Traducción para Cubadebate Damaris Garzón
It would be difficult to describe the footprints that Che left in America with more eloquence than that used -with the intention of degrading him- in a Wall Street Journal article written in October 2007, on the 40th anniversary of his capture and murder in Bolivia.
The article, entitled "40 years later, Che's shadow is still felt in Latin America", reveals the reasons for which the empire viciously persecuted and assassinated the individual they describe as an ideologue of communism and of the armed revolution initiated by the third world against the West'. The article affirms that Che was too revolutionary even for Cuba, and that this was the reason why Fidel Castro sent his revolutionary ally to promote a revolution in other countries.
"When alive, Che had little direct influence outside Cuba, but his legend has made much more than sell t-shirts to dissatisfied wealthy kids", WSJ's article ironically claims.
"The paranoid anti-capitalist economic doctrine of Che are obviously attractive to many latin americans today. Many countries in that region have elected governments directed by Che sympathizers -from Salvador Allende's Chile in 1970 to Evo Morales' Bolivia or Rafael Correa's Ecuador today", the article comments.
The article points at the supposedly negative influence generated in the region by the ideas instilled by Che's struggle. It also hints at the idea that Che's example has denied Latin America from a great state of continental welfare'.
"When Che died in 1967, productivity growth in the region was average, when compared to global production. From then onwards, it has fallen below the level of other regions. Only Brazil and Chile have behaved acceptably in this respect, thanks to the large periods during which these countries were governed by right wing military rulers who managed to repress Che's ideology".
It then speculates: "without Che's legend, the annual growth rate would have been 1% higher. It can then be said that this revolutionary has costed the region $1.3 trillion in annual internal growth".
It emphatically concludes: "the t-shirts are cheap, but Che has ended up being an expensive icon".
The implications for Latin America that WSJ attributes to Che are, in reality, result of the economic and social disaster caused by neoliberal policies, imposed to the region by Washington's global economic strategy, following two decades of military dictatorships and police repression in the region, in consultation with US advisers.
Washington designed the recipe for a representative democracy in which political parties are controlled by local oligarchs in accordance to neoliberal electoral rules. This was done once Washington felt forced to abandon their previous strategy, that of stimulating social struggle and armed revolutions such as the one that triumphed in Cuba, and in which Che pioneered with his example.
Now, the system of US-based transnational corporations, whose interests reflects the WSJ, realises in astonishment that the will and decisiveness of Latin American peoples in their struggle to achieve sovereignty and freedom did not die with the assassination of Che.
Although it is true that armed struggle was the only option left open by the empire for nations to achieve sovereignty and freedom, whenever the ballot boxes were presented as the alternative to represent popular demands, many revolutionaries accepted the challenge.
Thus, a new scenery is appearing in the region, a scenery in which, during the last twenty years and for the first time in history, only in very exceptional cases a presidential candidate backed up by Washington has been elected. Instead, the current heads of state count with the support of a population that, like never before, feels identified and can project their wishes into political programmes.
They are not always marxist leaders or consistent revolutionaries -in the same way in which not all patriots who chose to take up the arms were so- but they have in common the fact that they unambiguously defend the independency of their nations and reject servile subordination to the hegemony of the USA.
The struggle has not become easier because the empire and the oligarchs have turned more understanding. On the contrary, revolutionary struggle continues to be hard because it is fought within systems designed by the oligarchy, with rules that always play on their favour and benefit the supremacy of their interests.
The new reality of Latin America, with an undefeated cuban revolution and many electoral victories by leaders who oppose the oligarchies and reaffirm the sovereignty of their nations is the result of Latin American rebellious spirit - of which Che is an icon- With its struggle, the region confronts the claims to absolute control with which the USA tried to suffocate the issues raised by the cuban revolution.
The peoples of America were not, and will never be, willing to accept tyrannies such as Pinochet's, genocides like Plan Condor, or the subjugation of their dignity and sovereignty to the dictates of corporations through treaties like the ALCA, intended to bring about the economic development rates and other ridiculous benefits mentioned by the WSJ.
Che's ideas were always, even at the time when he joined Fidel Castro's group in Mexico to fight against the tyranny in Cuba, those of an independent Latin America, socially united and just. Those ideals matured and gained depth when he faced the reality of the fight, and when he confronted the biggest enemy, imperialism.
He first joined the contingent of 82 young men in the expedition of the Granma yatch, which landed in Cuba in December 1956. Due to his strategic and tactical talents, as well as because of his courage and boldness in combat, Che's role became more central to the guerrilla. Soon he was in charge of one the Rebel Army's five major columns, and was the first to gain the rank of Commander, which until then was only held by Fidel Castro.
As the guerrilla's doctor, enemy's prisoners were often entrusted to Che, and the care they received often caused them to surrender, convinced of the meticulous respect to human rights given by the Rebel Army to their captive enemies.
Totally identified with Cuban patriotic ideals, Che became in a very short space of time, one of the principal leaders in the struggle for the liberation and construction of a revolutionary Cuba.
Following victory, he took up executive responsibilities in various areas of civil life, without abandoning the area of Defense.
He carried out his role of president of Cuba's National Bank and minister of Industry. In both areas he made significant contributions to economic theory and practice, from the revolutionary position of a nation struggling against under development.
He was self-taught, self-prepared and with the same boldness that characterized him as a guerrilla, he became a referent of the most advanced ideas of socialist thought.
His rigorous leadership style was based on being extremely demanding with himself; his sharp critiques were accepted by everyone due to the honest nature that lay behind them; the respect inspired by his total dedication and devotion to work; and his loyalty to Fidel Castro's guide, brought him to the highest pedestal of popularity in Cuba.
His participation in international events and his contacts with important figures in third world nations contributed to extend his international prestige as one of the most representative icons of the cuban revolution.
Among his most outstanding revolutionary qualities lie his passion for justice, his humanism, his generous nature, being an advocate of leading by example, and the harmonic structure that his political, economic and military ideas reached in his short life.
Politically, he was a loud and proud Marxist, who rejected intransigent dogma and hoped to strip marxism-leninism from doctrinal ties and bureaucratic tendencies which prevented the advance of the revolution.
The example set by Che in his advocacy of the revolution has left much more than the myth and the image that today mobilize millions of oppressed, exploited, excluded and dissatisfied people around the world.
Che did not go to Bolivia to die, in the same way as he did not go to Cuba to die, or to Africa, before starting the struggle in Bolivia. He went to demonstrate always with his example, the decisiveness that had to guide the actions of oppressed peoples. He knew the risks and he fully took them on board.