ZAREMBO: What did President Fox mean when he said Castro’s last-minute plans to attend the U.N. summit put him “in a difficult situation”? Is there any truth to what Cuba says, that Fox was under pressure from the United States? CASTANEDA: There was no pressure whatsoever from the United States… What President Fox meant is that Castro’s announcement 24 hours before he was coming implied logistical problems, security issues. There were no rooms in Monterrey. When Castro gets upset when Fox suggests, “Will you behave?”–the reason Fox was saying that is because [Castro] never behaves in these summits. Every summit there is a tantrum. Every summit there is a fuss. There is a scandal. Every summit there is an antic to, quote-unquote, steal the show. This is complicated with him: hotel, security, logistics, where to seat him, where not to seat him. And there was a substantive problem, which is that we had a consensus document [on financing development], and we did not want to reopen the discussion because everybody agreed–except Castro perhaps.

Did Castro complain when he wound up staying at the Holiday Inn Express? No, no. But he could have if we hadn’t said [before he arrived] that there is a logistics problem.

Why is a sizable chunk of Congress so eager to defend Castro when his government is becoming more and more isolated? In the case of the PRD [the leftist Partido Revolucionario Democratico], because of their ideological convictions. They are Castroites. They believe in the type of regime and the type of organization of society that exists in Cuba. They obviously have a greater affinity with the government of Cuba than with the government of Mexico.

The case of the PRI [the former ruling party, Partido Revolucionario Institucional] is more complicated. There are some people who do so out of ideological convictions. There are some who do so out of a myth they created [about] Mexico’s policy toward Cuba… It was, yes, maintaining diplomatic relations, but also helping the CIA spy on Cuba from the Mexican Embassy in Havana. The most important sector of the PRI is [defending Cuba] essentially out of spite. They are willing to use any issue to oppose [Fox] and to get back at him for winning the elections in the year 2000.

These congressmen talk of “threatened relations with Cuba.” What is the importance of Mexico’s relationship with Cuba? Practically none. Trade is minimal… There is very little Mexican investment in Cuba… They owe us $380 million, which is the result of all the lending that went on during the 1980s and 1990s.

Mexico has traditionally abstained from the human-rights vote on Cuba. Why did it change its stance this year? It changed its stance for three reasons. One, because the text of the resolution was much more positive, moderate, encouraging to Cuba. Second, because it was drafted and sponsored and cosponsored by Latin American countries… And thirdly, because President Fox’s foreign policy centers on much greater activism in the multilateral arena and in the regional arena.

You were once in the Communist Party. Now Castro calls you “diabolical and sinister.” What turned you against Castro? As far back as 1990, I published a long article in NEWSWEEK titled “The Old Man and the Island”… saying that Castro should go… I have always belonged to a part of the Latin American left that has thought, along with the traditional values of the left–of sovereignty, social justice and equality–democracy and respect for human rights are an indispensable part of that.

Mexico was one of seven Latin American countries to vote against Cuba at the human-rights commission. What is the future of Cuba? We think that one of the main reasons for this new tantrum of Castro’s is his overall situation. He has a major fight with Uruguay, which broke diplomatic relations. With Argentina, which withdrew its ambassador from Havana a year ago. With Costa Rica, which expelled the Cuban consul a year ago. With Chile… He has a fight with practically every government in Latin America today… He is more isolated in Latin America today than he has been in years.