1973-06-28

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 Argentina, "On June 17th, Juan Perón returned to Argentina after 17 years of exile, but an armed conflict prevented a planned welcoming ceremony at the airport in Buenos Aires. A bloody skirmish occurred and 12 people were killed, 200 wounded. The confrontation broke out when gunmen, hiding in a nearby forest, began firing at members of the Peronist Youth Movement who were maintaining order near the speaker's platform. The Perónist Youth Movement returned fire, responding to the original shower of bullets." 

"Gunfire from pistols and machine guns lasted some 30 minutes. Thousands of people fled or threw themselves on the ground to avoid the crossfire. The attackers cut electrical cables that fed microphones and loudspeakers on the stage and in surrounding areas. After communications were restored, a shrieking siren drowned out the shooting. Later that evening, Perón spoke over the radio to thank supporters for going to the airport to greet him, and declared to the country that he was safe. At this point, it is unclear who was responsible for the gun battle." This report from Excélsior. 

Word from Rio de Janeiro indicates that the problem of the presidential succession in Brazil has been solved. Since the 1964 revolution, civilians have had little say in major political decisions in Brazil, especially about who would be president. In 1964, '67, and '69, the new president came from the ranks of generals on active duty, and it was the army itself which decided which general would hold office. The same will be true this year. On June 18th, President Medici announced that Brazil's new president will be General Ernesto Geisel, presently head of the state's petroleum monopoly.

Geisel, 65 years old, has had a very successful military career, including service at Brazil's prestigious Superior War College and at the Army Command and General Staff College in the United States. Interestingly enough, he's a Lutheran, in a country which is over 90% Roman Catholic. This is just one indication of the fact that what counted in his selection for the presidency was his support in the army and not other political considerations. 

Press opinion on the significance of Geisel's selection is divided. The weekly newsletter Latin America sees Geisel as a liberal who will open the political system to civilians on the left. It also feels that Geisel will take a more nationalistic stance in foreign policy and economic affairs. This will mean more state investment and a less favorable policy towards foreign capital, according to Latin America. 

The Manchester Guardian agrees that liberalization and nationalism are distinct possibilities when Geisel becomes president. However, it raises the question of how much change the Army will accept. Geisel's main problem will be to avoid a split in the Army. As the Manchester Guardian concludes, "Each president of Brazil since 1964 has promised a return to democracy, but none has actually brought it about." 

Opinião of Rio de Janeiro does not expect any great changes with Geisel as president. It notes that in his career, the general has never opted for radical breaks with past policies. In every one of his posts, he has followed the policies of the government and instituted changes very slowly. Opinião concludes that Geisel's selection is far from representing a radical shift in the government's direction. This report was from Latin America, the Manchester Guardian, and Opinião of Rio de Janeiro. 

The principal inter-American organization is now undergoing close scrutiny by its members. At the last general meeting of the Organization of American States, or OAS, held earlier this year, all observers agreed that the organization was in trouble. It no longer commanded respect in the hemisphere and was deeply divided on ideological issues. The major criticism was directed at the United States for wielding too much power in the OAS and for trying to impose a Cold War mentality on the organization. 

In late June, a special committee to reform the OAS convened in Lima, Peru. The Mexican Daily Excélsior reports that the Argentinian delegation to the conference has taken the lead in demanding radical reforms in the OAS. The Assistant Secretary of State of Argentina urged delegates to form one single block against the United States in Latin America. This block would fight against foreign domination of the southern hemisphere. 

According to Excélsior, the Argentine then told the meeting that any idea of solidarity between the United States and Latin nations was a naive dream. He suggested that the delegates create a new organization which does not include the United States. "Any institution which included both Latins and Yankees," he said, "would lead only to more frustration and bitterness." Finally, the Argentine diplomat asked the committee to seek Cuban delegates, who are formally excluded from the OAS at this time. 

Excélsior continues. Argentina's delegation has denied reports that it will walk out of the OAS if its demands are not met. They have made it clear, however, that they are very unhappy with the US dominated nature of the organization. 

Chile's delegation is taking a different position during the meetings in Lima. "We have never thought about excluding the United States from the OAS," explained Chilean representative. "We believe a dialogue is necessary." He added, however, that the OAS must be restructured to give the organization equilibrium, something which does not exist now. 

The committee to reform the OAS has until November to formulate suggestions for change. At this point, it is impossible to say how far-reaching the changes will be. If the OAS is to survive at all however, the United States will have to play a much less dominant role in the future. This report from Excélsior of Mexico City. 

The Peruvian government of General Velasco Alvarado, according to the Manchester Guardian, is presently facing its most serious internal challenge since its seized power in 1968. Both the Guardian and the British Weekly Latin America report that there have been several confrontations over the past months between the government and organized labor. There is general dissatisfaction among the working classes with regard to the newly instituted pensions law, which substitutes retirement at age 60 for the previous arrangement of retiring after 25 years of work. Another reason for general labor unrest is the government's attempt to dissolve the various political trade unions into a single union controlled by the regime. 

Both British weeklies view the current crisis as a consequence and a test of the particular brand of nationalism implemented by this military regime in their attempt to institute a revolution from above and to steer a course between capitalism and communism. Chile Hoy offers a discussion of the current director of the Peruvian CAEM agency, which provides historical and interpretive background to the current Peruvian military regime in an attempt to explain why its policies sometimes baffled the left and the right alike. 

A government which has nationalized the US controlled international petroleum company, a government which has instituted the most comprehensive agrarian reform on the continent since the Cuban Revolution, and which is the first country in Latin America to reestablish diplomatic relations with Cuba, is also a government which continues to offer attractive concessions to foreign business investors and encourages foreign control of many sectors of the economy. The contradictions of such policies are apparent. 

What kind of transformation did the Peruvian armed forces undergo to make possible the particular approach of the present nationalist government? The Peruvian official quoted in Chile Hoy traces the preparation for change back to a realization after World War II that the capacity of a nation to guarantee its own security depends on the degree of its development. A country whose economic interests are subordinate to another country is not truly sovereign. But any attempt to reach a solution to the problem of Peru's underdevelopment inevitably involved the adoption of far-reaching institutional changes. 

There was an awareness that the armed forces as an institution must divest itself of the traditional myths of its apolitical nature, its conservative character, and the strict definition of its professional sphere of action. The formation in the 1950s of CAEM, the Center for Advanced Military Studies, was to have a profound impact on every subsequent generation of Peruvian military men. Over half of the members of the present ruling Junta share the common experience of attending special courses at the center. 

Chile Hoy's Peruvian analyst views the social origins of the Army's officer corps as a secondary factor in explaining the break with traditional alignments between the military and the Peruvian oligarchy. Because of their ethnic mixture of Indian and Spanish blood, and their provincial origins, Peruvian officers were far removed from the traditional centers of economic and political power. The policy of rotation exposed the officers to several different parts of the country during their career, giving them a direct acquaintance with the particular problems of each region. Finally, the political impact of the guerrilla movements brought the true nature of Peru's structural problems to light and demonstrated the need to alleviate the situation before the existing tensions were unleashed in violent revolution. 

In 1962, the Army took control of the government for 10 months to ensure elections. Then, in 1968, convinced that no other group was qualified to accomplish the task at hand, they instituted themselves as Peru's existing government. A balance sheet of the first five years indicates increased concessions to the interest of foreign investors, a slowing down of the agrarian reform, a waning of initial popular support, and an increase in repressive measures against dissenting sectors of the population. 

Current political tensions in the country are explained by some commentators as the result of Velasco Alvarado's recent absence from government due to a leg amputation. Other observers, however, see the current tensions as an expression of the contradictions which this type of nationalist capitalist experiment must inevitably incur. They see the Peruvian government's inability to find an adequate solution as a warning to other Latin American countries who are set on a similar course. This report from the Manchester Guardian, Latin America, and Chile Hoy. 

Chile Hoy reports from Uruguay. "Few of the diplomatic appointments of the Nixon administration will be as significant as that of Ernest Siracusa, a veteran ambassador who will be taking over the US Embassy in Montevideo. Siracusa has served in various Latin American countries; Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala, Argentina, Peru, and Bolivia. In Bolivia, he arrived just as a military coup had opened up possibilities of a nationalistic takeover. In this latter case, he seems to have performed well. Bolivian workers organizations attribute a very influential role to him in the defeat of progressive forces and the setting up of a military dictatorship. It has been suggested that he is linked less to the Department of State than to the CIA." 

Whatever the exact nature of his ties, his next assignment will be Uruguay. Chile Hoy predicts that his mission in Uruguay will be largely to convince certain military leaders that nationalist politics are not appropriate to Uruguay, and encourage the rightist generals that the Brazilian model of military control and close alliance with the United States is desirable. 

Meanwhile, Chile Hoy continues, "In Santiago, a committee formed of certain leftist Uruguayan groups gave a conference last month in which they documented repression in their country. Since 1968, when the constitutional government was transformed into a type of military civilian dictatorship, the Army has had a free hand in dealing with dissenters." 

"The statistics are impressive. In less than a year, the joint armed forces killed 43 men and four women. The form of death was typically sinister. Four died from excessive torture. One was thrown off a four-story roof. There were two suicides of people anticipating more torture, 21 were merely riddled with bullets, and the rest were finished off in various armed confrontations. The estimated number of political prisoners is more than 4,000. In a country of less than 3 million inhabitants, this comes down to one political prisoner per 750 citizens." This report from Chile Hoy, a Santiago weekly. 

Latin America reports on the growing crisis in Chile. The Gulf between the government of President Salvador Allende and the opposition grew wider this week, after a series of confrontations which worsened the already tense and deteriorating situation. The government's refusal to allow striking miners from El Teniente mine to hold a meeting in Santiago provoked 48 hours of rioting in the capitol, in which a Brazilian student was killed. 

Allende's attempts to defuse the situation, by meeting with leaders of the strikers, met with rebuffs and rebukes. Not however from the opposition, but from the communist and socialists, who told Allende, "This is no time for vacillation and weakness." For their part, the opposition remains critical and some sectors of it claim to have discovered a new and devastating constitutional means of deposing Allende and calling fresh elections. 

That the present situation cannot continue is blatantly obvious. The disruption to the country's economic life has reached alarming proportions. The copper strike alone has resulted in a loss of almost 1/10th of last year's export earnings from copper. But in the past week, attitudes have hardened still further, and the prospects for reconciliation are, if anything, more remote. As both government and opposition forces prepared this week for mass rallies in their support, they made it clear that they were not going to negotiate any longer. This report from Latin America. 

You are listening to Latin American Press Review, a weekly selection and analysis of important events and issues in Latin America. This program is produced by the Latin American Policy Alternatives Group. Comments and suggestions about the program are welcome and may be set to us at 2205 San Antonio Street, Austin, Texas. This program is distributed by the Communication Center, the University of Texas at Austin. 

Our feature this week concerns Latin immigrants in the United States. Their status, their role in the US economy, and recent actions by the immigration service, which appear aimed to shift the blame for the nation's economic and social problems to the immigrant. 

A recent article in The Guardian reported that there are mounting signs that a new anti-alien drive is underway to turn neighbors into scapegoats for unsolved social problems. Without fanfare, since mid-1972, immigration authorities have conducted dragnet raids, victimizing thousands on the street, outside a movie theater, at bus stops, at a dance hall, anywhere if they were dark skinned and looked Latin American. More than 2000 persons, most of them Chicanos, demonstrated in Los Angeles, June 16th to protest massive deportations of people of Mexican ancestry by the United States Immigration and Naturalization service. 

The immigration service, a branch of the Justice Department, began rounding up persons who were supposedly here illegally, arresting more than 1000 people last May 23rd in drag net raids throughout Los Angeles and Orange County. Since then, more than 6,700 people, most of them of Mexican descent, have been arrested and forced to sign papers agreeing to voluntary repatriation. 

As the Guardian points out, the raids have resembled more a Gestapo roundup than a deportation campaign, with the immigration service setting up roadblocks in the Chicano community of East Los Angeles and checking drivers and passengers for proof of citizenship. In addition, immigration service agents have also been arresting people at bus stations, restaurants, on their jobs, and have been breaking into private homes. 

In one instance, the immigration service bursted into a Catholic church service, dragging out more than 200 people. In another case, agents tore down a window screen and climbed into a house, taking away an 11-year-old boy who was there all alone. Later, the parents returned to find the doors wide open and the house empty, only to be informed by neighbors that the boy had been deported to Tijuana, Baja, California, some 130 miles away. 

The deportees have been taken to the Long Beach Naval Station, where they are kept handcuffed overnight before they are shipped across the border. Reporters have stated that immigration officials have removed handcuffs when news reporters have come to inspect the camp. Furthermore, news sources have reported that mothers were unable to attend to their children because their hands are manacled. 

"The deportation", says the Guardian, "have increased to astronomical proportions over the last two years and have begun to resemble the campaign of 1954, when more than one and a half million people were deported, many of whom were United States citizens of Mexican ancestry. In 1971, the immigration service booted out more than 250,000 people, and last year more than 450,000 people were deported, most of them Latins or Mexicans."

The Institute for Social Research at the National Autonomous University of Mexico has documented many of these deportations and has discovered that most of the deportees were poor agricultural laborers, who were kicked out after harvest time and without a cent. The author of this study also said that these Mexicans live in the United States in a situation of complete slavery, with terrible working conditions imposed by the owners and without any regard for the precepts of law or humanity. This story appeared in The Guardian. 

Despite allegations to the contrary, immigrant labor contributes more to the US economy than it receives in return. A recent study entitled "Workers Without Visas", a permanent part of the workforce and economy of the United States, makes some startling revelations about the true status of these workers. Published in the latest issue of the magazine of the World Federation of Trade Unions, the article was written jointly by Umberto Corona, Secretary of the Center for Autonomous Social Action, a Los Angeles based organization dedicated to defending the rights of immigrant workers, and Lorenzo Torres. 

Mexican workers without visas in this country do in fact pay taxes. Actually, they pay more taxes than all other residents or workers on the same amount of wages earned. The Internal Revenue Service denies these workers the right to deduct for dependents, even though their dependents may be US citizens or permanent residents. Mexican workers without documents also pay for Social Security benefits through their regular weekly payroll deductions. They cannot, however, collect these benefits when they need them most, when old or sick. 

According to Corona and Torres, these workers cannot take advantage of labor law enforcement rights and facilities when employers refuse to pay wages, overtime pay, vacation, pay, pensions, or even the minimum wage. If they complain, the employer calls the immigration agents and out they go across the border. When these workers cannot produce papers proving citizenship or permanent residency, they are denied welfare benefits, even though they have been workers in this country for years. When jobless, many times they're not able to collect unemployment insurance benefits, despite years of steady work 

In many areas, their children are refused public schooling and are not eligible for scholarships. They have no recourse in civil court for fear of deportation. During the arrest and detention process, prior to deportation, they're denied due process, the right to counsel, to bail, to appeal, on grounds that they're not criminals. They're merely being detained under administrative procedure, the immigration service argues. Finally, but most importantly, they cannot vote and so have absolutely no political recourse. 

Corona and Torres consider that special mention must be made of the terrible injustices being committed daily against hundreds of thousands of deported families, particularly children, but also spouses who are United States citizens. They are unable to return to the land of their birth simply because the breadwinner in their family has no visa. 

The United States economy benefits from the presence of immigrants without visas in yet other ways. The US economizes on the expenses for health, education, and whatever vocational training the immigrant worker receives prior to joining the labor force. The US bears neither the expenses of youth nor of old age, for when one worker without visa is too old, no longer profitable enough, he is deported to the country of origin or simply denied Social Security benefits. 

Immigrant workers, particularly the ones without documents, represent not only a great saving for the US capitalist society at large, but also for the individual capitalists who employs them. In the Southwest, agribusineses has been based in great part on the supply of workers without visas as a source of cheap labor. In more recent years, industry and business in the urban areas have also been taking advantage of the worker without papers, by paying them substandard wages. It is the lowest of the lowest paid jobs, the most arduous, the dirtiest, and the most undesirable to which the immigrant, particularly the one without papers, is assigned. 

Corona and Torres said that in many industries where machines have displaced highly paid workers, these companies have also introduced the use of immigrant Mexican and other Latin American workers without visas at the lowest of wages to perform the rationalized operations that then feed the automated ones. They contend that companies are not interested in automating the very dangerous, unhealthy, or backbreaking jobs when they can pay meager wages for them. 

Many employers hire these workers knowing full well their legal status. When they don't bend to his particular whims, the employer calls the immigration agents. If demand slackens and he must cut his workforce, the employer might withhold wages for a while. When the workers become restive. However, he'll call the immigration service and thus avoid further payment. The bosses can hire these workers for a 10 to 14 hour day for as little as a $1.00 to a $1.30 an hour. 

Corona and Torres say that corporations and government place the blame for the ills of the nation on the immigrant, particularly the illegal one. Some trade unions, adopting this line of reasoning as their own, further argue that these workers block the organizing of unions in industries where they predominate. This is true. These workers are a source of cheap labor for the employer. So long as they remain unorganized, they do exert pressures on the wages of all other workers. 

Some unions have sought an easy way out. They've ignored shops with large concentrations of workers without visas. In some cases, they report them to immigration agents. These unions reject these workers on the pretext that their vulnerability makes them good prey for employers who want to break a strike. 

The approach of the United Farm Workers and other progressive unions has been to include the immigrant without papers in union membership and strike activity. In Hawaii, the International Longshoremen's and Warehouse Men's Union defended foreign workers, Filipinos, Okinawans, Japanese, and other Asians from deportation and the threat of it by plantation owners. The union also used natives of these countries as organizers who would travel with the migrant stream during the on and the off season. It was the only way the union could shield itself against the employer's encroachment and promote unity within this labor pool all year long. 

As recently as last year, the United Farm Workers successfully applied the same tactic during the Yuma organizing strike drive along the Arizona, Baja California border. Here, the union convinced Mexican workers not to scab, and from among them, recruited some of the best organizers for the duration of the strike. 

Coupled with welcoming these workers into the ranks of labor, these unions and community groups argue that a national drive, such as being spearheaded by the Center for Autonomous Social Action, must be given full support by labor and other sections of the population for rejection of laws that restrict the rights of immigrants. They contend that anti-scab legislation is the key to guaranteeing the rights of those and all other workers. Otherwise, the employer will inevitably use workers without documents, who may already be disenchanted with a union that doesn't care for their wellbeing, against the rest of the workforce. 

Immigrants traditionally feel that they have the right to fight for their existence anywhere on the globe. "Mexicans," continues Corona, "don't view their presence here in any way as an intrusion. Mexican families in the United States are descendants of those who colonized, peopled, and developed what is known as the American Southwest long before 1776." 

They ended their article with a warning. "We see the revival of an anti-alien hysteria and jingoism that seeks to place the blame upon Mexican and other Latin American workers for the loss of jobs that have been brought about by automation, termination of certain war contracts, defense spending shifts, space contract cutbacks, and runaway shops, the importation of goods from low wage countries, the closing down of not so profitable operations, and the accompanying lack of planning for the future fate of the workers that are displaced. The allegations against immigrant workers," Corona and Torres charge, "are a phony escape valve to further divide workers, to confuse them, and to divert them from taking joint action against the real culprits, the businesses for which they work." 

The immigration service's recent crackdown on illegal aliens is further described in an article from the New York, Daily World. The article describes the experiences of farm worker and United States citizen Armando Muñoz, who was deported from Florida and sent to Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula. After two months of frequent cold and sleepless nights, and a 1,200 mile journey, Muñoz reached Matamoros just across the border from Texas, where he called relatives. They hurried across the border with Muñoz's birth certificate, proving his US citizenship and took him back to Texas. 

Muñoz is now suing the immigration service for $25,000 in damages. Munoz's experience is typical of what happens yearly to thousands of US citizens, permanent residents, and workers without visas of Mexican origin, who are whisked across the border without a hearing when they cannot produce documents on the spot. 

Some observers see the recent flurry of activity on the part of the immigration service as being prompted by disclosures of corruption. Top immigration officials and Attorney General Kleindienst are among those who have been implicated in cases of corruption, first disclosed by the New York Times. 11 persons, including seven immigration officers, have so far been indicted by the Department of Justice. 

The federal investigation found that at least one high official is engaged in illegal activity at every major point of entry along the 2,000 mile United States Mexican border. The investigation reveals that immigration officials smuggle drugs and immigrants and sell false documents. Some have raped Mexican women or have traded entry documents for the women's sexual favors. When in their custody, workers without visas who refuse to do their bidding or answer questions have been beaten with lead weighted gloves. In collusion with employers, immigration officials have robbed workers of their wages by conducting a raid just before pay time, in return, receiving cash, or other kinds of payoff. 

The information for this report was drawn from The Guardian, the Daily World, the New York Times, and the World Trade Union Magazine. 

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 special emphasis on the Latin American press. This program is produced by the Latin American Policy Alternatives Group. 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.