Released on the 40th anniversary of these events, the Pathfinder book October 1962: The ‘Missile’ Crisis as Seen from Cuba, by Cuban author Tomás Diez Acosta, tells the story of what really happened.

The Militant has been printing excerpts from the new book. This one, our final installment, is the text of a statement issued Nov. 25, 1962, by the National Directorate of the Integrated Organizations and the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Cuba in response to new threats against Cuba made by President John F. Kennedy in a November 20 press conference in Washington. The statement points out that while Kennedy announced the lifting of the blockade of Cuba, the U.S. president’s statement "contain[s] the seeds of a provocative and aggressive policy against our country."

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

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

In his latest public statement, President Kennedy announced the lifting of the blockade of Cuba in return for the withdrawal by the Soviet Union of the intermediate-range ballistic missiles and IL-28 medium-range bombers stationed in Cuba. Nevertheless, the statements by the president of the United States contain the seeds of a provocative and aggressive policy against our country, which must be denounced.

In one part of his speech, President Kennedy said: "As for our part, if all offensive weapons systems are removed from Cuba and kept out of the Hemisphere in the future, under adequate verification and safeguards, and if Cuba is not used for the export of aggressive Communist purposes, there will be peace in the Caribbean. And as I said in September, ‘We shall neither initiate nor permit aggression in this hemisphere.’ We will not, of course, abandon the political, economic, and other efforts of this Hemisphere to halt subversion from Cuba, nor our purpose and hope that the Cuban people shall some day be truly free. But these policies are very different from any intent to launch a military invasion of the island."

The position of force adopted by the U.S. government is wholly contrary to international legal norms. Above and beyond the outrages it has committed against Cuba, and that brought the world to the brink of war--an outcome avoided by means of agreements based on a commitment by the United States to abandon its aggressive and criminal policy against Cuba--it refuses even to give assurances that it will not again violate the United Nations Charter and international law by invading the Republic of Cuba, on the pretext that our country has not agreed to international inspection.

It is completely clear that Cuba has a sovereign right, based on the United Nations Charter, to agree or not to agree to inspection of its territory. Cuba has never offered or agreed to such verification.

The Soviet government, for its part, complied with the verification requirement it spoke about in its letter of October 28, by allowing the United States to verify on the high seas the withdrawal of the missiles. The United States agreed to this form of verification.  
 
Policy of aggression against Cuba
President Kennedy’s claim is groundless. It is merely a pretext for not carrying out his part of the agreement and for persisting in his policy of aggression against Cuba. As if that were not enough, even if permission were given for inspection, carrying with it all the guarantees that the U.S. government might see fit to demand, the peace of the Caribbean would still be subject to the condition that Cuba not be used for "the export of aggressive Communist purposes."

What this means is that any effort by the peoples of Latin America to free themselves from the imperialist yoke could serve as a pretext for the U.S. government to accuse Cuba of breaking the peace, and then to attack our country. Flimsier guarantees would be difficult to imagine.

To all this must be added one additional fact that speaks to the warmongering and domineering policy of the U.S. government. In his latest statement, President Kennedy tacitly reasserted the "right"--already claimed on several other occasions--for spy planes to fly over the territory of Cuba and photograph it from coast to coast. This too is a gross violation of international law.

Respect for international law is an essential condition if the nations of the world are to live together regardless of their social or economic systems. The only effective guarantee that the rule of law will be maintained in international affairs and that the provisions of the law will be complied with is for all nations to respect established norms. At this moment of sharp rivalry between two conceptions of society, the United States has arrogated to itself the right to violate existing international norms and to establish new formulas as it pleases.

It is our view that when such a dangerous situation is reached, when one country decides, by and for itself, how law is to be applied in its relations with other countries, there is no choice but to firmly resist its claims.

The United States is trying to dictate what kind of arms we should or should not have. The U.S. rulers, who compel us to expend enormous resources in order to defend ourselves against the aggression to which we have been subjected during the four years of our revolution’s development, also claim to be the judges of what the limit should be on the armaments with which we defend our freedom.

It was the U.S. government that, by its repeated and overt attacks on our country, made it necessary for the Cuban people to arm themselves. It was President Kennedy himself who ordered an army of mercenaries to land at Playa Girón. It was under his administration that thousands upon thousands of U.S. weapons were dropped on our country by parachute or unloaded by sea with the aim of encouraging and organizing bands of counterrevolutionaries, who committed the worst possible crimes against teachers, literacy volunteers, peasants, and workers.

The government of the United States--both the previous and present administrations--not only adopted criminal economic measures against Cuba, which confronted our people with harsh problems; in addition, their acts of military aggression forced us to devote great energies and resources to defense of our integrity. What would have become of our country and its revolution had our people not offered stubborn and heroic resistance to the actions of that powerful and aggressive country? The United States is guilty of a policy of economic strangulation and of violence against Cuba, a policy that has led to the Caribbean Crisis with all its consequences and dangers.

Furthermore, the United States violated the principle of freedom of the seas by establishing a blockade of Cuba; it violated the United Nations Charter by adopting unilateral measures against our country; and it now takes refuge in the Organization of American States, seeking official sanction for its acts of air piracy. The OAS expelled us from its ranks; it declared us to be outside Latin America. But the OAS has no jurisdiction whatsoever on our soil; its decisions have no validity for us; to cite them is arbitrary--it is pure sophistry on the part of the imperialist aggressor.

The U.S. government has reiterated its interventionist aims. It has stated that under no circumstances will it abandon its political, economic, "and other" acts of aggression. What is meant by "other" efforts against Cuba? Internal subversion? Sabotage? Acts of terrorism? Pirate raids? Infiltration by CIA agents? The landing and dropping of weapons in our territory? Invasions by mercenaries? All these things, in Pentagon jargon, are termed "paramilitary warfare."

If that is how matters stand, Cuba will have to defend itself by every available means. It reserves the right to acquire weapons, of whatever type, for its defense and will take such steps as it deems appropriate to strengthen its security in the face of this open threat.

After examining President Kennedy’s statement, then, it can be said that armed conflict has been averted but peace has not been achieved.

For our people there has been no peace, but rather nonstop attacks. Many of their sons and daughters have died as a result of armed attacks, sabotage, murders, subversive acts, and raids by pirate aircraft and ships instigated by the U.S. government. President Kennedy’s statement offers not peace but the continuation of such acts.  
 
Cuba’s five points to resolve crisis
We therefore reiterate the five points that are essential to a genuine and definitive settlement of the crisis.

First: an end to the economic blockade and to all measures of commercial and economic pressure exercised against our country by the United States in every part of the world.

Second: an end to all subversive activities, to the bringing in of weapons and explosives by air and by sea, to the organization of mercenary invasions, to infiltration of spies and saboteurs, all these activities being conducted from the territory of the United States and a few countries that are its accomplices.

Third: an end to the acts of piracy carried out from bases in the U.S. and Puerto Rico.

Fourth: an end to all violations of our airspace and territorial waters by U.S. aircraft and warships.

Fifth: withdrawal from the Guantánamo naval base and the return of Cuban territory occupied by the United States.

These are not irrational demands; they do not go against the rights of anyone; they are claims so legitimate, and so clearly limited to the rights of the Cuban people, that no one can object to them.

The U.S. government demands that the United Nations should verify, in our territory, the withdrawal of strategic weapons. Cuba demands that the United Nations should verify, in the territory of the United States, Puerto Rico, and other places where attacks on Cuba are prepared, the following: the dismantling of the training camps for mercenaries, spies, saboteurs, and terrorists; of the centers where subversion is prepared; and of the bases from which pirate vessels set out for our coasts.

In addition, one of the necessary guarantees Cuba demands is that effective measures of oversight be established to prevent repetition of such acts in the future.

If the United States and its accomplices in aggression against Cuba do not agree to such inspection in their territories by the United Nations, then Cuba will under no circumstances agree to inspection of its own territory.

Only through reciprocal concessions and guarantees will it be possible to reach a broad and honorable agreement acceptable to all. If such an agreement is reached, Cuba will have no need for strategic weapons for its defense. The foreign military technicians on hand to instruct our armed forces would be reduced to the minimum, and the necessary conditions would be created for the normal development of our relations with the countries of this hemisphere.

A just and satisfactory solution to this crisis will without doubt help solve the other pending problems throughout the world. It would be a solid step forward along the genuine road of peace. And the world needs peace.

It is a legitimate aspiration of humanity that the enormous sums now being invested in the manufacture of costly and deadly armaments should be devoted to creating goods of use to man, especially for the benefit of the underdeveloped peoples whom the colonizing and imperialist countries have left mired in the greatest poverty. The war industry and arms trafficking can be of interest only to the monopolists whose business it is to stifle the most legitimate aspirations of the people and to profit, like birds of prey, from destruction and death.

As Marxist-Leninists, we defend peace by conviction and on principle. Weapons are to us a heavy burden imposed by the imperialists, which divert energy and resources from the creative tasks of the revolution. Our position is to obtain peace as the supreme aspiration of humanity.

We believe in the possibility of averting war, and we do not believe that war is a fatal and inexorable fait accompli. But this does not mean that the imperialists have a right to be pirates or aggressors, or to commit acts of genocide against any people.

The imperialists must not confuse a principled position with weakness in face of their acts of aggression. It must be made quite clear to them that today they are in no position to impose their law on the world, and they will not be permitted to do so.

Cuba stresses once again that there is no better solution than the road of peace and discussion between governments, but at the same time we repeat that we shall never give in to the imperialists. To their positions of force, we shall respond with our firmness. To their attempt to humiliate us, we shall respond with our dignity. To their aggression, we shall respond with our determination to fight to the last combatant.

We do not believe in mere promises of nonaggression; we need deeds. Those deeds are set forth in our five points. We have as little faith in President Kennedy’s words as we have fear of his veiled threats.

Patria o muerte!
Venceremos!

Osvaldo Dorticós
President of the Republic

Fidel Castro
Prime Minister and General
Secretary of the Integrated
Revolutionary Organizations

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

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

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