AND
at dawn In 1966, seven decades ago, Havana became the most important place for the meeting of the main revolutionary traditions, which inaugurated a new era of anti-colonial and liberationist political struggle. It was the meeting of the First Conference of Solidarity of the Peoples of Africa, Asia and Latin America, which gave life to the Organization of Solidarity of the Peoples of Africa, Asia and Latin America (Ospaaal) held between January 3 and 15.
The opening fell to the figure of Fidel Castro, who in a broad speech described the course of the Cuban revolution over seven years. In addition to him, the then president, Osvaldo Dórticos, and Osmany Cienfuegos spoke. The closure fell again on Castro, who pointed out the success of creating a tricontinental organization based on the presence of the representation of 82 peoples in search of reinforcing aspirations for national liberation. It highlighted the presence of Latin America for the first time alongside Asia and Africa and noted three cases of vital importance: Vietnam, Yemen and Palestine. That January 15, in addition, the commander in chief dedicated a few minutes to critically dissect the Trotskyist positions, directly mentioning Adolfo Gilly, whom he referred to for his articles on Monthly Review.
In recent times, the then nascent Ospaaal has been read from the Anglo-Saxon academy in an aesthetic key – as its graphics became very popular and significant – or in an “intersectional” view, addressing the North American concern for “race”, as a problem autonomous from the rest of social contradictions. But the truth is that during those 12 days of discussion, more elements emerged that outlined a scenario of growing political complexity.
Firstly, the tricontinental had a much more radical view of the Bandung Conference, held in 1955 and a broader call than the Mexico Conference, in 1961. The presence of revolutionary Cuba, despite its agreement with the Soviet Union, did not prevent an expansion beyond the dominant binomial in the cold war. The possibility of developing solidarity, not only symbolic, but also material, around decolonization, opened a broad front that included the fight against the “mechanisms of action of colonialism and neocolonialism,” which also involved formally independent nations.
The final resolution pointed out aspects such as the technical backwardness produced by neocolonialism and how it generated low productivity of rural and urban workers. It also pointed out the right of people to a healthy life and to receive health care from the States. Emphasis was placed, nearby, on the forms of discrimination and racism that were described as “disgusting, brutal and diabolical”, especially the politics of the apartheidbut without splitting off from other forms of oppression.
The political resolution enabled the use of revolutionary violence in the face of the violence of the imperialists and called on the anti-colonial vanguards to exercise it responsibly. The map provided by the resolution looked at the way in which some nations, such as Japan, Korea and Thailand, were used as platforms for aggression against nations that sought their sovereignty.
The commissions that met also gave their respective resolutions. Some of them ranged from classic topics such as the economy and the cultural presence of imperialism, to others less known and referred to in contemporary reviews, such as the commission on public health, on the conditions of the cultural revolution, on scientific-technical changes, on social security and cultural heritage and even on physical education.
Among the specific resolutions, those referring to Vietnam and Palestine stood out. The first was the most extensive and concluded the need to form a tricontinental solidarity committee whose headquarters would be Havana and intensify solidarity with that people. The second defined Zionism as “an imperialist movement by nature” and considered the Zionist State as an “imperialist base” from which “phantom governments” in the region were supported.
Regarding Latin America, the Conference had to pronounce not only on Cuba, but also on the aggressive offensive against the Dominican Republic in 1965. In addition to this, the presence of armed movements in countries such as Peru, Venezuela and Guatemala were important issues and their implications were not easy to reach. The Ospaaal action confronted the conflicts and divisions caused by the different national liberation struggles and diverse conceptions, in addition to the dispute between China and the USSR. But the truth is that that meeting certified Cuba as an engine of significant changes in the panorama of the cold war.
* UAM Researcher
