Without naming the Monthly Review, Blas Roca does attempt an answer on Che Guevara's disappearance from the Cuban political scene. "Fidel," said the NE editors, “should be under no illusions thet only imperialiats and their agents are interested in Che's fate." They expressed the hone that Castro would soon clear up the nystery, but they asked: "Ts Fidel Castro aware of the real idgsues at steke in the Guevars affair? And does he realize that every day's delay in olearing up the mystery brings anxiety and doubt to honest revolutionaries everywhere and joy to their enemies?"
Blas Hose simply repeats the sccusations sade in Castro's speech = the sole interest in the matter allegedly liss with the Yankes imperialists, whoso “very active auxiliary foreas" spread all the contradictory rumors about Che Guevara in order to undermine the prestige and authority of the Cuban revelution. The letter from Cha read by Fidel lest Octoker was absolutely "definitive" for "genuine revolutionaries," saya this prestigious authority:
Blas Roca takes up only ome new point, 2 point which I heppaned to advance in the article published in the January 51,1954, Militant, Prom which Blas Reca quotes several timas+ On the assumption, which I eaceepted, that Castro told the truth sbout fueyara's taking a new asaigoment, I called attention to the disproportion in that part of Castro's speech. If it was true that imperialiss was making a big and damaging campaien againat the Cuban Revolution by raising questions about Guavare's disappearsnoa, then i¢ was completely out of keaping to use this as a apringboard for an impilausible attack on "Tretakyien", which would only prove divisive in the revolutjonary movement and would be rejected by the majority of today's ravolutionary vanguard. On tha other hand, it would have been devastating for Che Guevara to imitate Mark Twain and write a letter of greetings to the
a Tricontinental Conference inditeting that the rmimors about his death were erosaly exnereretod.
Here ia Blea Roca's response: "But in view of the facta, of what use would it have been? If before, with the last letter from Ghe, read by Fidel himself, the slanders end malicious speculations of these elements not only did not cease but multiplied, wouldn't they have responded in the same way to a new letter?" Ag if the content and style of such-a letter would not be sufficient to establish its authentioity:
This is Blas Roca'a anawar not only to The Nilitant but to Monthly Review, both of which ralsed the question from the viewpoint of honest revolutionarles concerned sbout the welfare and prestige of the Cuban Hevolution. JDowa Blas Roca really think that the matter can be disposed of with the apithat "“Smperialist agenta"? That kind of answer is salerming-
Sinoe Blas Roca wants it that way, there is little choice but to raise some Further questions:
(1) Dees Che Guevara know about.the spaculation ovar his disappearance Prom the public scene in Cuba? Yes or no?
p88 If he does not know, how is thie to be oxplained?
3) If he does know, why doea he fail to respond to the concarn of his comrades and friends? Why doasn't he indicate to the world that everything is all right with him? At the soment, what single act by him could conceivably be of greater assistance to the Cuban Revolution?
Blas Roca becomes most affusive in praising the "stout and beloved comandante of our revolutionary war", Cha Guevare, and in defending him fron the alleged slanderous attacks of the Trotskylets who, we are told, seek to pit him against Fidel- But Che's opinion of the Trotskyists ia quite a@ifferent from the view contained in the slanders put inéo Castro's January 15 speech. I noted thia in the article in The Militant which Blas Resor olted. Blas Roce ignored the paragrapha quoting the tribute paid by Che Guavers to the Feravian Trotskyist peasant lender, Hugo Blanco, whe has been beld in prison at Arequipa without trial for three years. Neither Guevara's tribute nor the picture of a Trotekylat leader rotting in a Peruvian jail for the "crime" of leading e peasant strugele can easily be fitted into Blaa Rosa's slanderous picture of Trotskyism as a "vulgar instrument of imperislism and reaction."
While Blas Roca is answaring the quastions asked him above about Che Guevara, hea might tell us also if he thought the atout and beloved coacand= ante did wrong in paying tribute to Hugo Blanco. Speak up, Blas Roos, you have the floor..--