Not much importance was given to Latin American economic integration, and the United States waged its battles in Commissions One and Three.
Commission Three, where compañero Raúl León Torras, Cuban undersecretary of trade, dedicated a great deal of time and effort, was where the Latin American governments attained the best positions and where the United States lodged two formal reservations. The United States practically dominated the situation on Point One and established a general program that did not really have any important content for the peoples.
The conference was important because it has reduced the possibility that a foreign ministers’ conference will be held in the near future; and eliminated the possibility of isolating Cuba. It is now possible for Cuba’s voice to be heard all over Latin America, in spite of enormous difficulties such as the frequent distortions of Cuba’s comments by the Uruguayan newspapers as well as the newspapers of other countries. Nevertheless, it was still possible to tell the people the truth.
The conference was also important because a new language was spoken there—not just that of Cuba, which spoke forthrightly, in the language of open rebelliousness, but also the language of those countries that are not willing to be dumb beasts serving the United States and that argued to obtain better treatment for the products made from their raw materials.
More than anything, it was important because of the new stance of the Brazilian government—or, rather, the position taken by the new Brazilian government, because the position is not new. Ever since President Quadros took office, he has spoken out in no uncertain terms in favor of the coexistence of all peoples on earth, relations with all peoples and a policy of peace.
I place considerable importance on the resolution that was adopted by a majority vote, which explicitly establishes the right of countries with different social systems to coexist in Latin America. It states—just a second, so I can read the exact words. It says:
The active participation of the private sector is of basic importance to the desired process of economic development and integration, and, except in those countries where the free enterprise system does not exist, the programming of development by the appropriate national public bodies, far from hindering that participation, may facilitate and channel it, opening up new social benefits.
The original version did not contain the words “except in those countries where the free enterprise system does not exist,” which were proposed by Cuba. This was because in speaking of the active participation of the private sector, it was a contradiction in the case of Cuba, as the exploitation of human beings by others and the philosophy of free enterprise have been condemned here.
The countries in the second commission approved it by a simple majority—which was possible—of nine votes, after which it went to the plenary, where it was again approved, though with some variations—the original text was somewhat different. It was approved there by 11 votes—in other words, by the absolute majority, because there were 21 participating countries, and an absolute majority (11) was required—over the negative vote of the United States. Thus, the fact that countries that do not have a free-enterprise regime can belong to the inter-American system was inserted into the final documents of the Punta del Este accord, or, rather, of the Latin American conference.
We proclaimed this as one of the achievements of the conference, and it provoked a violent, angry, inopportune reaction by [US] Treasury Secretary Dillon, who announced that he did not recognize Cuba and did not recognize peaceful coexistence—in short, that he was going to chew us up into little pieces that day or the next.
Those are the positive aspects of the conference, things that are unquestionably very important. The negative aspects are, as I have already told you, the fact that, once more, the United States spread the false idea that it is spending money to help the peoples. No such thing. First of all, it is not spending money, and, next, if it should spend any, it will not be to help the peoples; if it spends anything, it would be to help its own monopolies, which will return the money, sending it back to the United States.
So, as they say, “dust to dust,” and the dollars—at least the ones in Latin America—will keep going back to the United States. So, if those dollars are spent—which is a very big if, as it is much more probable that Congress will not even appropriate them—they will be for the monopolies in general, which, after using the money and making new profits, will send it back to the United States. That is a negative thing, and so is the poverty of the aspirations contained in this document.
In the field of education, Cuba has achieved practically everything that is proposed for the next 10 years, and it will achieve some of the things that it has not yet achieved and surpass those goals within five years.
We think that the per capita net rate of development of 2.5 percent is very low; we aspire to a rate of at least 10 percent. We had done some calculations—which Mr. Dillon did not like, either—and they showed that, if all the countries of Latin American had a growth rate of 2.5 percent and, based on it, tried to reach the standard of living the United States has now, it would take us 100 years to do so. And, if we tried to reach the standard of living the United States would have by then—because it would be growing, too, even though slowly—it would take us 500 years to do so. So, the “tremendous Alliance for Progress” means that only several generations later will our descendants be able to consider themselves to be on a par with the United States. What our peoples want is a growth rate that will free them from poverty now, not think about how to go about it and keep getting put off, which is the plan of the United States.
The health plan is very limited, too, and it even makes some specifications we consider negative. It says that 70 percent of the houses will have water within 10 years. In other words, it is explicitly condemning 30 percent of the houses in Latin America’s urban areas not to have running water or sewerage services, etc. In the countryside, 50 percent of the houses will not have these services.
The plan for housing construction was not approved. The only country that presented a draft in this regard was Cuba, supported by Brazil. The United States objected to it, however, and, in the end, the Cuban motion was rejected. Thus, the Alliance for Progress contains no specific plan for providing houses for the people. We had done some calculations which showed that it would cost around 2 billion pesos a year just to meet the housing deficit that will be created in the coming years. So the Alliance for Progress funds would be completely used just to fulfill the housing need.
The conference’s housing plan began with a very wordy invocation; it spoke of a decade of vigorous democratic growth and of the achievements that the peoples would attain within the system of “representative democracy.” It said that Latin America had been and was an example of freedom for all the peoples, and so on. And then it said that 70 percent of the houses in the urban areas and 50 percent of the ones in the countryside would have water and that we would equal the development of the United States in around 500 years, or attain its present development in 100 years. It said all this, but, naturally, in such a way that those who do not understand a few of these things—which is normal among the people—would not see it.
Moreover, the only document that was presented—apart from Cuba’s— was one that does not contain any figures. Thus, everything was reduced to formulations such as:
To promote, within the specific characteristics of each country, programs of integral agrarian reform aimed at the effective transformation, where this is required, of the structures to a fair system of land ownership and exploitation, with a view to replacing the system of large and small landholdings with a fair system of ownership.
This is nothing more than an empty exhortation because “within the specific characteristics of each country and where this is required” means that nobody will carry out an agrarian reform.
It says that the countries should “develop programs of health and hygiene, with a view to preventing disease, fighting against epidem
ics and, in short, defending the human potential.” This means nothing concrete. If anything, what this reference to “human potential” means is that the work force needed by the monopolies, in order to have people work for them, has to be defended.
It continues:
To ensure that the workers receive fair remuneration and adequate working conditions; to establish efficient systems of worker-employer relations and procedures of consultation and cooperation between the authorities of the employers’ associations and the workers’ organizations, to promote socioeconomic development; to put an end to illiteracy—this is the only concrete thing—extend, in the shortest possible time, the benefits of elementary or primary education to all Latin Americans; and vastly expand the opportunities of secondary, technical and higher education.
In other words, it is a very broad plan, with a lot of very pretty words, but it does not force anybody to do anything and does not explain anything. This is what the Latin American peoples will realize is the result of two weeks’ deliberations at Punta del Este.
There is only one phrase in this last document that may commit the United States. It continues as follows:
The United States, for its part, pledges to offer its financial and technical cooperation to achieve the goals of the Alliance for Progress.
For that purpose, it will provide most of the financing of at least US$20 billion, mainly in public funds, that Latin America needs from all external sources during the next decade to complement its own efforts.
In other words, it pledges to provide most of the financing—at least US$20 billion—but Congress probably will not appropriate the money; or, if it does agree to the loans, they will never arrive.
And then it says,
In the 12 months from March 13, 1961, date of the first declaration of the Alliance for Progress, the United States will provide over a billion dollars in public funds to contribute immediately to Latin America’s economic and social progress.
The United States intends that the loans for development will be long-term, and, when appropriate, they will be extended for up to 50 years, at a generally low rate of interest or without interest, as the case may be.
So the vagueness continues. This is the net result, my view of the pros and cons of the CIES conference. The balance sheet was positive for Cuba, but negative in the economic sphere because the United States once again pulled the wool over the peoples’ eyes and, with the help of the corrupt press of all the countries, has made the people in some places believe that this Alliance offers some hope.
In general, in private talks, the delegates expressed the opinion that this was just one more meeting like so many others, and many of them were very philosophical about it.
As I said, they went to play roulette at the casino and go to parties; sometimes the chairs were empty, because all the members of a delegation had left and had no interest in the outcomes, because they knew that the results were more or less pre-determined and that the small countries with puppet governments could do nothing to change those results. So they adopted a more practical approach and sometimes did not even attend.
I think that I’ve talked enough, and the journalists should have a chance.
Moderator: Compañero Honorio Muñoz, would you like to ask the first question?
Journalist: Yes. Commander Guevara, even though the Cuban delegation’s viewpoints and achievements at the Punta del Este conference were publicized in Cuba and you have just given us a clear and exhaustive critical appraisal of the conference, I believe that some points of Cuba’s position, of its political focus, should be further clarified.
For example, in the conference you said, “The ‘Alliance for Progress’ is conceived within the imperialist framework, in order to save it.” Why do you think this?
Che Guevara: This is an important point. Naturally, the United States has changed its system—but only formally, because the imperialist system cannot really change. What has changed is its system of relations with the Latin American countries. It has become aware of one fundamental thing, which is that the colonial system, even when it is the economic colonialism from which the Latin American peoples suffer, is in such a process of disintegration that it cannot last. The vestiges of feudalism have to disintegrate quickly.
The United States has drawn up a plan for ending the feudal relations of production—above all, in the countryside, where most of the Latin American countries have fundamental problems—and for carrying out a kind of agrarian reform. As it says, it will put an end to large and small landholdings—in other words, it will support the creation of medium-sized, mechanized landholdings, using agricultural workers instead of small peasants. This will promote greater productivity, which will make it possible to dump large quantities of products on the market, wipe out the parasitical feudal class and create a new class—no, probably not a new class, but a particular kind of bourgeoisie, linked to imports in each Latin American country, which will establish relations with the US monopolies and create mixed companies.
Those mixed companies will function under the system established in each country, except for their profits, which will be under the free exchange system and can be exported to the United States. Thus, everything that is volatile, such as the direct intervention of foreign capital in a country’s economy, will be hidden. As happened here in Cuba, they will be called the “Cuban Electric Company,” the “Colombian Telephone Company,” the “Peruvian Iron Company,” etc., and they will have an administrator in the host country, the country where the raw material is, but the capital and financial control will be in US hands.
So, as I have already said, the United States will develop the country’s production, do away with feudalism, create this new class and then initiate a stage of capitalist development in all of those countries—development that will, however, be distorted because the capital invested will not be independent. It will be the capital of the national bourgeoisie which has some conflict of interest with the monopolies, but is, nevertheless, tied to monopoly capital. It will therefore continue to contribute to the country’s colonization, alleviate a little pressure and, naturally, provide a modest boost, along with the short-term investment measures in the economies of the most backward countries, where the danger of a social explosion is most evident.
This is happening, for example—and this is no secret—in Haiti, the Dominican Republic, nearly all the Central American and the Andean countries, where there is still large-scale feudalism. Estates are still sold in Peru “with all their workers.” In other words, the workers are considered to be a part of the estate’s value. Thus, a lot of work can still be done within the capitalist system to put an end to the most backward relations of production and still keep them within the imperialist system.
Moreover, all the manual labor that still exists in those countries can be eliminated. This is not a new experience. It was first employed by Britain, in its colonization of India, many years ago, when the introduction of English capital wiped out the feudal relations of production in many regions— eliminated the feudal relations of production so that India would become a great exporter of raw materials to Britain.
The United States is trying to perfect the English system and turn Latin America into an efficient producer of raw materials for the United States, doing away with the points of greatest conflict in the relations of production, such as—in nearly all of the countries—the relations between the small peasants and the feudal lords.
I do not know if I’ve explained this clearly.
Moderator: Compañero Ithiel León.
Journalist: Commander Guevara, I would like you to expand a little on the previous question, because it has been said that, all things considered, the Alliance for Progress will bring about greater unemployment, a drop in wages and inflation in the countries in which it operates.
Che Guevara: Well, it is not exactly the Alliance for Progress but the process that will bring about that outcome. I described this as the process th
at Latin America would follow—and that it will follow in any case, with or without the Alliance for Progress.
To be precise, I said that the Alliance for Progress was not going to result in any significant amount of capital for Latin America and that, even if it were to do so, the capital would be provided with conditions set by imperialism, and the investments would be channeled toward those places where monopoly capital wanted it to go.
In other words, to all the extracting companies in Latin America that are going to produce minerals—strategic raw materials for the United States— the producers of raw materials are also going to produce other raw materials (for example, agricultural ones) that are important for the United States.
If investments are made under the Alliance for Progress, all they will do is bring about a minor upsurge in business, and that upsurge will only mean greater profits for those companies, which will re-export them to the United States, and then we will be back at square one, right? But the process continues; the increase in production when there is no real increase in markets—the capitalist market is not in a stage of expansion right now— means that there is more pressure weighing on trade and the producers are forced to increase productivity in order to lower the cost of the product.
An increase in productivity in the capitalist system automatically means unemployment. Unemployment, when there are no alternative jobs, means a lowering of real wages. Moreover, as in the struggles that ensue when several countries produce the same raw material, there is an effective decrease in the amount of money received, which also means a shortage of imports, and the shortage of imports results in higher prices—an increase in the cost of living. All together, the increase in the cost of living, unemployment, and the lowering of real wages caused by the number of people who are unemployed creates hunger and a chain of bankruptcies and losses because of the decrease in the market—all those people who have stopped consuming. And, naturally, this brings about a drop in the amount of taxes collected, an imbalance between the amount of taxes the governments receive and their liabilities, which gives rise to inflation and leads to the total deterioration of the economy.