CASTRO OR THE TERRORISTS’COHERENCE By Carlos Alberto Montaner* Firmas Press Colaboración: Paul Echaniz La Nueva Cuba Noviembre 5, 2001 Francisco Flores, President of El Salvador, looked into Castro’s eyes, and with enormous firmness accused him of being responsible for the countless deaths occurred in his country. The Iberian-American Summit shook. The commander, who had just refused to sign a sanction condemning the Basque ETA- a terrorist organization with 800 crimes on its history-, did not deny the accusation. The revolutionary tradition, he assured, is such. Flores had experienced it in his own flesh: the Castroist Salvadorans had assassinated his father-in-law, an excellent man. Frankly, I had been waiting for something like this to happen for a long time. Several years ago, also during a summit, Castro had a strong encounter with the then Uruguayan president Luis Alberto Lacalle- who was not intimidated either- but it was a private encounter. What happened now took place in front of millions of televiewers the world over and Castro had the worst of it: he stammered, adopted gestures proper of a barrio killer and tried to place himself as a victim. Finally, Hugo Chávez, abandoning for a moment Bolívar’s sword, acted like a clown- that other disguise he uses in coming to the scene- and gracelessly repeated an old joke geared to lessen the tension of the situation. Castro gave him a despiteful look. He was not looking for peace. He wanted to openly defend his right to “revolutionary internationalism”. It is interesting: Fidel, with the least of intentions to respect agreements, had signed his adherence to democracy in Guadalajara, Mexico, his acceptance of political pluralism in Viña del Mar, Chile, or his respect to human rights in Cartagena, Colombia, but in Panama, he was not ready to lie concerning his commitment with errorists. This has been the central point of his political activities – the forging of a communist world obtained through violence- and around that vision and to that ission he has structured his values and priorities. Lying to Lagos, Aznar or to Cardoso lacks importance. They are, after all, his ideological adversaries. To trick good-natured Andrés Pastrana, with his archangelical innocence, could be a justified mischief. On the other hand, to execrate ETA contributing to its discredit constitutes a betrayal to his most cherished principles. During more than thirty years, since 1966, ETA has been his allied, his friend. The Cuban intelligence has trained and helped ETA. How could, Fidel Castro, look at himself in the mirror the following day after incurring in that abominable weakness? The truth is that Castro is a coherent leader. Those not usually coherent are the leaders of the Latin American democracies. How many deaths, how much suffering has cost them the Cuban intervention in the Iberian-American societies? And they could not say that were “struggles of national liberation” or “revolutions against dictatorships”, because it is not true: Rómulo Betancourt and Leoni’s Venezuela was a country just coming out of Pérez Jiménez’ tyranny. When Belaúnde was trying to consolidate democracy in Perú, Castro was trying to unstabilize it. The Cuban cooperation FARC, the M-19 and ELN of Colombia has always worked against freely elected governments. The support to the Uruguayan Tupamaros was done with the objective of destroying freedom in that country. In Argentina, after a decade of shameful good relations between the military and the Cuban dictatorship, how did Castro dismiss Raul Alfonsín’s trembling and fragile government? Training and arming those ttacking La Tablada in 1989. But, what did Raul Alfonsín do ten years later when his coreligionist Fernando de la Rúa adds the Argentinean vote to the democratic vote in Geneva sanctioning Fidel Castro for violation of human rights? Alfonsín did something terrible and contradictory: he attacked De la Rúa and provoked a crisis within radicalism. Instead of supporting the president, his partner in the party, in defense of democratic values, he supported the tyrant who had dug a knife on the back to his country and to his government in the most critical moment. It is not an exceptional case. Why is it that Andrés Pastrana, who at the time he was in the opposition told me that he felt a deep disregard for Fidel Castro, and as he comes into power he makes Fidel Castro his friend, taking him by the elbows, looking at him in ecstasy and incurs in the silliness of trying to use him to put an end to violence? No one has told Pastrana where politics end and when the Stockholm syndrome begins? How could he be a friend to one that has done so much damage to the people that has elected him to find protection and to enforce the laws? How far can inconsequence reach? We are not dealing with a tyrant that has repented and has apologized. We are dealing with a dictator who has not yielded a millimeter, who as not abandoned any of his attitudes and who would not even lend himself to play with the rhetoric of condemning his Basque terrorist allies because he is too careful not incurring in those cunning tricks of the “repulsive politicians of the multi-trash”, as Castro always refers to democrats. Perhaps Francisco Flores has lifted the ban. It is difficult to know it. There is, nevertheless, an encouraging fact. Spain has reacted within the European Union and Minister Piqué has begun to treat Castro for what he is: a tenacious enemy of Spain’s democracy. May the example spread. * Carlos Alberto Montaner is an author, journalist, university professor and lecturer in many institutions both of Latin America and of the United States. His books have been translated into English, Italian, Portuguese and Russian. He is the most read columnist in the Spanish language. He lives in Madrid since 1970. Octavio Noda, editor.