1974-02-28

This is the Latin American Press Review, a weekly selection and analysis of news and events in Latin America as seen by leading world news sources, with special emphasis on the Latin American Press. This program is produced by the Latin American Policy Alternatives Group of Austin, Texas. 

The New York Times reports that the military government of Peru has agreed to pay $76 million in compensation for United States companies it has expropriated in recent years. According to announcements made in Lima and Washington, executives of several companies with interest in Latin America were bitter. "It's the best of a bad bargain, I suppose," one declared. The $76 million will be paid to Washington to be put into a trust fund, and eventually divided among companies with claims against Peru.

This is in addition to the $74 million that Peru is paying directly to five companies; The SERO Corporation, W.R. Grace & Company, the Stark subsidiary of the HJ Heinz Company, Gold Kist Incorporated, and Cargill Incorporated. The funds for the Peruvian payment were obtained through loans made by the First National Bank of Boston.

President Nixon declared that, "Investment disputes in recent years have unfortunately troubled our traditionally good relations with a few Latin American countries. We should establish an effective, impartial mechanism to resolve these questions within the Inter-American family." One company executive was quoted, "The State Department wants a solution to protect our heavy investments now underway in the Peruvian oil fields, as well as the remaining mining operations down there." Several companies involved expressed cautious optimism.

The SERO Corporation, whose large mining operations were taken over in January, said the agreement was reasonable under the political realities in Peru today. The International Proteins Corporation, which lost its fish meal and other marine processing facilities in Peru said, "The availability of these payment funds will permit the company to accelerate its development in other parts of the world."

A number of United States oil companies, including Occidental and Texaco, are developing promising petroleum fields in the Peruvian Amazon and offshore areas. And the Southern Peru Copper Company, largely American owned, remains the largest operation of its kind in Peru. One executive of a large United States company explained, "It depends on whether you have money you want to get out, or money you want to put in. Most of the expropriated companies have written off their losses." The president of SERO said, "We will have tax loss of about $138 million that can be applied against United States taxable income beginning in 1974." W.R. Grace eliminated its Peruvian assets from corporate earnings statements in 1970, a year after its vast land holdings were taken over and converted into cooperative farms and plantations. 

This news report is taken from the New York Times. In Mexico City, Henry Kissinger's meeting with Latin American foreign ministers ended recently. Also representing the United States was the newly appointed U.S. ambassador to Mexico, Joseph Jova. The Christian Science Monitor reports that there has been a flurry of protests by Mexican newspapers in the left, over Jova's appointment.

Joseph John Jova, most recently United States Ambassador to the Organization of American States in Washington, presented his credentials to the Mexican government in mid-February. Editorials appearing in local newspapers have accused Mr. Jova of interfering in the internal affairs of Chile, while he was deputy chief of Mission in Santiago, from 1961 to 1965. And of sharing responsibility for the overthrow and death of President Salvador Allende last September. 

The Mexican daily, Excelsior, called President Nixon's appointment of the diplomat, "One more defiance of the U.S. government." It said on its editorial page that Mr. Jova was named because, "What is needed now is a political agent, a provoker of conflicts, an emissary of American fascism, and that individual by his antecedents is Joseph John Jova." 

The editorial accused Mr. Jova of organizing and supporting rightist resistance to President Allende in Chile. And predicted that he would adopt a similar attitude in Mexico of antagonism towards Mexican President Luis Echeverria's liberal policies. 

The moderate daily Novedades also objected to Mr. Jova's appointment declaring that, "He has been carefully chosen to come to Mexico, where he can repeat his Chilean feat with easy dexterity. The extreme right is happy for this shattering and facile victory." 

This report from the Christian Science Monitor. 

The Chilean people will have no political activity for the next five years, reports Mexico City's, Excelsior. The Mexican Daily notes that Pinochet, head of the military Junta in Chile, has announced the suspension of all political activity for at least the next five years. He also added that the military government plans to rule the country for an even longer period. Furthermore, all security measures are to be continued, as if there was a civil war, until all traces of Marxism are checked. 

Five years or more are needed, said Pinochet, to fulfill the Junta's plans. He also warned the Chilean people that 1974 would be a difficult year. In the economic sphere, the military generals plan to increase the exportation of copper to over a million tons by the end of 1974. Most of it is owned and used in industrialized countries, specifically the United States. The late Marxist president had attempted to nationalize these foreign-owned companies. He was overthrown and killed by the military Junta. 

The Junta announced that the coalition of political parties that supported Allende have been abolished. The other political parties, such as the Christian Democrats have been allowed to remain as recognized entities. But all their political activities have been suspended. Pinochet has also affirmed that clandestine gorilla activity is still taking place. And for that reason, maximum security will be imposed on the people of Chile, until all Marxist resistance is eradicated.

Pinochet, in a speech delivered to thousands of copper miners at El Teniente mine, asserted that the leftists are very active in realizing clandestine insurgency fighting, and that they are acquiring contributions and infiltrating arms and ammunition into the country. He also added, that in the course of a year, the military Junta would lose the war, unless the economic situation of the country improved. Pinochet asserted, "There are many that have branded me with adjectives, such as killer, fascist, and irresponsible, but I will not change my stance."

His position was pointedly emphasized in the report of a woman's organization, which has been investigating the situation in Chile, the International League of Women for Peace and Liberty announced that the ex-socialist senator, and the president of the National Bank under Allende have been sentenced to death by a secret military tribunal. 

This from the Mexico City Daily, Excelsior. 

The British News weekly Latin America reports that the sale of United States arms to Latin American countries has increased drastically in recent years. During the Vietnam War years, these sales were severely inhibited. But during the period from 1970 to '72, a conscious effort was made to recover lost markets. The United States sold $258 million worth of arms to Latin America within these three years. Only $447 million were sold for the whole of the 20 proceeding years. Almost all of these purchases were made by six Latin American countries. They are Chile, Brazil, Columbia, Peru, Argentina, and Venezuela. 

The sale of arms is not the only type of military support which the United States extends to Latin America. U.S. Congressional attention has recently been focused on United States training schools for foreign police, located both at home and abroad. Democratic Congressman James Abourezk has unearthed documents concerning instruction for foreign policemen in the design, manufacturer, and employment of homemade bombs and incendiary devices at the U.S. Border Patrol Academy in Texas. The Agency for International Development defends its program, on the grounds that the police need the knowledge in order to take countermeasures against left-wing guerrilla s.

The Defense Department, however, has found the matter so controversial that it refused to provide instructors for the course, thus forcing AID to get help from the CIA. 

Those Latin American countries, which have been interested in police training programs, unlike those which have been major purchasers of arms, are not limited to the largest Latin American countries. The school at Los Fresnos, Texas, for example, has produced graduates from Guatemala, Uruguay, Columbia, Brazil, and El Salvador. 

The identification of the United States police training programs with right-wing terrorism is now widely recognized as a diplomatic problem for the United States. A senate report on US AID programs to Guatemala said that it had cost the United States more in political terms, than it had improved Guatemalan police efficiency. 

Congressman Abourezk introduced a resolution, calling for a complete termination of all police programs. Although this resolution failed to win a majority, Congress did move to phase out existing police training programs abroad, and to ban any new ones. This does not, however, affect training programs available to foreign policemen in the United States. 

This from the British Newsweek, Latin America. 

When reporting on events in Argentina recently, much has been said in North American newspapers about the, so-called, terrorism of left-wing revolutionary groups in that country. In reports which recently appeared in the Mexico City daily, Excelsior, though, the picture which emerges is one in which right-wing terrorist groups and the government combined to harass leftists and moderates. 

There are groups in Argentina, which are dedicated to revolution, such as the People's Revolutionary Army, more commonly known as the ERP. While the ERP has become famous for its kidnappings of foreign businessmen and government officials, it has never been known to torture its prisoners or engage in reckless indiscriminate terrorism. 

Although the activities of the ERP attract a great deal of attention, the most important conflict which is going on in Argentina is within the Peronist movement itself. The phrase Peronist movement is perhaps misleading, since the group includes people from drastically different political persuasions. When Perón was in exile, the Peronist movement was united, because its only goal was to bring Perón back to Argentina. Now that Perón is back and in power, the differences in the movement have begun to emerge. The right-wing of the party is represented by the trade unionist, whose main enemy is the Peronist Youth Group, an organization of leftists and moderates. 

Peron's regime has not been the reform-minded government that some people thought it would be. And it has come down particularly hard on the left. Conservative forces, apparently aware that the government is on their side have opened an offensive on their opponents. An example of this movement is the formation of a new group, the Peronist Workers Youth, a right-wing counterpart to the Peronist Youth Group. Excelsior reports, that about 60 people, apparently members of the new group, fired on the offices of El Mundo, a leftist newspaper recently. Also, police in Buenos Aires recently uncovered a large arms cache belonging to the Peronist Workers Youth. 

The government's role in this struggle, says Excelsior, has not been completely neutral. For example, the newspaper fired upon was closed down by the government only two days after the incident. Also, the same night the newspaper was fired upon, in a different part of the city, another incident occurred when some 500 petroleum workers marched to their local union headquarters, which they said had been taken over by right-wing officials, government troops surrounded the local and fired twice upon the crowd, killing four workers. 

Incidents such as these, say Excelsior, may be forcing moderates away from the government and the hard-line Peronists, and into the ranks of groups such as the ERP. 

That report on current political trends in Argentina from the Mexico City Daily, Excelsior. 

You are listening to the Latin American Press Review, a weekly selection and analysis of news and events in Latin America as seen by leading world news sources, with special emphasis on the Latin American Press. This program is produced by the Latin American Policy Alternatives Group. Comments and suggestions are welcome and may be sent to the group at 2205 San Antonio Street, Austin, Texas. This program is distributed by Communication Center, the University of Texas at Austin. The views expressed are solely those of the Latin American Policy Alternatives Group and its sources, and should not be considered as being endorsed by UT Austin or this station. 

For today's feature, we'll be talking with Christopher Roper, an editor of Latin America Newsletter, the British Journal of Latin American Political and Economic Affairs. Mr. Roper is touring the U.S., gathering material for articles on current United States foreign policy towards Latin America, which is the topic of our feature today.

Mr. Roper, your Latin American newsletter claims to be completely independent of government and big business. It carries no advertising. And you say you're free to give a, more or less, consistent and reliable view of Latin America. How is the newsletter's view of Latin American events different from that of the major commercial United States press, say, the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal?

Well, I think in the first place, we are looking at the continent from day to day and week to week, and we don't just pick up the stories when they become sensational news. Our news doesn't have to compete with news from Asia, and Africa, and Europe or the energy crisis. We are steadily dealing with—there is an article on Argentina every week, an article on Brazil every week. I think the second important point is that we rely entirely on Latin American sources. I think the United States and British news media rely very heavily on their own reporters who go down there who haven't lived all their lives in those countries that they're visiting, although they're very familiar, that they don't look at it from a Latin American perspective. I think this is perhaps the central point which differentiates our journal from any other. 

I think the final point is that, we rely entirely on our subscribers for income. As soon as we cease to provide credible analysis, as soon as our facts, our reporting can be shown to be at fault, we will start to lose subscribers. I think the fact that over the last four years, something like 90% of them resubscribe every year is an indication that we're still on the right track and that's why we make this claim. 

How would your treatment of an issue like U.S. foreign policy differ from what most United States press agencies would say? I mean, for instance, would you say that basically, U.S. interests are compatible with the interests of Latin Americans? 

Well, we try to look at this, again, from a Latin American point of view, and it is quite clear that there has been a consensus of criticism of the United States from Latin America, again, over the last four or five years. In fact, probably ever since 1961, was the last time one can look back to a period of any harmony. You have to go back before the Cuban blockade. You have to go back to Kennedy's statement of the aims of the Alliance for Progress, which did at that time, receive very widespread support in Latin America. It was only when it proved to be a disappointment, and some would say, a fraud and a sham, and that you had the Cuban Intervention, you had the Dominican Republic Intervention.

You have had the treatment of Peru in 1968. I think, in the light of those events, and of course Bolivia, that people in Latin America lost faith. Though even today, Kennedy is the one name that elicits any affection among Latin Americans generally. And they don't accept that the seeds of subsequent failure were already present in Punta del Este in 1961.

How would you characterize then the editorial point of view towards Latin America of most of the United States press sources? What interests do they represent? 

Well, they represent the very broad interests of the United States government. I think that, it's quite evident if you travel a lot in Latin America, that you find that the Washington Post and the New York Times reporters spend more time in the United States Embassy, than they do talking to the Chilean, or the Peruvian, or the Brazilian people who they're visiting. They fly about the continent, staying in expensive hotels on tight schedules. And, if you're wanting to understand Latin America at all, you certainly should go by bus, and probably you should walk, because that's how most of the people in Latin America get around. 

And when, for instance, Mr. Kandell of the New York Times visits poblaciones in Chile and comes back and says that the people there had said that they hadn't been shot up by the military, one can just imagine the scene of this very gringo looking man walking into the población and speaking in a very heavily American accent, and asking them whether they've been shot up. And of course, they say, "No, no, no. Nothing happened to us here." And, he goes back and ticks another población off the list. And, charts it up as another excess of leftist reporting in Chile. But, I don't think it really reflects the reality of what is happening in Latin America. The people who are filing reports for us are people who lived in those towns and cities, and probably were themselves shot up. 

Mr. Roper, getting back to the question of current U.S. foreign policy towards Latin America, there's been a lot of press speculation recently that Cuba is changing its attitude toward the United States. From your interviews and discussions with State Department and other officials in this country, do you have any idea about the possibilities of US attitudes changing towards Cuba and about the possibilities for eventual reestablishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries? 

Well, undoubtedly, the Cubans would like to see an end to the blockade. They want better relationships with Latin American countries. Any Latin American country that has shown itself in the slightest bit well-disposed towards Cuba over the last five years has been given the warmest possible encouragement by the Cubans. This includes, as well as the Chilean, it's the Peruvians, and the Panamanians, and even the Argentinians. And certainly, friendly relationships have always been maintained with Mexico, even when the Cubans have had very serious political differences with Mexico.

I think that the Russians too, I think as part of the detante, Mr. Brezhnev and Mr. Kosygin would like to see the United States softening its attitude towards Cuba. I think that within the State Department, there are many voices who are arguing that the whole of U.S. policy towards Latin America, if there is going to be a new spirit in forming those relations, then the question of Cuba needs to be exorcised, if you like, to use a current word.

I think that Dr. Kissinger himself has argued very strongly that the old attitude to Cuba must come to an end. But, as one senior State Department official said to me, he said, "Mr. Rebozo has more influence than Dr. Kissinger on this particular question." Mr. Bebe Rebozo, who is a close friend of Mr. Nixon, has extensive interests with the Cuban exile community in Miami. Mr. Nixon has a strong emotional attachment to the exile community in Miami. His valet is a Cuban exile. And it was quite clear to me in Washington that people in the State Department weren't expecting any change. They all said that Kissinger might pull it out of the hat, but they couldn't see it. And I think that he may discuss it in Mexico City. He may, as it were, have lifted a finger. But, rather as with the Panama Canal, all the rough stuff is still ahead. 

Kissinger is undoubtedly trying to deflect attention from these previously very divisive issues. He can't solve the Panama Canal, because the United States military won't let him. He can't solve the question of Cuba because the President of the United States won't let him. But he's trying to say, "Let's bypass those issues and let's see if we can establish some dialogue on a new basis." In some ways, the timing is good. The Chilean question has been settled, more or less, to the satisfaction of the U.S. government. They took three years to engineer the coup in Chile. 

Now, that's behind them. And I think this was very important in timing the Mexican initiative, Dr. Kissinger could not have a meeting with the Latin American foreign ministers until Chile was out of the way, as it were. He said on his way back from Panama, after not settling the Panama question, but at least postponing the Panama question of at least establishing a basis for future negotiations. When a reporter asked him if the United States would recognize Cuba would end the blockade on Cuba, he said, "Why should we make Castro seem more important than he, in fact, is?" This is very much the Kissinger line. "Let's sweep these things out of the carpet and try to find a new relationship." I think, at least at a public relations level, he may be very successful. 

Besides Chile and Cuba, as you've just outlined, one of the most serious disputes the United States has had with any Latin American country in the last five years has been with expropriation of U.S. firms in Peru. What can you say about current U.S. foreign policy towards Peru? 

Well, I think the most significant thing is that the man who has been negotiating with the Peruvian government on behalf of President Nixon is Mr. James Green, who's the head of the manufacturer's Hanover Bank and represents a vast web of private sector economic interests. So, it's very hard to know whether he's negotiating on behalf of the Council of the Americas, which is the main lobby for United States business interests in Latin America. Or whether he is in fact negotiating on behalf of the State Department. It's inextricable, this web of public and private interests in Latin America.

I view the whole question of a new policy with some skepticism. I think that, the only way in which the outstanding questions can be solved is by the Peruvian government abandoning some of its earlier positions. It is going to have to give in to the demands of foreign investors if it wishes to maintain good relations with the United States.

And this is not just a question of getting further foreign investment, it's a question of getting development assistance from the Inter-American Development Bank, from the World Bank. All these things are dependent on the goodwill of the United States government, and the goodwill of the United States government is dependent on the goodwill of the private sector investors. We were told that the agreement between the United States and Peru would be announced in January that all the substantial outstanding points had been covered. This has turned out not to be so.

When I was in Washington last week, they were still saying they hoped for a favorable outcome, but it's clear that the Peruvians are being more steadfast than they might've been expected to. They were very badly frightened by what happened in Chile. I think many governments in Latin America were very badly frightened, which is another reason why Dr. Kissinger feels this is an appropriate moment to act, because to a certain extent, the governments down there are cowed. But the Peruvians are, I personally am happy to say, withstanding some of the demands that are being made on them.

And the kind of demands go well beyond just the mere treatment of investment. They include things like, the Peruvians are being asked not to trade with mainland China. Even though the United States itself is creating new relations with China, it doesn't want its client states in Latin America to trade with China. And it was making Chinese trade one of the very crucial aspects of the Peruvian and United States relations.

So, I think it's a very good example of what one might call the United States relations with a nationalistic, but certainly, not communist state in Latin America. And it's a very good example of why Latin American relations with United States have historically been so difficult, and I believe will be continue to be so difficult, perhaps until the end of this decade.

For today's feature, we've been discussing United States foreign policy in Latin America with Christopher Roper, an editor of Latin American newsletters, the British Independent Journal of Latin American Political and Economic Affairs. 

You have been listening to the Latin American Press Review, a weekly selection and analysis of news and events in Latin America as seen by leading world news sources, with special emphasis on the Latin American press. This program is produced by the Latin American Policy Alternatives Group. Comments and suggestions are welcome and may be sent to the group at 2205 San Antonio Street, Austin, Texas. This program is distributed by Communication Center, the University of Texas at Austin. The views expressed are solely those of the Latin American Policy Alternatives Group and its sources, and should not be considered as being endorsed by UT Austin or this station.