Cuba: Lifting the Veil… – Folha de S. Paulo, November 17, 1974

 

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

 

Some readers are eager to know whether Bishop Ivo Lorscheiter, the CNBB secretary-general, has responded to the reply I published in this newspaper exactly fifteen days ago.

I can inform you that His Excellency did not respond. As I had predicted, he remained cautious.

That said, let us move on to the topic of the day, the Quito Conference on the suspension of the blockade against Castro’s Cuba.

According to news agencies, the Conference opened amid widespread belief that the suspension would be approved, in an atmosphere of euphoria. However, about halfway through, the atmosphere shifted unexpectedly.

After Chile and Uruguay presented evidence of Fidel Castro’s interventionism, Haiti and Guatemala, which had decided to vote for suspension, announced they would abstain. At the same time, the abstentionist stance previously adopted by Brazil, the US, Bolivia, and Nicaragua took on a clearly pro-blockade tone. The pro-Castro motion put forward by Venezuela, Colombia, and Costa Rica was thus virtually defeated.

These are the essential facts. Around them, some comments can be added.

* * *

I would like to express the joy all Brazilians understandably felt at the important role Itamaraty played in the happy outcome of the case. The US’s sullen, enigmatic silence left the field open for Mr. Azeredo da Silveira to act in accordance with Itamaraty’s best traditions, ultimately resulting in a firm refusal to lift the blockade.

Nevertheless, the outlook at the Conference is not without shadows. First, the issue debated in Quito was already on the agenda of the Inter-American Conference in Lima in 1972. On that occasion, the margin between those voting against and those voting in favor of Fidel Castro was much greater: 13 to 7, respectively, with only three abstentions.

Furthermore, a prohibition was issued against any nation lifting the blockade on its own. Now, instead, nations that so desire are allowed to resume diplomatic or trade relations with the communist nation.

In short, at the Quito Conference, Cuba did not tear down the entire wall, but a large portion of it.

To further narrow the scope of the result obtained in the Ecuadorian capital, it should be noted that the Brazilian and Uruguayan foreign ministers stated that, at the March 1975 meeting in Buenos Aires or later, the issue may still be resolved differently. For now, it will enter a maturation phase, according to Mr. Azeredo da Silveira.

As can be seen, Cuba has made gains from various perspectives.

* * *

At this point, I will lift the veil a little.

Newspapers attributed the turnaround at the Quito Conference to the impact of the evidence Chile and Uruguay presented on the Castro regime’s interventionist nature. I doubt the objectivity of this account, as all Latin American nations have felt firsthand the Russian and Chinese subversion propagated through Cuba. It is not credible that the Chilean and Uruguayan statements brought them anything so new that it changed their orientation.

Nor could Mr. Azeredo da Silveira’s observation that the absence of Fidel Castro’s representatives in Quito made it impossible to obtain guarantees of his non-intervention have surprised any nation. This had been obvious since the beginning of the Conference.

In fact, it should be noted that Fidel Castro’s guarantees have no real value. As is well known, Castro’s Cuba is a Sino-Russian colony without any independent decision-making power. Only the presence in Quito of representatives directly accredited by Moscow and Beijing would have any real value… and even then!

Therefore, something else changed the course of the Conference for the better. What?

On the other hand, I wonder what this “maturation” of the issue, as advocated by Brazil and Uruguay, might entail. To start there: given that there is nothing immature about our attitude, maturation can only take place in Cuba, Moscow, or Beijing. What do the foreign ministries of Brazil and Uruguay seem to be hinting at in this regard?

Here are two basic questions. Lifting the corner of the veil is not the same as lifting the entire veil. I ask the questions but do not have the answers. Let me note that, in matters like this, lifting the corner of the veil is no small thing.