by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
Dear reader, what would you think of a person, group, or political movement advocating the following reforms for our country:
-
Abolishing judicial guarantees and suspending the stability of judicial and tax officials?
I believe the results of these measures are clear. Dishonest officials would stay in their roles, acting as tools for the government to pressure its opponents. Eventually, honest officials would clash with the government and get dismissed. In short, the judiciary and tax authorities would become dependent on the political police.
-
Having the faction leaders in power appoint all criminal judges.
If that happened, I believe any government opponent could be unfairly accused and convicted, with no opportunity to appeal to impartial courts.
-
Decree establishing criminal laws with retroactive effect.
In other words, even if someone commits an act that is not illegal according to current law, it could still be punished later under a new criminal statute. I would argue that in such cases, no one would be safe from arbitrary detention. For example, if a farmer cuts down twenty or fifty trees on his property for any valid reason, a political opponent connected to the government could later have tree-cutting defined as a crime. As a result, the poor farmer would inevitably be detained.
-
Introducing the death penalty for crimes that previous laws only prosecuted with imprisonment.
In a situation with no guarantees at all, every citizen would feel like they constantly have a machine gun aimed at their chest by the ruling party.
-
Allowing partisan authorities to establish courts authorized to classify acts that are not illegal by law as criminal and impose corresponding penalties.
I observe that this is a state of legal chaos.
-
Allowing the executive branch to revoke rights from anyone it deems fit.
People affected by this measure are denied the right to vote, run for office, hold public positions, have their personal safety protected by law, and can be arrested without the chance to appeal to any judge or court.
Isn’t it true, dear reader, that those who advocate such laws could turn Brazil into a concentration camp, hell, or chaos?
Fidel Castro has implemented all this in Cuba through the Constitutional Reform of January 10, 1959, the Constitutional Reform of January 30, 1959, and the Fundamental Law of February 7, 1959.[1]
* * *
These laws did not remain on paper, but they filled the sinister “La Cabaña” prison and activated the “paredón.” They also subjected all Cubans to a regime as oppressive as Nazism or communism.
While this was happening in Cuba, misery enveloped the island, once known as the “Pearl of the Antilles.” With private initiative and property abolished, the country’s economic machinery was hindered by the stagnation typical of inefficient public offices run by Communist Party agitators. Production declined. Castro himself admitted that his economic goals had failed miserably, despite the use of forced labor.
With all this, Cuba’s sovereignty disappeared. The island became a colony of the Kremlin, which supplies all the subsidies needed to prevent severe public suffering from leading to Castro’s downfall.
All of this is well-known, but recalling it is necessary and even urgent. So I ask the reader one more question: If a Brazilian had done all this against our country, would the reader want to shake his hand, exchange hugs, invite him to their home, sit him at their table, and let him sleep under their roof?
Some might think this is a silly question because an honorable person clearly despises crime. Therefore, consistency requires him also to despise the criminal, especially when the person is involved in habitual crime. Since abhorrence of crime is the most effective deterrent against criminal behavior, welcoming a criminal in this way would lower social disapproval of crime by setting a bad example, thus weakening society as a whole.
* * *
Yes, dear reader. That said, I turn to the facts published by the press on the day I write, Thursday. Fidel’s visit to Chile carries significant symbolic weight. The Russian envoy in Cuba was flown in on an Ilyushin-62 operated by the Soviet airline Aeroflot. With him came not ministers or public figures, but four members of the Cuban Communist Party. The ideological, rather than diplomatic, nature of the visit could not be clearer.
Indeed, this visit is a kiss from the bloody Cuban revolution to the bloodless Chilean revolution.
However, some may argue that Cuba and Chile have diplomatic issues to resolve. Therefore, this visit does not represent the unity of two revolutions but is simply a meeting between heads of state.
I understand that international issues would justify contact between the foreign ministries of Chile and Cuba, just like any country would with communist Russia.
When a head of household lives next door to a wrongdoer and has urgent business to discuss, it is normal to seek them out. However, these dealings should be conducted with proper decorum. They should never escalate to inviting the wrongdoer to stay at the house for a few days, as Allende did with Fidel.
But someone might still object, assuming Castro had an immediate and urgent reason to meet with Allende. Wouldn’t that justify his visit to Chile? And, considering the visit, wouldn’t it be inevitable that it would follow the usual protocol? The point is that this need has not been demonstrated in any way. It is nothing more than a hypothesis.
In any case, Fidel Castro emphasized that the main purpose of his visit to Chile was symbolic rather than practical. He made this very clear. Before leaving Havana and speaking with Cuban reporters, he explained that his trip to Chile “has no other meaning than a symbolic embrace between two concrete realities: the Chilean and the Cuban.” Additionally, speaking to journalists in Santiago, Fidel Castro reaffirmed the solidarity between the Cuban and Chilean regimes, stating that “despite the efforts of the imperialists, who sought to divide them, the Chilean and Cuban revolutions were united.” This was the symbolic significance of his presence in the Chilean capital.
Thus, by hosting Castro, Allende clearly caused an international scandal by giving the notorious evildoer a place at his table and under his roof.
* * *
This episode exposes the blindness and the lack of positive content in the policy of “breaking down ideological barriers.” There is a strong and declared ideological unity among the countries of the communist bloc. This unity is visible in diplomatic, political, social, and economic areas. Fidel’s trip to Chile is not the only proof of this. Consider Moscow’s recent support for communist China’s entry into the UN and the expulsion of Taiwan. Now, the existence of a communist bloc naturally leads to the formation of another bloc in response: the anticommunist bloc. And the existence of two opposing blocs creates a gap, a border, and a barrier between them. Removing barriers, while keeping the strong cohesion of communism, essentially results in the disintegration of one bloc, while the other remains.
During his recent visit to Chile, Argentine President General Lanusse suggested that his country feels as connected to Chile as it does to any other anticommunist nation, and that, for Argentina, ideological similarities are not a basis for international solidarity. At the same time, arm in arm with Allende, Castro states that ideological affinity is a strong reason for international solidarity when it comes to communists.
Therefore, if the policy the Argentine president introduced across our continent succeeds, we will face a divided international anticommunist bloc on one side and a unified global communist bloc on the other.
Which side will win? “Every kingdom divided against itself will perish,” says the Gospel (Mt 12:25).
[1] Cf. Notícias Latino-americanas, March 1971; Este & Oeste, June 1971.