we had more casualties than they did.

Fidel ordered us –and rightly so– to defeat this aggression in less than 72 hours; their plan was clear.  The Americans had set up a puppet government at the Opa-Locka military base in Florida, with a man by the name of Miro Cardona heading it and the council of ministers headed by him as the appointed prime minister on that occasion.  The invasion starts; if they had been able to consolidate that beach head which was protected by the Zapata Swamp, the largest swamp or wetlands in the insular Caribbean, that we could only access walking in line because we had just built a paved road through the middle of that swamp and we couldn’t deploy troops, they had to walk in line… We had more casualties than they did.

Our territorial waters at that time were three miles, today they are 12, and just beyond the three miles lay the American fleet, with Marines, and an aircraft carrier.  American combat planes, in pairs, twice flew over the combat areas; they did nothing but they did fly over.  And it was very simple.  Why did the OAS not do in 1961 what it did in January 1962?  They condemned us in Chile, and they condemned us in Costa Rica; they were creating the conditions, naturally, under the baton of those who gave the orders to the OAS right from its founding in 1948.  And that’s the reason why they didn’t kick us out earlier, because they were to bring over the puppet government and set it up in Playa Giron or the Bay of Pigs –that’s its real name because Playa Giron was a small village, today a tourist resort– the OAS would recognize that government, which would appeal to the OAS for help and some of the American troops that were a little over three miles away from our coastline would have invaded us.

What would have happened if American troops had invaded Cuba in 1961?  I shall make a comparison.  How many died in our sister republic of Guatemala as a result of that 1954 intervention, also organized by the Yankees, also directed by the same three persons I mentioned before, also supported by the OAS?  Why didn’t the OAS condemn it?

According to contemporary historical accounts, because of that intervention and the dictatorships that followed and that later ravaged the sister republic of Guatemala, between 250,000 and 300,000 Guatemalans died.  Is that correct or not? It’s that number; is it more? Is it less? There were hundreds of thousands of victims.  Who is responsible?  Who accused them?  Just the peoples, the honest folks, and a  government or two.

How many would have died in Cuba, a country with a larger population, with many more weapons, even at that time, and with a tradition of struggle, recently revived by the triumph of the Revolution in 1959, and with hundreds of thousands of armed Cubans at that time?  Can anybody calculate that?

Now then, would imperialism have swallowed that defeat, with that involuntary humiliation caused by a small Caribbean country and on our continent?  Would it permit that to happen?  On January 2, in commemoration of the second anniversary of the Revolution celebrated on the 1st of January –a holiday– the day after, Fidel spoke at the Revolution Square, that is, on January 2, 1961 –the Bay of Pigs happened in 1961. With 17 days left in office, Eisenhower breaks off relations with Cuba on January 3 of that year, 1961.  The OAS kicks out Cuba on January 31, 1962.  And so why hadn’t it done that in 1961 before the Bay of Pigs?  Because the puppet government that they were going to set up there was to ask the OAS for help; it was an OAS member country.  Why do they kick us out then, separate us, or suspend us, the same thing, in this case in the year 1962? Because, this time it would not be a mercenary invasion, this time it would be an American invasion. And that situation –not much has been written about this, next to nothing– was what caused the presence of Soviet missiles in Cuba and what prevented that invasion.

It has now been proven through documents declassified by the CIA and the Pentagon and, in fact, by the U.S. administration –documents which are declassified with quite a few crossed out lines– that that was the plan.  They didn’t do it because they used the crisis solution, in the middle of which we had serious discrepancies with Soviet Prime Minister Khrushchev for the way in which he handled things, ignoring us; and nobody can ignore us, not the largest country in the world or a group of countries even though they may be the largest in the world, not the G-7, not the G-20 (Applause).

And that’s the sad reality.  First, they just sanction us; they condemn us in several meetings, creating the atmosphere, but they do not separate us from the OAS, for the request of help, and later they do separate us.  They even hurried up with the Bay of Pigs [invasion] when they knew about the amount of weapons that had already been contracted, the pilots we were training abroad, etc.

And at times, –what Evo and other comrades were saying a while ago, about democracy, freedom, human rights– we have let the American government know both in private and in public that the rights are there whenever they want to talk about them: human rights, the freedom of the press, political prisoners, everything, everything, everything they would like to talk about, but on an equal footing, with absolute respect for our sovereignty and for the right of the Cuban people to their self-determination (Applause).

I don’t understand that democracy in the United States, I just don’t get it; I have even told some Americans that in the United States there is one political party, just one party; I urge you to study the history of the two parties, their behavior and their way of acting every time they have had to make an important decision. Surely, what they have is a perfectly well-oiled system, the press; it could be that a publisher or a group of newspapers, as it happens in the United States and in Europe, belonging to one single enterprise, open up a larger space and say to the press: you can write what you want about this but when it comes to the rest of the problem, you can only write what the owner of the paper, the radio or television station wants.  That’s the way it is, and if that’s not right, someone should show me otherwise.

But I was saying that they only have one political party.  “How is that?” they say.  “That’s it,” I say.  “Do you want an example?”  How is it possible that a Republican government, under Eisenhower, organizes an expedition against Cuba and three months after a Democrat takes office the invasion is authorized?  That’s the reality of it; I could be saying a lot more here.

We might be wrong, we admit it, we are human beings; we are ready to sit down and discuss –as I said– whenever they like; what happens is that now –and I conclude– it is evident that they have to create this atmosphere and whoever disagrees with something, right away they come out saying something or other about democracy, about freedom, about prisoners.

The other day after a meeting with President Lula in Brasilia, an insolent and provocateur journalist asked me: “How many dissidents have you executed?”  You could hardly hear him and he started shaking when I answered him, the way I know how to answer.  He was shaking!  And then I told him: “Yes, those dissidents, the ones on the American payroll; just look at the last budget approved by Congress, those 57 million dollars funding for all those ‘patriotic’ dissidents, ‘independent journalists’, etc.  So why don’t they release our five heroes, the heroic young men who haven’t done any harm to the United States, who were not looking for any information against the United States but against the terrorists who were attacking and have been attacking my country with greater or lesser intensity for these past almost 50 years?”

Then, I said there and I reiterate it here today: if they would like the freedom of those alleged ‘political prisoners’, among whom there are some self-confessed terrorists, –Guatemalans and Salvadorans, who were tried in Cuba, sentence was passed, even the death penalty, which we still maintain but we have not been applying it for a while now, and was commuted to life imprisonment–  they should release our prisoners and we will send them –along with their families and anybody else– those so-called dissidents and patriots (Applause).

Along these lines, we could say quite a few things, just that, Evo, if after what you have said here today they force you out of the OAS that is incompatible with Marxism-Leninism, Bolivia and Cuba could set up something else that wouldn’t even remotely be called the OAS and we would let in everyone who wishes to accompany us (Applause).

Well, Chavez, forgive me for the time I have taken and the informality with which I have spoken; I was coming to apologize to Daniel and I have prevented him from speaking.  It’s been an abuse of power, apparently it’s because I’m wearing my uniform (Laughter).

Thank you, very much (Applause).

(Stenographic Versions – Council of State)

I hope that Lula, comrade and dear friend, does not protest, because I speak less than Chávez does. (Laughter) Very simply, I had planned on asking to speak so that I could thank everyone, those who have spoken and those who haven’t spoken, all those who have been in agreement, this exemplary unanimity they have shown on the subject of Cuba’s entry into the Rio Group. I don’t know what you are thinking, but for us this is a very important moment in our history.

Like a speeded-up film, hundreds of different scenes went running through my mind, thousands of faces of comrades who have died in this struggle, because the struggle of the Cuban people is not just the blockade; after the Bay of Pigs aggression in 1961, the missile crisis that put the world on the brink of a third world war is a consequence of the same aggression. When that was discussed, some comrades were doubtful until recently when declassified documents by the American government showed that the US could not sit around with such a defeat on its record, and direct aggression with its troops had been planned against Cuba. That was the reason for the presence of the missiles and the moments we lived through.

Since an agreement had been reached between an assassinated president and a prime minister removed from office, I am referring to Nikita Khrushchev, the doubt always remained. And every time there was a change of administration in the United States, a journalist, some second rate spokesperson, when asked an apparently innocent question, would answer that that agreement no longer existed, that arrangements had to be made so that they would be informed, by diplomatic and not public channels, that that agreement did not exist.

Our surprise was enormous when we learned, on good authority, that we were alone, completely alone, to such an extent that Fidel and I decided to keep the secret. He informed the Politburo that I had just returned from the USSR and that there was a matter which he proposed must only be known by him and me, because if the American government would catch wind of it, any of them, with some exception or another, they would know how to use it to their good advantage.

Today it is different. From the day Reagan took office, we decided to take the matter into our own hands, and today perhaps I can say that there is more understanding and rationality in the US armed forces than in the area of the politicians, in the State Department area.

Today we can say that we are invulnerable from the military point of view, by our own effort. For more than 20 years we have not bought any weapons, except telescopic sights for sharpshooters and, naturally, a certain small number of parts.

For us, avoiding war always meant the principal victory, and we would say: “Avoiding war is equivalent to winning the war; but, to win it by avoiding it, we must spill rivers of sweat and use significant economic resources”, and so we did.

Defence of our country has cost a lot, and it continues to cost us a lot. We have constructed thousands of kilometres of tunnels of all sizes, to such an extreme that in Cuba there is no important military unit above-ground; they are deep underground, even the air force.

For this reason all those events were running through my mind, and how many there would be. Imagine that on December 18th, practically in 2 days, I will be in Brasilia on an official visit, thanks to a lovely invitation extended to us by President Lula, and on that day it will be 52 years from the day, after the disaster of December 5th, after landing from Mexico, on which the guerrilla detachment coming from there was practically destroyed…That is why I tell you that our armed forces were born in Mexico, because the Rebel Army was its precedent, just like before it came the Mambí army, the Liberation Army which fought against European colonialism, we should say. Between the 5th and the 18th, 13 days went by, Fidel thought I had died, and I thought he had died; most of our comrades fell, others were murdered after being captured in wounded or exhausted conditions. I resisted an encirclement with five men in my platoon; from twenty something men, only five of us were left and we resisted the encirclement for a week, and the only food we had were some bits of sugarcane, with no water or food of any kind; we wasted no energy in moving until, overcome with nausea, we realized that this was the moment to take a risk and break out from the encirclement.

And so, about 13 days later – as I was saying to you – on December 18th, by now in the Sierra Maestra, the peasants joined up two groups: one was Fidel’s and the other, mine. After the initial embrace, the meeting happened at midnight; he stepped back and asked me: “How many guns do you have?” And I answered: “Five.” And he says: “And I have two, so that makes seven. And now we are going to win the war!” (Laughter) What I am about to tell you, I told after the war, and I didn’t dare write it into my diary: “My brother has really gone crazy!” (Laughter) That’s what I was thinking. He criticized me later: “How is it possible that you had no hope that we were going to win?” “Yes, but we weren’t going to come out of it alive.”

It is thus that as fate has it, perhaps the only time in history, where after such a long journey, lasting more than half a century, some of the main leaders of our Revolution are still alive, and without realizing it we have assimilated a gigantic experience in every respect, including the economic one, even though we are not economists.

After that solution for the missile crisis, to which I just referred, the so-called Operation Mongoose sprang up, concocted by the CIA, which went on for five years, a sort of internal civil war –not a civil war, it was a fight against gangs -; there were moments when we were fighting against 179 gangs in the six provinces of the republic we had in those days until the Political Administrative Division which was approved in 1975 and applied in 1976, when we went from six to 14 provinces.

That struggle lasted for five years. I would arrive at the Defence Ministry and four or five assistants would be coming in at the same time to bring me the lists, to inform me about what had happened during the previous night, or in the last 24 hours – we didn’t have the efficient communications system we have today – and I would tell them: “Just tell me the most important ones.” “So many fires in the sugar fields, so many tobacco curing houses burning, and so many battles fought in the central region, where they had become strong in the mountains. And as I was saying to you, on two occasions they were in the six provinces, including south of La Habana Province –where there was one, and now there are two (provinces) –where the capital is located. That fight lasted until January of 1966, and after that it went on sporadically.

How many comrades fell in that struggle, and many more, as a result of the state terrorism that we have been suffering from for years? 3,478 Cubans have died, including some smaller numbers of boys and girls, women, innocent souls who weren’t taking part in any fight; disabled, 2,099; total, 5,577 Cuban men and women, including attacks to our embassies, and even to the UN mission. That was everywhere: consulates, embassies, diplomatic officials, etc.

We resisted, and I think that is the greatest commendation for our people, our greatest merit; we resisted and we are here, and now this very significant occurrence is happening, and a minute ago I was telling Felipe: “How sorry I am that it isn’t Fidel sitting here right now! Although he must be watching us on TV.” (Applause)

Telling you these stories, I ask that you forgive me, but I was doing so in order to emphasize why this is an event of incredible significance for us; and, therefore, I go on with my written words, and I ask your indulgence for having taken a few minutes longer than I had planned.

Esteemed and dear President Felipe Calderón;

Distinguished presidents, heads of state and government:

Before all else I would like to express our thanks to those governments, to all, for promoting the full incorporation of Cuba into the Rio Group. The decision adopted by the Foreign Ministers last November 13th in Mexico, in the city of Zacatecas, is a reflection of the singular moment being lived by Latin American and the Caribbean.

To you, President Calderón, I wish to give my thanks for your words, as well as to all those who have spoken this afternoon, and to express to them the acknowledgement of Cuba for the role played by your country in favour of strengthening the Rio Group since you took on the Pro-Tempore Secretariat in March of this year.

We share the hope that the Rio Group becomes ever more representative, with the incorporation of all the nations that make up this vast Latin American and Caribbean region.

Cuba enters the Rio Group with the purpose of encouraging cooperation and solidarity among our nations. It does this with the wish to work in favour of justice, peace, development and understanding among all our peoples.

Cuba participates sharing a mutual compliance with international law, the Charter of the United Nations and to the fundamental principles governing the development of relations between nations, especially the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of States, rejection of aggression, use or threat of use of force, and of the use of coercive unilateral measures, in order to prevent any State from exercising its right to choose its own political, economic and social system. That is precisely the purpose of the cruel and vengeful blockade imposed by the government of the United States, that our people have had to suffer and of the information which my initial remarks offered you.

We incorporate ourselves with the commitment to be faithful to the principles of the foreign policy of the Cuban Revolution, those which have been taught us by Comrade Fidel, master of solidarity and the creator of the values that have characterized it.

That unchangeable ethic is the basis for the ties of brotherhood with the peoples of the continent, and it is our steadfast will to continue strengthening them. I am not at all referring to the OAS because I consider it to be a joke made by Comrade Zelaya; I hope you will not misinterpret his words as they go out over TV and into the world, and as always there are some who were not paying enough attention, and they are going to think that it is a serious proposal; at least I understood it to be a joke.

Before Cuba joins the OAS–and I hope to be excused, not by the OAS Secretary, I greet him, and perhaps I will meet with him, but by the politician he is, the political personality, our friend Insulza–first, as Martí said, “the North sea will join the South sea and a snake will hatch from an eagle’s egg.”

Even Evo was saying that Cuba must become a member of an OAS without the Americans. We cannot enter the OAS, for the reasons I was explaining to you and for many more that would extend this meeting far too long, with or without the Americans. Those initials must disappear; that is our opinion. We respect your opinions, those of you who continue belonging to the OAS. We belong to, and we will belong to, the Rio Group. (Applause)

Thank you very much for the patience with which you have had to listen to these last words of mine. (Applause)