[The following is an interview with the Peruvian revolutionary leader Hugo Blanco obtained by a representative of the Comité de Defensa de los Derechos Humanos -- CODDEH —- (the Committee for the Defense of Human Rights) on the island prison of El Fronton. The interview was given in the last week of May. It has been translated by Intercontinental Press fron the June issue of Por la Libertad (Fo:: Freedom), the bulletin of CODDEH.]
Question: What is the state of you: case?
Answer: The 25-year prison sentence handed down by the Consejo de Guerra de la III Zona Judicial de Policía [the Military Tribunal of the Third Police Judicial District] was confirmed by the Consejo Supremo de Justicia Militar [the High Tribunal of Military Justice].
According to the unconstitutional legal code instituted by the armed forces, this sentence cannot be appealed since the Consejo Supremo de Justicia Militar has been elevated to a rank coequal with that of the Corte Suprema de Justicia [the Supreme Court]. Of course, the events for which I was tried occurred before this code existed; therefore, according to the principle of the nonretroactivity of laws, I should have the right to appeal to the Corte Suprema. However, the the law of the military is the law of saber; and even their own bourgeois law has no validity against it.
Q: What is the situation of the peasants tried with you?
A: After long years in prison incluling torture, the greater part of them have been set free. Compañero Basilio Alvarez, however, is still a prisoner along with me.
Most ordinary prisoners are granted parole when they complete two-thirds of their sentence. My comrades were denied this right.
Q: What are the conditions of life like on El Frontón?
A: Inhuman, as in all Peruvian prisons. The worst aspects are the lack of unpolluted drinking water, the open sewers, and an "infirmary" without doctors or medicines, where you only go to catch more diseases in the filthiest beds on the island.
Q: In Jour judgment what are the tasks that CODDEH must undertake in the next months?
A: I think the most urgent task, more pressing even than the fight for a general amnesty, is to demand an explanation of the whereabouts of Enrique Amaya Quintana.
We must not allow the Peruvian people to be hardened by letting them get used to disappearances like those of Lobatón, Cutipa, etc.*
It seems to me that the case of Amaya is the most scandalous and must as the symbol for the fight of the serve Comité por Defensa de los Derechos Humanos. How can we hope that the bourgeois government will grant a general amnesty in an atmosphere where cases like Amaya's can pass almost unnoticed?
I think that the Comité de Defensa de los Derechos Humanos must wage an incensive campaign, appealing to organizacions and individuals nationally and internationally to take a stand exclusively on this case.
In this "Year of Human Rights," political parties and trade unions of both the left and right, religious and of persong must say what they think about cultural organizations, priests, candiand all dates for public office, this monstrous crime. An intensive continuing campaign must be waged, with meetings in every neighborhood, with protest strikes, etc.
Unfortunately the weight of the
560 05852 18
committee's work falls on the shoulders of a limited number of persons, and this must not continue. Some of the organizations which have joined the committee must realize that formal affiliation is not enough. The unions, student federations, and political parties must contribute activists for these urgent tasks.
*Benito Cutipa, a peasant leader from the Valle de la Convención and a member of the guerrilla force commanded by Luis de la Puente Uceda, was captured by soldiers in the vicinity of the La Joya ranch. The daily newspapers in Lima even published extensive reports on the capture of "an important guerrilla." However, this peasant leader was never heard from again and not even his family have gotten any accounting of his whereabouts. As Blanco said, Cutipa's case is one of many "disappearances" of political prisoners in our country.
FIDEL CASTRO'S SPEECH ON THE SOVIET OCCUPATION OF CZECHOSLOVAKIA
[Continued from last week.]
We are witnessing many interesting things resulting from these events.
It is understandable that the countries of the Warsaw Pact sent their armies to destroy the imperialist conspiracy and the progress of counterrevolution in Czechoslovakia. However, we have disagreed with, been displeased at, and protested against the fact that these same countries have been drawing closer economically, culturally and politically to the oligarchic governments of Latin America, which are not merely reactionary governments and exploiters of their peoples, but also shameless accomplices ir the imperialist aggressions against Cuba and shameless accomplices in the economic blockade of Cuba. And these countries have been encouraged and emboldened by the fact that our friends, our natural allies, have ignored the vile and treacherous role enacted by those governments against a socialist country, the policy of blockade practiced by those countries against a socialist country.
And at the same time that we understand the need for the spirit of internationalism, and the need to go to the aid -- even with troops -- of a fraternal country to confront the schemes of the imperialists, we ask ourselves if that policy of economic, political and cultural rapprochement toward those oligarchic governments that are accomplices in the imperialist blockade against Cuba will come to an end.
In the face of this situation, it is well to see now how these countries react.
It says: "The whole Latin American bloc in the forum of the nations of the world expressed its unanimous repudiation of this Russian intervention in Czechoslovakia. A spokesman for the group said, 'We all received the news of this intervention with sorrow Czechoslovaks.
and we express our solidarity with the
"'The political consequences which this Soviet intrusion in the internal affairs of Czechoslovakia will have will be the strengthening of the anti-Soviet tendency in Latin America,' the spokesman said,"
etc.
And then it said: "The source said this Soviet attitude, the theory of spheres of influence which they themselves have so often criticized, would
States make it possible for the United to assume the right to invade Cuba, since it is within its security area."
These puppet governments have already begun to prepare the theory that Cuba must be invaded, because it is within their security area. And it is these countries - with the single exception of Mexico, whose government Is the only one which has not participated in the blockade, aggressions and impeagainst Cuba -- it is rialist actions all these oligarchic governments, toward which they have shown great consideration and tact, which are the ringleaders in the United Nations of the clamor and the attacks on the socialist camp over the events in Czechoslovakia. l'hings have even gone so far as for these same countries of the Latin- American bloc to propose a meeting of the General Assembly; they are the most rabid critics of the Soviet Union and the other countries of the socialist camp as a result of these events. And these are the countries which have been accomplices in the aggressions against pree bey save ta on on in 012 Cuba; countries which have no moral right to talk about interventions, bethe crimes committed by imperialism against the peoples, such as the brutal counterrevolutionary action perpetrated in the Dominican Republic, the aggressions against Cuba and many other countries and the aggressions against other peoples in Latin America: The oligarchic governments themselves, such as those of Brazil, Paraguay and other countries, sent troops to the Dominican Republic and are now leading the attack on and the condemnation of the socialist camp for the events in Czechoslovakia.
What magnificent reasoning and how this reveals the correctness of the positions taken by the Cuban revolution in relation to these events!
And we also wonder whether that policy will be rectified or whether it will be continued along the path of political, economic and cultural rapprochement with those countries.
One of them, Argentina, even shelled a Soviet fishing vessel -- shelled it! I believe they even wounded one of the members of the vessel's crew. Afterwards they were like beasts over there, lying in wait for another boat. They commit flagrant, indecent actions against everybody, yet that soft line has been followed in regard to them -- a line which, in our opinion, only encourages their position as accomplices in the aggressions against Cuba.
There is a most interesting news dispatch here which says: "Caracas, August 21 -- Venezuela has decided to suspend its talks with the Soviet Union and the Communist bloc in relation to the resumption of diplomatic relations in protest against the invasion of Czechoslovakia.
"The announcement was made by Foreign Minister Ignacio Iribarren Borges at a press conference. The statement reads textually:
"'In view of the news of the invasion of Czechoslovakia by troops of the Soviet Union and other Eastern European countries, the government of Venezuela maintains that this action against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of that country constitutes an open violation of the principles of nonaggression and self-determination of the peoples contained in the United Nations Charter and the principles of nonintervention formulated in Resolution 2131 of the General Assembly and invariably defended by Venezuela.
"'The events which have taken place are a source of grave concern to the Venezuelan government, since they constitute a violation of the legal international order, a brazen use of superior force and a serious setback for the aspirations for peaceful coexistence among the peoples.
"'The Venezuelan government considers that the invading troops should immediately and unconditionally withdraw.
"'The government of Venezuela voices the feeling of the Venezuelan people in expressing its profound solidarity and sympathy with the Czechoslovak people.'"
None of these statements were made, none of these attitudes were voiced, none of these issues were brought up by the Venezuelan government during the landing of Yankee forces in the Dominican Republic.
No relations were broken, no business was shelved, no economic relations were disturbed -- nothing at all like this happened. And now they permit themselves the luxury of throwing in the face of the countries of the socialist camp this type of relations which the latter have actually been begging them for, this type of relations which they have been begging that government, which is one of the most reactionary and ayed-in-the-wool of the accomplices of Yankee imperialism. And now they throw it in the faces of the socialist countries.
These are the results of such a policy when the chips are down, at the moment of truth.
Something similar is happening to the Communist parties of Europe, today trapped in their own indecision. And we wonder whether possibly in the future the relations with Communist parties will be based on principled positions or whether they will continue to be guided by their degree of willingness to maintain a spineless attitude, to be satellites, lackeys -- a situation in which only those that maintain a spineless attitude, say "Yes" to everything and never an independent position on anyassume thing, would be considered friendly.
So there you have those who criticized us on innumerable occasions, today overwhelmed by the worst kind of confusion.
Our party did not hesitate to help the Venezuelan guerrillas when a rightist and treacherous leadership, betraying the revolutionary line, abandoned the guerrillas and entered into shameless collusion with the regime. At that time we presented our analysis as to which side was right -- that scheming, politicking group that betrayed the combatants, that betrayed those who had given their lives, or those who kept the flag of rebellion flying. We did not take into consideration the number of the rightist group; we took into consideration where right lay. We did not take into consideration how many members of the Central Committee or the Political Bureau were involved, because right does not necessarily equate with numbers.
And at that time the revolutionaries who remained holding aloft the banner of guerrilla struggle were in the minority. And we maintained the same position we hold today when we supported the guerrillas over and above the rightist leadership of Venezuela, when, for the same reason, we supported the
Guatemalan guerrillas against the treachery and scheming of the rightist leadership in
Guatemala, when we backed the Bolivian guerrillas against the schemes and betrayal of the rightist leadership in Bolivia. Yet we were accused of being adventurers, of interfering in the affairs of other countries, of interfering in the affairs of other parties.
I ask myself, in the light of the facts and in the light of the bitter reality that persuaded the nations of the Warsaw Pact to send their forces to crush the counterrevolution in Czechoslovakia, and -- according to their statement -- to back a minority in the face of a majority with rightist positions, if they will also cease to support these rightist, reformist, sold-out, submissive leaderships in Latin America that are enemies of the armed revolutionary struggle, that oppose the peoples' liberation struggle.
And, with the example_of this bitter experience before them, I wonder whether or not the parties of those countries, in line with the decision made in Czechoslovakia, will cease to support those rightist groups that betray the revolutionary movement in Latin America.
Certainly, we do not believe in the possibility of an improvement in relations between the socialist camp imperialism under the present conditions, or under any conditions as long as that imperialisn exists. We do not and cannot believe in the possibility of an improvement in relations between the socialist camp and the U.s. imperialist government as long as that country performs the role of international gendarme, aggressor enemy and systemagainst the peoples and atic opponent of revolutions everywhere in the world. Much less can we believe in any such improvement in the midst of an aggression as criminal and cowardly as that being waged against Vietnam.
Our position on this is very clear: one is consistent with world realities and is truly internationalist and genuinely and decidedly supports the revolutionary movement throughout the world, in which case relations with the imperialist government of the United States cannot be improved, or relations with the imperialist U.S. government will improve, but only at the cost of withholding consistent support from the worldwide revolutionary movement.
This is our thesis, this is our position.
I have here a dispatch datelined Washington, August 22: "Soviet intervention in Czechoslovakia compromises any improvement in relation between East and West, U.s. Secretary of State Dean Rusk stated today.
"The situation created could block ratification of the Nonproliferation Treaty by the U.s. Senate, he added.
"The U.S. chief diplomat made this statement to the press on leaving a White House cabinet meeting in which the problem of Czechoslovakia and the Vietnam situation were discussed."
This can hardly fail to delight us. Our people know the position of the Cuban delegation regarding this famous Nonproliferation Treaty, which virtually gives a permanent concession to the large powers for the monopoly of nuclear weapons and the monopoly of technology in a field of energy that is going to be indispensable to the future of mankind. We were concerned, above all, by the fact that many countries of the world, including our own, would be obliged to accept the U.s. imperialist government's monopoly on those weapons, which could be used at any moment against any people, particularly in view of the fact that the proposed treaty was also accompanied by an astonishing declaration concerning the defense of the signatory nation that might be threatened with nuclear weapons.
Such countries as Vietnam, countries such as Cuba, that did not choose to accept that type of treaty, and much less sign it in a situation in which the aggression against Vietnam is being constantly intensified, are left outside the realm of any protection, and thus fall into the category in which the imperialists would theoretically have the right to attack us with nuclear arms. And of course everyone knows our position.
In view of the facts, in the face of an imperialism that is always plotting, always conspiring against the socialist camp, we ask ourselves whether or not the idyllic hopes of an improvement in relations with the imperialist government of the United States will continue to be maintained. We ask ourselves if, consistent with events in Czechoslovakia, a position may be adopted that will imply a renunciation of such idyllic hopes in relation to Yankee imperialism. And the dispatch states that an improvement in relations will be compromised and that there is the danger of nonratification of the treaty. In our opinion, that would be the best thing that could happen.
Now then, these are, in our opinthe two most important questions.
TASS statement explaining the decision of the Warsaw Pact governments states in its concluding paragraph:
"The fraternal countries firmly and resolutely offer their unbreakable solidarity against any outside threat. They will never permit anyone to tear away even one link of the community of socialist states."
And we ask ourselves: "Does that declaration include Vietnam? Does that statement include Korea? Does that statement include Cuba? Do they or do they not consider Vietnam, Korea and Cuba links of the socialist camp to be safeguarded against the imperialists?"
In accordance with that declaration, Warsaw Pact divisions were sent into Czechoslovakia. And we ask ourselves: "Will Warsaw Pact divisions also be sent to Vietnam if the Yankee imperialists step up their aggression against that country and the people of Vietnam request that aid?! Will they send the divisions of the Warsaw Pact to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea if the Yankee imperialists attack that country? Will they send the divisions of the Warsaw Pact to Cuba if the Yankee imperialists attack our country, or even in the case oi the threat of a Yankee imperialist attack on our country, if our requests it?" (Prolonged apcountry plause.)
We acknowledge the bitter necessity that called for the sending of those forces into Czechoslovakia; we do not condemn the socialist countries that made that decision. But we, as revolutionaries, and proceeding from positions of principle, do have the right to demand that they adopt a consistent position with regard to all the other questions that aftect the world revolutionary movement.
There is no reason to hide the fact that great danger confronts our country. The advocates of an armed aggression against Cuba are all out rubbing their hands with glee. Only today a new dispatch came in calling for just that.
We must state how we see these questions. Is it perhaps a matter of the principle of sovereignty? Has it by chance been a law that has protected and protects our country from a Yankee invasion? Nobody believes that. If it were a matter of law, if it were the principle of sovereignty that had to protect our country, the revolution would have disappeared from the face of the earth long ago. What has protected this revolution, what has made it possible, has been the blood shed by the sons of this people, the blood shed fighting against Batista's thugs and armies, the blood shed fighting against the mercenaries, the determination that exists here to die to the last man in the defense of the revolution was demonstrated in the October crisis, the imperialists' knowledge that they could never stage a maneuverlike military pushover here.
What defends this revolution is internationally recognot an abstract, nized legal principle.
This revolution is defended by the unity of our people, their revolutionary awareness, their readiness for combat, their decision to die to the last man defense of the revolution and our country!
I don't believe that even our enemies have any doubts as to this people's courage and spirit. What defends the sovereignty of a country, what defends a just cause, is a people capable of feeling that cause as its own, of cherishing a deep conviction as to the justice of that cause and the decision to defend it at any price. Ihat is precisely what protects our revolution and what protects the sovereignty of our country in the face of the imperialist threat that has always existed here.
The imperialists have not given up for one instant their dream of destroying our country. Those dangers will naturally increase now. Therefore, now, precisely now -- because things must be spoken of at the right time -- we are once more going to explain what our position is, the position of our revolutionary government, regarding the United States. And we state It now, precisely when speaking out has very real significance and is not simply declamatory or theoretical, and we state it with all the more reason because of certain speculations that have been circulated concerning a possible bettering of relations between Cuba and the United States.
The revolutionary government has at no time shown the slightest interest in bettering its relations with the imperialist government of the United States; it has not shown it and it will not show it, nor will it give it the slightest attention or express directly or indirectly, tacitly or openly, any kind of willingness to hold conversations with that government as long as that government remains the international gendarme, bulwark of world reaction, enemy of the revolutionary movements, aggressor in Vietnam, aggressor in the Dominican Republic, anc intervener in revolutionary movements. This has been, is, and will unquestionto be the position of the ably continue revolutionary government of Cuba.
Never, under any circumstance - and the comrades of our Central Committee know this; they know that this is the line adopted by our committee -- never, under any circumstance, even in the most difficult circumstances, will this country approach the imperialist government of the United States - not even should
C 02000 it one day place us in the situation of having to choose between the continued existence of the revolution or such a step. Because, gentlemen, that would be the moment at which the revolution would have ceased to exist.
And if the day should ever come when this revolution had to buy its security and its survival at the price of some concession to the Yankee imperialists, we would prefer -- as our Central Committee unanimously would prefer and as our people would prefer -- this people to disappear with the revolution rather than survive at such a price! (Prolonged applause.)
In the United States there are honest people, progressive people who oppose the blockades, the aggressions, all these things. Naturally we have always had a friendly attitude toward those who honest- 1y maintain those positions; people who oppose the war in Vietnam, people who oppose the imperialist policy of the United States.
But regarding the government of that country, our position is absolutely and unmistakably clear: we are not interested in economic relations, and we are even less interested in diplomatic relations of any kind.
I'hey have been carrying out their criminal blockade for ten years. They taught us to find the way to defend ourselves against this; they taught us to forge a revolutionary awareness. They know by now that it will not be easy to rush us, that we are not going to shrink 'rom their threats or yield to them and that it will not be easy to starve us to death under any circumstance.
We have struggled forward in these ten years by making enormous efforts. The time is not far off when we will begin to receive the fruits of these efforts. Very well: we are prepared to go on for twenty years, or a lifetime, without any relations whatsoever with them. And we repeat: under whatever circumstances! That is, we shall wait until Yankee imperialism ceases to be Yankee imperialism. And we shall have enough patience and sufficient tenacity to persevere as long as may be necessary. That is our position. And we believe that this alone can be the true revolutionary position.
We know they will attempt to intimidate us.
Iney will not succeed. They will find it very difficult to instill lear here, to frighten this country, because this country has learned in the last ten years how to live face to face with this enemy, confronting this enemy's threats.
And we are sincere when we say that we prefer plain speaking. We even prefer a position which involves risks to those indefinite situations which could encourage a slackening in our combat preparedness.
We have not had a combat alert for some time. Ihere has not been a really tense situation for some time. Now, since these recent developments, some news agencies have reported that our forces had been placed in a state of partial alert. Yes, immediately! Our forces can never be taken by surprise.
Jur philosophy of struggle includes a series of fundamental concepts: they will never catch us off guard! We prefer to have too many alerts to being taken by surprise. And we have always -- under all circumstances -- been prepared, all our forces in a state of alert, to avoid the possibility of surprise.
Our philosophy is well known: here the order to open fire will never need to be given, for this order is always in effect. Always! There is no need to give the order, it is unnecessary. No one will ever enter this country against our will. And the circumstances will never arise in which anyone could enter here without encountering fierce and implacable combat from the first moment. There is no need to give the order to open fire!
Nor will the order to "cease fire" ever be given in case of an aggression! We will never accept any form of surrender!
These are three fundamental concepts of our philosophy, right here under the very nose of Yankee imperialism. And all our people are imbued with this philosophy and are calmly determined to lay down their lives to the last man. That is also part of our philosophy.
Men have to die, one way or another. The one sad way to die is to die in shame, with one's back to the enemy.
We are not in favor of war, but revolutionaries would rather die in battle than as the result of natural causes. Naturally, we are not going to provoke wars just to avoid death by natural causes. Revolutionaries cannot always do what they want to do or whatever pleases them the most, for their duty will always come first and foremost.
As a matter of fact, all of our people are well aware of this -- no one has the slightest doubt about it -- and that is what really defends our sovereignty.
The imperialists will begin by threatening us. The future will be much more entertaining than the past. We will never halt our work or our development plans. Ihe enemy will not succeed even in this. Our present level of organization will help us carry out our plans. We will carry these plans ahead, strengthen our defenses and step up our combat training.
Well, here comes the first one: a news dispatch from Brazil, quoting a newspaper which is a spokesman for the oligarchy•
The dispatch reads: "'The Soviet intervention in an internal affair of Czechoslovakia reopens the Cuban question which seemed to have been closed and forgotten.' This is the opening statement in editorial published yesterday by a long Jornal do Brasil.
"The newspaper, in a commentary entitled 'There and Here,' says textually:
"'After the entry of Russian troops into Czechoslovak territory several issues concerning the world's balance of power should be automatically reevaluated.
"'One cannot help but recognize that now the presence of Cuba takes on another meaning in the light of the cold and brutal reality that caused the Soviet Union to feel insecure simply because a country in the Communist orbit considered it necessary to indulge in a debate over freedom. Moscow's intolerance did not hesitate in brushing aside order in favor of brute force.
"'If the USSR can besmirch the principle of the peoples' self-determination, considering Czechoslovakia a common territory under her ideological jurisdiction, the same doctrine cannot be invoked to prevent the Cuban case from being considered in the light of specific interests of continental unity.
"'There are well-known differences between these two cases. In the first place, Czechoslovakia did not break with the principles of socialism, nor did she politically oppose the bloc to which she belongs. Only internally did she abolish the rigidity of the stifling dictatorship and drift toward a debate in which the word "freedom" came to be considered as a dimension without which socialism is a hoax.
"'The situation of Cuba is quite different: the Havana government is not in harmony with the group of continental countries, whose commitments are to democracy and freedom. The Communist regime of Havana, in addition to being an exception, arrogates to itself the mission of exporting subversion to the point of financing groups which disturb the democratic order in Latin America.
"'As long as the Soviet Union was capable of allowing the winds of freedom to sweep through Czechoslovakia, the world was under the impression that finally the major powers, the leaders of blocs, were taking a more tolerant attitude rather than resorting automatically to military intervention. But the scene was unexpectedly and brutally altered. The weight of Soviet violence fell on the Czechoslo-
In a short statement reported in the September 4 issue of the Paris daily Le Monde, Premier Pham Van Dong finally made it official that North Vietnam does support Moscow's moves in Czechoslovakia.
"It is clear," he said, "that a serious danger threatened socialist Czechoslovakia. The American imperialists and the West German retaliationists feverishly intervened in Czechoslovak affairs, in collusion with Czechoslovak counterrevolutionaries, in order to convert Czechoslovakia into a capitalist country dependent vak attempt to try out freedom.
"'The situation changes automatically in respect to Cuba, not as a result of any compensation, but by the mere fact that it is necessary to reevaluate the balance of forces on the world scene. The Cuban problem will be reopened, and Brazil, which aligned itself in the defense of the principle of nonintervention, will have to bear in mind that the Rio de Janeiro Ireaty is the document on which to base the reexamination of the problem.
"'As of yesterday morning, the Cuban question, therefore, has become a current issue and calls for reconsideration without the mistaken connotations which caused it to be viewed unrealistically. The Soviet aggression against Europe exits flank in Latin America to an inposes evitable examination,' concludes the editorial contained in yesterday's issue of Jornal do Brasil (August 22)."
And they try to say this is a realistic examination!
There is a slight difference, gentlemen of Jornal do Brasil and the rest of the oligarchs, and that is that in a few hours we Cuban revolutionaries would throw the best divisions of Brazil out of Cuba with a swift kick in the pants. (Applause.)
And against the best divisions of the imperialist government of the United States we are willing, like the Vietnamese, to fight for one hundred years, if necessary. (Applause.)
Inat is the only slight difference, and oligarchs. We gladly upimperialists hold our positions, and we will upnolo them always without being frightened by any kind of threats.
tion.) Patria o Muerte! Venceremos! (Ova-
Patria o Muerte! Venceremos! (Ova-
LEnd. J
on the West, thus constituting a danger to the security of the Warsaw Pact countries and to peace in Europe and the world.
"The threat, which bore on the very existence of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, necessitated the Soviet Union and four other socialist countries taking all measures, including the employment of armed force, in order to defeat the American imperithe intervention of alists and West German retaliationists, accomplices of the Czechoslovak counterrevolutionaries."