After thoroughly carrying out the formalities
required by this important activity, he addressed the official state
authorities, members of parliament from all parties, and supporters and
opposition members who had come to the Assembly to participate in the
country’s most solemn act.
As usual, the Bolivarian leader was gracious and respectful to all
those present.
When anyone asked for the floor to make a clarification,
he granted it as soon as possible. When one of the members of
parliament, who had warmly greeted Chávez as did other opposition
members, asked to speak, in a great political gesture Chávez interrupted
his report presentation and gave her the floor.
What surprised me was
the extreme severity of the rebuke, launched against the president with
words that really put to test Chávez’ chivalry and cold blood. The MPs
statement was undoubtedly an insult, although this was not her
intention. He alone was capable of calmly responding to the offensive
word ‘thief’ that she had used to judge the president’s conduct in terms
of the adopted laws and measures.
After verifying the exact term that was used, Chávez responded to the
individual challenge for debate with an elegant and sedated phrase, “An
eagle does not hunt flies,” and without adding another word he calmly
proceeded with his report.
It represented an insurmountable test of mental agility and self
control. Another woman, of unquestionable humble origins, expressed her
astonishment in moving and heartfelt words over what she had just
witnessed and the overwhelming majority present broke out in applause.
Judging by the sheer volume, the applause seemed to be coming from all
of Chávez’ friends and many of his adversaries as well.
Chávez’ report lasted more than nine hours without the people ever
losing interest. Maybe because of that incident, his words were heard by
an immeasurable number of people. Many times I have given extensive
speeches on difficult topics, always striving to make the ideas I was
transmitting understandable. And I was really at a loss to explain how
that soldier of humble origins was able to keep his mind so agile and
his incomparable talent to deliver such an address without losing his
voice or strength.
To me politics is an extensive and decisive battle of ideas.
Publicity is the work of publicists, who perhaps know the techniques to
get listeners, spectators and readers to do what they are told to do. If
that science, or art, or whatever they call it is employed for the good
of human beings, they deserve some respect; the same respect merited by
those who teach people how to think.
Venezuela today is the site of a great battle. Internal and external
enemies of the revolution prefer chaos—as Chávez has said—to the just,
organized and peaceful development of the country. Being accustomed to
analyzing the events that have occurred over more than half a century,
and to observing, with greater foundations for judgment, the eventful
history of our time and human behavior, one learns to almost predict the
future development of events.
To promote a far-reaching Revolution in Venezuela was no easy task.
Venezuela is a country full of glorious history, but extraordinarily
rich in resources that are of vital importance to the imperialist powers
that have, and continue to map out guidelines in the world.
Political leaders the likes of Romulo Betancourt and Carlos Andres
Perez lack the most minimal personal qualities to carry out such a task.
Furthermore, Betancourt was excessively vain and hypocritical. He had
many opportunities to learn about the situation in Venezuela. As a young
man he was a member of the Politburo of the Communist Party of Costa
Rica. He had a strong grasp of Latin American history and the role of
imperialism, of poverty rates, and the ruthless plundering of natural
resources in South America. He could not ignore that in a vastly rich
country such as Venezuela, the majority of the people lived in extreme
poverty. The archival footage is irrefutable proof of that reality of
life.
As Chávez has explained many times, for more than half a century
Venezuela was the world’s major oil exporter. At the beginning of the
20th century, European and Yankee warships intervened to support an
illegal and tyrannical government that handed the country over to
foreign monopolies. It is well known that incalculable funds flowed out
of Venezuela to swell the wealth of monopolies and the Venezuelan
oligarchy.
I remember when I visited Venezuela for the first time—after the
triumph of the Revolution, to give thanks for the support and
friendliness afforded to our struggle—, oil was worth barely two dollars
a barrel.
Afterwards when I went to Venezuela to take part in the swearing-in
ceremony for Chávez, the day he took an oath on the “dying constitution”
held by Calderas, oil was worth seven dollars a barrel, despite 40
years having passed since my first visit and almost 30 years since the
“distinguished” Richard Nixon had cancelled the direct convertibility of
the United States dollar to gold and the US began to buy the world with
pieces of paper. For a century, Venezuela was a supplier of cheap fuel
to the empire’s economy and a net exporter of capital to developed and
rich countries.
Why did these repugnant situations dominate for more than a century?
Latin American Armed Forces’ officials went to their privileged
schools in the United States, where the Olympic champions of democracies
gave them special courses on maintaining imperialist and bourgeois
order. Coups d’état were always welcomed if their objective was to
“defend democracies,” safeguarding and guaranteeing this repugnant
system, in league with the oligarchies. Whether voters knew how to read
and write, whether they had homes, employment, medical services and
education were unimportant as long as the sacred right to property was
maintained. Chávez brilliantly explains this situation. No one knows as
well as him what happened in our countries.
Even worse was that the sophisticated nature of weapons, the complex
workings and use of modern armaments that require years of learning, the
training of highly qualified specialists, and the almost prohibitive
cost of such weapons for the weak economies of the continent created a
very strong mechanism of subordination and dependence. The US
Government, employing mechanisms that did not require prior consultation
with the other governments, set guidelines and policies for the
military. The most sophisticated techniques of torture were passed on to
the so-called security agencies to interrogate those who rebelled
against the dirty and repugnant system of hunger and exploitation.
Despite all this, many honest officials, tired of so many
indignations, bravely attempted to eradicate that embarrassing treason
against the history of our independence struggles.
In Argentina, military official Juan Domingo Peron was able to design
an independent and worker-based policy in his country. A bloody
military coup overthrew him, expelled him from his country, and kept him
in exile from 1955 to 1973. Years later, under the aegis of the
Yankees, they once again attacked the government, murdering, torturing
and disappearing tens of thousands of Argentines. They were not even
able to defend the country during the colonial war that England carried
out against Argentina with the conspiratorial support of the United
States and henchman Augusto Pinochet with his cohort of fascists
officers trained at the School of the Americas.
In Santo Domingo, Colonel Francisco Caamaño Deño; in Peru, General
Velazco Alvarado; in Panama, General Omar Torrijos; and in other
countries captains and officers who gave their lives anonymously were
the antithesis of the traitorous behavior embodied by Somoza, Trujillo,
Stroessner and the cruel tyrannies in Uruguay, El Salvador and other
countries in Central and South America. The revolutionary military
personnel did not expound elaborate theories, nor was this to be
expected. They were not academicians educated in political science, but
rather men with a sense of honor who loved their country.
But how far can honest men—who deplore injustice and crime—go along the path of revolution?
Venezuela is an outstanding example of the theoretical and practical
role that the military can play in the revolutionary struggle for the
independence of our peoples, as they did two centuries ago under the
brilliant leadership of Simon Bolivar.
Chávez, a Venezuelan military officer of humble origins, stepped into
the political life of Venezuela inspired by the ideas of the Liberator
of America. On Bolivar, an inexhaustible source of inspiration, Marti
wrote: “he won sublime battles with soldiers barefoot and half naked
[...] who never fought so much, nor fought better, in the world for
freedom …”
“… Of Bolivar, he said, you can talk only after climbing up a
mountain to use it as a platform [...] or after freeing a bunch of
peoples united in one fist …”
“… what he did not do, still remains undone today, because Bolivar still has things to do in the Americas.”
More than half a century later the famous, award-winning poet Pablo
Neruda wrote a poem on Bolivar which Chávez frequently quotes. The final
stanza reads:
“I met Bolivar one long morning, in Madrid, at the head of the Fifth
Regiment, Father, I said, you are or not or who you are? And looking at
the Mountain Headquarters, he said:
‘I wake up every hundred years when the people awaken.’ ”
But the Bolivarian leader is not limited to theoretical elaborations.
His concrete measures are implemented without hesitation. The
English-speaking Caribbean countries, which have to contend with modern
and luxurious Yankee cruise ships for the right to receive tourists in
their hotels, restaurants and recreation centers, quite often
foreign-owned, but at least they generate employment, will always
welcome fuel from Venezuela, supplied by that country with special
payment facilities, when the barrel reached prices that sometimes
exceeded US $100.
In the tiny state of Nicaragua, the land of Sandino, the “General of
Free Men”, the Central Intelligence Agency organized the exchange of
guns for drugs through Luis Posada Carriles after he was rescued from a
Venezuelan prison. This operation resulted in thousands of deaths and
mutilations among that heroic people. Nicaragua has also received the
solidarity support of Venezuela. These are unprecedented examples in the
history of this hemisphere.
The ruinous Free Trade Agreement that the Yankees intend to impose on
Latin America, as they did with Mexico, would turn Latin America and
the Caribbean not only into the region with the world’s worst
distribution of wealth, which already is. It will turn it into a huge
market where corn and other staple foods that are traditional sources of
plant and animal protein would be displaced by subsidized U.S. crops,
as is already happening in Mexico.
Used cars and other goods are displacing Mexican industry
manufactures; job opportunities are decreasing in both cities and the
countryside; the drug and arms trades are escalating, growing numbers of
youngsters aged 14 or 15 years are turned into fearsome criminals.
Never before, buses or other vehicles full of people who even paid to be
transported across the border in search of employment, have been
kidnapped and mass murdered. Known figures grow from year to year. More
than ten thousand people are now losing their lives each year.
It is impossible to analyze the Bolivarian Revolution without taking these realities into account.
The armed forces, in such social circumstances, are forced into endless and wearisome wars.
Honduras is not an industrialized, financial or commercial country,
or even a major producer of drugs. However, some of its cities break the
record of drug-related violent deaths. There instead stands the banner
of a major base of the strategic forces of the United States Southern
Command. What is happening there, and is already happening in more than
one Latin American country, is the Dantesque picture painted above, from
which some countries have begun to escape. Among them and first,
Venezuela, not just because it has considerable natural resources, but
because it has been rescued from the insatiable greed of foreign
corporations and has sparked considerable political and social forces
capable of great achievements. Venezuela today is quite another from
that I went to only 12 years ago, which had already deeply impressed me,
seeing it as a Phoenix rising again from the ashes of its history.
Mentioning the mysterious computer of Raul Reyes, in the hands of the
U.S. and the CIA after the attack organized and supplied by them in
full Ecuadorian territory, which killed Marulanda’s replacement as well
as several unarmed American youths, a version has been released that
Chávez supported the “narco-terrorist organization FARC.” The true
terrorists and drug traffickers in Colombia are the paramilitaries that
supplied drugs to American dealers to sell them in the largest drug
market in the world: the United States.
I never spoke with Marulanda, but I did speak with honored writers
and intellectuals who came to know him well. I discussed his thoughts
and history. He was undoubtedly a brave and revolutionary man, which I
do not hesitate to affirm. I explained that I did not agree with him on
his tactics. In my view, two or three thousand men would have been more
than enough to defeat a conventional army in the territory of Colombia.
His mistake was to devise a revolutionary army with almost as many
soldiers as the enemy. That was extremely expensive.
Today, technology has changed many aspects of war; the forms of
struggle also change. In fact, the clash of conventional forces between
powers possessing nuclear weapons has become impossible. We do not have
to have the knowledge of Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking and thousands
of other scientists to understand that. It is a latent danger and the
result is known or should be known. Thinking beings could take millions
of years to repopulate the planet.
Nevertheless, I hold the duty to fight, which in itself is something
innate in man, to find solutions that will enable a more reasoned and
dignified existence.
Since I met Chávez, now as president of Venezuela, from the final
stages of the Pastrana administration, I always saw him interested in
promoting peace in Colombia. He facilitated meetings between the
Colombian government and the revolutionaries that took place in Cuba,
note well, on the basis of reaching a true peace agreement and not a
surrender.
I do not recall ever having heard Chávez promote anything but peace
in Colombia, nor mention Raul Reyes. We always addressed other issues.
He particularly appreciates the Colombians, millions of them live in
Venezuela and everyone benefits from the social measures taken by the
Revolution, and the people of Colombia appreciate that almost as much as
those of Venezuela.
I wish to express my solidarity and appreciation to General Henry
Rangel Silva, Head of Strategic Operational Command of the Armed Forces,
and newly appointed Minister of Defense of the Bolivarian Republic. I
had the honor of meeting him when he visited Chávez in Cuba a few months
ago. I could see in him an intelligent, well-meant, capable, and yet
modest man. I heard his calm, brave and clear speech, which inspired
confidence.
He led the organization of the most perfect parade of a Latin
American military force that I have ever seen. We hope it will serve as
encouragement and example to other brother armies.
The Yankees had nothing to do with that parade, and would not be able to do better.
It is extremely unfair to criticize Chávez for the resources invested
in the excellent weapons which were displayed there. I’m sure they will
never be used to attack a neighboring country. The weapons, resources
and knowledge must go along the paths of unity to see America, as The
Liberator dreamed, ”… the greatest nation in the world, greatest not so
much by virtue of her area and wealth as by her freedom and glory..”
Everything unites us more than Europe or the United States itself, except the lack of independence imposed on us for 200 years.

Fidel Castro Ruz
January 25, 2012
8:32 p.m.