“MR. PRESIDENT .. .

You Are Taking A
Highly Dangerous Road”

M* President:

I have received your reply
of April 18. You write that the
United States does not intend
to commit a military interven-
tion against Cuba. But numer-
ous facts known to the whole
world — and to the govern-

‘ment of the U.S. of course

better than anybody else—
speak differently. For all de-
nials, it has now been proved

- béyond doubt that it was pre-
\ cisely the United States that

prepared the intervention, fin-
anced the invasion and trans-
ported the gangs of mercenar-
ies which invaded the terri-
tory of Cuba. U.S. armed
forces also took a direct part
in the realization of the gang-

* ster attack on Cuba. Ameri-
“can bombers and fighters sup-

ported the operations of mer-

cenaries who landed on Cuban
territory and took part in mili-

tary operations against the
atmed forces of the lawful
government and the people of
Cuba.

Such are the facts.
speak of direct U.S. participa-
tion in the armed aggression
against Cuba.

In your message you took
to the road of justifying and
even lauding the atack on
Cuba, this crime which has
revolted the entire world.

You try to justify the organ-

ization of a military attack on
Cuba, committed for the sole

“reason that the way of life
* chosen by its people does not}
*accord with the tastes of the|

ruling circles of the U.S. and
the North American mono-
poliés operating in Latin
America, by talk about the
U.S. government’s. allegiance
to the ideals of ‘‘freedom.”
But, one may ask: What
freedom are you talking
about? Is it freedom. to
strangle the Cuban people by

- the bony hand of hunger

through the establishment of
an,yeconomic blockade? Is this

.. freedom? Is it freedom to send
. military: planes over the terri-
. tory of Cuba, to subject peace-
- ful Cuban cities to barbarous

«: bombings, to set fire to sugar

came plantations? Is this free-

-sdom?

~< another was

History offers many in-
stances where, under the pre-
text of the defense of free-
dom peoples were drowned in

‘blood, colonial wars were wag-

éd; and one small nation after
taken by the
throat. In this case, you ap-

~» parently mean a striving of

si
é

Theyj

the U.S. government to re-
store in Cuba a “freedom” un-
der which this country would
dance to the tune of her more
powerful neighbor and foreign
monopolies would again be
able to plunder the national
wealth of Cuba, to wax rich
on the sweat and blood of the
Cuban people. But it is pre-
cisely against such “freedom”
that the Cuban people accom-
plished their revolution when
they threw out Batista who
may have loyally served the
, interests of his foreign mas-
ters but who was a foreign
element in the body of the
Cuban nation...

As for the Soviet Union, we
have stated on many occa-
‘sions, and I am stating again,
that our government does not
seek any advantages or privi-
leges in Cuba. We do not have
; any bases in Cuba. And we do
not intend to establish any,
and this is well known to you,
to your generals and admirals.
And if despite this, they still
try to frighten the people by
fabrications about Soviet bases
in Cuba, this is obviously de-
signed for simpletons. But
| there are fewer and fewer such
'simpletons, including in the
United States, I hope...

*

Mr. President, you are tak-

Think of it. You speak of your
rights and commitments and,
of course, anyone can claim
this or that right. But then
you will have to admit that
other states, too. can base
their actions in similar cireum-
stances on the same arguments
and considerations.

You allege that Cuba can
lend her territory for actions
against the United States. This
is your surmise. It is not based
on any facts. We, on the other
hand, can already refer to
concrete facts, and not sur-
mises. In some countries bor-
dering on the Soviet Union,
on land and sea, governments
exist at present which follow
a policy that is

ing to a highly dangerous road. |

far from the rest of China. It threatens

reasonable, governments which

have concluded military. trea-|
ties with the United States]

and have made’ their territory
available for the  establish-
ment of American military
bases. And your military say
openly that these. bases are
spearheaded against the Soviet
Union. As if this were not
clear as it is.

If you consider yourself en-
titled to take such measures
against Cuba as the U.S. gov-
ernment has been resorting to
lately, you must admit that
other countries have no lesser
grounds for acting in the
same way with regard to the
states on the territory of
which preparations are really
being made which constitute
a threat to the security of the
Soviet Union. If you do not
want to sin against elemen-
tary logic, you must, appar-
ently, concede this right to
other states.

We, for our part, do not;
hold such views. We consider
that the arguments on this
score adduced in the United
States are not only a very free
interpretation of international
law but, to put it plainly, open
advocacy of a perfidious pol-
ICY 4.8

Or take the U.S. actions
with regard to China. What
standards of law can be invok-
ed to justify these actions? It
is known to all that Taiwan is
an inalienable part of China.
This has been admitted also by
the government of the United
States whose signature stands
under the Cairo Declaration of
1943. But later, the U.S. seized
Taiwan, i.e., took, in effect,
to the road of brigandage. ~

The Chinese People’s Repub-
lic announced its natural ‘stri-
ving to reunite the territory
of Taiwan with the other
Chinese territory. But how
did the United States react to
this? It declared that it would
use armed force to prevent re-
unification of this Chinese
territory, seized by it, with

in Cuba.

importance to our readers.

N APRIL 22 Premier: Khrushehey sent this letter

(slightly abridged here) to President Kennedy. So
| far the President has failed to reply to the letter, which
is a powerful and effective indictment of U.S. actions

This letter was suppressed by the daily newspapers.
in Canada, except for making snide attacks on it. The
Pacific Tribune is happy to bring its readers the main
part of this letter which we consider to be of great

war if China takes steps to-
ward the reunification of Tai-
wan. And this is being done
by a country which has offi-
cially recognized that Taiwan
belongs to China! Is this not
perfidy in international rela-
tions? If such methods ‘were
to become predominant in the
relations among states, there
would be no place left for law.
Its place would be taken by
lawlessness and arbitrariness.

So, Mr. President, your sym-
pathies are one thing—and ac-
tions against the security and
independence of other peoples,
undertaken on the basis of
such sympathy are very
much another. You may of
course, express your sym-
pathy with imperialists
and colonialist countries. This
does not surprise anyone.
For example, you vote with
them in the United Nations.
This is a matter of your mor-
ality. But what has been done
against Cuba is no longer mor-
ality. It is gangsterism .. .

*

The declaration you made
to the representatives of the
press must arouse great alarm
in the world. For you actually
announced some sort of right
to use military force whenever
you find it necessary and to
crush any peoples at any time
you decide that the declared
will of these peoples appears
to you to be ‘communism.’ But
what right have you, what
right has anyone to take away
from the people the possibil-
ity of choosing of their own
free will their social and pol-
itical system? oo

Has it ever occurred to you
that other countries, too, could
make the same demand as you,
could declare that you have in
the USA a social system which
gives rise to war, and conducts
an imperialist policy of threats
and attacks against other
countries? There are grounds
for such accusations. If one
were to proceed from the posi-

tion you now proclaim, then,
| obviously, demands could be

May 12, 1961—PACIFIC TRIBUNE—Pas?

‘naturally cannot conce@® 49

made for changes in the *
ternal system of the USA: —

As you know, we do not
take such a position. Wé are
advocates of the peaceful ©
existence of all states and
non-interference in the in®
nal affairs of other countrié® |

But aggressive, bandit acl!
ities cannot save your system
In the historical process of #
development of human society
each people itself decides 27
will continue to decide
destiny of its own country: —

As for the Soviet Union, the
peoples of our country settle
this question finally. and cont
pletely over 43 years ago: Ww
constitute a socialist state. ON
social system is the most ie
of all that have existed unl
now because in our counlll
all the means of productio®
are owned by those who woh” |
This, indeed, is a contagio"
example and the sooner
need to go over to this sy§
is realized, the sooner
whole of mankind will at
at a really just. society.
will ,at the same time, put i
end to wars once and for ®)

You, Mr. President, did y
like my words in my previ? i:
message that there can be.
stable peace in the worl of
there are flames of war 4
where. But this is really ,
The world is a single wh af
whether anyone likes it oF Ne
and I can only repeat wha
said. It would not do to adi, |
the situation and put out ge
flames in one area and i? e
a new conflagration i?
other.

The Soviet state has al
been a consistent defend?!
the freedom and independ
of all peoples. Therefor 9

te? |
the |
ive

wi

the United States any righ ye
control the destinies of 0%
countries, including the one
tries of Latin America: 1
consider that any interfer y
by one state in the aftail®
another; especially arme® jf)
terference, is a violatiO? i»
all international laws, the P nt!
ciples of peaceful coex!® ip"
which the Soviet Union }# jg
variably advocated sinc® 9,
very first days of its exist™