U.S. has no right to demand inspections: Cuba's response in missile crisis

["Fred Feldman" <ffeldman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

  The Militant
  Vol.66/No.39           October 21, 2002
'U.S. has no right  to demand inspections'
How revolutionary Cuba responded to U.S. war threats in October 1962
(feature
article)

In October 1962, in what is widely known as the Cuban Missile Crisis,
Washington pushed the world to the brink of nuclear war. The events brought
to a head the drive by the U.S. rulers to launch a direct invasion of Cuba
and overthrow the revolutionary government there.
Released on the 40th anniversary of these events, the Pathfinder book
October 1962: The "Missile" Crisis as Seen from Cuba, by Cuban author Tomás
Diez Acosta, tells the story of what really happened.

The Militant has been printing excerpts from the new book. The one below is
from the transcript of a meeting between Fidel Castro, Cuba's prime
minister, and U Thant, United Nations secretary-general, held in Havana on
Oct. 30, 1962. Also participating as part of the Cuban delegation were
President Osvaldo Dorticós, Foreign Minister Raúl Roa, and Carlos Lechuga,
the newly appointed Cuban representative to the United Nations.

The accompanying box (see below) outlines how, in face of the U.S.
government's plans to invade the island, Cuban working people mobilized in
their millions to defend their revolution, staying Washington's hand.

Two days before the meeting recorded below, the Cuban leadership learned
from a Radio Moscow broadcast of a letter sent by Soviet premier Nikita
Khrushchev to U.S. president John Kennedy ordering the removal of missiles
from Cuba that were part of the mutual defense pact between the Cuban and
Soviet governments.

The U.S. government demanded that Cuba accept "inspectors" to "verify" the
removal of the missiles. U Thant visited Cuba for two days of talks to try
to convince the revolutionary leadership to accept a team of UN inspectors
on Cuba territory combined with a UN reconnaissance plane that would operate
over Cuba's airspace. As the following exchange shows, Castro explained in
no uncertain terms why this proposal was unacceptable. Copyright © 2002 by
Pathfinder Press; reprinted by permission.
*****
CASTRO: There is one point I find confusing--the proposals for inspection.
They talk about two points here: about a team, and about a plane. I would
like you to elaborate on that--the part that refers to proposals for
inspection. Please repeat that.
U THANT: Both proposals would involve the United Nations. It would consist
of two units: one on the ground and the other from the air, for as long as
it takes to dismantle the bases, that is, around two weeks.

CASTRO: I don't understand why they ask these things of us. Could you
explain a little better?
U THANT: The explanation the United States gives is that it wants to make
sure that the launchers are really being dismantled and that the missiles
are being returned to the Soviet Union.
CASTRO: What right does the United States have to ask this? Is this based on
a genuine right, or is it a demand imposed by force, made from a position of
force?
U THANT: My viewpoint is that this is not a right. Something like this could
be undertaken only with the approval and acceptance of the Cuban government.

CASTRO: What we do not understand is precisely why this is asked of us. We
have not violated any law. Nor have we carried out any aggression against
anybody whatsoever. All our actions have been based in international law; we
have done absolutely nothing outside the norms of international law. To the
contrary, we have been the victims, in the first place, of a blockade, which
is an illegal act. And secondly, we have been victims of another country's
claim to determine what we have the right to do or not do within our own
borders.
It is our understanding that Cuba is a sovereign state, no more and no less
than any other member state of the United Nations, and that Cuba has all the
attributes inherent to any of those states.
Moreover, the United States has been repeatedly violating our airspace
without any right to do so, thereby committing an act of intolerable
aggression against our country. It has tried to justify this by referring to
an agreement of the OAS [Organization of American States], but so far as we
are concerned that agreement has no validity. We were expelled from the OAS,
in fact.
We can accept anything that respects our rights, anything that does not
imply a reduction in our status as a sovereign state. But the rights that
have been violated by the United States have not been restored. And we
accept nothing imposed by force.
As I see it, all this talk about inspection is one more attempt to humiliate
our country. We do not accept it.

This demand for inspection aims to validate the U.S. presumption that it can
violate our right to freely act within our borders, that it can dictate what
we can or cannot do within our borders. And our line on this is not only a
line for today; it is a view we have always maintained, without exception.

In the revolutionary government's reply to the joint resolution of the U.S.
government, we said the following:  "Equally absurd is its threat to launch
a direct armed attack should Cuba strengthen itself militarily to a degree
the United States takes the liberty to determine. We have not the slightest
intention of rendering accounts or of consulting the illustrious members of
the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives about the weapons we find it
advisable to acquire, nor the measures to be taken to fully defend our
country.... Do we not have the rights that international norms, laws, and
principles recognize for every sovereign state in any part of the world?
"We have not surrendered nor do we intend to surrender any of our sovereign
prerogatives to the Congress of the United States."

That view was repeated by the president of the Republic of Cuba at the
United Nations, and also in numerous public statements I have made in my
capacity as prime minister of the government. This is the firm position of
the Cuban government.
All these steps were taken for the sake of the country's security, faced
with a systematic policy of hostility and aggression. They have all been
taken in accordance with the law, and we have not renounced our decision to
defend those rights.
We can negotiate with full sincerity and honesty. We would not be honest if
we agreed to negotiate away the sovereign rights of our country. We are
willing to pay whatever price is necessary to uphold these rights. And that
is not a mere formula, mere words; it's the deeply felt stance of our people
Full article: http://www.themilitant.com/2002/6639/663950.html





~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.