In the film Che, Part 1: The Argentine, the audience gets a glimpse into the physical struggle for the rise to power gained by Castro and his followers in Cuba. It is interesting to see, especially in the scenes where Che, or Guevara, is addressing the other countries of the United Nations, how he feels about the support of the Cuban government and the actions taken by other nations. However, one gets a more in depth and direct approach into how Guevara feels about worldwide action taken by the United States to combat communism in his “Message to the Tricontinental Congress.” Guevara does not accept the United States excuse that it is stopping communism but feels that the US government is power-hungry and materialistic. These leaders, according to Che, will stop at nothing to achieve their goals, even exploiting the innocent, like the South Koreans. One could inquire if Che was using the United States’ actions to make the revolution, which he played a major role in, appear more successful to countries around the world. Guevara is aware that the United States is one if Cuba’s largest threats and most likely would want as many allies as possible if it came to a war.
Guevara knows that if he makes the United States look like their only goal is the occupation and successive material gains from occupying countries like Vietnam and Korea, and not the concern for the citizens of this country, that less people will be likely to support the war effort made by the United States. Although Guevara obviously is not alive at this time to comment on it, his same argument could be seen in the US fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, with the Middle East being a prime source of oil. Guevara also makes a very profound statement about the United States involvement in other countries in his speech, “Guerrilla Warfare: A method.” Most of the recent wars that the United States has been involved in have been mainly carried out through guerrilla war style, including in Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, and Iraq. As history and current events show, the United States has not been completely successful in any of these wars, which makes one stop and think when Guevara states that guerrilla type wars can only be won with support from the people.
Another nation, like the US, cannot come in and win a war of this type unless the home nation is backing it. One can see how easy it now is to figure out why the US has not been successful, concluding that these particular wars may not be in the nest interest of the people of these countries. This does not mean, however, that the United States does not think that it is doing these countries a favor or that they entered these conflicts solely for material gains. Guevara is obviously showing that a successful revolution, like that of the one in Cuba is only possible if the citizens of that country are unhappy and willing to fight for the type of government that they believe in.
Interesting point about Guevara's attitude towards America. I agree, it would be interesting to hear his opinion on the present day wars that America is facing, although his reaction would probably be predictable. Also,I agree that a victory is more likely when the people are angry, when they have a little bit of fire behind them.
ReplyDeletei think an interesting point was made in one of the readings where he was talking about the conditions for revolution could be made during the course of inciting the revolution and that the realization of the educated peasants that the imperialist machine was trying to consume their country would motivate them to unite and revolt
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to determine if the U.S. has been successful in our wars in the Middle East. From Che's perspective, the U.S. could never win in the middle east because we will never have the complete coroporation of the local people. At this point I think the U.S. is hoping to show force for continuing trade. You bring up an interesting point, what would Che have to say about the U.S. now; probably that things haven't changed all that much since our actions in South America.
ReplyDeleteThe U.S. steps in a majority of conflicts that occur international. They are the powerhouse of all the nations but from readings that involve Latin America the U.S. seems to look like the bad guy. Latin America is a nation that attempts to better itself but every attempt to take a step forward seems to knock Latin America back down. I think Che's attempt to fight against all these nations at the conference shows this but we see this dream destroyed once the U.S. steps in.
ReplyDeleteI did like the movie's incorporation of Che's interviews and speech to the UN. He definitely was not a fan of the United States political involvements, and being raised in the US my entire life, I too, have been accustomed to not being a fan of the way that Che handled his politics. It's interesting the point that you make about how Che would view the involvement of the politics of American warfare today. I, too, think it would be the same outlook as everyone else stated. He would hold the same position.
ReplyDelete