Prospects of Mankind with Eleanor Roosevelt; 305; Latin America Looks at Cuba

From the United Nations in New York National Education Television and WGBH TV production. This is Eleanor Roosevelt. Prospects of mankind. Produced in cooperation with Brandeis University. Latin America is split today between two counter forces change through constructive progress and the demand for change through violence. The foreign ministers of the Latin American countries are meeting under the auspices of the Organization of American States to consider whether violent change is being hastened by communist bloc intervention in the western hemisphere through Cuba. U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Adlai Stevenson is here to discuss with Mrs. Roosevelt some of the implications of this meeting. You're very kind to be joining us on this program the Strand after we are going to be discussing the meeting of the Organization of American States and we are considering the question of subversion in the hemisphere coming from Cuba.

And what do you hope to achieve. You've had the experience of dealing with all these ambassadors who are going to be in this meeting and we would like to know what you feel can be achieved by this. Well perhaps I can start by telling you a little bit about the background of this meeting Mrs. Roosevelt for what it's worth. There's been increasing anxiety in Latin America in recent years about the about the effect of subversion from Cuba released more as it's called as a consequence of this. The president of Colombia Dr. Alberto Urus Camargo made a proposal some time ago last spring. That it would be a good idea to convene the the OAS the Organization of American States under the real pact to consider the threat to the peace and security of the hemisphere created by

this new form of intervention in continental affairs by subversion from the communist bloc in Cuba notably in the re-export of this of this kind of communism throughout the hemisphere. As a consequence of this various questions have arisen as to how to proceed whether it's under the charter of the organization of American States or whether it's under the Rio pact which is the defense treaty or the American system. And at last the the American states have met on the fourth of December and have agreed to have a meeting of foreign ministers under the real pack. And at that meeting they will decide what should be done to redefine the aggression to include if need be this kind of subversion that has taken place in Cuba and then perhaps to take steps to to try to get Cuba to come back into the family of

American States to rejoin the western hemisphere and to sever its connections with the East. I think this is generally what's gonna play well to some of us who are totally uninformed of course. Mr. Castro's declaration that he had been a Marxist Leninist all along gave us a feeling that this might have been planned by the Soviets and that his hope that everything that he's done might have been planned with the Soviets if not by them because of that statement of his so that I wonder if there is a danger in bringing this matter to the vote. The always says Oh yes. It may be a very close vote. And will this show with this unity in the hemisphere. And that's the strength.

CASTRO Well this is that is a consideration to be sure. Actually the fact that Castro has revealed that he has been. A Marxist all along is confirmatory of what many people have suspected this has been a. Communist inspired kind of a maneuver take over you always usually cloak their their adventures under the under the symbol of democracy and then when they've achieved their ends they find it's not democracy but something else. And this new form of tyranny that's emerged in Cuba is a good example of it as to whether or not the meeting will be useful. I would just like to point out to you and to to our audience because the contestants the participants in the panel I'm sure will discuss it is much less a problem for the United States than it is for the other American republics. Communism is much less of a threat to us than it is to them

and they are the ones who are primarily concerned with steps to isolate Cuba or to reintegrate Cuba and the Western family of nations. Now to be sure there will be some states which will disagree with the conclusions of this meeting and perhaps more juridical grounds on the ground that we're proceeding under the wrong under the wrong act under the Rio pact rather than under the charter of the OAS for example. And the concern there will be due to the fact that if you proceed under one you have certain powers of imposing sanctions which you don't have under the other. And there'll be arguments of that kind and they could reveal a conflict a division of opinion within the hemisphere. But basically there isn't any division of opinion the leaders of the hemisphere at least realize what the threat of Cuba is and the export of communism from Cuba.

People don't always. Do you think there is a feeling that this is interference at all in the internal affairs of Cuba or among the states. Do you think that matters to them at all. Well I haven't detected that that's a major concern because the treaties are very clear that we shouldn't always meet and consult in the event of any threat to the peace and security of the hemisphere from an extra continental power or from a aggression which is not a military in the normal sense of the word. Any interference from outside. This is taking place a member of the family of American States as has withdrawn in effect from the American states and joining the join the Eastern Bloc. So that either I don't believe that that that's so likely. I think what it could emerge here is some conflict of opinion that would appear to disclose a difference of opinion that might that might be more apparent than real.

But no but there is a real basic feeling among the leaders of the desire to have the least most spread. No on the contrary the leaders are very aware of the people in the cult that might have in many cases confused feelings more with a social revolution for their benefit because that's the way it started. Well that isn't a bad side to be tried. Well that's of course what he tried at first to make clear and that's why I thought his statement if it reaches the people that he had been a Marxist Leninist all along might have the effect of clarification for the people. But perhaps it doesn't reach the people. No I think it does. I think this has been very helpful because this has been confirmed confirmatory of what many of their leaders have been telling them for a long while but it still takes time to persuade people that a social revolution for the benefit of the ordinary people is is in fact they are the imposition of a new form of tyranny. And one must remember

that in Latin America there. Are a great many illiterate people on top of that. They have been subject to a great deal of propaganda. And there's also been a great deal of anti-Americanism all of these things combined poverty ignorance anti-Americanism propaganda have created a sympathy sympathetic reception for feelies mo which by far far exceeds its which is much more apparent among the people than it is among the leaders the leaders I think are quite realistic. From my own slate experience I would think it natural that they wanted social reforms in South America. I would I would not think that all that. But I I would think that it would be difficult to persuade them that actually someone who said they were with the Communist Bloc would give them the social reforms they wanted. Would you think that is easier than we think.

Well I think once they can be persuaded that this that this is a illusion and that this is the imposition of a new tyranny they will be much less receptive than they have been in the past. But many of the leaders of Latin America are are hesitant because they have these large elements in their country because they are unhappy that are unhappy and extremely leftist. And when Fidel Castro has been a hero. Thank you very much I think you've given us a wonderful start for this program and for the future discussion. I enjoyed it very much. Ms. Now to continue the discussion with Mrs. Roosevelt here are three men with an expert knowledge of Latin America Roberto composts Brazilian ambassador to the United States is Latin America's foremost economist. He has acted as economic adviser to the Brazilian government at many international conferences and in 1958 was

president of Brazil's National Bank for economic development. A career diplomat Dr composts had previously spent six years in the United States before returning as ambassador or last July. Theodore Draper has spent the last 25 years as a journalist historian and editor specializing in international affairs. American foreign policy and the American Communist movement. In addition to other publications he is the author of two important pamphlets on Cuba. Titled as correspondent for The New York Times in Buenos Aires. For five years reported on most Latin American countries Polish by birth. Educated in Brazil he worked there as a newspaperman until coming to the United States in 1947. He now covers Latin American Affairs for the Times from Washington. On this program he will assist Mrs. Roosevelt in directing the discussion. Ambassador Stevens since night had been talking about Cuba.

Before we go any further perhaps we should talk a bit about the kind of regime Cuba is now and how this came about. Mr. Gates What would you like to begin this discussion in words. Cuba has become an Orthodox communist state. Its ideology is orthodox communism Marxism-Leninism it is now ruled by a single communist party and in every other way Cuba is as communist as any state in the Soviet bloc in Eastern Europe. There are differences but the differences might best be expressed in the way that Castro himself expressed

them in a recent speech. He made a speech a very interesting one published in the Cuban press and on December 22nd in which he made the following point. In Russia the state forms are called Soho's in Cuba. The state forms I call people as far as courante them. And he said if we had caught our state for soft clothes why the Cuban people wouldn't have accepted it. That would have been trouble. And so we didn't call them with a Russian name. We decided to use a good Cuban name and therefore our grandpas and play exactly like

Soviets. So close but we call them different. And this was not the only example of word substitution that he gave. This is about what Cuban originality amounts to at the present time. Well that's interesting. And how do you think this came about in a most peculiar and complicated way that is still the subject of much controversy. Broadly speaking I suppose one can distinguish three stages before January 1959 when the Baathist regime fell and Batista fled the promise of the Cuban revolution might broadly

be described as that of a radical democratic revolution. This was stage one before January 1959 in the struggle for power after January 1959 came a revision of the original promise. It might in brief be described as a social revolution that was no longer democratic but was not communist that was supposedly our regional and indigenous and original indigenous Cuban non-communist and democratic social revolution. Now we are in Stage 3 namely a revolution of communist

totalitarianism. No different in its principle and not very different even in its detail in its details increasingly similar to the Soviet model. Well that's a very interesting you know I wonder Mr. Ambassador if this really is the way you look at it in the rest of South America and see it or if you see certain differences from this from to great if you will before I start talking on this subject. Perhaps I ought to clarify that I shall be speaking as an economist and I'm a list of Latin-American seen and not as an ambassador or government representative and uttered those words of caution for two reasons. First

because all of the governments are now examining their position in preparation for the the last conference. So it's premature for any government official of any of the American countries as to really to put forth a common position. Secondly because when one talks this diplomat one is bound to confine itself to cautious generalities to one of Iran's old saying that the diplomats for diplomats the words are intended to conceal the thought not reveal it. I say I'll be talking therefore in my personal capacity. Well the greatest authority from Castro and his intentions is Castro himself and the peace speech of December did indicate that he intended to conduct the revolution on Marx and then in his lines and that he had that conviction before

we all hope that not the America that would really be an indigenous revolution. We were prepared to accept the fact that two special circumstances to the breaking of the social mood in Cuba probably could not be done efficiently through simple reform. But more than that was needed. Probably a revolution was needed because of crystallized social situation. There was too late for reform in other countries. It's not too late for the process of reform which of course we would hope to be much more preferable them to surgery of revolution dramatic and often uncontrollable. This confession in the fall of Castro came as a disappoint to many of the old the center middle of the road groups Latin America who had great sympathy for an indigenous revolution but who do not

look the same Tibo to an important to resolution the revolution. Now what effect would that be. This change of outlook in Cuba on the final position of the American system is a bit early to the term first because I don't think the revolutionary all of Cuba has come to a crystallisation yet intensions of Castro and what he himself say with much crystallized. But one does not know whether the underlying forces as it were may not usher a process of change that might lead to eventual democratization. We still hope that that may be the case although this pope has been seriously weakened by the last statement but many people not the Americans

feelings that the statement of Castro even though it brings new life to the picture does not really erase this fact that the Communist threat has not begun with gusto and that's not in that costume that he's become this movement in the world. And the best way to kind of dealing with the problem is perhaps not to concentrate so much on the cost of problem as to talk more about economic development and social progress to give emphasis to the Alliance for Progress to positive measures rather than to an obsessive preoccupation with an isolated case of communists and the threat of Communism did not begin with Castro and certainly will not end with him. Well of course I think he has been rather and that possibly this has brought the whole situation of communism infiltration or

attraction let's say in the whole hemisphere. Clearly for us because here is here is one small place where it has gained a tremendous foothold and I think that's why we are particularly interested in Cuba. It's very close to the United States. And here is here is a place from which a great deal of the various kinds of influence can flow to the whole of Latin America is that is that so. Well I think it's quite clear that. The cross through experience has given new metacity as it were and the feeling of nean to communist infiltration. But if you look at the American action

as compared to the reaction of some Latin American countries you will find is that. The United States sees Cuba as an external phenomenon not a particular danger that United States itself because it has a fairly stable social economic structure and certainly militarily is very strong. But more of a danger to the Latin American countries and therefore at times some disappointment is expressed that the Latin American countries did not jump as it were to oppose those for dealing. With the problem and a rather vigorous way from the viewpoint of America many of the countries feel that communism in Cuba is an external danger but there is a permanent continuous danger of social unrest and fragmentation brought by the cultural brothe represented by poverty by income inequality is

by the existence of regional depressed areas so that many of them feel that the important thing is really the most important thing is really to eliminate conditions that would facilitate. That would increase really the vulnerability to the companies all of them singled out AKA's of external companies no matter how dramatic it is no matter how near it is to us single out this case it's recognized that for many of those countries the big real difficult problem is an internal one. Well it's an economic one. I mean actually what you're saying is that the conditions of the economies of these countries which have brought about inequalities that are very evident has have to be corrected

Well now this is of great interest I think to us in the United States because in many ways the economy of the United States and the economy of South American countries is closely bound together. We've had relationships for a very long time. Isn't it a little peculiar that with this relationship there has gotten no sense from the United States apparently that you did not export or take a purely economic relationship to the country that you also had to undertake a demonstration of economics and an understanding of democracy.

But more or less went together. Well I was not really referring merely to the problem of economic conditions but also to questions of a social structure which inevitably affects political attitudes. The relationship of the medical Unites States as traversed several cycles. As you know in the even in the relatively short period of time the from the 30s to the 60s there has been several changes in policy. The good neighbor policy for instance was not really based very much on a material need for anything it was really a political concept and that the relationship between America United States was rather good at that time. Roosevelt your husband was credited with having reversed certain policies

which were a way political power political policies such as the policy of intervention. For instance he was really the announcer of the principle of nonintervention the principle which represents the long hard won conquest of the Latin American states which they are not willing to abandon that renders those peculiarly sensitive on this question of intervention even though the definition of intervention of course is not an easy one and there are very various shades in degrees. We reversed certain policies which were not liked in Latin America and he gave a new political concept which is the treatment of Americans as equal. And that's really a political priority area from the viewpoint of most states after the war the policy has varied in other directions in Latin America was relegate as it were it was equal treatment. And again the feable aspect was not merely the unsatisfactory character of the economic game as compared to Marshall Plan given to

Europe and so on. But again it's a feeling of psychological and political dissatisfaction because there was a residual treatment of fetus not only economic but politically and later on the emphasis was given to Asia. From Europe the emphasis shift a little bit to Asia and I want to extend to Africa and again that the to all parts of residual treatment as well as it were continue in some other of form. Now we have again a new revolution in the U.S. policy which is bound to produce good results. The Alliance for Progress the psychological climate has improved already whether there will be later on dissatisfaction and disappointment. I hope not. But certainly it's a good idea which again is not based merely on economic help but also on demonstration of the revolution that of the

American experience and the idea of promoting social reform. Demonstrating that the United States is not interested in mere permanence of the status quo but wants to promote change preferably orderly Chinese. This has improved with the U.S. image in America. Horrible if you might call that a call between the U.S. position the position of the southern countries is to a large extent a methodological one. They say that what's really important is to give a demonstration that you can achieve a rapid rate of economic development and promote orderly social change through democratic planning as against the ideological totalitarian planning. This is to me the crux of the question regardless of what is done with Cuba. Even if the Cuban problem

disappears the this other Poldy still remain. How to promote orderly change how to accelerate economic development for Marsyas which fuel these guns. And so we do feel that the Cuban involvement has to be seen in its proper focus. The solution of the Cuban case does not solve the problem of common eastern Long filtration. They did not really tackle this very basic and fundamental point which is that the system in the American system can only survive democratically if we demonstrate that there is the possibility there is the alternative of democratic planning as compared to socialist planning with its public display of efficiency but with its tremendous costs in human dignity freedom and even great sacrifice to the consumer. Because socialism has this quality of promising the betterment of the consumers lot but postpone get in time.

Mr. Schultz you've had experience both in Brazil and in Latin America generally and here. Would you agree with this feeling that the problem will exist no matter what happens in Cuba. Yes of course because the Cuban revolution in a way opened sort of a Pandora's Box of anxieties and ambitions and desires of the cravings and both were is quite right in saying that even if Cuba were to vanish we would still have that problem. It's been three years now since the Cuban revolution. And I think that perhaps we are approaching a new new point of crossroads in the whole set of relationships in the hemisphere. On the one hand of course the Cuban revolution has inflamed imaginations of people we had material to which Mr. Draper referred of a social revolution which captured the imagination of people which created its own

mystique. A great sense of excitement of promise. We have entered the cube in the third stage and the last stage of a communist totalitarian system in question would arise. Presumably it would be as if the admission by Castro that he is a Marxist Leninist or a communist if it has indeed appointed great many people in Latin America if it has the race to a lesser or greater extent the sympathy the deep feeling which existed for the Cuban revolution in Latin America. The question that arises is is there anything that we need the West or the United States can provide to fill this gap. In other words can we read through the plans for progress through the whole fabric of. Our policies. What we now call the American Revolution or approach to it. If we can we can satisfy the ideological and the human hunger which the Cuban revolution first

walk and then disappointed with being disappointed if not of course if we can do it if we cannot fill those gaps there's going to be a tremendous vacuum. I think we are unpredictable. So perhaps this is a point of crossroads again. I think the question arises is this. Can the Western approach the United States approach through the lines for progress offer or provide for the Latin American masses the kind of mystique the kind of religion excitement and pageantry that the Cuban Revolution provided and that's at least in this first stage. I think that the most were accomplices quite right in point they got this it did that the great need right now is to develop the economic structures find an answer to the great social problems. The basic problem of how to cope with a population that growing. I think the rate of

almost 2 million in your account in Brazil every year. I think there is a set of statistics that points out that every year the Latin American need for housing increases by one wailings. I think this is all tourbillon for them of course we have to go ahead with those programs. But I think I'd like to come back to the initial point that unless our planning for Latin America we can provide it with them on with the technical advancements and you know how this feeling of excitement make people feel they're participating in building and building their their continent their countries in the way that Castro I think was successful in doing in Cuba in the early days of the revolution. And I think that perhaps the whole sense of progress stands in danger of going down the drain or perhaps becoming a static thing only based on the on the infrastructure the economic program which I think is not even remotely enough.

I think we're past the stage where money alone can be the answer to those things. But the GOP with much of what the ambassador said and what Mr. Shultz's just said I'm thoroughly in agreement with some part of it. I perhaps would like to put it differently slightly different. I wonder whether it's possible to put the Cuban problem in one box and the problem of orderly democratic change in another box as if they were separate problems and did not each on the other have tremendous repercussions. It's my impression that these two problems are intimately connected and that it's not quite possible

to separate them so neatly. For example if we look forward to the phrase that the ambassador used in the Democratic Change the role that the Castro regime plays is to make such change as difficult as possible if not impossible in most if not all of Latin America. I say there are two and then the two prime and make out on a democratic change. On the one hand the privileged class who don't want any change because it will reduce their privileges and their power. They want what they have and they want to keep what

they have. On the other hand. The pro-Castro forces which are against Democratic change because such change would make their role impossible or unnecessary in a country like Venezuela where there is admittedly I think it is acknowledged by all eight leadership which is dedicated to a democratic change. What enemies does that leadership face. On the one hand one of the right one dedicated solely to the status quo on the other hand the Castro forces making life miserable for the democratic government leadership of Venezuela.

You can't ignore Castro and his followers in Latin America if you are seeking democratic change. I just hope that there is a communist movement in America which finds it expedient and inspirational to look to a leader who is nearby. But if the situation were different if there is a revolutionary leader with some inspiration I do not feel it times they will adopt some other simple problem which you point out does exist. Communism is a disintegrating force opposing the orderly reform and promoting continuously revolutionary change. But my point still subsists even though the demotic neighborhood of course through underlines the problem with creation is basically a different problem. The thread does not begin with cause that does not end with

him. The basic threat is the presence of colonies and therefore it can only be dealt with by a combination of measures of which one of the most important is really demonstration of the possibility of an alternative to ideological totalitarian planning. This puts a great deal of responsibility I think on the United States because we have succeeded in making changes in our country and making them peaceful without revolution. And now the question is whether we can find a way of understanding the need and and helping with end and offending the neighbors that I

think is not a question of how we approach the whole intellectual discussion with our neighbors. So they meet their difficulties. It's not purely the economic side. It's also an intellectual exchange of ideas isn't it. And the the understanding that comes with that change exchange. And I think possibly being a woman I must mention is that perhaps the women in South America who have been very conscious of the needs of poverty. I mean the surrounding poverty and what should could be done to help would be rather important. That if if they can compete in the intellectual exchange between countries

in South America and in our own well may expand beyond that which was Roosevelt. I think you're quite right but I'd like to come back to the point that maybe there are two levels or more of course an intellectual one that you mentioned I think there's also the emotional level. I think it's a question perhaps if I may put it this way of touching the souls of people of getting them interested in our system. I think that the common that is most socks. More specifically discussed the has been making quite an effort to convince Latin America that the Western approach through the lines of progress through the preaching of democracy cannot succeed that their system is better. Both in terms of the economic structure and economic planning that we can fulfill that promise much better than ours. And I think that

this relates to Mr. Draper's observation which you cannot associate a Latin America from Castro that you cannot put them in separate compartments. I think that Castro has because he's committed to it to defend his own system. He has and is engaging in every conceivable effort to demonstrate that our what we propose that our solution cannot work. I think this is where subversion will come in. But again they will come. And this is where the use of the Communist Party will come in. Or Furthermore I am not sure I agree with the most or compos and saying that it's only the communist parties that will perform this work. I think that you have a large large or smaller groups of people who are going to call themselves Marxists in this very special way in which leftist attendances are subdivided. Nothing America the leftwing socialists. I think that people in Brazil are caught with a very good name of their useful insistence

that people who go along with things. I think they will. They have and they will cooperate directly or indirectly with the Castro or the communist onslaught on that which we try to preach. So I think that so long as Castro and the system remain in Cuba our effort in Latin America to develop it in a democratic system I think will be on their continued attack through propaganda through the radio stations that Cuba has shortwave transmitters through the through the student delegations that come and go between Latin American countries. On Cuba I think that's a very important point. The fact of the Castro has established a system of scholarships for Latin American students. Is perhaps one of the most important current aspects of the Latin American problem in the sense that the Cuban revolution is basically established cadres in Latin America small nuclei of highly indoctrinated students come to Cuba spend

anywhere between six weeks and six months on such friendly harmless things as agrarian reform perhaps threatening a little bit in guerrilla warfare. Then they get a very heavy Marxist-Leninist indoctrination and they returned to the universities to their countries to preach and practice the cradle. And I think we all are familiar with the tremendous flags of the dedicated and well-trained minority can accomplish. So I will go along with Mr. Draper and saying that you cannot in any way forget the Custer phenomenon even in trying to concentrate trying to concentrate on the orderly democratic development. Let me ask you Mr. Ambassador in Insaf because I think in many countries you have always had a keen political interest and a good deal of political action has come from student groups you know to see much of the Castro influence through the students today.

Yes I would say it's rather strong. Of course youth has a propensity for drastic change in evolutionary experiments. I think the French philosopher are going to say that the law of the Universal Law of Human development is to be revolutionary in the early age servitude to middle age and reactionary and old age. You have been consistent in disproving this this long because you have Montem throughout the years and remarkable for for for for change and they worked actively to promote constructive social change regardless of age. But this seems to be human not that unfortunately. One point which Mr. Schwartz short days is important and his observations are correct namely that part of the student movement student

groups asked with the idea that to accelerate economic development you must have an ideology and you must have revolution revolution to break the social mold because they believe that otherwise change would be too long. It's the normal impatience of the youth and ideology to create regimentation of the producer and patience the patience of the consumer. Well this idea to my mind has to be disproved to my mind it is incorrect. Actually the greatest most successful experience of developing the worst Western world we're not particularly freaked out by ideologies the West developing the Canadian development strategy development Western European development. Admittedly that there were mistakes and this is the distinction of like to make that term to be useful and important purpose to create the mistake of the economic development of social

change and of collective interest of the system. But this is an ideology because the ideology carries with it the connotation of regimentation and intolerance which is only superficially effective. In fact one very debatable subject is to determine to what extent ideology and regimentation was really de facto in Soviet development. The Soviet economy was already advancing at a fairly fast pace despite the political disintegration even before the preceding years of the communist regime. And being a country with such vast resources it's not at all proven that it wouldn't have developed very fast under some other regime at least not to take it for granted. And I was asked about the possibility of democratic developing on the basis of actual expedience. It must have mistakes. Of course the United States had the mistake of the march to the west and opening up of the frontier.

There were several successive mistakes which never however amounted to an ideology. And Brazil for instance we are now creating some sticks. For instance the mistake of rehabilitation of the East. The idea that we should help this depressed and bring up bring it up quickly to the to the standards of the house as some sort of national social duty. President Kuvasz second before the alliance for progress through the idea of operation upon America and tried internally to create the mistake of the so-called program of gules program or the matters which there is a mystical five year plan such as that of the India experiment which is democratic. So it's important to dispel this idea that you need a totalitarian ideology to have the discipline and amount of discipline sufficient for weak economic development. And the students are as which group which you mentioned are particularly affected by this

skepticism scepticism concerning the speed of democratic change. Creational then of mystique and alliance of progress is an attempt to create a mystic self a country geology as it were. Ideas are basically sound which the three ideas can develop an acceleration of economic development promotion of social change and the recognition of the collective responsibility of the entire system including the United States which is the wealthiest and the most advanced member of the system lets them try to promote this mistake and render it effective. And that's clearly indicate that we need discipline for development not ideological discipline. Its twin component of intolerance and regimentation well. Relationship between economics and ideology which you've just touched on

is one of those infernally complicated subject that of Cuba throw some light on and let me come back to Cuba. BATTISTA came into power for the second time in 1952 by a coup. He lasted until the end of 1958. His regime became increasingly brutal and decayed. Politically it was a monstrosity. But in this very period the economic growth of Cuba developed faster than in any previous period. The per capita income in Cuba increased more than in any previous period. It was a period of great economic trouble. Now this is what the facts and the figures show not what the propaganda likes to pretend. Hey you have one of those tremendously complicated

affairs which we must face without of course in any sense making this a justification of the parties to a dictatorship. But facts and some people like to say effect. Well I think all this points to a very interesting sample what might be occurring and to the kids of Dominican Republic which is almost a neighbor of Cubans in the Caribbean just the other day the Organization of American States lifted American sanctions against American republic which are related to all kinds of mischief perpetrated by the dictator. When a democratic temporary democratic system was set up on the 1st of this year in Dominican Republic two things happen first before you lift the sanctions. And to this point the United States under oh yes rushing madly into the Dominican Republic

with economic aid with technical assistance and all sorts of things. And I think the object is to demonstrate that the Dominican Republic should become or it can become a showcase of precisely what we're discussing in other words that advanced economic and social planning the good development can prosper in a democratic system. Dominican Republic is a small island. It's perhaps a microcosm of the brothers of Latin America but the way in which political and economic situation as they are does develop to make making this year and next perhaps just going over some terribly valuable lessons on the larger on the larger problem of can Latin America develop economically and socially. And the Democratic system on this side I imagine is sort of a key question of our time. This is the this is the main point of the dispute between our two systems is in the West. So I think we should watch them in public with

fascination and interest because I think the way that goes might have very important implications on everything else. What do you think it will have an implication on the whole of the South American thinking. And do you feel that way as best you can make. Yes it is fine to have my head with important batting precisely on this point of destroying the fiction that in some quarters which this middle ground of intelligencia and bourgeoisie which is the goal the useful innocents who actually support revolutionary ideas not because of any overt or concealed sympathy for calm but because of the I say technical conviction that unless you resort to ideology and revolution you can't. Achieve social change in the coming process and progress with sufficient speed. Now

after the democratization and we managed to the system as a whole is to make the Dominican Republic team at a faster rate of growth. And as Mr. mistreated pointed out that the problem is not only economic development development alone is no protection or little protection against the common development process social change. Those two things are achieved. Then I think it would be a very positive contribution to the operation and success of the Alliance for Progress and the thesis over orderly democratic change as well. All this of course relates to the basic trends of the future perhaps of the present. There's one question I would like to have Mr. Draper go into which is this to what extent this which has happened in Cuba has been inevitable because I think that's the answer to this question there may hinge hence the great thing to ask is for the future.

I wonder Mr. Draper. Would like to move to make a comment on this when the Cuban revolution begun. Would the United States reaction to it if our policies had been different in one way or another. It would have affected the deterioration in the gathering momentum of the terrorist state. In other words should we have a tremendous sense of guilt or a sense of historical attachment to my mind the answer to that question depends upon where you stop if you start with the past 60 years of Cuban history in which we have been intimately involved. I think our responsibilities have been very great. And I for one am not an admirer of our policies in Cuba over the past 60 years.

If you start with the let's say 1953 at the beginning of the July 26 movement and the attack on the Moncada backs here again I think all responsibilities was very great. I'm sorry but our time is running out and you have given us something to really think about. I think because of this discussion I get a feeling that we could do a number of things that we have not done. But we must have imagination enough to see that it's not all an economic problem that it is a problem of the Spirit and the intellect. And and I think he's with the interest of other people.

Now I have to say thank you to all of you and to our audience of next month. Joining me in the discussion on Soviet foreign policy will be Reinhold Niebuhr. Michael didn't see more freedom. And Professor Marshall sure. All right. Roberto Campos is the Brazilian ambassador to the United States. Theodore Draper is a specialist in international communism. Hadfield's is the new york times correspondent for Latin America. At least even some U.S. ambassador to the United Nations appeared in a special introduction to this program. Next month. Mrs. Roosevelt and her guests will discuss current Soviet foreign policy. This program was recorded through the facilities of United Nations television and WNC

WPB metropolitan broadcasting new york. This is npt National Educational Television