(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
Intellectuals from 70 countries, gathered for a congress in Havana, encourage writers, scientists, artists, teachers and students to step up the fight against imperialism, each participating in the fight for the liberation of the world's people. This must, it says, also involve a cultural boycott of the United States: rejection of all invitations, scholarships, assignments and participation in cultural or research assignments, where such acceptance will be a support, directly or indirectly, to US policy and reputation. in the world.
Norwegian participants at the conference, which lasted from 4. to 12.January were the authors Sigbjørn Hølmebakk and Georg Johannesen and the philosopher Dag Østerberg.
Participating from Sweden were Göran Palm and Göran Therborn, from Denmark Ivan Malinovski, Asger Jorn and Bente Hansen, from Germany Hans Magnus Enzensberger, from France André Gorz and from the UK Herbert Reed, Robert Blackburn and Arnold Wesker. Otherwise, there were large delegations from a number of Eastern European, African and Latin American countries, and an American delegation that met, despite the difficult US authorities in the past.
Jean-Paul Sartre recently suffered a heart attack and was unable to attend. But he sent Congress a letter expressing his solidarity. This sense of solidarity also came to characterize the conference and give it a more political edge than originally intended.
"What struck me most is precisely this solidarity with the liberation movements and the people who are fighting for their independence," Sigbjørn Hølmebakk told Orientering.
“When you come to the Soviet, you encounter slogans of peaceful coexistence. In Latin America, such a claim would be unthinkable. There, it is understood that armed struggle, fundamentally, is the only possible path to liberation.
In my commission – the Intellectuals' responsibility in relation to the underdeveloped countries – there were also several strong clashes between Soviet and Latin American representatives. The latter blamed the Soviet's credit for the guerrilla regimes and what they perceived as leniency in the revolutionary struggle.
The conflict was also openly expressed when Congress passed a declaration calling for increased guerrilla warfare. Soviet representatives wanted an addition: where conditions allow. But this was rejected; Congress did not want such an addition.
It was strange to see these Soviet representatives standing there defending themselves. There was a long talk about the superiority of communism in relation to capitalism. Finally, the conductor had to point out that the theme was the responsibility of Soviet intellectuals towards the exploited lands.
Otherwise, Che Guevara was the major review figure at the congress. He was hailed as the prototype of "the new man," and the podium was adorned with quotes by him. "
How did you as Norwegians experience this meeting?
"First of all, we got a very good insight into Latin America's problems. Secondly, and that was perhaps the most important thing, we got to experience Norway through the eyes of others. It is an illusion to think that Norway is considered a small, decent country. In the outside world, they see us as America's allies and co-oppressors. They know very well that we are boycotting Cuba, North Korea and North Vietnam, that we are sending our king to the gorilla regimes in South America and otherwise they will take harmless positions for us when matters come up in the UN.
But the great thing about the congress was this: that intellectuals from all over the world came together for the first time, formulated their demands and took up the fight against the cultural oppression that is one of the most important and most neglected aspects of the liberation struggle. "
So what can intellectuals do?
"The Havana appeal concludes with a call for a cultural boycott of the United States. That was perhaps the most important concrete result of this congress. I think it is a meaningless thing that socialists today who are opposed to the United States receive scholarships from there – just as meaningless as if they had received German scholarships during the Nazi era. And I think it's important that this comes out, because I have the impression that university people and others often get tied up in criticism of the United States. If not, lose the generous offers. But in the current situation we should take the unequivocal stance that we say no.
Castro otherwise asked where Europe's intellectuals were during the Cuba crisis, and it is my impression that Latin Americans attach greater importance to the role of intellectuals – and questions related to their work – than, for example, the Soviet Russians and the Chinese.
By the way, it is my opinion that the most important thing we can do is to fight at home in our own arena. I also expressed this during my speech at the congress: Through our NATO membership, our country has become a tool for American imperialism. We are allied with the oppressors, we cooperate with dictatorships such as Portugal and Greece and participate in military exercises with Nazi war criminals. At the behest of the United States, we are boycotting the most progressive underdeveloped countries and making our own territory available to the United States and its worldwide military strategy. Therefore, our struggle and the struggle of Latin America will be one and the same; therefore, we no longer demonstrate alone against foreign embassies, but also against our own Storting.
The reaction to the congress here in Norway has then also approached the complete silence. An interview in the radio's current broadcast and a protest in VG seem to be the whole thing.
It is utterly pointless that the press and broadcasting have shown such a negative attitude. If you look at this in relation to the publicity the trial against the Soviet authors has received – a trial I myself dissociate myself from – then it is an obvious discrepancy. At the congress, a list of prominent Latin Americans who had been killed, imprisoned or tortured was read out. Half of them were writers. Many of the participants also had to live in illegality or exile. But look, Norwegian television did not dare to bring any material about. One of the reasons for this was perhaps precisely VG's protest. But then one must ask: Is it Verdens Gang's editor who will decide the program activities in NRK? Or is one only interested in the repression that does not concern the United States and our own authorities?
I think this is another example of how crackingly uninterested people here at home are in the so-called developing countries' problems. Instead, people are pious about a development aid that the oppressed really only shrug their shoulders at, because they know that it cannot solve their problems, "says Sigbjørn Hølmebakk.
