Fabio Grobart arranged for a delegation of four University of Havana “students” to go to Bogota. Two would participate as delegates to the “anti-imperialist” Latin American Student Congress which, portentously, was organized to occur simultaneously with the conference inaugurating the Organization of American States (OAS). See El Bogotazo II for details.

The other two were sent as “matones”, gangsters to engage in sabotage and disturbances in the streets. 

Grobart’s intent, in line with the Comintern’s instructions, was to ensure the hand of the Soviets was nowhere to be seen in the events in Bogota, albeit should his actions succeed, the Soviet objective of forestalling the creation of the OAS would be realized.

By looking at the events in Bogota with a critical eye on the age-old Cui bono analysis, contemporaries would have had a good idea who and what were behind the tragic events. But surely, with seven decades worth of hindsight, the Cui bono is clear to all except those who will not see.

Fidel Castro was one of the two “gangsters” whose orders were to create havoc in the streets of Bogota. The other was, like Castro, a member of the violent Unión Insurreccional Revolucionaria (UIR). The teams traveled separately to Bogota.

Castro met with Jorge Eliécer Gaitán on April 7, 1948, and arranged to meet with him again two days later to finalize arrangements for his speech at the “anti-imperialist” congress of students meeting alongside the OAS conference.

On April 9, Gaitán had spent most of the morning at his office, near the OAS conference. After noon, he left his office and headed towards the newspaper offices of El Tiempo where Castro had arranged to meet with him. He had not gotten very far before a man rushed up to him and shot him three times at point blank range. 

The alleged assassin was found inside a drug store and a frenzied mob dragged him out and literally kicked him to death, disfiguring him so badly that his features were unrecognizable and identification had to be made from documents in his person: Juan Roa Sierra, a Gaitán supporter with a history of mental illness. He had been heard begging the police to not let the mob kill him and witnesses claim he was not near the scene at the time of the murder. 

To quote from Keesing’s Contemporary Archives:

“Within a few minutes [of the assassination], armed mobs began looting and setting fire to buildings and stores in the centre of the city, the United States Embassy being the object of a fierce attack …. The Capitol which housed the [conference inaugurating the OAS] was also devastated and a great quantity of the equipment of the conference, together with its records, destroyed or looted …. Delegates suffered considerable hardships due to the interruption in food supplies, power and light services, and other services in Bogota where fires raged for days.”

According to Weyl’s Red Star Over Cuba, two witnesses testified they had heard Roa Sierra say he was going to serve as bodyguard for two foreigners who were going to a desolated area of the country. One of the foreigners was Rafael Del Pino, who was known to have been in contact with Roa Sierra 90 minutes before the murder. Del Pino was one of the “matones” sent from Cuba along with Fidel Castro. These two Cubans fled to the Cuban legation in time to avoid arrest.

To this day, Castro’s presence, let alone participation, in El Bogotazo, is denied or obfuscated. But his fingerprints are all over that murderous event, and even Fidel-friendly accounts by such as Herbert Matthews confirm his presence. The events in Bogota were a great success for the objectives of the Communists in that they destabilized society for well over a decade, while also eliminating Gaitán, who although a fervent leftist, would not support the Communists. These horrible events created the sandbox in which Communist mischief could flourish. Such has been repeated, before and since, globally, especially in Venezuela (not to mention recent chaotic events in the United States, such as the destructive summer riots in 2020).

Although for many, El Bogotazo may seem to be ancient history, of interest to a small coterie of Cold War buffs, it actually speaks to us today, because we continue seeing the same strategies and tactics. When you read about “massacres” and “mass graves” and “assassination plans” and “spontaneous eruptions of oppressed peoples” and so forth, you are well-advised to consider the source and follow the money or at least the Cui bono.

And, especially, consider whether the usual suspects are involved.

That’s a dead giveaway.