THE YEAR 1996 saw the launch of RCPB(ML)'s most important programme, the programme to Improve the Content, Extend the Readership of Workers' Weekly. This is a continuation of the work undertaken in 1994 to strengthen RCPB(ML) consistent with the present period of the retreat of revolution. We usher in the New Year with a further project of developing the technical base within this programme of improving the content and extending the readership of the Party's newspaper.

The great importance of this project lies in the further strengthening of Workers' Weekly as the scaffolding around which RCPB(ML) can be further built. Besides the technical base, a key part of this work is the waging of class struggle against the anti-social offensive of the bourgeoisie and against its social props which are creating illusions about capitalism and ideologically disarming the working class. This class struggle involves the fight for democratic renewal, in which the fight for a modern constitution resting sovereignty in the hands of the people is the most important.

Workers' Weekly, the Organ of the Central Committee of RCPB(ML), is the scaffolding around which the Party is built. RCPB(ML) mobilises the advanced elements of the working class to study, sell and write for the paper, as it does with youth and students, women and others.

Workers' Weekly has played and continues to play the crucial role in the building of RCPB(ML). When the present work was initiated at the Coventry International Seminar in New Year, 1994, the newspaper played a crucial role in focusing on the themes of the Seminar – Retreat of Revolution and the Tasks of the Communist and Workers' Movement. It also played the crucial role in mobilising public opinion for the draft of RCPB(ML)'s general line which was to be released in March of that year. Similarly, in 1995, when RCPB(ML) had launched its Draft Programme for the Working Class, it became clear that this work could not be accomplished without Workers' Weekly playing its role. It was at this time that the question of the regularising and further strengthening of Workers' Weekly was also put on the agenda.

Most crucially, the role of Workers' Weekly in building RCPB(ML) was again reasserted in 1996 ensuring that it strengthens itself in the course of waging the class struggle. RCPB(ML) focused on developing Workers' Weekly on the basis of modern techniques as an integral part of the task, Improve the Content, Extend the Readership! The work of strengthening Workers' Weekly was directly linked with the organising work of RCPB(ML), the work of waging the class struggle against the class enemy.

The organising work of RCPB(ML) involves organising workers who study, sell and write for Workers' Weekly. It also involves organising the youth and students to do the same thing. RCPB(ML) also pays attention to organising women and others for the same purpose.

Besides placing organising in the primary position, organising workers, youth and students, and women, and further professionalising the entire work including that of Workers' Weekly using modern techniques, the Party is also carrying on its theoretical work as an integral part of this organising. Most importantly, it wages an unwavering and resolute ideological struggle against all liquidationist pressure and carries forward the banner of creating the subjective conditions for revolution.

We are extremely happy to announce to our readers that Workers' Weekly will be coming out in new format in the New Year. This is an important achievement of the year 1996. All the members and sympathisers of RCPB(ML), all advanced workers, women, youth and students must take up the work set for 1997. They must especially join the project of strengthening Workers' Weekly on the basis of modern techniques.

Improve the Content, Extend the Readership! All Out for Waging the Class Struggle in 1997!

THE MONOPOLY CAPITALISTS control Europe. This is the case whether one looks at the European Union as a whole, or whether the individual countries of Europe are considered.

The European monopolies are united in their drive for maximum profit on the one hand, and on the other their opposition to the movement of the working class to establish socialist states in each and every country. At the same time, the monopolies of the various states of the EU engage in sharp dog-fights for their particular capitalist interests. This means that their unity can never be permanent and absolute, and that their alignments and their political and military structures are constantly shifting. Although together they wish to use their combined force as an imperialist bloc to gain control of Asia and the rest of the world, the competition between them as capitalist powers, as states utilised by the various monopolies, is forever asserting itself. This situation is only exacerbated by the role of US imperialism, which in its drive to try and establish a uni-polar world under its dictate, is seeking to utilise the European Union and the European monopolies, and in particular expand NATO in Europe and against Russia.

Only recently, a new "rapid reaction force" under the name of Eurofor was agreed to by four members of the Western European Union – Spain, France, Italy and Portugal. Eurofor is envisaged to be a highly trained commando-type force to be used anywhere in the southern Mediterranean area to defend the interests of the European Union and to intervene as "peacekeepers" whenever required. This has been denounced in many quarters as being a tool of US imperialism on NATO's southern flank. A recent statement of the Libyan government commented: "Would Italy, France, Spain and Portugal accept the establishment of an Arab rapid deployment force to intervene in European affairs?"

The working class must have no illusions about the Europe of the monopolies. The workers can have no truck with efforts to embroil them in skirmishes within the camp of the European monopolies on one side or another. One such example was the recent contradiction over the Working Time Directive on the 48-hour week, in which all sides stand for the capitalist status quo. It would be a mistake for the working class to take sides in this controversy, and believe that they thereby have some "say" in furthering their interests. In the Europe of the monopolies, the working class and people are not sovereign. To achieve sovereignty and gain control over their affairs, the working class must work for the dismantling of the European Union and fight to establish socialism.

THE NEWCASTLE MARXIST-LENINIST STUDY GROUP recently held its first meeting in which a small number of workers from the area and students from both universities in the city took part. An introductory paper was presented on contemporary Marxist-Leninist thought.

In the presentation it was pointed out that what is put forward as scientific method in most universities and colleges actually leads people away from analysing concrete conditions and from drawing conclusions based on them. For example, Marx's theories on capitalism and its transformation into socialism and communism through revolution have never been disproved. Contemporary events have only further confirmed these theories. However, the bourgeoisie has simply presented a web of unscientific and inconsistent views. It has imposed an idealist method that views the world as a matter of opinion. Furthermore, distorted theories of Marx are then presented as just another view of the world. Reality is presented as unknowable or as just a matter of personal construction.

There is a real world, both natural and social, and this world is governed by scientific laws which if harnessed present people with the opportunity to humanise their environment and their society. Today science does not even humanise the environment let alone attempt to humanise society.

The paper stressed that Marxist-Leninist ideology develops as a profound body of knowledge as the society develops. It is not hidebound, or a dogma. The ideology of Marxism-Leninism is ever fresh and young, whilst underpinning it run scientific theories. The bourgeoisie on the other hand presents this ideology as a dogma and the scientific theories underpinning it as something which are a matter of opinion or unknowable.

This is a very important question for the people when political matters are considered. What difference is there between the ideology of the Conservative Party and the ideology of New Labour, or old Labour for that matter? They both support the anti-social offensive of the bourgeoisie and champion the vain cause of trying to get capitalism out of its present difficulties while preserving the status quo, even if that leads to more social disasters, further enslavement of other countries, wars and the danger of a new world war.

The paper highlighted that the crucial question for the working class and the youth and students is how to present their own political programme as an alternative to the anti-social agenda of capitalism, around which the working class unites society. Such a programme challenges the anti-social offensive, calls for the direction of the economy to be changed and demands fundamental and radical transformations in society in favour of the people. The fact that the working class, youth and students need their own pro-social agenda was highlighted last week when the students and workers in higher education took action against the anti-social offensive. 120,000 took part in a one-day strike closing down 192 colleges, and 5,000 in a demonstration in London. To advance this struggle needs a broader outlook than that of simply saying that more money, more taxes on the people are needed. Society is crying out for the whole level of education to be raised and for a genuine social and public education system where the funds at present used to service the debts to the financiers are redirected to increase the essential investments in education, health and other social programmes.

Concluding this point the paper emphasised that ideology should not be made an issue for splits, but people should unite around the political programme of the working class regardless of their ideology. People should not be fooled by labels such as right or left, or by anti-Communist labels that the authorities have carefully nurtured against the progressive forces. Rather they should unite with all those who want to fight for a programme that will lead to real progress for the working class and the youth and student movement and lead to a new society fit for human beings.

The paper pointed out that there is no serious discussion among the people about ideological and political questions. This situation re-inforces the status quo, and is deliberately cultivated by the bourgeoisie. Problems, particularly serious problems in society, are not given ideological and political treatment. They are, for example, turned into questions of either keeping Major in power or getting Tony Blair into power. On the economy they are turned into a question of making business more successful. On unemployment they are turned into policies that blame the unemployed, and no serious discussion takes place as to what is causing unemployment. The youth are virtually branded as hooligans and criminals, as having an attitude problem, and so on.

Contemporary Marxist-Leninist thought is essential to turn the situation around. There is a crucial need to modernise communist thinking in the course of the class struggle going on in the world and in Britain and a need to create the conditions for serious discussion among the working class and people.

It is vital to challenge the political forces organising the anti-social offensive and those forces that spread harmful illusions that social democracy can be relied on to fight for change and progress.

The paper stressed that the objective conditions confirmed once again that socialism is the only alternative to capitalism and that the proletariat must prepare to transform society from capitalism to socialism through revolution.

Contemporary Marxist-Leninist thought must bring the theory of scientific socialism to the present requirement of lifting society out of the crisis and critically examine the comprehensive experience of socialism and the working class movement of all countries.

In conclusion the paper pointed out that this initial introduction would be built on and further discussions held on political theory, philosophy, economic theory and the role of the Marxist-Leninist party under modern conditions. At the same time, Newcastle MLSG would involve students and others in the study and elaboration of these questions.

After the presentation there was enthusiastic discussion of the subject raised. How could socialism be maintained once the proletariat seizes power? Why was socialism the next stage of society: was this just a desire, or was it objectively the case? These were two questions elaborated on in the discussion. At the end of the meeting enthusiasm was expressed to continue the discussion, and plans made for the next meeting in the new year.

Social breakdown is a clear consequence of the crisis of the capitalist system and the anti-social offensive against the people, as the monopolies and their political representatives in government attempt to maintain profits no matter what the cost in human life and well-being and social stability. Social crime, social violence, family breakdown, mental illness, spiritual devastation of the youth, all are increasing as a result of the crisis and the anti-social offensive, with the harsh and tragic consequences seen by the working class and people on a daily basis. The situation demands serious consideration of the causes of this social breakdown, and resolution.

Nothing, however, appears to be further from the minds of those in power or likely to take power. As recent events show, both Tory and Labour have a common approach. All problems are seen as "law and order" problems, to be dealt with by punitive measures. They vie with each other as to who will be the "tougher". In a Commons debate a number of weeks ago on the Crime (Sentences) Bill, where the government proposes among other things mandatory life sentences for repeat offences which include attempted murder, manslaughter and serious wounding, as well as hugely increased sentences for third offences including drug dealing and burglary, the opposition spokesperson fully supported tougher sentencing, only attacking the government for its record in crime detection. Ironically it was left to the Lord Chief Justice to speak of "flawed and dubious" reasoning behind the legislation, and to two former Tory Home Secretaries of the old school to caution about the need for "rehabilitation" and so on.

But neither the "tough" nor the liberal view can obscure the fact that the victims of the anti-social offensive against the people are being blamed for its consequences and that the "law and order" measures proposed, in this case as in all others, will not only make matters worse but will themselves constitute a further attack upon the rights of the people.

What sort of society is it that wreaks such havoc on the people, devastating their lives, and then blames them for the ensuing problems rather than facing up to the real source? Social crime and violence must be seen in the context of a society which is itself criminal to its roots, where the masses of the people are exploited, the fruits of their labour expropriated, their basic rights as human beings denied, their youth sent as cannon fodder to fight the murderous wars of the rich, all in the interests of the profits of the few. The answer to the increasing social crime and violence and other such ills in society is not building more prisons, increasing prison sentences, and all manner of other punitive measures against the people. It is to overthrow the system which gives rise to them, and establish a society in which the exploitation of one by another is eliminated and the claims of all on society by virtue of their humanity are recognised.

The following is the speech of the Vice President of Cuba's Council of States and Council of Ministers, Carlos Lage Davila, to the United Nations 51st General Assembly on November 12, before the vote on the resolution against the US blockade of Cuba. Vice President Lage submitted the document "The need to end the economic, commercial and financial blockade the USA imposed on Cuba". The resolution was adopted by an overwhelming majority with the recorded vote: Yes–137; No–3; Abstain–25.

Mr President:

Distinguished representatives:

The vote that will take place today commands the attention of millions of Cubans. This Assembly has an opportunity to vote not only against a policy that is unfair, but also to make sure that no State, however powerful, may be able to ignore International Law.

The bells that toll for Cuba today may toll for any other independent nation tomorrow. We appreciate and are deeply thankful for the support you may extend to our just cause.

The Resolutions that on four previous occasions have been passed in this General Assembly by an increasing majority of its members underscore the need to put an end to the US economic, trade and financial blockade against Cuba. Nevertheless, the US Congress and Administration recently decided to promulgate a legislation known as the Helms-Burton Act, which, given its extra-territorial, unilateral and coercive nature, violates International Law and the United Nations Charter.

Not even ancient Rome attempted to enact a law to rule the world. President Clinton himself has said, "No one agrees with our Cuban policy." At least they realise it. The United States, therefore, owes the United Nations not only a major financial debt but also a moral obligation since it has ignored the claims of the international community.

The US-Cuban dispute did not arise in January, 1959. As early as the 19th century, when the ideas of Marx and Engels had not yet come into existence, US leaders already referred to Cuba as a ripe fruit destined to fall into the hands of its northern neighbour. Twenty-eight years before Fidel Castro was born, US troops had intervened in our country snatching success from the Cuban forces who had fought against Spanish domination for three decades. Long before the inception of the United Nations and the beginning of the Cold War, overt and covert manipulations by successive US administrations through their embassy in Havana had become institutionalised in a shameful spectacle that lasted more than half a century. The situation of plight, corruption and impoverishment established by a dictatorship that had bled the nation and did not have to face a blockade, but rather, the US unconditional support, explains why the Cuban people had to make a revolution.

This policy of blockade and aggressions pursued against the Revolution right from its inception was established before its socialist orientation had been declared. The US cut off Cuba's sugar quota, enforced an embargo on all sorts of goods earmarked for Cuba and ordered its companies in Cuba not to process Soviet crude oil. Light aircraft from the United States strafed cities and burnt cane fields. The United States openly supported and encouraged terrorist groups, designed and implemented assassination plans against the leaders of the Revolution, severed diplomatic relations with Cuba in January 1961, and financed and trained the mercenary troops that invaded our territory at the Bay of Pigs in April of that same year.

When President John F. Kennedy imposed the blockade on Cuba on February 3, 1962, he was just legalising a practice that had been taking shape for the last three years. Ever since, and against the background of a confrontation between two blocks, the history of relations between our two countries has featured confrontations, sometimes extreme, like in the days of the 1962 Missile Crisis, which brought the world to the brink of a nuclear precipice.

In an attempt to place a smoke screen over this war against our heroic people, the most diverse and fallacious arguments have been used during all these years. The fact is that the roots of the blockade are to be found in the expansionist urge that has characterised the United States since its emergence as a nation; in the genuinely independent character of our revolutionary process; in the clear-cut measures for the benefit of the humblest strata of our population; in the sickly determination of the US rulers to impose their will on Cuba, and in the vagaries of a domestic policy that does not always favour the US people.

The collapse of the USSR led many to believe that the demise of socialism in Cuba was inevitable. The present US administration stepped up the blockade actions: it supported the Torricelli Act first and the Helms-Burton's later. The prevailing approach was that while it had not worked before, the time had come for the blockade to really work. The disappearance of the USSR and the socialist camp was, indeed, a hard blow. Overnight, Cuba was faced with a 75% import reduction and an almost total loss of markets for its main exports; however, even in the absence of external financing sources, and in the midst of a reinforced blockade, we began to carve our place in the world economy. We have suffered very severe material limitations.

We have endured shortages of food, medicines, electricity, transportation to go to work, shoes to attend school, and soap to wash or bathe. Life for Cuban families has been hard during these years of the Special Period. Rarely in history has a nation been subjected to such a trial. It was only thanks to the fairness of the Revolution, our people's endurance capacity, Fidel's leadership and a broad based policy of permanent consultation with the people that these fatalist augurs have proven wrong and we have been able to survive so far.

While we still have an extremely bumpy road ahead, no one with common sense currently wonders whether or not the Revolution will fall. Suffice it to mention that the Cuban economy will experience a 7% growth rate in 1996. As we have resisted and begun to recover, it is easy to suggest the enormous opportunities we would have and the many sufferings our people may be spared were it not for the hurdles imposed by the blockade.

The term embargo is a euphemism. Under the blockade, Cuba has no access to the US market – most important in the world, the international financial institutions or the sources of current financing available in developed countries. We are forced to use short-term commercial loans, not only as working capital, but also for investment and development, and their interest rates are substantially higher than those available in the world market. We cannot carry out transactions directly in US dollars, and Cuban entities are not allowed to operate bank accounts in this currency, thus incurring significant costs.

In terms of opportunity, prices and interests, our status as a country under blockade and siege compels US to trade at the greatest disadvantage. Cuba cannot buy in or from subsidiaries of the United States a single medicine, even if critical to save a human life. Third countries cannot sell their products containing Cuban inputs in the US market, nor can we purchase anywhere in the world a product in which more than 20% of its total value is represented by contents originating in the United States. It is impossible for US to participate in preferential price agreements, as do most sugar-producing countries. We must sell our sugar below the world market price as we cannot trade it on the New York Exchange. Freight costs increase notably as a result of more distant markets and because a ship calling on our country must wait six months before it may visit any US port. We cannot access US and sometimes other developed countries' technology, as is the case with nuclear technology. Economic espionage is practised against Cuba to hamper our trade operations and prevent our foreign debt rescheduling, and over 200 radio-hours a day are beamed into Cuba to slander its government and authorities and instigate disobedience and terrorism.

While US aircraft use our corridors, our planes cannot use the US international air corridors, thus they have to take roundabout routes, thereby increasing their operating costs. The US ambassadors and other officials exert pressure on and require individuals, institutions and governments to refrain from investing in or trading with Cuba, and this persecution has become a priority in the diplomatic agenda of its embassies throughout the world. Under the blockade, the Cuban people are barred from normalising relations with the Cuban community in the United States, despite all the steps we have taken and will continue to take. Direct flights between our two countries are banned, and we are deprived of hundreds of thousands of US tourists who would otherwise travel to our country given our conditions and proximity. Armed groups that plan and execute terrorist acts against Cuba train in the United States. Thieves and murderers freely walk the streets of Florida, such as the perpetrators of the Barbados sabotage, who bombed a Cubana airliner with 73 persons aboard.

I could go on and on, but it would be impossible for me to describe the full scope of the US aggression against Cuba within my limited time at this rostrum. This criminal policy, which has been in place for more than a third of a century, has caused a damage of over 60 billion dollars; i.e., five times as much the amount of our country's external debt. While the blockade has always been unjustified, today it has even run out of pretexts. If according to the presidential decree issued by President Kennedy, the blockade was originally established "under the authority of the Trading with the Enemy Act" in the context of the confrontation with the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries, what can possibly justify the continuance of that policy today? Where is the enemy? Where is the USSR? Where is the socialist bloc? If the Cold War has been over for five years, how can a continued open war attitude against our country be explained? If the Pentagon itself has agreed that Cuba is not a threat to the US national security, how can this constant and stubborn warmongering attitude be justified? What are the pretexts used today?

Blaming Cuba because US companies did not receive compensation for the nationalisations enforced after the triumph of the Revolution simply bears no foundation at all. The fact is that all the other parties who were affected have been or are being compensated, as can be attested to by France, Switzerland, Canada, the United Kingdom and others. It is also well known that at the end of World War II, the United States signed compensation agreements with several of the then socialist countries; however, it refused, and continues to refuse, to reach agreements with Cuba. Legalising the Cuban-Americans' right to file claims with US courts for alleged properties nationalised more than 30 years ago is a mockery of International Law, the US Supreme Court – which in 1964 ruled that those nationalisations were legal, and the constitutional principle that all citizens are equal before the law. Would US citizens of Russian origin, for instance, have that right, with respect to their properties confiscated after the Bolshevik Revolution?

Accusing Cuba of human rights violations is an unprecedented affront that we denounce here with our heads held high. The total Cuban population has access to free health-care services. We have one doctor for every 193 persons and one nurse for 142; in addition, more than 23,000 Cuban doctors have rendered services in 45 different countries around the world. Our infant mortality rate is 8 per one thousand live births. If Latin America registered Cuba's current infant mortality rate, 500,000 children who might have otherwise enjoyed human rights but are dying a few months after birth would be saved each year. And Cuba is not rich; it is a poor country under blockade.

In Cuba, access to all levels of education is free. Illiteracy is non-existent; Cuba's overall educational level is six grades, and 50% of the total Cuban labour force has a senior high school education or above. We have a teacher for every 42 persons. And not one teacher is unemployed. Today, two hundred million children of the world sleep in the street. None of them is Cuban. One hundred million children below the age of 13 are forced to work to survive. None of them is Cuban. More than a million children are forced into prostitution, and tens of thousands have fallen victim of the traffic in human organs. None of them is Cuban. Twenty-five thousand children in the world die every day from measles, malaria, diphtheria, pneumonia and malnutrition. None of them is Cuban. In just 24 hours, the World Food Summit will open in Rome. Just between today and tomorrow, more than 35,000 persons in this world will die of starvation.

Blockades should not be applied to a small sovereign country but to selfishness, starvation, ignorance and disregard for the problems of the world. In over 36 years of Revolution, Cuba has never reported a single case of a missing person or torture. In over 36 years of Revolution, not a single political assassination has ever occurred. In our country, death squads are unheard of. Racial discrimination is not even remembered. In Cuba drug trafficking, organised crime and terrorism are non-existent. Cuban officials do not misappropriate the wealth of the nation. Not one single person is sentenced without a trial, and the citizen's legal rights are equally guaranteed. We have, and this is the absolute truth, a clean human rights' record.

We are also accused by the United States of not being democratic and for our single-party political system. There is much we could say here, if we compare the true exercise of democracy in the world. But we do not attempt to claim the sole truth, let alone criticise anyone. We simply defend our right to choose our own path. The world is very complex and difficult. It is absurd and inconvenient to have a single model imposed like a straitjacket on all nations, under any circumstances, and in disregard for their economic and social development, history, and culture. The single-party system cannot be the cause of the blockade because Cuba is not the only country with a single party. What's more, there are governments in the world in which power is wielded by a monarchy, without any party at all, without a constitution, but they are not blockaded (nor should they be) and, quite the opposite, they are close allies of the United States.

Attempts are made to accuse US because we sentence (only in cases of violations of the country's laws) members of small counter-revolutionary groups, financed and organised by a foreign power that attacks the nation. It is true, we admit it, and it cannot be otherwise, because our people are ready to defend their independence and their achievements at all costs.

No one can force a country to live under siege and require it to govern its affairs as if it belonged in the happiest and most peaceful of all worlds. Some say that we should change to solve this conflict, but the terms "blockade" and "changes" are opposite and contradict one another. Throughout its history, Cuba has given ample proof that it has too much self-respect to be moved by pressures over matters that are incumbent only upon its people. We are not against change, but against a blockade that prevents US from introducing the changes we wish to improve our socialist society. Cuba has no offensive weapons or nuclear missiles. Our weapons are our example and our morale, and those have never been nor could ever be blockaded.

Cuba has no military bases within US territory. It is the United States that keeps a military base in Cuban territory against the will of our country.

Cuba has not blockaded the United States. The United States has blockaded and waged an economic and political war on Cuba. Demands must be made of the aggressor, not of the victim. There is no reason at all to blockade Cuba. No one has the right to impose a blockade, and the United States lacks the moral authority to require others to respect human rights, for that country is quite far from being a model to emulate in this field.

The United States ranks among the top countries in the world in terms of violence and terrorism. Unfortunately, the tragic events in Oklahoma are a product of the US society. As it has become a major drug consumption market, the United States has created a terrible and uncontrollable problem for its own society and for the drug producing and supplying underdeveloped nations. Black infant mortality in the United States is twice as high as that of white children.

The presidential election that has just been held cost US $800 million, three times as much as in 1992, and showed the lowest voting turnout in the past 72 years of US history. In the United States, over US $700 million are spent every day on the military to defend the country from an unknown aggressor. By 1997, these expenditures will be fifty-three fold the budget for technical assistance of all the United Nations funds and programmes combined. Such squandering is an insult to the over 800 million people in the world who have nothing to eat, the over 1 billion adults that are illiterate and the over 1.5 billion human beings who have no access to health services.

The most aggressive racism and xenophobia, the most rampant consumerism, increasing inequality, attacks against social security, the discredit of institutions, these are some of the evils present in US society today. How can the United States even think of governing the world when it is finding it increasingly difficult to govern itself?

The international community may admire a country for its multiethnic composition, its technological breakthroughs, its enterprising spirit, its progress in art, science and sports, but the world will never accept a country as a leader because of its nuclear arsenals, its arrogance, its extraterritorial legislation and its unilateral sanctions.

Mr President:

The Cuban people are the main victims of the blockade and we Cubans who suffer it know it very well; but this aberrant policy also affects the people of the United States and violates its human rights. The US citizens cannot understand that they are banned from travelling to Cuba, that they are liable under the law to fines of up to US $250 thousand for exercising that constitutional right, and that fellow US nationals are being beaten for trying to donate computers to the Cuban health care system. In 1995-96, coinciding with the year of the passage of the Helms-Burton Act, over 400 brands of US products were registered in Cuba and more than 300 US businessmen visited Cuba. At present, many US companies are establishing indirect links with Cuba, and this number will continue to grow as an unavoidable result of economic globalisation. US companies, irrespective of their former property holdings in Cuba, are, as a rule, much more interested in doing business than in being used as a pretext for a continued policy of hostility and confrontation.

The United States is very much concerned over emigration. Economic motivations have long been the essential cause behind Cuban emigration. So long as it persists, harassment will instigate, against our will and despite all the measures that we may take, an uncontrolled emigration to the United States. The new wall that is being erected on the Mexican border – several times as strong as the demolished Berlin Wall–cannot be built in the Caribbean waters.

Neither the Cuban nor the US people is the protagonist, but victims of a policy frozen in the past and long overdue for change. It is inconceivable that in the United States an alienated ultra-right wing, allied with a fascist minority of the Cuban exile community, should dictate the policy to be pursued with Cuba, and that such a policy is complied with, even if it opposes the interests of the very people of the United States and of the international community. A president of the United States must not be held hostage to the policies of his enemies. Recent reports in that country refer to building a bridge into the 21st century. How can a bridge into the future be built if it is not possible to lay a much shorter bridge – just 90 miles long, over which peace in the hemisphere may cross? How can one think of cruising over INTERNET highways and yet impose a travel ban to Cuba? We renew Cuba's readiness to discuss any issue with the United States. We require no precondition other than an absolute respect for our indefeasible right to freedom and sovereignty.

The Cuban Revolution has given more than enough proof of its honourable conduct and its responsibility in terms of its compliance with its international commitments. If any country knows that quite well, it is the United States. Cuba solved the issue of skyjackings, a weapon designed to be used against our country. Cuba compensated nationalised owners who were supported by their governments. Cuba honoured, minute by minute, the agreements that led to peace in Southern Africa. Cuba is meticulously fulfilling its migration agreements. Despite the absence of any accord, whenever necessary, Cuba co-operates with the US authorities in the fight against drug traffic.

The United States has already established diplomatic relations with Vietnam. Trade between the two nations is increasing every year. To everyone's satisfaction, a past in which 58,000 US nationals and 3.4 million Vietnamese were killed has been overcome. Today, several of those responsible for the Vietnam war have acknowledged both in private and in public that it was a mistake, that "they were wrong, terribly wrong". Will it take 20 years before the current US President, or one of his staff members, writes in his memoirs that maintaining the blockade was a mistake, a "terrible mistake" of his administration? If rectification is wise, then rectifying a policy that is so irrational, cruel and, furthermore, doomed to failure in such a complex country with so many interests involved, is an endeavour that requires honesty and courage. It does not require pretexts or appearances to change a policy; what is needed is determination and valour.

John F. Kennedy was the President of the Bay of Pigs invasion, of the imposition of the blockade and of the Missile Crisis. It is no secret for anyone that days before his unexpected death, President Kennedy was questioning the policy of confrontation with our country, and that on November 22, 1963, the day he was murdered, a French journalist, on his behalf, was discussing the matter with Fidel Castro. The shameful and tragic assassination of the President in Dallas foiled that intention.

In the Carter Administration, Interest Sections were opened in both capitals; the United States eased some of the Cuban travel restrictions on US citizens and various agreements were reached. The foreign policy of the world's most powerful country – and we know this – is not governed by reason or justice, at least in periods before elections. In these election battles, what is sought is not ideas to make the nation greater but votes to win the election. We know that reality, although we reject it out of basic ethical considerations. Electoral tensions have already come to an end in this country; President William Clinton has been re-elected, and another Democratic administration term has ensued. We believe the time has also come for a new US policy approach toward Cuba.

Cuba reiterates its desire to maintain normal relations with all the countries in the world, including the United States, but if despite all this mountain of truths the US policy continues to be determined by electoral motivations or selfish domestic policy interests, and our country continues to be threatened, blockaded and harassed; if hunger continues to be used to bend a nation whose only crime is its desire to live in freedom and independence and implement all the social justice that is possible in this world; and if the international clamour for an end to such a monstrous crime continues to go unheeded; then history shall confirm that a people's dignity is stronger than all the power of an empire.

The honour of a nation, however small, can never be blockaded.

AS WE APPROACH the dawn of the 21st century, the world's people continue to face a growing number of major life-taking problems, one of which is the destructive effects of hunger and starvation. Although concentrated on the African, Asian and South American continents, the problem is also spreading to the heartlands of the developed capitalist countries.

What is the cause of this serious malady? Imperialist propaganda is regularly churned out to suggest that "population explosion", laziness, "acts of god and nature" or so-called local wars started by "fanatics" are to blame for hunger in this world. It is the rapacious imperialist system based on exploitation of human beings and the reckless plunder of natural resources in the drive for maximum profit which is the source of the growing hunger facing humanity.

On November 13-17, the UN-sponsored World Food Summit held in Rome raised the problem of what measures should be taken to solve the problem. US imperialism, the arch defender of the imperialist system, and directly responsible for genocidal policies such as the Helms-Burton Law against Cuba, does not even recognise the human right to food. At the Rome Summit, its representative suggested that "the attainment of any 'right to adequate food' or 'fundamental right to be free from hunger' is a goal or aspiration to be realised progressively". It was also reported that US and other big power representatives gave a call for more "free trade" as a solution to the problem. The reality of the situation shows that the people of the world have no other option in ending hunger than to overthrow the imperialist system.

FIDEL CASTRO RUZ, President of the Republic of Cuba and First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Cuba, gave an important speech on November 16 at the UN sponsored Summit on World Hunger, held at the headquarters of the Food and Agricultural Organisation, Rome. All reports said that his speech was extremely well-received and was greeted with a loud ovation.

"Hunger, the inseparable companion of the poor," he said, "is the result of the unequal distribution of wealth and of the injustices of this world. The rich do not know hunger."

The five-day summit adopted a non-binding plan of action to halve the number of people afflicted by chronic hunger and malnutrition by 2015. Fidel Castro poured scorn on this plan in saying: "What bandages are we to apply so that within 20 years there are 400 million, instead of 800 million, starving people? These goals, if only for their modesty, are shameful."

He asked the participants: "While the world is logically moved when accidents, natural and social disasters occur, killing hundreds or thousands of people, why isn't it moved in the same way in the presence of this genocide that takes place every day right before our eyes? ... What will we do to prevent one million people from dying of starvation every month in ... the world?"

Castro pointed out: "It is capitalism, neo-liberalism, the laws of a savage market, foreign debt, underdevelopment and unequal terms of trade that are killing so many people in the world."

Fidel Castro denounced the increasing amounts spent on luxuries and the military, and he posed the question as to why 700 billion dollars each year is invested in military expenditures, asking his audience, "What are these arms for, except to dominate the world?"

"Why, on top of all this, are there criminal policies and absurd blockades, which include food and medicine, to kill an entire nation through hunger and disease? Where are ethics, justifications, respect for the most elemental human rights, the sense in such policies?" he demanded to know. "Let truth reign, not hypocrisy and lies. Let us be conscious of the fact that in this world, hegemony, arrogance and selfishness must cease."

ON NOVEMBER 16 in Pyongyang, the Committee for the Peaceful Reunification of the Fatherland released a statement denouncing the south Korean authorities for seeking confrontation with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

The statement said that the "policy of closing relations with the North" is aimed at totally closing the door between the north and the south and blocking the possibilities of reconciliation and unity among the fellow countrymen.

The statement stressed that the desire for peace and the reunification of the country is continually growing among all the Korean people. But the situation has deteriorated, due to the policies of national estrangement and closing the door to inter-Korean relations which the south Korean authorities are pursuing.

The Kim Young Sam group, continued the statement, is seeking a way out of its serious crisis in by confrontation and war preparations against the North, which is straining the already tense situation. It continued, "This is an intolerable crime which can be committed only by traitors who do not hesitate to sacrifice the whole nation for the sake of remaining in power, completely indifferent to the fate of the people, and of peace and reunification. The south Korean chief executive has blocked all the channels of north-south dialogue, totally severed the relations between fellow countrymen and escalated war preparations, putting the two parts of the country into acute confrontation."

"Now that the south Korean rulers are persistently seeking confrontation with the North, suppressing the south Korean people's desire for unity with the North, we cannot but take strong self-defensive countermeasures."

"They must promptly give up the policy of closing inter-Korean relations, confrontation with the North and preparations for war or stand condemned by history."