CUBA: Cabinet Split

The storm of protest against Fidel Castro’s confiscatory agrarian-reform law * rolled into the acoustic-walled Cabinet room in Havana’s presidential palace one night last week and brought on the first major split in the Cuban revolution. From 9 p.m. until 2 a.m., ministers snapped at each other across the oval mahogany table. For five of his 20 ministers, Castro had short, blunt rebukes:

¶ To Foreign Minister Roberto Agra-monte: “You are not a revolutionary minister.”

¶To Interior Minister Luis Orlando Rodríguez: “You embarrass me.”

¶To Welfare Minister Elena Mederos: “In five months you have done absolutely nothing.”

¶To Health Minister Julio Martinez Páez: “All you have been doing is inspecting toilets.”

¶To Agriculture Minister Humberto Sori Marin: “You have been publicly critical of land reform.”

The notion of an Agriculture Minister who had misgivings about land reform naturally infuriated Castro, and Havana heard that the other chided ministers, particularly Agramonte, were also fainthearted about the drastic law. Castro’s answer was to fire them all and replace them with more fervent yes-men.

Small-Holder Protest. Outside the Cabinet, Castro fought for his law with threats, cajolery and left-wing bombast. “Land reform will not be stopped even if the sky rains spikes,” he angrily told the National Newsmen’s Association. In the Havana Hilton’s glittering banquet room, he pleaded with 1,000 lawyers, once the main supporters of his rebellion but now disturbed and doubtful: “Revolution implies change. An immense majority of the people lack bread.” The next night he blustered over TV: “If at some time it is necessary to apply revolutionary justice anew, we will defend the revolution.” His Agrarian Reform Institute boss, Antonio Núñez Jiménez, a longtime Communist-liner, said opponents should “buy a plane and fly out of the country before the people give them what they deserve.”

The opponents stood their ground—which is chiefly the round green hills of tobacco-growing Pinar del Río province. The 20,000 farmers united there in the Group of Owners of Rustic Estates held four big rallies that showed the most outspoken opponents of land reform to be gnarled-handed small holders. Felix Fernÿndez Pérez, the group’s president, owner of 149 acres and once exiled as a fervent Castro supporter, told 1,000 cheering men: “Castro has fooled us.” Said semiliterate Farmer Macho Villar, who also fought for Castro: “I will continue to defend my land as long as I have breath, because I obtained it with the sweat of my brow and it is the only thing I have to leave my children.”

Note from Washington. The U.S. joined the debate with a note on behalf of U.S. landowners, whose 1,633,000 acres are subject to expropriation. Endorsing land reform as a force for social progress and acknowledging Cuba’s right to expropriate foreign-owned property, the note reminded Cuba that “this right is coupled with the corresponding obligation for prompt, adequate and effective compensation,” and asked “further exchanges of views.” A few nights later, Castro went on TV to say that the U.S. note was “an insinuation that served to awaken our people.” Cried Castro: “There are only two groups I recognize in Cuba: those who wholly support the revolution and those who are joining the reactionaries.”

* The law—the most drastic land-reform law in Latin America—calls for expropriation of all individual landholdings greater than 995 acres, except for sugar cane, rice or cattle farms, which may be as big as 3,316 acres. Even smaller landholdings may be partially expropriated to give any squatters or sharecroppers on the land the “vital minimum” of 66 acres per family. Owners of seized lands get the tax-assessed value, which is usually well below the real market. Payment is in 20-year, 4½% bonds, of which the interest and the proceeds, if any, must be reinvested in Cuba. Foreigners are barred from buying or inheriting land. Beneficiaries of the land redivision may not sell, mortgage or transfer the land, and only one person may inherit the holding. The peasant beneficiary must finance his operations through the Agrarian Reform Institute, and if a holding is not tilled according to the dictates of the Agrarian Reform Institute, it may be seized again after two years.