You know that after the elections we have the Pope's visit from January 21 to 25. The program for his visit was in today's paper; I don't know if any of you saw it. That program was drawn up by a joint commission made up of a group of comrades and another group representing the Catholic hierarchy and the Vatican. They are the ones who have been working on the coordination, analysis and drawing up of the program; they had announced it earlier and now it's been published in detail in the newspaper.
We have been following closely everything published in the international press in relation to the Pope's visit. Well, some press agencies are attentive to the slightest word on that subject. When someone from the Cuban hierarchy gives a homily, or makes any comment in a mass, they immediately start to search for meanings, to circulate abroad.
The Pope's visit has aroused great interest everywhere. When I was in Rome, many people were talking about it and, by the way, with much satisfaction. The visit was agreed upon when we traveled to Rome for the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) summit, where the Pope also spoke. In those meetings, the Pope speaks with total freedom, as Cuba does.
In the summit's speeches - and I mentioned this in an interview there - statements on the issue of hunger and all related issues in the world were very similar, because he undoubtedly expressed his ideas and the points of view he defended very freely. Unquestionably, there was agreement on many of those points of view. Everyone was happy over the visit.
Many friends throughout Latin America are talking with great satisfaction about the Pope's visit to Cuba and have unanimously expressed their satisfaction; and, without any doubt, the Pope is one of the most outstanding figures in the contemporary world. That is why the visit has aroused great interest in the world, and since Cuba has been the target of so much propaganda and so many campaigns, that certainly must have contributed to the great expectation and great interest aroused by the Pope's trip.
Many people are undoubtedly interested in everything related to the visit; his arrival in Cuba, what the meeting will be like; although we'd already had a meeting in Rome, at which they were very hospitable and considerate to the group of comrades. It was a constructive, positive and respectful meeting, first of all, and thus it was there that he was officially invited to visit Cuba, something desired by all Cuban Catholics. The issue had been put forth some time ago, without reaching an agreement on the visit; however, on that occasion, it was arranged.
A great many journalists have asked to come. Suffice it to say that one of the U.S. networks has requested accommodation for 200 television workers; another also asked for that much, for positions all over the place, here, there, on the route, in Santiago, everywhere. I think five of the most important U.S. networks are coming. As far as we know over 1000 journalists have been accredited. A great amount of attention is going to be focused on the country during the time of the visit and, naturally, we are interested in all that's said internationally on this subject.
Envoys from the Vatican have been here, we have talked with them every time, and I have met with the most important envoys. The talks have been excellent, they are highly intelligent people. They are paying attention to every detail, because even the slightest detail has to be attended to; they are intelligent, interesting and pleasant people, we have had lengthy conversations on the occasions they've been here. Contacts with those coordinating and organizing the visit have been similarly excellent.
This is a pastoral visit, in other words, it's not a political visit. However, the Pope is a head of state and is a guest of the country, a guest of the government, so as to enable him to undertake his mission of carrying out his pastoral visit. And, of course, how is the enemy reacting? We're trying to imagine what's going through the enemy's mind, what they're thinking over there in the United States, for example; what the terrorist groups are thinking, what the extremist elements, annexationists, anti-patriots are thinking; in fact, what attitude they are adopting in relation to the Pope's visit, what they are saying. Undoubtedly, some of them would of course like to politicize the visit, to detract from its evangelical nature, to give it a more political character. Actually, in all our talks with the Vatican envoys, we haven't received any indication whatsoever, from the Vatican's point of view, that the visit has any political content.
Of course, it is evident that any event which has international repercussions also arouses political interest in terms of international opinion; many people are interested in what is being said, how the visit goes; the program includes speeches.
Our enemies would like to see in this visit a Cuban plan or maneuver for political ends; many things are going through their minds. Thus, it's very important to remember - and everyone who knows the Revolution and the leaders of the Revolution is well aware of this - that we are not involved in politicking, nor are we in the habit of doing things to seek petty advantages of any kind; that has never been the style of the Revolution, nor the style of the leaders of the Revolution. Those who think that Cuba's hospitality or Cuba's attitude, or the moves Cuba makes or could make in a situation like this, are for political ends, do not know well the Revolution. It's good to recall this and that we be aware of it.
Dispatches are going back and forth - as I was saying - they are starting to interpret every word; a homily, any statement anywhere. Then the interpretations begin; one scheme, another, and that's an issue which is being given complete attention.
Now, there are a few things I'd like to point out, and which are very important for our people to understand, so that it understands what the government's position is, what it's attitude is in relation to the visit, what we understand to be our duty in terms of that visit, which is very important.
Of course, in the United States - to reiterate - without any doubt they don't like it at all; they don't like it because they want the country to be isolated, and they're thinking, well how come the Pope is visiting Cuba?
I know of so many political leaders who have not come here, even after having announced a visit to this country, due to U.S. pressure! I know of a few who have said: "We'd like to visit Cuba, to see Cuba," and, shortly afterwards: "Look, please excuse us, it's not possible." As soon as the United States gets wind of it, it puts a brake on it. If an important entrepreneur is going to come, it puts a brake on it; a president, a political leader, wherever it can place an obstacle, it does so. It doesn't want the country to receive political visits. And the visit of a person as prominent as the Pope, even though he's coming on a pastoral visit, is annoying for the United States, upsetting. But it can't give orders to the Pope, I imagine it wouldn't even try, nor can it apply any pressure, they know him well. He has traveled abroad 80 times; Cuba is going to be his 81st trip, and he's visited more than 130 countries in practically all the continents. Right now the extremist elements are furious about the Pope's visit, that's their reaction.
I've brought a dispatch with me, I brought it because it contains statements by a New Jersey legislator, a member of Torricelli's gang or group and the rest of them who have concocted those laws, the Helms-Burton et al. He is one of our staunchest enemies, and he made some really infamous statements. I'm going to read a few paragraphs; it's a Notimex dispatch datelined New York, December 10. It says: "U.S. legislator Robert Menéndez stated today that the Cuban government is blocking some aspects of the upcoming visit of Pope John Paul II to the island to reduce the popular attendance at the programmed mass events.
"In a talk with members of The Americas Society, the Democratic representative noted that Fidel Castro's government is employing intimidation of workers and other methods to discourage demonstrations of support for the Pope.
"According to Menéndez, Democratic congressman for New Jersey, the government has failed to adequately publicize the Pope's visit among the population and is threatening some workers with dismissal if they attend the mass events." You get their wave length?
"Menéndez, one of the U.S. Cuba policy hardliners, spoke before some 20 academics," he must have left them without any academy in their heads, "entrepreneurs and economists about his view of the general situation in Cuba. He defended the Helms-Burton Act and its extraterritorial nature, which threatens entrepreneurs and companies in third countries with sanctions if they do business with Cuba, and pointed out that it is the most successful instrument in the history of his country's policy on Cuba," he's referring to the act.
You can see how infamous they are, saying that we are threatening workers with dismissal in order to prevent them from participating in the Pope's activities. But there are worse things that confirm their irritation. Via their media, on television and radio stations, according to a comrade who works in Washington, they have stated that this trip is a Cuban invention, a trick to bring the Pope, and that the Pope has accepted because the Pope's a communist. (LAUGHTER) It's incredible how far they've gone! They've accused the Pope of being a communist; I was astounded. I said: "These people are crazy!" And they're using those arguments, but it's really stupid.
The U.S. government hasn't made any public statements, that I know of; it has a bit more common sense. The archdiocese of Miami applied for permission to send a cruise ship to Havana, with about 1000 Miami pilgrims, more or less, which the U.S. authorities immediately authorized; perhaps they thought we would refuse access to a cruise ship. Their intention was obvious, to avoid anyone staying in a hotel, so that they wouldn't spend anything, to comply with legislation against Cuba. Unquestionably, it could be perceived as a kind of provocation, a trick; without any hesitation we said: "Yes, let the cruise ship come."
At the same time, however, the Cardinal of New York on the one hand, who has been here on a visit, and on the other the one from Boston, who has also come here, and who are both personally known to me, requested Cuban authorization to charter an aircraft, each one of them, and to bring a number of pilgrims. We immediately told them: "Yes, you can come in an airplane with pilgrims, and any other cardinal or group of U.S. Catholics who would like to come for the Pope's visit will also be well received, they will be granted all facilities to come." So, some airplanes will be coming, we don't know how many, but if ten want to come, let them come; if 20 want to come, let them come. Of course, there is only one requirement: they have to obtain a visa.
We are having to take special security measures in relation to this visit; they have to obtain a visa to travel here. They made their request to Cuba in a highly respectful manner and, of course, the U.S. authorities gave them permission - I can't see how they could ask permission to fly in and be forbidden to do so there, it would have no sense, they would have no argument to do so. They still haven't received official authorization, but they said yes, and we said and we repeat it here: "All U.S. pilgrims who wish to come can charter an aircraft and request permission from their authorities; we will give them all possible facilities here." That's our position and that's the response we gave. There has been no other manifestation on the part of the U.S. government in relation to the visit.
There is one very important aspect in relation to this: in the first place, the Pope is our guest. He has been invited by the Catholic Church, the hierarchy; but we have also invited him, he is our guest. You know very well how we receive guests in this country. No country is more hospitable than ours. In the first place, that is a characteristic of the Revolution, a line that the Revolution has always followed. I have told the envoys: "You can rest assured that we will do our utmost to make the visit a success, so that the Pope can feel fully satisfied with the visit." We put it that way. So we are very clear on and conscious of what our duties are and what we have to do in relation to this visit.
We have not imposed any conditions. Our enemies are saying that we want him to make a statement against the blockade. Because of an elemental sense of dignity, our country could not do that; because of an elemental sense of dignity, we could not organize and make every effort for a visit, and accompany that with a request for an express statement against the blockade. It would be a lack of dignity on our part, as well as a lack of elementary courtesy with the visitor himself, and we are not accustomed to any such things. Many people are speculating about that, whether he's going to make a statement; we haven't addressed that issue at any point, nor have we requested it, nor are we thinking of doing so. He must feel absolutely free to make any pertinent pronouncements. So they are mistaken once again, because they're always imagining a plan, a lucubration, a maneuver.
As there are so many people in this world who do not act in accordance with principles and ethical standards, they imagine that a revolutionary can go about making that type of maneuver. However, above all we are revolutionaries and we don't apply those practices. That's one of the issues on which they're speculating.
Now then, what I'm saying or going to say is something that unmistakably demonstrates the position we have always held in relation to religious believers, a well-known one, from the beginning of the Revolution up until now: it has been a very consistent policy.
A subject that always greatly interested me, a question that always interested me, as a political question, as a historical question, was the question of the relationship between the Revolution and believers; between the power of the Revolution, the political power of the Revolution and believers, because we consider ourselves to be revolutionaries and always act on the basis of that idea, in a consistent manner.
When I visited Chile 27 years ago, I met in the Cuban embassy with representatives of all the churches there; and the conversation I had with dozens of religious people, from all the religious denominations, was recorded and published as a book. I proposed the need for a constructive relationship and, something more, a common effort for justice.
I explained that believers didn't need to have any contradictions with revolutionaries, nor revolutionaries with believers; that we wanted to make a social revolution and that we respected the religious concepts and the philosophical concepts held by all believers. It was published 27 years ago, so what I'm telling you doesn't have anything to do with this visit and with what we are expressing about the visit.
On another occasion, some years later, but a long time ago, I met with a similar group of religious representatives in Jamaica. It was the same theme, the same conversation, very friendly, the same ideas. It was also published.
Some years later, in Nicaragua, I met with another large group of religious representatives. They had played an important role in the Sandinista struggles.
The history of Monsignor Romero, in El Salvador, is well known; he was a very well-known, very prestigious bishop, who was assassinated; the repressive forces murdered him, they used mercenaries to murder him, like they subsequently murdered a group of Jesuits who had made a series of sociological studies, and who held very positive positions in relation to social issues in all those countries.
When I visited Brazil, I met with the Brazilian Catholic hierarchy, who have taken very active positions in favor of the rights of campesinos, of workers and the poor. And there's an even larger meeting - it's there in the television archives - with representatives of the grass-roots ecclesiastical communities, mostly Catholic, and others from diverse religious denominations. There were about 1500 or 2000 hospitable and friendly people who were in solidarity with the Revolution.
Some time later, Frei Betto, the Brazilian priest who had visited Cuba on various occasions - we were friends - decided to do an interview with me, which was edited into a book, with the title of Fidel and Religion. That book has even been printed in Chinese; it was translated into dozens of languages.
I expressed my points of view with great frankness, with great respect; I answered all his questions. A million copies of the book were published in this country, because it aroused enormous interest. It was sold out and reprinted many times. One million books, without any fear! And there were some difficult questions, because he pulled out Marx' phrase referring to religion as the opium of the people. I responded in the way I thought I should respond to him in relation to that concept, setting out and arguing my personal opinion that, from a revolutionary point of view, religion could be very positive, or could be negative. My answer was very spontaneous and frank. And, as I said, one million copies were published, a record for Cuban publications. I am basing myself on the same ideas.
Later, we realized that some of the formulations in the Constitution drawn up in 1975 were being interpreted as anti-religious. It was a question of concepts, words; they're around here, I asked for them.
You know that two articles were discussed in the National Assembly, and two were modified - this was in 1992 - with the objective of eliminating a form of expression that appeared to be discriminatory or anti-religious; and the Constitution was modified, and modifying the Constitution really is a significant step.
After much discussion with the membership, the 4th Party Congress raised the issue of religious believers joining the Party; including the point of view that if we had a Party that didn't admit believers, we were discriminating against them, we were curtailing a right. Moreover, this was in contradiction with the ideas we held in terms of the relations that should exist. As always, it was necessary to persuade Party members, because nothing has been done here without taking all the time and labor necessary to persuade the membership.
This was not easy, because of the conflicts that arose in the early years of the Revolution, although they were not born of an anti-religious spirit within the Revolution. For me, it didn't make sense that the Revolution should acquire an anti-religious image. What were we going to do, help the United States in Latin America and the rest of the world? What the United States most wants is to present the image of an anti-religious revolution. It had no sense.
That is, there's an entire record, a whole history laid out in documents, in facts, in history, on what has been the Revolution's role and position in relation to religion. And it's a clean slate, clean and very clear; none of those idiots, no schemer can come and question it or make ridiculous imputations on the subject.
Certainly, on more than one occasion, on many occasions, I have meditated on certain historical matters, and on the question of the relations between the State and the Church, between political power and religions or religious sentiments. I was helped by the fact that from the first grade through to the last I attended religious schools: first the La Salle School until fifth grade, then Dolores School , and later Belén School. I knew a good deal about the Bible because of the sacred history studies taught to us there.
When class conflicts emerged in our society as a result of the revolutionary laws, I stated that to betray the Revolution was to betray Christ. I even remember that in the early days of the Revolution, I used some quotes from the Bible, in response to those who attempted to use religion against the Revolution, and who were responding to interests affected by the laws we made, which were truly radical laws. It helped me to develop an idea, a concept, with regard to these problems I saw and observed. These are issues that I spoke about in Frei Betto's book, many of the experiences I've lived through.
I've always been very interested in history, and I knew the history of the first Christians in Rome, as we know the history of Spartacus and the slaves who revolted, as we know the history of the struggles of the patricians and the plebeians, and the class struggles in ancient Rome, and we know that there was terrible persecution against the Christians, and I sometimes spoke about these things.
When I read later about the Communards and the Paris Commune, the heroism of those Communards who attempted to take heaven by storm - as Marx said - I saw a certain similarity between the struggle of the communists and the struggles of those Christians, given the ferocious persecution unleashed against communists everywhere; above all, against those Communards who were closed in, besieged, with the help of the German invading army, and the thousands of communists they killed and shot.
Throughout history, communists have been subject to a great deal of persecution and a great many crimes for professing socialist ideas, communist ideas, or Marxist ideas. They were persecuted everywhere, and we saw that.
Here in our country, we saw for ourselves how they murdered the communist trade union leaders. How they murdered Jesús Menéndez, for example; and Aracelio Iglesias; and other communist activists, for being communists, for defending the rights of workers.
I also saw a similarity to the heroism, the bravery of those Christians who were thrown to the lions in the Roman circus. They were martyrs, without a doubt. They were defending their beliefs, they were defending their ideas, and I made these comparisons.
Later came historical changes, an emperor converted to Christianity, another era in history began. It is history that is well known, there is no reason to repeat it. But it is a subject that has always interested me, as a statesman and as a revolutionary.
Later, when the Roman Empire fell, the first divisions were produced; the Eastern Church was divided from the Western Church. Then came the Middle Ages, the era of feudalism, and there were terrible wars, terrible violence because of religious matters.
The year 1517 brought about reforms and protests, and the Protestant churches emerged. But before that, there were the Crusades, wars based on religious motives also, entire centuries of wars between Muslims and Christians. Of course, there were political factors involved as well, but the cause of those battles was largely religious, and when the reforms emerged, they also brought about fighting and violence everywhere for religious reasons, between the public authorities and certain believers, or among the believers themselves. This is a matter of history.
Later on other problems emerged. I won't mention them all, I'm making the briefest summary possible.
In terms of the era I'm referring to, I'm not even going to mention the important historical episodes, but there was violence, a lot of violence.
After the liberation of Spain came the conquest of this hemisphere. It was a very hard conquest and I truly prefer to recall the positive aspects and a few of the figures involved, among them, the most outstanding of all, Friar Bartolomé de las Casas, who became a defender of the indigenous people. There were several eminent priests who took on the role of defenders of the indigenous people, while the conquistadors in general, with 800 years of experience in warfare, dominated the indigenous population by force, through slavery.
I have spoken a great deal with painter Guayasamín about these matters, and he has explained to me what the conquest signified for the population here in the Americas. In the United States it was worse, because in the United States, despite the religious sentiments of the colonists, who were of the Protestant branch of Christianity, the indigenous population was practically exterminated.
After this came the modern social revolutions. This is a subject I have read about since I was a high school student, because it was a subject that interested me; I read every book I could find about the French Revolution. It was characterized by violence in relations with the Church. One part of the clergy supported the revolution, the other part opposed the revolution, but there was considerable violence.
Then came the Mexican Revolution, and the Mexican Revolution was also a powerful social revolution, characterized by violence between the revolutionary power and religious sentiments.
Later came - there are many other examples - the October Revolution, in Russia, an extremely profound social revolution which was also characterized by violence in the relations between the revolutionary power and religion.
The Spanish Civil War. I remember a Jesuit who took care of the students at our school; he had been a military health officer in the days of the civil war, he was a student priest, and he told me about the violence. There was a bit of everything there; priests from both sides shot down by firing squads, priests who supported the republic, priests who were against it. And there was violence.
That is to say, there are no exceptions in any of these processes. I'm not going to talk about the independence struggles in Latin America, in which Bolívar decreed a war to the death, but not for religious reasons; there were reasons of another nature, political, national, and a decree was adopted to shoot down the Spanish, for the mere sake of being Spanish. "Spaniards, you will be shot down," and as for those who were Venezuelan, "You will be pardoned," for the mere sake of being Venezuelan. Among the Spaniards, there were many priests
Now we arrive at the Cuban Revolution, a true exception in history. We carried out a revolution as profound as the French Revolution, or more so, as profound as the Mexican Revolution, or more so, as profound as the October Revolution - I'm not going to say "or more so," I wouldn't dare say that - that influenced so many generations, that influenced us so much. Nevertheless, during this extremely profound social revolution, there was never, even as an exception, a problem of violence between the revolutionaries and religious people, there was not a single case of physical violence against a priest, or a single church shut down.
They told me that there was a church that they used once, on the Isle of Youth; it was used as a shelter after a hurricane, but this is not a case of a church that they came and shut down, that they closed down because it was a church or a place of religious worship. There is not a single case of a priest being shot; there is not a single case of a church closed down by the Revolution. And this sentiment of respect does not apply only to the Catholic Church, but to all churches.
There were certain kinds of conflict at a given moment with a certain religious denomination, for well-known reasons, related to military service, or to blood transfusions, something that had to do with public health care or with the defense of the country, and these exceptions in relations were not violent; in fact, they were handled with special care afterwards.
Take a look at this record, and you will see the kind of wall that the schemers come up against when they go through the history of the Revolution, and are unable to uncover a single case of violence. And I will say it here, I affirm and reaffirm, that this is a unique case in history, and this is what has guided our thinking on the subject of religions and religious sentiments.
That's the way the world is.... I was recently reading an article about the era in which agriculture emerged, I believe it was between 10,000 and 12,000 years before the Christian era, more or less. In reality, this was the origin of civilization, when the first civilizations developed. A great deal of time has passed for humanity since then; no one has been able to precisely determine the date of the emergence of Homo Sapiens, which we humans consider to be our species.
When it comes to agriculture, a theme we discuss so much, maybe we could do with an advisor from that era. They planted the first wheat when they discovered the idea of farming, which had a tremendous influence on civilization, because it led to the creation of the first communities, which had been nomadic up until then. That happened thousands of years ago, and religions or religious beliefs were already present in one way or another in all of the small communities, and later they were further developed, in the Middle East, in India, in the Far East, everywhere. Some religions are thousands of years old, others are new, very recent. But the fact is that it was not dogmatism that guided the Revolution's policy in this area; it was principles, a sense of humanism.
I remember that one time, after the triumph of the Revolution, I was with my mother and grandmother; they were both sick, and staying together in a room filled with religious prints and images. They were very religious, and they made a lot of vows for us. Well, they must have suffered for a long time because of the dangers we faced for revolutionary causes. They had deep beliefs, and they found great consolation in them. I respected them. What sense would it have made to argue with them, or get caught up in philosophical arguments around this subject?
This is not only a question of justice; we are against all forms of discrimination. Why would we discriminate against someone on the basis of religious beliefs? Not a single book on socialist theory proposes this, and we, in our laws and our Constitution, have encompassed this principle of respect. I believe that it wouldn't be revolutionary, I say this in all sincerity, it wouldn't be politically wise to unnecessarily provoke a conflict between the Revolution and religious sentiments.
We have dedicated our lives, in the most selfless manner conceivable, in favor of humanity and the good of humanity, against all injustice, against all abuse; just as the Revolution never abused its power, never used it to torture people, no matter what our enemies say, the slander, the infamous things they say. But you know very well the way things really are, and the people know better than anyone about the unchanging conduct of the Revolution over almost 40 years with regard to the use of power.
I respect religious sentiments. I have publicly praised, on more than one occasion, any positive work, the efforts of the nuns in the hospitals, in many truly difficult tasks, in homes for the elderly, and I have always stated it publicly.
I believe that the Revolution doesn't have to reproach itself for anything, it can't be criticized, not in the least. They have absolutely no grounds for provoking us.
Throughout the world, there are not only Catholics; there are hundreds of millions of non-Catholic Christians, hundreds of millions of Hindus, Buddhists, Moslems; there is also the Jewish faith. There are believers in Africa, throughout the continent, hundeds of millions who live in that world for which we fought, for which we have spilled our blood. We have lived among them there. I hope that no one has ever asked a single Angolan, or Namibian, or South African, what his or her beliefs were, or has behaved in any way other than to show respect for all believers.
I believe that respect for religious sentiments is not related to a single religion, it is related to all of them, it is related to billions of human beings, billions.
We would never attempt to use religion for political maneuvers or for political ends. It is the imperialists and reactionaries who have tried everything possible to use religion for political ends, for domination, conquest, oppression.
The Revolution has fully respected religious sentiments, and of course has not collaborated with the dominators, imperialists or exploiters. That is, all this has taken place within the framework of a concept which is confirmed in everything related to the Revolution. The intrigues that have been created are really laughable.
The Pope's visit is not just of interest to Catholics. I've been talking to non-Catholic Christians - a large group of representatives of the Protestant churches met with me - on this subject, and I've even asked them to help with the visit.
This is a subject I expect to return to at a later date, after we finish with the election process. I'm here explaining the basics of this to all of you, to the Assembly.
I should also tell you that the success of the Pope's visit should be a success for the country and a success for the Revolution. With everything I've explained, there would be absolutely no sense in our trying to diminish the success of the Pope's visit in the slightest.
Listen, there's more: they've been saying over there that we don't want to publicize the visit. All of the country's resources and means, which aren't many, have been concentrated on the election campaign; from now until January 11 the revolutionary forces will be concentrated on the elections, something which is extremely important for the Revolution and the country.
I also feel that the Revolution has demonstrated that it has some experience - it would be hard to imagine anyone else with more experience than the Revolution - in matters related to creating the best conditions for the participation of the masses in an event of this nature; if there's one thing we know a little about, it's that. So there's no sense in creating an intrigue claiming that we don't want to publicize the Pope's visit.
They've talked about publicity. What else have they talked about? Some have created intrigue around another factor: the Pope's envoys were interested, in regard to the scheduling of masses, in the possibility of believers participating from other municipalities, other places. They had done some calculations about how many could be mobilized; and we, as everyone knows, have a great shortage of transportation resources, vehicles, buses, and the requests made by these representatives would have required the equivalent of 100% of the transportation resources we have. I explained very well: I said that it would not be correct, it wouldn't help to create the best conditions for the visit's success, for consensus. It could lead to protests if one day we stop all public transportation services. This was discussed with the Ministry of Transportation, there was even a plan that had progressed quite a bit to rent I don't know how many buses in hard currency; it was a relatively high figure.
We said: "No, we don't want even the most minimal commercial operation in this matter. We must calculate the cost of the fuel, the parts, the maintenance of the equipment, and that would be strictly the only thing the government would be willing to accept for the means we could mobilize." Then, more or less, I told them that perhaps we could mobilize half of the resources they were asking for.
I even explained to them - because some have said that we mobilize for revolutionary rallies - that in recent years, since we've been in the special period, on May Day and other events we only use a very small number of buses, and they're almost the exception. When we had all the resources to make 30,000 trips with thousands of buses, we mobilized the transportation, we used resources, they even came from Havana province [outside of City of Havana] to rallies in Revolution Square, but not after the special period started. During the funeral ceremonies for Che, we didn't mobilize the buses or any other means of transportation, because of the shortages. Just a few representatives from the municipalities came.
We said: Yes, we're going to make a great effort to supply half of the resources you requested, which is equivalent to half of what the country has available.
How did some people interpret this? What did they publish abroad? They're not talking about the extraordinarily friendly and generous gesture made by the Revolution, even though the Pope's envoys understood that immediately. What did they say? They didn't say, "Cuba's going to use half of its available resources to transport those who want to attend the mass." They didn't say that; they said that Cuba had only given half of what was needed, as if we had all the buses that we had before the special period and all the resources, and as if we had the option of having all those resources available.
In other words, although we are making a truly friendly and generous gesture, and we are doing our very best, people abroad who create intrigues said that there was a problem with the resources which would be mobilized because Cuba only offered half of what was needed; they didn't say it was half of what we have. You can see how aware they are of all the details and how they create intrigue. As I said, the representatives of the Vatican understood right away and even have expressed great appreciation for this effort.
That's how everything's been going. None of this should affect us in the slightest; we can't allow ourselves to be provoked in the slightest by intrigues of any kind. We must follow our line, our policy, and work to make the visit the greatest success. And you can be sure that not only the Catholics of the world, but all believers of the world will appreciate and will value the expression of respect and consideration we have made for the Pope's visit.
We also told them, "Choose the places where you want to hold the masses, choose them yourselves." The envoys toured all the sites: there in Santiago de Cuba, there in the land of Robinson and Maceo they chose Maceo Square; in Camagüey they chose Agramonte Square; in Santa Clara they chose an area which they argued was the best, the most central. We told them,, "You choose." And in Havana they're going to hold the religious ceremony in Revolution Square. And we're going to do this, really, with pleasure, we're going to do it so that the whole world can see how this country is doing and what this country is. And those are the squares of Cuba, of the Cuban Revolution.
And I say that we view the Pope's visit as an honor, we see it as a valiant gesture. He's coming to Cuba, to nothing less than Cuba. It's an expression of trust. We must organize the best visit that has been organized anywhere; we must guarantee better security than there has been anywhere. And we know it, we know how to do it, and it`s based on the people.
The people are the ones who have to guarantee the Pope's safety, and our workers are the ones who are going to take him everywhere, in one kind of vehicle or another, to the four places where he's going, organizing things the same way we always do, with the cooperation and participation of the people. We don't need troops, rifles, no. If he wants to get out anywhere, he can get out anywhere, as he sometimes does on his visits, according to the information we have. The people have to guarantee his safety. If there's one place in the world where he should feel completely safe it's here.
We shouldn't discount any attempt which could be made by our enemies abroad, to spoil the visit at least, because they're not going to be able to stand an absolutely successful visit, without any incidents. That's why I said that not even a light bulb can explode, and I hope all the comrades who are working on this, on the organization in all the provinces, on the facilities, on the way he will be treated, take great care.
There are going to be trips by air and land. He's going to each province and coming back to the Nunciature [in Havana], which is where he's going to stay. So, we appreciate the honor of his visiting us, the valiant gesture, as I said, embodied in the fact that he is visiting us.
We'll do everything humanly possible to make him feel good and satisfied with the visit, and so that he may get to know our country and our people, as many other visitors have done.
We will also express to him our recognition of some real actions: the declarations condemning the blockade that were made by the assembly held in Rome in recent days. For their part, the U.S. bishops issued a declaration condemning the blockade. Also, coincidentally, an organization representing numerous Protestant churches which was recently here - unfortunately, among other reasons, when I found out they had visited us they were already gone - issued a strong declaration against the blockade. They represent 53 million members of those churches in the United States. It is an organization that represents 53 million believers, and it condemned the blockade. We did not ask them to do it; it was spontaneous; nor did we ask the U.S. bishops to make a declaration.
That assembly in Rome was made up of bishops from all over the hemisphere, from Canada to Argentina; they condemned the blockade. I don't think that those who are trying to starve us out, those who are trying to asphyxiate us, those who are trying to destroy us were very happy about that, because it places walls, barriers, very great obstacles in the way of such inhumane and unjustifiable sentiments, that cruel and criminal policy, and the condemnation is becoming universal. We have not asked, we have not organized activities, things, plans among religious people even to fight against the blockade, but nonetheless we thank those who fulfill the elemental duty of condemning the blockade.
For our part, we don't have the slightest doubt that there can be any people more organized, more politically aware, more hospitable and more capable of guaranteeing the visit's success. Contrary to what those slanderers are saying, what we want is for the Pope to return to Rome with the impression that this is the best visit he has made in any country. That is our position.
Wow, I had one more point, an important one, because the day is coming related to one of the arguments they've been making. They've said that Cuba suppressed Christmas celebrations, that it eradicated them, swept them away, and I've explained this well to visitors. I've had to explain, that the policy we adopted in regard to Christmas - and I have also said this publicly - was not inspired by anti-religious sentiment. I've explained very well what happened to us; I remember Christmastime very well when I was in school, the two weeks off they gave to the students. They started just after December 20 and ended with Epiphany, and we were very happy when we got on the train to go home. There was everything there, always apples, grapes, Christmas nougat.
As you know, I was born on a very large farm.
When the Revolution triumphed, within a little while, a shortage of labor force began to emerge, and there was a need to mobilize increasingly more people for large sugar harvests. The sugar harvests began in December and all the fundamental activities were in that period, the dry season. Construction was undertaken in December, the best climate was in December, January, all those months. We realize that there are traditions that come from Europe which really have nothing to do with our country, our climate and our conditions.
In Europe Christmas coincides with winter and snow. They can't work in the fields, they can't work in a lot of places, they can't harvest anything, they can't do anything. We already had the month of December committed - at that time it usually rained in the springtime and not in the winter. We mobilized hundreds of thousands of people, and these were the best months for all activities: agriculture, that was the season for vegetables, potatoes, tobacco, many fundamental crops, the sugar harvest, in which everyone was involved, construction work went at full pitch. We decided to put together all the vacation days in the summertime and we changed the tradition. Vacations were now in the summer.
In Cuba it's not like in other countries. In South America Christmas comes in the summertime and during vacations, in Europe there's snow, and in Cuba it coincides with the sugar harvest and months of heavy labor, and this was a country which needed to work and to have bigger and more developed sugar harvests. That was the reason, a practical reason, an economic reason, it didn't have anything to do with religion, it wasn't an anti-religious policy. We changed the date because those were the months of the most intense work; and I think what we did was just, absolutely correct. We had to reconcile many things, and we all liked Christmas. Cubans liked Christmas. Who didn't like Christmastime?
We've kept New Year's, and if possible we try to have a long weekend around it, and if there's a day in the middle we declare it a legal holiday. But there's good proof that we didn't have other motives, and that is that on January 1, the day marking the triumph of the Revolution, public ceremonies are prohibited. On that key, key, key day of January 1 there are no public ceremonies, for the same reason, and we don't want to commit people to mass mobilizations. We do not have any public celebration of one of the most important dates in our history; it was transferred to July 26, which is in the summer. That's another point that they've been agitating around.
But they were unaware of something - and I'm referring to those who stir up intrigues, those who do this kind of propaganda. I proposed to the Party comrades who have been working on the visit's organization that this year, as an exception, we should make a gesture toward the Pope and all Christians. I want to point out to you that the Protestant churches have excellent relations with us; I recently spent many hours talking with them, I already told you that we had met, and this is a subject which, as Christians, interests them. So I proposed to the Party comrades working on the visit that we should declare December 25 a legal holiday. The Pope's envoys were interested in this subject, but they brought it up with great respect, with great caution. So, as a gesture to the visitor, to Catholics and all Christians, we will declare December 25 a legal holiday. I'm announcing it here for the first time; we have not even told the Papal authorities.
There are some other ideas related to the visits to each province, what facilities we will provide, how we will do it. We have also been analyzing everything related to publicity regarding the visit. It is a subject about which we have been developing some ideas.
And well, as you know, we suggested to those who visit Cuba from the United States that they do so in the month of December, since from January 5 on they have to have a special visa, in order to reduce as much as possible the possibility of someone trying to ruin the visit with some type of terrorist action. No, I don't think they would get near the Pope, because wherever the people are we know how the terrorists react; they respect the people and are afraid of them. Security here has to be complete; we can't take any chances, all suitable measures should be taken. And we will give the evens in which the Pope will participate all the publicity possible.
I imagine that in general - there are also some days off at the end of the year - our compatriots will appreciate not only the gesture but also the day off. But of course, the sugar mills which have begun the harvest and other essential services to the population, such as electricity, communications, hospitals and other similar services will continue functioning just as they do on other legal holidays.
We are announcing this to the public now. Rome and the Cuban Catholic hierarchy will also receive the news in this way, because we wanted to tell the National Assembly first.
I still need to meet with the Catholic leadership, that will be within the next week. I already met with the Protestants and I need to meet with a leadership group of the Catholic hierarchy.
There are some details. I understand that the Pope sends a message to the countries he is going to visit, one month before the visit. Meanwhile, December 25 is coming near, and for that reason it is important to specify this. In the most recent meeting with the Party comrades, taking into consideration that the assembly would meet today, we made the decision on December 25. As soon as the Pope's message arrives we will publish it in full.
The Catholic Church also wants to have the opportunity to speak directly to the population before the visit, utilizing television, and we will give them the opportunity to speak to the population on television.
Our comrades have really worked a lot on all these details. Decisions had to be made about this and I wanted to tell you all, and through you and our media to tell all the people, what our position is, what our policy is, what we are going to do. And of course, after the elections and before the Pope's arrival I will speak on television in greater detail on some things associated with the visit.
Today what I wanted to do was inform you about this, and I hope that there is the greatest understanding, I'm sure there will be.
I think that the arguments we have presented here can help our people and our Party members understand, since they accepted and understood the modification we made in the Constitution and accepted the membership of religious people in the Party.
I don't have anything else to say, I've said it all.
Socialism or death!
Patria o muerte!
Venceremos!
(OVATION)
[On line protest] [Events] [Material Aid] [Membership form] [Brigades] [Facts File on Cuba] [Cuba Si! index] [Other Cuba links] [CSC Contact] [Web contact] [Sponsors] [contents overview]