Commander, I would like to ask you about Subcommander Marcos. January 2004 marked the 10th anniversary of the uprising of the Zapatistas in Chiapas in response to the establishment of the Free Trade Agreement between Mexico, the United States and Canada. I would like to know your opinion on this important figure that is so unique and so popular with the alterglobalization movement. Do you know him? Have you read his works?

I cannot judge him, but yes, I have read some of the texts that you have written on Marcos1 and what is said about him is really very interesting, and it helps one to understand his personality, and even why he gave himself this rank of “Sub commander”. In the past, all those in Latin America who were involved in wars or military campaigns were Generals but with the Cuban Revolution came this habit of referring to all leaders as “Commanders”. This was my rank on the “Granma” yacht. As I was the leader of a small Rebel army, and in the Sierra we had to be militarily organized, we couldn’t go around saying “secretary general of the guerrilla column”. Thus I was given the title of “Commander-in-Chief”. In the traditional army system, Commander was the most humble rank and the good thing was that you could add the word “chief” to it.

From then on, no revolutionary movement would use the title of General. Marcos, however, used the rank of Subcommander. I had never really understood this, but I always saw it as a sign of modesty.

Yes, he says: “The commander is the people; I am the Subcommander because I am at the service of the people”.
These needs to be explained: he is the Subcommander of the commanding people. Okay. Reading the book you wrote based on conversations with him, I learnt many details, ideas, views that he held, I learnt of his struggle on behalf of indigenous people.I read this with a feeling of deep respect and I felt happy to have this kind of information about him and the situation in Chiapas at my disposal.

He showed courage, undoubtedly, when he set out on that journey. People debate whether or not he did the right thing, but either way I have followed his progress with great interest.

You are referring to the “Peace March” around Mexico that Marcos went on in April 20012.

Yes, I am. I have watched it all with great interest. In Marcos I see integrity; it is indisputable that he is a man of integrity, ideas and talent. He is an intellectual, regardless of whether he is the person with whom they identified when so little was known about him. I lack information on the subject, but that isn’t what matters; what matters are ideas, perseverance, and the knowledge of a revolutionary fighter.

I understand how a person such as Marcos can come to be, two people, one hundred, I am aware of the situation in which indigenous peoples have lived over the centuries; I have seen it in Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru and other countries and my feelings for the indigenous peoples of our hemisphere are of true political, human and revolutionary sympathy.

Do you follow the battles of the indigenous peoples in Latin America with interest?

I do with great interest. As you know, I was a close friend of Guayasamín, the painter. I admired him greatly. We talked at length, and he often told me about the problems and tragedies afflicting the indigenous people in Latin America. Our knowledge of history tells us that there were centuries of genocide, but it is only now that there is a growing awareness. The struggle of Marcos and the indigenous people of Mexico offer additional evidence of their fighting spirit.

This is what I can tell you about Marcos. We are following his course of action with deep respect, the same as we respect that of every organization, every progressive party, every democratic party. I have never had the chance to speak to Marcos personally, we have never met. I only know him through the news and articles that I have read about him, and I also know that many people, including many intellectuals, admire him greatly.

There is also a strong indigenous movement in Ecuador, isn’t there?

I certainly admire the organization of the indigenous people in Ecuador, the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities (CONAI) and Pachakutik (Our Land), their social organization, their political organization and their leaders, both men and women. I have also met leaders of great worth in Bolivia, a country with a formidable fighting spirit, and I know the leader of Bolivia, Evo Morales, who is a remarkable man, an outstanding person.

I imagine that you were happy when Evo Morales won the Presidential elections of Bolivia on December 18, 2005.
Yes, I was, very much so. That resounding, indisputable victory came as a shock to the world because it was the first time that an indigenous person was elected President of Bolivia, which is extraordinary. Evo has all the qualities necessary to lead his country and his people at this difficult and unique time.

Situated in the heart of the Americas, Bolivia takes its name from the Liberator Simón Bolívar. Its first leader was Marshal Antonio José de Sucre. In terms of its people and its subsoil, it is a rich country, but it now ranks as the poorest nation in the region, with almost nine million inhabitants, spread out over an essentially mountainous expanse of land which covers more than 386,138 square miles.

This is the context, and in this context Evo Morales is making plans for the future that will offer a hope to the majority of his people. He stands as a confirmation of the bankruptcy of the political system traditionally in force in the region and of the masses’ determination to win true independence. The fact that he was elected shows that the political map in Latin America is changing. Winds of change are blowing in this hemisphere.

At first, the advantage that Evo would have in the elections of December 18 was uncertain and there was concern that manipulations would occur in Congress. However, his victories in the first round with almost 54% of the votes and in the Chamber of Deputies made all controversy irrelevant.

It was a miracle election, an election which shook the world, which shook the empire and the unsustainable order imposed by the United States. It shows that Washington can no longer turn to dictatorships for help as it did in the past, that imperialism no longer has the tools that it once did nor can it use them.

Cuba was the first country that Evo Morales visited, on December 30, 2005, just after he was elected President, before his inauguration on January 22, 2006. Do you think that this visit caused him problems with Washington?
The friendly visit of brother Evo, President-elect of Bolivia, is an example of the long-standing, deep-running relations based on fraternity and solidarity that exist between the peoples of Cuba and Bolivia. No one can be upset about that, or about the agreements that have been signed3. They are agreements made for the good of life, of humanity; they are not a crime. We don’t think that even the Americans could believe they are. How could Cuba helping to increase the life expectancy rate of Bolivian newborn babies possibly offend the government of the United States? Could a decrease in the infant mortality rate or the eradication of illiteracy offend anyone?

Do you believe that other Latin American countries will now have to take into account the indigenous element?
The social situation is bordering on critical in three countries, where there is a strong and important indigenous force and element, namely Peru, Ecuador and also Bolivia. An important element also exists in Guatemala, but over there the situation has taken a different course than in the other countries. In terms of indigenous populations, Mexico of course has many. To put it plainly I can say that in this hemisphere it is perfectly understandable that there be someone like Marcos fighting for the rights of the indigenous peoples, that there be ten or one hundred Marcos. I am particularly impressed by the sense of dedication of the indigenous leaders that I know. I have spoken at length with the Ecuadorians. They speak with responsibility. They command respect, they command confidence, they have great integrity, and in Ecuador, as in Peru and other countries, it will be necessary to work with them.

You have said that you feel a deep admiration for Hugo Chávez, the President of Venezuela.

Well, yes. Here we have another indigenous person, Hugo Chávez, who is, as he says,” a mix of the indigenous and the mulatto peoples”. In fact he says that he is partly black, partly white and partly indigenous. But when you look at Chávez, you’re looking at a native from Venezuela, the son of the Venezuela that was a racial melting pot, with noble traits and an exceptional talent. I listen to his speeches and he is proud of his humble origins and his mixed heritage, which is a bit of everything, but mainly formed by native Indians and slaves brought from Africa. He may also have some white blood, and that isn’t a bad thing; a combination of what we call ethnic groups is always good, it enriches humanity.
 
Have you closely followed developments in Venezuela, particularly the attempts to destabilize the government of President Chávez?

Yes, we have followed the events very closely. Chávez visited us in 1994, nine months after his release from jail and four years before he was first elected President. This was very brave of him because he was reproached greatly for coming to Cuba. He came over and we talked. We found in him an educated, intelligent, very progressive man, a true Bolivarian. Then, he won the elections. In fact, he did several times. He changed the Constitution with the formidable support of the people. His adversaries have tried to get rid of him with violence and economic attacks. He has managed to brave all the attacks on the Bolivarian process dealt by the oligarchy and imperialism.

According to calculations that we have made assisted by the most experienced experts in the banking system, around 300 billion dollars must have been siphoned out of Venezuela during the renowned forty years of democracy before Chávez came to power.  By now Venezuela could have a higher level of industrialization than Sweden, and its people could have the same level of education if distributive democracy had really existed, if those mechanisms had worked, if there had been an element of truth and credibility in all of this demagogy and its expensive publicity.

We calculate that between the time of the arrival of the government of President Chavez and the establishment of the exchange control in 2003, another 30 billion dollars were siphoned out. As we have said, all these phenomena render the existing order in our hemisphere unsustainable.

On April 11, 2002 a coup d’état against Chávez was staged in Caracas. Did you follow these events?

When, at midday on April 11, we saw that the protests called by the opposition had been diverted by those taking part in the coup and was approaching Miraflores4, I realized straightaway that something serious was about to happen. We were in fact watching the march on Venezolana de Televisión, which was still broadcasting. The provocations, the shots, the victims, they started almost immediately. Minutes later the broadcasts of Venezolana de Televisión were cut off. The news began to arrive fragmented and through different channels. We learned that some top officials had spoken out against the President. It was said that the presidential guard had withdrawn and that the army would attack the Miraflores Palace. Some important figures in Venezuela were phoning their friends in Cuba to say goodbye as they were prepared to resist and die. They were talking in definite terms about sacrifice.

That night I was meeting with the Executive Committee of the Council of Ministers in a hall at the International Convention Center. Since midday, I had been with an official delegation from the Basque Country, presided over by the Lehendakari, which had been invited to lunch before anyone could have imagined that this tragic day would bring. They were witnesses to the events between 1:00 pm and 5:00 pm on April 11.

I began to try to get in touch with the Venezuelan president early in the afternoon. It was impossible! After midnight, at 12:38 am on April 12, I was informed that Chávez was calling.

I asked him what the situation was like at that moment. He replied: We are entrenched in the Palace. We have lost the military force that could turn the situation in our favor. They have scrambled our TV signal. I have no forces to mobilize and I’m analyzing the situation”. I quickly asked him:  “What forces do you have there?”
“I have between 200 and 300 exhausted men”.

“Do you have tanks?” I asked him.

“No, there were tanks but they’ve been taken to their barracks”.

I asked him again: “what other forces do you have?”

He replied: “there are others far away, but I have no way of getting in touch with them”. He was referring to General Baduel and the paratroopers, the Armored Division and other forces, but he had lost all contact with these loyal Bolivarian units.

I very tactfully said to him: “May I express an opinion?”
“Yes”, he said.

In the most persuasive tone that I could muster I said: “Prepare the ground for an honorable and dignified agreement, and preserve the lives of the men that you have, who are men of great loyalty. Don’t sacrifice them and don’t sacrifice yourself”.
“They are all prepared to die here”, he replied with emotion.

In a heartbeat I replied: “Yes, I know, but I think that right now I can think more clearly than you. Don’t resign, demand honorable and secure conditions so as to ensure that you’re not betrayed, because I think that your life should be preserved. Also, you have a duty to your comrades. Don’t sacrifice yourself!”

I was well aware of the difference between Allende’s situation on September 11, 1973 and Chávez’s situation on April 12, 2002. Allende didn’t have one single soldier. Chávez had a large following among troops and army officers, the youngest especially.

“Don’t abdicate! Don’t resign!” I repeated.

We discussed other matters: how I thought that he should leave the country provisionally, get in touch with an officer with real authority over the putschists, explain that he was prepared to leave the country, but not to surrender. From Cuba we would try to mobilize the Diplomatic Corps in our country and in Venezuela, and send over two planes with our Foreign Minister and a group of diplomats to fetch him. He thought about it for a moment and finally accepted my proposal. Now it all depended on the military leader of the enemy forces.

The following is an excerpt of an interview by the authors of the book, Chavéz nuestro, with José Vicente Rangel, the then Minister of Defense and current Vice-President, who was with Chávez at the time: “The phone call from Fidel played a decisive role in avoiding sacrifice. It was the determinant. His advice helped us to see more clearly in the dark. It was of great help.”
 
You were encouraging him to take up arms in resistance?

No, quite the opposite is true. This was what Allende did, which in my opinion was the right thing to do in those circumstances, and he paid heroically with his life, as he had promised he would.

Chávez had three options: entrench himself in Miraflores and hold out until the very end; leave the Palace and try to join the people in an attempt to spark a national uprising, something which didn’t look too promising given the circumstances; or leave the country without abdicating or resigning so as to resume the struggle with a real chance of rapid success. We suggested the third option.

My final words of persuasion during that telephone conversation were basically: “Save those brave men who are with you in this unnecessary battle now”. I said this because I was convinced that a leader as popular and charismatic as Chávez, who had been overthrown and betrayed like that, if they didn’t kill him, the people—in this case with the support of the cream of his Armed Forces—would demand his return with greater force and he would have to be brought back. This is why I took the responsibility of making that proposal.

At that very moment, when there was a real possibility of a speedy and victorious return, there was no need to die in battle, as Salvador Allende had rightly done. And he did indeed return victorious, although much earlier than I could have anticipated.

Did you and your people try to help Chávez in any way at that time?

Well, at that moment we could only act through diplomatic channels. In the early hours of morning we summed all the accredited ambassadors in Havana and proposed that they go with Felipe (Pérez Roque), our Minister of Foreign Affairs, to Caracas to peacefully rescue Chávez, the legitimate president of Venezuela, alive.

I had no doubt whatsoever that Chávez would soon be back, being carried on the shoulders of the people and the troops but, that moment, he had to be saved from death.

We proposed sending over two planes to fetch him in the event that the putschists decided to let him leave. However, the leading military putschist rejected this plan, and also told him that he would be taken before a war council.  Chávez put on his paratrooper uniform and accompanied only by his faithful aide, Jesús Suárez Chourio, went to the Tiuna fort, the headquarters and military commanding post of those involved in the coup.

The next time I phoned him, two hours later as we had agreed, Chávez had been taken prisoner by the putschists and all communication with him had been lost. Time and again the television broadcasted news of his “resignation” in an attempt to demobilize his supporters and the people in general.

Hours later, by now it was April 12, he managed to make a phone call and spoke to his daughter María Gabriela. He told her that he hadn’t resigned and that he was an “imprisoned President”. He asked her to inform me of this so that I could tell the world.

She phoned me straightaway, on April 12, at 10:02 am, and told me what her father had said. I quickly asked her: “Would you be prepared to tell the world of this yourself?”

“There is nothing I wouldn’t do for my father”, she replied with that concise, admirable and resolute phrase.
Without wasting a second, I got in touch with Randy Alonso, a journalist and director of the “Round Table”, a well-known television program. Telephone and tape recorder in hand, Randy called the cell phone number that María Gabriela had given me. It was almost 11 am. The clear, heartfelt, convincing words of his daughter were recorded, a transcript was made immediately and delivered to accredited cable agencies in Cuba and broadcasted on the National Newscast at 12:40 pm on April 12, 2002, in Gabriela’s own voice. A recording had also been sent to accredited television networks in Cuba. While in Venezuela CNN rejoiced in broadcasting news from putschist sources, their correspondent in Havana quickly sent out the revealing words of María Gabriela at midday.

And what consequences did this have?

Well, this was heard by millions of Venezuelans, the majority of whom were against the coup, as well as by the troops who had remained loyal to Chávez, whom they had tried to confuse and paralyze with their shameless lies about the alleged resignation. 

In the night, at 11:15, María Gabriela phoned again. There was a tragic tone to her voice. As she began to speak, I interrupted her and asked: “What’s happened?”

“Tonight my father was taken by helicopter to an unknown destination”, she replied.

“Quickly”, I said, “you should speak out and denounce this yourself”.

Randy was with me. We were in a meeting with leaders of the Young Communist League and others about the programs implemented by the Battle of Ideas. He had a tape recorder with him and again we did as we had at midday. This was how people in Venezuela and around the world learned of Chávez’s strange night transfer to an unknown destination. This all took place between 12:00 am and the early hours of the 13th.

Early in the morning of Saturday the 13th, there was a rally in Güira de Melena, a municipality in La Habana. When I got back to the office, before 10:00 am, I received a call from María Gabriela. She told me that “Chávez’s parents were worried”, they wanted to talk to me from Barinas, they wanted to make a statement.

I told her that a dispatch from an international press agency reported that Chávez had been transferred to Turiamo, a naval post in Aragua on the north coast of Venezuela. I told her that given the type of information and the details offered, the news appeared to be true. I recommended that she look into this as far as possible. She added that General Lucas Rincón, Inspector General of the Armed Forces wanted to speak to me, and that he too wanted to make a public statement.

Chávez’s mother and father spoke to me; everything was normal in the state of Barinas. Chávez’s mother told me that the leader of the troops there had just spoken to her husband, Hugo de los Reyes Chávez, Governor of Barinas and father of Chávez. I gave them all the reassurance I could.

The Mayor of Sabaneta, the birthplace of Chávez, a town in Barinas, also got in touch. He wanted to make a statement. He also mentioned that the garrisons had remained loyal. His strong sense of optimism was palpable.
I spoke to Lucas Rincón. He confirmed that the paratrooper brigade, the armored division and the F-16 fighter-bomber base opposed the coup and were ready for action. I went as far as to say that he should do everything possible to resolve the matter without resorting to military combat. It was clear that the coup had failed. In the end, the Inspector General did not make a statement because the connection failed and could not be re-established.
Minutes later Maria Gabriela phoned again. She then said to me that General Baduel, leader of the paratrooper brigade, needed to get in touch with me, and that the loyal troops of Maracay wanted to make a statement to the people of Venezuela and the world.

My insatiable desire for news led me to ask Baduel for three of four details about the situation before continuing with the conversation. My curiosity was suitably satisfied; the fighting spirit was apparent in every sentence. I immediately said to him: “All preparations have been made for you to make your statement”. He said: “Wait a minute, I’ll pass you over to Major General Julio García Montoya, Permanent Secretary of the National Council for Security and Defense. He has come to offer his support to our stance”. This official, who was older than the young army leaders of Maracay, had no troops under his command at that moment.

Baduel, whose brigade of paratroopers was one of the fundamental axes of the powerful force of tanks, armored infantry and fighter bombers in Maracay, in the state of Aragua, respectful of military hierarchy, passed the phone to General Montoya. The words of this senior officer were truly intelligent, convincing and appropriate in the situation. He basically told me that the Venezuelan Armed Forces remained faithful to the Constitution. This said it all.
I had become a kind of press reporter, receiving and transmitting news and public messages with the use of a simple cell phone and a tape recorder held by Randy. I was witness to the formidable countercoup by the people and the Bolivarian Armed Forces of Venezuela.

At that moment the situation was excellent. The coup of April 11 did not have the remotest chance of succeeding. But a grave risk still threatened this sister nation. Chávez’s life was in serious danger. He had been kidnapped by the putschists. In the eyes of the oligarchy and the imperialist forces, Chávez was all they had left of this fascist venture. What would they do with him? Would they assassinate him? Would they satisfy the hatred and desire for vengeance that they harbored towards that rebellious and audacious Bolivarian fighter, friend of the poor, unwavering defender of the dignity and sovereignty of Venezuela? What would happen if, as in Bogota when Gaitan died, the people found out that Chávez had been assassinated? I couldn’t get the thoughts of this tragedy and its bloody and destructive consequences out of my head.

As the afternoon slipped by, after the aforementioned conversations, news started to pour in about the indignation of the people and a popular uprising. In Caracas, at the center of the events, a swarm of people was making their way through the streets and avenues to the Palace of Miraflores and the main buildings used by the putschists. A thousand ideas raced through my mind in my despair as a friend and brother of the prisoner. What could we do with our humble cell phone? I was on the point of picking up the phone myself and calling General Vasquez Velasco5 himself. I had never spoken to him and knew nothing about him. I did not know whether he would answer, and if so, what he would do. For this unique mission I could not call upon the valuable services of Maria Gabriela. I thought about it some more and, at 4:15 pm, I called our ambassador in Venezuela, Germán Sánchez and asked whether he thought that Vázquez Velasco would respond. He said that he might.

“Call him”, I said, “speak on my behalf, tell him that I think that a river of blood could flow in Venezuela as a result of what has been happening, and that only one man can prevent this from happening: Hugo Chávez. Demand that he be freed immediately in order to prevent this probable outcome”.

General Vázquez Velasco answered the call. He confirmed that he had Chávez and assured that he would not be killed, but said that he could not agree to the requests made of him. Our ambassador insisted, argued the case, tried to persuade him. The General became upset and hung up the phone.

I immediately phoned Maria Gabriela and told her what Vázquez Velasco had said, emphasizing the fact that he had promised to preserve Chávez’s life. I once again asked her to put me in touch with Baduel. At 4:49 we made contact. I explained to him in detail about the conversation between German and Vázquez Velasco. I told him how important I thought it was that Vázquez Velasco had admitted that he had Chávez. These were favorable circumstances in which to exert maximum pressure on him. 

At this moment in Cuba no one knew for certain whether Chávez had been transferred, and if so where to. There had been rumors for hours that the prisoner had been sent to the island of Orchila. When I spoke to Baduel, at almost 5:00 pm, the brigade leader was choosing men and preparing the helicopter to go and rescue President Chávez. I could imagine how difficult it was for Baduel and the paratroopers to obtain the precise and exact information required for such a delicate mission.

For the rest of the day, until midnight on the 13th, I spent my time talking to as many people as possible about the question of Chávez’s life. I spoke to many people, because that afternoon the masses, with help from army officers and troops, were gaining control of everything. I still did not know when or how Carmona, “the Brief”6, had left the Palace of Miraflores. I then learned that the escort, commanded by Chourio and members of the Presidential Guard, had taken and were occupying strategic areas in the building, and Rangel, who had remained firm, had returned to the Defense Ministry.

I even phoned Diosdado Cabello7, as soon as he assumed the Presidency. When the call was interrupted due to technical difficulties, I sent him a message via Hector Navarro, Minister of Higher Education, suggesting that as Constitutional President he order Vázquez Velasco to free Chávez, and warn him of the grave consequences that failure to comply with this order would incur.

I spoke to almost everyone, as I felt that I too was part of the drama that I had been involved in by the call from Maria Gabriela on the morning of April 12. It was only when all the details of Hugo Chávez’s ordeal came to light, from the time that they took him to an unknown destination on the night of the 11th, that we realized what incredible danger he had been in, in which he had to bring to bear all his brainpower, his serenity, his sangfroid and revolutionary instinct. What was more incredible still was the fact that up until the very last minute the putschists had kept him in the dark as to what was happening in the country and insisted until the very end that he sign a letter of resignation which he never signed.

A private plane, reportedly belonging to a well-known oligarch, whose name I rather not mention as I am not completely sure about this information, was waiting to take him to who knows where with who knows who.

I have related everything I know; one day someone else will fill in the details missing in this story.

Chávez is a representative of the progressive military, but in Europe and also in Latin America, many from the progressive movement criticize him precisely because he is a military man. What is your opinion on this obvious contradiction between progressive ideas and the military?

Omar Torrijos in Panama was an example of a military man with a profound conscience of social justice and patriotism. In Peru, Juan Velasco Alvarado8 also led significant progress. It should also be recalled, for example, that among the Brazilians, Luis Carlos Prestes, was a revolutionary officer who led a heroic march between 1924 and 1926, which was almost identical to that led by Mao Zedong between1934 and 1935.

Jorge Amado9 wrote about the march led by Prestes in a beautiful story entitled El caballero de la esperanza, one of his magnificent novels. That military deed was impressive; for more than two and a half years he traveled extensive regions of his country never suffering a defeat. This recent 20th century saw important revolutionary exploits led my military men.

In this context, we could mention the names of illustrious military men such as Lázaro Cárdenas, a General in the Mexican revolution, who nationalized the oil industry, carried out agrarian reforms and won the eternal support of the people.

Some of the first to raise up in arms in Central America in the 20th century, was a group of Guatemalan officers who, led by Jacobo Árbenz, a senior officer with the Guatemalan Army, took part in historic revolutionary deeds in the 1950´s, including the noble and brave agrarian reform which led to a mercenary invasion, which as in the Bay of Pigs, imperialist forces launched against that government legitimately defined as progressive.

There are numerous examples of progressive military men. Juan Domingo Perón, in Argentina, also began in the military. We should see when it all began because in 1943 he was appointed Minister of Labor, then he passed those laws which benefited the workers, that rewarded his actions by rescuing him when he was taken prisoner.

Perón made some mistakes: he offended the Argentinean oligarchy, he humiliated them, he nationalized the theatre and other symbols of the upper classes, but the political and economic power of this sector remained intact, and at a timely moment they overthrew him with the complicity and support of the United States. Peron’s greatness lay in the fact that he called upon all the reserves and resources of that rich country and did all that he could to improve the living conditions of the workers. The working class, forever grateful and loyal, made Perón into a life-long idol of the humble people.

General Liber Seregni, who was the President of Uruguay’s Broad Front party until a few years ago, is one of the most progressive and respected leaders that Latin America has known. His integrity, his decency, his firmness and tenacity contributed to the victory of that noble and fraternal people, who elected Tabaré Vázquez, Seregni’s successor, President of the Eastern Republic of Uruguay and placed the Uruguayan Left in power, at a time when the country was on the edge of a precipice. Cuba is thankful to Liber Seregni for the solid foundations that he and other eminent Uruguayans laid down to establish the fraternal relations of solidarity that currently exist between Uruguay and Cuba.

And, we cannot forget Francisco Caamaño, a young Dominican military man who, for months, heroically fought against the 40 000 US troops who landed in the Dominican Republic in 1965, sent by from President Johnson, to prevent the return of Constitutional President Juan Bosch. His tenacious month-long fight against the invaders, as the leader of a handful of soldiers and civilians, is one of the most glorious revolutionary episodes in the history of this hemisphere. Caamaño, following a truce he forced the empire to accept, returned to his homeland and devoted his life to the struggle to liberate his people.

In the absence of a man like Hugo Chávez, a man of humble origins who was trained in a Venezuelan military academy, where so many ideas about freedom, unity and Latin American integration were sown by Bolivar, there would not have emerged today, at this decisive moment for our America, a process as historically and internationally important as the revolutionary process that is underway in this sister nation today.  I see no contradiction there.

In Argentina, Perón and the peronismo continue to have considerable political influence. We are talking about an Argentina where, to a certain extent, the neo-liberal model came crashing down in December 2001. What do you think about recent events in Argentina?

When, in May 2003, we received Argentina’s electoral results and the news of Néstor Kirchner’s victory and Carlos Ménem’s defeat, I felt great satisfaction, for one major reason: the worst of savage capitalism, as Chávez would say, the worst of neoliberal globalization in that Latin American country that had become the symbol, par excellence, of neoliberalism, had tasted defeat.

Though still far from their most longed-for aims, and unaware of it, Argentineans have paid a great service to Latin America and the world by burying, in the deepest recesses of the Pacific, under more than 8,000 meters of ocean, an important symbol of neoliberal globalization, thus adding tremendous force to the growing number of people across our America whose awareness has grown about how horrible and fatal this process is.

Let’s not forget that Pope John Paul II, who enjoyed universal respect, spoke of the “globalization of solidarity” when he visited our country in 1998. Can anyone be against that kind of globalization in the strictest sense of the word, which would comprise not only relations between people living within the borders of a given country but also all people within the confines of the planet? Can anyone be against a world of true freedom, equality and justice, in which those who today squander, destroy and misuse natural resources and condemn the inhabitants of this planet to death share in this solidarity?

One cannot reach Heaven overnight, but believe me when I say Argentineans have dealt that symbol a shattering blow, and that is of highest importance.

Latin America continues to face the problem of the foreign debt.

Around the world, the debt’s growth has been directly proportional to the growth of the population. Today, the total foreign debt amounts to 2.5 or 2.6 trillion dollars! This year, developed countries will offer Third World nations 53 billion dollars as official development aid and, in exchange for that, the Third World nations will pay over 350 billion dollars in debt interest!

In Latin America, the debt has grown continuously and is today around 800 billion dollars. No one can pay it, and that makes any serious development policy impossible. Hunger in Latin American will not be eradicated as long as governments continue to use one fourth of their export earnings to pay a debt whose original value has been paid nearly twice and is today nearly twice what it was ten years ago...

Today, the United States is advancing the FTAA, the Free Trade Area of the Americas, as a solution. What do you think about the FTAA?

It is a disaster, but one that can be averted. We were witness to the battle waged in Mar del Plata, on November 4 and 5, 2005, during the “Summit of the Americas”. It was a glorious battle against the FTAA. There were two battles, one waged in the streets and the stadium, another in the premises where the heads of State had gathered.

The nefarious FTAA project suffered a massive defeat in Mar del Plata. The FTAA means opening up the borders of countries with very low levels of technical development to the inflow of products from those that have the highest technological and production levels, those that build state-of-the-art planes, have a monopoly in the world communications industry, those who want from us only three things: raw materials, a cheap labor force, customers and markets. It is a new form of merciless colonization.

Do you think that could increase Latin America’s dependence on the United States?

If Latin America were devoured by the empire, if the empire swallowed Latin America up, like that whale that swallowed up the prophet Jonas but could not digest him, it would have to spit it back out again, Latin America would be reborn in our hemisphere. But I don’t think it will be an easy prey to swallow up and I have hopes it will not be devoured. Recent events have proven that you can’t rule the world by placing a soldier with a bayonet in every school, every home, every park.

I have always said we have to rely on the US people and the US intellectuals. They can be misled, but when they learn the truth, as in the case of the Cuban child Elián...10  Eighty percent of Americans favored Elián González’ return to Cuba.

Today, the US people are opposed to the blockade on Cuba. These people, in growing numbers, are opposed to the doctrine of preemptive, interventionist war, in spite of the perfidious attack on the city of New York on September 11, 2001. They can’t be ignored.

The same as European intellectuals can’t be ignored, because men like you have been making huge efforts to build awareness and have made a remarkable contribution to the creation of that much needed awareness.

There are now a number of governments, in Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and others, that are implementing progressive measures. What’s your perception of what Lula is doing in Brazil, for example?

I obviously have the utmost sympathy for what Lula is doing. He doesn’t have a big enough majority in Parliament. He has had to secure the support of other forces, even conservatives, to push through a number of reforms. The media have widely reported a corruption scandal involving members of Parliament but they have not been able to implicate him. Lula is a popular leader. I have known him for many years, we have followed his career, we’ve talked with him at length. He is a man of strong convictions, intelligent, patriotic, progressive, of very humble origins, and he has neither forgotten his background nor the people who always supported him. And I think everyone sees it that way. Because it isn’t a question of leading a revolution, it is a question of overcoming a challenge: eradicating hunger. He can do it. It is a question of eradicating illiteracy. And he can also do hat. I believe we should all support him.11

Commander, do you believe that the time of revolution and the armed struggle in Latin America is passed?
Look, no one can say with certainty that revolutionary changes are going to take place in Latin America today. But neither can anyone say, with certainty that they won’t occur, at some point, in one or more countries. If one objectively analyzes the economic and social situation of some countries, one sees, without the shadow of a doubt, that the situation is indeed volatile.

For instance, infant mortality rate is 65 for one thousand live births in a number of these countries. In ours, it is less than 6.5., that is, ten times more children, on average, die in Latin America than in Cuba. In some cases, undernourishment affects more than 40 percent of the population, illiteracy and semi-illiteracy levels continue to be very high, unemployment affects tens of millions of adult people across our America and there is also the problem of the millions of abandoned children. The President of UNICEF once told me that if Latin America had the level of medical assistance and the healthcare system Cuba has, 700,000 children would be saved each year.

If we don’t find solutions to these problems soon—and the FTAA is not a solution, neither is neoliberal globalization—there could be more than one revolution in Latin America and when the United States least expects it. And it won’t be able to blame anyone for those revolutions.