Annotations for Countries: Russia

Excélsior reports that the People's Republic of China and Mexico have signed a commercial agreement, the first in history between the two countries. The agreement involves immediate sales to China of more than $370 million dollars in Mexican products and was reached during President Echeverria's recent trip to China.

The Miami Herald reports another result of Echeverria's trip. President Luis Echeverria of Mexico gained a diplomatic success today with the announcement by his government that China will sign a treaty assuring Latin America of freedom from nuclear weapons. A spokesman for the Echeverria government in China said, Chairman Mao of China will sign the Treaty of Tlatelolco in all its meanings. The pact, signed by Latin American nations in 1967, bans nuclear arms from all of Latin America. This is the first time one of the five nuclear powers has said it would sign all of the treaty. Until now, China has refused to sign the agreement if their other powers did not approve it without restrictions. The United States and Great Britain have signed only parts of the pact, while France and Russia have agreed to none of it as yet.

In Brazil, currently ruled by a right-wing military organization, an editorial headline, "Brazil Will Have The Bomb", the pro-government Rio weekly Manchete said Brazil would put into operation a "great power policy" sooner than anyone imagined. Referring to the recent purchase of French Mirage jets, Manchete said, "No one should be surprised if after the mirages, in an almost inevitable progression to cover the next decade, they'll come Phantoms, F-111s, modern tanks, Polaris nuclear-powered submarines, aircraft carriers, satellites, rockets, and the atomic bomb itself." The Weekly said that the Brazilian military power would not be used against anyone, but rather as a "persuasive force," but the atomic bomb is as they say, perhaps a military necessity for Brazil. Manchete generally reflects the thinking of the Brazilian military government.

In a more peaceful vein, an article from Latin American Newsletter, entitled "Bears Like Honey", reports that a major deal with the Soviet Union seems likely to follow the journey of the head of Brazil's sugar industry to Moscow. Neither the Brazilians nor the Russians seem anxious to give the negotiations the prominence they deserve. The Cuban government sent a discreet protest to Moscow last week manifesting Havana's concern at the official welcome accorded by the Soviet authorities to the president of Brazil's Instituto de Azucar.

The officials' trip during the week before Easter was deliberately played down by the authorities so as not to attract attention. The reasons are clear, Moscow did not wish to offend Havana and the Brazilians are always sensitive to possible reactions from Washington. The overt purpose of the trip was to exchange views on matter of mutual interest ahead of this week's conference in Geneva, where a new international sugar agreement is to be discussed. That from Latin America Newsletter.

This week's feature will be a reenactment of an interview between representatives of the Santiago paper, Chile Hoy, and the Cuban President Dorticos. 

Mr. President, in the past few years in Latin America, there have been several types of revolutionary change, the military nationalism of Peru, the Chilean elections, the semi-peaceful taking of power in Argentina. My question is why do you think the guerrilla tactics which characterized the '60s, as for instance, Che's campaign in Bolivia, have been replaced by other revolutionary tactics? 

I think the guerrilla campaign of the '60s had a direct effect on what is happening now despite the fact that the guerrilla campaign did not result in any military victories. The moral and political strengths of these campaigns is affecting not only those struggling with arms, but all revolutionaries with its example of revolutionary dedication, and this influence is tremendous. The presence of Che, which I saw in my recent trip to Argentina among the people, Che's original homeland, his figure, his thoughts, his humanism, his example is greater now than during his guerrilla campaign. 

To discount the influence of Che's actions on Latin America today is to discount a driving force in the hearts of Latin American people. Of course, this does not mean that all the revolutionary struggles have to follow the tactics of guerrilla's struggle which Che promoted. His greatest influence was his example, his conduct, his revolutionary will, and today, for example, it was with great personal satisfaction and profound emotion that I heard the Argentinian people improvising a slogan which, despite the habituation coming from years of revolutionary struggle, brought tears to my eyes. The slogan which I heard every day in Argentina was, "He is near. He is near. Che is here." This slogan is a perfect example of what I was saying. 

The triumph of the Cuban revolution is definitely a great turning point in the revolutionary process in Latin America. People have said that Cuba can be a showcase or trigger for socialism in Latin America. What is Cuba's role given the current realities in Latin America's revolutionary process? 

Its main contribution is to provide an example, an example of unbending and resolute spirit. 

Mr. President, certain groups have suggested that the friendly relations between the USSR and Cuba are actually a form of dependency. It's true that, in the past, there were differences in the Cuban and Soviet perspectives, differences which today seem to have largely disappeared. We'd be interested in hearing why these differences have disappeared and what is the current state of relations between the Soviet Union and Cuba. 

There has been a detente, and the relations between Cuba and the Soviet Union are better now than they ever have been. To speak of Cuban dependency with respect to the Soviet Union, however, is to make the grave errors of confusing imperialism with cooperation between a developed socialist country and an underdeveloped socialist one. One must look at the economic trade patterns and contrast the way Russia has related to us and the way the United States had related to us. 

If we look at the economic aspects of the relations, we can see that the Soviet Union's aid has been one of the main basis for Cuban development and survival. Looking back to the first few months of the revolution, when we lost the American sugar market, there was the Soviet market to take its place. When the blockade started by the United States cut off the flow of oil from countries aligned with the United States, there was Soviet oil. During these years, regardless of how relations between the two countries were going on, even when there were disagreements, as you mentioned, Soviet economic aid kept coming without interruption. 

Today, this economic aid has qualitatively improved. Entire sectors of our economy have been developed with the economic and technical cooperation of the Soviet Union and, thanks to this aid, new industrial plants will be built, and transportation and energy production will be expanded. These new plants will be Cuban plants, not Soviet ones, not plants indebted to foreign countries. 

In addition, the Russians have made it possible for the development of the nickel and textile industries, the modernization and expansion of our sugar industry and countless other projects, and all this has been done in the context of mutual respect and absolute equality in the political relations between two sovereign governments. 

With reference to the United States, which you've mentioned, what are the changes which Cuba would require before some form of dialogue or negotiations could take place concerning relations between the two countries? 

Before even dialogue can take place, there is one condition, that the imperialist United States government unilaterally end its blockade of Cuba, a blockade which it started and it must end. Until that happens, there won't be even any dialogue. If that occurs at some time in the future, we would then begin discussions of problems common to all of Latin America and the United States. We would not merely discuss bilateral affairs concerning only Cuba and the United States, but we would have to discuss it in the context of US relations to Latin America, generally. 

Looking at things from a purely pragmatic point of view, once the blockade has been unilaterally ended by the United States, we might be interested in a broad range of economic relations, including entrance into the American market and economic and technical cooperation. This in no way would involve Cuba's revolutionary government surrendering its revolutionary principles or giving in on any conditions which it might wish to establish, but we would not limit ourselves to this. For the discussions to be fruitful, we would have to discuss not only Cuba, but Latin America and the end of the United States' jerendent role in Latin America generally. 

One way of uniting Latin America so it could negotiate with the United States might be an organization such as the one which Chile has proposed. In the last OAS meeting, a wholly new Latin American organization excluding the United States was proposed. What is Cuba's position with respect to such an organization? 

First of all, we believe, as we've stated before, that the extant Organization of American States is undergoing a grave and insoluble crisis. Cuba will not return to the Organization of American States. We respect and even feel that some countries' suggestions for reforming the Organization of American States are a positive step, but we feel that the OAS as an institution, with the presence of the United States government in its very heart, is not the ideal means for Latin America to shape its future.

We do not belong to this organization, and we feel that a Latin American organization must be created with the participation also of the English-speaking Caribbean nations, which could then collectively form a united front to negotiate with the United States and defend Latin American interests with respect to American imperialism.

Does it seem to you that Nixon, if he survives Watergate, will be able to initiate such discussions at some time in the future, or do you feel that it will be necessary to continue to exercise revolutionary patience? 

We should not speak of speed or hurrying. Revolutionary theory teaches us to be patient and also impatient, and knowing how to reconcile the one with the other is what constitutes a tactical wisdom of a revolutionary. 

The diplomatic blockade of Cuba is falling apart. It has even been suggested that other governments such as Venezuela's, for example, might establish relations with Cuba in the near future. This could present an apparent contradiction with the internal policies of these countries. What is the Cuban position with respect to this problem, that is, with respect to reestablishing relations with governments which defy imperialism, but which do not have progressive policies at home and which may even repress their own people? 

We have made it clear before that we are not interested in having relations with the countries of Latin America for the mere sake of having relations. However, we feel that reestablishing relations with Latin American countries can be useful since we agree on the principle of demonstrating our sovereignty with respect to imperialism. 

You mentioned the hypothetical possibility of a government assuming a dignified international position with respect to imperialism while at the same time, in its internal affairs, oppressing or even repressing its people violently. To begin with, it is very hard for me to see how a country could have a correct anti-imperialist position, a dignified international position and at the same time oppress or violently repress its people whether or not revolutionary struggle was occurring.

That is because an anti-imperialist position cannot be maintained by a government without some changes in internal policies. Thus, internal policies are inevitably linked to international policies, as I have said, regardless of whether or not the country is in the midst of some kind of major change.

We understand that Prime Minister Castro in his last Mayday speech reaffirmed Cuba's solidarity with revolutionary movements. 

If we didn't reform our solidarity with revolutionary movements, we will be violating our own principles. 

Based on an analysis of the results of the 1970 sugar harvest, the Cuban economy has made great progress. What are the changes which have produced such progress? 

It would take an awfully long time to list all of the changes in our economy, and we should not exaggerate. Our economic growth is of necessity limited due to the underdevelopment of our economy which we inherited, the lack of energy sources, and the difficulties an underdeveloped country has dealing with developed countries, problems such as unequal exchange, which have been mentioned in the economic literature, but obstacles in the way of rapid economic growth. 

What have been the achievements since the 1970 harvest? Some figures can quantitatively measure these achievements. For example, in 1972, the economy grew by 10%. This is an extremely high rate of growth for the 1970s, and this growth rate was achieved despite a poor sugar harvest which resulted from two years of drought and organizational problems galore. 

Despite this and despite the important role sugar plays in our economy, we reached the 10% growth figure. Of course, that means that some sectors of our economy grew even more rapidly. Construction, for instance, was up 40%. Industry, not including sugar refining, was up 15%. For 1973, we have set a goal, which we may or may not achieve, of 17% growth. Looking at the third of this year, we find that the growth rate was 16%. Production of consumer goods has increased, and this has been one of the major factors leading to the financial health of the nation. 

Well, how has it been possible to achieve such growth? 

Basically, it has been possible with the better organization, better planning and, above all, with the help of lots of people. This is not an abstract statement. It is a concrete reality which can be observed in every sector of the economy even where there have been administrative problems or a lack of the proper technology. The workers' efforts have always been present and production quotas have been met and, in some cases, surpassed under conditions which are not at all optimum due to a lack of technicians or materials. These shortages resulted from our distance from the European markets we are forced to trade with. 

Despite our support from socialist countries, they cannot physically supply us with all the capital goods, raw materials and intermediate goods that we need. Thus, we have to make large purchases from capitalist countries, with the resulting heavy loss of foreign exchange. Of course, our foreign exchange depends on our exports, which are limited, sugar, nickel, tobacco, fish and a few other lesser items. We are basically dependent on agriculture which is affected by climate changes. 

Thus, in response to your question, it is the incorporation of the workforce into the economic struggle at a higher level and the awareness of the need for such an effort and then the carrying out of these tasks, often through extraordinary efforts, which have led to this economic growth since Castro's call in his May 1st, 1970 speech..

Calls have gone up many times before for higher production. Why did the people respond more energetically this time than before? 

In the first place, it was due to the fact that it was crystal clear to many people that efforts had to be made in every sector of the economy and not just in sugar production. In the second place, it was due to the greater participation of mass organizations in economic decisions, in economic process. Finally, it was due to a growth in revolutionary consciousness which now has gone beyond the mere limits of revolutionary emotion and has matured into an awareness of the necessity of building socialism in our country if we want to get what we want. 

According to some analysis, this new economic growth is due to the abandonment of certain principles which the revolution was previously based upon. 

I don't think that's true. What principles are you referring to? 

Well, for instance, the replacement of the principle that consciousness should motivate workers instead of economic incentive in order to increase efficiency. 

It should be made clear that the importance we attribute to revolutionary consciousness has in no way been diminished, but we have noted that certain related factors such as, for example, tying salary to productivity cannot only serve as a material stimulus, but also serves to create and help people understand what is happening. Why does this occur? Because in a socialist society, which is not one of abundance, from the point of view of revolutionary justice, one must conclude that it is immoral and, thus, it does not help create consciousness if one who works less earns the same as one who works more. 

When you pay a worker according to what he has produced, that is, in relation to his productivity, this is both just and consciousness-raising. This is because, through his salary, the worker is being evaluated morally and he is being told that he was socially responsible, will have more than he was not socially responsible. It would be demoralizing and would prevent the raising of consciousness if a worker who worked less, a loafer, earned as much as a good worker. Thus, we are not cutting down the role which revolutionary consciousness should play, but we're aiding and adding new ways of raising revolutionary consciousness. 

Given the larger amounts of goods being offered, do some individuals have more access to these goods than others? 

Yes. They have greater access to un-rationed goods, but everyone gets the same amount of ration to basic goods. 

Why is it that some individuals get more on rationed goods? 

This is related to the remarks I just made linking productivity, the quality and quantity of work to salary, and this is tied to the salary scale. 

You have been listening to a reenactment of an interview between representatives of the Santiago weekly, Chile Hoy, and the Cuban President, Osvaldo Dorticos.