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. In the face of the U.S. government’s threats, Cuban working people mobilized in their millions to defend their revolution, staying Washington’s hand (see accompanying box).

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 October 23 speech given by Fidel Castro, then prime minister of Cuba, that was broadcast over Cuban television and radio the day after U.S. president John F. Kennedy’s televised speech publicly launched the crisis. In his address to the Cuban people Castro answers Kennedy’s war threats and explains why the country’s armed forces were placed on combat alert in response to U.S. military maneuvers taking place at that time on the island of Vieques, Puerto Rico.

Copyright © 2002 by Pathfinder Press, reprinted by permission. Subheadings are by the Militant.

Click here for Background to 1962 ‘missile’ crisis in Cuba
 

We realized that anything could happen from one moment to the next. They will never catch us unprepared and by surprise. They have not caught us by surprise up to now, nor will they ever catch us by surprise. When Girón occurred, they didn’t catch us by surprise, and they’ll never catch us unprepared and by surprise. When we realized that a series of movements were occurring and that some sort of action was imminent--we didn’t know concretely what it was going to be or where it would come from--then we came to the conclusion, after discussing the situation with the compañeros, to put our forces on alert.

That is why yesterday, at 5:40 p.m., the order was given sounding the combat alarm. The combat alarm is the highest degree of alert and readiness in the armed forces. We wanted to avoid having to take this measure unless we were facing a very clear danger, because naturally all our efforts, the efforts of our country, have for many months been devoted almost exclusively to increasing production and solving problems of an economic character. And our country really has progressed and is advancing very much in this field.

Naturally, every time a mobilization of this type is made, it implies sacrifices in the field of production, no matter how much one tries to reconcile one thing with the other. And even though we’re much better organized and have much more experience, it of course affects us in any case. In face of this situation, the order was decreed, and naturally all instructions related to the combat alarm were carried out, in anticipation of an aggression and against the danger of a surprise attack. At this moment, therefore, they cannot catch us by surprise.  
 
On combat alert for surprise attack
Since we must always distrust these gentlemen, we felt the same thing might occur here, in line with the movements they’ve been carrying out. That is, the military landing maneuver--supposedly a maneuver--on the island of Vieques in Puerto Rico, might be redirected against Cuba, we felt, as in fact was done.¹ They suspended the maneuvers, and we were on alert, because one of the methods they can utilize is to simulate a maneuver and launch an attack, to try to obtain their proposed objectives through surprise.

The maneuvers were in progress, and in anticipation that something might occur, such as a sudden surprise attack, the combat alarm order was given. Later, Kennedy’s statement was published, which simply confirmed and justified the measures we had taken. Why was this? Simply because an imperialist adventure of this type is fraught with such dangers that it is necessary to be on a state of total alert.

After some preliminary words of attempted self-justification--in which all the reasons invoked are absolutely unfounded--he says that the weapons received by Cuba "constitute an explicit threat to the peace and security of all the Americas in flagrant and deliberate defiance of the Rio Pact of 1947."² This is an act that might have validity for those who remain in the fold of imperialism, but not us.

What are "the traditions of this nation and hemisphere"? What are "the traditions of this nation"? What are they? The traditions of imperialist exploitation. The pirate-like sacking of our wealth and the exploitation of our workers? The tradition of submission and exploitation? According to him, then, we violate the traditions of this continent, the Joint Resolution of the 87th Congress. What do we care about any resolution of the 87th Congress--or the 7th or the 587th, for that matter? [Applause]

He speaks of the United Nations Charter precisely at the moment they are about to violate it. They invoke the United Nations Charter against us. We have not committed the slightest violation of any of its articles--not the slightest. No one can show that we have violated a single article, not a single one. At the very moment they are about to commit a flagrant and barefaced violation, they invoke the United Nations Charter.

He refers finally to "My own public warnings to the Soviets on September 4 and 13." What do we care about Mr. Kennedy’s personal warnings? They might be important to him and the people around him, but they don’t concern us in the least.  
 
Washington imposes naval ‘quarantine’
These are nothing less than the legal pretexts he uses. They are his basis for adopting a measure, which goes as follows:

"First, a strict quarantine on all offensive military equipment under shipment to Cuba is being initiated. All ships of any kind bound for Cuba from whatever nation or port will, if found to contain cargoes of offensive weapons, be turned back. This quarantine will be extended"--note this well--"...this quarantine will be extended, if needed, to other types of cargo and carriers. We are not at this time, however"--at this time--"...denying the necessities of life, as the Soviets attempted to do in their Berlin blockade of 1948."

Note well between the lines how it says that "this quarantine will be extended, if needed, to other types of cargo and carriers," but that we are "not at this time denying"--at this time!

"Second: I have directed the continued and increased close surveillance of Cuba and its military buildup. The foreign ministers of the OAS in their communiqué of October 6, rejected secrecy on such matters in this hemisphere. Should these offensive military preparations continue, thus increasing the threat to the hemisphere, further action will be justified."

"I have directed"--this gentleman has turned into a director!--"...the Armed Forces"--the Armed Forces!--"...to prepare for any eventualities." We are prepared just in case. "And I trust that in the interest of both the Cuban people and the Soviet technicians at these sites, the hazards of all concerned of continuing this threat will be recognized."

"Fourth: As a necessary military precaution, I have reinforced our base at Guantánamo"--they are shameless--"...and evacuated today the dependents of our personnel there, and ordered additional military units to be on a stand by alert basis."

"Fifth: We are calling tonight for an immediate meeting of the Organ of Consultation under the Organization of American States, to consider this threat to hemispheric security and to invoke Articles 6 and 8 of the Rio Treaty in support of all necessary action. The United Nations Charter allows for regional security arrangements, and the nations of this hemisphere decided long ago against the presence of outside powers. Our other allies around the world have also been alerted." Yes, but they were alerted after the decision was taken. They did not consult any of them beforehand. We can talk about this later.

And "Sixth: Under the Charter of the United Nations, we are asking tonight that an emergency meeting of the Security Council be convoked without delay to take action against this latest Soviet threat to world peace. Our resolution will call for the prompt dismantling and withdrawal of all offensive weapons in Cuba, under the supervision of UN observers, before the quarantine can be lifted."

You can see how each one of these articles implies an aim--like the one I referred to where he said that "at this time" the quarantine applied to armaments; later it can be extended to other things.

Regarding the question of surveillance of Cuba, their surveillance has consisted of violating our airspace and territorial waters every day. They themselves admit it, because they’re now talking of alleged photographs their planes took. How could their planes take photographs unless they violated Cuban airspace?

So each one of the points, each one of those actions involves an act of illegality.

They assembled the foreign ministers at Washington’s State Department behind closed doors, in secret, and today they speak of that meeting.

They then speak of the Guantánamo base. What right do they have to speak of the Guantánamo base? That is, a base they hold in our territory, which they took by force and maintain against the will of our people. So, calmly, in a document of this type, they speak of the Guantánamo base, which is located in our territory, and shamelessly say they are utilizing this base, that they have reinforced it in order to utilize it against Cuba. This is a magnificent warning they are making to all countries where they currently have military bases!

They call for a meeting of the OAS. For what reason? To defend a Latin American country from aggression? No! To ratify and support aggression against a Latin American country.

Finally, he speaks of the United Nations for no other reason than to suggest sending observers to Cuba to supervise the measures we have taken for our defense.

Perhaps the most insolent thing in this entire declaration of Mr. Kennedy are the paragraphs he addresses to the people of Cuba. I’m going to read them, because one can see the extent of this man’s cynicism and shamelessness.

He says: "I speak to you as a friend." He says: "Finally, I want to say a few words to the captive people of Cuba"--those people who are armed and have hundreds of thousands of men under arms, very good arms at that, are called "captive people." He might better have said "the captive and armed people of Cuba," "...to whom this speech is being directly carried by special radio facilities." The words "special facilities" means all their radio stations beamed to us.

I’ll continue to read: "I speak to you as a friend"--a friend!--"as one who knows of your deep attachment to your fatherland." We don’t deny it; I imagine he is well aware of our deep attachment to the fatherland. "...As one who shares your aspirations for liberty and justice for all. And I have watched with deep sorrow, and the American people have watched with deep sorrow that your nationalist revolution was betrayed"--if it had been betrayed, we would now be the best allies of imperialism in the world--"...and how your fatherland fell under foreign domination. Now your leaders are no longer Cuban leaders inspired by Cuban ideals."--what are we then, Martians?--"...They are puppets and agents of an international conspiracy which has turned Cuba against your friends and neighbors."--It is they who have compelled these neighbors to break with us; that is, to turn them into our enemies--"... against your friends and neighbors and turned them into a target for nuclear war--the first Latin American country to have nuclear weapons on its soil.

"These new weapons are not in your interest. They contribute nothing to your peace and well-being. They can only undermine it. But this country has no wish to cause you to suffer"--listen well--"...or to impose any system upon you. We know that your lives and land are being used as pawns by those who deny you freedom.

"Many times in the past, the Cuban people have risen to throw out tyrants who destroyed their liberty. And I have no doubt that most Cubans today look forward to the time when they will be truly free--free from foreign domination, free to choose their own leaders"--I don’t know who chose us!--"...free to select their own system, free to own their own land." Get this: "free to own their own land"--the land we have taken away from the American companies and the big plantation owners and that we’ve put in the hands of the people--the same land that the peasants used to have to pay one-third, one-fourth, one-half of their income to rent.

And then notice how--I don’t know, these things are really hard for me to understand, when this gentleman says "free to own their own land." This is a promise he makes, "free to speak and write"--what do you think of that?--"Free to speak and write." This gentleman is talking to a people, one million of whose sons and daughters have learned to read and write in the course of the revolution because the revolution has taught them. "...And worship without fear or degradation." No one here prohibits anyone from going to churches or anywhere else.

But it must be their own God--that is, the "golden calf," because these imperialist gentlemen have no God other than gold. "...To the society of free nations and to the associations of the hemisphere"--meaning Guatemala, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, Venezuela, the "gorillas" of Argentina. In other words, he invites us to join the "society of free nations." Some society!

"Let no one doubt that this is a difficult and dangerous effort on which we have set out." No, we do not doubt it at all. It is difficult and dangerous. And if he understands this well, possibly he won’t embark on such an "effort."

"No one can foresee precisely what course it will take or what costs or casualties will be incurred." Could this gentleman be so insolent as to speak of "casualties" that humanity might suffer? To teach our people to read and write, to make the peasants owners of their land, or to make people the owner of their land?

Anyone reading this speech has the strange sensation that this gentleman is either ill-informed, or else he has lost the last ounce of shame. Or it could mean something else: that this is solely for public consumption, a public that has been told all those things, a public intoxicated by lies and slander.

Of course, all these things seem totally ridiculous to our people. And Mr. Kennedy, in reality, is the ridiculous one.

There is another point in the argument of these gentlemen, when they say: "If they continue these preparations for a military offensive, thereby increasing the threat against this hemisphere, we will be justified to take additional measures." You all remember how World War II began. You remember how the invasion of Poland began, by a Hitler "communiqué." Hitler issued a communiqué that his troops, beginning at 3:00 a.m.--I don’t remember what time--or 6:00 a.m., had begun to reply to Polish fire. They were not the ones attacking; Hitler was simply replying to Polish fire. All the campaigns of aggression, all the wars of aggression begun by Nazism and fascism--and Yankee imperialism is the most complete embodiment of fascism in the contemporary world--all their aggressions were always begun by speaking of the threat of aggression. In other words, they use the pretext of the danger of aggression to initiate their action.

Finally, because he is so "good," so "saintly," after writing all these criminal things, this gentleman repeats something that is a violation of law and morality. He says: "Our goal is not the victory of might, but the vindication of right. And it is not peace at the expense of freedom, but both peace and freedom, here in this hemisphere, and, we hope, around the world. God willing, that goal will be achieved." He even asks God to bless all the foul deeds he proposes to commit and has been committing.

That, in summary, is Mr. Kennedy’s statement. To me and to our people, it is not the declaration of a statesman but of a pirate. Consider the following: The measure he is taking as a result of all this is a complete violation of international law. No state can do that. No state can stop the ships of another state on the high seas. No state can blockade another state. It is as if we were to send our ships with the following aim: "The United States cannot send such-and-such arms to Guatemala or Venezuela." Or as if any country were to place its warships around another country and blockade it. That goes against every international law, and it also goes against the ethics of international relations, against the most basic right of the peoples.

In the first place, it’s a flagrant violation of law. Two violations are being committed: one, against our sovereignty in that it attempts to blockade our country; and, second, against the rights of all countries because it says that ships "from whatever nation" can be searched. Where? In North American waters? No. On the high seas; that is to say, in international waters! A violation is being committed here against the rights of all other nations, not just Cuba.

Of course, this is a deed that will very soon begin to have repercussions throughout the world, because every country sees what it means when one nation takes upon itself the right to blockade another nation.

And the more than 100 independent nations--and even those that are less independent--have to view with justified fear the fact that one country takes upon itself the right to blockade another nation, to prevent that country from freely acquiring and receiving the arms or the products it believes are necessary.

So the U.S. government violates the sovereign right of our country and it violates international law. That is to say, it violates the right of all nations and establishes a precedent that has to be alarming for all the peoples of the world.

² The Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance was signed by twenty-one governments on September 2, 1947, in Rio de Janeiro. It declared that aggression against any treaty member state would be considered an attack on all of them.  

After Cuban workers and farmers overthrew a U.S.-backed dictatorship and began a deep-going revolution in 1959, Washington took increasingly aggressive actions to try to overthrow the new revolutionary power. In April 1961, Cuba’s revolutionary militias and armed forces crushed a U.S.-organized mercenary invasion at the Bay of Pigs.

In the spring and summer of 1962, in face of escalating preparations by Washington for a full-scale invasion of Cuba, the revolutionary government signed a mutual defense pact with the Soviet Union. In October U.S. president John Kennedy demanded removal of Soviet nuclear missiles installed on the island. Washington imposed a naval blockade of Cuba, stepped up preparations for an armed assault, and placed its armed forces on nuclear alert.

In face of the mobilization of Cuban workers and farmers to defend their national sovereignty and revolutionary gains, the U.S. government backed off its invasion plans. Following an exchange of communications between Washington and Moscow, Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev, without consulting Cuba, announced his decision to remove the missiles on October 28.  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home