Yes, I Understand the Congressman – Folha de S. Paulo, May 5, 1974

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

According to a report published last week in a morning newspaper in this capital, Mr. Humberto Medrano, former deputy editor of the Havana newspaper Prensa Libre, submitted a report to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights detailing the mistreatment of political prisoners in Cuba. “The Fidel Castro regime,” the report states, “murders and tortures political prisoners, fails to provide them with adequate food or medical care, and subjects them to political indoctrination and forced labor. As a result, many of them have fallen into critical states of depression and have committed suicide. Student leader Pedro Boitel died as a result of torture he suffered in Havana’s Prince Castle Prison. Sister Aida R. Pérez, accused of working for the Central Intelligence Agency, died due to a lack of medical resources for the heart disease she suffered from,” etc.

* * *

Willy Brandt was severely criticized in the West German Parliament for having employed, for over a year, a secretary who was also a spy for the East German communist government.

Shocked by this revelation, an opposition member of Parliament called for the prime minister’s resignation.

I understand the parliamentarian’s gesture, not only because the fact itself is inconceivable but also because Brandt’s explanations further weaken his position.

In fact, the German head of government asserted that he had known for a year that his secretary was in the pay of the communists. However, he kept him in office to assist the counterintelligence service in its investigations. Furthermore, he claimed the spy was his secretary for relations with the ruling party, i.e., the Social Democrats, and that his harmfulness in this capacity was limited.

It seems to me that Brandt’s prolonged temporizing can only be explained – with great difficulty – if the secretary-spy was linked to an entire espionage network that was slowly being uncovered in all its ramifications. However, this does not seem to have been the case, as the newspapers said nothing about such a network.

As for the harmlessness of the spy’s position, it is highly debatable. What government would not be interested in knowing the relationship between the prime minister of another country and the political party that supports him? How much data on the cabinet’s stability or instability can be gleaned from this! Furthermore, how many opportunities did his duties give the spy secretary to listen in on conversations among Brandt’s other secretaries, who were responsible for promoting sectors of greatest interest to East Germany?

How naive Brandt is in this response! It is characteristic of the psychology of many left-wingers to be completely naive toward communists and completely distrustful of anticommunists. This can be explained as follows: “For where thy treasure is, there is thy heart also” (Mt 6:21). Similarly, one could say: “Where your naiveté is, there is your predilection.”

In fact, during the debates in Parliament about the spy secretary, Brandt made a statement that revealed his leftist mindset. He said the episode left him with a “deep disappointment from a human point of view.”

Nowadays, the great enemy of any government that takes its duties seriously is the bloc of communist countries. In dealing with their leaders, Brandt has shown a disconcerting candor, from which the communists have continually benefited. Now comes the blow, the systematic punishment that communists mete out to those who trust them. Brandt realizes that the communist leaders, whom he had imagined to be full of good faith, were vile enough to plant a traitor beside him. He is overcome by a “deep disappointment.”

By admitting his disappointment, the German head of government confessed, ipso facto, his total ignorance of one of his opponent’s most salient moral traits: dishonesty. Does Brandt not therefore recognize his own incapacity to govern?

Yes, I understand the congressman who requested his dismissal.