Fidel Castro, who still inspires leftist activists around the world, turns 85 as country gives "Serenade to Fidelity".

Fidel Castro, who still inspires leftist activists around the world, turns 85 as country gives "Serenade to Fidelity".
Last Modified: 13 Aug 2011 09:47

Cuba's Fidel Castro has turned 85 years old amid celebrations for the revolutionary legend who led his country for nearly 50 years before ill health led him from power in 2006.
Castro's birthday officially fell on Saturday, but the communist nation has been partying since Tuesday in his honour. The string of gala events culminated in a concert on Friday night titled "Serenade of Fidelity".
"What we say in the songs of our invited artists will be little next to what he deserves,'' Alfredo Vera, one of the organisers, told the Associated Press news agency on Friday.
"Congratulations, beloved and eternal comandante," he added.
Most of the events have been organised by the Guayasamin Foundation, named for the Ecuadoran painter Oswaldo Guayasamin, a close friend of Castro. The celebrations have reportedly included foreign dignitaries, celebrities and at least two dozen famous Latin America musicians.
So far, however, the guest of honour has not shown up.New era for Cuba
A gregarious public speaker as president, Castro is only seen publicly these days in official still photographs and video footage, such as recent images showing him with his brother Raul and a convalescing Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
Castro seemed unsteady on his feet when he made a surprise showing at a Communist Party Congress in April, walking to his seat with the help of an aide.
It was at that same gathering that the party for the first time named a leadership council without him on it, as Castro left his last official position.Castro's birthday comes as Latin America, which he hoped would adopt his revolution, has swung to the political left, with a wave of progressive governments taking power from Argentina to Nicaragua.
Chavez, Castro's political heir of sorts, could make an appearance at his birthday celebrations, which coincide with the Havana carnival.
Castro has been a prolific writer of newspaper columns and books in recent years, including autobiographical accounts of the events that led him to take power in a 1959 revolution.
'Feeling of love'

Omara Portuondo, the Grammy-winning singer of Buena Vista Social Club fame, was the big draw for Friday's show at Havana's 5,000-seat Karl Marx theatre.
The playbill also included Venezuela's Cecilia Todd, Uruguay's Daniel Viglietti, Chile's Pancho Villa and Argentina's Liliana Herrero.
Even without attending, the night's real star was Fidel, whose defiance of the United Sates continues to inspire leftist activists around the world.
"It's a feeling of love. The serenade is a genre that is born out of love," Viglietti said at a news conference earlier this week."The political map has changed in Latin America,'' he added, "and Fidel is not innocent of responsibility for that".
Born in 1926 to a prosperous Spanish immigrant landowner and a Cuban mother who had been his housekeeper, Castro was the hero of the island's revolution which swept Fulgencio Batista from power in 1959.
A communist icon when the Cold War was at its height, the unrepentant anti-American and anti-imperialist leader is seen by supporters as a great revolutionary and by critics as a merciless dictator
Source: Agencies

'Let them be like Che'

By LOUIS EA MOYSTON

Jamaica Observer, Saturday, June 18, 2011

Ernesto Che Guevara was born in Rosario, Argentina, on June 14, 1928. He was an adventurer. This characteristic was reflected in his book The Motorcycle Diaries telling of his trip around Argentina on an observation tour. It provides an insightful characterisation of this humanist and internationalist. Che played a pivotal role in the Cuban revolution and the early development of the revolutionary government of that country. Yearning for the "creation of two, three and more Vietnams", he left Cuba in 1965 to ignite the anti-imperialist war in the Congo. That was a failed project.

He went to Bolivia in 1966 but that was another failed project. He was captured and killed by a combination of CIA Special Forces in collaboration with their Bolivian counterparts. He was killed in a manner similar to the recent killing of Osama Bin Laden. Guevara was certainly one of the most outstanding people of philosophical proportions of the 20th century.

My encounter with Che Guevara took place by way of reading. My love for reading increased in the post-1972 period when the Michael Manley leadership unleashed a new period characterised by an awakening. It was a sort of renaissance inspired by a radical leadership. So I began to read about socialism and matters concerning Africa. Closer to home was Fidel Castro in Cuba.  It was while reading the book, Fidel by Herbert Matthews in early 1973 that I came across Che. This book led me to Venceremos in late 1973, a collection of speeches by Che ranging from the revolutionary war, the growth of imperialism, party militancy and creating the new form of socialism in Cuba.

 I recall showing Venceremos to an old schoolmate, Baron Grey, who was out from the US on holiday, and he told me to make sure I read Frantz Fanon's The Wretched of the Earth. I did and my interest in this type of literature grew. The period 1972-1976 was important for me in terms of my political development, and most important, my developing a view of the world. I was developing an understanding of guerilla warfare in a time when Southern Africa was on fire with liberation movements.

In early 1975 my fascination with guerilla warfare and Che Guevara continued with my reading of Guerilla Warfare, outlining and illustrating the theories, principles and organisation of guerilla warfare. This book was complemented by the reading of Episodes of the Revolutionary War by Ernesto Che Guevara. This book presents a compilation of diary records of a history of minor and major victories of the guerrillas from the time they landed on the beach to their victory from the mountains of Sierra Maestra. His sharing of the experiences of these guerrilla fighters helped my developing a clearer picture of the revolutionary warfare in Southern Africa during the 1970s.

In late 1976 I read The Diary of Che Guevara: Bolivia November 1966-October 1967. Of course, this book chronicled another major set of experiences of Guevara in a difficult situation conducting a war in a condition that may not have been characterised by a revolutionary situation. Prior to going to Bolivia, Che went to Africa to ignite the anti-imperialist war on the continent. Che Guevara Reader is an important compilation of Che's writing that highlights his ideas on his international solidarity and also the need to create "two, three and many more Vietnams". Prior to his failed project in Bolivia, Che went to the Congo. In The African Dream: the Diaries of Revolutionary War in the Congo, Guevara provides a fascinating history of the early development of the revolutionary war in the Congo and the difficulties in developing revolutionaries out of the colonised Africans; and a record of a bitter political failure. His trip to Bolivia was indeed another bitter political and ideological failure that led to his execution.

In the book The Diary of Che Guevara: Bolivia November 1966-October 1967, Fidel Castro provided a "necessary introduction" to the book. He began by describing Che as a "diarist" and how important his diary records were as a working guide and "constant evaluation of the occurrences, the situation and the men...They were of revolutionary content, pedagogic and human". Castro's account of the role of Che's daily journal suggests themes of action research, critical reflection and transformative and radical pedagogy. Peter McLaren (2000), in Che Guevara, Paulo Freire and the Pedagogy of Revolution, agrees that the "new man" concept of the Cuban Revolution converges with Paulo Freire's idea of education and its emancipatory qualities in his book Pedagogy of the Oppressed. McLaren (2000) describes

In the book The Diary of Che Guevara: Bolivia November 1966-October 1967, Fidel Castro provided a "necessary introduction" to the book. He began by describing Che as a "diarist" and how important his diary records were as a working guide and "constant evaluation of the occurrences, the situation and the men...They were of revolutionary content, pedagogic and human". Castro's account of the role of Che's daily journal suggests themes of action research, critical reflection and transformative and radical pedagogy. Peter McLaren (2000), in Che Guevara, Paulo Freire and the Pedagogy of Revolution, agrees that the "new man" concept of the Cuban Revolution converges with Paulo Freire's idea of education and its emancipatory qualities in his book Pedagogy of the Oppressed. McLaren (2000) describes

In his book Guevara, Anderw Sinclair argues that Sartre was correct when he called Che "the most complete man of his age". Sinclair describes Guevara as a renaissance man with a multiplicity of careers - a medical doctor, a diarist, a political and military theorist, guerilla fighter, and a tactician among others. The writer notes that Fidel asked about Che's qualities and he answered this way: "If we wish to express what we want the men of the future generations to be, we must say: let them be like Che". According to the writer, "The difference between Che and other men was that Che did not let other men put his ideas into practice. He practised them himself." Long live Che Guevara!

thearchives01@yahoo.com

Read more:

http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/pfversion/Let-them-be-like-Che_9016292#ixzz1PoVZUDYe

The Cynical Dance Macabre

REFLECTIONS OF FIDEL

Havana, February 23, 2011, 7:42pm

The policy of plunder imposed by the United States and their NATO allies in the Middle East has gone into a crisis. It has inevitably unraveled with the high cost of grain, the effects of which can be felt more forcefully in the Arab countries where, in spite of their huge resources of oil, the shortage of water, areas covered by desert and the generalized poverty of the people contrast with the enormous resources coming from the oil possessed by the privileged sectors.

While food prices triple, real estate fortunes and the treasures of the aristocratic minority reach millions of millions of dollars.

The Arab world, mainly Muslim in its culture and beliefs, has seen itself additionally humiliated by the imposition of blood and fire by a State that was not capable of fulfilling the basic obligations that were part of their origin, from the colonial order existing up to the end of WW II, by virtue of which the victorious powers created the United Nations Organization and imposed world trade and economy.

Thanks to the treason committed by Anwar El-Sadat at Camp David, the Palestinian State has not been able to exist, despite the UN treaties of November 1947, and Israel became a strong nuclear power, an ally of the United States and NATO.

The US Military Industrial Complex supplied Israel with tens of billions of dollars every year as well as to the very Arab States that were submitted and being humiliated by Israel.

The genie has escaped from the bottle and NATO doesn´t know how to control it.

They are going to attempt to wrest the most benefits from the regrettable events in Libya. Nobody can know at this moment what is happening over there. All the figures and versions, even the most implausible ones, have been spread by the empire via the mass media, sowing chaos and disinformation.

It is obvious that inside Libya a civil war is brewing. Why and how did this happen? Who will pay the consequences? Reuters Agency, echoing the opinion of the well-known Nomura Bank of Japan, stated that oil prices could go beyond any limits:

“‘If Libya and Algeria suspend oil production, prices could reach a maximum of more than 220 dollars a barrel and OPEC´s inactive capacity would be reduced to 2.1 million barrels per day, similar to levels seen during the Gulf War and when values touched 147 dollars a barrel in 2008’, the bank asserted in an article.”

Who could pay that price these days? What would be the consequences in the midst of the food crisis? The main NATO leaders are all worked up. British Prime Minister David Cameron, ANSA informed, “…admitted in a speech in Kuwait that the western nations made a mistake in backing non-democratic governments in the Arab world.” One has to congratulate him on his frankness.

His French colleague Nicolas Sarkozy stated: “The extended brutal and bloody repression of the Libyan civilian population is disgusting”.

Italian Chancellor Franco Frattini stated as “‘believable’ the figure of one thousand dead in Tripoli [...] ‘the tragic numbers shall be a bloodbath’.”

Hillary Clinton stated the following: “…the ‘bloodbath’ is ‘completely unacceptable’ and ‘it has to stop’…”

Ban Ki-moon spoke: “‘The use of violence in the country is absolutely unacceptable’.”
“…‘the Security Council will act according to whatever the international community decides’.” “‘We are considering a series of options’.”

What Ban Ki-moon is really hoping is that Obama pronounces the last word.

The president of the United States spoke this Wednesday afternoon and stated that the Secretary of State would be leaving for Europe in order to agree with their NATO allies on the measures to be taken. On his face once could note the opportunity to spar with John McCain, the far-right-wing Republican senator, pro-Israel Senator Joseph Lieberman from Connecticut and the leaders of the Tea Party, in order to ensure the Democratic Party demands.

The empire´s mass media has prepared the terrain for action. There would be nothing strange about a military intervention in Libya; besides, with that, Europe would be guaranteed almost two million barrels of light oil per day, unless before that events would put an end to the leadership or the life of Gaddafi.

Anyway, Obama´s role is rather complicated. What will the reaction of the Arab and Muslim world be if blood should flow in abundance in that country as a result of that exploit? Would NATO intervention in Libya stem the revolutionary tidal wave surging in Egypt?

In Iraq, the innocent blood of more than a million Arab citizens was spilt when the country was invaded under false pretexts. Mission accomplished!: proclaimed George W. Bush.

Nobody in the world would ever agree with the deaths of defenseless civilians in Libya or anywhere else. And I wonder: will the US and NATO apply that principle on the defenseless civilians that the unmanned Yankee planes and the soldiers of that organization kill every day in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

It is a cynical dance macabre.

Fidel Castro Ruz

February 23, 2011

7:42 p.m.

The Plan is to Occupy Libya

REFLECTIONS OF FIDEL

Havana, February 21, 2011, 10:14 pm

The nature of a capitalist system depends upon the institutional framework that supports and shapes it.

Oil has become the principal wealth in the hands of the great Yankee transnationals; through this energy source they had an instrument that considerably expanded their political power in the world. It was their main weapon when they decided to easily liquidate the Cuban Revolution as soon as the first just and sovereign laws were passed in our Homeland: depriving it of oil.

Upon this energy source today’s civilization was developed. Venezuela was the nation in this hemisphere that paid the highest price. The United States became the lord and master of the huge oil fields that Mother Nature had bestowed upon that sister country.

At the end of the last World War, it started to extract greater amounts of oil from the oil fields of Iran, as well as those in Saudi Arabia, Iraq and the Arab countries located around them. These became the main suppliers. World consumption progressively increased to the fabulous figure of approximately 80 million barrels a day, including those being extracted on United States territory, to which later gas, hydro and nuclear energies were added. Until the beginning of the twentieth century, coal had been the basic source of energy that made industrial development possible, before billions of automobiles and engines consuming the liquid fuel were produced.

The squandering of oil and gas is associated with one of the greatest tragedies, not in the least resolved, which is suffered by humankind: climate change.

When our Revolution arose, Algeria, Libya and Egypt were not yet oil producers and a great part of the abundant reserves of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran and the United Arab Emirates were still to be discovered.

In December of 1951, Libya becomes the first African country to attain its independence after WW II, during which its territory was the stage for important battles between the troops of Germany and the United Kingdom, conferring fame and glory on Generals Erwin Rommel and Bernard L. Montgomery.

Ninety-five percent of its territory is completely made up of desert. Technology permitted the discovery of vital oilfields of excellent quality light oil that today reach one million 800 thousand barrels a day along with abundant deposits of natural gas. Such riches allowed it to reach life expectancy that is almost at 75 years of age and the highest per capita income in Africa. Its harsh desert is located over an enormous lake of fossil waters, equivalent to more than three times the land area of Cuba; this has made it possible to construct a broad network of pipelines of fresh water that stretch from one end of the country to the other.

Libya, which had a million inhabitants when it attained independence, today has somewhat more than 6 million.

The Libyan Revolution took place in the month of September of the year 1969. Its main leader was Muammar al-Gaddafi, a soldier of Bedouin origin who, in his early years, was inspired by the ideas of the Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser. Without any doubt, many of his decisions are associated with the changes that were produced when, as in Egypt, a weak and corrupt monarchy was overthrown in Libya.

The inhabitants of that country have age-old warrior traditions. It is said that ancient Libyans were a part of Hannibal’s army when he was at the point of destroying Ancient Rome with the troops that crossed the Alps.

One can agree with Gaddafi or not. The world has been invaded with all kinds of news, especially using the mass media. One has to wait the necessary length of time in order to learn precisely what is the truth and what are lies, or a mixture of events of every kind that, in the midst of chaos, were produced in Libya. For me, what is absolutely clear is that the government of the United States is not in the least worried about peace in Libya and it will not hesitate in giving NATO the order to invade that rich country, perhaps in a matter of hours or a few short days.

Those who with perfidious intentions invented the lie that Gaddafi was headed for Venezuela, just as they did yesterday afternoon on Sunday the 20th of February, today received an fitting response from Foreign Affairs Minister Nicolas Maduro when he literally stated that he was “wishing that the Libyan people would find, in the exercise of their sovereignty, a peaceful solution to their difficulties, that would preserve the integrity of the Libyan people and nation, without the interference of imperialism…”

As for me, I cannot imagine that the Libyan leader would abandon his country; escaping the responsibilities he is charged with, whether or not they are partially or totally false.

An honest person shall always be against any injustice being committed against any people in the world, and the worst of all, at this moment, would be to remain silent in the face of the crime that NATO is getting ready to commit against the Libyan people.

The leadership of that war-mongering organization has to do it. We must condemn it!

Fidel Castro Ruz

February 21, 2011

10:14 p.m.

The Revolutionary Rebellion in Egypt

Havana. February 14, 2011

Reflections of Fidel

(Taken from CubaDebate)

I said several days ago that the die was cast for Mubarak and that not even Obama could save him.

The world knows what is taking place in the Middle East. The news is circulating at incredible speed. Politicians barely have time to read the cables coming in by the hour. Everyone is aware of the importance of what is occurring there.

After 18 days of harsh battling, the Egyptian people attained an important objective: to defeat the United States' principal ally in the heart of the Arab countries. Mubarak was oppressing and plundering his own people, he was an enemy of the Palestinians and an accomplice of Israel, the sixth nuclear power on the planet, associated with the military NATO group.

The Egyptian Armed Forces, under the command of Gamal Abdel Nasser, had overthrown a submissive king and created the Republic which, with support from the USSR, defended the homeland from the Franco-British and Israeli invasion in 1956 and retained possession of the Suez Canal and the independence of this millennial nation.

Thus Egypt enjoyed a high level of prestige in the Third World. Nasser was known as one of the most outstanding leaders of the Non-Aligned Movement, which he participated in creating, together with other eminent leaders of Asia, Africa and Oceania who were fighting for national liberation and political and economic independence from the former colonies.

Egypt always enjoyed the support and respect of the abovementioned international organization which brings together more than 100 countries. That sister nation currently presides over the Movement for the three-year period established; and the support of many of its members for the struggle which its people are now waging will not be slow in coming.

What did the Camp David Accords signify, and why are the heroic Palestinian people so passionately defending their most vital rights?

At Camp David – with the mediation of the then U.S. President Jimmy Carter – the Egyptian leader Anwar al-Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin signed the famous accords between Egypt and Israel.

It is said that they held secret talks during 12 days and, on September 17, 1979, signed two important accords: one referring to peace between Egypt and Israel, and another related to the creation of an autonomous territory in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, which Al-Sadat thought – and Israel knew and shared the idea – would be the headquarters of the Palestinian state, whose existence, as well as that of the state of Israel, the United Nations Organization agreed on November 29, 1947, during the British Mandate of Palestine.

After difficult and complex talks, Israel agreed to withdraw its troops from the Egyptian territory of Sinai, although it categorically rejected the participation of Palestinian representatives in the peace negotiations.

As a result of the first agreement, Israel returned to Egypt the Sinai territory occupied in one of the Arab-Israeli wars.

In virtue of the second, both parties committed themselves to negotiate the creation of the autonomous regime in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The former comprised a territory of 5,640 square kilometers and 2.1 million inhabitants; and the latter, 360 square kilometers and 1.5 million inhabitants.

The Arab countries were angry with that agreement in which, in their judgment, Egypt did not energetically and firmly defend a Palestinian state whose right to exist had been at the center of the struggles waged for decades by the Arab states.

Their reaction reached such extreme indignation that many of them broke off relations with Egypt. In that way, the UN Resolution of November 1947 was erased from the map. The autonomous entity was never created and thus the Palestinians were deprived of the right to exist as an independent state, leading to the interminable tragedy endured there and which should have been resolved more than three decades ago.

The Arab population of Palestine is the victim of acts of genocide; their lands are being snatched from them and are deprived of water in those semi-desert areas, and their housing is destroyed with sledge hammers. In the Gaza Strip, one and a half million people are systematically attacked with explosive missiles, live phosphorus and the well-known stun grenades. The territory of the Strip is blockaded by land and sea. Why is there so much talk about the Camp David Accords and no mention of Palestine?

The United States supplies Israel with the most modern and sophisticated armament, worth billions of dollars every year. Egypt, an Arab country, was converted into the second recipient of U.S. weapons. To fight against whom? Against another Arab country? Against the Egyptian people themselves?

When the population was demanding respect for their most elemental rights and the resignation of a president whose policies consisted of exploiting and plundering his people, the repressive forces trained by the United States did not hesitate to fire on them, killing hundreds and wounding thousands.

When the Egyptian people were awaiting explanations from the government of their own country, the replies came from senior officers from U.S. intelligence agencies or the U.S. government, without any respect whatsoever for Egyptian officials.

Do the leaders of the United States and their intelligence services, by any chance, know nothing of the Mubarak government's colossal theft?

Faced with the people's mass protests in Tahrir Square, neither government officials nor intelligence agents said one single word about privileges and the bold-faced robbery of billions of dollars.

It would be an error to imagine that the revolutionary popular movement in Egypt simply constitutes a reaction against the violation of their most fundamental rights. Peoples do not risk repression or death, nor do they stand fast the whole night protesting energetically about purely formal issues. They do so when their legal and material rights are pitilessly sacrificed to the insatiable demands of corrupt politicians and to the national and international forces sacking the country.

The rate of poverty already affected the vast majority of a combative, young and patriotic people, whose dignity, culture and beliefs have all been attacked.

How could they reconcile themselves to the continuing increase in the price of food with the tens of billions of dollars attributed to President Mubarak and the privileged sectors of his government and society?

At this point, it is not enough to know how high that figure is; it must be demanded that the funds be returned to the nation.

Obama is affected by the events in Egypt; he acts or appears to act as if he were the owner of the planet. What is happening in Egypt seems to be his own issue. He has not stopped talking over the telephone with leaders of other countries.

The EFE agency, for example, reports, "… He spoke with British Prime Minister David Cameron; Jordan's King Abdala II and with the Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a moderate Islamist.

"The U.S. President recognized the 'historic change' that Egyptians have made and reaffirmed his admiration for their efforts…"

The principal U.S. news agency AP released some arguments worthy of attention: "Wanted: Moderate, Western-leaning Mideast leaders willing to be friends with Israel and cooperate in the fight against Islamic extremism while protecting human rights…
"That's the impossible wish list from the Obama administration after popular uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia ousted two long-serving and close but deeply flawed U.S. allies in stunning rebellions that many believe will spread.

"This dream resume doesn't exist and isn't likely to appear soon. Part of the reason is that American administrations for the past four decades sacrificed the lofty human rights ideals they espoused for the sake of stability, continuity and oil in one of the world's most volatile regions.

"'Egypt will never be the same,' Obama said as he welcomed the departure of Hosni Mubarak on Friday.

"'Through their peaceful protests,' Obama said, ‘Egyptians changed their country, and in doing so changed the world.'

"Even though governments around the Arab world are nervous, there is no sign that entrenched elites in Egypt and Tunisia are willing to cede the power and vast economic leverage they have enjoyed…

"The Obama administration has insisted ever since President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali fled Tunisia last month – a day after Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton warned Arab leaders in a speech in Qatar that without reform the foundations of their countries were 'sinking into the sand…'"

The people in Tahrir Square do not appear to be very docile.

Europe Press relates: "Thousands of demonstrators have arrived in Tahrir Square, the epicenter of the mobilizations which provoked the resignation of the country's President, Hosni Mubarak, to reinforce those who have remained in the area despite attempts by the military police to dislodge them, according to reports by the BBC.

"The BBC correspondent posted in the central Cairo plaza has reiterated that the army is looking indecisive faced with the arrival of more demonstrators…

"The hardcore are situated on one of the square's corners… and have decided to stay in Tahrir to make sure that their demands are met."

Regardless of what may happen in Egypt, one of the most serious problems faced by imperialism at this time is the shortage of grain, which I analyzed in my January 19 Reflection.

The United States uses an important part of the corn it raises, and a large portion of soybeans, to produce biofuels. Europe, for its part, employs millions of hectares of land for this purpose.

On the other hand, as a consequence of climate change produced fundamentally by the rich, developed countries, a shortage of water and food is emerging which is incompatible with the growth of the world's population, at a rate which will result in 9 billion inhabitants within 30 years, without the United Nations or the most influential governments on the planet warning or informing the world of the situation in the wake of the fraudulent Copenhagen and Cancun meetings.

We support the valiant Egyptian people and their struggle for political rights and social justice.

We are not opposed to the people of Israel; we are opposed to the genocide of the Palestinian people and in favor of their right to an independent state.

We are not in favor of war, but rather in favor of peace among all peoples.

Fidel Castro Ruz

February 13, 20119:14 p.m.
Translated by Granma International

Mubarak's Fate is Sealed

by Fidel Castro

— last modified Feb 03, 2011 10:56 AM

Cuban Revolution leader Fidel Castro said this Tuesday that not even the support of the United States will be able to save the Egyptian government. Likewise, he pointed out that for the first time the world is simultaneously facing three problems: climate crises, food crises and political crises.

Mubarak’s fate is sealed, not even the support of the United States will be able to save his government. The people of Egypt are an intelligent people with a glorious history who left their mark on civilization. “From the top of these pyramids, 40 centuries of history are looking down upon us,” Bonaparte once said in a moment of exaltation when the revolution brought him to this extraordinary crossroads of civilizations.

By the end of the Second World War, Egypt was under the brilliant governance of Abdel Nasser, who together with Jawaharlal Nehru, heir of Mahatma Gandhi; Kwame Nkrumah; and Ahmed Sékou Touré —African leaders who together with Sukarno, then president of the recently liberated Indonesia— created the Non-Aligned Movement of Countries and advanced the struggle for independence in the former colonies. At the time, the peoples of Southeast Asia, the Middle East and Africa, such as Egypt, Algeria, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Western Sahara, the Congo, Angola, Mozambique and other countries immersed in the struggle against French, English, Belgian and Portuguese colonialism backed by the United States were fighting for independence with the support of the USSR and China.

After the triumph of our revolution, Cuba joined this movement in motion.

In 1956 Great Britain, France and Israel launched a surprise attack against Egypt which had nationalized the Suez Canal. The brave and supportive action by the USSR, which included a threat to use its strategic missiles, stopped the aggressors dead in their tracks.

The death of Abdel Nasser on September 28, 1970 was an irreversible setback for Egypt.

United States never stopped conspiring against the Arab world, which holds the largest oil reserves on the planet.

There is no need to profoundly debate this matter; it is enough to read recent news dispatches on what inevitably is transpiring.

Let’s take a look at the news:

January 28:

“(DPA) - More than 100,000 Egyptians took to the streets today to protest against the government of President Hosni Mubarak, despite a prohibition of demonstrations issued by authorities…”

“Demonstrators set fire to the offices of Mubarak’s National Democratic Party (NDP) and police surveillance points, while in downtown Cairo they threw rocks at police who tried to disperse the crowd with tear gas and rubber bullets.”

“US President Barack Obama met today with a group of experts to become better informed on the situation. Meanwhile, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said that the United States would reassess the multimillion dollar aid it provides to Egypt as events transpire.

“UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon also sent a strong message from Davos.”

“(Reuters).- President Mubarak ordered a curfew in Egypt and the deployment of army troops backed by armoured vehicles in Cairo and other cities. Violent clashes between demonstrators and the police have been reported.

“Egyptian forces, supported by armoured vehicles, deployed throughout Cairo and other major Egyptian cities on Friday to put an end to large-scale protests demanding the resignation of President Hosni Mubarak.

“Medical sources reported that so far 410 people have been injured in the protests, while state television announced a curfew for all cities.”

“The situation represents a dilemma for the United States, which has expressed its desire for democracy to spread throughout the region. Mubarak, however, has been a close ally of Washington for several years and the beneficiary of extensive military aid.”

“(DPA)”.- Thousands of Jordanians protested today across the country after Friday prayers, demanding the resignation of Prime Minister Samir Rifai, and political and economic reforms.”

In the midst of the political disaster assailing the Arab world, leaders, who were gathered in Switzerland, discussed the cause of the phenomenon which they described as global suicide.

“(EFE).- Several political leaders at the Davos Economic Forum called for a change of the growth model.”

“The current model of economic growth, based on consumerism and a disregard of environmental consequences, can no longer be sustained because the planet’s survival is at risk, several political leaders warned today in Davos.”

“‘The current model is global suicide. We need a revolution. Revolutionary thinking. Revolutionary action,’ warned Ban Ki-moon. ‘Natural resources are becoming more and more scarce,” he added, during a debate on how to redefine sustainable growth at the World Economic Forum.”

“‘Climate change is also showing us that the old model is more than obsolete,’ said the head of the UN.

“The UN secretary general added that in addition to basic survival resources such as food and water, ‘one resource is the scarcest of all: Time, We are running out of time. Time to tackle climate change.’”

January 29:

“Washington (AP).- President Barack Obama tried the impossible: winning the hearts and minds of Egyptians furious with their autocratic ruler while assuring a vital ally that the United States has his back.

The four-minute speech Friday evening represented a careful balancing act for Obama. He had a lot to lose by choosing between protesters demanding that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak step down from a government violently clinging to its three-decade grip on the country.

“Obama...didn't endorse regime change. Nor did he say that Mubarak's announcement was insufficient.

“Obama’s address was the most forceful of the day, but it stuck largely to the script already set by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and White House spokesman Robert Gibbs.”

“(NTX).- The Washington Post called on the Obama administration to use its political and economic influence to convince President Mubarak to step down in Egypt.”

“‘The United States should use all its influence, including the more than 1 billion dollars in aid it provides each year to the Egyptian army to assure its ultimate outcome (the surrender of power by Mubarak),’ the paper states in its editorial.”

 “…in his message delivered on Friday night Obama said that he would continue working with President Mubarak and regretted that he had not mentioned eventual elections.”

“The newspaper described Obama’s position as ‘unrealistic’ along with that of Vice President Joe Biden, who told a radio station that he would not call the Egyptian president a dictator, and that he did not think that he should resign.”

“(AFP).- US-Arab organizations demanded that the government of President Barack Obama stop supporting the Mubarak dictatorship in Egypt.”

“(ANSA).- The United States once again expressed its ‘concern’ over violence in Egypt and warned the government of Mubarak that it could not act as if nothing had happened.

Fox News reported that Obama only had two poor options with respect to Egypt.

“…warned the Cairo government that it could not ‘reshuffle the deck’ and act as if nothing had happened in the country.

 “The White House and the State Department are closely following the situation in Egypt, one of Washington’s main allies in the world, and the recipient of some 1.5 billion dollars annually in civilian and military aid.”

“United States news agencies are giving extensive coverage to the disturbances in Egypt and have been indicating that the situation, no mater how it is resolved, could result in a headache for Washington.”

 “If Mubarak falls, reports Fox, the United States and its other principal ally in the Middle East, Israel, could have to face a government of the Muslim Brothers in Cairo, and a turn towards anti-western sentiment in the North African country.”

 “‘We were betting on the wrong horse for 50 years,’ former CIA agent Michael Scheuer told Fox. ‘To think that the Egyptian people are going to forget that for half a century we supported dictators is a dream,’ he concluded.”

“(AFP).- The international community increased its pressure on Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to implement political reforms and to stop the repression of demonstrators who that have been carrying out protests against his government over the last five days.”

 “Nicolas Sarkozy, Angela Merkel and David Cameron asked the president ‘to initiate a process of change’ in response to the ‘legitimate demands’ of his people and ‘to avoid, at all costs, the use of violence against civilians,’ in a joint declaration published on Saturday.”

“Iran also called on Egyptian authorities to heed the demands being made on the streets.”

“King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia said that the protests represent ‘an attack against the security and stability’ of Egypt and were being carried out by ‘infiltrators’ in the name of ‘freedom of speech.’

“The king called Mubarak by telephone to express his solidarity, reported the official Saudi press agency SPA.”

January 31:

“(EFE) Netanyahu fears that the chaos in Egypt could favor Islam’s access to power.

“Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said today that he fears that the situation in Egypt could favor Islam’s access to power, a concern he said he shares with leaders who have spoken to him over the past few days.”

“…the prime minister refused to discuss news reports by local media outlets that state that Israel has authorized Egypt to deploy troops in the Sinai Peninsula for the first time in three decades, considered a violation of the 1979 peace treaty between the two nations.

“In response to criticism against Western powers such as the United States and Germany that have maintained close ties with totalitarian Arab regimes, the German Foreign minister said, ‘We have not abandoned Egypt.’”

 “The peace process between Israelis and Palestinians has been at a standstill since last September, mainly because of Israel’s refusal to stop building Jewish settlements in occupied Palestinian territories.”

“Jerusalem, (EFE).─ Israel favors the continuation in power of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. The Israeli head of State, Simon Peres, supported Mubarak today by stating that ‘a fanatic religious oligarchy is not better than a lack of democracy.’”

“The declarations made by the head of State are consistent with reports by local media outlets that state that Israel is pressuring its Western partners to tone down their criticisms of Mubarak’s regime, which the Egyptian people and the opposition are trying to overthrow.

“Anonymous official sources quoted by the Haaretz newspaper said that on Saturday the Israeli Foreign Ministry sent a communiqué to its embassies in the United States, Canada, China, Russia and several European countries to request that ambassadors emphasize to local authorities the importance of stability in Egypt for Israel.”

“Israeli analysts said that the fall of Mubarak could endanger the Camp David Agreements that Egypt signed with Israel in 1978 and the subsequent signing of the 1979 bilateral peace treaty, especially if it brings about the ascent to power of the Islamic Muslim Brothers, which have widespread popular support.”

“Israel views Mubarak as a guarantor of peace along its southern border, as well as a key supporter in maintaining the blockade against the Gaza Strip and isolating the Palestinian Islamic movement Hamas.”

“One of Israel’s greatest fears is that the Egyptian riots, which follow in the wake of uprisings in Tunisia, will also reach Jordan, weakening the regime of King Abdullah II, whose country along with Egypt is the only Arab country that acknowledges Israel.”

“The recent appointment of General Omar Suleiman as Egypt’s vice president and, therefore, possible presidential successor, has been welcomed in Israel, which has closely cooperated in Defense matters with the general.”

“However, the Egyptian protests show that the continuity of the regime is not necessarily guaranteed nor that Israel will continue to have Cairo as its main ally in the region.”

As you can see, for the first time the world is simultaneously facing three problems:

Climate crises, food crises and political crises.

And we can add other serious dangers to them.

The risk of increasingly destructive war is very real.

Will the political leaders have sufficient serenity and equanimity to successfully face them?

Our species’ fate depends on it.


Fidel Castro Ruz
February 1, 2011

7:15 p.m.

The empire stands accused

Julian Assange, a man known only to a very few in the world some months ago, is demonstrating that the most powerful empire to have existed in history can be challenged.

The daring challenge did not come from a rival superpower; from a state with more than 100 nuclear weapons; from a country with millions of inhabitants; from a group of nations with vast natural resources which the United States could not do without; or from a revolutionary doctrine capable of shaking to its foundations the empire based on plunder and exploitation of the world.

He was just a person barely mentioned in the media. Although he is now famous, little is known about him, apart from the highly publicized accusation of having sexual relations with two women, without taking due precautions in these times of HIV. A book on his origins, his education, or his philosophical and political ideas has not as yet been written.

Moreover, the motivations which led him to the resounding blow that he delivered to the empire remain unknown. All that is known is that morally, he has brought it to its knees.

The AFP news agency reported today that the “creator of WikiLeaks is to remain in prison despite obtaining his release on bail [...] but he must remain behind bars until the appeal filed by Sweden, the country applying for his extradition for alleged sexual crimes, is resolved.”

“…the attorney representing the Swedish state, [...] has announced her intention of appealing the decision to release him.”

“…Judge Riddle established as conditions for the bond of $380,000, his use of an electronic bracelet and complying with a curfew.”

The same cable noted that, in the event of his release, “… [Assange] must reside in a property belonging to Vaughan Smith, his friend and president of the Frontline Club, the London journalists club where WikiLeaks established its headquarters a few weeks ago…”

Assange stated, “My convictions are unfaltering. I remain true to the ideals I have expressed. If anything this process has increased my determination that they are true and correct…”

The valiant and brilliant U.S. filmmaker Michael Moore publicly offered the assistance of his website, his servers, his domain names and anything else he could do to “…keep WikiLeaks alive and thriving as it continues its work to expose the crimes that were concocted in secret and carried out in our name and with our tax dollars …”

Assange, Moore affirmed, “is under such vicious attack [...] because they have outed and embarrassed those who have covered up the truth.”

“…And regardless of Assange’s guilt or innocence [...] this man has the right to have bail posted and to defend himself. [... ] I have joined with filmmakers Ken Loach and John Pilger and writer Jemima Khan in putting up the bail money.”

Moore’s contribution amounted to $20,000.

The United States government barrage against WikiLeaks has been so brutal that, according to ABC News/Washington Post surveys, two out of every three U.S. citizens want Assange to be taken before the U.S. courts for having disclosed the documents. On the other hand, nobody has dared to challenge the truths that they contain.

Details of the plan drawn up by the WikiLeaks strategists are not known. It is known that Assange distributed a significant volume of communications to five major media transnationals, which currently possess the monopoly of much of the information, some of them as extremely mercenary, reactionary and pro-fascist as the Spanish PRISA and the German Der Spiegel, which are utilizing news items to attack the most revolutionary countries.

World opinion will continue closely following everything that happens in the context of WikiLeaks.

Responsibility for being able to know the truth, or not, about the cynical politics of the United States and its allies will fall squarely on the right-wing Swedish government and the bellicose NATO mafia, who so like to invoke the freedom of the press and human rights.

Ideas can be more powerful than nuclear weapons.

Fidel Castro Ruz

December 14, 2010, 9:34 p.m.

Translated by Granma International

Reflections by comrade Fidel: EVO’S SPEECH

       There are moments in history that require a speech, even if it is as brief as the “Alea jacta est” (“The die is cast”) pronounced by Julius Caesar when he crossed the Rubicon.  It had to be crossed that day, precisely when the ministers of defence of the sovereign states of the western hemisphere were meeting in the city of Santa Cruz, where the Yankees had been encouraging secessionism and the disintegratrion of Bolivia.

It was Monday the 21st and the news agencies were devoting their time to divulging and commenting on the NATO meeting in Lisbon where that war-mongering institution, using arrogant and uncouth language, proclaimed its right to intevene in any country of the world wherever their interests were being felt to be threatened.

They were completely ignoring the fate of billions of people, and the real causes of poverty and suffering of most of the planet’s inhabitants.

NATO’s cynicism deserved an answer, and that arrived in the voice of an Aymara Indian from Bolivia, in the heart of South America, where a more human civilization had blossomed before the Conquest, colonialism, capitalist development and imperialism imposed the rule of brute force, based on the power of more developed weapons and technologies. 

Evo Morales, president of that country, elected by the vast majority of his people, with indisputable arguments, information and facts, perhaps even before being aware of the monstrous NATO document, provided an answer to the policy  that the United States government has historically been carrying out with the peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean.

 The policy of might expressed through wars, crimes, violations to consitituions and the laws; training the officers of the armed institutions in conspiracies, coups d’état, political crimes that were used to overthrow progressive governments and install regimes of force to which they regularly offered political, military and media support.

Never was there a more timely speech.

Many times using the expressive manner of his Aymara language, he stated truths that will go down in history. 

I shall attempt to briefly summarize what he said, using his own phrases and words:

“Thank you very much.

       “It is a great satisfaction to receive you, the ministers of defence of the Americas,  in Santa Cruz de la Sierra; Santa Cruz, the land of Ignacio Warnes, of Juan José Manuel Vaca, rebellious men who from 1810 fought and gave their lives for the independence of our beloved Bolivia.

“Men such as Andrés Ibáñez,  Atahuallpa Tumpa, a native brother who, during the republic, fought for autonomy and for equality for all the peoples of our lands. 

“Welcome to Bolivia, land of Túpac Katarí, land of Bartolina Sisa, of Simón Bolívar and of so many men who fought 200 years ago for the Independence of Bolivia and many countries in the Americas.

“Latin America […], in recent years, is living through profound democratic transformations seeking equality and dignity for the peoples…”

“…following the footsteps of Antonio José de Sucre, of Simón Bolívar, of so many native, mestizo and Creole leaders who lived 200 years ago.”

“Exactly one week ago, we were celebrating the bicentenary of the Army of Bolivia which, on November 14th of 1810, native peoples, mestizos  and Creoles had organized as a military force to fight against Spanish domination…” 

“In recent years, Latin America again takes up that decision to free ourselves as in a second liberation that is not only social or cultural but also economic and financial for the peoples of Latin America. 

“…this 9th  Conference of Ministers of the Defence has on its agenda gender and multiculturalism in the Armed Forces, democracy, peace and security for the Americas, natural disasters, humanitarian aid and the role of the Armed Forces; an appropriate agenda, an agenda that is well-conceived to discuss the hopes of the peoples, not just of Latin America, but of the world”.   

“In 1985 […] the only ones who could be elected or could elect authorities were those having money, those who had a profession or who spoke Spanish or Castilian.

“Therefore, less than 10 percent of the Bolivian population could take part in electing or being elected as authorities, and more than 90 percent of us had no rights […] there have been various processes […] some reforms, but in 2009, with the participation of the Bolivian people for the very first time, a new Plurinational State Constitution was passed by the Bolivian people.”

“…in this new Constitution, of course the most excluded sectors […] had no rights to be elected or to elect the State authorities of the Republic of Bolivia.

“More than 180 years had to go by for us to make some profound transformations and incorporate these historically excluded sectors in Bolivia, and I hope I am not mistaken, I think it is the only country not just in the Americas but in the entire world where 50 percent of the ministers are women and 50 percent are men.” 

“Of course beyond norms, the constitution […] I think that this is the political decision we must take in order to include the most abandoned sectors; after the Constitution was approved by the Bolivian people in 2009, the most excluded, reviled people, those that were considered to be animals, those that were the indigenous movement, now they are represented in the Plurinational Legislative Assembly as well as in the departmental assemblies.

“Something important; for the indigenous movements that do not have a large population, special electoral districts have been created  so that our brothers and sisters from the highlands, the valleys and the eastern part of Bolivia may be represented.

 The single candidate system also allow for our indigenous brothers and sisters to be represented in the Plurinational Legislative Assembly …”

“In this way, we permit these indigenous brothers and sisters, who were left out and condemned to extermination, to be present.”

“…that had never happened before …”

“…when I was a young man, as a union leader  I would sometimes dispute with the Armed Forces and later, when I became president, I realized that a large part of the Armed Forces comes from the peasant communities, particularly those in the valleys…”

“Dear Ministers: I would like to tell you that never before did we have such participation; before, it was merely the color of your skin that determined your class in society and now, a indigenous person, a union leader, an intellectual, a professional, a business leader, a soldier, a general, anyone can become the president, democratically.  Before, we didn’t have this way of changing Bolivia and our constitution. 

“When this conference is putting forth the idea of only democracy, security and peace, of reviewing history, of reviewing the norms, this is for me very exciting; it is a pleasure to review these things dealing with democracy, security and peace in the Americas or in the world, not just for the sake of reviewing. 

“If we talk about democracy in Bolivia’s past, there was only a contractual democracy; there was no party that could win with more than 50% as the Constitution of the Plurinational State declares …”

“…up to 2005, from 1952, the 1950s, in Bolivia there were only ‘contractual democracies’; there were parties winning with 20 percent, 30 percent …”

“A party in third place could become president; it all depended on the contracts and the distribution of the ministers.  This kind of contract was precisely the kind that used to be guided by the United States ambassador.  Our compatriots, our Bolivian brothers and sisters, should remember 2002, for example, when there was no winner having more than 50 percent; the party with the highest percentage in the voting got 21 percent. And there was the former US ambassador, Manuel Rocha, pulling together, uniting the neoliberal parties, in order for there to be a government: and those governments didn’t last, they could not endure.

“Luckily, thanks to the conscience of the Bolivian people, these kinds of democracies are being eliminated; now we do not have a ‘contractual democracy’, but a legitimate democracy in the hearts of the Bolivian people who accompany it with the thoughts and feelings coming from the suffering of peoples, under a government program.” 

“…a program that brings dignity to the Bolivians, a program that seeks equality of all Bolivians, men and women; a program that recovers its natural resources, a program that allows basic services to be a human right…”

“…when some of our opposition, like yourselves, every country has its opposition, tells us, some totalitarian government, a dictatorial government, is it my fault that this program proposed by a party has more than two-thirds support in the different bodies of the Plurinational State, by myself I have not been able to win the mayoralty of the city of Santa Cruz. 

“We respect our mayor, they won, but I salute you, Mr. Mayor, for the actions you undertook last week to fight against the speculation […] congratuations Mr. Mayor, you have my respect…”

“And some say to us, one single philosophy, there is no single philosophy; only a program that is working in the different social sectors at the head of social movements of the indigenous peoples and the workers can obtain the support needed to change Bolivia.

“But what do we face along the road if we talk about democracy, conspiracy, coup d’état, attempts at coups  in 2008 […] who was it that contributed to this coup? The former US ambassador.

“I was looking over some history […] about the 1946 coup d’état when the president was Lt. Col. Gualberto Villarroel, who said as president, I am not the enemy of the rich, but I am more a friend to the poor; this patriotic soldier was the first president who called together the indigenous peoples’ congress.

“Another president, Germán Bush, a soldier, who stated: I have not become the president to serve the capitalists.

“The first president to nationalize natural resources, was another soldier, David Toro; I’m speaking of 1937 or 1938 […], but this soldier was hanged in 1946, they assassinated him in the Palace.”

“…and so the offensive was concentrated on the massive part of the Palacio Quemado that was under fire from Illimani Street, at the corner of Bolívar, from Comercio Street, from the Police and from behind from the La Salle and Kersul buildings where the US consulate is located.” 

“…watching the fire coming from the Kersul Building, where the US consulate was, and which had been investigating this patriotic soldier who had ensured the first native congress, strafing the building, shooting to kill that soldier…those are the documents we are looking over. 

“…history repeats itself; I had to face an ambassador who organizes, who plans to terminate my presidency using anti-democratic means, and I think that this gets repeated all over the world.

“But a comrade, a compatriot of ours who has been the victim of so many military coups tell me: President Evo, you have to watch out for the United States Embassy, there have always been coups d’état all over Latin America and, he says to me, there has never been a coup in the United States because there is no US embassy; I really start to see the truth that history does not hear coups d’état.

“…we, the countries who have suffered attempts at coups from 2002 in Venezuela, 2008 in Bolivia, 2009 in Honduras, 2010 in Ecuador; and we must acknowledge, compatriots from Latin America or the Americas, that the US had a victory in Honduras, strengthening that coup, the American empire has had a victory over us, but also the peoples of the Americas, in Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador have won […] what will the future bring?; we shall see the future.”

“…this internal assessment should be a profound debate by the ministers of defence to guarantee the democracies […] my ancestors, my people, have permanently been victims of coups, bloody coups, not because they wanted the military, the Armed Forces, but because of internal and external political decisions designed to terminate revolutionary governments, the governments that are born of the people; that is the history of Latin America.”  

“…we have the right to propose for ourselves the ways of guaranteeing democracy in each country, but without coups, or coup attempts.

“We would like this conference of ministers of defence to guarantee an true peoples’ democracy, respecting our regional differences, the differences from sector to sector.

“But also, when we speak of peace, I am saying, how can we have peace if there are military bases?  And there too I can speak with some knowledge because I have been the victim of these US military bases, with the excuse of a war against drug trafficking. 

“When I was a soldier, a private in the Armed Forces in 1978, the officers and non-commissioned officers taught me to defend the Homeland; the Armed Forces are there to defend the homeland, the Armed Forces cannot permit any foreign uniformed and armed soldier to be in Bolivia.  

“…when I became a leader, I personally have been witness to the fact that uniformed and armed DEA members were leading the Armed Forces and the National Police, armed with machine guns, with the excuse of fighting agains drug trafficking against the social movements, persecuting by flying light planes over the marches from Santa Cruz, from Cochabamba, from Oruro, and they couldn’t find us, not with their light planes; and they would say that these were ghost marches, some ghost marches; thousands of comrades looking for retribution and seeking dignity and the sovereignty of out peoples.” 

“…I am convinced that it we the people fight for our dignity, for our sovereignty, this cannot be done with military bases nor with military interventions, no matter how small we may be, we, the countries called under-developed, countries called developing countries; we have dignity, we have sovereignty.  Also, when I had a seat in parliament they tried to make me support immunity for officials of the US embassy.  

“What is immunity? So that US embassy officials, including the American DEA, should they comit some crime, wouldn’t be tried under Bolivian laws; this was an open invitation to kill, to wound us as they did in my region.”

“…Peace is the legitimate daughter of equality, and of dignity which is social justice; if there is no dignity, then there is no  social justice and we cannot guarantee peace; how can we give a guarantee?  Because there are peoples who rise up in rebellion because there is an injustice.”

“…listening to our UN Secretary General talking about the doctrines, the doctrines we know about in Bolivia, an anti-Communist doctrine that says coups should take place to militarily intervene in the mining communities because of the social movements; the mining communities were great revolutionaries aiming to transform Bolivia.

“In the 1950s, 1960s, they accused us of being Red Communists to the leaders of the mining sector so that we should be imprisoned, exiled, put on trial, even massacred; that era has passed; by now they cannot accuse us of being Reds or Communists – we all have the right to think differently.  

“If, for a country or a region, the solution is Communism: fine; for another country it is Socialism: fine.  It is the democratic decision of any country.

“But when we have won that struggle and they can no longer justify it with an anti-Communist doctrine to silence the people, to replace presidents, to change governments, another doctrine appears: the war on drugs.   

“Of course it is the obligation of all of us to fight against drugs […] Bolivia is not a drug-culture, Bolivia is not a cocaine-culture, but where is it that cocaine comes from? It comes from the markets of developed countries, that isn’t the responsibility of the national government, but we are obliged to fight against it.”  

“…behind the war on drug trafficking there cannot be geopolitical interests that need the excuse of the drug war  to demonize the social movements, to criminalize the social movements, to confuse the coca leaf with cocaine, to confuse the coca grower with the drug trafficker, or the legal consumption of the coca leaf with the dependence on the narcotic.

“Why is it that they didn’t fight against coca right from the last century, if coca is so harmful?  The Europeans were the first landowners to exploit the coca leaf, surely it wasn’t a detour to cocaine.

“Before, the US governments used to give certificates of acknowledgement to the best producers of coca leaves: why?  So that the coca leaf grower could supply coca leaves to the tin miners and the US could take the tin to the United States.

“…the world knows, you all know, that the so-called war on drugs has failed; we have to change those policies, of course, what is this new policy, such as for example, ending the banking secrets:  could it be that great drug trafficker, the big fish in the drug trafficking world, carries his money in his backpack, in his suitcase, travelling by plane, no, going around the banks – why not end the banking secret in order to end drug trafficking in order to control that drug trafficker?

“Why doesn’t every country defend its borders against the entry of all drugs with similar technology, radars? I think there is a capacity out there to control and we cannot control; and it is with the excuse of the war on drug trafficking that controls are put in place, especially directed towards how to recover natural resources for the trans-nationals.”  

“…the former US ambassador Manuel Rocha who says: Don’t vote for Evo Morales.  Evo Morales is the Andean Bin Laden and the coca growers are the Taliban.  

“In other words, dear ministers, ministers of defence, according to this type of doctrine, you are at this very moment meeting with the Andean Bin Laden and my comrades from the social movements are the Taliban.  Such accusations, often bending the truth out of shape.”

“…now, when they can no longer sustain these anti-Communist, anti-terrorist ideas and doctrines there is another new doctrine that we heard about a few days ago and I would like to take this opportunity to inform my people through the media. 

“On the 17th of this month, a meeting of some Latin Americans and some US congressmen in the United States was held, a forum, which stated that there was danger in the Andes, threats to democracy, to human rights and inter-American security.

“…Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen said that in recent years we have been observing with concern the efforts of several countries in the region, such as Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, Evo Morales in Bolivia, Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua , Rafael Correa in Ecuador, which are trying to consolidate their power  at any cost, the ALBA Alliance members with Chavez at the head, one after the other manipulating the democratic systems of their countries to serve their own autocratic goals. 

“Perhaps we should tell that congresswoman that we didn’t win, like in the US by a margin of one percent or two, here we win by more than 50 percent, or more than 60 percent, and in some regions by more than 80 percent and that is real democracy.

“What does the agenda say about Daniel Ortega, but the coca agenda promoted by Evo Morales, it is a brand new alliance with Iran and Russia, the case of Rafael Correa, the doubtful constitutional reforms with anti-American candidates.

“…under my leadership Bolivia will have agreements, alliances with the entire world; nobody can stop me because we have that right, we are a cultura of dialogue.”

“…without stable democratic partnerships we cannot have regional security: regional security or security for the United States? Now, more than at any other time, is when the US supports its enemies or weakens its enemies; now is the time for the OAS to absolve its legacy of double standards and finally makes its member states comply with the principles and obligations in the inter-American Democratic Charter; it would be a good idea to review the Inter-American Charter.

“The second congressman (he is talking about  Connie Mack, and he explains his ideas in these words), I have everything he wrote, all his speeches, but to save time I shall try to summarize, I’d like to speak about some observations for the last six years as member of this Congress, I have frankly seen  two administrations: the Republicans and the Democrats.

“Along these lines I think that this idea both the administrations have had in regards to Hugo Chávez, is that we shall not intervene, let’s just sit back and let him implode by himself; and the other thought is, what if  Hugo Chávez is crazy, and what does he say, I don’t go for any of these ideas so I don’t think Hugo Chávez is crazy and I don’t think the approach of letting him implode is going to work, Hugo Chávez is a threat to freedom and democracy in Latin America and around the world.”

“…this is what concerns me most, I hope therefore that we become the following majority in the next Congress, as chairman of the subcommittee we shall do just that, we shall look after Chávez, whether defeating him politically or exploding him physically.”  

Next, Evo states:

“I would say that this congressman Connie Mack is a self-confessed murderer or conspirator against our comrade brother the president of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez. 

“If anything should happen to the life of Hugo Chávez, the only person responsible will be this US congressman.  He says it publicly and it is written in the media and in his speech.”

“Comrade, brother secretary general of the OAS, you have to throw us out of Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia and also another place, also Nicaragua, and apply sanctions: what does that mean? Surely it is an economic blockade like the one against Cuba.”

“I think that’s what the sanctions refer to, so how can some of us countries in the Americas guarantee security and peace when these are the proposals being made by some congressmen, by some Latin Americans.

“I was looking over in this respect, the reason why they had expelled Cuba in 1962, supposedly for being Leninist, Marxist and Communist, Cuba is thrown out of the OAS; now the new doctrine is an anti-ALBA doctrine since, in these countries,  we greet Fidel and Chávez and other presidents, since having an instrument such as ALBA is having an instrument for integration, solidarity, unconditional solidarity, sharing instead of competing, practicing policies of complimentarism and not competition.

“…within that competition only small groups benefit and not the majorities who aspire to that from their presidents.

“Within these policies of competition and not complimentarism, not even capitalism is the solution for capitalism – that is the financial crisis. 

“…the new doctrine much like earlier there were the doctrines from the School of Panama, the southern command was trainning our military, they shut that down thanks to the struggles of the people and now the School of the Americas is no longer around; what do we have now?  Joint operations with special forces.”

“…I admire some of the officers of my Armed Forces who give details about those training sessions that they carry out each year on a rotational basis in the different countries of the Americas; what are they for? To propose to them how to wipe out those revolutionary countries, countries that are making profound changes in democracy, training sessions even to rehearse or teach snipers to kill the leaders.

“…with great indignation I had seen some pictures of these joint operations with special forces that rotate from country to country; of course Bolivia no longer participates, as long as I am the president, in these types of joint operations to keep on attacking democracy.

“…for the indigenous peoples’ movement […] this planet, or Pachamama, can exist without human beings, but we human beings cannot live without the planet, without Pachamama.”

“…capitalism is not private ownership because sometimes they try to confuse us and they say that President Evo is questioning capitalism; they are going to take away our homes, our cars; no, private ownership is guaranteed.”

“…the new constitution guarantees a plural economy and that plural economy ensures private ownership, it ensures communal ownership, state ownership and that of all the other social sectors, but when we are talking about capitalism we are talking about  this irrational, irresponsible and unlimited  growth.”

“Our comrades can no longer find water in the Amazon; when we start drilling in some region we have to go deeper and deeper to find very little water, and when we cannot ensure water on account of drought, exactly the result of  global warming, that family must be left to fate, there are billions of them in the world, they are climatic migrants.

“We are not going to resolve that with the participation of the Armed Forces; we are not going to be able to resolve it with the participation of the ministers of defence or with cooperation; it is a structural world-based matter.”

“…we would like to resolve here, for the middle and long term, that the best solution is to put an end to disasters, or putting an end to natural disasters is putting an end to capitalism, changing those exaggerated industrialization policies.

“Of course all of our countries would like to become industrialized, to industrialize for life, to industrialize to be human beings and not to industrialize to end life and human beings; there are doctrines that proclaim and promote war, there are peoples or states living from war and that must end; and what we really have to end are those great weapons industries that put an end to life.”

“…I know that many ministers are bringing messages from their presidents, from their governments, their people; but let’s responsible to life, and being responsible to life means being responsible to the planet, or to Pachamama, our Mother Earth, and being responsible to Mother Earth, the planet or Pachamama is to respect the rights of Mother Earth.”

“…I would hope that the Americas, through you the ministers of defence,  can lead the guaranteeing of the rights of Mother Earth in order to ensure human rights, life, humankind, not only for the Americas but for the entire world; I feel that we bear a great responsibility in this situation.

“I would like to acknowledge the participation of our Armed Forces, and to be honest with you, I was very much afraid, afraid in the year 2005, 2006, when I came to the Presidency, whether the Armed Forces would be with me or against me in this process.”

“…the Armed Forces taking part in social works, in structural changes, recovering the mines, supporting the policies for the recovery of the natural resources; these Armed Forces are now beloved by the Bolivian people.” 

“…the people feel they have Armed Forces that are for the people; now we fortunately have two important bodies in the Plurinational State: the social movements that defend their natural resources and the Armed Forces are also defending their natural resources, and if we go back to 1810, it is obvious that the Armed Forces were born defending their natural resources, the identity and sovereignty of our peoples; only during some times were our Armed Forces used for evil, not to blame the commanders, but because of oligarchic interests or interests that were not of the people, and that obviously caused us a lot of harm.”  

“…with policies being imposed from above and abroad, coming from the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, privatizations, public companies being sold out to foreign interests.”

“…just the profits […] 18 percent was for the Bolivians and 82 percent went to the transnational corporations. 

“On May the first of 2006, in a supreme decree, first we decided on State control of our natural resources and second, we are convinced that whoever invests has the right to recover their investment and has a right to have profits, and we said that now, with 18 % they could have profits and recover their investment; technicians showed this to me and from the first of May of 2006, 82 percent was for the Bolivians and 18 percent went to the investing corporations; so goes the nationalization in regards to their investments.”

Evo concludes his speech by contributing irrefutable information about the economic results achieved by the revolution.

“Before, the GDP in 2005 was 9 billion dollars, in 2010 it was 18.5 billion dollars of GDP.   

“…with the World Bank and the IMF average income per person per year $1000 […] in our government it is $1,900.”

“…in 2005, Bolivia was the second to last country in international reserves and now we have improved from international reserves of  $ 1.7 billion, to this year when we now have $9.3 billions…”

“…when we were dependent on US governments we could not even eradicate illiteracy; thanks to the unconditional cooperation of Cuba especially, and Venezuela, two years ago we declared Bolivia to be a territory free of illiteracy, after almost 200 years.  

“In exchange for this cooperation, what does Cuba ask of us?  Nothing.  This is called solidarity; sharing the little we have and not sharing what is left over, that is what I learned from Comrade Fidel, a man I admire very much.” 

Out of sheer modesty, Evo didn’t speak of the colossal advances obtained by the Bolivian people in matters of health.  In the ophthalmological field alone, some 500,000 Bolivians had eye surgeries, health services reach all Bolivians and about 5,000 General Comprehensive Medicine specialists are being educated and will shortly be graduated.  That sister country of Latin America has more than enough reason to feel proud.

Evo concludes:

“…without the IMF, I mean, if they don’t impose economic policies of privatizations, of auctions, we could be better off in democratic matters, if we didn’t depend on the United States we would improve our democracy in Latin America, it is the result of these last five years that I have been president.”  

“Of course by saying this I am not saying that Bolivia now no longer needs cooperation, Bolivia still needs international loans, international cooperation, I acknowledge the European countries cooperating  in Latin America, facilitating loans because we are in a process of profound transformations …”

“…that the peoples have the right to decide by themselves alone about their democracy, about their security, but while we have interventionist attitudes for any excuse […] we shall surely have to wait for the liberation of the people and as we can see they are going to keep on rebelling.

“For that reason, I am sure of rebellion towards revolution, of revolution towards decolonization …”

After Evo’s speech, a mere 48 hours later, Chávez’ speech fell like a bolt from the skies.  The lights of rebellion  are illuminating the skies of Our America.

Fidel Castro Ruz

November 24, 2010