"The first victory we can claim is that our hearts are free of hatred. Hence we say to those who persecute us and who try to dominate us: ‘You are my brother. I do not hate you, but you are not going to dominate me by fear. I do not wish to impose my truth, nor do I wish you to impose yours on me. We are going to seek the truth together’. THIS IS THE LIBERATION WHICH WE ARE PROCLAIMING."
Oswaldo José Payá Sardiñas (2002)
Cuba has been under a dictatorship for nearly 74 years. On March 10, 1952, Fulgencio Batista brought an end to Cuban democracy. Carlos Prio, the last democratic president, and his first lady were forced into exile. An increasingly unpopular authoritarian and corrupt regime ruled Cuba for the following seven years.
The
hope for the restoration of democratic governance came to an end when
Batista refused to cede power nonviolently through a dialogue process, opening a path for Fidel and Raul Castro to take it by force. Although they had repeatedly pledged to restore the 1940 Constitution, and Cuban democracy they imposed a communist dictatorship.
Cuba's official motto was
changed from Homeland and Liberty (Patria y Libertad) to Homeland or
Death, We Shall Triumph (¡Patria o Muerte, Venceremos!).
Presidents of Cuba from 1902 to 1952 and dictator Batista
Since the beginning of their struggle on July 26, 1953, the Castro brothers
promised a democratic restoration, but all along planned a
Marxist-Leninist takeover. They imposed a totalitarian communist
dictatorship, killing tens of thousands of Cubans. The Castro regime systematically denied human rights to all Cubans while exporting their repressive model to Africa and Latin America, creating misery for millions more.
The communist regime re-wrote the history of Cuba, creating myths to justify its tyranny. One of them is the so-called Cuban blockade, and the above documentary seeks to expose the false narrative.
From 1959 till now, generations of Cubans continue to resist this communist dictatorship.
Hundreds of thousands of Cubans risked everything in July 2021, taking to the streets in nonviolent protests demanding an end to the dictatorship. The Castro regime responded
by firing on unarmed protesters, imprisoning over a thousand, and condemning
many of them to 20 and 30 year prison sentences for exercising their right to peaceful assembly.
Remembering this sad past and current reality, we resolve to work even harder to bring democracy back to Cuba, replacing Homeland or Death (¡Patria o Muerte!) with Homeland, Life, and Liberty (Patria, Vida y Libertad).
Both petitions are addressed to members of the international community.
Wishing
you all a happy new year in 2026, and through the continuing work and
struggle for a free Cuba may freedom be restored that will finally fulfill Cuban exiles goal of "this year in Havana!"
Vaclav Havel,
a man who had both head and heart, understood why this kind of regime
was so profoundly inhuman: "As soon as man began considering himself the
source of the highest meaning in the world and the measure of
everything, the world began to lose its human dimension, and man began
to lose control of it."
The optimism expressed by Gorbachev and the nostalgia of Cohen fail to
take into account the human cost of the USSR. The Soviet Union took the
lives of an estimated 61 million human beings. It was a brutal and evil system that allied with Nazi Germany to start WW2 in 1939, and afterwards spawned other brutal regimes around the globe that claimed over 100 million lives. Their lives mattered. Vaclav Havel, in his 1990 New Years Speech, called on his countrymen to remember.
"The rivers of blood that have flowed in Hungary, Poland, Germany and
recently in such a horrific manner in Romania, as well as the sea of
blood shed by the nations of the Soviet Union, must not be forgotten.
First of all because all human suffering concerns every other human
being. But more than this, they must also not be forgotten because it is
these great sacrifices that form the tragic background of today's
freedom or the gradual emancipation of the nations of the Soviet Bloc,
and thus the background of our own newfound freedom."
The
number of lives lost is only the material accounting and does not take
into account the spiritual ruin visited upon billions and its aftermath
to the present day. The late Czech president explained it in the same address.
"The worst thing is that we live in a contaminated moral environment. We
fell morally ill because we became used to saying something different
from what we thought. We learned not to believe in anything, to ignore
one another, to care only about ourselves. Concepts such as love,
friendship, compassion, humility or forgiveness lost their depth and
dimension, and for many of us they represented only psychological
peculiarities, or they resembled gone-astray greetings from ancient
times, a little ridiculous in the era of computers and spaceships."
The
destruction, both material and spiritual, generated by the Soviet Union
over seventy years will take centuries to repair and transcend. That
hard truth may not be cause for celebration, but the end of the system
that wreaked so much damage is cause for celebration, not regret. To do
otherwise is to be heartless. The fact that it happened without violence
on Christmas Day in 1991 is also cause for joy.
Criminally, Vladimir Putin on February 24, 2022 expanded his war into Ukraine in what some view as an attempt to resurrect the Soviet empire and the rivers of blood are flowing again, and we do not know how it will end. Gorbachev passed away on August 30, 2022 a respected figure abroad, but reviled in Russia. He was in many ways the polar opposite of Vladimir Putin.
This is why Ukraine is celebrating the end of the Soviet Union over social media this Christmas.
On this day in 1991, the Soviet Union finally ceased to exist. A moment that went down in history as a triumph of liberty.
Its dissolution ended a regime built on repression, censorship, political terror, genocidal famines, mass deportations, and the systematic erasure of… pic.twitter.com/4xVa7YhpYe
People of goodwill should join them in celebrating the end of this evil regime.
Secondly, the largest remaining communist regime, the Peoples Republic of
China, remains in power and with
the aid of smaller communist powers (Cuba, Laos, Nicaragua, North Korea,
Venezuela, Vietnam, and their networks) is backing Putin's invasion of Ukraine.
The Chinese Communist Party
celebrated the 100th anniversary of its founding in 2021. It is a
tragedy that they did not go the same way as the Soviet Union in 1991.
People of goodwill must also continue to work for and pray for
the day that a second miracle can be celebrated with the the end of
communism in China, and a third miracle with the defeat of the Russian invaders in Ukraine.
"A single idea, if it is right, saves us the labor of an infinity of experiences." - Jacques Maritain
Oswaldo Payá Sardiñas and President Václav Havel in Prague (2002)
Twenty three years ago on December 17, 2002 Oswaldo Paya
addressed the European Parliament in Strasbourg at a ceremony awarding
him the the Sakharov Prize where he outlined his nonviolent vision for
change in Cuba.
"The first victory we can claim is that our hearts are free of hatred.
Hence we say to those who persecute us and who try to dominate us: ‘You
are my brother. I do not hate you, but you are not going to dominate me
by fear. I do not wish to impose my truth, nor do I wish you to impose
yours on me. We are going to seek the truth together.’"
Václav
Havel passed away fourteen years ago today, on December 18, 2011. His nonviolent
resistance and dedication to truth in successfully resisting
totalitarian rule in Czechoslovakia remain powerful legacies and
examples that are relevant today. In 2002, President Vaclav Havel addressed the Cuban people and offered words that should be heeded now:
"Our world, as a whole, is not in the best of shape and the direction it
is headed in may well be quite ambivalent. But this does not mean that
we are permitted to give up on free and cultivated thinking and to
replace it with a set of utopian clichés. That would not make the world a
better place, it would only make it worse. On the contrary, it means
that we must do more for our own freedom, and that of others."
Nonviolence requires recognizing these extreme injustices and the justifiable anger
that it generates but at the same time channeling it into creative and
productive means to end the injustices. Some would argue that one must
remove their anger, as one takes off a back pack, but that is profoundly
mistaken. Martin Luther King Jr. offered a different approach that has proven more powerful:
"The supreme task [of a leader] is to organize and unite people so that their anger becomes a transforming force."
Mohandas Gandhi spoke in 1920 of learning "through bitter experience the one supreme lesson to
conserve my anger, and as heat conserved is transmuted into energy, even
so our anger controlled can be transmuted into a power that can move
the world."
This is not hating but harnessing a powerful spiritual energy and channeling it productively.
Blowing up and screaming at someone is a waste of that energy that can
be channeled into creative solutions to end the injustice. Nonviolence theoretician Gene Sharp also recognizes that there is a moral dimension
that cannot be ignored without dire consequences (as efforts to normalize relations with the Castro regime in Cuba demonstrated): "It
is unreasonable to aim for a 'win- win' resolution. Brutal dictators
and perpetrators of genocide do not deserve to win anything."
Today we mark the anniversary of the passing of Václav Havel, the president who led Czechia back into the community of free nations and whose name continues to be respected around the world. pic.twitter.com/VuCGIN9BzG
Nonviolent
thought can be divided into two general categories: strategic
nonviolence and principled nonviolence but although emphasizing
different perspectives they need not be in conflict. Strategic nonviolence takes a pragmatic approach that is based on being more effective then violence.
Non-violent resistance is an armed struggle but its weapons are not deployed to do violence or kill. These arms are psychological, social, economic and political weapons. Gene Sharpargues with much evidence
"that this is ultimately more powerful against oppression, injustice
and tyranny then violence. Historical studies are cited that demonstrate
the higher success rates
of nonviolent movements when compared against violent ones.
University Academics Maria J. Stephan and Erica Chenoweth in their 2008 study "Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic on Nonviolent Conflict"
compared the outcomes of 323 nonviolent and violent resistance
campaigns from 1900 to 2006. They found that major nonviolent campaigns
have achieved success 53 percent of the time, compared with just under
half that at 26 percent for violent resistance campaigns. Finally there
study also suggests “that nonviolent campaigns are more likely than
violent campaigns to succeed in the face of brutal repression.”
Principled nonviolence looks at the spiritual dimension, and the power
of an individual to change and in doing so impact the world. Mohandas
Gandhi described it as follows on September 8, 1913 in Indian Opinion:
"We but mirror the world. All the tendencies present in the outer world
are to be found in the world of our body. If we could change ourselves,
the tendencies in the world would also change. As a man changes his own
nature, so does the attitude of the world change towards him. This is
the divine mystery supreme. A wonderful thing it is and the source of
our happiness. We need not wait to see what others do."
The advantage of principled non-violence and taking it up as a daily
practice in ones life is that it gives one the strength to resist
provocations and builds up the character of the practitioner that assists in carrying out a strategic nonviolent plan.
Critics
of nonviolence often argue that nonviolence works well against
democracies but not brutal regimes, often citing the Nazis. Nevertheless in 1943 in Germany on Rosenstrasse
street German wives married to Jewish men, who had been taken to
concentration camps, organized a series of strikes and protests that
forced the Nazis to return their Jewish husbands back from the death camps.
Those men survived the Holocaust thanks to their wives courageous and
nonviolent action.
The disturbing questions that should arise are: What would have
happened if instead of the violent Antifa movement, that fought the Nazis in street battles throughout the 1930s that escalated violence, opponents of the Nazis had followed Gandhi's advice
at the time and resisted them nonviolently? What would have happened if
the Weimar Republic instead of attempting to silence the Nazis by
repeatedly prosecuting them for violating hate speech laws had
challenged their evil ideas in the court of public opinion?
Since the founding of the Cuban Committee for Human Rights
in 1976 there has existed in overall terms a general strategy of change
that can be summed up as: " Carrying out a nonviolent struggle in
defense of human rights for the freedom of Cuba."
Looking at another definition of strategy that divides it into three
parts gives a better idea of the challenges facing the democratic
opposition in Cuba:
1. Diagnostic: A totalitarian dictatorship with dynastic elements with the political will to hang on to power.
2. Guiding policy: nonviolence
3. Action plan: There exist different areas of emphasis by the
opposition and civil society that is also something found in nonviolent
struggles.
Strategic nonviolence takes a pragmatic approach that is based on being more effective then violence:
Non-violent resistance is an armed struggle but its weapons are not deployed to do violence or kill. These arms are psychological, social, economic and political weapons. Gene Sharpargues with much evidence "that this is ultimately more powerful against oppression, injustice and tyranny then violence."
The
reason for the greater success rate of nonviolent resistance is that it
is easier to mobilize large numbers of people to take nonviolent action
than to engage in violent action. Success is not only defined by
overthrowing the existing regime, but having a transition that ends in a
democratic regime. The methods used in nonviolent struggle translate
better to democratic practices then violent resistance because they
involve nonviolent discipline, the mobilization of large numbers and the
encouragement of civic virtue.
Furthermore the use of humor is not to be underestimated. Václav Havel in an address to the Central European University on June 24, 1999 at a difficult moment on the international scene made the case for laughter.
"The only thing I can recommend at this stage is a sense of humor, an
ability to see things in their ridiculous and absurd dimensions, to
laugh at others and at ourselves, a sense of irony regarding everything
that calls out for parody in this world."
Following his death in 2011, every year on the anniversary of his passing admirers of Václav Havel the world over wear short trousers in his memory.
On December 18th roll up your trousers to honor Vaclav Havel
The “Short Trousers for Václav Havel” initiative started in 2012 to
honor the memory of Václav Havel with a gesture that was unique,
memorable and easily achieved by supporters of this exceptional person
in modern Czech and European history. Short Trousers is a reference to
Havel stepping into political life in 1989 and his inauguration to the
presidency in visibly short trousers. He explained vainly that rather
than a tailor’s mistake it was his habit to pull his pants up at every
dramatic situation. To this, one might say global mythology of his short
trousers, he added with a smile: "I must say that I am glad of it, more
or less. From my point of view it’s a pretty gentle way of mocking
myself." An effort to honor such a respectable person by a gesture that
points to this humorous episode might appear, at first sight, as a
contradictory act. But the opposite is true. We believe that rolled up
trousers on the anniversary of the death of Václav Havel is a gesture
which is Czech, slightly satirical and which can be easily joined by
anyone who wants to honor the memory of the last Czechoslovak and the
first Czech president Havel in a cheerful way.
SPEECH DELIVERED BY MR. OSWALDO PAYÁ UPON ACCEPTING THE SAKHAROV PRICE FOR FREEDOM OF THOUGHT
Strasbourg, December 17, 2002
English translation below: First
of all, I should like to express my thanks to Mr. Pat Cox, President,
and to this Parliament in which the many peoples of Europe are
represented.
You have awarded the Andrei Sakharov Prize to
the people of Cuba. I say “the people of Cuba” because they are the
ones who so richly deserve such an award. I say it without excluding any
of my fellow countrymen, irrespective of their political stance,
because rights have no political, racial or cultural hue. Nor have
dictatorships any political color: they are neither right-wing nor
left-wing, they are merely dictatorships. In my country there are
thousands of men and women who are fighting in the midst of persecution
for the rights of all Cubans. Hundreds of them have been imprisoned
solely for having proclaimed and stood up for those rights, and this is
why I am receiving this award on their behalf.
I
say that this prize is for all Cubans because I believe that, in
awarding it, Europe wishes to say to them: “You too are entitled to
rights.”
This
is something which we have always firmly believed, but there are times
when this truth has seemed to be less than self-evident to many of the
world’s people.
I
have not come here to ask you to support those who oppose the Cuban
Government or to condemn those who persecute us. It is of no help to
Cuba that some people in the world side with the country’s government or
with the latter’s opponents on the basis of an ideological standpoint.
We want others to side with the Cuban people - with all Cubans – and
this means upholding all their rights, supporting openness, supporting
our demand that our people should be consulted via the ballot box
regarding the changes we are calling for. We are asking for solidarity
so that our people can be given an opportunity to speak through the
ballot box, as proposed in the Varela Project.
Many people have linked this prize to the Varela Project,
and rightly so, since the thousands of Cubans who, in the midst of
repression, have signed the petition calling for a referendum are making
a decisive contribution to bringing about the changes which Cuba needs.
Those changes would mean involvement in cultural and economic life,
civil and political rights, and national reconciliation. That would
constitute a genuine exercise in self-determination by our people. We
must reject the myth that we Cubans have to live without rights in order
to support our country’s independence and sovereignty.
Father Felix Varela has
taught us that independence and national sovereignty are inseparable
from the exercise of basic rights. We Cubans – whether we live in Cuba
or in the diaspora – are a single people and we have both the
determination and the ability to build a just, free and democratic
society, without hatred and without the desire for revenge. In the words
of José Marti, ‘With everyone and for everyone’s benefit’.
We
have not chosen the path of peace as a tactic, but because it is
inseparable from the goal for which our people are striving. Experience
teaches us that violence begets more violence and that when political
change is brought about by such means, new forms of oppression and
injustice arise. It is our wish that violence and force should never be
used as ways of overcoming crises or toppling unjust governments. This
time we shall bring about change by means of this civic movement which
is already opening a new chapter in Cuba’s history, in which dialogue,
democratic involvement, and solidarity will prevail. In such a way we
shall foster genuine peace. Cuba’s civic combatant heroes – the ordinary
people who have signed the Varela Project – carry no weapons. Not a
single hand is armed. We walk with both arms outstretched, offering our
hands to all Cubans as brothers and sisters, and to all peoples of the
world.
The
first victory we can claim is that our hearts are free of hatred. Hence
we say to those who persecute us and who try to dominate us: ‘You are
my brother. I do not hate you, but you are not going to dominate me by
fear. I do not wish to impose my truth, nor do I wish you to impose
yours on me. We are going to seek the truth together’. THIS IS THE LIBERATION WHICH WE ARE PROCLAIMING.
Oswaldo Payá Sardiñas addressed European Parliament in 2002
There
are still those who perpetuate the myth that the exercising of
political and civil rights is an alternative to a society’s ability to
achieve social justice and development. They are not mutually exclusive.
The absence of any civil and political rights in Cuba has had serious
consequences such as inequality, the poverty of the majority and
privileges of a minority and the deterioration of certain services, even
though these were conceived as a positive system to benefit the people.
In this way, although many Cubans have for years worked out of love and
in good faith, the situation as regards civil and political rights is
now serious, quite apart from a widening inequality and the
deterioration in the quality of life of the majority of the population.
Among other things, the freedom of action of the citizens of Cuba has
been limited, which has neutralized their huge potential for creativity
and productiveness and is the main reason for the country’s poverty.
This
state of affairs cannot be justified by saying that the Cuban people
have adopted this system out of choice. You all know that none of the
peoples represented in this Parliament, and no people in the world,
would ever give up the right to exercise their fundamental freedoms.
It
is becoming increasingly apparent that well-being and economic and
social progress are the fruits of being able to exercise one’s rights.
In the same way, a democracy is not genuine and complete if it cannot
initiate and sustain a process that raises the quality of life of all
its citizens, because no people would freely vote for the kind of
poverty and inequality that results in the masses becoming disadvantaged
and marginalized. The peoples of Latin America are calling for a
genuine democracy which will enable justice to be established. It is
scandalous that methods intended to overcome a crisis and end poverty
can be applied in the name of efficiency when in reality they threaten
to obliterate the poor. I cannot claim to herald new positions or
propose new models, but the people of Cuba have lived and suffered under
various political and economic systems.
We
now know that any method or model which purportedly aims to achieve
justice, development, and efficiency but takes precedence over the
individual or cancels out any of the fundamental rights leads to a form
of oppression and to exclusion and is calamitous for the people. We wish
to express our solidarity with all those who suffer from any form of
oppression and injustice, and with those in the world who have been
silenced or marginalized.
The
cause of human rights is a single cause, just as the people of the
world are a single people. The talk today is of globalization, but we
must state that unless there is global solidarity, not only human rights
but also the right to remain human will be jeopardized. If there is no
solidarity between people we will be unable to preserve a fair world in
which it is possible to continue living as human beings. I therefore
humbly believe that rather than new models, both for societies and for
relations between countries, what we need is a new spirit.
This
new spirit, which should find expression in solidarity, cooperation,
and justice in the relations between countries, will not impede
development, because if policies and models are made secondary to
personal realization and the establishment of justice and democracy, and
if policies are humanized, we will bridge the gulfs that divide peoples
and will become a true human family.
We
bring from Cuba a message of peace and solidarity for all peoples. The
people of Cuba accept this prize with dignity and in the hope that we
can rebuild our society with love for all, as brothers, and as children
of God. Cubans are straightforward people and want nothing more than to
live in peace and progress in our work, but WE CANNOT, WE DO NOT KNOW
HOW TO, AND WE DO NOT WANT TO LIVE WITHOUT FREEDOM.
We dedicate this prize and our hopes to the Lord Jesus, born in a lowly manger.
There are over a thousand political prisoners currently in Cuba’s prisons today.
Jose Daniel Ferrer was a member of the Christian Liberation Movement
that sought through the existing legal system to pursue change through the Varela Project.
Brothers to the Rescue was an effort by Cubans and Cuban Americans to
save the lives of Cubans in the Florida Straits. Because they were
nonviolently engaging with the dissidents on the island the regime felt
it was unacceptable and they sent out MiGs that blew two civilian
planes out of the sky in international airspace.
However that is not our focus today but the harm Havana has done to
U.S. national security, and the role the Cuban dictatorship has played
in destabilizing the Western Hemisphere.
This is not true. We now know thanks to the Soviet archives after the
collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 that the initial contacts with the
KGB and the Castro brothers was in 1953.
Early contacts with the KGB (1953)
Leonov (c). On his right, R. Castro. To his left, Bernardo Lemús
“The KGB’s leading Latin American expert, Nikolai Leonov, who was the
first to make contact with [Raul] Castro, wrote later, ‘Cuba forced us
to take a fresh look at the whole continent, which until then had
traditionally occupied the last place in the Soviet leadership’s system
of priorities.’- The charismatic appeal of Castro and ‘Che’ Guevara
extended far beyond Latin America,” wrote Christopher Andrew and Vasili
Mitrokhin in The World Was Going Our Way: The KGB and the Battle for the the Third World – Newly Revealed Secrets from the Mitrokhin Archive published in 2006.
Raul Castro and Nikolai Leonov first met in 1953, and struck up a relationship that would endure for 69 years, until Leonov’s passing in 2022. On March 11, 2016, Leonov was interviewed on official Cuban television in the Mesa Redonda program about his supposed first encounter with Raul Castro on a trans-Atlantic voyage. Vasili Mitrokhin, a former KGB archivist who defected to Britain in 1992, offers a different report obtained from classified files.
Leonov and Raul Castro “became ‘firm friends’ in Prague in 1953 and
then worked together with Fidel from 1956 and after he took power in
1959.”
The U.S. Arms Embargo on Batista
At the same time that the United States was placing an arms embargo
on Fulgencio Batista in early 1958, and receiving representatives of
Fidel Castro’s July 26th Movement in Washington DC, the Soviet KGB
already had a firmly established relationship with the Castro brothers.
On March 17, 1958 Fidel Castro’s future candidate for provisional president, Manuel Urrutia, along with a delegation of other supporters in exile of the July 26th movement,
met with officials at the State Department. They successfully lobbied
the U.S. government arguing that arms shipments to Cuba were for
hemispheric defense, and they claimed that Batista using them against
Cuban nationals was in violation of the conditions agreed to between the
two countries.
Batista’s regime presented to the U.S. Embassy in Havana a formal note protesting
the delay in the shipment of M-1 rifles to the Cuban Army, and warned
that it would weaken the Cuban government and lead to its possible
downfall.
The United States placed an arms embargo on the Batista dictatorship in March 1958.
On March 26, 1958 in another telegram
from the State Department to the U.S. Embassy in Havana the view was
expressed how the arms embargo could lead to the fall of Batista’s
regime:
“Department has considered the possibility its actions
could have an adverse psychological effect on GOC and could
unintentionally contribute to or accelerate eventual Batista downfall.
On other hand, shipment US combat arms at this time would probably
invite increased resentment against US and associate it with Batista
strong arm methods, especially following so closely on heels of
following developments:
Government publicly desisted from peace efforts.Government suspended
guarantees again.Batista expressed confidence Government will win
elections with his candidate and insists they will be held despite
suspension guarantees but has made no real effort to satisfy public
opinion on their fairness and effectiveness as possible means achieve
fair and acceptable solution.Batista announced would increase size arms
and informed you he would again undertake mass population shift Oriente,
and otherwise acted in manner to discourage those who supported or
could be brought to support peaceful settlement by constructive
negotiations.”
The United States would continue to pressure Batista to hold free
elections and leave office for the remainder of 1958. Earl E. T. Smith,
the U.S. ambassador to Cuba, on December 17, 1958 delivered a message
from the State Department to Fulgencio Batista that the United States
viewed “with skepticism any plan on his part, or any intention on his
part, to remain in Cuba indefinitely.”
The U.S. government had dealt the Batista regime a mortal blow, and fourteen days later the Cuban dictatorship fell.
Fulgencio Batista fled into exile on January 1, 1959, and the United
States quickly recognized the revolutionary government of the Castro
brothers.
The Castro brothers’ newly established Cuban government was
acknowledged by the U.S. on January 7, 1959. The new regime was
recognized in a mere seven days. Comparatively, after Fulgencio
Batista’s March 10, 1952 coup, it took the US seventeen days to recognize his government.
Ernesto “Che” Guevara, representing Fidel Castro’s new regime, visited Gaza in June 1959, and encouraged Palestinian refugees to “continue the struggle to liberate their land” “through resistance to occupation,” according to the publication Palestine Land Society.
He asked, “where are the training camps? Where are the factories to
manufacture arms? Where are people’s mobilization centers?” … According
to the publication Palestine Land Society, “Guevara was accompanied by General Caprera, an expert in Guerilla warfare. Caprera met with community leaders to advise on methods of resistance.”
Soviet Vice Premier Anastas Mikoyan visited Havana in February 1960. The Soviet Vice Premier arrived in Cuba on February 4, 1960.
Regime insider Carlos Franqu in his book Family Portrait with Fidel described the visit as follows.
In the early days of February, Anastas Mikoyan,
vice-prime minister of the Soviet Union, came to Cuba. Fidel Castro,
Raúl, Che Guevara, and President Dorticós met him at the Havana airport.
He was given a huge reception and an extended tour of the island-with
Fidel at his side-which lasted for weeks. A major topic was the Soviet
Union’s purchase of Cuban sugar and our purchase of Russian oil.
Castro diplomatically recognized the Soviet Union on May 8, 1960.
To say that the United States pushed the Castro brothers into the
arms of the Soviet Union is absurd. The Castro brothers had already been
conspiring with Moscow for six years in 1959.
Posts
