TIME: Almanac of the 20th Century

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ TIME: Almanac of the 20th Century / TIME, Almanac of the 20th Century.ISO / 1980 / 80 / 80cappeo.1 < prev next >

Wrap

Text File | 1994-02-27 | 13.3 KB | 284 lines

<text> <title> (1980) Fidel Castro </title> <history> TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1980 Highlights </history> <link 05659> <link 03681> <article> <source>Time Magazine</source> <hdr> February 4, 1980 WORLD An Interview with Fidel Castro </hdr> <body> Cuba's President talks of Iran, nonalignment and his troops in Africa Before Afghanistan there were Angola and Ethiopia. The use of Cuban forces to shore up revolutionary regimes in those countries was seen in the West as Soviet intervention in the Third World through surrogates. The Soviets' invasion of Afghanistan with their own troops abruptly changed the situation and challenged Fidel Castro's claim to leadership of the Third World. In the United Nations, nonaligned states attacked the Soviet imperialist thrust, while Cuba's representative lamely endorsed the Soviet action without specifically mentioning Afghanistan. The invasion killed Cuba's chances of winning a much desired seat on the Security Council. At home, meanwhile, 21 years after Castro's revolution, Cuba's Soviet-supported economy is still in perennial trouble, with resources being diverted (for strictly idealistic reasons, says Castro) to foreign ventures. Castro has just personally taken over six Cabinet posts to gain tighter control over economic affairs. In two recent meetings in Havana with TIME Editor in Chief Henry Grunwald and Chief of Correspondents Richard Duncan, Castro talked of the interplay between Cuba, the U.S., Russia and the Third World. He still insisted on Russia's peaceful intentions. (The interview took place before the Afghanistan invasion. TIME delayed publication while trying to get Castro to comment on the Soviet move. He declined.) Excerpts from the 4 1/2 hours of conversation: Q. Would you comment on the situation in Iran? A. I'm absolutely convinced that the lives of the American citizens in the embassy are not at risk. I think also that the problem is coming to its solution. It seems to me correct for the U.S. not to have let itself be drawn by the temptation to use force, because a grave conflict could have been created. If a conflict takes place in that area, the price of oil will increase by $50 or $60 a bbl. And that would be really disastrous for all countries. Q. What is the future of the Iranian revolution? A. The revolution has enormous popular force. It was able to defeat the Shah, who had one of the most powerful and best- equipped armies in that area, practically without weapons. The people fought with tremendous courage, losing thousands and thousands of lives. I think the revolution is going to cling to its strong religious and nationalistic accent. Q. Then you are not disturbed by the anti-Marxist views expressed by Ayatullah Khomeini and his followers? A. I am not much disturbed. If [the revolution] can improve the future of the people, it doesn't matter whether it is based on a Marxist philosophy or a religious philosophy. I know that the Marxists in Iran are supporting Khomeini. Q. Do you think the Marxists will inherit the revolution? A. It doesn't seem likely. And I don't think it is in their minds. But look, we think that there is no contradiction between religion and revolution. I have said that Marxists and Christians can be strategic allies. Q. You are widely considered a surrogate for the Soviet Union. How can you call yourself nonaligned? A. Look, if most of the nonaligned countries believed that we assume the geopolitical interests of the Soviet Union or any other country, we wouldn't be supported. Ninety countries would not have supported Cuba for [a seat on the U.N.] Security Council. We have relations with the socialist camp because it supported us in the face of the U.S. embargo. How do you think we could have been able to survive without this support? We would have died here, like Numantia, in ancient times. (A Celtic- Iberian settlement in Spain, Numantia held off the invaders for 60 years before being taken 133 B.C.) So we are grateful that we have had friendly relations with the Soviets, but we do not belong to the Warsaw Pact, we do not belong to any military pact. The criteria of nonalignment are that a country should not belong to any military bloc and should hold certain principles against imperialism and in favor of liberation movements. Q. Nevertheless, it seems that you are so dependent economically on the U.S.S.R. that you could not afford to make a major international move opposed by Moscow. A. Every country in the world today, in a lesser or a greater degree, depends on other countries. I tell you that never, never, has the Soviet government tried to tell Cuba what it should do in matters of domestic policy or international policy. Q. Should OPEC countries show restraint in oil pricing? A. I think so. Everybody has to sacrifice a little. The world's problems cannot be solved unless all countries--the industrialized and the socialist, the oil-producing and the developing--cooperate. People talk about the year 2000, but we do not know whether the world will even get to the year 2000. Q. In recent speeches about Cuba's economic problems, you have mentioned lack of discipline among workers and management. A. It is true that we have problems of labor discipline. We are to be blamed for that. For a long time we based all production efforts exclusively on moral incentives while disregarding the material ones. We used to pay everybody the same, whether they produced two or three times what they should. We were not encouraging production. We did not have a system for directing and planning the economy. Imagine: there was a time when we had no budget. People lost the concept of money, of administration, of management. It seemed as if enthusiasm could solve everything, but it's not enough. Q. What of future relations between the U.S. and Cuba? A. It is an indispensable requirement for the U.S. to lift the embargo. In addition, our two countries should cooperate in assistance to the Third World. We have a common cause there, not a conflict. We are happy when the U.S. offers economic aid without conditions, of course. Q. Why should the U.S. offer aid unconditionally to regimes that denounce our system and are generally hostile to us? A. Take our example. We are willing to help any country, even when we are not in political sympathy with it. The Philippines, for example, is not a socialist country and does not sympathize with Cuba. However, we have good relations with it and we have economic and technical cooperation. History and geography have made us your neighbors. The U.S. would gain a very important lesson from [bilateral] relations with Cuba, and in a way I think it is already drawing that lesson. For instance, in Nicaragua, the U.S. does not look for a confrontation but for understanding. Latin America has to change. Is the U.S. going to forbid revolution to take place in Latin America? That's absolutely impossible! Even the U.S. had its revolutionary era. Then you were at war with the British, but later you became allies. For a long time it was said that China was a Moscow satellite and look how things have turned out. Revolutionaries have a moment of great fever and passion combined with a lack of experience. So you have to be very patient with them. Q. Do you expect that the Carter Administration will end the economic embargo against Cuba? A. Not immediately. Carter took some positive steps regarding Cuba. But whenever there was an advance in relations between Cuba and the U.S., a new incident took place that stopped this process. For instance, at the time of Shaba [in May 1978, when Angola-based Zairian rebels struck across the border into Zaire's Shaba province] there was an unjust attempt to blame that event on Cuba, in spite of the fact that I explained to the U.S. representative here that we were absolutely opposed to what had happened. On the eve of the sixth summit [of nonaligned countries in Havana last September] the problem of the Soviet "brigade" was created. It seems to me that there are people interested in preventing the improvement of relations between the U.S. and Cuba. Q. What should Cuba do to change its image in the U.S.? A. As for concrete measures, we almost have nothing left to do. We had some American political prisoners, and they were released. No one cooperates more than we do to combat drug traffic in the area. There is no other spectacular measure we can take in order to show our good will. Q. You could withdraw your troops from Africa. A. We cannot withdraw our military personnel unilaterally because we have commitments to these countries. Our wish is that when these countries [Angola and Ethiopia] feel secure, we will be able to withdraw our military forces. We do not have any interest whatsoever in keeping them endlessly there. Q. The Soviets and other socialist countries profess to think that the Soviet military presence in, say, the Horn of Africa, is not a threat to peace. A. Look, I think these policies are being magnified. For instance, the main problem for Ethiopia is not military. It is a problem of economic development. The Ethiopians got rid of Haile Selassie. They conducted a revolution. They are not interested in attacking any country. They are interested in getting rid of the tremendous misery that exists there. The military assistance was provided only to defend the integrity of the country. Q. Europeans feel threatened by the Soviets' increased theater of nuclear weapons. What is your comment? A. If I have to rely on information released in the U.S., then I would have to agree [that there has been a buildup]. But the Soviets have had an experience that Americans have not. In World War II, their country was occupied, there were 20 million casualties and great destruction. That's why they are so sensitive. The Soviet Union was surrounded by military bases after World War II. In a certain sense the Soviet Union still feels encircled. Q. We also often feel encircled--politically--when regimes hostile to the U.S. are being encouraged by the Soviet Union. A. When change takes place in a country you almost see it as an enemy of the U.S. This has led you to cooperate with governments which were very unpopular. It happened with Somoza, with the Shah of Iran. You cannot conceive that a revolutionary government may have friendly relations with the U.S. Yet how can the U.S. be hurt if we are able to develop our country? Look, Cuba already has the best educational level and the best health rate in Latin America. We have solved the problems of unemployment, beggars, prostitution. No other people in Latin America have solved these problems. Q. Do you believe that you have ever restrained the Soviet Union in any way? A. We should not speak about that; it could seem conceited and politically not wise. But on many issues we agree. I think that the Soviet Union would be very much interested in stopping the arms race. The Soviet Union would gain a lot if it did not have to spend what it does on armaments because it needs that money very badly to improve the living standards of the people. But you Americans also need that money for social expenses, for education, for assistance to the unemployed. I don't think it makes sense to throw away $150 billion. Q. After Viet Nam, the U.S. did not want bigger military budgets. What changed that perception were Soviet activities in Africa and elsewhere, and a general feeling that the Soviet Union was not playing by the rules of detente. A. That makes us feel remorse because we had a lot to do with support for Angola and Ethiopia. I do not understand how all that could have made the difference and changed public opinion. That was not our aim. Q. We feel that the Third World only criticizes the U.S. for arming and excuses the Soviet Union. A. Maybe we do criticize the U.S. more than the Soviet Union, because the U.S. is very close by. But in general the Third World countries do not want the arms race, and they demand that part of the money devoted to armaments should be given to them for development. Q. If Santa Claus should offer Cuba a big hydrogen bomb, on condition that it would give up progress in housing, health care and education for one year, would that be worth it? A. If it were for a year, it wouldn't be much. But if Santa Claus asks me whether I want the hydrogen bomb, I say no, I don't want it! It's ridiculous, a bomb. Can you imagine if we had a bomb here, or ten bombs? What do we need them for? They will solve nothing. Maybe to open a canal? I think that nuclear energy can be very useful for peaceful means. Today the amount of weapons existing in the world is really insane. It's folly! </body> </article> </text>