THE HOMELAND BELONGS TO US ALL
Cuban Dissidence Task Group
Havana City, June 27, 1997
INTRODUCTION
I – HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION
II- IN THE NAME OF UNITY
III- THE MAIN OBJECTIVE
IV – THE PLAN FOR SOLVING THE CRISIS
V – CONCLUSIONS
VI – RECOMMENDATIONS
Authors: Felix Antonio Bonne Carcasses, Rene Gomez Manzano, Vladimiro Roca Antunez, Martha Beatriz Roque Cabello
Translated for CubaNet by Jose J. Valdes
INTRODUCTION
When you finish reading this document, you will be able to support us if we can agree on this initial assertion:
Man cannot live from history, which is the same as living from stories. There is a need for material goods and for satisfying his spirituality, as well as to be able to look to the future with expectations. But there is also a need for that openness that we all know as freedom.
The Cuban government ignores the word “opposition.” Those of us who do not share its political stance, or who just simply don’t support it, are considered enemies and any number of other scornful designations that it chooses to proclaim. Thus, they have also sought to give a new meaning to the word “Homeland” that is distortedly linked to Revolution, Socialism and Nation. They attempt to ignore the fact that “Homeland,” by definition, is the country in which one is born.
All of this aside, our Task Group has examined the Project Document prepared for the V Congress of the Cuban Communist Party, scheduled to be submitted for approval during this event. Because it is impossible for us to make public our viewpoints here [in Cuba] (given that the [Cuban] news media is in the hands of the state), we have decided to set them down in the hope that they will somehow be made known to Cubans inside and outside the island. By this mean we seek to defend our right to express our opinion, because we are convinced that THE HOMELAND BELONGS TO US ALL.
I – HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION
Of the 11,080 words that the document contains, grouped into 260 paragraphs, more than 80% are dedicated to interpreting history. They wish to convince those that read the document that:
-
- There has been only one revolution [in Cuba] since 1868; and
- The U.S. has tried to seize Cuba ever since the 19th century.
To try to strengthen these assertions, they invoke the name of [the father of Cuban independence, Jose] Marti.
Thereby they persist in the old and absurd argument that the existence of a single political party is based on Marti’s ideas, as only one party was founded by him. There is no known political leader that has created various political parties simultaneously. Nevertheless, many distinguished freedom fighters in their respective countries, once independence was achieved, have respected the multi-party system of government. Washington, Mahatma Ghandi and General DeGaulle were among them.
There is no reason to think that Marti, had he survived the War of Independence, would not have done the same given his very positive views on democracy. Point V of the Tenets of the Cuban Revolutionary Party (1892) states: “It is not the goal of the Cuban Revolutionary Party to bring to Cuba a victorious group that will consider the island as its prey and dominion. It is, instead, to prepare, by as many efficacious means as freedom in exile permits, the war which is to be fought for the honor and welfare of all Cubans, and to deliver to the whole country a free homeland.”
Following the war, no patriot argued for the need to have a single party. On the contrary, many actively participated in politics with different affiliations and all respected the multi-party system.
Even though they wish to portray the democratic republic as a series of interrupted failures and treasons, they have to contend with the socioeconomic achievements obtained between 1902 and 1958 which placed our country among the three most advanced nations of Latin America. In some areas, in fact, Cuba was ahead of even major Old World countries such as Spain and Italy. This undeniable reality speaks volumes for the industriousness of Cuban workers and the enterprising spirit of our businessmen— especially as all these true accomplishments took place following a major cataclysm (our glorious War of Independence) and in spite of the terrible socioeconomic crisis of the 1930s. In addition, there are the political successes, such as the revocation of the infamous Platt Amendment in 1934 which the political propaganda does not mention, though its imposition in 1901 is well-remembered.
This twisting of information is also present in the document. If the pre-1959 statistics are consulted, it can be seen that the illiteracy rate among the Cuban population at the time amounted to 16% and not 40% as proclaimed. The statistics are also manipulated when it is stated that 7% of the population voted in the elections at the turn of the century. This implies that the remaining 93% included non-voting women (51%), children, and the great number of foreigners that lived here, as is to be expected in a country that had recently ceased to be a colony.
Regarding the application of due process in the trials held for members of the Batista regime, Castroites have their own interpretation. But it must not be forgotten that—as the document recognizes—those principally implicated fled the country on January 1st, on which date the mass executions commenced. Those that were shot by the firing squads were arrested, accused, judged and executed in less than 24 hours. The rise to power of the current government was sealed by a vicious settling of accounts. The so-called “revolutionary trials” bore no relation whatsoever to due process nor to a true right to a defense. A notorious example was the trial of the pilots sentenced after having been absolved, an event which led to the suicide of Captain Felix Pena.
Every year, by an ever-growing number of votes, the General Assembly of the United Nations demands that the so-called [U.S.] “blockade” be ended. This statement is true, but what goes unsaid is that, with the same frequency, the Cuban government is sanctioned for its systematic violations of human rights.
The October [1962] “[Missile] Crisis” is mentioned, while omitting the fact that the Cuban leadership urged Moscow to deliver the first strike without waiting for the “Yankees” to take the initiative. This is acknowledged by history. A nuclear attack against the United States would have meant a terrible catastrophe for all humanity, but, undoubtedly, Cuba would have been swept from the map. That solution to the crisis was offered by the same party members that are now worried—according to them—that their departure from power would mean the disappearance of Cuba as a nation.
But can we forget the autocratic way in which nuclear weapons and foreign troops were brought into the country? The people learned of the matter only after the problem arose.
As the document well states: “Everything began to change on July 26, 1953.” We should not fail to mention that—in effect—on that date, for the first time in many years, much Cuban blood was spilled. Up to that time, the deaths in the political struggle which occurred under the Batista government could be counted on the fingers of one hand. To find in Cuban history as mournful and fratricidal a day as this, we would have to go back to decades long past. Despite its being such a sad day, it has been made into a holiday and celebrated as such. This, we suppose, meets with the disapproval of even the fallen martyr’s own relatives.
These are but a few examples of the way in which the Communists have sought to INTERPRET HISTORY.
II – IN THE NAME OF UNITY
The party insists on unity but forgets that, for that unity to be valid and real (and not a mere parody), it is necessary for a consensus freely reached by the citizenry to emerge. The opposite would amount to a brutish imposition that would be a unity in name only. We the members of the opposition are here to show that in our country there is no consensus.
The text asserts that: “Only the unity of revolutionaries can lead to the unity of the people.” This argument, just like every other perspective on this matter, suffers from what is known in logic as “circular reasoning,” whereby that which is sought to be demonstrated is taken as a starting premise.
The party, declaring itself the representative of the people, prepared the document that warns the citizenry to participate in the meetings to support it. The people, subjected to the pressures of totalitarian power, attend [these meetings], and the fact is portrayed to the world as a plebiscite on Cuban society. This is declared the most evident and irrefutable proof that the party represents all of the people. It is precisely the same premise that was used as a starting point. Although there is talk of plebiscite, the people have felt what it is like to be trampled upo
