logo
Mexico City bids adiós to monument to Castro and ‘Che' Guevara

Mexico City bids adiós to monument to Castro and ‘Che' Guevara

Los Angeles Times11 hours ago
MEXICO CITY — Goodbye, Fidel.
Hasta la vista, Che.
Denunciations and accolades greeted the abrupt removal this month of a controversial monument in the Mexican capital commemorating the two revolutionaries, Fidel Castro and Ernesto 'Che' Guevara.
The monument, a pair of bronze, life-sized sculptures of Castro and Guevara chilling on a bench, recalls a consequential moment in both Mexican and Cuban history — the pair's first meeting, which took place in an apartment in Mexico City in June or July 1955, according to historians.
At the time, both were twentysomething militants in the formative stages of their transformation into leftist icons who would inspire a global generation of revolutionaries and activists.
A leftist Mexico City government installed the monument in 2017 in a small park in the capital's Colonia Tabacalera neighborhood, not far from where the storied duo first met in a Cold War encounter that has taken on near-mythical dimensions among many on the left.
In the two sculptures, both men stare straight ahead and are decked out in light combat garb — Guevara in his trademark beret (a look immortalized on T-shirts across the globe) and Castro sporting a fighter's cap. His legs crossed, Castro grasps a cigar in his left hand, and a book on his right. Guevara's right hand secures a pipe.
The sculpture has long sparked polemics: While adherents of the left generally applauded it, and some visitors would leave flowers, critics assailed the artwork as a tasteless shrine to a bloody communist dictatorship.
Spearheading its removal Wednesday was Alessandra Rojo de la Vega, conservative borough president of the capital's central Cuauhtémoc district, where the bench (known as Encuentro or Encounter) was situated.
Her decision, Rojo de la Vega initially explained on social media, was based on legality — not politics. She said there wasn't 'one single paper' authorizing the monument's installation. Its removal, she added, would allow park denizens to stroll in 'liberty and security.'
She posted images of city workers prying out the two figures from the bench and the bronzed Castro and Guevara being ignominiously hauled away in a bulldozer.
But the borough president later pivoted to a more ideological rationale.
'This city cannot ... promote or provide refuge for figures who injured human dignity, be it in Mexico or the rest of the world' Rojo de la Vega told Radio Formula.
As to the fate of the dual bronzes, she said that officials may consider a sale, using the proceeds — likely from lefty purchasers enthralled with the Cuban uprising — for park upkeep.
'If we auction them off, it will mark a first — the communists will use their money, not someone else's,' Rojo de la Vega said. 'If they love them so much, they can put them in their garden, or their patio.'
Not pleased was Mexico's leftist president, Claudia Sheinbaum, who said she would speak to the Mexico City mayor — a political ally — about placing the monument elsewhere.
The question isn't whether one embraces or rejects the views of the two protagonists, Sheinbaum argued to reporters on Thursday. The Castro-Che encounter, the president said, recalled 'a historic moment' that unfolded in Mexico and merited a display of memory.
The contretemps here echoes spats in the United States about monuments glorifying Confederate generals: Critics decry the displays as exalting traitors and white supremacists, while others argue that the statues just reflect history.
In the case of the Castro and Guevara likenesses, Sheinbaum suggested that their removal was partisan payback for her own signature monument-canceling moment — the banishment of one of Mexico's most illustrious landmarks, a virtual symbol of the city.
In her former post, as mayor of Mexico City, Sheinbaum ordered the removal of a soaring bronze of Christopher Columbus, which, for more than a century, graced a pedestal in the capital's elegant Paseo de la Reforma. The stylized tableau depicted Columbus as a noble conqueror: one hand raised to the horizon, the other lifting a veil from a globe.
For years, Indigenous activists and others staged protests at the statue, labeling Columbus and other conquistadores as perpetrators of genocide. In 2020, Sheinbaum finally ordered that the Columbus monument be taken down for renovations; it was never returned to its lofty perch.
Its ejection enraged both Columbus' admirers and others who viewed the monument as an integral marker of the Mexican capital. They accuse Sheinbaum of bowing to political correctness.
The traffic circle where Columbus long lent his presence has now been renamed the Women Who Fight roundabout, a rallying point for Indigenous, feminist and other protesters hoisting handwritten placards.
The grandiose Columbus figure, meantime, remains out of public sight in museum storage.
The Castro-Guevara bench, situated in an easy-to-miss park, didn't compare in size or significance to the towering Columbus of the stylish Paseo de la Reforma. But its removal lit up social media, rekindling historic enmities.
'An intent to erase the symbols of battle, of resistance, of Mexican-Cuban humanity,' César Huerta, a left-wing journalist, wrote on X, blasting the action as 'ideological censorship.'
A radio commentator, José Luis Trueba Lara, bid good riddance, calling Guevara 'an assassin with good press' and Castro a 'bloodcurdling dictator.'
Carlos Bravo Regidor, a columnist, berated the left for being more concerned 'about the retirement of some miserable statues of Fidel and el Che than for the misery suffered by those who live beneath the yoke of the Cuban dictatorship.'
At the time of his 1955 encounter with Guevara, Castro, then 28, was not long out of a Cuban prison for an insurgent attack against the U.S.-backed Cuban dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista.
Guevara, one year younger, was a physician from a middle-class Buenos Aires' upbringing brimming with revolutionary fervor — and a vision of a pan-Latin American socialist union, free of U.S. 'imperialism.' The two young men immediately hit if off, historians say, embarking on a lifelong friendship and collaboration in the revolutionary project.
Both would be among 82 fighters aboard the yacht Granma that, in November 1956, set sail for Cuba from Mexico's Gulf coast. Their voyage, and subsequent guerrilla campaign, would culminate in 1959 in a historic overthrow of Batista and the imposition of a communist government in Havana.
Fidel and el Che are long gone, and the book on the Cold War officially closed more than a quarter-century ago. But, as the fiery debate here about an unassuming bench statue illustrates, the ideological fault lines of the Cold War are far from completely obscured, at least not in Latin America.
Special correspondent Cecilia Sánchez Vidal contributed.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump administration sanctions Mexico over air carrier trade pact
Trump administration sanctions Mexico over air carrier trade pact

UPI

time39 minutes ago

  • UPI

Trump administration sanctions Mexico over air carrier trade pact

The U.S. Department of Transportation announced sanctions against Mexico for violating a trade deal at Mexico City's international airport. File Photo by Bill Greenblatt/UPI | License Photo July 20 (UPI) -- The Transportation Department has announced a series of actions against Mexico for violating a years-old bilateral air carrier trade pact. The department said Mexico has not been in compliance with the airline competition agreement since 2022 when it took back some slots for flights for U.S. air carriers at Benito Juarez International airport in Mexico City and forced U.S. cargo planes to shift their operations to other parts of the city. "Since 2022, Mexico has altered the playing field significantly for airlines that reduce competition and allow prominent competitors to gain an unfair advantage in the U.S.-Mexico market," a release from the Transportation Department said. "The United States and Mexico have an air services agreement... that commits both parties to a liberalized operating environment for all has walked away from its commitments." Mexico has said it rescinded the slots to make room for construction at the airport, but the work has yet to materialize three years later, the transportation department contended. "By restricting slots and mandating that all-cargo operations move out of [Mexico City International Airport], Mexico has broken its promise, disrupted the market and left American businesses holding the bag for millions in increased costs," the release continued. The "America First" actions enacted by the Trump administration require Mexican airlines to file schedules with the transportation department for all of their U.S. operations, mandate prior DOT approval before operating any large passenger or cargo aircraft charter flights from the United States and addressing anti-competitive issues in the market. Mexico seized slots from U.S.-based carriers American Airlines, Delta Airlines and United Airlines, as well as from three Mexican airlines -- Aeromexico, Viva Aerobus and Volaris -- to make room for the construction. "Despite repeated outreach from the Department, Mexico has not provided any information regarding when these slots would be returned or any major construction projects at MEX will ever materialize," the release continued. Duffy added that the United States is also reviewing trade agreements with other countries to determine if they are being violated, including pacts with some European nations.

Donald Trump's Immigration Approval Slips: Poll
Donald Trump's Immigration Approval Slips: Poll

Newsweek

time2 hours ago

  • Newsweek

Donald Trump's Immigration Approval Slips: Poll

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Six months into his second term, President Donald Trump is losing support on one of his cornerstone issues—immigration—according to a new poll published on Sunday. Why It Matters Trump's second term, now at the half-year mark, has largely been characterized by his immigration and border security agenda—issues he emphasized heavily during his campaign last year. He has vowed to carry out the largest mass deportation effort in U.S. history, leverage tariffs to strength border security, and limit crossings. The initiative has seen an intensification of ICE raids across the country, with thousands of people having been swept up and arrested, including immigrants residing in the country illegally and legally, with valid documentation such as green cards and visas. The administration has detained and deported thousands of people to their countries of origin, as well as a smaller percentage to third countries with U.S. agreements, including El Salvador, Uzbekistan, South Sudan and Eswatini. What To Know A CBS News/YouGov poll published Sunday surveyed 2,343 U.S. adults on a range of topics related to Trump's agenda and actions. The poll found that Trump is losing support on his immigration platform, with 58 percent of respondents opposing the administration's use of detention facilities. Views split sharply along party lines: 93 percent of Democrats said they opposed the detention policies, while 85 percent of Republicans expressed support and just 15 percent opposed them. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points. Several people have died in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities over the past months, including 75-year-old Cuban national Isidro Perez, who passed away in June at a hospital after suffering a heart issue while in a Miami ICE facility. Earlier this month, a 57-year-old farmworker died from injuries sustained in a 30-foot fall during an ICE raid. In recent weeks, human rights advocates have raised concerns about a new Florida detention center, dubbed "Alligator Alcatraz," which was quickly created on Everglades land and holds an estimated 1,000 beds currently. ICE is struggling with limited capacity and resources to fulfill its mission of millions of deportations. In addition to the $45 billion to expand ICE detention centers allocated in Trump's "big, beautiful" bill, the White House is trying other ways to increase capacity, including new detention center contracts issued for private companies GEO Group and CoreCivic. President Donald Trump takes part in a bill signing for cryptocurrency legislation in the East Room of the White House on July 18. President Donald Trump takes part in a bill signing for cryptocurrency legislation in the East Room of the White House on July 18. Francis Chung/POLITICO via AP Images More broadly, support for Trump's deportation program has declined in recent months. Sunday's poll found that 51 percent of respondents disapprove of the program, while 49 percent approve. That marks a notable drop from a similar February poll, when 59 percent approved, and from 54 percent in a June poll. Similarly, Republicans heavily backed the program, with 91 percent in support compared to 14 percent of Democrats. Forty-one percent of independents back it. Overall, the poll found that public approval of Trump's handling of immigration has declined in recent months. In the latest survey, 56 percent of respondents said they disapprove of Trump's handling of immigration, while 44 percent approve. That marks a 10-point drop in approval since a CBS News poll in March, when 54 percent approved and 46 percent disapproved. The poll finds Trump's overall approval rating at 42 percent, with disapproval rating at 58 percent. The poll was published an hour after Trump praised his ratings among Republicans on his Truth Social account. While his overall approval rating has declined, Trump remains popular among Republicans, with several polls showing he retains around 90 percent support within the party. The survey comes nearly two weeks after a Gallup poll of 1,402 showed a steep drop among Republicans wanting immigration levels into the U.S. decreased—falling from 88 percent in 2024 down to 48 percent in June. More Americans also indicated that they viewed immigration as having a positive effect on the country, hitting 79 percent in June. The Gallup poll was conducted between June 2 and June 26. What People Are Saying CNN pollster Harry Enten wrote in a July 17 X, formerly Twitter, post: "X isn't real life. Post-Epstein saga, Trump's approval with the GOP (~90%) may actually be slightly up. He's at/or near his apex w/ the GOP. How? Just 1 respondent said Epstein was the top problem facing the U.S. Cong Dems, OTOH, are at their worst standing with Dems ever." Stephen Yale-Loehr, a former immigration professor at Cornell University, previously told Newsweek: "The Gallup poll results show that President Trump's mass deportation efforts are backfiring. Americans realize that immigration is good for the country and that we need immigrants to grow our economy." David Bier, director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute, previously told Newsweek in a statement: "The poll shows clearly that the public is reacting negative to President Trump's immigration agenda. People wanted chaos at the border ended. They didn't want the chaos shifted into the interior, into their streets and communities." Representative Mike Levin, a California Democrat, wrote in an X post Saturday: "Latest Reuters poll shows disapproval for Trump's immigration policy has surged since February. Americans want security AND humanity, not cruelty and chaos. That's why we need bipartisan, common sense reform like our DIGNITY Act, rooted in real solutions." What Happens Next? The Trump administration has pledged to continue its immigration policies and plans to expand capacity at detention centers. The Republican backed spending legislation drastically increases funding for immigration enforcement efforts, likely leading to more detentions and deportations.

Robert A. Pape: To prevent nuclear war in the Middle East, America needs to change its nuclear doctrine
Robert A. Pape: To prevent nuclear war in the Middle East, America needs to change its nuclear doctrine

Chicago Tribune

time11 hours ago

  • Chicago Tribune

Robert A. Pape: To prevent nuclear war in the Middle East, America needs to change its nuclear doctrine

The world is moving closer to the brink of nuclear war in alarming ways that are more dangerous and harder to anticipate than during the Cold War. The famous 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis was a harrowing near miss, but today's nuclear dangers are more complex. This is due to a variety of factors, particularly coming together in the Middle East: increasing tensions across the region, growing risks of nuclear proliferation, and now perils of surprise military attack during crises involving states with nuclear weapons or on the cusp of nuclear weapons. Israel's recent 12-day war against Iran is a harbinger of potentially growing nuclear dangers to come. For the first time in history, two nuclear armed states — Israel and the United States — bombed a state, Iran, with a major nuclear program that many believe is on the threshold of acquiring all the physical and technical capacities necessary to produce nuclear weapons within a matter of months. For sure, the 12-day war involved a series of attacks and counterattacks that were terrifying to live through, and there was great relief when they came to an end. However, the future is even more concerning. First, Israeli and American bombing did not obliterate Iran's nuclear program, as President Donald Trump astonishingly declared before he received bomb damage assessments. As is now widely agreed among U.S. defense intelligence, Israeli intelligence and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the air strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan did not eliminate Iran's stockpiles of highly enriched uranium. Although uncertainly remains about Iran's next steps, there is little doubt that Iran could attempt to produce a 'crude' bomb in a matter of months. And it is important to understand, a 'crude' bomb means a Hiroshima-style weapon that could lead to the deaths of 80,000 people from the immediate effects of the blast. Second, future information about Iran's nuclear program is fraught with high degrees of uncertainty. From the beginning, Iran has allowed IAEA inspectors to have tremendous access to monitor its nuclear enrichment program. True, these inspections have fluctuated over time and have never been as fully comprehensive as many would have liked. However, for decades, the quarterly IAEA reports have been crucial for high confidence assessments about the scale of Iran's enrichment program and whether vast amounts of enriched uranium have not been siphoned off to develop nuclear weapons. Now, Iran has reportedly banned IAEA inspectors from its nuclear facilities, and the fear and suspicion about a surprise nuclear breakout will grow over time. Third, and most important, the 12-day war shows that the fear of surprise attack is now fully justified. It is important to recall that the war started June 13 with a stunning, Pearl Harbor-like surprise attack by Israel on Iran's nuclear sites. Israel's bolt-from-the-blue strike occurred without warning and while Iranian negotiators were preparing to meet with their American counterparts just days later. Given these events, Israel, the United States and Iran now face the specter of one of the most terrifying scenarios for nuclear war: the 'reciprocal fear of surprise attack.' That's a situation in which both sides of a potential conflict fear being attacked first, leading them to consider — and possibly launch — a preemptive strike to avoid being caught off guard. The most worrisome aspect is that striking first in these circumstances has an element of rationality. If one side thinks the other is preparing for a surprise attack, then attacking first, even if it carries risks, may be the best way to reduce one's own losses. Of course, nuclear war is so horrible that the reciprocal fear of surprise attack may never lead to an actual outbreak of war. If so, then the prospect of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons would not be a problem in the first place. Alas, we need to take this danger seriously. What can be done? Although there are no perfect solutions to the reciprocal fear of surprise attack, there is one step that would significantly matter: For the United States, Iran and Israel to declare that they would never be the first to use nuclear weapons in a crisis involving Iran. The general idea of 'no first use' pledges, as they are called, arose during the Cold War, but the United States has never been willing to make such a promise. At the time, this was thought of in the context of the U.S., Europe and Soviet contest in which America needed the implicit threat of the first use of nuclear weapons to offset the Soviet conventional military threat to U.S. nonnuclear European allies. The Middle East is clearly different. America's main ally, Israel, is a powerful nuclear weapons state and so does not rely on U.S. nuclear weapons to deter attacks on its homeland. For the United States, Israel and Iran to agree a limited no-first-use policy would not end the tensions over Iran's nuclear program. However, it would energize negotiations and avoid some of the worst ways that a nuclear war could inadvertently occur. The Nobel Laureate Assembly to Prevent Nuclear War taking place at the University of Chicago recently was a perfect place to begin a national conversation about the value of adapting U.S. nuclear doctrine to today's realities in the Middle East. If this assembly of the most brilliant minds on the planet could recommend this historic step in which the U.S., Iran and Israel each pledge they would not be the first to use nuclear weapons in the dispute involving Iran's nuclear program, this would be a meaningful step toward preventing nuclear war in one of the most dangerous regions in the world.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store