1973-04-05

Welcome to Latin American Press Review, a weekly selection and analysis of important events and issues in Latin America as seen by leading world newspapers with special emphasis on the Latin American press. This program is produced by the Latin American Policy Alternatives Group.

Excélsior reports from Mexico City, the finance ministers of 24 nations representing the Third World signed a condemnation of the 10 richest nations, which, without taking into account the interests of the international community, revalued their currencies on the 16th of March. The minister of finance of Venezuela, who presided at the meeting, claimed that the developing countries cannot support a system of decision making in which they are not allowed to participate and went on to describe the consequences of the devaluation. First, the liquidity of the Third World countries has been affected. Second, economic planning has been disrupted. Third, special drawing rights on the International Monetary Fund have been reduced. Fourth, the devaluation retarded the growth and diversification of foreign trade. And fifth, the buying power of existing reserves has been diminished. The Venezuelan minister emphasized that developing countries have not been allowed a voice in the discussions of international monetary reforms.

There are changes going on in Chile these days. Excélsior of Mexico City reports from Santiago. President Salvador Allende announced his new cabinet, which excludes its former military members, and recommended the continuation of a clear and energetic political economy to avoid the spiraling inflation which endangers the benefits won by Chilean workers under the Allende regime. Five days after the collective resignation of his 15 ministers, Dr. Allende retained nine of them, transferred one to another ministerial post, and named five new ministers.

Undoubtedly, the most important change is the retirement of the three military members of the former cabinet, including General Carlos Prats, commander in chief of the Armed Forces, who held the interior minister post and Air Force Commander Claudio Sepulveda, former mining minister. Circles opposed to the Popular Unity government interpreted the dismissal of the military representatives as a triumph of the more radical over the moderate sector of the governing coalition. Nevertheless, President Allende maintained that the retirement of the military from the cabinet resulted from the fact that "I considered that they completed their mission," which led them to form part of the administration, namely to resolve the crisis provoked by the wave of strikes last October and to assure the normal development of the electoral process, which culminated in the congressional elections last March.

After explaining that the military ex-ministers will continue to make their contributions with patriotism and responsibility to the technical completion of their activities and to the development of the national economy, President Allende referred to the present economic situation of the country, which he said, "Obliges us to a clear and drastic political economy, which will carry us forward without vacillation. This cabinet," he went on, "Must forcibly combat the hoarding of consumer goods, the black market, and must protest once more against the inaction of the Congress, the instrument which is empowered to punish those forces which injure the economic life of Chile and cause incalculable social damage." Allende also exhorted the leaders of the parties, which constitute the Popular Unity government, to impose a discipline which will eliminate the spontaneity of some sectors in order to demonstrate that we, the popular representatives, understand the great historical meaning of the process which is developing in our country. This report from Excélsior.

The recent meeting of the Economic Commission for Latin America, a respected and influential branch of the United Nations, has provoked a great deal of discussion in the Latin American press. Excélsior of Mexico City reports that Raul Prebisch, Executive Secretary of the Commission, issued a call for serious structural reforms in Latin American countries. "These reforms," he said, "are a necessary, though not sufficient condition, for overcoming the contradictions that imported technology creates for Latin America." He discussed the difficulties that the Economic Commission has had in its work because of forces opposed to development in Latin America and called for renewed strength within the organization for objective research. The Latin American economist spoke out against what he called "dependent capitalism" saying that its benefits were limited to elites and did not extend to the great majority of people.

In a speech sent from his hospital bed to the Commission's meeting, Peruvian President Velasco Alvarado, spoke of the great revolutionary current in Latin America of which he felt his own country was an example. Mexico's official participation in the conference took the form of several warnings, including the danger of international trade and tariff agreements, which are made without the participation of Third World nations. The Mexicans also requested that ECLA begin a systematic study of the characteristics of multinational corporations in Latin America whose activities in the region seem to be a major source of economic decision making.

Latin America, a British periodical, points out that the main feature of this 25th anniversary meeting has been more bitter Latin American criticism of the United States. So, with the United States veto in the Security Council in Panama last week and the Organization of American States meeting in Washington next week, the United States will have been Latin America's whipping boy three weeks in a row. "What may cause anxiety in the State Department," Latin America writes, "is the stark public revelation of the incompatibility of interests between the United States and Latin America."

The Cuban speaker encountered widespread Hispanic support when he said that, "At the present moment in history, there is no community of interests between the United States of America and the other countries of the hemisphere." He attracted even more sympathy for criticizing proposals to move certain Economic Commission agencies from Santiago de Chile to Washington and even for calling for the expulsion of the United States, Britain, France, and the Netherlands from the Commission so that it could be truly representative of Latin America and the Caribbean.

Garcia of Santiago writes, "After months of relative lethargy, the guerrilla seemed to have reawakened at least in three Latin American countries. In different degrees, the Dominican Republic, Venezuela, and Argentina have suffered violent incidents these past few months. Although the streets in the Dominican Republic are still being patrolled by the army, tanks have now disappeared from sight, leaving the country relatively quiet after the excitement over the Army's apprehension of a guerrilla group last month. In Venezuela on the other hand, there has been strong urban unrest in the past two weeks. In Caracas, the disturbances began as a student protest against the closing of the Central University."

In Argentina, according to La Prensa of Lima, "A kidnapped executive has been released after being imprisoned eight days by a guerrilla group. Sources close to the executive, who is in charge of a large metallurgical factory near Buenos Aires, said that he had paid a ransom of more than five million Pesos for his release." According to the industrialist, he was kept under guard of masked men who served him his meals and brought him books to read. The books, he complained bitterly, mostly had a leftist slant. That from La Prensa of Lima.

La Nacion reports from Buenos Aires. In Montevideo, the armed forces courted troops all over the country and sent controls through all central areas of the capitol. After which the generals denounced the immorality of Congress of the political parties and the public administration and announced that they would not hesitate to eliminate any obstacles to what they termed public happiness. The message from the three branches of the military, which lasted 22 minutes, was broadcast to the entire country with the approval of President Juan Bordaberry. The military leaders said that the Congress and other groups were obstructing reforms promised to the armed forces by Bordaberry last February. It emphasized the corruption of government officials who borrowed money from the Central Bank to pay for electoral campaigns and luxurious homes. The military denunciation fell as a political bombshell in Uruguay. All but one political party abstained from comment.

The nature of the new power struggle in Uruguay is extremely ambiguous. Richard Gott of The Guardian sees some of these major changes as ones that will affect power alignments on the continent. He explains, "For the past few years, Uruguay has been little more than a satellite of Brazil, but with the explosion of nationalism in Argentina with the Peronists back in power and its growth in Uruguay itself in military form, there will now inevitably be new links across the river plate between Argentina and Uruguay." On the other hand, Latin America claims that some reformists believe the initiative is now slipping back into the hands of the right wing with an alliance between the right wing military and Bordaberry.

Also, despite reform-minded comments such as, "The Tupamaros will continue to exist so long as that economic and social conditions which led to their formation persist. A new proposed law sounds as repressive as ever. This legislation would make possible indefinite detainment on a military order of persons whose conduct suggests they might be inclined to commit crimes against the state, persons who have assisted persons who are accused of planning to commit crimes against the state, persons who frequent the same places as those accused of crimes against the state, and persons who might be associated with subversive elements through the possession of some object which had belonged to the subversive elements."

Latin America also points out that the preamble of the new law refers to instincts of special ferocity, genuine criminal delirium, the flowering of inherited tendencies, subhuman fear and vengeance, peculiar to psychopathic personalities. This immediately denies the serious and real challenge presented by the Tupamaros and attempts to explain away an entire organization with all its political and operational complexity in terms of individual pathology. This from Latin America, The Guardian, and La Nación.

Pulusani, with the Associated Press, discusses the current situation in Argentina. The Peronist's, victorious in this month's election, now face a struggle from within. When he was in power, Juan D. Perón always referred to his movement as multi-class, but it never was so diverse then as now, with urban guerrillas and leftist youths sharing ranks with labor leaders, wealthy ranchers, and prosperous businessmen. "The polls were only the first battle," said a militant young Peronist. "The next fight will be to fix government policies after May 25th. That is inauguration day."

The Peronist's already are arguing about limiting foreign investment, state control of major industries, possible expropriation of a few foreign companies, and whether a growing reform should include land expropriation or simply press for increased production without touching private property. United States and European pharmaceutical companies, for example, are caught in the policy struggle. Mayoria, a Peronist newspaper, has charged that some of these companies manufacture drugs here without the safety standards applied in the United States and Europe. The article was written by young doctors who recently became Peronists. They argued for stiff state controls to safeguard health and possible nationalization of the pharmaceutical industry.

The president-elect Campora is to become the first Peronist president since Perón was ousted in 1955, ending a labor oriented government that changed the face of Argentine society. Although vilified by the nation's military leaders, Perón managed to rebuild his movement by supporting the left, praising young radicals, and denouncing the military. Peronism became the principle opposition to the unpopular, authoritarian, military government in power since 1966. This attracted thousands of businessmen, white collar workers, university students and professors, authors, artists, doctors, scientists, and technicians.

The middle class boom showed at the polls and Campora won with nearly half the vote, upsetting public opinion polls. The Peronist dominated Congress was also elected with the help of left and right wing political parties that joined a Peronist coalition to end military rule. Now Perón, Campora, and the other old guard leaders must live with new heroes emerging from the Peronist ranks.

Echoing problems in the United States, the Miami Herald reports from Mexico City. Thousands of butcher shops in Mexico City refuse to sell beef to protest government fines for passing on higher costs to consumers. The butcher sold pork instead. Some shops were closed. An organization of small businessmen claimed that 12,000 of an estimated 14,000 butcher shops in the Capitol had cut off beef sales between Saturday and Tuesday. Others said only about 3000 shops were involved. Supermarkets continued to sell beef.

You are listening to Latin American Press Review, a weekly selection and analysis of important events and issues in Latin America as seen by leading Latin American newspapers. This program is produced by the Latin American policy alternatives groups. Comments and suggestions about the program are welcome and may be sent to us at 2205 San Antonio Street, Austin, Texas. This program is distributed by Communication Center, the University of Texas at Austin.

Juan Perón's electoral victory in Argentina and the political embarrassment suffered by the United States in Panama in March indicate a new willingness on the part of Spanish-speaking countries in Latin America to assert themselves. This has left Brazil, one of the United States' strongest supporters in the hemisphere, in an increasingly isolated position. This week's feature from Rio de Janeiro's Opinião discusses the possibilities of and fundamental reasons for a diplomatic realignment, which seems to be taking place in the Western Hemisphere.

Opinião asks, "Does some antagonism exist between Brazil and the rest of Latin America? Is Brazil the second-largest country in the Americas trying to exercise a type of sub imperialism in the hemisphere? And with the rush of huge foreign firms to Brazil, is that nation not transforming itself into a type of bridgehead over which the companies will carry out their actions in the hemisphere or is it exactly the opposite of all this? While Brazil transforms itself rapidly into a modern industrialized nation, are the majority of neighboring countries bogged down without direction in a swamp of under-development, looking for a scapegoat to explain their own failures and afraid of Brazilian development? Are they not the ones who are conspiring to encircle Brazil?"

As strange as these questions seem, they have influenced the actions of a good number of nations of the continent. Ever since President Nixon affirmed at the end of 1971 that as Brazil leans, so leans the rest of Latin America. Accusations and denials of a pretended hegemony have been issued with frequency from Brazil as well as from its neighbors. At the end of March, for example, an important leader of the Peronista party denounced a Washington Brasilia access and the ambition of the Brazilian government to try and exercise a delegated leadership and serve as a bridge for the entrance of an ultra capitalistic form of government incompatible with the interests of Latin America.

Opinião continues by noting that the declarations of the Peróneus leader are perhaps the most dramatic in a series of events which appear to be separating Brazil more and more from Spanish America. In Panama, the Panamanian foreign minister, speaking at the close of the United Nations Security Council meeting, talked about the awakening of Latin America and referred to the almost unanimous support of neighboring countries for panama's demand that the United States withdraw from the canal zone. To this same meeting, the Brazilian foreign minister had sent a telegram of evident neutrality, asking only for just and satispharic solutions to the problem of the canal.

After the meeting of the Security Council, the ministers of Panama and Peru announced that they are going to suggest a total restructuring of the Organization of American States, the OAS. Brazilian diplomacy, however, has systematically supported the OAS, which is seen by various Latin nations as an instrument used by the United States to impose its policies on the continent.

It was the Organization of American States which legalized the armed intervention of a predominantly American and Brazilian troops in the Dominican Republic in 1965. The Organization of American States also coordinated the political, economic, and diplomatic isolation of the Cuban regime within the Americas. Another event in February of this year can also be interpreted as a tendency away from Brazil's foreign policy, this time in the economic sphere. President Rafael Caldera announced that Venezuela, one of the richest nations in Latin America, and until recently, closely tied to the United States, would join the Andean Pact, an association formed in 1969 by Ecuador, Chile, Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia.

The pact was one of the solutions devised by the Andean nations to overcome the obstacles to regional integration found in the Latin America Free Trade Association. These nations saw the association as an instrument for large European and American firms, based in Argentina, Mexico, and Brazil, to realize their transactions more easily.

Opinião continues. "Today when the Argentinians have already announced that their intention to join the Andean Pact, where there are significant restrictions on foreign capital. Brazil is preparing a plan destined to permit the survival of the Free Trade Association. Thus once again, moving in the opposite direction of its Spanish-speaking neighbors. At the same time Brazil faces another political problem in the Americas. During the past decade, various nationalistic governments have appeared on the continent with widely divergent tendencies, including Chile, Peru, Mexico, Ecuador, and most recently Panama and Argentina. This new situation has given rise to a policy of coexistence, which is termed by the diplomats as ideological pluralism. This pluralism accepts the collaboration among governments of different natures and is opposed to the ideological frontiers against communism practiced by the Organization of American States, an idea which seems to orient Brazilian diplomacy to the present day."

Opinião speculates that Peronism could be the new element which will separate Brazil even more dangerously from the rest of Latin America. Representatives of the government elect in Argentina have already announced their intentions to denounce accords reached by the Brazilians and the present Argentine government over the utilization of the water of the Paraná River. At the same time, many nations in Latin America believe Brazil is trying to create its own sphere of influence. As typical examples, they cite the cases of Paraguay and Bolivia. The latter nation received $46 million in aid from Brazil last year while during the same period, the United States contributed only a little more, 52 million.

Opinião concludes that Brazil's economic growth, obvious favor in the eyes of American business and government officials, and the search for areas of influence, all indicate the emergence of a Brazilian sub imperialism in Latin America. There are two interpretations of this new phenomenon however as Opínion notes. "One sees Brazil always acting in accord with American interests while others feel it is acting for its own ends." To explore the subject further, Opínion offers three special reports from its correspondence on relations of Brazil with the rest of Latin America.

Opinião diplomatic correspondent filed the following report. "The idea of a diplomatic plot against Brazil is at best speculation. Concretely, Brazil's diplomacy in Latin America is in great difficulty, and therefore, there exists a possibility of isolation. The announcement of Brazil's foreign minister that he will visit the Andean Nations implies a recognition of this possibility and is an evident effort to avoid a total collapse. But the basic reason for the phenomenon is in Brazil's fixation with instruments of policy considered outmoded, such as the Latin American Free Trade Association and the Organization of American States, even the North Americans since this and in a recent interview, William Rogers, the United States Secretary of State, suggested a transformation of the OAS, the Organization of American States. However, Brazil clings to these old organizations."

Opinião correspondent continues. "In mid-March, the Brazilian Department of State announced that it was preparing a plan to save the Latin American Free Trade Association and that Brazil saw this as indispensable to the solution of Latin America's commercial problems. Other Latin nations feel, however, that the 12-year-old association has done nothing to fulfill its promise and has benefited the great Latin American firms, the only ones with the power, organization, and dynamism necessary to take advantage of the concessions granted to encourage industrial development. The consequences of the Free Trade Association agreements have been that the multinational corporations have established a division of labor among their Latin American factories. Through the agreements, they trade with one another and even win new markets while benefiting from suspensions of tariffs."

The Brazilian idea of integration through the Free Trade Association appears therefore as an attempt to create an ample market for multinational corporations. An OAS study of the continent's economy in 1972 affirms that 90% of all manufactured goods produced are made by subsidiaries of American firms. These firms export 75% of their products to other Latin countries and over half of this commerce is, in reality, internal trade between different branches of the same corporation. It is therefore clear why United States corporations are so interested in Latin American free trade. It opens a market too attractive to be ignored. Brazil's efforts to save this free trade area are not likely to find support in the rest of Latin America. As to Brazil's fixation on the Organization of American States, the recent meaning of the United States Security Council in Panama seems to have decreed the end of that obsolete instrument. The president of the OAS was not even invited to speak at the meeting.

One Latin American commented that the OAS evidently no longer had any importance in the solution of Latin American problems. With the demise of the Organization of American States, the rigid ideological stance of Latin America, born of the Cold War, will also disappear. Opinião correspondent concludes that, "Latin America is now going to assume its own personality in the pluralistic context and this is the reality which Brazil must recognize if it wants to avoid the total collapse of its Latin American diplomacy."

But the battle is really not against Brazil as some poorly informed or cynical editorialist pretend. Opinião correspondent says, "The battle is against the action of the great imperialistic powers that transformed Brazil into a spearhead for their interests." He says, "In this rich dialectic of Latin American history, the presence of a Brazil, overflowing with economic power and ready to join the Club of the Great Nations, encountered the Treaty of Cartagena, which created the Andean Pact in an effective agreement, which integrates six nations and imposes severe restrictions on foreign investment. The Peronists want to join this pact, and given the economic structure of the Andean region, it is clear that Argentina's entrance constitutes a necessary contribution to the solution of problems which affect the viability of the agreement."

Opinião analysis continues with a report on the significance of the elections in Argentina for the rest of the continent. Perón's triumph in the March 11th elections was the most important fact of the past few months in Latin American history when there were many decisive events. When Perón launched his party's platform in December of last year, he ended his message to the Argentine people by prophesizing, "In the year 2000, we will be united or we will be subjugated." The Argentine people believed this and when they elected Perón's party, they not only voted against 17 years of military inefficiency, but also, with a consciousness of the importance of historical development, and opted for the union of Spanish-speaking America. It was not only Perón's program, which created a consciousness of the problem. Undoubtedly, the country's geopolitical awareness was a direct consequence of Brazil's emergence as a power with pretensions to hegemony on the continent.

Argentina has the space, resources, and experience to supply all that is lacking in the Andean Nations, but it has above all, a tradition of popular masses who are profoundly committed to militant, Peronist, nationalism, which could function as the true backbone of the new attempt to integrate Spanish America. The emergence of a nationalistic type government in Uruguay, seen as a distinct possibility since the Peronista victory, is probably the next step and what Opinião reporter thinks is inevitable. The creation of one great Latin American country stretching from ocean to ocean, the only organization capable of confronting the multinational corporations and Brazil, which is being manipulated by the multinationals.

The final part of Opinião's report is an interview with Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo, an important figure in Perón's party and considered the probable next foreign minister of Argentina. Sorondo notes that this is a special time in Latin America, a time when new historical forces are at work and new configurations are emerging. He stated that it is necessary to converse, to dialogue, and to seek new forms of understanding, but the Argentine did not confine himself to diplomatic platitudes. He reiterated his opposition to what he termed the Brasilia Washington Axis.

Sorondo called this axis, "An obstacle for the unification of Hispanic America and a bastion of melting national firms interested in maintaining the dependence and backwardness of the Latin American peoples." He concluded by saying that the subject will require the future Peronist government to recuperate the Argentine predominance in the region and to discuss with neighboring countries modalities of economic interdependence and to impose energetically the imposition of an ultra capitalistic domination manipulated by huge companies without nations that are establishing themselves in Brazil. This report was taken from Opinião of Rio de Janeiro.

You have been listening to Latin American Press Review, a weekly selection and analysis of important events and issues in Latin America as seen by leading world newspapers with a special emphasis on the Latin American press. This program is produced by the Latin American Policy Alternatives Groups. Comments and suggestions about the program are welcome and may be sent to us at 2205 San Antonio Street, Austin, Texas. This program is distributed by Communication Center, University of Texas at Austin.