Ernesto Che Guevara 

On Development

Speech delivered March 25, 1964 at the plenary session of the United Nations 
Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)  

 
The delegation of Cuba, an island nation situated at the mouth of the Gulf of 
Mexico in the Caribbean Sea, is addressing you. It addresses you under the 
protection of its rights, on many grounds, to come to this forum and proclaim 
the truth about itself. It addresses you first of all, as a country that is 
building socialism; as a country belonging to the group of Latin American 
nations, even though decisions contrary to law have temporarily severed it from 
the regional organization, owing to the pressure exerted and the action taken by 
the United States of America. Its geographical position indicates it is an 
underdeveloped country that addresses you, one which has borne the scars of 
colonialist and imperial exploitation and which knows from bitter experience the 
subjection of its markets and its entire economy, or what amounts to the same 
thing, the subjection of its entire governmental machinery to a foreign power. 
Cuba also addresses you as a country under attack.
All these features have given our country a prominent place in the news 
throughout the world, in spite of its small size, its limited economic 
importance, and its meager population. 
At this conference, Cuba will express its views from the various stand-points 
which reflect its special situation in the world, but it will base its analysis 
on its most important and positive attribute: that of a country which is 
building socialism. As an underdeveloped Latin American country, it will support 
the main demands of its fraternal countries, and as a country under attack it 
will denounce from the very outset all the machinations set in train by the 
coercive apparatus of that imperial power, the United States of America. 
We preface our statement with these words of explanation because our country 
considers it imperative to define accurately the scope of the conference, its 
meaning, and its possible importance. 
We come to this meeting seventeen years after the Havana Conference, where the 
intention was to create a world order that suited the competitive interests of 
the imperialist powers. Although Cuba was the site of that Conference, our 
revolutionary government does not consider itself bound in the slightest by the 
role then played by a government subordinated to imperialist interests, nor by 
the content or scope of the so-called Havana Charter. 
At that conference, and at the previous meeting at Bretton Woods, a group of 
international bodies were set up whose activities have been harmful to the 
interests of the dependent countries of the contemporary world. And even though 
the United States of America did not ratify the Havana Charter because it 
considered it too "daring", the various international credit and financial 
bodies and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade which were the tangible 
outcome of those two meetings, have proved to be effective weapons for defending 
its interests, and what is more, weapons for attacking our countries. 
These are subjects which we must deal with at length later on. 
Today the conference agenda is broader and more realistic because it includes, 
among others, three of the crucial problems facing the modern world: the 
relations between the camp of the socialist countries and that of the developed 
capitalist countries; the relations between the underdeveloped countries and the 
developed capitalist powers; and the great problem of development for the 
dependent world. 
The participants at this new meeting far outnumber those who met at Havana in 
1947. Nevertheless, we cannot say with complete accuracy that this is the forum 
of the peoples of the world. The result of the strange legal interpretations 
which certain powers still use with impunity is that countries of great 
importance in the world are missing from this meeting: for example the People's 
Republic of China, the sole lawful representative of the most populous nation on 
earth, whose seats are occupied by a delegation which falsely claims to 
represent that nation, and which, to add to the anomaly, even enjoys the right 
of veto in the United Nations. 
It should also be noted that delegations representing the Democratic Republic of 
Korea and the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, the genuine governments of those 
nations, are absent, while representatives of the governments of the southern 
parts of both those divided states are present; and to add to the absurdity of 
the situation, while the German Democratic Republic is unjustly excluded, the 
Federal Republic of Germany is attending this conference and is given a Vice 
Presidency. And while the socialist republics I mentioned are not represented 
here, the government of the Union of South Africa, which violates the Charter of 
the United Nations by the inhuman and fascist policy of apartheid embodied in 
its national laws, and which defies the United Nations by refusing to transmit 
information on the territories which it holds in trust, makes bold to occupy a 
seat in this hall. 
Because of these anomalies the conference cannot be defined as the forum of the 
world's peoples. It is our duty to point this out and draw it to the attention 
of the participants, because so long as this situation persists, and justice 
remains the tool of a few powerful interests, legal interpretations will 
continue to be made to suit the convenience of the oppressor powers and it will 
be difficult to relax the prevailing tension: a situation which entails real 
dangers for mankind. We also stress these facts in order to call attention to 
the responsibilities incumbent upon us and to the consequences that may result 
from the decisions taken here. A single moment of weakness, wavering, or 
compromise may discredit us in the eyes of history, just as we, the member 
states of the United Nations, are in a sense accomplices and bear on our hands 
the blood of Patrice Lumumba, Prime Minister of the Congolese, who was 
wretchedly murdered at a time when United Nations troops were presumably 
'guaranteeing the stability' of his regime. What is worse, those troops had been 
expressly requested by the martyr, Patrice Lumumba. 
Events of such gravity, or other similar events, or those which have negative 
implications for international relations and which jeopardize our prestige as 
sovereign nations, must not be allowed to happen at this conference. 
We live in a world that is deeply and antagonistically divided into groupings of 
nations very dissimilar in economic, social, and political outlook. In this 
world of contradictions, the one existing between the socialist countries and 
the developed capitalist countries is spoken of as the fundamental contradiction 
of our time. The fact that the cold war, conceived by the warmongering West, has 
shown itself lacking in practical effectiveness and in political realism is one 
of the factors that have led to the convening of this conference. But while that 
is the most important contradiction, it is nevertheless not the only one; there 
is also the contradiction between the developed capitalist countries and the 
world's underdeveloped nations; and at this Conference on Trade and Development, 
the contradictions existing between these groups of nations are also of 
fundamental importance. In addition there is the inherent contradiction between 
the various developed capitalist countries, which struggle unceasingly among 
themselves to divide up the world and to gain a firm hold on its markets so that 
they may enjoy an extensive development based, unfortunately, on the hunger and 
exploitation of the dependent world. 
These contradictions are important; they reflect the realities of the world 
today, and they give rise to the danger of new conflagrations, which, in the 
atomic age, could spread throughout the world. 
If at this egalitarian conference, where all nations can express, through their 
votes the hopes of their peoples, a solution satisfactory to the majority can be 
reached, a unique step will have been taken in the history of the world. 
However, there are many forces at work to prevent this from happening. The 
responsibility for the decisions to be taken devolves upon the representatives 
of the underdeveloped peoples. If all the peoples who live under precarious 
economic conditions, and who depend on foreign powers for some vital aspects of 
their economy and for their economic and social structure, are capable of 
resisting the temptations, offered coldly although in the heat of the moment, 
and impose a new type of relationship here, mankind will have taken a step 
forward. 
If, on the other hand, the groups of underdeveloped countries, lured by the 
siren song of the vested interests of the developed powers which exploit their 
backwardness, contend futilely among themselves for the crumbs from the tables 
of the world's mighty, and break the ranks of numerically superior forces; or if 
they are not capable of insisting on clear agreements, free from escape clauses 
open to capricious interpretations; of if they rest content with agreements that 
can simply be violated at will by the mighty, our efforts will have been to no 
avail, and the long deliberations at this conference will result in nothing more 
than innocuous files in which the international bureaucracy will zealously guard 
the tons of printed paper and kilometers of magnetic tape recording the opinions 
expressed by the participants. And the world will remain as it is. 
Such is the nature of this conference. It will have to deal not only with the 
problems involved in the domination of markets and the deterioration in the 
terms of trade but also with the main reason for this state of world affairs: 
the subordination of the national economies of the dependent countries to other 
more developed countries, which, through investment, hold sway over the main 
sectors of their economies. 
It must be clearly understood, and we say it in all frankness, that the only way 
to solve the problems now besetting mankind is to eliminate completely the 
exploitation of dependent countries by developed capitalist countries, with all 
the consequences that this implies. We have come here fully aware that what is 
involved is a discussion between the representatives of countries which have put 
an end to the exploitation of man by man, of countries which maintain such 
exploitation as their working philosophy, and of the majority group of the 
exploited countries. We must begin our discussion by acknowledging the truth of 
the above statements. 
Even when our convictions are so firm that no arguments can change them, we are 
ready to join in constructive debate in a setting of peaceful coexistence 
between countries with different political, economic, and social systems. The 
difficulty lies in making sure that we all know how much we can hope to get 
without having to take it by force, and where to yield a privilege before it is 
inevitably wrung from us by force. The conference has to proceed along this 
difficult, narrow road; if we stray, we shall find ourselves on barren ground. 
We announced at the beginning of this statement that Cuba would speak here also 
as a country under attack. The latest developments, which have made our country 
the target of imperialist wrath and the object of every conceivable kind of 
repression and violation of international law, from before the time of Playa 
Giron till now, are known to all. It was no accident that Cuba was the main 
scene of one of the incidents that have most gravely endangered world peace, as 
a result of legitimate action taken by Cuba in exercise of its right to adopt 
the principles of its own people. 
Acts of aggression by the United States against Cuba began virtually as soon as 
the Revolution had been won. In the first stage they took the form of direct 
attacks on Cuban centers of production. 
Later, these acts took the form of measures aimed at paralyzing the Cuban 
economy; about the middle of 1960 an attempt was made to deprive Cuba of the 
fuel needed to operate her industries, transport, and power stations. Under 
pressure from the Department of State, the independent United States oil 
companies refused to sell petroleum to Cuba or to provide Cuba with tankers to 
ship it in. Shortly afterward efforts were made to deprive Cuba of the foreign 
exchange needed for its external trade; a cut of 700,000 short tons in the Cuban 
sugar quota in the United States was made by President Eisenhower on July 6, 
1960, and the quota was abolished altogether on March 31, 1961, a few days after 
the announcement of the Alliance for Progress and a few days before Playa Giron. 
In an endeavor to paralyze Cuban industry by cutting off its supplies of raw 
materials and spare machine parts, the United States Department of Commerce 
issued on October 19, 1960, an order prohibiting the shipment of many products 
to our island. This ban on trade with Cuba was progressively intensified until 
on February 3, 1962, the late President Kennedy placed an embargo on all United 
States trade with Cuba. 
After all these acts of aggression had failed, the United States went on to 
subject our country to economic blockade with the object of stopping trade 
between other countries and our own. Firstly, on January 24, 1962, the United 
States Treasury Department announced a ban on the importation into the United 
States of any article made wholly or partly from products of Cuban origin, even 
if it was manufactured in another country. A further step, equivalent to setting 
up a virtual economic blockade, was taken on February 6, 1963, when the White 
House issued a communique announcing that goods bought with United States 
Government funds would not be shipped in vessels flying the flag of foreign 
countries which had traded with Cuba after January 1, of that year. This was the 
beginning of the blacklist, which now includes over 150 ships belonging to 
countries that have not yielded to the illegal United States blockade. A further 
measure to obstruct Cuba's trade was taken on July 8, 1963, when the United 
States Treasury Department froze all Cuban property in United States territory 
and prohibited the transfer of dollars to or from Cuba, together with other 
kinds of dollar transaction carried out through third countries. Obsessed with 
the desire to attack us, the United States specifically excluded our country 
from the supposed benefits of the Trade Expansion Act. Acts of aggression have 
continued during the current year. On February 18, 1964, the United States 
announced the suspension of its aid to the United Kingdom, France, and 
Yugoslavia, because these countries were still trading with Cuba. Secretary of 
State Dean Rusk said that, "there could be no improvement in relations with 
Communist China while that country incited and supported acts of aggression in 
Southeast Asia, or in relations with Cuba while it represented a threat to the 
Western Hemisphere." That threat, he went on, could be ended to Washington's 
satisfaction only with the overthrow of the Castro regime by the Cuban people. 
They regarded that regime as temporary. 
Cuba summons the delegation of the United States Government to say whether the 
actions foreshadowed by the Secretary's statement and others like it, and the 
incidents we have described are or are not at odds with coexistence in the world 
today, and whether, in the opinion of that delegation, the successive acts of 
economic aggression committed against our island and against other countries 
which trade with us are legitimate. I ask whether that attitude is or is not at 
odds with the principle of the organization that brings us together -- that of 
practicing tolerance between states -- and with the obligation laid by that 
organization upon countries that have ratified its Charter to settle their 
disputes by peaceful means. I ask whether that attitude is or is not at odds 
with the spirit of this meeting in favor of abandoning all forms of 
discrimination and removing the barriers between countries with different social 
systems and at different stages of development. And I ask this conference to 
pass judgement on the explanation, if the United States delegation ventures to 
make one. We, for our part, maintain the only position we have ever taken in the 
matter: We are ready to join in discussions provided that no prior conditions 
are imposed. 
The period that has elapsed since the Havana Charter was signed has been marked 
by events of undeniable importance in the field of trade and economic 
development. In the first place we have to note the expansion of the socialist 
camp and the collapse of the colonial system. Many countries, covering an area 
of more than thirty million square kilometres and with one-third of the world's 
population, have chosen as their system of development the construction of the 
communist society, and as their working philosophy, Marxism-Leninism. Others, 
without directly embracing the Marxist-Leninist philosophy, have stated their 
intention of laying the foundations on which to build socialism. Europe, Asia, 
and now Africa and America, are continents shaken by the new ideas abroad in the 
world. 
The countries in the socialist camp have developed uninterruptedly at rates of 
growth much faster than those of the capitalist countries in spite of having 
started out, as a general rule, from fairly low levels of development and of 
having had to withstand wars to the death and rigorous blockades. 
In contrast with the surging growth of the countries in the socialist camp and 
the development taking place, albeit much more slowly, in the majority of the 
capitalist countries, is the unquestionable fact that a large proportion of the 
so-called underdeveloped countries are in total stagnation, and that in some of 
them the rate of economic growth is lower than that of population increase. 
These characteristics are not fortuitous; they correspond strictly to the nature 
of the developed capitalist system in full expansion, which transfers to the 
dependent countries the most abusive and barefaced forms of exploitation. 
Since the end of the last century this aggressive expansionist trend has been 
manifested in countless attacks on various countries on the more underdeveloped 
continents. Today, however, it mainly takes the form of control exercised by the 
developed powers over the production of and trade in raw materials in the 
dependent countries. In general it is shown by the dependence of a given country 
on a single primary commodity, which sells only in a specific market in 
quantities restricted to the needs of that market. 
The inflow of capital from the developed countries is the prerequisite for the 
establishment of economic dependence. This inflow takes various forms: loans 
granted on onerous terms; investments that place a given country in the power of 
the investors; almost total technological subordination of the dependent country 
to the developed country; control of a country's foreign trade by the big 
international monopolies; and in extreme cases, the use of force as an economic 
weapon in support of the other forms of exploitation. 
Sometimes this inflow takes very subtle forms, such as the use of international 
financial credit and other types of organizations. The International Monetary 
Fund, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, GATT 2 and on 
the American continent, the Inter-American Development Bank are examples of 
international organizations placed at the service of the great capitalist 
colonialist powers essentially at the service of United States imperialism. 
These organizations make their way into domestic economic policy, foreign trade 
policy, and domestic and external financial relations of all kinds. 
The International Monetary Fund is the watchdog of the dollar in the capitalist 
camp; the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development is the 
instrument for the infiltration of United States capital into the underdeveloped 
world, and the Inter American Development Bank performs the same sorry function 
on the American continent. All these organizations are governed by rules and 
principles which are represented as safeguards of equity and reciprocity in 
international economic relations, whereas in reality they are merely hocus-pocus 
masking the subtlest kinds of instruments for the perpetuation of backwardness 
and exploitation. The International Monetary Fund, which is supposed to watch 
over the stability of exchange rates and the liberalization of international 
payments, merely denies the underdeveloped countries even the slightest means of 
defense against the competition of invading foreign monopolies. 
While launching so-called austerity programs and opposing the forms of payment 
necessary for the expansion of trade between countries faced with a balance of 
payments crisis and suffering from severe discriminatory measures in 
international trade, it strives desperately to save the dollar from its 
precarious situation, without going to the heart of the structural problems 
which afflict the international monetary system and which impede a more rapid 
expansion of world trade. 
GATT, for its part, by establishing equal treatment and reciprocal concessions 
between developed and underdeveloped countries, helps to maintain the status quo 
and serves the interests of the former group of countries, and its machinery 
fails to provide the necessary means for the elimination of agricultural 
protectionism, subsidies, tariffs, and other obstacles to the expansion of 
exports from the dependent countries. Even more, it now has its so-called 
"Programme of Action," and by a rather suspicious coincidence, the "Kennedy 
Round" is just about to begin. 
In order to strengthen imperialist domination, the establishment of preferential 
areas has been adopted as a means of exploitation and neocolonial control. We 
can speak in full knowledge of this, for we ourselves have suffered the effects 
of preferential Cuban-United States agreements which shackled our trade and 
placed it at the disposal of the United States monopolies. 
There is no better way to show what those preferences meant for Cuba than to 
quote the views of Sumner Welles, the United States Ambassador, on the 
Reciprocal Trade Agreement which was negotiated in 1933 and signed in 1934: 
"...the Cuban Government in turn would grant us a practical monopoly of the 
Cuban market for American imports, the sole reservation being that in view of 
the fact that Great Britain was Cuba's chief customer for that portion of sugar 
exports which did not go to the United States, the Cuban Government would desire 
to concede certain advantages to a limited category of imports from Great 
Britain. 
"...Finally, the negotiation at this time of a reciprocal trade agreement with 
Cuba, along the lines above indicated, will not only revive Cuba but will give 
us practical control of a market we have been steadily losing for the past ten 
years, not only for our manufactured products but for our agricultural exports 
as well, notably in such categories as wheat, animal fats, meat products, rice, 
and potatoes" [telegram from Ambassador Welles to the Secretary of State of the 
United States, sent on May 13, 1933 at 6 PM. and reproduced on pages 289 and 290 
of Volume V (1933) of the official publication Foreign Relations of the United 
States]. The results of the so-called Reciprocal Trade Agreement confirmed the 
view of Ambassador Welles. 
Cuba had to vend its main product, sugar, all over the world in order to obtain 
foreign currency with which to achieve a balance of payments with the United 
States, and the special tariffs which were imposed prevented producers in 
European countries, as well as our own national producers, from competing with 
those of the United States. 
It is necessary only to quote a few figures to prove that it was Cuba's function 
to seek foreign currency all over the world for the United States. During the 
period 1948 to '957, Cuba had a persistent debit balance of trade with the 
United States, totaling 382.7 million pesos, whereas its trade balance with the 
rest of the world was consistently favorable, totaling 1,274.6 million pesos. 
The balance of payments for the period 1948-1958 tells the story even more 
eloquently: Cuba had a positive balance of 543.9 million pesos in its trade with 
countries other than the United States, but lost this to its rich neighbor with 
which it had a negative balance of 952.1 million pesos, with the result that its 
foreign currency reserves were reduced by 408.2 million pesos. 
The so-called Alliance for Progress is another clear demonstration of the 
fraudulent methods used by the United States to maintain false hopes among 
nations, while exploitation grows more acute. 
When Fidel Castro, our Prime Minister, indicated at Buenos Aires in 1959, that a 
minimum of 3 billion dollars a year of additional external income was needed to 
finance a rate of development which would really reduce the enormous gap 
separating Latin America from the developed countries, many thought that the 
figure was exaggerated. At Punta del Este, however, 2 billion dollars a year was 
promised. Today it is recognized that merely to offset the loss caused by the 
deterioration in the terms of trade in 1961 (the last year for which figures are 
available), 30 per cent a year more than the hypothetical amount promised will 
be required. The paradoxical situation now is that, while the loans are either 
not forthcoming or are made for projects which contribute little or nothing to 
the industrial development of the region, increased amounts of foreign currency 
are being transferred to the industrialized countries. This means that the 
wealth created by the labor of peoples who live for the most part in conditions 
of backwardness, hunger, and poverty is enjoyed in United States imperialist 
circles. In 1961, for instance, according to ECLA figures, there was an outflow 
of 1.735 billion dollars from Latin America, in the form of interest on foreign 
investments and similar payments, and of 1.456 billion dollars in payments on 
foreign short-term and long-term loans. If we add to this the indirect loss of 
purchasing power of exports (or deterioration in the terms of trade), which 
amounted to 2.66 billion dollars in 1961, and 400 million dollars for the flight 
of capital, we arrive at a total of 6.2 billion dollars, or more than three 
"Alliances for Progress" a year. Thus, assuming that the situation has not 
deteriorated further in 1964, the Latin American countries participating in the 
Alliance for Progress will lose directly or indirectly, during the three months 
of this conference, almost 1.6 billion dollars of the wealth created by the 
labor of their peoples. On the other hand, of the 2 billion dollars pledged for 
the entire year, barely half can be expected, on an optimistic estimate, to be 
forthcoming. 
Latin America's experience of the real results of this type of "aid," which is 
represented as the surest and most effective means of increasing external 
income, better than the direct method-that of increasing the volume and value of 
exports, and modifying their structure-has been a lamentable one. For this very 
reason it may serve as a lesson for other regions and for the underdeveloped 
world in general. At present that region is virtually at a standstill so far as 
growth is concerned; it is also afflicted by inflation and unemployment, is 
caught up in the vicious circle of foreign indebtedness, and is racked with 
tensions which are sometimes discharged by armed conflict. 
Cuba has drawn attention to these facts as they emerged, and has predicted the 
outcome, specifying that it rejected any implication in it other than that 
emanation from its example and its moral support; and events have proved it to 
be right. The Second Declaration of Havana is proving its historical validity. 
These phenomena, which we have analyzed in relation to Latin America, but which 
are valid for the whole of the dependent world, have the effect of enabling the 
developed powers to maintain trade conditions that lead to a deterioration in 
the terms of trade between the dependent countries and the developed countries. 
This aspect -- one of the more obvious ones, which the capitalist propaganda 
machinery has been unable to conceal -- is another of the factors that have led 
to the convening of this conference. 
The deterioration in the terms of trade is quite simple in its practical effect: 
the underdeveloped countries must export raw materials and primary commodities 
in order to import the same amount of industrial goods. The problem is 
particularly serious in the case of the machinery and equipment which are 
essential to agricultural and industrial development. 
We submit a short tabulation, indicating, in physical terms, the amount of 
primary commodities needed to import a thirty to thirty-nine horsepower tractor 
in the years 1955 and 1962. These figures are given merely to illustrate the 
problem we are considering. Obviously, there are some primary commodities for 
which prices have not fallen and may indeed have risen somewhat during the same 
period, and there may be some machinery and equipment which have not risen in 
relative cost as substantially as that in our example. What we give here is the 
general trend. 
We have taken several representative countries as producers of the raw materials 
or primary commodities mentioned. This does not mean, however, that they are the 
only producers of the item or that they produce nothing else. 
Many underdeveloped countries, on analyzing their troubles, arrive at what seems 
a logical conclusion. They say that the deterioration in the terms of trade is 
an objective fact and the underlying cause of most of their problems and is 
attributable to the fall in the prices of the raw materials which they export 
and the rise in the prices of manufactures which they import -- I refer here to 
world market prices. They also say, however, that if they trade with the 
socialist countries at the prices prevailing in those markets, the latter 
countries benefit from the existing state of affairs because they are generally 
exporters of manufactures and importers of raw materials. In all honesty, we 
have to recognize that this is the case, but we must also recognize that the 
socialist countries did not cause the present situation -- they absorb barely 10 
per cent of the underdeveloped countries' primary commodity exports to the rest 
of the world -- and that, for historical reasons, they have been compelled to 
trade under the conditions prevailing in the world market, which is the outcome 
of imperialist domination over the internal economy and external markets of the 
dependent countries. This is not the basis on which the socialist countries 
organize their long-term trade with the underdeveloped countries. There are many 
examples to bear this out, including, in particular, Cuba. When our social 
structure changed and our relations with the socialist camp attained a new level 
of mutual trust, we did not cease to be underdeveloped, but we established a new 
type of relationship with the countries in that camp. The most striking example 
of this new relationship are the sugar price agreements we have concluded with 
the Soviet Union, under which that fraternal country has undertaken to purchase 
increasing amounts of our main product at fair and stable prices, which have 
already been agreed up to the year 1970. 
Furthermore, we must not forget that there are underdeveloped countries in a 
variety of circumstances and that they maintain a variety of policies toward the 
socialist camp. There are some, like Cuba, which have chosen the path of 
socialism; there are some which are developing in a more or less capitalist 
manner and are beginning to produce manufactures for export; there are some 
which have neocolonial ties; there are some which have a virtually feudal 
structure; and there are others which, unfortunately, do not participate in 
conferences of this type because the developed countries have not granted the 
independence to which their people aspire. Such is the case of British Guiana, 
Puerto Rico, and other countries in Latin America, Africa, and Asia. Except in 
the first of these groups, foreign capital has made its way into these countries 
in one way or another, and the demands that are today being directed to the 
Socialist countries should be placed on the correct footing of negotiation. In 
some cases this means negotiation between underdeveloped and developed country; 
almost always, however, it means negotiation between one country subject to 
discrimination and another in the same situation. On many occasions these same 
countries demand unilateral preferential treatment from all the developed 
countries without exception: i.e., including in this category the socialist 
countries. They place all kinds of obstacles in the way of direct trading with 
these states. There is a danger that they may seek to trade through national 
subsidiaries of the imperialist powers-thus giving the latter the chance of 
spectacular profits - by claiming that a given country is underdeveloped and 
therefore entitled to unilateral preferences. 
If we do not want to wreck this conference, we must abide strictly by 
principles. We who speak for underdeveloped countries must stress the right on 
our side; in our case, as a socialist country, we can also speak of the 
discrimination that is practiced against us, not only by some developed 
capitalist countries but also by underdeveloped countries, which consciously or 
otherwise, are serving the interests of the monopoly capital that has taken over 
basic control of their economy. 
We do not regard the existing terms of world trade as just, but this is not the 
only injustice that exists. There is direct expolitation of some countries by 
others; there is discrimination among countries by reason of differences in 
economic structure; and, as we already pointed out, there is the invasion of 
foreign capital to the point where it controls a country's economy for its own 
ends. To be logical, when we address requests to the developed socialist 
countries, we should also specify what we are going to do to end discrimination 
and at least specify the most obvious and dangerous forms of imperialist 
penetration. 
We all know about the trade discrimination practiced by the leading imperialist 
countries against the socialist countries with the object of hampering their 
development. At times it has been tantamount to a real blockade, such as the 
almost absolute blockade maintained by United States imperialism against the 
German Democratic Republic, the People's Republic of China, the Democratic 
Republic of Korea, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, and the Republic of Cuba. 
Everyone knows that that policy has failed, and that other powers which 
originally followed the lead of the United States have gradually parted company 
from it in order to secure their own profits. The failure of this policy is by 
now only too obvious. 
Trade discrimination has also been practiced against dependent and socialist 
countries, the ultimate object being to ensure that the monopolies do not lose 
their sphere of exploitation and at the same time to strengthen the blockade of 
the socialist camp. This policy, too, is failing, and the question arises 
whether there is any point in remaining bound to foreign interests which history 
has condemned, or whether the time has come to break through all the obstacles 
to trade and expand markets in the socialist area. 
The various forms of discrimination which hamper trade, and which make it easier 
for the imperialists to manipulate a range of primary commodities and a number 
of countries producing those commodities, are still being maintained. In the 
atomic era it is simply absurd to classify such products as copper and other 
minerals as strategic materials and to obstruct trade in them; yet this policy 
has been maintained, and is being maintained to this day. There is also talk of 
so-called incompatibilities between state monopoly of foreign trade and the 
forms of trading adopted by the capitalist countries; and on that pretext 
discriminatory relations, quotas, etc., are established -- maneuvers in which 
GATT has played a dominant role under the official guise of combating unfair 
trade practices. Discrimination against state trading not only serves as a 
weapon against the socialist countries but is also designed to prevent the 
underdeveloped countries from adopting any of the most urgent measures needed to 
strengthen their negotiating position on the international market and to 
counteract the operations of the monopolies. 
The suspension of economic aid by international agencies to countries adopting 
the socialist system of government is a further variation on the same theme. For 
the International Monetary Fund to attack bilateral payments agreements with 
socialist countries and impose on its weaker members a policy of opposition to 
this type of relations between peoples has been a common practice in recent 
years. 
As we have already pointed out, all these discriminatory measures im posed by 
imperialism have the dual object of blockading the socialist camp and 
strengthening the exploitation of the underdeveloped countries. 
It is incontrovertible that present-day prices are unfair; it is equally true 
that prices are conditioned by monopolist limitation of markets and by the 
establishment of political relationships that make free competition a term of 
one-sided application; free competition for the monopolies; a free fox among 
free chickens! Quite apart from such agreements as may emanate from this 
conference, the opening up of the large and growing markets of the socialist 
camp would help to raise the prices of raw materials. The world is hungry but 
lacks the money to buy food; and paradoxically, in the underdeveloped world, in 
the world of the hungry, possible ways of expanding food production are 
discouraged in order to keep prices up, in order to be able to eat. This is the 
inexorable law of the philosophy of plunder, which must cease to be the rule in 
relations between peoples. 
Furthermore it would be feasible for some underdeveloped countries to export 
manufactured goods to the socialist countries, and even for long-term agreements 
to be concluded so as to enable some nations to make better use of their natural 
wealth and specialize in certain branches of industry that would enable them to 
participate in world trade as manufacturing countries. All this can be 
supplemented by the provision of long-term credits for the development of the 
industries, or branches of industry, we are considering; it must always be borne 
in mind, however, that certain measures in respect to relations between 
socialist countries and underdeveloped countries cannot be taken unilaterally. 
It is a strange paradox that, while the United Nations is forecasting in its 
reports adverse trends in the foreign trade of the underdeveloped countries, and 
while Mr. Prebisch, the secretary-general of the conference, is stressing the 
dangers that will arise if this state of affairs persists, there is still talk 
of the feasibility -- and in some cases, such as that of the so-called strategic 
materials, the necessity -- of discriminating against certain states because 
they belong to the socialist countries' camp. 
All these anomalies are possible because of the incontrovertible fact that, at 
the present stage of human history, the underdeveloped countries are the 
battleground of economic systems that belong in different eras. In some of these 
countries, feudalism still exists; in others a nascent, still weak bourgeoisie 
has to stand the dual pressure of imperialist interests and of its own 
proletariat, who are fighting for a fairer distribution of income. In the face 
of this dilemma a certain section of the national bourgeoisie in some countries 
have maintained their independence or have found a certain form of common action 
with the proletariat, while the other part has made common cause with 
imperialism; they have become its appendages, its agents, and have imparted the 
same character to the governments representing them. 
We must sound a warning that this type of dependence, skillfully used, may 
endanger the achievement of solid progress at the conference; but we must also 
point out that such advantages as these governments may gain today, as the price 
of disunity, will be repaid with interest tomorrow, when in addition to facing 
the hostility of their own peoples, they will have to stand up alone to the 
monopolist offensive whose only law is maximum gain. 
We have made a brief analysis of the causes and results of the contradictions 
between the socialist camp and the imperialist camp and between the camp of the 
exploited and that of the exploiting countries; here are two clear and present 
dangers to the peace of the world. It must also be pointed out, however, that 
the growing boom in some capitalist countries, and their inevitable expansion in 
search of new markets, have led to changes in the balance of forces among them 
and set up stresses that will need careful attention if world peace is to be 
preserved. It should not be forgotten that the last two world conflagrations 
were sparked off by clashes between developed powers that found force to be the 
only way out. On every hand we observe a series of phenomena which demonstrate 
the growing acuteness of this struggle. 
This situation may involve real dangers to world peace in time to come, but now, 
today, it is exceedingly dangerous to the smooth progress of this very 
conference. There is a clear distribution of spheres of influence between the 
United States and other developed capitalist powers, embracing the 
underdeveloped continents, and in some cases, Europe as well. If these 
influences grow so strong as to turn the exploited countries into a field of 
battle waged for the benefit of the imperialist powers, the conference will have 
failed. 
Cuba considers that, as is pointed out in the joint statement of the 
underdeveloped countries, the trade problems of our countries are well known and 
what is needed is that clear principles be adopted and practical action taken to 
usher in a new era for the world. We also consider that the statement of 
principles submitted by the U.S.S.R. and other socialist countries forms the 
right basis on which to start discussion, and we endorse it fully. Our country 
also supports the measures formulated at the meeting of experts at Brasilia, 
which would give coherence to the principles we advocate, and which we shall go 
on to expound. 
Cuba wishes to make one point clear at the outset: We must not come here to 
plead for aid, but to demand justice; but not a justice subject to the 
fallacious interpretations we have so often seen prevail at international 
meetings; a justice which, even though the peoples cannot define it in legal 
terms but the desire for which is deeply rooted in spirits oppressed by 
generations of exploitation. 
Cuba affirms that this conference must produce a definition of international 
trade as an appropriate tool for the speedier economic development of the 
underdeveloped peoples and of those subjected to discrimination, and that this 
definition must make for the elimination of all forms of discrimination and all 
differences, even those emanating from allegedly equal treatment. Treatment must 
be equitable, and equity, in this context, is not equality; equity is the 
inequality needed to enable the exploited peoples to attain an acceptable 
standard of living. Our task here is to lay a foundation on which a new 
international division of labor can be instituted by making full use of a 
country's entire natural resources and by raising the degree of processing of 
those resources until the most complex forms of manufacture can be undertaken. 
In addition the new division of labor must be approached by restoring to the 
underdeveloped countries the traditional export markets that have been snatched 
from them by artificial measures for the protection and encouragement of 
production in the developed countries; and the underdeveloped countries must be 
given a fair share of future increases in consumption. 
The conference will have to recommend specific methods of regulating the use of 
primary commodity surpluses so as to prevent their conversion into a form of 
subsidy for the exports of developed countries to the detriment of the 
traditional exports of the underdeveloped countries, or their use as an 
instrument for the injection of foreign capital into an under-developed country. 
It is inconceivable that the underdeveloped countries, which are sustaining the 
vast losses inflicted by the deterioration in the terms of trade and which, 
through the steady drain of interest payments, have richly repaid the 
imperialist powers for the value of their investments, should have to bear the 
growing burden of indebtedness and repayment, while even more rightful demands 
go unheeded. The Cuban delegation proposes that, until such time as the prices 
for the underdeveloped countries' exports reach a level which will reimburse 
them for the losses sustained over the past decade, all payments of dividends, 
interest, and amortization should be suspended. 
It must be made crystal clear that foreign capital investment dominating any 
country's economy, the deterioration in terms of trade, the control of one 
country's markets by another, discriminatory relations, and the use of force as 
an instrument of persuasion, are a danger to world trade and world peace. 
This conference must also establish in plain terms the right of all peoples to 
unrestricted freedom of trade, and the obligation of all states signatories of 
the agreement emanating from the conference to refrain from restraining trade in 
any manner, direct or indirect. 
The right of all countries freely to arrange the shipment of their goods by sea 
or air and to move them freely throughout the world without let or hindrance 
will be clearly laid down. 
The application of economic measures, or the incitement to apply economic 
measures, used by a state to infringe the sovereign freedom of another state and 
to obtain from it advantages of any nature whatsoever, or to bring about the 
collapse of its economy, must be condemned. 
In order to achieve the foregoing, the principle of self-determination embodied 
in the Charter of the United Nations must be fully implemented and the right of 
states to dispose of their own resources, to adopt the form of political and 
economic organization that suits them best, and to choose their own lines of 
development and specialization in economic activity, without incurring reprisals 
of any kind whatsoever, must be reaffirmed. 
The conference must adopt measures for the establishment of financial, credit, 
and tariff bodies, whose rules are based on absolute equality and on justice and 
equity, to take the place of the existing bodies, which are out of date from the 
functional point of view and reprehensible from the stand-point of specific 
aims. 
In order to guarantee to a people the full disposal of their resources, it is 
necessary to condemn the existence of foreign bases, the presence, temporary or 
otherwise, of foreign troops in a country without its consent, and the 
maintenance of colonialism by a few developed capitalist powers. 
For all these purposes the conference must reach agreement and lay a firm 
foundation for the establishment of an International Trade Organization, to be 
governed by the principle of the equality and universality of its members, and 
to possess sufficient authority to take decisions binding on all signatory 
states, abolishing the practice of barring such forums to countries which have 
won their liberation since the establishment of the United Nations and whose 
social systems are not to the liking of some of the mighty ones of this world. 
Only the establishment of an organization of the type mentioned, to take the 
place of existing bodies that are mere props for the status quo and for 
discrimination, and not compromise formulae, which merely enable us to talk 
ourselves to a standstill about what we already know, will guarantee compliance 
with new rules of international relations and the attainment of the desired 
economic security. 
At all relevant points, exact time-limits must be laid down for the completion 
of the measures decided upon. 
These, gentlemen, are the most important points which the Cuban delegation 
wished to bring to your attention. It should be pointed out that many of the 
ideas which are now gaining currency upon being expressed by international 
bodies, in the precise analysis of the present situation of the developing 
countries submitted by Mr. Prebisch, the secretary-general of the conference, 
and many of the measures approved by other states -- trading with socialist 
countries, obtaining credits from them, the need of basic social reforms for 
economic development, etc. -- have been formulated and put into practice by Cuba 
during the revolutionary government's five years in office, and have exposed it 
to unjust censure and acts of economic and military aggression approved by some 
of the countries which now endorse those ideas. 
Suffice it to recall the criticism and censure aimed at Cuba for having 
established trade relations and cooperation with countries outside our 
hemishpere, and its de facto exclusion, to this day, from the Latin American 
regional group which meets under the auspices of the Charter of Alta Gracia, 
namely the Organization of American States, from which Cuba is barred. 
We have dealt with the basic points concerning foreign trade, the need for 
changes in the foreign policy of the developed countries in their relations with 
the underdeveloped countries, and the need to reconstruct all international 
credit, financial and similar bodies; but it must be emphasized that these 
measures are not sufficient to guarantee economic development, and that other 
measures -- which Cuba, an underdeveloped country, has put into practice -- are 
needed as well. As a minimum, exchange control must be established, prohibiting 
remittances of funds abroad or restricting them to an appreciable degree; there 
must be state control of foreign trade, and land reform; all natural resources 
must be returned to the nation; and technical education must be encouraged, 
together with other measures of internal reorganization which are essential to a 
faster rate of development. 
Out of respect for the wishes of the governments represented here, Cuba has not 
included among the irreducible minimum measures the taking over by the state of 
all the means of production, but it considers that this measure would contribute 
to a more efficient and swifter solution to the serious problems under 
discussion. 
And the imperialists? Will they sit with their arms crossed? No! 
The system they practice is the cause of the evils from which we are suffering, 
but they will try to obscure the facts with spurious allegations, of which they 
are masters. They will try to compromise the conference and sow disunity in the 
camp of the exploited countries by offering them pittances. 
They will try everything in an endeavor to keep in force the old international 
bodies which serve their ends so well, and will offer reforms lacking in depth. 
They will seek a way to lead the conference into a blind alley, so that it will 
be suspended or adjourned; they will try to rob it of importance by comparison 
with other meetings convened by themselves, or to see that it ends without 
achieving any tangible results. 
They will not accept a new international trade organization; they will threaten 
to boycott it, and will probably do so. 
They will try to show that the existing international division of labor is 
beneficial to all, and will refer to industrialization as a dangerous and 
excessive ambition. 
Lastly, they will allege that the blame for underdevelopment rests with the 
underdeveloped. 
To this we can reply that to a certain extent they are right, and they will be 
all the more so if we show ourselves incapable of joining together, in 
wholehearted determination, in a united front of victims of discrimination and 
exploitation. 
The questions we wish to ask this assembly are these: Shall we be able to carry 
out the task history demands of us? Will the developed capitalist countries have 
the political acumen to accede to minimum demands? 
If the measures here indicated cannot be adopted by this conference, and all 
that emerges once again is a hybrid document crammed with vague statements and 
escape clauses; and unless, at the very least, the economic and political 
barriers to trade among all regions of the world, and to international 
cooperation, are removed, the underdeveloped countries will continue to face 
increasingly difficult economic situations and world tension could mount 
dangerously. A world conflagration could be sparked off at any moment by the 
ambition of some imperialist country to destroy the socialist countries' camp, 
or in the not too distant future, by intractable contradictions between the 
capitalist countries. In addition, however, the feeling of revolt will grow 
stronger every day among the peoples subjected to various degrees of 
exploitation, and they will take up arms to gain by force the rights which 
reason alone has not won them. 
This is happening today among the peoples of so-called Portuguese Guinea and 
Angola, who are fighting to free themselves from the colonial yoke, and with the 
people of South Vietnam who, weapons in hand, stand ready to shake off the yoke 
of imperialism and its puppets. 
Let it he known that Cuba supports and applauds those people who, having 
exhausted all possibilities of a peaceful solution, have called a halt to 
exploitation, and that their magnificent defiance has won our militant 
solidarity. Having stated the essential points on which our analysis of the 
present situation is based, having put forward the recommendations we consider 
pertinent to this conference, and our views on what the future holds if no 
progress is made in trade relations between countries -- an appropriate means of 
reducing tension and contributing to development -- we wish to place on record 
our hope that the constructive discussion we spoke of will take place. 
The aim of our efforts is to bring about a discussion from which everyone will 
gain and to rally the underdeveloped countries of the world to unity, so as to 
present a cohesive front. We place our hopes also in the success of this 
conference, and join our hopes, in friendship, to those of the world's poor, and 
to the countries in the socialist camp, putting all our meager powers to work 
for its success. 
 

Spoken: March 25, 1964 (Geneva, Switzerland) 
Translated: Official OAS translation