Cuba’s Support For Revolutions, Self-Defense Remains Largely Intact Despite Western Propoganda

Examining changes in the U.S.-Cuba relationship, one thing becomes clear: It’s the global situation -- not Cuba -- that has changed.
By |
Be Sociable, Share!
    • Google+

    Fidel Castro (far left) and Ché Guevara (centre) lead a memorial march in Havana on 5 May 1960, for the victims of the La Coubre freight ship explosion.


    WASHINGTON — (Analysis) President Barack Obama’s recent visit to Cuba has been roundly condemned by his right-wing opponents. The fact that the visit coincided with the Brussels bombing has not been omitted from conservative diatribes.

    The conservative press voiced further outrage when it was revealed that Secretary of State John Kerry had met with representatives of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, who were in Cuba for negotiations with the Colombian government.

    The right-wing press seethed with anger that Obama, who is supposedly fighting a “war against terrorism,” would visit Cuba, which was only officially removed from the State Department’s State Sponsors of Terrorism list last May, several years after the State Department confirmed that the Cuban government “no longer actively supports armed struggle in Latin America and other parts of the world.”

    Desiree DeLoach is an organizer for the Venceremos Brigade, a group that, in an act of civil disobedience, routinely violated the recently lifted ban on Americans traveling to Cuba.

    When asked about Cuba’s former designation as a state sponsor of terrorism, she told MintPress News that “its hypocrisy is abhorrent.”

    DeLoach described how, in her analysis, the United States has actually waged a campaign of terrorism against Cuba. “There have been over 600 assassination attempts against Fidel Castro’s life, bombings of hotels and many other acts of terrorism carried out or backed by the United States,” she said, further noting the example of the refusal to extradite Luis Posada Carriles, a man who confessed to having bombed a Cuban airplane and remains safe and free in Miami.

    Looking beyond the hypocrisy, the relationship between the Cuban government and armed groups throughout Latin America — the basis for its former official designation as a state sponsor of terrorism — has evolved based on changing circumstances.

    However, Cuba’s ideological principles remain consistent.

    The reason for Cuba’s apparent shift in favor of peaceful methods of social activism points toward an unacknowledged and concealed reality about revolutionary left-wing politics.


    ‘Making violent revolution inevitable’

    In 1982, Cuba was officially designated as a state sponsor of terrorism. According to a CIA report, Cuba was included on the list because:

    “Havana openly advocates armed revolution as the only means for leftist forces to gain power in Latin America, and the Cubans have played an important role in facilitating the movement of men and weapons into the region. Havana provides direct support in the form of training, arms, safe havens, and advice to a wide variety of guerrilla groups. Many of these groups engage in terrorist operations.”

    Indeed, Cuba was supporting armed groups throughout Latin America in 1982. The CIA document lists, among others, the 19th of April Movement in Colombia; the Sandinista National Liberation Front in Nicaragua; and the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front in El Salvador — all as receiving support from the Cuban government in their armed campaigns. The report also quotes Cuban officials saying “acts by legitimate national liberation movements cannot be defined as terrorism.”

    When asking why Nicaraguans, Salvadorans, and Colombians were engaged in armed revolutionary violence — and why the Cubans supported them — rather than quoting Cuban officials, the CIA report should really quote President John F. Kennedy, who famously said: “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”

    Those who accuse Cuba of “supporting terrorism” forget that the M-19 revolutionaries in Colombia, the FMLN in El Salvador, and the Sandinistas in Nicaragua all took up arms not against democratic states but against brutal, repressive, human rights-violating autocracies. In Colombia, paramilitaries armed and trained by the U.S. kidnapped, assassinated, and tortured almost all peaceful opposition. Many thousands of labor activists, socialist organizers, and religious leaders were killed.

    The M-19 took up arms alongside FARC and other Colombian groups in the context of extreme political repression, violations of human rights, and routine slaughter of innocent civilians. Explaining the situation in Colombia, Fidel Castro said:

    “The Colombian Communist Party never contemplated the idea of conquering power through the armed struggle. The guerrilla was a resistance front and not the basic instrument to conquer revolutionary power, as it had been the case in Cuba.”

    The Sandinistas in Nicaragua, which Cuba is also accused of supporting, took power in an armed revolution in 1979 against a military dictatorship led by Anastasio Somoza. In 1972, when Nicaragua was struck by an earthquake that killed 10,000 people, the regime’s military shocked the world as it forcibly stole food and money from the quake’s victims. In his 2012 book “Latin American Dictators of the 20th Century,” Javier A. Galván wrote:

    “The military engaged in an indiscriminate operation of torture, rape, savage beatings, unjustified incarceration, and the assassination of thousands of poor peasants. The soldiers confiscated their land and kept it for themselves. In the meantime, the urban areas were simultaneously suffering under strict martial law and further censorship of all communications media.”

    It was in a fight against this heavily corrupt and human rights-violating regime that the Cuban-aligned Sandinista revolutionaries seized power in 1979.

    The guerilla fighters in El Salvador, who also received Cuban support, took up arms in 1979 after a repressive military junta deposed the elected government in a coup d’état. The United Nations Truth Commission on El Salvador described the situation this way:

    “[V]iolence became systematic and terror and distrust reigned among the civilian population. The fragmentation of any opposition or dissident movement by means of arbitrary arrests, murders and selective and indiscriminate disappearances of leaders became common practice.”

    Nearly all the armed groups Cuba was accused of supporting in 1982 took up arms not out of bloodlust, but only when other means of struggle were made fruitless and impossible by extreme political repression. Cuba is accused of supporting Guatemalan indigenous people who armed themselves against what human rights observers have since described as genocide. Cuba is alleged to have supported armed groups who battled against the brutal military dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet in Chile, where dissidents were frequently “disappeared” and their mangled corpses eventually dumped on the street.

    The regimes opposed by Cuba’s Latin American allies were staffed by people trained in the School of the Americas (now known as the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, or WHINSEC) in Georgia. At this CIA facility, paramilitaries and counterinsurgency specialists from all across the American hemisphere were trained in the art of torture, kidnapping, and other methods designed to terrify civilian populations into subservience and obedience. In the context of such brutal repression and autocracies throughout South America, the Cuban government worked with the Soviet Union to provide arms, weapons and military training to resistance forces.

    Support for the violent insurgencies of Colombia, Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, and elsewhere is certainly consistent with the Cuban government’s ideological heritage. The Marxist-Leninist ideology most certainly permits its adherents to take up arms in the context of extreme political repression and a mass movement for social justice.

    As de facto leader of the Communist International, Josef Stalin explained the context and theory of armed revolutionary violence to British novelist H.G. Wells in 1934, saying:

    “Communists do not in the least idealize the methods of violence. But they, the communists, do not want to be taken by surprise, they cannot count on the old world voluntarily departing from the stage, they see that the old system is violently defending itself, and that is why the communists say to the working class: Answer violence with violence; do all you can to prevent the old dying order from crushing you, do not permit it to put manacles on your hands, on the hands with which you will overthrow the old system.”

    In current times, Cuba’s allies are largely not taking up arms. The Sandinistas of Nicaragua and the FMLN of El Salvador are in power, but this power was not won by means of armed insurrection. The Sandinistas and the FMLN took power in peaceful, democratic, internationally-observed elections. Cuba’s allies in the Venezuelan United Socialist Party, or PSUV, the Movement Toward Socialism, or MAS, in Bolivia, and other anti-imperialist, socialist-oriented governments in Latin America, have taken power by legal, electoral means.


    Genuine communists favor peaceful methods

    But how can this be possible? Isn’t the Cuban Communist Party still a Marxist-Leninist Party? Do they not still uphold the same ideological beliefs and principles as they upheld in 1982? Do they not advocate “dictatorship of the proletariat” and the “smashing of the bourgeois state,” among other communist ideas?

    The Cuban government maintains its Marxist-Leninist political line, but the circumstances have changed. The Latin America of the 21st century is not the same as the Latin America of the 1970s and 80s. The tactical principles of Marxism-Leninism are widely misrepresented. In reality, they do not fetishize or celebrate the use of violence.

    Communist Party leader William Z. Foster — not a moderate, but considered to be a “hardliner” and “Stalinist” by historians of American communism — accurately articulated the Marxist-Leninist position on violence in 1948. He wrote:

    “The working class and other toiling elements are always and instinctively champions of peace and democracy…This fact is so because the toilers are the ones who always have to suffer the most from tyranny and from war’s destruction. They pick up the sword against those who oppress, exploit, or would butcher them only when they have no other alternative, only when the road of peace is closed to them.”

    Even in the context of the brutal czarist autocracy, Lenin and the Bolsheviks condemned “adventurism.” Marxist-Leninists throughout the world have always opposed revolutionary strategies based on isolated acts of violence. Describing political assassinations and bombings as ineffective, Vladimir Lenin wrote:

    “We know from the past and see in the present that only new forms of the mass movement or the awakening of new sections of the masses to independent struggle really rouses a spirit of struggle and courage in all. Single combat however, inasmuch as it remains single combat… has the immediate effect of simply creating a short-lived sensation, while indirectly it even leads to apathy and passive waiting for the next bout.”


    The world situation, not Cuba, has changed

    In the context of the 21st century, progressive activists in Latin America are not compelled to take up arms. In most Latin American countries they are free to organize demonstrations and labor unions, as well as to participate in elections.

    In this new context, Cuba is working to resolve — not to expand or exacerbate — one of the longest-lasting armed conflicts on the continent. In 1993, the Communist Party of Colombia and FARC terminated their relationship with each other. At that time, Cuba ended its alliance with FARC. Fidel Castro criticized the FARC leader, Manuel Marulanda, by saying:

    “He conceived a long and extended struggle; I disagreed with this point of view. But I never had the chance to talk with him. … I have expressed, very clearly, our position in favor of peace in Colombia; but we are neither in favor of foreign military intervention nor of the policy of force that the United States intends to impose at all costs on that long-suffering and industrious people. … I have honestly and strongly criticized the objectively cruel methods of kidnapping and retaining prisoners under the conditions of the jungle.”

    Cuba is now neutral in the conflict between the Colombian government and the FARC rebels. Representatives of both sides are currently in Cuba negotiating a peace settlement. During Obama’s recent visit to Cuba, Kerry met with FARC negotiators.

    Those who misunderstand the methods and tactics of genuine revolutionaries portray Cuba as a country of bloodthirsty revolutionaries who spread violence throughout the continent. Cuba has supported progressive forces who, like the Cubans did in 1959, took up arms in self-defense against brutal and repressive autocracies. However, like all sensible forces advocating social justice, they would prefer a peaceful transition to a better world.

    The Cuban government and its allies throughout the region have demonstrated to the world that they are not violent psychopaths. Rather, they are individuals who are dedicated to social justice, and will make great sacrifices in order to achieve that. Violent methods may be used in some contexts, but only if necessary.

    The reestablishment of diplomatic relations with the U.S. certainly opens a new chapter in U.S.-Cuba relations. As tensions rise in Venezuela, Brazil, and other countries throughout the region, many hope that the possibility of peaceful, democratic struggle can remain open, and that the use of brutal military dictatorships to halt social progress will remain in the history books.

    Be Sociable, Share!


    Print This Story Print This Story
    You Might Also Like  
    This entry was posted in Editors Picks, Foreign Affairs, Inside Stories, Investigations, National, News, Top Stories, Top Story and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
    • SeaNote

      What does the general population of Cuba want? Can’t believe they are driven by political ideology.

    • VG_Matias

      “The Cuban government and its allies throughout the region have demonstrated to the world that they are not violent psychopaths.” – have you been to Cuba in a non-state funded tourist visa way? lived in the country? have you spoken to political prisoners there – or intellectuals who dared to have different views/opinions of the government? Met members of families who were exposed when all they wanted to do was simply leave the country and what learned what happened to them? ever wondered why so many CUBANS (pretty much 100% across the board despite of age/political affiliation) who live in exile have always opposed the Castro regime? — NOT violent psychopaths?! – when they shoot down an american unarmed civilian plane over international waters in 1996, as well as their treatment of the Ladies in White movement in Cuba?! – ever read up on the Cuban government’s treatment of LGBT people? The list goes on, and on, and on..

      Ever wonder why any sane person would jump into a dingy raft and risk paddling through 90 miles of open shark infested ocean to try and reach US soil at Key West?!

      And this “Cuban government’s ideological heritage” you speak of – please look up the post 1959 history of many (pretty much all) of Fidel’s revolutionary commanders who fought alongside him (Huber Matos, Camilo Cienfuegos, Carlos Franqui, and many others).. let me save you the trouble – the lucky ones were exiled, most were jailed (then exiled), or just killed. Only Raul was left. How’s that ‘heritage’ working out for you?

      You’re also quoting from the Venceremos Brigade?! a group well known to have been controlled by Cuban intelligence.. I mean look at the name ‘We will Win’ Brigade, we will win what? we will overthrow Castro? – that’s obviously not what they mean – and if it was, they would not have made a return trip OUT of Cuba, let me assure you of that.. so who are they going to win against?! – using an ugly truth (the part about US committing terrorists acts in Cuba – and all over Latin/South America for that matter) to justify your own statement does not make it true.

      • Will Hann

        I was going to write a comment but saw yours and must say:
        YOU ARE SPOT ON ! ! !

    • GIVVO6_B

      Hasta la Victoria siempre. I love Cuba and have been all over the island apart from the east where the Americans have stolen part of it and use it as a place for the abuse of human rights as well as torture and the occasional killing. The Bay of Pigs was great and I love the placard that can be seen there, “Giron, premiera derrota del imperialism yanqui en America Latina.” I guess I will soon have to hurry back before Cuba becomes full of arrogant Yanks walking around filling their fat bellies wit McDonalds.

    • SeaNote

      Only morons would believe that the government in Cuba has any interest other than preserving the government in Cuba.

    • TeeJae

      US hypocrisy is astonishing. It’s not like the CIA-backed insurgents haven’t committed the worst atrocities the world has ever seen.

      Excellent article, Caleb. Thank you.

      • Samael

        That’s some mighty fine hyperbole there.

        • TeeJae

          I can see how someone who learned their history from textbooks and the History Channel would think that.

    • TecumsehUnfaced

      A much more accurate viewpoint than the indoctrination I was brought up with. I almost cried when the the Bay of Pigs CIA attack failed. I even believed that it was patriotic Cubans carrying it out.