Honoring the 26th of July and the 63rd anniversary of the Moncada Barracks attack, we publish the full defense speech of Fidel Castro in court against the charges brought against him after the Moncada attack. The speech was given on 16 October 1953.
HONORABLE
JUDGES:
Never
has a lawyer had to practice his profession under such difficult
conditions; never has such a number of overwhelming irregularities
been committed against an accused man. In this case, counsel and
defendant are one and the same. As attorney he has not even been able
to take a look at the indictment. As accused, for the past
seventy-six days he has been locked away in solitary confinement,
held totally and absolutely incommunicado, in violation of every
human and legal right.
He who
speaks to you hates vanity with all his being, nor are his
temperament or frame of mind inclined towards courtroom poses or
sensationalism of any kind. If I have had to assume my own defense
before this Court it is for two reasons. First: because I have been
denied legal aid almost entirely, and second: only one who has been
so deeply wounded, who has seen his country so forsaken and its
justice trampled so, can speak at a moment like this with words that
spring from the blood of his heart and the truth of his very gut.
There
was no lack of generous comrades who wished to defend me, and the
Havana Bar Association appointed a courageous and competent jurist,
Dr. Jorge Pagliery, Dean of the Bar in this city, to represent me in
this case. However, he was not permitted to carry out his task. As
often as he tried to see me, the prison gates were closed before him.
Only after a month and a half, and through the intervention of the
Court, was he finally granted a ten minute interview with me in the
presence of a sergeant from the Military Intelligence Agency (SIM).
One supposes that a lawyer has a right to speak with his defendant in
private, and this right is respected throughout the world, except in
the case of a Cuban prisoner of war in the hands of an implacable
tyranny that abides by no code of law, be it legal or humane. Neither
Dr. Pagliery nor I were willing to tolerate such dirty spying upon
our means of defense for the oral trial. Did they want to know,
perhaps, beforehand, the methods we would use in order to reduce to
dust the incredible fabric of lies they had woven around the Moncada
Barracks events? How were we going to expose the terrible truth they
would go to such great lengths to conceal? It was then that we
decided that, taking advantage of my professional rights as a lawyer,
I would assume my own defense.
This
decision, overheard by the sergeant and reported by him to his
superior, provoked a real panic. It looked like some mocking little
imp was telling them that I was going to ruin all their plans. You
know very well, Honorable Judges, how much pressure has been brought
to bear on me in order to strip me as well of this right that is
ratified by long Cuban tradition. The Court could not give in to such
machination, for that would have left the accused in a state of total
indefensiveness. The accused, who is now exercising this right to
plead his own case, will under no circumstances refrain from saying
what he must say. I consider it essential that I explain, at the
onset, the reason for the terrible isolation in which I have been
kept; what was the purpose of keeping me silent; what was behind the
plots to kill me, plots which the Court is familiar with; what grave
events are being hidden from the people; and the truth behind all the
strange things which have taken place during this trial. I propose to
do all this with utmost clarity.
You
have publicly called this case the most significant in the history of
the Republic. If you sincerely believed this, you should not have
allowed your authority to be stained and degraded. The first court
session was September 21st. Among one hundred machine guns and
bayonets, scandalously invading the hall of justice, more than a
hundred people were seated in the prisoner's dock. The great majority
had nothing to do with what had happened. They had been under
preventive arrest for many days, suffering all kinds of insults and
abuses in the chambers of the repressive units. But the rest of the
accused, the minority, were brave and determined, ready to proudly
confirm their part in the battle for freedom, ready to offer an
example of unprecedented self-sacrifice and to wrench from the jail's
claws those who in deliberate bad faith had been included in the
trial. Those who had met in combat confronted one another again. Once
again, with the cause of justice on our side, we would wage the
terrible battle of truth against infamy! Surely the regime was not
prepared for the moral catastrophe in store for it!
How to
maintain all its false accusations? How to keep secret what had
really happened, when so many young men were willing to risk
everything - prison, torture and death, if necessary - in order that
the truth be told before this Court?
I was
called as a witness at that first session. For two hours I was
questioned by the Prosecutor as well as by twenty defense attorneys.
I was able to prove with exact facts and figures the sums of money
that had been spent, the way this money was collected and the arms we
had been able to round up. I had nothing to hide, for the truth was:
all this was accomplished through sacrifices without precedent in the
history of our Republic. I spoke of the goals that inspired us in our
struggle and of the humane and generous treatment that we had at all
times accorded our adversaries. If I accomplished my purpose of
demonstrating that those who were falsely implicated in this trial
were neither directly nor indirectly involved, I owe it to the
complete support and backing of my heroic comrades. For, as I said,
the consequences they might be forced to suffer at no time caused
them to repent of their condition as revolutionaries and patriots, I
was never once allowed to speak with these comrades of mine during
the time we were in prison, and yet we planned to do exactly the
same. The fact is, when men carry the same ideals in their hearts,
nothing can isolate them - neither prison walls nor the sod of
cemeteries. For a single memory, a single spirit, a single idea, a
single conscience, a single dignity will sustain them all.
From
that moment on, the structure of lies the regime had erected about
the events at Moncada Barracks began to collapse like a house of
cards. As a result, the Prosecutor realized that keeping all those
persons named as instigators in prison was completely absurd, and he
requested their provisional release.
At the
close of my testimony in that first session, I asked the Court to
allow me to leave the dock and sit among the counsel for the defense.
This permission was granted. At that point what I consider my most
important mission in this trial began: to totally discredit the
cowardly, miserable and treacherous lies which the regime had hurled
against our fighters; to reveal with irrefutable evidence the
horrible, repulsive crimes they had practiced on the prisoners; and
to show the nation and the world the infinite misfortune of the Cuban
people who are suffering the cruelest, the most inhuman oppression of
their history.
The
second session convened on Tuesday, September 22nd. By that time only
ten witnesses had testified, and they had already cleared up the
murders in the Manzanillo area, specifically establishing and placing
on record the direct responsibility of the captain commanding that
post. There were three hundred more witnesses to testify. What would
happen if, with a staggering mass of facts and evidence, I should
proceed to cross-examine the very Army men who were directly
responsible for those crimes? Could the regime permit me to go ahead
before the large audience attending the trial? Before journalists and
jurists from all over the island? And before the party leaders of the
opposition, who they had stupidly seated right in the prisoner's dock
where they could hear so well all that might be brought out here?
They would rather have blown up the court house, with all its judges,
than allow that!
And so
they devised a plan by which they could eliminate me from the trial
and they proceeded to do just that, manu militari. On Friday night,
September 25th, on the eve of the third session of the trial, two
prison doctors visited me in my cell. They were visibly embarrassed.
'We have come to examine you,' they said. I asked them, 'Who is so
worried about my health?' Actually, from the moment I saw them I
realized what they had come for. They could not have treated me with
greater respect, and they explained their predicament to me. That
afternoon Colonel Chaviano had appeared at the prison and told them I
'was doing the Government terrible damage with this trial.' He had
told them they must sign a certificate declaring that I was ill and
was, therefore, unable to appear in court. The doctors told me that
for their part they were prepared to resign from their posts and risk
persecution. They put the matter in my hands, for me to decide. I
found it hard to ask those men to unhesitatingly destroy themselves.
But neither could I, under any circumstances, consent that those
orders be carried out. Leaving the matter to their own consciences, I
told them only: 'You must know your duty; I certainly know mine.'
After
leaving the cell they signed the certificate. I know they did so
believing in good faith that this was the only way they could save my
life, which they considered to be in grave danger. I was not obliged
to keep our conversation secret, for I am bound only by the truth.
Telling the truth in this instance may jeopardize those good doctors
in their material interests, but I am removing all doubt about their
honor, which is worth much more. That same night, I wrote the Court a
letter denouncing the plot; requesting that two Court physicians be
sent to certify my excellent state of health, and to inform you that
if to save my life I must take part in such deception, I would a
thousand times prefer to lose it. To show my determination to fight
alone against this whole degenerate frame-up, I added to my own words
one of the Master's lines: 'A just cause even from the depths of a
cave can do more than an army.' As the Court knows, this was the
letter Dr. Melba Hernández submitted at the third session of the
trial on September 26th. I managed to get it to her in spite of the
heavy guard I was under. That letter, of course, provoked immediate
reprisals. Dr. Hernández was subjected to solitary confinement, and
I - since I was already incommunicado - was sent to the most
inaccessible reaches of the prison. From that moment on, all the
accused were thoroughly searched from head to foot before they were
brought into the courtroom.
Two
Court physicians certified on September 27th that I was, in fact, in
perfect health. Yet, in spite of the repeated orders from the Court,
I was never again brought to the hearings. What's more, anonymous
persons daily circulated hundreds of apocryphal pamphlets which
announced my rescue from jail. This stupid alibi was invented so they
could physically eliminate me and pretend I had tried to escape.
Since the scheme failed as a result of timely exposure by ever alert
friends, and after the first affidavit was shown to be false, the
regime could only keep me away from the trial by open and shameless
contempt of Court.
This
was an incredible situation, Honorable Judges: Here was a regime
literally afraid to bring an accused man to Court; a regime of blood
and terror that shrank in fear of the moral conviction of a
defenseless man - unarmed, slandered and isolated. And so, after
depriving me of everything else, they finally deprived me even of the
trial in which I was the main accused. Remember that this was during
a period in which individual rights were suspended and the Public
Order Act as well as censorship of radio and press were in full
force. What unbelievable crimes this regime must have committed to so
fear the voice of one accused man!
I must
dwell upon the insolence and disrespect which the Army leaders have
at all times shown towards you. As often as this Court has ordered an
end to the inhuman isolation in which I was held; as often as it has
ordered my most elementary rights to be respected; as often as it has
demanded that I be brought before it, this Court has never been
obeyed! Worse yet: in the very presence of the Court, during the
first and second hearings, a praetorian guard was stationed beside me
to totally prevent me from speaking to anyone, even among the brief
recesses. In other words, not only in prison, but also in the
courtroom and in your presence, they ignored your decrees. I had
intended to mention this matter in the following session, as a
question of elementary respect for the Court, but - I was never
brought back. And if, in exchange for so much disrespect, they bring
us before you to be jailed in the name of a legality which they and
they alone have been violating since March 10th, sad indeed is the
role they would force on you. The Latin maxim Cedant arma togae has
certainly not been fulfilled on a single occasion during this trial.
I beg you to keep that circumstance well in mind.
What
is more, these devices were in any case quite useless; my brave
comrades, with unprecedented patriotism, did their duty to the
utmost.
'Yes,
we set out to fight for Cuba's freedom and we are not ashamed of
having done so,' they declared, one by one, on the witness stand.
Then, addressing the Court with impressive courage, they denounced
the hideous crimes committed upon the bodies of our brothers.
Although absent from Court, I was able, in my prison cell, to follow
the trial in all its details. And I have the convicts at Boniato
Prison to thank for this. In spite of all threats, these men found
ingenious means of getting newspaper clippings and all kinds of
information to me. In this way they avenged the abuses and
immoralities perpetrated against them both by Taboada, the warden,
and the supervisor, Lieutenant Rozabal, who drove them from sun up to
sun down building private mansions and starved them by embezzling the
prison food budget.
As the
trial went on, the roles were reversed: those who came to accuse
found themselves accused, and the accused became the accusers! It was
not the revolutionaries who were judged there; judged once and
forever was a man named Batista - monstruum horrendum! - and it
matters little that these valiant and worthy young men have been
condemned, if tomorrow the people will condemn the Dictator and his
henchmen! Our men were consigned to the Isle of Pines Prison, in
whose circular galleries Castells' ghost still lingers and where the
cries of countless victims still echo; there our young men have been
sent to expiate their love of liberty, in bitter confinement,
banished from society, torn from their homes and exiled from their
country. Is it not clear to you, as I have said before, that in such
circumstances it is difficult and disagreeable for this lawyer to
fulfill his duty?
As a
result of so many turbid and illegal machinations, due to the will of
those who govern and the weakness of those who judge, I find myself
here in this little room at the Civilian Hospital, where I have been
brought to be tried in secret, so that I may not be heard and my
voice may be stifled, and so that no one may learn of the things I am
going to say. Why, then, do we need that imposing Palace of Justice
which the Honorable Judges would without doubt find much more
comfortable? I must warn you: it is unwise to administer justice from
a hospital room, surrounded by sentinels with fixed bayonets; the
citizens might suppose that our justice is sick - and that it is
captive.
Let me
remind you, your laws of procedure provide that trials shall be
'public hearings;' however, the people have been barred altogether
from this session of Court. The only civilians admitted here have
been two attorneys and six reporters, in whose newspapers the
censorship of the press will prevent printing a word I say. I see, as
my sole audience in this chamber and in the corridors, nearly a
hundred soldiers and officers. I am grateful for the polite and
serious attention they give me. I only wish I could have the whole
Army before me! I know, one day, this Army will seethe with rage to
wash away the terrible, the shameful bloodstains splattered across
the military uniform by the present ruthless clique in its lust for
power. On that day, oh what a fall awaits those mounted in arrogance
on their noble steeds! - provided that the people have not dismounted
them long before that!
Finally,
I should like to add that no treatise on penal law was allowed me in
my cell. I have at my disposal only this tiny code of law lent to me
by my learned counsel, Dr. Baudillo Castellanos, the courageous
defender of my comrades. In the same way they prevented me from
receiving the books of Martí; it seems the prison censorship
considered them too subversive. Or is it because I said Martí was
the inspirer of the 26th of July? Reference books on any other
subject were also denied me during this trial. But it makes no
difference! I carry the teachings of the Master in my heart, and in
my mind the noble ideas of all men who have defended people's freedom
everywhere!
I am
going to make only one request of this court; I trust it will be
granted as a compensation for the many abuses and outrages the
accused has had to tolerate without protection of the law. I ask that
my right to express myself be respected without restraint. Otherwise,
even the merest semblance of justice cannot be maintained, and the
final episode of this trial would be, more than all the others, one
of ignominy and cowardice.
I must
admit that I am somewhat disappointed. I had expected that the
Honorable Prosecutor would come forward with a grave accusation. I
thought he would be ready to justify to the limit his contention, and
his reasons why I should be condemned in the name of Law and Justice
- what law and what justice? - to 26 years in prison. But no. He has
limited himself to reading Article 148 of the Social Defense Code. On
the basis of this, plus aggravating circumstances, he requests that I
be imprisoned for the lengthy term of 26 years! Two minutes seems a
very short time in which to demand and justify that a man be put
behind bars for more than a quarter of a century. Can it be that the
Honorable Prosecutor is, perhaps, annoyed with the Court? Because as
I see it, his laconic attitude in this case clashes with the
solemnity with which the Honorable Judges declared, rather proudly,
that this was a trial of the greatest importance! I have heard
prosecutors speak ten times longer in a simple narcotics case asking
for a sentence of just six months. The Honorable Prosecutor has
supplied not a word in support of his petition. I am a just man. I
realize that for a prosecuting attorney under oath of loyalty to the
Constitution of the Republic, it is difficult to come here in the
name of an unconstitutional, statutory, de facto government, lacking
any legal much less moral basis, to ask that a young Cuban, a lawyer
like himself - perhaps as honorable as he, be sent to jail for 26
years. But the Honorable Prosecutor is a gifted man and I have seen
much less talented persons write lengthy diatribes in defense of this
regime. How then can I suppose that he lacks reason with which to
defend it, at least for fifteen minutes, however contemptible that
might be to any decent person? It is clear that there is a great
conspiracy behind all this.
Honorable
Judges: Why such interest in silencing me? Why is every type of
argument foregone in order to avoid presenting any target whatsoever
against which I might direct my own brief? Is it that they lack any
legal, moral or political basis on which to put forth a serious
formulation of the question? Are they that afraid of the truth? Do
they hope that I, too, will speak for only two minutes and that I
will not touch upon the points which have caused certain people
sleepless nights since July 26th? Since the prosecutor's petition was
restricted to the mere reading of five lines of an article of the
Social Defense Code, might they suppose that I too would limit myself
to those same lines and circle round them like some slave turning a
millstone? I shall by no means accept such a gag, for in this trial
there is much more than the freedom of a single individual at stake.
Fundamental matters of principle are being debated here, the right of
men to be free is on trial, the very foundations of our existence as
a civilized and democratic nation are in the balance. When this trial
is over, I do not want to have to reproach myself for any principle
left undefended, for any truth left unsaid, for any crime not
denounced.
The
Honorable Prosecutor's famous little article hardly deserves a minute
of my time. I shall limit myself for the moment to a brief legal
skirmish against it, because I want to clear the field for an assault
against all the endless lies and deceits, the hypocrisy,
conventionalism and moral cowardice that have set the stage for the
crude comedy which since the 10th of March - and even before then -
has been called Justice in Cuba.
It is
a fundamental principle of criminal law that an imputed offense must
correspond exactly to the type of crime described by law. If no law
applies exactly to the point in question, then there is no offense.
The
article in question reads textually: 'A penalty of imprisonment of
from three to ten years shall be imposed upon the perpetrator of any
act aimed at bringing about an armed uprising against the
Constitutional Powers of the State. The penalty shall be imprisonment
for from five to twenty years, in the event that insurrection
actually be carried into effect.'
In
what country is the Honorable Prosecutor living? Who has told him
that we have sought to bring about an uprising against the
Constitutional Powers of the State? Two things are self-evident.
First of all, the dictatorship that oppresses the nation is not a
constitutional power, but an unconstitutional one: it was established
against the Constitution, over the head of the Constitution,
violating the legitimate Constitution of the Republic. The legitimate
Constitution is that which emanates directly from a sovereign people.
I shall demonstrate this point fully later on, notwithstanding all
the subterfuges contrived by cowards and traitors to justify the
unjustifiable. Secondly, the article refers to Powers, in the plural,
as in the case of a republic governed by a Legislative Power, an
Executive Power, and a Judicial Power which balance and
counterbalance one another. We have fomented a rebellion against one
single power, an illegal one, which has usurped and merged into a
single whole both the Legislative and Executive Powers of the nation,
and so has destroyed the entire system that was specifically
safeguarded by the Code now under our analysis. As to the
independence of the Judiciary after the 10th of March, I shall not
allude to that for I am in no mood for joking ... No matter how
Article 148 may be stretched, shrunk or amended, not a single comma
applies to the events of July 26th. Let us leave this statute alone
and await the opportunity to apply it to those who really did foment
an uprising against the Constitutional Powers of the State. Later I
shall come back to the Code to refresh the Honorable Prosecutor's
memory about certain circumstances he has unfortunately overlooked.
I warn
you, I am just beginning! If there is in your hearts a vestige of
love for your country, love for humanity, love for justice, listen
carefully. I know that I will be silenced for many years; I know that
the regime will try to suppress the truth by all possible means; I
know that there will be a conspiracy to bury me in oblivion. But my
voice will not be stifled - it will rise from my breast even when I
feel most alone, and my heart will give it all the fire that callous
cowards deny it.
From a
shack in the mountains on Monday, July 27th, I listened to the
dictator's voice on the air while there were still 18 of our men in
arms against the government. Those who have never experienced similar
moments will never know that kind of bitterness and indignation.
While the long-cherished hopes of freeing our people lay in ruins
about us we heard those crushed hopes gloated over by a tyrant more
vicious, more arrogant than ever. The endless stream of lies and
slanders, poured forth in his crude, odious, repulsive language, may
only be compared to the endless stream of clean young blood which had
flowed since the previous night - with his knowledge, consent,
complicity and approval - being spilled by the most inhuman gang of
assassins it is possible to imagine. To have believed him for a
single moment would have sufficed to fill a man of conscience with
remorse and shame for the rest of his life. At that time I could not
even hope to brand his miserable forehead with the mark of truth
which condemns him for the rest of his days and for all time to come.
Already a circle of more than a thousand men, armed with weapons more
powerful than ours and with peremptory orders to bring in our bodies,
was closing in around us. Now that the truth is coming out, now that
speaking before you I am carrying out the mission I set for myself, I
may die peacefully and content. So I shall not mince my words about
those savage murderers.
I must
pause to consider the facts for a moment. The government itself said
the attack showed such precision and perfection that it must have
been planned by military strategists. Nothing could have been farther
from the truth! The plan was drawn up by a group of young men, none
of whom had any military experience at all. I will reveal their
names, omitting two who are neither dead nor in prison: Abel
Santamaría, José Luis Tasende, Renato Guitart Rosell, Pedro Miret,
Jesús Montané and myself. Half of them are dead, and in tribute to
their memory I can say that although they were not military experts
they had enough patriotism to have given, had we not been at such a
great disadvantage, a good beating to that entire lot of generals
together, those generals of the 10th of March who are neither
soldiers nor patriots. Much more difficult than the planning of the
attack was our organizing, training, mobilizing and arming men under
this repressive regime with its millions of dollars spent on
espionage, bribery and information services. Nevertheless, all this
was carried out by those men and many others like them with
incredible seriousness, discretion and discipline. Still more
praiseworthy is the fact that they gave this task everything they
had; ultimately, their very lives.
The
final mobilization of men who came to this province from the most
remote towns of the entire island was accomplished with admirable
precision and in absolute secrecy. It is equally true that the attack
was carried out with magnificent coordination. It began
simultaneously at 5:15 a.m. in both Bayamo and Santiago de Cuba; and
one by one, with an exactitude of minutes and seconds prepared in
advance, the buildings surrounding the barracks fell to our forces.
Nevertheless, in the interest of truth and even though it may detract
from our merit, I am also going to reveal for the first time a fact
that was fatal: due to a most unfortunate error, half of our forces,
and the better armed half at that, went astray at the entrance to the
city and were not on hand to help us at the decisive moment. Abel
Santamaría, with 21 men, had occupied the Civilian Hospital; with
him went a doctor and two of our women comrades to attend to the
wounded. Raúl Castro, with ten men, occupied the Palace of Justice,
and it was my responsibility to attack the barracks with the rest, 95
men. Preceded by an advance group of eight who had forced Gate Three,
I arrived with the first group of 45 men. It was precisely here that
the battle began, when my car ran into an outside patrol armed with
machine guns. The reserve group which had almost all the heavy
weapons (the light arms were with the advance group), turned up the
wrong street and lost its way in an unfamiliar city. I must clarify
the fact that I do not for a moment doubt the courage of those men;
they experienced great anguish and desperation when they realized
they were lost. Because of the type of action it was and because the
contending forces were wearing identically colored uniforms, it was
not easy for these men to re-establish contact with us. Many of them,
captured later on, met death with true heroism.
Everyone
had instructions, first of all, to be humane in the struggle. Never
was a group of armed men more generous to the adversary. From the
beginning we took numerous prisoners - nearly twenty - and there was
one moment when three of our men - Ramiro Valdés, José Suárez and
Jesús Montané - managed to enter a barrack and hold nearly fifty
soldiers prisoners for a short time. Those soldiers testified before
the Court, and without exception they all acknowledged that we
treated them with absolute respect, that we didn't even subject them
to one scoffing remark. In line with this, I want to give my
heartfelt thanks to the Prosecutor for one thing in the trial of my
comrades: when he made his report he was fair enough to acknowledge
as an incontestable fact that we maintained a high spirit of chivalry
throughout the struggle.
Discipline
among the soldiers was very poor. They finally defeated us because of
their superior numbers - fifteen to one - and because of the
protection afforded them by the defenses of the fortress. Our men
were much better marksmen, as our enemies themselves conceded. There
was a high degree of courage on both sides.
In
analyzing the reasons for our tactical failure, apart from the
regrettable error already mentioned, I believe we made a mistake by
dividing the commando unit we had so carefully trained. Of our best
trained men and boldest leaders, there were 27 in Bayamo, 21 at the
Civilian Hospital and 10 at the Palace of Justice. If our forces had
been distributed differently the outcome of the battle might have
been different. The clash with the patrol (purely accidental, since
the unit might have been at that point twenty seconds earlier or
twenty seconds later) alerted the camp, and gave it time to mobilize.
Otherwise it would have fallen into our hands without a shot fired,
since we already controlled the guard post. On the other hand, except
for the .22 caliber rifles, for which there were plenty of bullets,
our side was very short of ammunition. Had we had hand grenades, the
Army would not have been able to resist us for fifteen minutes.
When I
became convinced that all efforts to take the barracks were now
useless, I began to withdraw our men in groups of eight and ten. Our
retreat was covered by six expert marksmen under the command of Pedro
Miret and Fidel Labrador; heroically they held off the Army's
advance. Our losses in the battle had been insignificant; 95% of our
casualties came from the Army's inhumanity after the struggle. The
group at the Civilian Hospital only had one casualty; the rest of
that group was trapped when the troops blocked the only exit; but our
youths did not lay down their arms until their very last bullet was
gone. With them was Abel Santamaría, the most generous, beloved and
intrepid of our young men, whose glorious resistance immortalizes him
in Cuban history. We shall see the fate they met and how Batista
sought to punish the heroism of our youth.
We
planned to continue the struggle in the mountains in case the attack
on the regiment failed. In Siboney I was able to gather a third of
our forces; but many of these men were now discouraged. About twenty
of them decided to surrender; later we shall see what became of them.
The rest, 18 men, with what arms and ammunition were left, followed
me into the mountains. The terrain was completely unknown to us. For
a week we held the heights of the Gran Piedra range and the Army
occupied the foothills. We could not come down; they didn't risk
coming up. It was not force of arms, but hunger and thirst that
ultimately overcame our resistance. I had to divide the men into
smaller groups. Some of them managed to slip through the Army lines;
others were surrendered by Monsignor Pérez Serantes. Finally only
two comrades remained with me - José Suárez and Oscar Alcalde.
While the three of us were totally exhausted, a force led by
Lieutenant Sarría surprised us in our sleep at dawn. This was
Saturday, August 1st. By that time the slaughter of prisoners had
ceased as a result of the people's protest. This officer, a man of
honor, saved us from being murdered on the spot with our hands tied
behind us.
I need
not deny here the stupid statements by Ugalde Carrillo and company,
who tried to stain my name in an effort to mask their own cowardice,
incompetence, and criminality. The facts are clear enough.
My
purpose is not to bore the court with epic narratives. All that I
have said is essential for a more precise understanding of what is
yet to come.
Let me
mention two important facts that facilitate an objective judgement of
our attitude. First: we could have taken over the regiment simply by
seizing all the high ranking officers in their homes. This
possibility was rejected for the very humane reason that we wished to
avoid scenes of tragedy and struggle in the presence of their
families. Second: we decided not to take any radio station over until
the Army camp was in our power. This attitude, unusually magnanimous
and considerate, spared the citizens a great deal of bloodshed. With
only ten men I could have seized a radio station and called the
people to revolt. There is no questioning the people's will to fight.
I had a recording of Eduardo Chibás' last message over the CMQ radio
network, and patriotic poems and battle hymns capable of moving the
least sensitive, especially with the sounds of live battle in their
ears. But I did not want to use them although our situation was
desperate.
The
regime has emphatically repeated that our Movement did not have
popular support. I have never heard an assertion so naive, and at the
same time so full of bad faith. The regime seeks to show submission
and cowardice on the part of the people. They all but claim that the
people support the dictatorship; they do not know how offensive this
is to the brave Orientales. Santiago thought our attack was only a
local disturbance between two factions of soldiers; not until many
hours later did they realize what had really happened. Who can doubt
the valor, civic pride and limitless courage of the rebel and
patriotic people of Santiago de Cuba? If Moncada had fallen into our
hands, even the women of Santiago de Cuba would have risen in arms.
Many were the rifles loaded for our fighters by the nurses at the
Civilian Hospital. They fought alongside us. That is something we
will never forget.
It was
never our intention to engage the soldiers of the regiment in combat.
We wanted to seize control of them and their weapons in a surprise
attack, arouse the people and call the soldiers to abandon the odious
flag of the tyranny and to embrace the banner of freedom; to defend
the supreme interests of the nation and not the petty interests of a
small clique; to turn their guns around and fire on the people's
enemies and not on the people, among whom are their own sons and
fathers; to unite with the people as the brothers that they are
instead of opposing the people as the enemies the government tries to
make of them; to march behind the only beautiful ideal worthy of
sacrificing one's life - the greatness and happiness of one's
country. To those who doubt that many soldiers would have followed
us, I ask: What Cuban does not cherish glory? What heart is not set
aflame by the promise of freedom?
The
Navy did not fight against us, and it would undoubtedly have come
over to our side later on. It is well known that that branch of the
Armed Forces is the least dominated by the Dictatorship and that
there is a very intense civic conscience among its members. But, as
to the rest of the national armed forces, would they have fought
against a people in revolt? I declare that they would not! A soldier
is made of flesh and blood; he thinks, observes, feels. He is
susceptible to the opinions, beliefs, sympathies and antipathies of
the people. If you ask his opinion, he may tell you he cannot express
it; but that does not mean he has no opinion. He is affected by
exactly the same problems that affect other citizens - subsistence,
rent, the education of his children, their future, etc. Everything of
this kind is an inevitable point of contact between him and the
people and everything of this kind relates him to the present and
future situation of the society in which he lives. It is foolish to
imagine that the salary a soldier receives from the State - a modest
enough salary at that - should resolve the vital problems imposed on
him by his needs, duties and feelings as a member of his community.
This
brief explanation has been necessary because it is basic to a
consideration to which few people, until now, have paid any attention
- soldiers have a deep respect for the feelings of the majority of
the people! During the Machado regime, in the same proportion as
popular antipathy increased, the loyalty of the Army visibly
decreased. This was so true that a group of women almost succeeded in
subverting Camp Columbia. But this is proven even more clearly by a
recent development. While Grau San Martín's regime was able to
preserve its maximum popularity among the people, unscrupulous
ex-officers and power-hungry civilians attempted innumerable
conspiracies in the Army, although none of them found a following in
the rank and file.
The
March 10th coup took place at the moment when the civil government's
prestige had dwindled to its lowest ebb, a circumstance of which
Batista and his clique took advantage. Why did they not strike their
blow after the first of June? Simply because, had they waited for the
majority of the nation to express its will at the polls, the troops
would not have responded to the conspiracy!
Consequently,
a second assertion can be made: the Army has never revolted against a
regime with a popular majority behind it. These are historic truths,
and if Batista insists on remaining in power at all costs against the
will of the majority of Cubans, his end will be more tragic than that
of Gerardo Machado.
I have
a right to express an opinion about the Armed Forces because I
defended them when everyone else was silent. And I did this neither
as a conspirator, nor from any kind of personal interest - for we
then enjoyed full constitutional prerogatives. I was prompted only by
humane instincts and civic duty. In those days, the newspaper Alerta
was one of the most widely read because of its position on national
political matters. In its pages I campaigned against the forced labor
to which the soldiers were subjected on the private estates of high
civil personages and military officers. On March 3rd, 1952 I supplied
the Courts with data, photographs, films and other proof denouncing
this state of affairs. I also pointed out in those articles that it
was elementary decency to increase army salaries. I should like to
know who else raised his voice on that occasion to protest against
all this injustice done to the soldiers. Certainly not Batista and
company, living well-protected on their luxurious estates, surrounded
by all kinds of security measures, while I ran a thousand risks with
neither bodyguards nor arms.
Just
as I defended the soldiers then, now - when all others are once more
silent - I tell them that they allowed themselves to be miserably
deceived; and to the deception and shame of March 10th they have
added the disgrace, the thousand times greater disgrace, of the
fearful and unjustifiable crimes of Santiago de Cuba. From that time
since, the uniform of the Army is splattered with blood. And as last
year I told the people and cried out before the Courts that soldiers
were working as slaves on private estates, today I make the bitter
charge that there are soldiers stained from head to toe with the
blood of the Cuban youths they have tortured and slain. And I say as
well that if the Army serves the Republic, defends the nation,
respects the people and protects the citizenry then it is only fair
that the soldier should earn at least a hundred pesos a month. But if
the soldiers slay and oppress the people, betray the nation and
defend only the interests of one small group, then the Army deserves
not a cent of the Republic's money and Camp Columbia should be
converted into a school with ten thousand orphans living there
instead of soldiers.
I want
to be just above all else, so I can't blame all the soldiers for the
shameful crimes that stain a few evil and treacherous Army men. But
every honorable and upstanding soldier who loves his career and his
uniform is dutybound to demand and to fight for the cleansing of this
guilt, to avenge this betrayal and to see the guilty punished.
Otherwise the soldier's uniform will forever be a mark of infamy
instead of a source of pride.
Of
course the March 10th regime had no choice but to remove the soldiers
from the private estates. But it did so only to put them to work as
doormen, chauffeurs, servants and bodyguards for the whole rabble of
petty politicians who make up the party of the Dictatorship. Every
fourth or fifth rank official considers himself entitled to the
services of a soldier to drive his car and to watch over him as if he
were constantly afraid of receiving the kick in the pants he so
justly deserves.
If
they had been at all interested in promoting real reforms, why did
the regime not confiscate the estates and the millions of men like
Genovevo Pérez Dámera, who acquired their fortunes by exploiting
soldiers, driving them like slaves and misappropriating the funds of
the Armed Forces? But no: Genovevo Pérez and others like him no
doubt still have soldiers protecting them on their estates because
the March 10th generals, deep in their hearts, aspire to the same
future and can't allow that kind of precedent to be set.
The
10th of March was a miserable deception, yes ... After Batista and
his band of corrupt and disreputable politicians had failed in their
electoral plan, they took advantage of the Army's discontent and used
it to climb to power on the backs of the soldiers. And I know there
are many Army men who are disgusted because they have been
disappointed. At first their pay was raised, but later, through
deductions and reductions of every kind, it was lowered again. Many
of the old elements, who had drifted away from the Armed Forces,
returned to the ranks and blocked the way of young, capable and
valuable men who might otherwise have advanced. Good soldiers have
been neglected while the most scandalous nepotism prevails. Many
decent military men are now asking themselves what need that Armed
Forces had to assume the tremendous historical responsibility of
destroying our Constitution merely to put a group of immoral men in
power, men of bad reputation, corrupt, politically degenerate beyond
redemption, who could never again have occupied a political post had
it not been at bayonet-point; and they weren't even the ones with the
bayonets in their hands ...
On the
other hand, the soldiers endure a worse tyranny than the civilians.
They are under constant surveillance and not one of them enjoys the
slightest security in his job. Any unjustified suspicion, any gossip,
any intrigue, or denunciation, is sufficient to bring transfer,
dishonorable discharge or imprisonment. Did not Tabernilla, in a
memorandum, forbid them to talk with anyone opposed to the
government, that is to say, with ninety-nine percent of the people?
... What a lack of confidence! ... Not even the vestal virgins of
Rome had to abide by such a rule! As for the much publicized little
houses for enlisted men, there aren't 300 on the whole Island; yet
with what has been spent on tanks, guns and other weaponry every
soldier might have a place to live. Batista isn't concerned with
taking care of the Army, but that the Army take care of him! He
increases the Army's power of oppression and killing but does not
improve living conditions for the soldiers. Triple guard duty,
constant confinement to barracks, continuous anxiety, the enmity of
the people, uncertainty about the future - this is what has been
given to the soldier. In other words: 'Die for the regime, soldier,
give it your sweat and blood. We shall dedicate a speech to you and
award you a posthumous promotion (when it no longer matters) and
afterwards ... we shall go on living luxuriously, making ourselves
rich. Kill, abuse, oppress the people. When the people get tired and
all this comes to an end, you can pay for our crimes while we go
abroad and live like kings. And if one day we return, don't you or
your children knock on the doors of our mansions, for we shall be
millionaires and millionaires do not mingle with the poor. Kill,
soldier, oppress the people, die for the regime, give your sweat and
blood ...'
But if
blind to this sad truth, a minority of soldiers had decided to fight
the people, the people who were going to liberate them from tyranny,
victory still would have gone to the people. The Honorable Prosecutor
was very interested in knowing our chances for success. These chances
were based on considerations of technical, military and social order.
They have tried to establish the myth that modern arms render the
people helpless in overthrowing tyrants. Military parades and the
pompous display of machines of war are used to perpetuate this myth
and to create a complex of absolute impotence in the people. But no
weaponry, no violence can vanquish the people once they are
determined to win back their rights. Both past and present are full
of examples. The most recent is the revolt in Bolivia, where miners
with dynamite sticks smashed and defeated regular army regiments.
Fortunately,
we Cubans need not look for examples abroad. No example is as
inspiring as that of our own land. During the war of 1895 there were
nearly half a million armed Spanish soldiers in Cuba, many more than
the Dictator counts upon today to hold back a population five times
greater. The arms of the Spaniards were, incomparably, both more up
to date and more powerful than those of our mambises. Often the
Spaniards were equipped with field artillery and the infantry used
breechloaders similar to those still in use by the infantry of today.
The Cubans were usually armed with no more than their machetes, for
their cartridge belts were almost always empty. There is an
unforgettable passage in the history of our War of Independence,
narrated by General Miró Argenter, Chief of Antonio Maceo's General
Staff. I managed to bring it copied on this scrap of paper so I
wouldn't have to depend upon my memory:
'Untrained
men under the command of Pedro Delgado, most of them equipped only
with machetes, were virtually annihilated as they threw themselves on
the solid rank of Spaniards. It is not an exaggeration to assert that
of every fifty men, 25 were killed. Some even attacked the Spaniards
with their bare fists, without machetes, without even knives.
Searching through the reeds by the Hondo River, we found fifteen more
dead from the Cuban party, and it was not immediately clear what
group they belonged to, They did not appear to have shouldered arms,
their clothes were intact and only tin drinking cups hung from their
waists; a few steps further on lay the dead horse, all its equipment
in order. We reconstructed the climax of the tragedy. These men,
following their daring chief, Lieutenant Colonel Pedro Delgado, had
earned heroes' laurels: they had thrown themselves against bayonets
with bare hands, the clash of metal which was heard around them was
the sound of their drinking cups banging against the saddlehorn.
Maceo was deeply moved. This man so used to seeing death in all its
forms murmured this praise: "I had never seen anything like
this, untrained and unarmed men attacking the Spaniards with only
drinking cups for weapons. And I called it impedimenta!"'
This
is how peoples fight when they want to win their freedom; they throw
stones at airplanes and overturn tanks!
As
soon as Santiago de Cuba was in our hands we would immediately have
readied the people of Oriente for war. Bayamo was attacked precisely
to locate our advance forces along the Cauto River. Never forget that
this province, which has a million and a half inhabitants today, is
the most rebellious and patriotic in Cuba. It was this province that
sparked the fight for independence for thirty years and paid the
highest price in blood, sacrifice and heroism. In Oriente you can
still breathe the air of that glorious epic. At dawn, when the cocks
crow as if they were bugles calling soldiers to reveille, and when
the sun rises radiant over the rugged mountains, it seems that once
again we will live the days of Yara or Baire!
I
stated that the second consideration on which we based our chances
for success was one of social order. Why were we sure of the people's
support? When we speak of the people we are not talking about those
who live in comfort, the conservative elements of the nation, who
welcome any repressive regime, any dictatorship, any despotism,
prostrating themselves before the masters of the moment until they
grind their foreheads into the ground. When we speak of struggle and
we mention the people we mean the vast unredeemed masses, those to
whom everyone makes promises and who are deceived by all; we mean the
people who yearn for a better, more dignified and more just nation;
who are moved by ancestral aspirations to justice, for they have
suffered injustice and mockery generation after generation; those who
long for great and wise changes in all aspects of their life; people
who, to attain those changes, are ready to give even the very last
breath they have when they believe in something or in someone,
especially when they believe in themselves. The first condition of
sincerity and good faith in any endeavor is to do precisely what
nobody else ever does, that is, to speak with absolute clarity,
without fear. The demagogues and professional politicians who manage
to perform the miracle of being right about everything and of
pleasing everyone are, necessarily, deceiving everyone about
everything. The revolutionaries must proclaim their ideas
courageously, define their principles and express their intentions so
that no one is deceived, neither friend nor foe.
In
terms of struggle, when we talk about people we're talking about the
six hundred thousand Cubans without work, who want to earn their
daily bread honestly without having to emigrate from their homeland
in search of a livelihood; the five hundred thousand farm laborers
who live in miserable shacks, who work four months of the year and
starve the rest, sharing their misery with their children, who don't
have an inch of land to till and whose existence would move any heart
not made of stone; the four hundred thousand industrial workers and
laborers whose retirement funds have been embezzled, whose benefits
are being taken away, whose homes are wretched quarters, whose
salaries pass from the hands of the boss to those of the moneylender,
whose future is a pay reduction and dismissal, whose life is endless
work and whose only rest is the tomb; the one hundred thousand small
farmers who live and die working land that is not theirs, looking at
it with the sadness of Moses gazing at the promised land, to die
without ever owning it, who like feudal serfs have to pay for the use
of their parcel of land by giving up a portion of its produce, who
cannot love it, improve it, beautify it nor plant a cedar or an
orange tree on it because they never know when a sheriff will come
with the rural guard to evict them from it; the thirty thousand
teachers and professors who are so devoted, dedicated and so
necessary to the better destiny of future generations and who are so
badly treated and paid; the twenty thousand small business men
weighed down by debts, ruined by the crisis and harangued by a plague
of grafting and venal officials; the ten thousand young professional
people: doctors, engineers, lawyers, veterinarians, school teachers,
dentists, pharmacists, newspapermen, painters, sculptors, etc., who
finish school with their degrees anxious to work and full of hope,
only to find themselves at a dead end, all doors closed to them, and
where no ears hear their clamor or supplication. These are the
people, the ones who know misfortune and, therefore, are capable of
fighting with limitless courage! To these people whose desperate
roads through life have been paved with the bricks of betrayal and
false promises, we were not going to say: 'We will give you ...' but
rather: 'Here it is, now fight for it with everything you have, so
that liberty and happiness may be yours!'
The
five revolutionary laws that would have been proclaimed immediately
after the capture of the Moncada Barracks and would have been
broadcast to the nation by radio must be included in the indictment.
It is possible that Colonel Chaviano may deliberately have destroyed
these documents, but even if he has I remember them.
The
first revolutionary law would have returned power to the people and
proclaimed the 1940 Constitution the Supreme Law of the State until
such time as the people should decide to modify or change it. And in
order to effect its implementation and punish those who violated it -
there being no electoral organization to carry this out - the
revolutionary movement, as the circumstantial incarnation of this
sovereignty, the only source of legitimate power, would have assumed
all the faculties inherent therein, except that of modifying the
Constitution itself: in other words, it would have assumed the
legislative, executive and judicial powers.
This
attitude could not be clearer nor more free of vacillation and
sterile charlatanry. A government acclaimed by the mass of rebel
people would be vested with every power, everything necessary in
order to proceed with the effective implementation of popular will
and real justice. From that moment, the Judicial Power - which since
March 10th had placed itself against and outside the Constitution -
would cease to exist and we would proceed to its immediate and total
reform before it would once again assume the power granted it by the
Supreme Law of the Republic. Without these previous measures, a
return to legality by putting its custody back into the hands that
have crippled the system so dishonorably would constitute a fraud, a
deceit, one more betrayal.
The
second revolutionary law would give non-mortgageable and
non-transferable ownership of the land to all tenant and subtenant
farmers, lessees, share croppers and squatters who hold parcels of
five caballerías of land or less, and the State would indemnify the
former owners on the basis of the rental which they would have
received for these parcels over a period of ten years.
The
third revolutionary law would have granted workers and employees the
right to share 30% of the profits of all the large industrial,
mercantile and mining enterprises, including the sugar mills. The
strictly agricultural enterprises would be exempt in consideration of
other agrarian laws which would be put into effect.
The
fourth revolutionary law would have granted all sugar planters the
right to share 55% of sugar production and a minimum quota of forty
thousand arrobas for all small tenant farmers who have been
established for three years or more.
The
fifth revolutionary law would have ordered the confiscation of all
holdings and ill-gotten gains of those who had committed frauds
during previous regimes, as well as the holdings and ill-gotten gains
of all their legates and heirs. To implement this, special courts
with full powers would gain access to all records of all corporations
registered or operating in this country, in order to investigate
concealed funds of illegal origin, and to request that foreign
governments extradite persons and attach holdings rightfully
belonging to the Cuban people. Half of the property recovered would
be used to subsidize retirement funds for workers and the other half
would be used for hospitals, asylums and charitable organizations.
Furthermore,
it was declared that the Cuban policy in the Americas would be one of
close solidarity with the democratic peoples of this continent, and
that all those politically persecuted by bloody tyrannies oppressing
our sister nations would find generous asylum, brotherhood and bread
in the land of Martí; not the persecution, hunger and treason they
find today. Cuba should be the bulwark of liberty and not a shameful
link in the chain of despotism.
These
laws would have been proclaimed immediately. As soon as the upheaval
ended and prior to a detailed and far reaching study, they would have
been followed by another series of laws and fundamental measures,
such as the Agrarian Reform, the Integral Educational Reform,
nationalization of the electric power trust and the telephone trust,
refund to the people of the illegal and repressive rates these
companies have charged, and payment to the treasury of all taxes
brazenly evaded in the past.
All
these laws and others would be based on the exact compliance of two
essential articles of our Constitution: one of them orders the
outlawing of large estates, indicating the maximum area of land any
one person or entity may own for each type of agricultural
enterprise, by adopting measures which would tend to revert the land
to the Cubans. The other categorically orders the State to use all
means at its disposal to provide employment to all those who lack it
and to ensure a decent livelihood to each manual or intellectual
laborer. None of these laws can be called unconstitutional. The first
popularly elected government would have to respect them, not only
because of moral obligations to the nation, but because when people
achieve something they have yearned for throughout generations, no
force in the world is capable of taking it away again.
The
problem of the land, the problem of industrialization, the problem of
housing, the problem of unemployment, the problem of education and
the problem of the people's health: these are the six problems we
would take immediate steps to solve, along with restoration of civil
liberties and political democracy.
This
exposition may seem cold and theoretical if one does not know the
shocking and tragic conditions of the country with regard to these
six problems, along with the most humiliating political oppression.
Eighty-five
per cent of the small farmers in Cuba pay rent and live under
constant threat of being evicted from the land they till. More than
half of our most productive land is in the hands of foreigners. In
Oriente, the largest province, the lands of the United Fruit Company
and the West Indian Company link the northern and southern coasts.
There are two hundred thousand peasant families who do not have a
single acre of land to till to provide food for their starving
children. On the other hand, nearly three hundred thousand
caballerías of cultivable land owned by powerful interests remain
uncultivated. If Cuba is above all an agricultural State, if its
population is largely rural, if the city depends on these rural
areas, if the people from our countryside won our war of
independence, if our nation's greatness and prosperity depend on a
healthy and vigorous rural population that loves the land and knows
how to work it, if this population depends on a State that protects
and guides it, then how can the present state of affairs be allowed
to continue?
Except
for a few food, lumber and textile industries, Cuba continues to be
primarily a producer of raw materials. We export sugar to import
candy, we export hides to import shoes, we export iron to import
plows ... Everyone agrees with the urgent need to industrialize the
nation, that we need steel industries, paper and chemical industries,
that we must improve our cattle and grain production, the technology
and processing in our food industry in order to defend ourselves
against the ruinous competition from Europe in cheese products,
condensed milk, liquors and edible oils, and the United States in
canned goods; that we need cargo ships; that tourism should be an
enormous source of revenue. But the capitalists insist that the
workers remain under the yoke. The State sits back with its arms
crossed and industrialization can wait forever.
Just
as serious or even worse is the housing problem. There are two
hundred thousand huts and hovels in Cuba; four hundred thousand
families in the countryside and in the cities live cramped in huts
and tenements without even the minimum sanitary requirements; two
million two hundred thousand of our urban population pay rents which
absorb between one fifth and one third of their incomes; and two
million eight hundred thousand of our rural and suburban population
lack electricity. We have the same situation here: if the State
proposes the lowering of rents, landlords threaten to freeze all
construction; if the State does not interfere, construction goes on
so long as landlords get high rents; otherwise they would not lay a
single brick even though the rest of the population had to live
totally exposed to the elements. The utilities monopoly is no better;
they extend lines as far as it is profitable and beyond that point
they don't care if people have to live in darkness for the rest of
their lives. The State sits back with its arms crossed and the people
have neither homes nor electricity.
Our
educational system is perfectly compatible with everything I've just
mentioned. Where the peasant doesn't own the land, what need is there
for agricultural schools? Where there is no industry, what need is
there for technical or vocational schools? Everything follows the
same absurd logic; if we don't have one thing we can't have the
other. In any small European country there are more than 200
technological and vocational schools; in Cuba only six such schools
exist, and their graduates have no jobs for their skills. The little
rural schoolhouses are attended by a mere half of the school age
children - barefooted, half-naked and undernourished - and frequently
the teacher must buy necessary school materials from his own salary.
Is this the way to make a nation great?
Only
death can liberate one from so much misery. In this respect, however,
the State is most helpful - in providing early death for the people.
Ninety per cent of the children in the countryside are consumed by
parasites which filter through their bare feet from the ground they
walk on. Society is moved to compassion when it hears of the
kidnapping or murder of one child, but it is indifferent to the mass
murder of so many thousands of children who die every year from lack
of facilities, agonizing with pain. Their innocent eyes, death
already shining in them, seem to look into some vague infinity as if
entreating forgiveness for human selfishness, as if asking God to
stay His wrath. And when the head of a family works only four months
a year, with what can he purchase clothing and medicine for his
children? They will grow up with rickets, with not a single good
tooth in their mouths by the time they reach thirty; they will have
heard ten million speeches and will finally die of misery and
deception. Public hospitals, which are always full, accept only
patients recommended by some powerful politician who, in return,
demands the votes of the unfortunate one and his family so that Cuba
may continue forever in the same or worse condition.
With
this background, is it not understandable that from May to December
over a million persons are jobless and that Cuba, with a population
of five and a half million, has a greater number of unemployed than
France or Italy with a population of forty million each?
When
you try a defendant for robbery, Honorable Judges, do you ask him how
long he has been unemployed? Do you ask him how many children he has,
which days of the week he ate and which he didn't, do you investigate
his social context at all? You just send him to jail without further
thought. But those who burn warehouses and stores to collect
insurance do not go to jail, even though a few human beings may have
gone up in flames. The insured have money to hire lawyers and bribe
judges. You imprison the poor wretch who steals because he is hungry;
but none of the hundreds who steal millions from the Government has
ever spent a night in jail. You dine with them at the end of the year
in some elegant club and they enjoy your respect. In Cuba, when a
government official becomes a millionaire overnight and enters the
fraternity of the rich, he could very well be greeted with the words
of that opulent character out of Balzac - Taillefer - who in his
toast to the young heir to an enormous fortune, said: 'Gentlemen, let
us drink to the power of gold! Mr. Valentine, a millionaire six times
over, has just ascended the throne. He is king, can do everything, is
above everyone, as all the rich are. Henceforth, equality before the
law, established by the Constitution, will be a myth for him; for he
will not be subject to laws: the laws will be subject to him. There
are no courts nor are there sentences for millionaires.'
The
nation's future, the solutions to its problems, cannot continue to
depend on the selfish interests of a dozen big businessmen nor on the
cold calculations of profits that ten or twelve magnates draw up in
their air-conditioned offices. The country cannot continue begging on
its knees for miracles from a few golden calves, like the Biblical
one destroyed by the prophet's fury. Golden calves cannot perform
miracles of any kind. The problems of the Republic can be solved only
if we dedicate ourselves to fight for it with the same energy,
honesty and patriotism our liberators had when they founded it.
Statesmen like Carlos Saladrigas, whose statesmanship consists of
preserving the statu quo and mouthing phrases like 'absolute freedom
of enterprise,' 'guarantees to investment capital' and 'law of supply
and demand,' will not solve these problems. Those ministers can chat
away in a Fifth Avenue mansion until not even the dust of the bones
of those whose problems require immediate solution remains. In this
present-day world, social problems are not solved by spontaneous
generation.
A
revolutionary government backed by the people and with the respect of
the nation, after cleansing the different institutions of all venal
and corrupt officials, would proceed immediately to the country's
industrialization, mobilizing all inactive capital, currently
estimated at about 1.5 billion pesos, through the National Bank and
the Agricultural and Industrial Development Bank, and submitting this
mammoth task to experts and men of absolute competence totally
removed from all political machines for study, direction, planning
and realization.
After
settling the one hundred thousand small farmers as owners on the land
which they previously rented, a revolutionary government would
immediately proceed to settle the land problem. First, as set forth
in the Constitution, it would establish the maximum amount of land to
be held by each type of agricultural enterprise and would acquire the
excess acreage by expropriation, recovery of swampland, planting of
large nurseries, and reserving of zones for reforestation. Secondly,
it would distribute the remaining land among peasant families with
priority given to the larger ones, and would promote agricultural
cooperatives for communal use of expensive equipment, freezing plants
and unified professional technical management of farming and cattle
raising. Finally, it would provide resources, equipment, protection
and useful guidance to the peasants.
A
revolutionary government would solve the housing problem by cutting
all rents in half, by providing tax exemptions on homes inhabited by
the owners; by tripling taxes on rented homes; by tearing down hovels
and replacing them with modern apartment buildings; and by financing
housing all over the island on a scale heretofore unheard of, with
the criterion that, just as each rural family should possess its own
tract of land, each city family should own its own house or
apartment. There is plenty of building material and more than enough
manpower to make a decent home for every Cuban. But if we continue to
wait for the golden calf, a thousand years will have gone by and the
problem will remain the same. On the other hand, today possibilities
of taking electricity to the most isolated areas on the island are
greater than ever. The use of nuclear energy in this field is now a
reality and will greatly reduce the cost of producing electricity.
With
these three projects and reforms, the problem of unemployment would
automatically disappear and the task of improving public health and
fighting against disease would become much less difficult.
Finally,
a revolutionary government would undertake the integral reform of the
educational system, bringing it into line with the projects just
mentioned with the idea of educating those generations which will
have the privilege of living in a happier land. Do not forget the
words of the Apostle: 'A grave mistake is being made in Latin
America: in countries that live almost completely from the produce of
the land, men are being educated exclusively for urban life and are
not trained for farm life.' 'The happiest country is the one which
has best educated its sons, both in the instruction of thought and
the direction of their feelings.' 'An educated country will always be
strong and free.'
The
soul of education, however, is the teacher, and in Cuba the teaching
profession is miserably underpaid. Despite this, no one is more
dedicated than the Cuban teacher. Who among us has not learned his
three Rs in the little public schoolhouse? It is time we stopped
paying pittances to these young men and women who are entrusted with
the sacred task of teaching our youth. No teacher should earn less
than 200 pesos, no secondary teacher should make less than 350 pesos,
if they are to devote themselves exclusively to their high calling
without suffering want. What is more, all rural teachers should have
free use of the various systems of transportation; and, at least once
every five years, all teachers should enjoy a sabbatical leave of six
months with pay so they may attend special refresher courses at home
or abroad to keep abreast of the latest developments in their field.
In this way, the curriculum and the teaching system can be easily
improved. Where will the money be found for all this? When there is
an end to the embezzlement of government funds, when public officials
stop taking graft from the large companies that owe taxes to the
State, when the enormous resources of the country are brought into
full use, when we no longer buy tanks, bombers and guns for this
country (which has no frontiers to defend and where these instruments
of war, now being purchased, are used against the people), when there
is more interest in educating the people than in killing them there
will be more than enough money.
Cuba
could easily provide for a population three times as great as it has
now, so there is no excuse for the abject poverty of a single one of
its present inhabitants. The markets should be overflowing with
produce, pantries should be full, all hands should be working. This
is not an inconceivable thought. What is inconceivable is that anyone
should go to bed hungry while there is a single inch of unproductive
land; that children should die for lack of medical attention; what is
inconceivable is that 30% of our farm people cannot write their names
and that 99% of them know nothing of Cuba's history. What is
inconceivable is that the majority of our rural people are now living
in worse circumstances than the Indians Columbus discovered in the
fairest land that human eyes had ever seen.
To
those who would call me a dreamer, I quote the words of Martí: 'A
true man does not seek the path where advantage lies, but rather the
path where duty lies, and this is the only practical man, whose dream
of today will be the law of tomorrow, because he who has looked back
on the essential course of history and has seen flaming and bleeding
peoples seethe in the cauldron of the ages knows that, without a
single exception, the future lies on the side of duty.'
Only
when we understand that such a high ideal inspired them can we
conceive of the heroism of the young men who fell in Santiago. The
meager material means at our disposal was all that prevented sure
success. When the soldiers were told that Prío had given us a
million pesos, they were told this in the regime's attempt to distort
the most important fact: the fact that our Movement had no link with
past politicians: that this Movement is a new Cuban generation with
its own ideas, rising up against tyranny; that this Movement is made
up of young people who were barely seven years old when Batista
perpetrated the first of his crimes in 1934. The lie about the
million pesos could not have been more absurd. If, with less than
20,000 pesos, we armed 165 men and attacked a regiment and a
squadron, then with a million pesos we could have armed 8,000 men, to
attack 50 regiments and 50 squadrons - and Ugalde Carrillo still
would not have found out until Sunday, July 26th, at 5:15 a.m. I
assure you that for every man who fought, twenty well trained men
were unable to fight for lack of weapons. When these young men
marched along the streets of Havana in the student demonstration of
the Martí Centennial, they solidly packed six blocks. If even 200
more men had been able to fight, or we had possessed 20 more hand
grenades, perhaps this Honorable Court would have been spared all
this inconvenience.
The
politicians spend millions buying off consciences, whereas a handful
of Cubans who wanted to save their country's honor had to face death
barehanded for lack of funds. This shows how the country, to this
very day, has been governed not by generous and dedicated men, but by
political racketeers, the scum of our public life.
With
the greatest pride I tell you that in accordance with our principles
we have never asked a politician, past or present, for a penny. Our
means were assembled with incomparable sacrifice. For example,
Elpidio Sosa, who sold his job and came to me one day with 300 pesos
'for the cause;' Fernando Chenard, who sold the photographic
equipment with which he earned his living; Pedro Marrero, who
contributed several months' salary and who had to be stopped from
actually selling the very furniture in his house; Oscar Alcalde, who
sold his pharmaceutical laboratory; Jesús Montané, who gave his
five years' savings, and so on with many others, each giving the
little he had.
One
must have great faith in one's country to do such a thing. The memory
of these acts of idealism bring me straight to the most bitter
chapter of this defense - the price the tyranny made them pay for
wanting to free Cuba from oppression and injustice.
Beloved
corpses, you that once
Were the hope of my Homeland,
Cast upon my forehead
The dust of your decaying bones!
Touch my heart with your cold hands!
Groan at my ears!
Each of my moans will
Turn into the tears of one more tyrant!
Gather around me! Roam about,
That my soul may receive your spirits
And give me the horror of the tombs
For tears are not enough
When one lives in infamous bondage!
Were the hope of my Homeland,
Cast upon my forehead
The dust of your decaying bones!
Touch my heart with your cold hands!
Groan at my ears!
Each of my moans will
Turn into the tears of one more tyrant!
Gather around me! Roam about,
That my soul may receive your spirits
And give me the horror of the tombs
For tears are not enough
When one lives in infamous bondage!
Multiply
the crimes of November 27th, 1871 by ten and you will have the
monstrous and repulsive crimes of July 26th, 27th, 28th and 29th,
1953, in the province of Oriente. These are still fresh in our
memory, but someday when years have passed, when the skies of the
nation have cleared once more, when tempers have calmed and fear no
longer torments our spirits, then we will begin to see the magnitude
of this massacre in all its shocking dimension, and future
generations will be struck with horror when they look back on these
acts of barbarity unprecedented in our history. But I do not want to
become enraged. I need clearness of mind and peace in my heavy heart
in order to relate the facts as simply as possible, in no sense
dramatizing them, but just as they took place. As a Cuban I am
ashamed that heartless men should have perpetrated such unthinkable
crimes, dishonoring our nation before the rest of the world.
The
tyrant Batista was never a man of scruples. He has never hesitated to
tell his people the most outrageous lies. To justify his treacherous
coup of March 10th, he concocted stories about a fictitious uprising
in the Army, supposedly scheduled to take place in April, and which
he 'wanted to avert so that the Republic might not be drenched in
blood.' A ridiculous little tale nobody ever believed! And when he
himself did want to drench the Republic in blood, when he wanted to
smother in terror and torture the just rebellion of Cuba's youth, who
were not willing to be his slaves, then he contrived still more
fantastic lies. How little respect one must have for a people when
one tries to deceive them so miserably! On the very day of my arrest
I publicly assumed the responsibility for our armed movement of July
26th. If there had been an iota of truth in even one of the many
statements the Dictator made against our fighters in his speech of
July 27th, it would have been enough to undermine the moral impact of
my case. Why, then, was I not brought to trial? Why were medical
certificates forged? Why did they violate all procedural laws and
ignore so scandalously the rulings of the Court? Why were so many
things done, things never before seen in a Court of Law, in order to
prevent my appearance at all costs? In contrast, I could not begin to
tell you all I went through in order to appear. I asked the Court to
bring me to trial in accordance with all established principles, and
I denounced the underhanded schemes that were afoot to prevent it. I
wanted to argue with them face to face. But they did not wish to face
me. Who was afraid of the truth, and who was not?
The
statements made by the Dictator at Camp Columbia might be considered
amusing if they were not so drenched in blood. He claimed we were a
group of hirelings and that there were many foreigners among us. He
said that the central part of our plan was an attempt to kill him -
him, always him. As if the men who attacked the Moncada Barracks
could not have killed him and twenty like him if they had approved of
such methods. He stated that our attack had been planned by
ex-President Prío, and that it had been financed with Prío's money.
It has been irrefutably proven that no link whatsoever existed
between our Movement and the last regime. He claimed that we had
machine guns and hand-grenades. Yet the military technicians have
stated right here in this Court that we only had one machine gun and
not a single hand-grenade. He said that we had beheaded the sentries.
Yet death certificates and medical reports of all the Army's
casualties show not one death caused by the blade. But above all and
most important, he said that we stabbed patients at the Military
Hospital. Yet the doctors from that hospital - Army doctors - have
testified that we never even occupied the building, that no patient
was either wounded or killed by us, and that the hospital lost only
one employee, a janitor, who imprudently stuck his head out of an
open window.
Whenever
a Chief of State, or anyone pretending to be one, makes declarations
to the nation, he speaks not just to hear the sound of his own voice.
He always has some specific purpose and expects some specific
reaction, or has a given intention. Since our military defeat had
already taken place, insofar as we no longer represented any actual
threat to the dictatorship, why did they slander us like that? If it
is still not clear that this was a blood-drenched speech, that it was
simply an attempt to justify the crimes that they had been
perpetrating since the night before and that they were going to
continue to perpetrate, then, let figures speak for me: On July 27th,
in his speech from the military headquarters, Batista said that the
assailants suffered 32 dead. By the end of the week the number of
dead had risen to more than 80 men. In what battles, where, in what
clashes, did these young men die? Before Batista spoke, more than 25
prisoners had been murdered. After Batista spoke fifty more were
massacred.
What a
great sense of honor those modest Army technicians and professionals
had, who did not distort the facts before the Court, but gave their
reports adhering to the strictest truth! These surely are soldiers
who honor their uniform; these, surely, are men! Neither a real
soldier nor a true man can degrade his code of honor with lies and
crime. I know that many of the soldiers are indignant at the barbaric
assassinations perpetrated. I know that they feel repugnance and
shame at the smell of homicidal blood that impregnates every stone of
Moncada Barracks.
Now
that he has been contradicted by men of honor within his own Army, I
defy the dictator to repeat his vile slander against us. I defy him
to try to justify before the Cuban people his July 27th speech. Let
him not remain silent. Let him speak. Let him say who the assassins
are, who the ruthless, the inhumane. Let him tell us if the medals of
honor, which he went to pin on the breasts of his heroes of that
massacre, were rewards for the hideous crimes they had committed. Let
him, from this very moment, assume his responsibility before history.
Let him not pretend, at a later date, that the soldiers were acting
without direct orders from him! Let him offer the nation an
explanation for those 70 murders. The bloodshed was great. The nation
needs an explanation. The nation seeks it. The nation demands it.
It is
common knowledge that in 1933, at the end of the battle at the
National Hotel, some officers were murdered after they surrendered.
Bohemia Magazine protested energetically. It is also known that after
the surrender of Fort Atarés the besiegers' machine guns cut down a
row of prisoners. And that one soldier, after asking who Blas
Hernández was, blasted him with a bullet directly in the face, and
for this cowardly act was promoted to the rank of officer. It is
well-known in Cuban history that assassination of prisoners was
fatally linked with Batista's name. How naive we were not to foresee
this! However, unjustifiable as those killings of 1933 were, they
took place in a matter of minutes, in no more time than it took for a
round of machine gun fire. What is more, they took place while
tempers were still on edge.
This
was not the case in Santiago de Cuba. Here all forms of ferocious
outrages and cruelty were deliberately overdone. Our men were killed
not in the course of a minute, an hour or a day. Throughout an entire
week the blows and tortures continued, men were thrown from rooftops
and shot. All methods of extermination were incessantly practiced by
well-skilled artisans of crime. Moncada Barracks were turned into a
workshop of torture and death. Some shameful individuals turned their
uniforms into butcher's aprons. The walls were splattered with blood.
The bullets imbedded in the walls were encrusted with singed bits of
skin, brains and human hair, the grisly reminders of rifle shots
fired full in the face. The grass around the barracks was dark and
sticky with human blood. The criminal hands that are guiding the
destiny of Cuba had written for the prisoners at the entrance to that
den of death the very inscription of Hell: 'Forsake all hope.'
They
did not even attempt to cover appearances. They did not bother in the
least to conceal what they were doing. They thought they had deceived
the people with their lies and they ended up deceiving themselves.
They felt themselves lords and masters of the universe, with power
over life and death. So the fear they had experienced upon our attack
at daybreak was dissipated in a feast of corpses, in a drunken orgy
of blood.
Chronicles
of our history, down through four and a half centuries, tell us of
many acts of cruelty: the slaughter of defenseless Indians by the
Spaniards; the plundering and atrocities of pirates along the coast;
the barbarities of the Spanish soldiers during our War of
Independence; the shooting of prisoners of the Cuban Army by the
forces of Weyler; the horrors of the Machado regime, and so on
through the bloody crimes of March, 1935. But never has such a sad
and bloody page been written in numbers of victims and in the
viciousness of the victimizers, as in Santiago de Cuba. Only one man
in all these centuries has stained with blood two separate periods of
our history and has dug his claws into the flesh of two generations
of Cubans. To release this river of blood, he waited for the
Centennial of the Apostle, just after the fiftieth anniversary of the
Republic, whose people fought for freedom, human rights and happiness
at the cost of so many lives. Even greater is his crime and even more
condemnable because the man who perpetrated it had already, for
eleven long years, lorded over his people - this people who, by such
deep-rooted sentiment and tradition, loves freedom and repudiates
evil. This man has furthermore never been sincere, loyal, honest or
chivalrous for a single minute of his public life.
He was
not content with the treachery of January, 1934, the crimes of March,
1935 and the forty million dollar fortune that crowned his first
regime. He had to add the treason of March, 1952, the crimes of July,
1953, and all the millions that only time will reveal. Dante divided
his Inferno into nine circles. He put criminals in the seventh,
thieves in the eighth and traitors in the ninth. Difficult dilemma
the devils will be faced with, when they try to find an adequate spot
for this man's soul - if this man has a soul. The man who instigated
the atrocious acts in Santiago de Cuba doesn't even have a heart.
I know
many details of the way in which these crimes were carried out, from
the lips of some of the soldiers who, filled with shame, told me of
the scenes they had witnessed.
When
the fighting was over, the soldiers descended like savage beasts on
Santiago de Cuba and they took the first fury of their frustrations
out against the defenseless population. In the middle of a street,
and far from the site of the fighting, they shot through the chest an
innocent child who was playing by his doorstep. When the father
approached to pick him up, they shot him through his head. Without a
word they shot 'Niño' Cala, who was on his way home with a loaf of
bread in his hands. It would be an endless task to relate all the
crimes and outrages perpetrated against the civilian population. And
if the Army dealt thus with those who had had no part at all in the
action, you can imagine the terrible fate of the prisoners who had
taken part or who were believed to have taken part. Just as, in this
trial, they accused many people not at all involved in our attack,
they also killed many prisoners who had no involvement whatsoever.
The latter are not included in the statistics of victims released by
the regime; those statistics refer exclusively to our men. Some day
the total number of victims will be known.
The
first prisoner killed has our doctor, Mario Muñoz, who bore no arms,
wore no uniform, and was dressed in the white smock of a physician.
He was a generous and competent man who would have given the same
devoted care to the wounded adversary as to a friend. On the road
from the Civilian Hospital to the barracks they shot him in the back
and left him lying there, face down in a pool of blood. But the mass
murder of prisoners did not begin until after three o'clock in the
afternoon. Until this hour they awaited orders. Then General Martín
Díaz Tamayo arrived from Havana and brought specific instructions
from a meeting he had attended with Batista, along with the head of
the Army, the head of the Military Intelligence, and others. He said:
'It is humiliating and dishonorable for the Army to have lost three
times as many men in combat as the insurgents did. Ten prisoners must
be killed for each dead soldier.' This was the order!
In
every society there are men of base instincts. The sadists, brutes,
conveyors of all the ancestral atavisms go about in the guise of
human beings, but they are monsters, only more or less restrained by
discipline and social habit. If they are offered a drink from a river
of blood, they will not be satisfied until they drink the river dry.
All these men needed was the order. At their hands the best and
noblest Cubans perished: the most valiant, the most honest, the most
idealistic. The tyrant called them mercenaries. There they were dying
as heroes at the hands of men who collect a salary from the Republic
and who, with the arms the Republic gave them to defend her, serve
the interests of a clique and murder her best citizens.
Throughout
their torturing of our comrades, the Army offered them the chance to
save their lives by betraying their ideology and falsely declaring
that Prío had given them money. When they indignantly rejected that
proposition, the Army continued with its horrible tortures. They
crushed their testicles and they tore out their eyes. But no one
yielded. No complaint was heard nor a favor asked. Even when they had
been deprived of their vital organs, our men were still a thousand
times more men than all their tormentors together. Photographs, which
do not lie, show the bodies torn to pieces, Other methods were used.
Frustrated by the valor of the men, they tried to break the spirit of
our women. With a bleeding eye in their hands, a sergeant and several
other men went to the cell where our comrades Melba Hernández and
Haydée Santamaría were held. Addressing the latter, and showing her
the eye, they said: 'This eye belonged to your brother. If you will
not tell us what he refused to say, we will tear out the other.' She,
who loved her valiant brother above all things, replied full of
dignity: 'If you tore out an eye and he did not speak, much less will
I.' Later they came back and burned their arms with lit cigarettes
until at last, filled with spite, they told the young Haydée
Santamaría: 'You no longer have a fiancé because we have killed him
too.' But still imperturbable, she answered: 'He is not dead, because
to die for one's country is to live forever.' Never had the heroism
and the dignity of Cuban womanhood reached such heights.
There
wasn't even any respect for the combat wounded in the various city
hospitals. There they were hunted down as prey pursued by vultures.
In the Centro Gallego they broke into the operating room at the very
moment when two of our critically wounded were receiving blood
transfusions. They pulled them off the tables and, as the wounded
could no longer stand, they were dragged down to the first floor
where they arrived as corpses.
They
could not do the same in the Spanish Clinic, where Gustavo Arcos and
José Ponce were patients, because they were prevented by Dr. Posada
who bravely told them they could enter only over his dead body.
Air
and camphor were injected into the veins of Pedro Miret, Abelardo
Crespo and Fidel Labrador, in an attempt to kill them at the Military
Hospital. They owe their lives to Captain Tamayo, an Army doctor and
true soldier of honor who, pistol in hand, wrenched them out of the
hands of their merciless captors and transferred them to the Civilian
Hospital. These five young men were the only ones of our wounded who
survived.
In the
early morning hours, groups of our men were removed from the barracks
and taken in automobiles to Siboney, La Maya, Songo, and elsewhere.
Then they were led out - tied, gagged, already disfigured by the
torture - and were murdered in isolated spots. They are recorded as
having died in combat against the Army. This went on for several
days, and few of the captured prisoners survived. Many were compelled
to dig their own graves. One of our men, while he was digging,
wheeled around and slashed the face of one of his assassins with his
pick. Others were even buried alive, their hands tied behind their
backs. Many solitary spots became the graveyards of the brave. On the
Army target range alone, five of our men lie buried. Some day these
men will be disinterred. Then they will be carried on the shoulders
of the people to a place beside the tomb of Martí, and their
liberated land will surely erect a monument to honor the memory of
the Martyrs of the Centennial.
The
last youth they murdered in the surroundings of Santiago de Cuba was
Marcos Martí. He was captured with our comrade Ciro Redondo in a
cave at Siboney on the morning of Thursday the 30th. These two men
were led down the road, with their arms raised, and the soldiers shot
Marcos Martí in the back. After he had fallen to the ground, they
riddled him with bullets. Redondo was taken to the camp. When Major
Pérez Chaumont saw him he exclaimed: 'And this one? Why have you
brought him to me?' The Court heard this incident from Redondo
himself, the young man who survived thanks to what Pérez Chaumont
called 'the soldiers' stupidity.'
It was
the same throughout the province. Ten days after July 26th, a
newspaper in this city printed the news that two young men had been
found hanged on the road from Manzanillo to Bayamo. Later the bodies
were identified as those of Hugo Camejo and Pedro Vélez. Another
extraordinary incident took place there: There were three victims -
they had been dragged from Manzanillo Barracks at two that morning.
At a certain spot on the highway they were taken out, beaten
unconscious, and strangled with a rope. But after they had been left
for dead, one of them, Andrés García, regained consciousness and
hid in a farmer's house. Thanks to this the Court learned the details
of this crime too. Of all our men taken prisoner in the Bayamo area,
this is the only survivor.
Near
the Cauto River, in a spot known as Barrancas, at the bottom of a
pit, lie the bodies of Raúl de Aguiar, Armando del Valle and Andrés
Valdés. They were murdered at midnight on the road between Alto
Cedro and Palma Soriano by Sergeant Montes de Oca - in charge of the
military post at Miranda Barracks - Corporal Maceo, and the
Lieutenant in charge of Alta Cedro where the murdered men were
captured. In the annals of crime, Sergeant Eulalio Gonzáles - better
known as the 'Tiger' of Moncada Barracks - deserves a special place.
Later this man didn't have the slightest qualms in bragging about his
unspeakable deeds. It was he who with his own hands murdered our
comrade Abel Santamaría. But that didn't satisfy him. One day as he
was coming back from the Puerto Boniato Prison, where he raises
pedigree fighting cocks in the back courtyard, he got on a bus on
which Abel's mother was also traveling. When this monster realized
who she was he began to brag about his grisly deeds, and - in a loud
voice so that the woman dressed in mourning could hear him - he said:
'Yes, I have gouged many eyes out and I expect to continue gouging
them out.' The unprecedented moral degradation our nation is
suffering is expressed beyond the power of words in that mother's
sobs of grief before the cowardly insolence of the very man who
murdered her son. When these mothers went to Moncada Barracks to ask
about their sons, it was with incredible cynicism and sadism that
they were told: 'Surely madam, you may see him at the Santa Ifigenia
Hotel where we have put him up for you.' Either Cuba is not Cuba, or
the men responsible for these acts will have to face their reckoning
one day. Heartless men, they threw crude insults at the people who
bared their heads in reverence as the corpses of the revolutionaries
were carried by.
There
were so many victims that the government still has not dared make
public the complete list. They know their figures are false. They
have all the victims' names, because prior to every murder they
recorded all the vital statistics. The whole long process of
identification through the National Identification Bureau was a huge
farce, and there are families still waiting for word of their sons'
fate. Why has this not been cleared up, after three months?
I wish
to state for the record here that all the victims' pockets were
picked to the very last penny and that all their personal effects,
rings and watches, were stripped from their bodies and are brazenly
being worn today by their assassins.
Honorable
Judges, a great deal of what I have just related you already know,
from the testimony of many of my comrades. But please note that many
key witnesses have been barred from this trial, although they were
permitted to attend the sessions of the previous trial. For example,
I want to point out that the nurses of the Civilian Hospital are
absent, even though they work in the same place where this hearing is
being held. They were kept from this Court so that, under my
questioning, they would not be able to testify that - besides Dr.
Mario Muñoz - twenty more of our men were captured alive. The regime
fears that from the questioning of these witnesses some extremely
dangerous testimony could find its way into the official transcript.
But
Major Pérez Chaumont did appear here and he could not elude my
questioning. What we learned from this man, a 'hero' who fought only
against unarmed and handcuffed men, gives us an idea of what could
have been learned at the Courthouse if I had not been isolated from
the proceedings. I asked him how many of our men had died in his
celebrated skirmishes at Siboney. He hesitated. I insisted and he
finally said twenty-one. Since I knew such skirmishes had never taken
place, I asked him how many of our men had been wounded. He answered:
'None. All of them were killed.' It was then that I asked him, in
astonishment, if the soldiers were using nuclear weapons. Of course,
where men are shot point blank, there are no wounded. Then I asked
him how many casualties the Army had sustained. He replied that two
of his men had been wounded. Finally I asked him if either of these
men had died, and he said no. I waited. Later, all of the wounded
Army soldiers filed by and it was discovered that none of them had
been wounded at Siboney. This same Major Pérez Chaumont who hardly
flinched at having assassinated twenty-one defenseless young men has
built a palatial home in Ciudamar Beach. It's worth more than 100,000
pesos - his savings after only a few months under Batista's new rule.
And if this is the savings of a Major, imagine how much generals have
saved!
Honorable
Judges: Where are our men who were captured July 26th, 27th, 28th and
29th? It is known that more than sixty men were captured in the area
of Santiago de Cuba. Only three of them and the two women have been
brought before the Court. The rest of the accused were seized later.
Where are our wounded? Only five of them are alive; the rest were
murdered. These figures are irrefutable. On the other hand, twenty of
the soldiers who we held prisoner have been presented here and they
themselves have declared that they received not even one offensive
word from us. Thirty soldiers who were wounded, many in the street
fighting, also appeared before you. Not one was killed by us. If the
Army suffered losses of nineteen dead and thirty wounded, how is it
possible that we should have had eighty dead and only five wounded?
Who ever witnessed a battle with 21 dead and no wounded, like these
famous battles described by Pérez Chaumont?
We
have here the casualty lists from the bitter fighting sustained by
the invasion troops in the war of 1895, both in battles where the
Cuban army was defeated and where it was victorious. The battle of
Los Indios in Las Villas: 12 wounded, none dead. The battle of Mal
Tiempo: 4 dead, 23 wounded. Calimete: 16 dead, 64 wounded. La Palma:
39 dead, 88 wounded. Cacarajícara: 5 dead, 13 wounded. Descanso: 4
dead, 45 wounded. San Gabriel de Lombillo: 2 dead, 18 wounded ... In
all these battles the number of wounded is twice, three times and up
to ten times the number of dead, although in those days there were no
modern medical techniques by which the percentage of deaths could be
reduced. How then, now, can we explain the enormous proportion of
sixteen deaths per wounded man, if not by the government's slaughter
of the wounded in the very hospitals, and by the assassination of the
other helpless prisoners they had taken? The figures are irrefutable.
'It is
shameful and a dishonor to the Army to have lost three times as many
men in combat as those lost by the insurgents; we must kill ten
prisoners for each dead soldier.' This is the concept of honor held
by the petty corporals who became generals on March 10th. This is the
code of honor they wish to impose on the national Army. A false
honor, a feigned honor, an apparent honor based on lies, hypocrisy
and crime; a mask of honor molded by those assassins with blood. Who
told them that to die fighting is dishonorable? Who told them the
honor of an army consists of murdering the wounded and prisoners of
war?
In war
time, armies that murder prisoners have always earned the contempt
and abomination of the entire world. Such cowardice has no
justification, even in a case where national territory is invaded by
foreign troops. In the words of a South American liberator: 'Not even
the strictest military obedience may turn a soldier's sword into that
of an executioner.' The honorable soldier does not kill the helpless
prisoner after the fight, but rather, respects him. He does not
finish off a wounded man, but rather, helps him. He stands in the way
of crime and if he cannot prevent it, he acts as did that Spanish
captain who, upon hearing the shots of the firing squad that murdered
Cuban students, indignantly broke his sword in two and refused to
continue serving in that Army.
The
soldiers who murdered their prisoners were not worthy of the soldiers
who died. I saw many soldiers fight with courage - for example, those
in the patrols that fired their machine guns against us in almost
hand-to-hand combat, or that sergeant who, defying death, rang the
alarm to mobilize the barracks. Some of them live. I am glad. Others
are dead. They believed they were doing their duty and in my eyes
this makes them worthy of admiration and respect. I deplore only the
fact that valiant men should fall for an evil cause. When Cuba is
freed, we should respect, shelter and aid the wives and children of
those courageous soldiers who perished fighting against us. They are
not to blame for Cuba's miseries. They too are victims of this
nefarious situation.
But
what honor was earned by the soldiers who died in battle was lost by
the generals who ordered prisoners to be killed after they
surrendered. Men who became generals overnight, without ever having
fired a shot; men who bought their stars with high treason against
their country; men who ordered the execution of prisoners taken in
battles in which they didn't even participate: these are the generals
of the 10th of March - generals who would not even have been fit to
drive the mules that carried the equipment in Antonio Maceo's army.
The
Army suffered three times as many casualties as we did. That was
because our men were expertly trained, as the Army men themselves
have admitted; and also because we had prepared adequate tactical
measures, another fact recognized by the Army. The Army did not
perform brilliantly; despite the millions spent on espionage by the
Military Intelligence Agency, they were totally taken by surprise,
and their hand grenades failed to explode because they were obsolete.
And the Army owes all this to generals like Martín Díaz Tamayo and
colonels like Ugalde Carrillo and Albert del Río Chaviano. We were
not 17 traitors infiltrated into the ranks of the Army, as was the
case on March 10th. Instead, we were 165 men who had traveled the
length and breadth of Cuba to look death boldly in the face. If the
Army leaders had a notion of real military honor they would have
resigned their commands rather than trying to wash away their shame
and incompetence in the blood of their prisoners.
To
kill helpless prisoners and then declare that they died in battle:
that is the military capacity of the generals of March 10th. That was
the way the worst butchers of Valeriano Weyler behaved in the
cruelest years of our War of Independence. The Chronicles of War
include the following story: 'On February 23rd, officer Baldomero
Acosta entered Punta Brava with some cavalry when, from the opposite
road, a squad of the Pizarro regiment approached, led by a sergeant
known in those parts as Barriguilla (Pot Belly). The insurgents
exchanged a few shots with Pizarro's men, then withdrew by the trail
that leads from Punta Brava to the village of Guatao. Followed by
another battalion of volunteers from Marianao, and a company of
troops from the Public Order Corps, who were led by Captain Calvo,
Pizarro's squad of 50 men marched on Guatao ... As soon as their
first forces entered the village they commenced their massacre -
killing twelve of the peaceful inhabitants ... The troops led by
Captain Calvo speedily rounded up all the civilians that were running
about the village, tied them up and took them as prisoners of war to
Havana ... Not yet satisfied with their outrages, on the outskirts of
Guatao they carried out another barbaric action, killing one of the
prisoners and horribly wounding the rest. The Marquis of Cervera, a
cowardly and palatine soldier, informed Weyler of the pyrrhic victory
of the Spanish soldiers; but Major Zugasti, a man of principles,
denounced the incident to the government and officially called the
murders perpetrated by the criminal Captain Calvo and Sergeant
Barriguilla an assassination of peaceful citizens.
'Weyler's
intervention in this horrible incident and his delight upon learning
the details of the massacre may be palpably deduced from the official
dispatch that he sent to the Ministry of War concerning these
cruelties. "Small column organized by commander Marianao with
forces from garrison, volunteers and firemen led by Captain Calvo,
fought and destroyed bands of Villanueva and Baldomero Acosta near
Punta Brava, killing twenty of theirs, who were handed over to Mayor
of Guatao for burial, and taking fifteen prisoners, one of them
wounded, we assume there are many wounded among them. One of ours
suffered critical wounds, some suffered light bruises and wounds.
Weyler."'
What
is the difference between Weyler's dispatch and that of Colonel
Chaviano detailing the victories of Major Pérez Chaumont? Only that
Weyler mentions one wounded soldier in his ranks. Chaviano mentions
two. Weyler speaks of one wounded man and fifteen prisoners in the
enemy's ranks. Chaviano records neither wounded men nor prisoners.
Just
as I admire the courage of the soldiers who died bravely, I also
admire the officers who bore themselves with dignity and did not
drench their hands in this blood. Many of the survivors owe their
lives to the commendable conduct of officers like Lieutenant Sarría,
Lieutenant Campa, Captain Tamayo and others, who were true gentlemen
in their treatment of the prisoners. If men like these had not
partially saved the name of the Armed Forces, it would be more
honorable today to wear a dishrag than to wear an Army uniform.
For my
dead comrades, I claim no vengeance. Since their lives were
priceless, the murderers could not pay for them even with their own
lives. It is not by blood that we may redeem the lives of those who
died for their country. The happiness of their people is the only
tribute worthy of them.
What
is more, my comrades are neither dead nor forgotten; they live today,
more than ever, and their murderers will view with dismay the
victorious spirit of their ideas rise from their corpses. Let the
Apostle speak for me: 'There is a limit to the tears we can shed at
the graveside of the dead. Such limit is the infinite love for the
homeland and its glory, a love that never falters, loses hope nor
grows dim. For the graves of the martyrs are the highest altars of
our reverence.'
...
When one dies
In the arms of a grateful country
Agony ends, prison chains break - and
At last, with death, life begins!
In the arms of a grateful country
Agony ends, prison chains break - and
At last, with death, life begins!
Up to
this point I have confined myself almost exclusively to relating
events. Since I am well aware that I am before a Court convened to
judge me, I will now demonstrate that all legal right was on our side
alone, and that the verdict imposed on my comrades - the verdict now
being sought against me - has no justification in reason, in social
morality or in terms of true justice.
I wish
to be duly respectful to the Honorable Judges, and I am grateful that
you find in the frankness of my plea no animosity towards you. My
argument is meant simply to demonstrate what a false and erroneous
position the Judicial Power has adopted in the present situation. To
a certain extent, each Court is nothing more than a cog in the wheel
of the system, and therefore must move along the course determined by
the vehicle, although this by no means justifies any individual
acting against his principles. I know very well that the oligarchy
bears most of the blame. The oligarchy, without dignified protest,
abjectly yielded to the dictates of the usurper and betrayed their
country by renouncing the autonomy of the Judicial Power. Men who
constitute noble exceptions have attempted to mend the system's
mangled honor with their individual decisions. But the gestures of
this minority have been of little consequence, drowned as they were
by the obsequious and fawning majority. This fatalism, however, will
not stop me from speaking the truth that supports my cause. My
appearance before this Court may be a pure farce in order to give a
semblance of legality to arbitrary decisions, but I am determined to
wrench apart with a firm hand the infamous veil that hides so much
shamelessness. It is curious: the very men who have brought me here
to be judged and condemned have never heeded a single decision of
this Court.
Since
this trial may, as you said, be the most important trial since we
achieved our national sovereignty, what I say here will perhaps be
lost in the silence which the dictatorship has tried to impose on me,
but posterity will often turn its eyes to what you do here. Remember
that today you are judging an accused man, but that you yourselves
will be judged not once, but many times, as often as these days are
submitted to scrutiny in the future. What I say here will be then
repeated many times, not because it comes from my lips, but because
the problem of justice is eternal and the people have a deep sense of
justice above and beyond the hairsplitting of jurisprudence. The
people wield simple but implacable logic, in conflict with all that
is absurd and contradictory. Furthermore, if there is in this world a
people that utterly abhors favoritism and inequality, it is the Cuban
people. To them, justice is symbolized by a maiden with a scale and a
sword in her hands. Should she cower before one group and furiously
wield that sword against another group, then to the people of Cuba
the maiden of justice will seem nothing more than a prostitute
brandishing a dagger. My logic is the simple logic of the people.
Let me
tell you a story: Once upon a time there was a Republic. It had its
Constitution, its laws, its freedoms, a President, a Congress and
Courts of Law. Everyone could assemble, associate, speak and write
with complete freedom. The people were not satisfied with the
government officials at that time, but they had the power to elect
new officials and only a few days remained before they would do so.
Public opinion was respected and heeded and all problems of common
interest were freely discussed. There were political parties, radio
and television debates and forums and public meetings. The whole
nation pulsated with enthusiasm. This people had suffered greatly and
although it was unhappy, it longed to be happy and had a right to be
happy. It had been deceived many times and it looked upon the past
with real horror. This country innocently believed that such a past
could not return; the people were proud of their love of freedom and
they carried their heads high in the conviction that liberty would be
respected as a sacred right. They felt confident that no one would
dare commit the crime of violating their democratic institutions.
They wanted a change for the better, aspired to progress; and they
saw all this at hand. All their hope was in the future.
Poor
country! One morning the citizens woke up dismayed; under the cover
of night, while the people slept, the ghosts of the past had
conspired and has seized the citizenry by its hands, its feet, and
its neck. That grip, those claws were familiar: those jaws, those
death-dealing scythes, those boots. No; it was no nightmare; it was a
sad and terrible reality: a man named Fulgencio Batista had just
perpetrated the appalling crime that no one had expected.
Then a
humble citizen of that people, a citizen who wished to believe in the
laws of the Republic, in the integrity of its judges, whom he had
seen vent their fury against the underprivileged, searched through a
Social Defense Code to see what punishment society prescribed for the
author of such a coup, and he discovered the following:
'Whosoever
shall perpetrate any deed destined through violent means directly to
change in whole or in part the Constitution of the State or the form
of the established government shall incur a sentence of six to ten
years imprisonment.
'A
sentence of three to ten years imprisonment will be imposed on the
author of an act directed to promote an armed uprising against the
Constitutional Powers of the State. The sentence increases from five
to twenty years if the insurrection is carried out.
'Whosoever
shall perpetrate an act with the specific purpose of preventing, in
whole or in part, even temporarily, the Senate, the House of
Representatives, the President, or the Supreme Court from exercising
their constitutional functions will incur a sentence of from six to
ten years imprisonment.
'Whosoever
shall attempt to impede or tamper with the normal course of general
elections, will incur a sentence of from four to eight years
imprisonment.
'Whosoever
shall introduce, publish, propagate or try to enforce in Cuba
instructions, orders or decrees that tend ... to promote the
unobservance of laws in force, will incur a sentence of from two to
six years imprisonment.
'Whosoever
shall assume command of troops, posts, fortresses, military camps,
towns, warships, or military aircraft, without the authority to do
so, or without express government orders, will incur a sentence of
from five to ten years imprisonment.
'A
similar sentence will be passed upon anyone who usurps the exercise
of a function held by the Constitution as properly belonging to the
powers of State.'
Without
telling anyone, Code in one hand and a deposition in the other, that
citizen went to the old city building, that old building which housed
the Court competent and under obligation to bring cause against and
punish those responsible for this deed. He presented a writ
denouncing the crimes and asking that Fulgencio Batista and his
seventeen accomplices be sentenced to 108 years in prison as decreed
by the Social Defense Code; considering also aggravating
circumstances of secondary offense treachery, and acting under cover
of night.
Days
and months passed. What a disappointment! The accused remained
unmolested: he strode up and down the country like a great lord and
was called Honorable Sir and General: he removed and replaced judges
at will. The very day the Courts opened, the criminal occupied the
seat of honor in the midst of our august and venerable patriarchs of
justice.
Once
more the days and the months rolled by, the people wearied of mockery
and abuses. There is a limit to tolerance! The struggle began against
this man who was disregarding the law, who had usurped power by the
use of violence against the will of the people, who was guilty of
aggression against the established order, had tortured, murdered,
imprisoned and prosecuted those who had taken up the struggle to
defend the law and to restore freedom to the people.
Honorable
Judges: I am that humble citizen who one day demanded in vain that
the Courts punish the power-hungry men who had violated the law and
torn our institutions to shreds. Now that it is I who am accused for
attempting to overthrow this illegal regime and to restore the
legitimate Constitution of the Republic, I am held incommunicado for
76 days and denied the right to speak to anyone, even to my son;
between two heavy machine guns I am led through the city. I am
transferred to this hospital to be tried secretly with the greatest
severity; and the Prosecutor with the Code in his hand solemnly
demands that I be sentenced to 26 years in prison.
You
will answer that on the former occasion the Courts failed to act
because force prevented them from doing so. Well then, confess, this
time force will compel you to condemn me. The first time you were
unable to punish the guilty; now you will be compelled to punish the
innocent. The maiden of justice twice raped.
And so
much talk to justify the unjustifiable, to explain the inexplicable
and to reconcile the irreconcilable! The regime has reached the point
of asserting that 'Might makes right' is the supreme law of the land.
In other words, that using tanks and soldiers to take over the
presidential palace, the national treasury, and the other government
offices, and aiming guns at the heart of the people, entitles them to
govern the people! The same argument the Nazis used when they
occupied the countries of Europe and installed their puppet
governments.
I
heartily believe revolution to be the source of legal right; but the
nocturnal armed assault of March 10th could never be considered a
revolution. In everyday language, as José Ingenieros said, it is
common to give the name of revolution to small disorders promoted by
a group of dissatisfied persons in order to grab, from those in
power, both the political sinecures and the economic advantages. The
usual result is no more than a change of hands, the dividing up of
jobs and benefits. This is not the criterion of a philosopher, as it
cannot be that of a cultured man.
Leaving
aside the problem of integral changes in the social system, not even
on the surface of the public quagmire were we able to discern the
slightest motion that could lessen the rampant putrefaction. The
previous regime was guilty of petty politics, theft, pillage, and
disrespect for human life; but the present regime has increased
political skullduggery five-fold, pillage ten-fold, and a
hundred-fold the lack of respect for human life.
It was
known that Barriguilla had plundered and murdered, that he was a
millionaire, that he owned in Havana a good many apartment houses,
countless stock in foreign companies, fabulous accounts in American
banks, that he agreed to divorce settlements to the tune of eighteen
million pesos, that he was a frequent guest in the most lavishly
expensive hotels for Yankee tycoons. But no one would ever think of
Barriguilla as a revolutionary. Barriguilla is that sergeant of
Weyler's who assassinated twelve Cubans in Guatao. Batista's men
murdered seventy in Santiago de Cuba. De te fabula narratur.
Four
political parties governed the country before the 10th of March: the
Auténtico, Liberal, Democratic and Republican parties. Two days
after the coup, the Republican party gave its support to the new
rulers. A year had not yet passed before the Liberal and Democratic
parties were again in power: Batista did not restore the
Constitution, did not restore civil liberties, did not restore
Congress, did not restore universal suffrage, did not restore in the
last analysis any of the uprooted democratic institutions. But he did
restore Verdeja, Guas Inclán, Salvito García Ramos, Anaya Murillo
and the top hierarchy of the traditional government parties, the most
corrupt, rapacious, reactionary and antediluvian elements in Cuban
politics. So went the 'revolution' of Barriguilla!.
Lacking
even the most elementary revolutionary content, Batista's regime
represents in every respect a 20 year regression for Cuba. Batista's
regime has exacted a high price from all of us, but primarily from
the humble classes which are suffering hunger and misery. Meanwhile
the dictatorship has laid waste the nation with commotion, ineptitude
and anguish, and now engages in the most loathsome forms of ruthless
politics, concocting formula after formula to perpetuate itself in
power, even if over a stack of corpses and a sea of blood.
Batista's
regime has not set in motion a single nationwide program of
betterment for the people. Batista delivered himself into the hands
of the great financial interests. Little else could be expected from
a man of his mentality - utterly devoid as he is of ideals and of
principles, and utterly lacking the faith, confidence and support of
the masses. His regime merely brought with it a change of hands and a
redistribution of the loot among a new group of friends, relatives,
accomplices and parasitic hangers-on that constitute the political
retinue of the Dictator. What great shame the people have been forced
to endure so that a small group of egoists, altogether indifferent to
the needs of their homeland, may find in public life an easy and
comfortable modus vivendi.
How
right Eduardo Chibás was in his last radio speech, when he said that
Batista was encouraging the return of the colonels, castor oil and
the law of the fugitive! Immediately after March 10th, Cubans again
began to witness acts of veritable vandalism which they had thought
banished forever from their nation. There was an unprecedented attack
on a cultural institution: a radio station was stormed by the thugs
of the SIM, together with the young hoodlums of the PAU, while
broadcasting the 'University of the Air' program. And there was the
case of the journalist Mario Kuchilán, dragged from his home in the
middle of the night and bestially tortured until he was nearly
unconscious. There was the murder of the student Rubén Batista and
the criminal volleys fired at a peaceful student demonstration next
to the wall where Spanish volunteers shot the medical students in
1871. And many cases such as that of Dr. García Bárcena, where
right in the courtrooms men have coughed up blood because of the
barbaric tortures practiced upon them by the repressive security
forces. I will not enumerate the hundreds of cases where groups of
citizens have been brutally clubbed - men, women, children and the
aged. All of this was being done even before July 26th. Since then,
as everyone knows, even Cardinal Arteaga himself was not spared such
treatment. Everybody knows he was a victim of repressive agents.
According to the official story, he fell prey to a 'band of thieves'.
For once the regime told the truth. For what else is this regime? ...
People
have just contemplated with horror the case of the journalist who was
kidnapped and subjected to torture by fire for twenty days. Each new
case brings forth evidence of unheard-of effrontery, of immense
hypocrisy: the cowardice of those who shirk responsibility and
invariably blame the enemies of the regime. Governmental tactics
enviable only by the worst gangster mobs. Even the Nazi criminals
were never so cowardly. Hitler assumed responsibility for the
massacres of June 30, 1934, stating that for 24 hours he himself had
been the German Supreme Court; the henchmen of this dictatorship
which defies all comparison because of its baseness, maliciousness
and cowardice, kidnap, torture, murder and then loathsomely put the
blame on the adversaries of the regime. Typical tactics of Sergeant
Barriguilla!
Not
once in all the cases I have mentioned, Honorable Judges, have the
agents responsible for these crimes been brought to Court to be tried
for them. How is this? Was this not to be the regime of public order,
peace and respect for human life?
I have
related all this in order to ask you now: Can this state of affairs
be called a revolution, capable of formulating law and establishing
rights? Is it or is it not legitimate to struggle against this
regime? And must there not be a high degree of corruption in the
courts of law when these courts imprison citizens who try to rid the
country of so much infamy?
Cuba
is suffering from a cruel and base despotism. You are well aware that
resistance to despots is legitimate. This is a universally recognized
principle and our 1940 Constitution expressly makes it a sacred
right, in the second paragraph of Article 40: 'It is legitimate to
use adequate resistance to protect previously granted individual
rights.' And even if this prerogative had not been provided by the
Supreme Law of the Land, it is a consideration without which one
cannot conceive of the existence of a democratic collectivity.
Professor Infiesta, in his book on Constitutional Law, differentiates
between the political and legal constitutions, and states: 'Sometimes
the Legal Constitution includes constitutional principles which, even
without being so classified, would be equally binding solely on the
basis of the people's consent, for example, the principle of majority
rule or representation in our democracies.' The right of insurrection
in the face of tyranny is one such principle, and whether or not it
be included in the Legal Constitution, it is always binding within a
democratic society. The presentation of such a case to a high court
is one of the most interesting problems of general law. Duguit has
said in his Treatise on Constitutional Law: 'If an insurrection
fails, no court will dare to rule that this unsuccessful insurrection
was technically no conspiracy, no transgression against the security
of the State, inasmuch as, the government being tyrannical, the
intention to overthrow it was legitimate.' But please take note:
Duguit does not state, 'the court ought not to rule.' He says, 'no
court will dare to rule.' More explicitly, he means that no court
will dare, that no court will have enough courage to do so, under a
tyranny. If the court is courageous and does its duty, then yes, it
will dare.
Recently
there has been a loud controversy concerning the 1940 Constitution.
The Court of Social and Constitutional Rights ruled against it in
favor of the so-called Statutes. Nevertheless, Honorable Judges, I
maintain that the 1940 Constitution is still in force. My statement
may seem absurd and extemporaneous to you. But do not be surprised.
It is I who am astonished that a court of law should have attempted
to deal a death blow to the legitimate Constitution of the Republic.
Adhering strictly to facts, truth and reason - as I have done all
along - I will prove what I have just stated. The Court of Social and
Constitutional Rights was instituted according to Article 172 of the
1940 Constitution, and the supplementary Act of May 31, 1949. These
laws, in virtue of which the Court was created, granted it, insofar
as problems of unconstitutionality are concerned, a specific and
clearly defined area of legal competence: to rule in all matters of
appeals claiming the unconstitutionality of laws, legal decrees,
resolutions, or acts that deny, diminish, restrain or adulterate the
constitutional rights and privileges or that jeopardize the
operations of State agencies. Article 194 established very clearly
the following: 'All judges and courts are under the obligation to
find solutions to conflicts between the Constitution and the existing
laws in accordance with the principle that the former shall always
prevail over the latter.' Therefore, according to the laws that
created it, the Court of Social and Constitutional Rights should
always rule in favor of the Constitution. When this Court caused the
Statutes to prevail above the Constitution of the Republic, it
completely overstepped its boundaries and its established field of
competence, thereby rendering a decision which is legally null and
void. Furthermore, the decision itself is absurd, and absurdities
have no validity in law nor in fact, not even from a metaphysical
point of view. No matter how venerable a court may be, it cannot
assert that circles are square or, what amounts to the same thing,
that the grotesque offspring of the April 4th Statutes should be
considered the official Constitution of a State.
The
Constitution is understood to be the basic and supreme law of the
nation, to define the country's political structure, regulate the
functioning of its government agencies, and determine the limits of
their activities. It must be stable, enduring and, to a certain
extent, inflexible. The Statutes fulfill none of these
qualifications. To begin with, they harbor a monstrous, shameless,
and brazen contradiction in regard to the most vital aspect of all:
the integration of the Republican structure and the principle of
national sovereignty. Article 1 reads: 'Cuba is a sovereign and
independent State constituted as a democratic Republic.' Article 2
reads: 'Sovereignty resides in the will of the people, and all powers
derive from this source.' But then comes Article 118, which reads:
'The President will be nominated by the Cabinet.' So it is not the
people who choose the President, but rather the Cabinet. And who
chooses the Cabinet? Article 120, section 13: 'The President will be
authorized to nominate and reappoint the members of the Cabinet and
to replace them when occasion arises.' So, after all, who nominates
whom? Is this not the classical old problem of the chicken and the
egg that no one has ever been able to solve?
One
day eighteen hoodlums got together. Their plan was to assault the
Republic and loot its 350 million pesos annual budget. Behind
peoples' backs and with great treachery, they succeeded in their
purpose. 'Now what do we do next?' they wondered. One of them said to
the rest: 'You name me Prime Minister, and I'll make you generals.'
When this was done, he rounded up a group of 20 men and told them: 'I
will make you my Cabinet if you make me President.' In this way they
named each other generals, ministers and president, and then took
over the treasury and the Republic.
What
is more, it was not simply a matter of usurping sovereignty at a
given moment in order to name a Cabinet, Generals and a President.
This man ascribed to himself, through these Statutes, not only
absolute control of the nation, but also the power of life and death
over every citizen - control, in fact, over the very existence of the
nation. Because of this, I maintain that the position of the Court of
Social and Constitutional Rights is not only treacherous, vile,
cowardly and repugnant, but also absurd.
The
Statutes contain an article which has not received much attention,
but which gives us the key to this situation and is the one from
which we shall derive decisive conclusions. I refer specifically to
the modifying clause included in Article 257, which reads: 'This
constitutional law is open to reform by the Cabinet with a two-thirds
quorum vote.' This is where mockery reaches its climax. Not only did
they exercise sovereignty in order to impose a Constitution upon a
people without that people's consent, and to install a regime which
concentrates all power in their own hands, but also, through Article
257, they assume the most essential attribute of sovereignty: the
power to change the Basic and Supreme Law of the Land. And they have
already changed it several times since March 10th. Yet, with the
greatest gall, they assert in Article 2 that sovereignty resides in
the will of the people and that the people are the source of all
power. Since these changes may be brought about by a vote of
two-thirds of the Cabinet and the Cabinet is named by the President,
then the right to make and break Cuba is in the hands of one man, a
man who is, furthermore, the most unworthy of all the creatures ever
to be born in this land. Was this then accepted by the Court of
Social and Constitutional Rights? And is all that derives from it
valid and legal? Very well, you shall see what was accepted: 'This
constitutional law is open to reform by the Cabinet with a two-thirds
quorum vote.' Such a power recognizes no limits. Under its aegis, any
article, any chapter, any section, even the whole law may be
modified. For example, Article 1, which I have just mentioned, says
that Cuba is a sovereign and independent State constituted as a
democratic Republic, 'although today it is in fact a bloody
dictatorship.' Article 3 reads: 'The national boundaries include the
island of Cuba, the Isle of Pines, and the neighboring keys ...' and
so on. Batista and his Cabinet under the provisions of Article 257
can modify all these other articles. They can say that Cuba is no
longer a Republic but a hereditary monarchy and he, Batista, can
anoint himself king. He can dismember the national territory and sell
a province to a foreign country as Napoleon did with Louisiana. He
may suspend the right to life itself, and like Herod, order the
decapitation of newborn children. All these measures would be legal
and you would have to incarcerate all those who opposed them, just as
you now intend to do with me. I have put forth extreme examples to
show how sad and humiliating our present situation is. To think that
all these absolute powers are in the hands of men truly capable of
selling our country along with all its citizens!
As the
Court of Social and Constitutional Rights has accepted this state of
affairs, what more are they waiting for? They may as well hang up
their judicial robes. It is a fundamental principle of general law
that there can be no constitutional status where the constitutional
and legislative powers reside in the same body. When the Cabinet
makes the laws, the decrees and the rules - and at the same time has
the power to change the Constitution in a moment of time - then I ask
you: why do we need a Court of Social and Constitutional Rights? The
ruling in favor of this Statute is irrational, inconceivable,
illogical and totally contrary to the Republican laws that you,
Honorable Judges, swore to uphold. When the Court of Social and
Constitutional Rights supported Batista's Statutes against the
Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land was not abolished but
rather the Court of Social and Constitutional Rights placed itself
outside the Constitution, renounced its autonomy and committed legal
suicide. May it rest in peace!
The
right to rebel, established in Article 40 of the Constitution, is
still valid. Was it established to function while the Republic was
enjoying normal conditions? No. This provision is to the Constitution
what a lifeboat is to a ship at sea. The lifeboat is only launched
when the ship has been torpedoed by enemies laying wait along its
course. With our Constitution betrayed and the people deprived of all
their prerogatives, there was only one way open: one right which no
power may abolish. The right to resist oppression and injustice. If
any doubt remains, there is an article of the Social Defense Code
which the Honorable Prosecutor would have done well not to forget. It
reads, and I quote: 'The appointed or elected government authorities
that fail to resist sedition with all available means will be liable
to a sentence of interdiction of from six to eight years.' The judges
of our nation were under the obligation to resist Batista's
treacherous military coup of the 10th of March. It is understandable
that when no one has observed the law and when nobody else has done
his duty, those who have observed the law and have done their duty
should be sent to prison.
You
will not be able to deny that the regime forced upon the nation is
unworthy of Cuba's history. In his book, The Spirit of Laws, which is
the foundation of the modern division of governmental power,
Montesquieu makes a distinction between three types of government
according to their basic nature: 'The Republican form wherein the
whole people or a portion thereof has sovereign power; the
Monarchical form where only one man governs, but in accordance with
fixed and well-defined laws; and the Despotic form where one man
without regard for laws nor rules acts as he pleases, regarding only
his own will or whim.' And then he adds: 'A man whose five senses
constantly tell him that he is everything and that the rest of
humanity is nothing is bound to be lazy, ignorant and sensuous.' 'As
virtue is necessary to democracy, and honor to a monarchy, fear is of
the essence to a despotic regime, where virtue is not needed and
honor would be dangerous.'
The
right of rebellion against tyranny, Honorable Judges, has been
recognized from the most ancient times to the present day by men of
all creeds, ideas and doctrines.
It was
so in the theocratic monarchies of remote antiquity. In China it was
almost a constitutional principle that when a king governed rudely
and despotically he should be deposed and replaced by a virtuous
prince.
The
philosophers of ancient India upheld the principle of active
resistance to arbitrary authority. They justified revolution and very
often put their theories into practice. One of their spiritual
leaders used to say that 'an opinion held by the majority is stronger
than the king himself. A rope woven of many strands is strong enough
to hold a lion.'
The
city states of Greece and republican Rome not only admitted, but
defended the meting-out of violent death to tyrants.
In the
Middle Ages, John Salisbury in his Book of the Statesman says that
when a prince does not govern according to law and degenerates into a
tyrant, violent overthrow is legitimate and justifiable. He
recommends for tyrants the dagger rather than poison.
Saint
Thomas Aquinas, in the Summa Theologica, rejects the doctrine of
tyrannicide, and yet upholds the thesis that tyrants should be
overthrown by the people.
Martin
Luther proclaimed that when a government degenerates into a tyranny
that violates the laws, its subjects are released from their
obligations to obey. His disciple, Philippe Melanchton, upholds the
right of resistance when governments become despotic. Calvin, the
outstanding thinker of the Reformation with regard to political
ideas, postulates that people are entitled to take up arms to oppose
any usurpation.
No
less a man that Juan Mariana, a Spanish Jesuit during the reign of
Philip II, asserts in his book, De Rege et Regis Institutione, that
when a governor usurps power, or even if he were elected, when he
governs in a tyrannical manner it is licit for a private citizen to
exercise tyrannicide, either directly or through subterfuge with the
least possible disturbance.
The
French writer, François Hotman, maintained that between the
government and its subjects there is a bond or contract, and that the
people may rise in rebellion against the tyranny of government when
the latter violates that pact.
About
the same time, a booklet - which came to be widely read - appeared
under the title Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos, and it was signed with the
pseudonym Stephanus Junius Brutus. It openly declared that resistance
to governments is legitimate when rulers oppress the people and that
it is the duty of Honorable Judges to lead the struggle.
The
Scottish reformers John Knox and John Poynet upheld the same points
of view. And, in the most important book of that movement, George
Buchanan stated that if a government achieved power without taking
into account the consent of the people, or if a government rules
their destiny in an unjust or arbitrary fashion, then that government
becomes a tyranny and can be divested of power or, in a final
recourse, its leaders can be put to death.
John
Althus, a German jurist of the early 17th century, stated in his
Treatise on Politics that sovereignty as the supreme authority of the
State is born from the voluntary concourse of all its members; that
governmental authority stems from the people and that its unjust,
illegal or tyrannical function exempts them from the duty of
obedience and justifies resistance or rebellion.
Thus
far, Honorable Judges, I have mentioned examples from antiquity, from
the Middle Ages, and from the beginnings of our times. I selected
these examples from writers of all creeds. What is more, you can see
that the right to rebellion is at the very root of Cuba's existence
as a nation. By virtue of it you are today able to appear in the
robes of Cuban Judges. Would it be that those garments really served
the cause of justice!
It is
well known that in England during the 17th century two kings, Charles
I and James II, were dethroned for despotism. These actions coincided
with the birth of liberal political philosophy and provided the
ideological base for a new social class, which was then struggling to
break the bonds of feudalism. Against divine right autocracies, this
new philosophy upheld the principle of the social contract and of the
consent of the governed, and constituted the foundation of the
English Revolution of 1688, the American Revolution of 1775 and the
French Revolution of 1789. These great revolutionary events ushered
in the liberation of the Spanish colonies in the New World - the
final link in that chain being broken by Cuba. The new philosophy
nurtured our own political ideas and helped us to evolve our
Constitutions, from the Constitution of Guáimaro up to the
Constitution of 1940. The latter was influenced by the socialist
currents of our time; the principle of the social function of
property and of man's inalienable right to a decent living were built
into it, although large vested interests have prevented fully
enforcing those rights.
The
right of insurrection against tyranny then underwent its final
consecration and became a fundamental tenet of political liberty.
As far
back as 1649, John Milton wrote that political power lies with the
people, who can enthrone and dethrone kings and have the duty of
overthrowing tyrants.
John
Locke, in his essay on government, maintained that when the natural
rights of man are violated, the people have the right and the duty to
alter or abolish the government. 'The only remedy against
unauthorized force is opposition to it by force.'
Jean-Jaques
Rousseau said with great eloquence in his Social Contract: 'While a
people sees itself forced to obey and obeys, it does well; but as
soon as it can shake off the yoke and shakes it off, it does better,
recovering its liberty through the use of the very right that has
been taken away from it.' 'The strongest man is never strong enough
to be master forever, unless he converts force into right and
obedience into duty. Force is a physical power; I do not see what
morality one may derive from its use. To yield to force is an act of
necessity, not of will; at the very least, it is an act of prudence.
In what sense should this be called a duty?' 'To renounce freedom is
to renounce one's status as a man, to renounce one's human rights,
including one's duties. There is no possible compensation for
renouncing everything. Total renunciation is incompatible with the
nature of man and to take away all free will is to take away all
morality of conduct. In short, it is vain and contradictory to
stipulate on the one hand an absolute authority and on the other an
unlimited obedience ...'
Thomas
Paine said that 'one just man deserves more respect than a rogue with
a crown.'
The
people's right to rebel has been opposed only by reactionaries like
that clergyman of Virginia, Jonathan Boucher, who said: 'The right to
rebel is a censurable doctrine derived from Lucifer, the father of
rebellions.'
The
Declaration of Independence of the Congress of Philadelphia, on July
4th, 1776, consecrated this right in a beautiful paragraph which
reads: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the
Pursuit of Happiness; That to secure these Rights, Governments are
instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of
the governed; That whenever any Form of Government becomes
destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or
abolish it and to institute a new Government, laying its foundation
on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them
shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.'
The
famous French Declaration of the Rights of Man willed this principle
to the coming generations: 'When the government violates the rights
of the people, insurrection is for them the most sacred of rights and
the most imperative of duties.' 'When a person seizes sovereignty, he
should be condemned to death by free men.'
I
believe I have sufficiently justified my point of view. I have called
forth more reasons than the Honorable Prosecutor called forth to ask
that I be condemned to 26 years in prison. All these reasons support
men who struggle for the freedom and happiness of the people. None
support those who oppress the people, revile them, and rob them
heartlessly. Therefore I have been able to call forth many reasons
and he could not adduce even one. How can Batista's presence in power
be justified when he gained it against the will of the people and by
violating the laws of the Republic through the use of treachery and
force? How could anyone call legitimate a regime of blood, oppression
and ignominy? How could anyone call revolutionary a regime which has
gathered the most backward men, methods and ideas of public life
around it? How can anyone consider legally valid the high treason of
a Court whose duty was to defend the Constitution? With what right do
the Courts send to prison citizens who have tried to redeem their
country by giving their own blood, their own lives? All this is
monstrous to the eyes of the nation and to the principles of true
justice!
Still
there is one argument more powerful than all the others. We are
Cubans and to be Cuban implies a duty; not to fulfill that duty is a
crime, is treason. We are proud of the history of our country; we
learned it in school and have grown up hearing of freedom, justice
and human rights. We were taught to venerate the glorious example of
our heroes and martyrs. Céspedes, Agramonte, Maceo, Gómez and Martí
were the first names engraved in our minds. We were taught that the
Titan once said that liberty is not begged for but won with the blade
of a machete. We were taught that for the guidance of Cuba's free
citizens, the Apostle wrote in his book The Golden Age: 'The man who
abides by unjust laws and permits any man to trample and mistreat the
country in which he was born is not an honorable man ... In the world
there must be a certain degree of honor just as there must be a
certain amount of light. When there are many men without honor, there
are always others who bear in themselves the honor of many men. These
are the men who rebel with great force against those who steal the
people's freedom, that is to say, against those who steal honor
itself. In those men thousands more are contained, an entire people
is contained, human dignity is contained ...' We were taught that the
10th of October and the 24th of February are glorious anniversaries
of national rejoicing because they mark days on which Cubans rebelled
against the yoke of infamous tyranny. We were taught to cherish and
defend the beloved flag of the lone star, and to sing every afternoon
the verses of our National Anthem: 'To live in chains is to live in
disgrace and in opprobrium,' and 'to die for one's homeland is to
live forever!' All this we learned and will never forget, even though
today in our land there is murder and prison for the men who practice
the ideas taught to them since the cradle. We were born in a free
country that our parents bequeathed to us, and the Island will first
sink into the sea before we consent to be the slaves of anyone.
It
seemed that the Apostle would die during his Centennial. It seemed
that his memory would be extinguished forever. So great was the
affront! But he is alive; he has not died. His people are rebellious.
His people are worthy. His people are faithful to his memory. There
are Cubans who have fallen defending his doctrines. There are young
men who in magnificent selflessness came to die beside his tomb,
giving their blood and their lives so that he could keep on living in
the heart of his nation. Cuba, what would have become of you had you
let your Apostle die?
I come
to the close of my defense plea but I will not end it as lawyers
usually do, asking that the accused be freed. I cannot ask freedom
for myself while my comrades are already suffering in the ignominious
prison of the Isle of Pines. Send me there to join them and to share
their fate. It is understandable that honest men should be dead or in
prison in a Republic where the President is a criminal and a thief.
To
you, Honorable Judges, my sincere gratitude for having allowed me to
express myself free from contemptible restrictions. I hold no
bitterness towards you, I recognize that in certain aspects you have
been humane, and I know that the Chief Judge of this Court, a man of
impeccable private life, cannot disguise his repugnance at the
current state of affairs that compels him to dictate unjust
decisions. Still, a more serious problem remains for the Court of
Appeals: the indictments arising from the murders of seventy men,
that is to say, the greatest massacre we have ever known. The guilty
continue at liberty and with weapons in their hands - weapons which
continually threaten the lives of all citizens. If all the weight of
the law does not fall upon the guilty because of cowardice or because
of domination of the courts, and if then all the judges do not
resign, I pity your honor. And I regret the unprecedented shame that
will fall upon the Judicial Power.
I know
that imprisonment will be harder for me than it has ever been for
anyone, filled with cowardly threats and hideous cruelty. But I do
not fear prison, as I do not fear the fury of the miserable tyrant
who took the lives of 70 of my comrades. Condemn me. It does not
matter. History will absolve me.
