INTELLECTUALS' DEBATE CONTINUES

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 HAVANA 000143

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/08/2017
TAGS: PGOV KPAO CU
SUBJECT: INTELLECTUALS' DEBATE CONTINUES

REF: A) HAVANA 48 B) HAVANA 56

HAVANA 00000143 001.3 OF 002


Classified By: Chief of Mission Michael Parmly for reasons 1.5 (b) and
(d)

1.(C) Summary: The unprecedented debate among Cuban
intellectuals prompted by the reappearance of three 1970s
censors on Cuban state television (refs a, b) continued to
build momentum in the last few weeks. A January 18 statement
by the government-run Union of Artists and Writers (UNEAC)
did not end the debate, as hundreds of intellectuals joined
the email exchange. The regime could not ignore the protest,
and Culture Minister Abel Prieto held several meetings with
disgruntled intellectuals. Outspoken literary critic
Desiderio Navarro, who has emerged the protest,s ringleader,
organized a January 29 eight- hour marathon debate, in the
presence of regime officials, among 450 artists and
intellectuals. Those not invited to attend, including
younger generation intellectuals, protested their exclusion.
The Cuban intelligentsia saw the meeting as the beginning,
not the end of the discussion, and continued to call for more
debate on freedom of cultural expression. End Summary.

2.(C) UNEAC,s January 18 statement in support of the
intellectuals, published in government daily &Granma8 under
the caption &The Cultural Policy of the Revolution is
Irreversible,8 failed to end the furious debate over the
reappearance of the 1970s censors, as the regime might have
hoped (ref b). Email exchanges among hundreds of
intellectuals, both inside and outside of Cuba, continued
unabated. A series of meetings among intellectuals and
audiences with Culture Minister Prieto culminated in a
January 29 mega-meeting organized by writer Desiderio Navarro
at the Theoretical Cultural Criteria Center. In the presence
of Prieto and other regime officials, and with 450 writers
and artists in attendance, Cuban intellectuals openly
criticized the doctrinaire cultural policy of 1970s &grey
five years8 (which some describe as the &black decade8)
and opposed any attempt to limit cultural expression. Noting
that the &dinosaur8 had been re-awakened, essayist Ambrosio
Fornet provided a historical reckoning of the 1970s &grey
period8 in his opening remarks. Under the direction of the
former censor, Luis Pavon Tamayo, the imposition of cultural
dogmatism from 1971-1975 led to repression of Cuban
intellectuals, some of whom were sent to re-education camps
while many others were marginalized for their non-Orthodox
views, religious beliefs or lifestyle choices, Fornet
recounted. The present discussion of the &grey period8 he
concluded, &also projects forcefully into the future8
against the danger of history being repeated.

3.(C) An open dialogue ensued for eight hours (truncated only
by the airing of the latest video of Fidel Castro that same
evening),according to writer Reynaldo Gonzales, and a broad
consensus emerged that any return to the grey period would be
stopped. He characterized the debate as a &turning point.8
A USINT contact present at the meeting told us that some
participants raised larger issues of freedom of expression.
Not everyone was able to participate in this invitation-only
event, however, and some of those who had been excluded
protested outside. The younger generation was particularly
underrepresented, and one young writer told the press that
the meeting was a &white-wash.8 Many of those who
participated agreed that one meeting was not sufficient and
that the debate must continue.

4.(C) The discussion both at this meeting and in the
continuing email exchanges has been critical and forward
leaning. In his intervention, writer Leonardo Padura Fuentes
described the snowball effect of a few emails and the
explosive reaction that unleashed an &earthquake of pain and
indignation in the conscience and memory of Cuban artists.8
Padura characterized the UNEAC statement as not at all
satisfactory, and far from ending the debate, was only the
beginning. The need fr an open and inclusive debate, he
argued, was not limited to intellectuals but concerned the
whole of Cuban society. In an open letter to Navarro, film
producer Enrique Colina, advised that the intellectuals,
debate should be televised and the emails published.
Referring to television news program &Mesa Redonda,8 he
commented &I don,t care if the tables are round, square or
rectangular,8 but the same criticism that is directed toward
world issues must be directed internally toward domestic
problems that cannot be blamed only on the U.S. embargo.
Colina called for &the recognition of the inalienable right

HAVANA 00000143 002.3 OF 002


of citizens to demand accountability of their
representatives,8 and concluded that &If there is a will
for change, it will come progressively, through a delicate
readjustment of internal forces, within and outside the
Party, which obliges an honest and valiant contribution of
intellectuals.8

5.(C) The intellectuals, debate was also the centerpiece at
the weekly rollout on February 3 of a new book at the
downtown bookstore of the Cuban Writers Union. The star of
the February 3 event was none other than Desiderio Navarro,
the organizer of the January 29 meeting and one of the
leaders of this debate, whose book &The Cause of Things8
(&La Causa de las Cosas8 ) actually a collection of
Navarro,s essays from the past several years) was being
presented. The audience was several times larger than usual
for the Saturday morning event, leading it to be moved
outside the normal location and onto the square of the
tourist-packed Plaza de Armas. In attendance in the front
row ) also a first, according to regular attendees ) were
three Politburo members: Assembly President Ricardo Alarcon,
official Havana Historian Eusebio Leal, and Minister of
Culture Abel Prieto. (The three Politburo reps did not speak
at the event.)

6.(C) Navarro and several philosopher/writers held the floor
for over an hour. All remarks revolved around the place of
intellectuals in contemporary Cuban society, with acerbic
references to &negative periods in the past.8 Navarro was
subtle but unmistakable in contrasting &those with power
versus those with knowledge.8 With evident irony, he
concluded that the two groups were not mutually exclusive,
but that it was not easy for them to co-exist. The first
chapter of Navarro,s book is even more direct, denouncing in
no uncertain terms the totalitarian mindset. Amcit
journalist Gary Marx commented afterwards that despite the
large turnout at the rollout, &almost no average Cuban8 is
aware of the intellectuals, debate. The book, which was put
on sale after the event, sold out at the bookstore.

7.(C) Comment: The critical dialogue among intellectuals has
been the buzz of the nomenklatura for weeks. Intellectuals
are an isolated class, however, and it is true that few
average Cubans are aware of the debate. One of our key
cultural interlocutors sees it as a distraction, and is not
confident that the intelligentsia would have the same courage
in the face of government repression. Thus far, however, the
government is tolerating, if not engaging this debate for the
purpose of appeasing the intellectuals, while the
intellectuals are vowing to continue pushing the limits.
PARMLY