The
only information of interest to us from the United States is on the acts of terrorism
against Cuba, organized and financed there
• A premonition, and an
extremely clear policy explained in advance
Two years and eight months before the events
currently under study with regard to the monstrous injustice committed against five Cuban
patriots, Fidel, during an October 19, 1998 interview with CNN in Portugal, clearly and
precisely explained Cuba’s position on our country’s right to defend itself from
terrorist acts against our people organized and financed from the United States, as well
as the objectives of these patriots who risked their lives to obtain and transmit
information on these criminal acts perpetrated with the tolerance and complicity of the
U.S. authorities.
Lucia Newman (CNN): Mr. President, as
you know, a short time ago, 10 Cuban-Americans, people of Cuban origin, were arrested in
Florida on charges of spying for your government. What can you tell me about that?
Fidel Castro: The first thing that
attracted my attention – and so we denounced at the United Nations – was how
amazing it was that the country that does the most spying in the world was making spying
charges against the most spied-on country in the world.
The United States not only has a countless
number of spies and CIA people devoted full time to that activity and to subversion in its
Interests Section in Cuba – something we know perfectly well – but it also
maintains relations with counterrevolutionary elements and small groups with which it
cooperates and from which it receives information. It has a whole espionage system apart
from the fact that its satellites are capable of spying a cat on the roof of any house in
the City of Havana or any building; technical espionage on a colossal scale by means of
satellites, radio and every means, intercepting communications and looking for
information. It intercepts all Cuban calls. I cannot have a telephone conversation with a
Latin American leader or a politician abroad that is not intercepted by the United States.
We are subjected to total and ferocious espionage.
So, what I do not understand very well is
why they have unleashed this scandal. I think that it is connected in some way with
certain events.
I believe that the United States authorities
have not really played fairly because in view of all the acts of terrorism carried out by
Central American mercenaries, organized and funded from within the United States, certain
exchanges of information have taken place between American and Cuban authorities and,
really, I am not very sure that the best use has been made of such exchanges about things
that we know and that they should know we know through many different ways.
We uphold the thesis that the hiring of
mercenaries and the terrorist programs are devised, organized and financed from the United
States by the Cuban American National Foundation. There is evidence of that, and one piece
of evidence is that which has given rise to the famous trial in Puerto Rico where, by the
way, the main culprit is not being tried – and that is none other than José
Hernández, the Foundation chairman, who organized the assassination attempt on the island
of Margarita and who is the owner of one of the two .50-caliber semiautomatic rifles with
infrared rays and a telescopic sight. They know that but he has not been brought to trial.
Yes, others from the Foundation are being tried. But, it attracts our attention that the
leader has not been brought to trial. It is very strange that the reaction to the
information that we gave the U.S. side was a kind of witch-hunt, the mounting of a big
scandal around the issue of the people arrested in Miami.
Information comes to us through different
channels. We receive information because there are many friends of Cuba in the United
States. There are Americans who are friends of Cuba, there are people from Latin American
countries who live in the United States who are friends of the Revolution, who oppose
terrorism, who oppose all those things. There are people who spontaneously – because
Cuba has never obtained information in exchange for money nor has it had paid informants
or anything of the sort – in an absolutely spontaneous way have cooperated with our
country and have given information to Cuba. There are people, among those who have left
the country in different ways, generally the legal ways, who have traveled to the United
States. I openly admit that.
But, what is of interest to us in the United
States? What information in the United States is of interest to us? Just information on
terrorist activities against Cuba; information on plans for sabotage, many of which have
been carried out; the introduction of explosives, of weapons from the United States, on
which we have plenty of evidence; the introduction of viruses and bacteria from the United
States, in other words, bacteriological warfare; and, very much in particular, serious
acts of terrorism organized in the United States against our country.
Yes, we have sometimes sent Cuban citizens
who have infiltrated counter-revolutionary organizations in order to report back on
activities that would harm our homeland and I think we have the right to do that as long
as the United States tolerates the organization there of sabotage, armed raids, the
machine-gunning of tourist facilities, the introduction of weapons, explosives and, above
all, brutal terrorist attacks.
Yes, Cubans have sometimes gone there but to
seek exclusively the information we are interested in. I think that the bad faith here
lies in the attempt to present the problem as a search for information on the armed forces
and on the activities of the United States army. That is the perfidious intention behind
this. That is the trap they have wanted to set concerning this issue.
To begin with, I can tell you that are not
at war nor do we feel any animosity toward the U.S. armed forces. On the contrary, there
have been some contacts. At the time of the migration accords, contacts and exchanges took
place there at the (Guantánamo) base with different officers, respectful and public
contacts, in front of the press, the television and other media. And these are even
maintained. When there has been a problem, when something has come up, those contacts have
been made.
Some prestigious retired U.S. military
officers have visited Cuba more than once, legally, with authorization. They have met the
leaders of our armed forces. In our country, they have visited the academies. They have
also visited military facilities. They have been accorded excellent treatment and we have
come to know each other better which I think is useful, positive, constructive since it
can turn down prejudices.
Some of those retired military have taken a
brave stand and even voiced criticism of the blockade against Cuba. Above all, they have
clearly stated that Cuba poses no threat whatsoever to the United States or the security
of the United States. They know that very well. That is such a ridiculous story that
nobody can believe.
There is more about this: the Pentagon was
asked to do an analysis on the matter and it produced quite an objective report. There was
an immediate reaction and the report was held back; attempts were made to change the
Pentagon's report for purely political reasons. There was a scandal. They were already
accusing the Pentagon of lying about Cuba, of hiding reality, to the extent that several
weeks passed before they released the report to the public. I do not know if any changes
were made or not, but we did read what was published about the introduction to the report
interpreting it, distorting it, sowing confusion. In other words, for political reasons,
they tried to undermine the report and reduce its objectivity.
It is worth saying here that we are not
interested in any information on strategic matters of the United States, nor are we
interested in any report on its military forces. We are not at all interested in that
because that is of no practical use to us. Why would we want to know, for example, where
the United States' strategic missiles are located, whatever installations it has, what
protection, what orders, what deployment systems, what operational conceptions? What we
know of that is whatever is published and a lot can be learned from what is published
about military thinking, about ideas, about the strategy of projects to develop new
weapons. We are not a big power, nor are we a nuclear power or a naval power or an air
power. We know only how we should defend ourselves in any circumstance opposite the
overwhelming technology of our main adversary.
But I will tell you this. Movements in
military facilities very close to our country might interest us, for example, the
Guantánamo base. But you do not need to have any spies in the Guantánamo base since it
has even become a tourist site. There is an observation post from where everything can be
seen through a telescope. We watch them and they watch us.
We do not have satellites in the United
States and if anything might interest us with regard to any United States facility near
Cuba, that would be the troop movements that might precede an act of aggression against
Cuba. We are aware that, at the moment, that is not the government's main line, that its
main line is to cause attrition, through the Torricelli Act, the Helms-Burton Act, the
economic war, the squeezing of the economy, subversion by any possible means. That is
where their main hopes rest without ruling out, at a given time, the use of the armed
forces. But movements of troops and important units can be determined perfectly well by
radio-electronic means. There is no need for satellites, there is no need for spies or for
investing time in that or anything like it. That is our policy.
There were other times – times of an
intense cold war, times of unceasing threats – when some military information about
the United States could be of interest to us. There was even a nuclear missile crisis,
remember that. We could be interested in how many troops were gathering in Florida for the
invasion and how many ships, the location of the main units that would be used against our
country by sea and by air according to the doctrine and tactics that were well-known and
made public by the United States armed forces.
The basic source of our information on any
movements of troops that might threaten our country – and this is not related with
the truly strategic bases – is the movement of some troops that might pose a danger.
But we do not need to send spies to any U.S. military base for that. There might be people
who have information and spontaneously pass it on; that is possible. Cuba, I repeat, has
never paid for any information. All the information that we have received has always been
from people acting spontaneously and voluntarily.
That is the essence. That is the policy we
have pursued. I categorically reject – and I have already explained the reasons to
you – the accusation that we have tried to look for information on the United States
armed forces.
It seems to me that is a reaction to the
Pentagon report. And the Pentagon itself has not attach too much importance to the
denunciation. They have said that they do not see any danger in that. Also, those
accusations they have made are ridiculous, really. They are talking about sentences and
about getting people, the judges, to agree and we know absolutely nothing about what has
happened with respect to the people kept in custody.
We have friends in the United States, lots
of them. In this case, a number of people are being accused and, if we had any information
on any of them it would not be right for us to make it known publicly because it would be
tantamount to denouncing any of those people.
If we knew something, we would say
absolutely nothing, whether they are innocent or have some responsibility because, really,
if such a existed somebody must have organized it.
I have received news that we have tried to
obtain through different channels, even public, and what they say is praise of their
private life, their austerity, their honesty. The neighbors stated that they had excellent
impressions of several of those people. So, I repeat: if we knew something, it would be
disloyal to report it. If anything exists, let those accusing them prove it. They can not
count on any cooperation from us for that.
And I will tell you something else: if any
of the people in that ring has acted to try to obtain information for Cuba, the
information that we are essentially interested in, the only information of interest to us,
information on the acts of terrorism organized in the United States against Cuba, we will
support them whatever they say and whatever they do. You know that, after they fall in the
hands of the prosecutors and the powerful judicial apparatus, by means of all kinds of
tricks, promises and pressures, they can be made to declare anything. You know how
powerful and strong those mechanisms are.
The Monica Lewinsky case is proof of that.
There is no doubt that Monica was subjected to pressure. You do not have to be a
fortune-teller to understand people's personalities. The trick used by Linda Tripp is
well-known: the recording of telephone calls, the indiscretions of the other woman about
issues that, of course, we are not interested and do not meddle with.
We have never launched personal attacks on
any United States leader. We have followed everything reported, just like the everyone
else. But months before, when it was announced that they had found two of the best lawyers
for the other woman whose basic strategy has always consisted of coming to an agreement
with the prosecution, I realized that a scheme was being devised and that the chain was
going to break at the weakest link.
I do not have the slightest doubt that they
made this young woman believe that if she had lied to the jury she deserved a sentence of
many years, because lying under oath is considered one of the most serious misdemeanors in
the United States.
If they had been able to gather some data
against her during their investigation, she was undoubtedly the weakest link, against
which they launched a strong attack, and there are many ways of threatening a person,
making her see the seriousness of what could happen to her. She is really a young woman
with an obviously weak character and they were promising her immunity, all those means
that are used to achieve the goals that they achieved in the end.
It is a widely used method in the United
States judicial system to arrest people, offer them certain guarantees and privileges if
they inform on others or if they tell what is true and even if they tell lies. We do not
know what words they can put in the mouths of those people if they have any
responsibility.
But, if they are people of good faith –
and without this involving any treason but rather a service to their country – who
can save human lives because they oppose criminal acts, acts of terrorism that might be
carried out against other nations, it will never be treason to their country of origin or
of residence. No such description can be used by the United States which calls itself the
enemy of terrorism; a country that drops bombs right and left without even checking the
responsibility that might exist or whether that factory is really a factory for the
production of chemical products or ingredients, because that has not been demonstrated and
there are increasing indications that it was not; a country that carries out an
international campaign against such acts and which is highly vulnerable to its own
terrorists. I understand it to be quite correct that it makes the greatest efforts to try
to prevent it.
On the basis of experiences like the
hijacking of planes which was devised against Cuba and later turned against them, because
there are crazy, deranged, unbalanced people, fanatics in the world capable of doing such
things. They hijacked many planes with a bottle of water, saying that it was gasoline.
But, since a pilot quite correctly has to watch over the passengers' safety, he cannot
start guessing or checking whether it is water or gasoline. Sometimes, it might be water
and, one time out of ten, it might be gasoline and there might be a catastrophe. People
who oppose that, who denounce that, who disagree with that are, in my opinion, honorable
people. And I am sure that the United States would never use the word traitor to describe
any citizen of any country who supplied information on acts of terrorism designed against
the United States or against United States embassies or that could claim the lives of U.S.
citizens. The United States would never call them traitors! Why describe as a traitor any
person supplying information to the country that may be the target of those acts of
terrorism?
I want to make it clear, since you asked me,
and to reiterate: we are not in the least interested in the strategic matters of the
United States armed forces. It would even be ridiculous. It would be of no use. We do not
feel any animosity. We even admit that they have taken some steps lately, such as the
honest, objective report they issued. Some have visited our country. They do not have any
command now, they do not hold any office. We have even given them information on courses
and our facilities that cannot be obtained through espionage. We have been quite open
about that. It does not do us any harm at all, based on the large amount of information
they have via loads of channels. They have also visited some of our facilities, on other
occasions. And some of them, military people I mean, visit our country like many other
people do.
Even McNamara has been to Cuba to discuss
issues related to the Missile Crisis, and he was none other than the Pentagon chief at the
time of that crisis, the one who led the blockade, led the troops, led the missiles that
were aimed at our country and who discussed what measures to take. Time passes and so we
have met people like him.
Essentially, the only information from the
United States that we are interested in is that concerning terrorist activities organized
and financed there against Cuba. We are not in the least interested in military
information about the United States. Any information that we might be interested in,
associated with movements of units near our country, at a given moment, is obtained
electronically. It is now impossible to move a company, a battalion, a brigade, the
necessary forces, those that would be needed to attack our country without us quickly
knowing what cannot be learned by spying. That is much less risky and much more
economical. This is what I tell you in all honesty. |
--You
can’t trust the FBI
June
22, 2001
A group of U.S.
senators recently requested an independent investigation into
the FBI, as they believe the organization can no longer be
trusted.
--Accused of spying for defending their
country from the Miami mafia’s terrorism
June
21, 2001
THE first of a series of roundtable
broadcasts, presenting information on the case of the five Cubans held prisoner and
unjustly charged with spying in the United States, made clear the reasons justifying those
young men’s behavior.
--René
Gonzalez’s father was separated from his son for 11 years
June
29, 2001
ON the telephone he would assure his father:
"I’m fine, old man, no problems." On the island they would doubt him and
say: "he’s having us on..."
|
