EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW BY MINISTER FELIPE PÉREZ ROQUE
TO THE ASSOCIATED PRESS (AP)

TUESDAY, 9 JANUARY 2001

Vivian Serguera: The episode of the Three Wise Men, preceded by all the Round Tables dedicated to President Aznar, the Ibero-American Summit and the episode of the two persons that entered the Cuban Embassy in Madrid and so forth… Why that war?

Minister: I believe there isn’t a “battle” between Cuba and Spain. There is no ”war” between Cuba and Spain – and it is very unlikely to happen because there are historical relations with a profound cultural root and really close-knit historical links between the Spanish people and the Cuban people. I think that today, more than ever before, there’s a cordial and deep relation between the people of Cuba and the people of Spain – and in Cuba there is only sympathy and goodwill towards the Spanish people. I wouldn’t say either that there is a “war” between the two Governments, there isn’t. I think that there have been different opinions and viewpoints on some issues.

I don’t think that there was a “war” between us in Panama. I think that there was a difference of opinion. Cuba defended the thesis that a resolution by the Ibero-American Heads of State and Government on the situation of terrorism in Ibero-America should have included the rejection and condemnation of any form of terrorism, wherever it came from and whomever it were committed against. We defended that idea there – and strove to defend a formula containing the interests of all countries, including those of Spain and Cuba. That was not possible because the Spanish delegation defended the interest that the resolution strictly adhere to the situation in Spain and to the condemnation of terrorism and the terrorist methods developed by ETA in Spain. Then, Cuba considered that this was an unbalanced, selective text that discriminated against all the countries that wanted to be included, such as Cuba. So the problem emerged.

I believe this is what happened. Afterwards, there were some statements by several Spanish authorities that we have carefully noticed – and have preferred not to debate publicly. We are mature enough to differentiate what is essential from what is conjunctional; and we know it is impossible to confuse the Spanish people; we know there is no human force capable of turning the Spanish people against Cuba – and we know that Spaniards understand quite well and share our causes.

I have no comments on what the Cuban media expressed and what journalists have said. They have voiced their opinions and viewpoints. In Spain, as in any other country, journalists more or less air their opinions and standpoints. The opinions of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs are signed by the Ministry itself signed at the bottom of the page – and if it is a statement by the Government, it is then signed by the Cuban Government.

About the epithets used in the media, well, that always happens during red-hot debates. I think we are one of the countries that least uses epithets. We feel deep respect towards the communicators and journalists who do a professional, serious job – and what happened some days ago was an unfortunate, grotesque incident.

Minister: The incident of the Three Wise Men I really think is a grotesque show, not consistent with the Cuban traditions and whose motive I abstain from commenting. I think it’s an event that doesn’t call for more time on it. To your question I can categorically answer that I don’t think there is a “war.” We are not interested in a “war” against Spain or encouraging one for that matter. It wouldn’t make sense. We do have a deep sense of dignity and we are clearly aware of our condition as a free, sovereign nation – and we don’t accept pressures from anyone. That is true, indeed.

Anita Snow: Then, what was the biggest problem, the fact that it was thought that they wanted to impose traditions on Cuban children?

Minister: I think that some diplomatic officials were wrong and maybe acted inexpertly. I don’t know the reason. In a way, that caused rejection in the Cuban public opinion – very sensitive to issues relating to childcare. But I see that as an incident.

I think that the Spanish Cultural Center in Havana, operating pursuant to an agreement between the Governments of both countries, has a mission and an important role to play in terms of cultural links. Its function is to disseminate the values of Spanish culture in Cuba, as deeply rooted in the origin of our own culture. Such work has to be done professionally and seriously, in accordance with diplomatic rules – and in this particular case, I believe that unfortunately this event moves away from these noble purposes of diffusing Spanish culture on the island. Something that we support. It moves away from those objectives and comes into a clash with the sensitivity of our people. Therefore, it causes that feeling of rejection.

Anita Snow: What are the priorities in foreign affairs for this year? Are you working on the establishment of new diplomatic missions – because I read you that were going to open one in Costa Rica?

Minister: Yes, we will open a Cuban Consulate in Costa Rica. About Cuban international affairs for the year 2001? Well, our first priority is to continue the battle against the US blockade. This is our first priority. We do it not only for Cuba, not only for the national interests of Cuba, but also to defend an essential principle of International Law; that is, the right of any country, whether small and poor, to choose its own path. That principle is enshrined in the United Nations Charter. If the blockade against Cuba prevailed, if Cuba were defeated through pressure and blockade, it a very negative precedent would be set in international relations. Therefore, we are driven not only by Cuba’s interest in fighting and defeating a policy deemed unfair and harmful to our interests, but also because of the international community.

We will fight the blockade to defend the right of the American people. Defeating the blockade is Cuba’s contribution to the rights and public freedoms in the United States – since the blockade prevents US citizens from traveling to Cuba, US entrepreneurs from trading with Cuba, US drug enforcement authorities from cooperating with Cuba – in such a sensitive field for the US public opinion – because the blockade against Cuba is extraterritorial. It envisages sanctions on citizens from other countries who are not even American or Cuban, but Canadian, European, Latin American.

We think that defeating the blockade is fighting also for the right of the American people to coexist with a small country that doesn’t threaten the United States – and we fight the blockade because at the same time we are fighting for the right of most Cubans living in the United States. The majority is currently suffering from the consequences of the blockade and are also hostages to that obsolete, unfair policy that causes grief to their relatives in Cuba. Who is the blockade beneficial to? To a minority, powerful group that defends the blockade. Then, defeating the blockade, continuing the fight against it, achieving its ongoing condemnation at the United Nations – remember that in 2000, 167 countries voted against it – that’s the first priority.

The second priority is to continue working to enhance and deepen the relations between Cuba and the world, to strengthen our relations with Latin America and the Caribbean. This year, we will open some Cuban Embassies, small and modest ones, in some Caribbean countries. We intend to sign a complementary Economic Agreement with MERCOSUR, of the 4+1 type; an Agreement with the Andean Community of Nations…

Minister: We will open Embassies in Saint Lucia, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Antigua and Barbuda. We are inaugurating the Cuban Consulate in Costa Rica. At this moment, we have diplomatic relations with 171 countries all over the world and have 102 Cuban Embassies abroad. In Cuba, there are 95 Diplomatic Missions representing countries and international agencies – 85 of these are Embassies from other countries in Havana and the other 10 represent international agencies.

We are members of a significant number of United Nations bodies and will keep on cooperating intensively within the United Nations system. We intend to continue, with renewed energy, the work with ACP countries. We became the 78^th member of the ACP group. We intend to continue improving our relations with the 15 EU countries – with which we have very important economic links – but we need the EU to adopt a more independent position towards Cuba without yielding to American pressure, defining a realistic, daring and coherent policy towards Cuba. We will keep on enhancing our relations with Africa, where we have very strong historical and cultural relations, as well as large-scale cooperation. We will modestly continue carrying out our cooperation with the Third World. Today, we have more than 2,000 Cuban doctors working free of charge in 14 countries of Latin America; for instance, there are over 400 in Guatemala and 400 in Haiti. There are more than 8,000 students from the Third World in Cuban universities; we have more than 3,000 youths studying at the Latin American School of Medicine. This year, 500 American youths are expected to come and study at the Latin American School of Medicine – youths from the Afro-American, Latin and other US minorities, from poor and low-income families. They can study medicine in Cuba.

Minister: They should arrive in Cuba early this year, in February or March. The selection process is currently underway.

Minister: Yes, in coordination with the Black Caucus, with organizations representing Latin minorities – and they should come from low-income families. I have learned that the announcement has been enthusiastically welcomed in some American cities and there are many young applicants for such studies in our country. We will welcome them with respect.

Vivian Serguera: And what can you anticipate regarding the relations with the new Government, although the President has said it already?

Minister: Well, you don’t have to pay attention to what a President says during his electoral campaign. I will talk about that later.

It is also a priority for Cuba to continue working at the United Nations and within international agencies in favor of a real democratization of international relations. Cuba thinks that international organizations lack democracy and that a small group of countries impose their interests on the rest of the international community. In addition, Cuba thinks that the globalization we are facing today should be beneficial to the whole planet and not only to a small group of countries. Cuba will continue working for the transformation of the current international economic order, that we deem unfair and unsustainable – and particularly at the United Nations, we will strongly oppose the attempt to acknowledge the so-called right of humanitarian intervention, a dangerous principle we are opposed to. We will continue so that the United Nations Charter is respected, we will keep struggling to restructure the United Nations, to democratize it, particularly the Security Council – and specifically this year, when Cuba will take the chair of the G-77 at its headquarters in Rome and Geneva; Iran will preside over in New York and in Vienna the Chair will be Algeria. Above all, we will work for the fulfillment of the agreements of the South Summit held here in Havana last April – and as part of our priorities, we will also continue fostering our relations with China and Russia, with which we have increasing political and economic exchanges.

Then, about your question on what we expect from the new US Government, taking into account the statements President Bush has made. We stay calm and expecting. We feel neither anxious nor afraid. We are aware of our strength, of our prestige around the world and of the solidarity feelings that our cause entails all over the planet, even within the United States. We think that the ball is now in the court of the American authorities. They have to make a decision; they have to decide what to do. They have to come to a decision if they are daring, if they are creative, if they listen to the American people, if they read the editorials of US newspapers constantly claiming for a change in the policy towards Cuba.

They have to decide whether to formulate a responsible, coherent policy towards Cuba, in accordance with the present and taking into account the fact that the hostility towards Cuba has lasted 40 years, that the Cold War is over, that US military chiefs have said that Cuba is not a military threat to the United States.

They have to decide whether to formulate a policy listening to these facts or to continue being hostages to the interests of the small, powerful Cuban lobby of the right wing and its friends of the American right wing. President Bush has to determine if during his term he will propose a coherent policy, with a new message, that takes into account the national interest of the US towards a small neighboring country or will keep the archaic, ancient confrontational language towards Cuba. He has to decide whether to go down in the history of US politics as the responsible, brave politician who faced a thorny issue of US domestic policy – because the Cuban topic is a domestic policy affair – or retire, like his predecessor, aware of having been manipulated by the dinosaurs of the Cuban right wing. That is to say, we are not the ones who have to make the decision, but the American authorities, the US Congress.

On the other hand, President Bush – we have to admit it – doesn’t have much leeway because the entire blockade against Cuba is codified within American laws. As long as the Helms-Burton and the Torricelli Acts are not repealed, as long as measures for a responsible relation are not adopted, even if he wants to, he could do nothing.

The current situation is so absurd – for instance, in the fight against drug trafficking. The fact that the US Government cannot cooperate with Cuba in the anti-drug field. How are they going to explain someday to American families that the United States could receive much more assistance for the anti-drug struggle and that this didn’t occur because of the dark interests of small groups of pressure? That is something they will have to explain someday.

We are very calm, aware that our country is unstoppable and that we will keep on recovering despite the blockade.

We are on the train heading for the 21^st century. The US Government should decide whether to catch the train – there are a few wagons to make it – or stay by the railroad as we wave goodbye.

We feel at ease. There are – let us say it properly – dangers for the situation to become obscure if the American authorities which will take over yield to the pressures of the extremist groups in Miami which advocate the boycotting of the Migration Accords, encouraging illegal and disorderly migration from Cuba, enforcing the Helms-Burton Act, and even more strongly, advocating a military conflict between Cuba and the United States. If the American Government yields to the pressures and interests of such a powerful lobby as Miami, now self-proclaimed “the creator” of Mr. Bush’s victory in Florida and publicly announcing that it will ask for something in return for the service rendered, things could worsen and a hostile situation between the two countries could arise and affect the region and the international community.

We are on the watch for it. We will judge the President not only for what he declared in the campaign, but also for the way he runs the presidency.

Vivian Serguera: That is precisely the reason why the Miami-based lobby is going to ask for something in return.

Minister: It is already sending its invoice, claiming the payment for what it considers a favor.

Minister: Cuba is willing to establish normal, respectful relations with the United States. We are looking forward to it and we believe this is the right and best thing for both countries. Cuba feels no animosity towards the American people or blames it for the 40 years of war, blockade and pressures waged against our country; we can distinguish this clearly. We feel respect towards the American people, we know its culture, its contributions to development, to science, we support the right of the American people to do whatever it deems necessary with its country, their political institutions and its domestic situation, in the same way we claim our right. In our opinion, nobody should impose on others either models or paradigms. Which is our contribution? The patience we have shown, the maturity we have demonstrated, for instance, the extraordinary endeavours we have made so that migration to the United States is organized, legal and safe despite the persistence of a monster such as the Cuban Adjustment Act, which encourages illegal migration. Nonetheless, we have made a mature effort and have made a contribution.

The struggle we carry out alone against drugs going to the United States, although this is not a problem of Cuba.

Minister: Without American cooperation, with our old boats. Can you imagine cooperation between Cuba and the United States in the struggle against drug trafficking, in the areas we have proposed? However, we have continued working sensibly because we have international commitments and realize the scourge drugs can be.

Vivian Serguera: This is a forbidden territory; you may still believe that Cuba is a territory through which drugs are not smuggled.

Minister: We wage a strong fight so that Cuba’s surrounding waters are not used; yet we can’t always achieve this. We arrest drug traffickers and seize drugs – and statistics have been published recently, but still we are not fully effective; drug traffickers have powerful resources and we don’t own the best means or technology, but we have made outstanding efforts, as acknowledged even by the American drug enforcement authorities and by the American media.

Hence, Cuba is looking forward to that cooperation. It is not up to us, it is up to the United States. It is true that formerly the majority of the American public opinion was not interested in the issue, but today it no longer happens this way – after the attempt of leaving Elián González in the United States, as well as all the events involved in this painful incident, the American public opinion is aware of that concern, polls reveal it, the press makes it public every day. In the United States, there is overwhelming consensus promoting the need to normalize relations with Cuba; last year, within the US Congress, there were six votes in favor of selling foodstuffs and medications to Cuba and allowing travels, but they were not enacted into law because of the anti-Cuban lobby.

What can Cuba do? To remain providing the public opinion with our messages, to keep on working, to welcome Americans in our country; tens of thousands of Americans are coming to Cuba legally and illegally; it is like a snowball that grows and that someday will run over those who have defended this policy against Cuba. It is not up to us, it is up to the American political class. They have to decide what to do with Cuba.

Anita Snow: Do you think that, since this is an electoral year, it is the purpose of Congress to ease the embargo this year?

Minister: Signs coming from our friends there are not optimistic, although everybody understands it is necessary to continue our efforts to change this absurd situation affecting Cuban and American interests. Everybody wonders why the United States has taken steps forward in its relations with China, with Viet Nam, with the Democratic Republic of Korea – which Cuba sees with satisfaction – and it’s not possible to do the same with Cuba.

President Clinton has visited Viet Nam, we consider it positive; in Viet Nam, some 60,000 Americans and 4 million Vietnamese died in a bloody war that left its prints on an entire generation; however, the United States, some time later, decided to take the path to normalize relations with Viet Nam, with China; why is Cuba the only country around the world to which the United States does not sell foodstuffs and medications? Why is Cuba the only country around the world where American citizens are not allowed to travel, under the threat of prison and penalties? Can anyone explain this to me? What are they afraid of? Why are Americans prevented from learning what happens in Cuba, from coming, from walking the streets, from talking to people, from buying a box of Havana cigars – which is a crime today? It is a crime, according to federal legislation, to have some Cuban cigars since Kennedy bought all the Cuban cigars in Washington and signed the Embargo Act.

Vivian Serguera: I recently heard that it was precisely a Kennedy who brought in her personal luggage the picture of Fidel entering the City of Havana…who would believe it, the daughter of Robert Kennedy?

Minister: We are friends with the Kennedy family, we feel respect for them, particularly Fidel, for many years; even though President Kennedy was our enemy, we have always respected him and have shared a long-lasting friendship with the family.

Then, there is a great alliance formed by Cuba, the international community, the majority of the American people, the majority of the Cubans living in the United States, the entrepreneurial sectors of the United States, the majority of the American press, all of them agree on the fact that the blockade against Cuba must end and on the opposite side there is a small “Jurassic group” of dinosaurs anchored in time, victims of their own hatred, that they support. Let us see who wins.

Vivian Serguera: Cuba opposes the embargo, Bush supports the embargo. Cuba is going to oppose Bush or Bush, obviously, is going to oppose Cuba. And if we add a third element to this, that the community in Miami is going to send the bill to Bush, one can foresee a problem between both parties and one can foresee that there is going to be a dilemma between both parties. Miami charges the bill to Bush by asking him – whatever the way to – to pass this legislation, to make things harsher, the reaction that one can foresee from Fidel is the ideological battle: let’s demonstrate, the combatant people... then, is that equation correct, is it within the parameters?

Minister: Seeing it schematically, yes; for them, it would be necessary for the US Government and its legislative and executives authorities to succumb to the pressure from the Miami extremists. If that happens and there is a worsening in the American policy, Cuba’s defensive reaction should be, obviously, expected.

Vivian Serguera: I believe it is not a secret and even more being aware of this delicate mechanism of reaction coming from Washington in this case and it is still to be seen to what mechanism they are going to succumb, that is that Bush is going to...

Minister:If I were an American politician with important responsibilities, I would pay a very great deal of attention to the piece of advice that Raúl Castro has just given to the American authorities on trying to settle this issue with Fidel. I wouldn’t take this piece of advice as a joke.

Vivian Serguera: That leads me to two questions and I didn’t have any one prepared; the first one is that you are giving the current American Government the benefit of the doubt; that is, that you are giving it the doubt that it still might show some symptom of credibility.

Minister: That’s correct, that is the benefit of the doubt; it means that we are going to judge it by its facts. Up to now, what we only have are declarations with a strong rhetoric against Cuba, but it occurred within the framework of the electoral campaign, while raising funds in Miami – and our own friends in the US have told us that what is said during an electoral campaign is something one shouldn’t worry about, much less in such a corrupt campaign as this one.

Vivian Serguera: And the second one is that when I was reading the interview with General Castro, I wondered why must Washington follow his piece of advice? That’s a threat, it sounds like a bad game to play. It even sounds like...

Minister: That’s a piece of advice, you’d better make up now. The matter is that what is about to come is not known. I can only recommend taking this piece of advice seriously.

Vivian Serguera: Let’s think of a historical hypothesis, let’s suppose that Clinton would have been re-elected and that a Republican Government couldn’t be designated, would this have been the same recommendation?

Minister: I believe that Clinton, in a hypothetical third term, would have proposed the normalization of relations with Cuba. I believe that. I even believe that he probably wanted to do it at the beginning of his term; he thought of the possibilities of normalizing relations with Cuba, but he quickly lost the majority in Congress. Remember that then a Republican wave came about, Gingrich; the domestic agenda was imposed in the US. Cuba was not a priority anymore, it was one mere issue wherein a battlefront was to be opened – and the issue was left at that point. Afterwards, the incident of the aircraft took place. Cuba didn’t want it to happen and Cuba was the least interested country in having it happen. It was also an electoral year, and then the estimation to win the support from the Cuban extremist lobby came about – and when the Helms-Burton Act was signed the President tied his hands and couldn’t do anything more regarding that policy; that’s what history has been like. But I believe that he is a man that in a hypothetical third term would have changed the policy. The matter is that boldness, coherence and depth are required to take a step like this one.

Vivian Serguera: How do you imagine a Cuba without that enemy, without that battle, without the Helms-Burton Act, without the embargo?

Minister: If the US blockade ceased, if there were normal relations, and that is what we want, I categorically reject the notion that we prefer the continuation of the blockade because this allows us to maintain the Revolution. We want the cessation of the blockade because it causes cruel suffering to our people. If the blockade were ended, the possibilities for Cuba’s economic development would open up, really important ones; without a doubt, this would cause a strong development in tourism and, generally speaking, economic relations would be positive for Cuba. It would pose a great cultural challenge to Cuba and a political one; in fact, it would be the challenge of facing full relationships with a country with such dimensions and development as the US. However, we are willing to take up the challenge. Americans are the ones who can’t form a relationship with us; Americans are the ones who are condemned if they try to come to Cuba. Up to now, the US hasn’t taken up the challenge; we are willing to do it, but you are right, new and contradictory scenarios would open up. If the blockade comes to an end, not only would Cuba and the US be benefited but also the whole Caribbean. There would be some détente at the Latin American level. That would be better for Cuba. In the US, it has been published that during the first year in which Americans were allowed to come to Cuba, up to 3 million people would come; and I think this is a conservative figure.

Vivian Serguera: The Times has said that there would be capacity to take care of the wave.

Minister: Probably, but there would be an upsurge in tourism and communications. For some reason, the extremists there in Miami don’t want any of this to take place. President Clinton has declared, recently, that the blockade has functioned as a pretext for Cuba to explain its economic failure, and the question is: why didn’t he take that pretext away? Why didn’t he eliminate the possibility Cuba had to justify its economic failures if that’s believed to be a pretext for Cuba? Why is there fear of a normal relationship between Cuba and the US? We can make two commitments, we are not going to try and convince the Americans of the advantages of socialism, and we are not going to occupy the US militarily. The ones who have to explain something here are those who support the blockade, they are the ones who must explain their motivations here. We, I already said it, are on the train.