Countries Tags Used in Events

It's hard to see how Panama can fail to achieve its objective of exerting painful diplomatic pressure on Washington through the meeting of the United Nations Security Council, which began last week in Panama City. Such meetings offer the poor nations of the underdeveloped world an opportunity to mobilize international support for their grievances against the rich nations in the glare of world publicity. The following excerpts from a front page editorial in the Panamanian newspaper, La Estrella de Panamá, comments on the current negotiations.

Our foreign ministry has engaged in able, patient and cautious diplomatic efforts since 1961 to serve as host to the meeting of the UN Security Council in Panama. That we have achieved this objective, considering that our only element of pressure was our moral force, constitutes a victory for the constitutional government and for the people that support our sound foreign policy. When the Security Council meets at the Arosemena Palace, our flag will be flown together with those of the 131 members of the United Nations. Panama will never again be alone in the long and painful battle in which it has been engaged since 1903. People everywhere are always fair and freedom-loving. The peoples of the world will be with us this March.

The editorial continues, "In October 1971, Panamanian foreign minister Juan Antonio Tack, addressed the 16th UN General Assembly and strongly denounced the existing situation in our country caused by foreign intervention in our sovereign territory." He said, "In 1903, Panama had imposed upon it a treaty that enabled the construction of a canal. A treaty that is humiliating to my country in most of its stipulations. By virtue of that treaty, a foreign territory known as the canal zone was embedded in the heart of our republic with its own government and laws issued from the United States." This from the Panama Daily, La Estrella de Panamá.

A further comment on the Panama situation from the Mexico City daily, Excélsior. "For 70 years", says General Omar Torrijos, "strong man of this country. Panama has provided the bodies and the US has provided the bullets." He's referring metaphorically to the colonial treaty, which is now under consideration of the United Nations Security Council. The 44-year-old General said that the approval of the new treaty can take place only by a plebiscite of the Panamanian people. With complete respect for the sovereignty of Panama, and without the qualifications that it be a perpetual or non-limited agreement.

Torrijos said, "One does not negotiate sovereignty. When we speak of sovereignty, they speak of economics. They say, 'Why are you so scornful of money?' As if money could buy everything. Sovereignty and only sovereignty is the question."

By airplane, car, and on foot, Torrijos toured the north of his country with Excélsior reporters. They observed the drama, the sadness, and the misery of the Panamanian peasants. Torrijos said, "We are subjugated by drought and erosion, as well as by a canal. An agrarian reform was initiated four years ago," and Torrijos said that this has total priority, but the canal by its very nature, is a more international issue.

Generation after generation, we have fought over this canal to change this situation. We haven't got a thing. The US has always insisted on a bilateral treaty and bilateral negotiations. We agreed with this and we're loyal to this until we realize that the canal is a service to the entire world. The world must realize that Panama is more than a canal, and that the canal is more than a ditch between two oceans. Around this ditch is a country, a nation, and a youth ready to sacrifice itself to regain jurisdiction over 1400 square kilometers now fenced off under the control of a foreign government.

Torrijos says that the legislature decided not to continue accepting the payment of $1.9 million so that the world can see that we are not being rented, we are being occupied. Excélsior asked Torrijos under what conditions he would sign a new treaty. The main problem he singled out was the length of time of the commitment. The US had been persistently pressing for an agreement in perpetuity, and their compromise offer of 90 years was evidently also too long for Torrijos. When the interviewer asked, "Do you feel that the other Latin American countries are behind you?" The general replied, "Yes, the sentiment of Latin Americans is almost unanimous." This was from Excélsior, the Mexico City daily.

And finally the London magazine, Latin America interprets the security council meeting in Panama as having important implications for US Latin American relations. Latin America says, "There is every reason to suppose that most, if not all, Latin American nations will use the occasion to air virtually every major complaint they have against the United States. During a visit to Mexico earlier this month, the Columbian foreign minister said that during the meeting, the countries of this continent must bring to discussion the disparity in the terms of trade, the growing indebtedness, the classic instability of raw material prices and the lack of markets which obstruct industrialization. The question of the 200-mile limit is also likely to be raised."

Latin America goes on to say, "It is the question of the canal and Panama's relations with the United States that are at the heart of the meeting, and it is here that the United States is most embarrassed. In the wake of the withdrawal from Vietnam, the Nixon Administration is anxious to follow a less exposed foreign policy and sees playing the world's policemen. It would be happy to make Panama substantial concessions, which if it were a free agent, would doubtless include formal recognition of Panamanian sovereignty over the Canal Zone and an end to the perpetuity clause of the 1903 treaty; much bigger payments to Panama for the use of the canal; probably a phasing out of the Canal Zone status as a colony of the United States; and perhaps even a gradual disbandment of the huge anti-guerilla training and operational base in the zone.

Though this would touch upon the sensitive question of continental security although Washington has made some concessions. Last month in a symbolic gesture, it removed the 20-foot-high wire fence separating the zone from Panama proper. The fence against which more than 20 Panamanians were killed in clashes with the United States Army in 1964. The United States ambassador, Robert Sayre, has publicly recognized that the zone is a Panamanian territory, though under United States jurisdiction. This commentary from the weekly Latin America.

Ercia from Santiago reports on political struggles within the ruling Popular Unity government in Chile. The slogan, "The United Left will Never be Conquered," had large repercussions in the 1970 presidential campaign. It arose from the round table discussions, which the Communist party, the Socialist Party, and other left groupings attended. The leaders of the Popular Unity made it clear that victory was possible only if this slogan was applied and cooperation strong. That was in fact the case in 1970. Now after 27 months of power, the apparent ideological strength of the left has begun to unravel a bit. The threatening split between the communists and the socialists, concerns the extent of the social or state sector. As well as disagreement over methods of rationing and distribution. In Chile, the Communist Party represents a fairly cautious conservative position, and they have accused the socialists of supporting a far left grouping, the movement of the revolutionary left. The members of this organization have been calling for the creation of public institutions independent of the government. Examples of these would be labor groups, community associations, and peasant leagues. This published in Ercia from Santiago.

The Allende Government's substantial vote in the Congressional elections may prove to be a deceptive success if the pronounced differences between the two principle ruling parties are allowed to continue, the Peruvian Latin American Press News Agency comments on the situation in Chile.

In a rare display of toughness, the Movement of Popular United Action, MAPU, expelled 15 of its members from the party last week. Its action, coming so soon after the congressional elections, is an omen of the likely state of internal politics within the ruling Popular Unity Coalition in the next few months. For now, the electoral excitement has settled. It has become evident that the potential for conflict and division within the coalition is greater than it was before. The incident was provoked by the publication of an internal MAPU document by the right-wing daily El Mercurio four days before the elections. Frank and detailed, the report contained an analysis of the two and a half years of Allende's administration. Naturally, it was a godsend to the opposition, which exploited it to the full. Particularly stressing its admissions of error by the government, and its criticism of the government for bringing in military cabinet ministers. The government was clearly embarrassed by the affair, and President Allende, speaking to foreign journalists two days before the elections, made no secret of his irritation. "The party should have burnt the document after it had been discussed", the President said.

Privately, Allende did more than express irritation, said Latin American Press. "He summoned the leaders of MAPU and told them bluntly that unless they offered a satisfactory explanation quickly, he would be forced to ask for the resignation of every MAPU member in high government position. The party took his demand seriously and on the 7th of March, expelled 15 members, explaining that the group had refused to accept the revolutionary character of the government. But in fact, the reverse is true. The expelled group was close to the movement of the revolutionary left, the extreme left-wing organization, which although outside the government supported it in the recent congressional elections. Like the mayor, the expelled members of MAPU have doubts about the participation of the armed forces in the government. And are completely opposed to the Communist Party's strategy of consolidation within the coalition, and reconciliation with the Christian Democrats. The remainder of MAPU is moderate in feeling, although it claims a certain distinction between its position and that of the communist." This commentary is from the Latin American Press Agency in Lima.

The Brazilian weekly, Opinião, reported this week from Rio on the further activities of the Catholic Church in opposing the military government. Brazil's bishops, in their strongest and most detailed declaration of human rights, have denounced various types of discrimination in this country and the limitation on basic freedoms here. According to conclusions of the 13th General Assembly of the National Conference of Brazilian Bishops made public last week, "It is the duty of the Roman Catholic Church to inform public opinion of the violations of human rights and to defend those rights." The question of human rights was one of the main topics on the agenda of the General assembly that met in Sao Paulo for 10 days last month. A total of 215 bishops or 80% of the episcopate of the world's largest Catholic country, took part in the meeting.

Opinião continues, "The document is not really an open challenge to Brazilian authorities, but a clear statement of the church's position on the question of human rights, and an offer to work with the authorities to improve the situation. In the last year, individual bishops and groups of bishops have publicly attacked Brazil's military regime on its social policies. In particular, they have denounced police and military authorities for arbitrary and repressive actions which have included torture. They have also attacked civilian authorities for allowing large business interests to exploit rural workers in the name of economic development."

The basic human rights, said by the bishops to be among those least respected, were the right to liberty and physical integrity when faced with excessive repression. The right to political participation, in particular denied to the opposition party. The right to association, especially in regard to labor unions. The right to expression and information. The right to a legal defense, in view of the absence of habeas corpus provision. The right to possess the land on which one works. The right not to be subjected to systematic, political, and social propaganda, and aggressive and indiscriminate commercial advertising. And the right of the church to greater participation in social activities sponsored by the civilian authorities.

Opinião concludes, "The bishops came out even more strongly in denouncing various types of discrimination in Brazilian society. Including discrimination in favor of big landowners and against peasant families. For business management against workers. For whites against blacks. For pro-regime, political parties against the opposition. And for men as opposed to women. The bishop's strongest denunciation was directed against the oppression of Brazil's Indian population. The document charged that about 100,000 Indians were in the process of being exterminated. The document urged that the church make a study of the present condition of the Indians and that all persons engaged and work with Indians join forces to help them." This is from the Brazilian weekly Opinião.

The second round of bilateral talks between Chile and the United States is to open next week in Washington, in an effort to resolve some of their main outstanding differences. Particularly questions of finance, trade and aid, and compensation claims by United States and copper companies.

Argentina, Guatemala, and Venezuela, all of which have territorial disputes with Britain or former British colonies, strongly opposed Britain's application for permanent observer status at the Organization of American States. Venezuela also raised the issue of colonialism, which was criticized by Brazil and Peru on the grounds that other colonial countries such as Portugal have been granted observer status as a matter of routine. They also pointed out that Britain gave regular technical assistance to the OAS.

This week's feature deals with one case study in the controversy between multinational corporations and Latin American nationalist governments, which pose a threat to corporate investments in Latin America. The ITT secret memorandums concerning its interventions in Chile, have made the headlines again recently, calling attention to the strong power these companies wield in Latin America.

Senate hearings in Washington this week have been delving into the activities of ITT's busy Washington office, this time involving its campaign to get Nixon Administration help in protecting ITT properties in Chile from Marxist President Salvador Allende. The Wall Street Journal reports that ITT officials bombarded the White House with letters and visits, called on the State Department, huddled with the US ambassador to Chile, and lunched often with a Central Intelligence Agency spy boss, known as "Our Man." What ITT wanted during this hectic pleading in 1970 and '71, was for Washington to threaten the newly elected Allende government with economic collapse, according to William Merriam, who was then head of the company's Washington office. "If Allende was faced with economic collapse, he might be more congenial toward paying us off", Mr. Merriam told a Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee. The Chilean government had expropriate the ITT-controlled Chile Telephone Company without, the company says, offering adequate compensation.

The Wall Street Journal goes on to say that the Senate subcommittee, chaired by Senator Frank Church, was created especially to investigate the influence of big multinational companies like ITT on US foreign policy. ITT's involvement in the 1970 Chilean presidential election, was first brought to light a year ago in columns by Jack Anderson, who had obtained a stack of memos, cable grams, and letters between ITT officials. So far, ITT has had little luck protecting its investments in Chile. It claims that the ITT-controlled telephone company that was intervened by the Allende government in September 1971, has a book value of $153 million. ITT has filed a claim for $92 million with the US government's Overseas Private Investment Corporation, which ensures American property against foreign expropriation. But OPIC has a rule against provocations or instigation by its insurance clients, unless the activity was requested by the US government. So the question of who took the lead in meddling in the 1970 Chilean election, ITT or the CIA, could determine whether the insurance claim is valid.

Mr. Merriam told Senator Church that ITT Chairman Harold Geneen introduced him in July of 1970 to William Broe, the CIA's Latin American Director for Clandestine Services. Mr. Merriam said he was instructed to stay in touch with Mr. Broe in the future. Without saying who initiated this meeting in the Washington Hotel, Mr. Miriam made it clear that the CIA was impressed with political reporting on the Chilean situation by ITT'S operatives in Latin America. He said Mr. Broe sent CIA messengers to his office to get the reports. The September 17th, 1970 cable from Bob Barella and Hal Hendrix, two ITT officials in Latin America, suggested Mr. Allende's election might be headed off with help from we and other US firms in Chile. The cable recommended that advertising funds be pumped into a financially shaky conservative newspaper in Chile. The cable also suggests, concludes the Wall Street Journal account, "that ITT bring what pressure we can on the US information service to circulate the newspaper's editorials in Latin America and Europe."

In a memo dated September 14th, 1970, an ITT operative in Chile wrote that he had spoken with the state department's Latin American advisor to Henry Kissinger. "I told him of Mr. Geneen's deep concern about the Chile situation, not only from the standpoint of our heavy investment, but also because of the threat to the entire hemisphere." The threat to its interest explains in a nutshell why ITT worked so hard in the period between September 4th and November 4th to prevent the Allende government from taking power in Chile. ITT had a great deal to lose in Chile.

Its holdings consisted of six affiliates, employing about 8,000 workers and worth around $200 million. It operated the Chilean Telephone Company, one of ITT's biggest earners abroad, had investments in telephone equipment, assembling and manufacturing, directory printing and international communications, and operated hotels. Among foreign investors in Chile, only the copper holdings of Anaconda and Kennecott exceeded the worth of ITT's Chilean subsidiaries. In 1969, the Frei administration agreed that the telephone company be guaranteed a minimum annual profit of 10%. Profits for ITT have further been augmented by special foreign exchange arrangements for the communications monopolies in Chile.

The following memos illustrate how far ITT was willing to go to keep these investments. They also reveal the close ties between ITT executives and the US government, including the Central Intelligence Agency. And in the relations between ITT and the Chilean right. ITT had access to the centers of Chilean domestic power as well, having recruited prominent Chileans through career and investment ties. The memos expose ITT as a corporate nation on which the sun never sets. As Jack Anderson summarized, "ITT operates its own worldwide foreign policy unit, foreign intelligence machinery, counterintelligence apparatus, communications network, classification system, and airliner fleet with total assets equal to the combined gross national products of Paraguay, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Haiti, Bolivia, and Chile. ITT can wield its power almost at will."

The key memoranda begin on September 17th, 1970, 6 Weeks prior to the historic presidential election, which placed the Allende government in power. ITT field officials, Hendrix and Barella, advised an ITT vice President, E.J. Gerrity about the Chilean presidential campaign, suggesting alternatives which could thwart Allende's election chances.

The report stated that, "The surface odds and foreign news media appear to indicate that Salvador Allende will be inaugurated as president November 4th. But there is now a strong possibility that he will not make it. The big push has begun in Chile to assure congressional victory for Jorge Alessandri on October 24th as part of what has been dubbed the Alessandri formula to prevent Chile from becoming a communist state. Late September 15th, US Ambassador Edward Korry finally received a message from State Department giving him the green light to move in the name of President Nixon. The message gave him maximum authority to do all possible, short of Dominican Republic type action, to keep Allende from taking power."

The report further contended that the Mercurio newspapers are another key factor. "Keeping them alive and publishing between now and October 24th is of extreme importance. They're the only remaining outspoken anti-communist voice in Chile and under severe pressure, especially in Santiago. This may well turn out to be the Achilles heel for the Allende crowd. The Allende effort more than likely will require some outside financial support. The degree of this assistance will be known better around October 1st. We have pledged our support if needed."

Then on September 29th, Vice President Gerrity cabled ITT President Harold Geneen in Brussels, giving more details of the measures being considered to induce economic collapse in Chile. The cable says, "Subsequent to your call yesterday, I heard from Washington and a representative called me this morning. He was the same man you met with Merriam some weeks ago. We discussed the situation in detail and he made suggestions based on recommendations from our representative on the scene, and analysis in Washington. The idea presented is to follow economic pressure. The suggestions follow. Banks should not renew credits or should delay in doing so. Companies should drag their feet in sending money. And making deliveries in shipping, spare parts, etc. Savings and loan companies there are in trouble. If pressure were applied, they should have to shut their doors, thereby creating stronger pressure. We should withdraw all technical help and should not promise any technical assistance in the future.

A list of companies was provided, and it was suggested that we should approach them as indicated. I was told that of all the companies involved, ours alone had been responsive and understood the problem. The visitor added that money was not a problem."

He indicated, the cable continued, "that certain steps were being taken, but that he was looking for additional help aimed at inducing economic collapse. I discussed the suggestions with Guilfoyle, another ITT vice president. He contacted a couple of companies who said they had been given advice, which is directly contrary to the suggestions I received. Realistically, I did not see how we can induce others involved to follow the plan suggested. We can contact key companies for their reactions and make suggestions in the hope that they might cooperate. Information we receive today from other sources indicates that there is a growing economic crisis in any case."

The Gerrity cable was followed by a memorandum, dated October 9th, from another of the ITT vice presidents, William Merriam to John McCone, Director of the CIA from 1962 to 1965, and now a director of ITT. Merriam concluded that, "Practically no progress has been made in trying to get Latin American business to cooperate in some way so as to bring on economic chaos." GM and Ford, for example, say that they have too much inventory on hand in Chile to take any chances. And that they keep hoping that everything will work out all right. Also, the Bank of America has agreed to close its doors in Santiago, but each day keeps postponing the inevitable. According to my source, we must continue to keep the pressure on business. I was rather surprised to learn that in this man's opinion, the Nixon Administration will take a very, very hard line when and if Allende is elected.

As soon as expropriations take place, and providing adequate compensation is not forthcoming, he believes that all sources of American monetary help either through aid or through the lending agencies here in Washington will be cut off. He assures me that the president has taken, at this time better late than never, I guess, a long, hard look at the situation and is prepared to move after the fact. We had heard previously from the lower level at the State Department that Hickenlooper would not be invoked. This policy has either changed or the lower echelon does not know of this change. This is the first heartening thing that I have heard because with few exceptions, Nixon has paid very little attention to Latin America."

Subsequent memos indicate that, although both ITT and the CIA, gave verbal assurances of material support to Chilean general Roberto Viaux, who was maneuvering inside the army to stage a possible coup in late October. The attempt failed to materialize. None of ITT's efforts were effective in preventing Allende's election on November 4th, 1970. Although the memos indicate that the ITT maneuverings fail, we know that in the one and one half years that have passed since the Popular Unity government assumed power, the Chilean right aided by the US government and US business interests has continued to engage in subversive activity against the Allende government. This activity has taken many forms, including assassination attempts against the Chilean president outright, but abortive military coups, manipulation of food and other resources to exacerbate scarcities and create economic chaos, and of course the withholding of aid and loans as a big stick to whip the government in line. All of these tactics were suggested in the secret memos.

ITT has struggled for a year to ring from the UP a generous compensation for its interest in the Chilean telephone company, Chi Telco, which the Allende government earmarked for expropriation immediately upon its inauguration. Chi Telco was ITT's most profitable Chilean asset. Throughout the first part of 1971, ITT bickered over the terms of the expropriation, and finally on September 30th, 1971, the government took over operation of Chi Telco, claiming its services were highly deficient. Since then, ITT and UP have continued to negotiate over how much the government should pay for ITT's 70% share in Chi Telco. ITT valued the company at $153 million, but the government claimed it was only worth $24 million. Based on its past experiences in other Latin American countries, ITT has every reason to believe that it would be reimbursed. In the past three years, the governments of Peru, Ecuador, and Brazil have all nationalized the ITT-owned telephone companies in their countries on terms extremely favorable to ITT.

The memorandum that cited earlier may destroy ITT's chances for compensation from the Allende government, and may lead to further nationalization of ITT properties in Chile. In order to appropriate a corporation, the Chilean Congress must pass a constitutional amendment in each case. Presumably, these documents are giving the government more fuel in its effort to regain control of Chile's industries from the North American investors. As nationalism grows in Latin America, the threat to US corporations abroad also grows. As the documents make clear, US corporations are urging the US government to take a firm stand against unfriendly acts of expropriation by Latin American government, and are prepared to resist this trend by actively interfering in the internal affairs of other nations to safeguard their interests.

Following upon the recent elections in Chile, election in which President Allende's governing coalition gained strength, we have two reports. On possible changes in the governing coalition of probable significance, Latin America reports from Chile that President Allende has suggested that the ruling coalition, Unidad Popular (Popular Unity), should unite to form a single left-wing party and is to summon a Congress of the Unidad Popular (Popular Unity) in the near future. There has been speculation that the foreign minister might play a prominent role in any such party if it were formed.

Also, the Latin American news staff of The Miami Herald reports on possible changes in Allende's cabinet. President Salvador Allende will name more communists and more socialists to his cabinet and will retain his military ministers, sources said Friday. The entire 15 man cabinet resigned Thursday night to give the socialists chief executive liberty in forming a new government. The ministers continued as caretakers. The sources said Allende planned to name at least one other communist and an additional socialist to the new cabinet. The socialists hold four portfolios in the cabinet and the communists three. This would reflect the results of the March 4th congressional elections in which both communists and socialists gained strength.

The changes in the Popular Unity Coalition and in the cabinet reflects changes registered in the recent election. One indication of the changes in Popular Support was analyzed by Tricontinental News Service.

An analysis of the women's vote in the recent Chilean elections shows a strong leftward drift among Chilean women who have traditionally voted conservatively. A quarter of a million more women voted for the left coalition in this election than in the 1970 election that brought Allende to power. This was an 8.5% increase. This report was from Tricontinental News Service.

More somber consideration for the ruling leftist coalition were reported from Latin America Newsletter. Chilean negotiators sit down with their opposite numbers in the United States at a conference table again this week to discuss the thorny question of Chile's debt. It is now three months since talks were first held, and in the meantime, the urgency of the issue has intensified for the Chileans. Despite its political boost from recent congressional elections and encouraging upturn in the price of copper, the Chilean government finds itself with an economy in the gravest straits.

Changes in administrative staff is also reported in the United States, when according to The Miami Herald Latin American staff. The Nixon administration has nominated Jack Kubisch as its next Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs. His nomination to the post is viewed by Washington insiders as a triumph for the State Department because Kubisch, unlike Meyer and the other Nixon administration officials, is a veteran diplomat. It's unlikely that Kubisch's nomination will be confirmed in time for the meeting of the Organization of American States to begin in Washington April 4th, but it is at this meeting that he is expected to be reintroduced to the Latin American scene after a two-year absence.

This gathering likely will feature heated debates on the sanctions imposed by the OAS against the Cuban government of Fidel Castro in 1964 when the US first built the sugarcane curtain. It will also serve as a forum for those Latin American nations who want to have the sanctions lifted and Cuba readmitted to the hemispheric group. Kubisch served in Brazil as Director of the United States International Development Agency from 1962 to '65. He was head of the Brazilian Affairs of the State Department in Washington from 1965 to '69. As a result, he has said to have strong emotional ties with Brazil and is considered an admirer of the economic plan used there.

Shifting from the diplomatic to the military front, Campainha, a weekly newspaper published by Brazilian exiles in Santiago, Chile, describes with concern the increasing militarization in Brazil. When General George Underwood, commander of the Panama Canal Zone, traveled to Brazil last year to discuss Latin American problems, particularly the internal politics of Peru, Chile, and Uruguay, General Sousa Mellow of the Brazilian military stated, "The General Underwood's visit with us reinforces the spirit of our presidents, who examined together the problems of the world which gave Brazil and the United States responsibilities to maintain the continuation of democracy." The statement by General Mellow demonstrates the purposes of the Brazilian arms race to assume the responsibility along with the United States of "maintaining democracy" in Latin America.

Campainha continues, "The warlike capacity of the Brazilian armed forces has already far surpassed the necessities of maintaining territorial boundaries. This excess capacity constitutes a danger for other Latin American countries to the extent that it seeks to create conditions to impose its leadership in Latin America. There is reason to believe that this could include intervention in countries that become unreceptive to Brazilian and North American models of development. The Brazilian preoccupation with entering the group of nations, which possess nuclear arms, reflects this objective. An agreement with the German Brazilian Commission of scientific and technical cooperation was signed last November, to further promote research in nuclear energy and the construction of missiles. Also, last year, Westinghouse Electric began constructing the first nuclear power plant in the country with a potential capacity of 600,000 kilowatts."

Campainha continues, "That the installation of arms factories in Brazil continues rapidly. Dow Chemical had proposed that their Brazilian plants begin producing napalm, which would be used in Vietnam. The so-called end of that war has postponed Dow's production of napalm in Brazil, but for how long?" Campainha asks. Print Latino reported last July that the Italian manufacturer Fiat, was trying to convince the Brazilian government to build a military aeronautics plant in Brazil. A similar offer was received from the French firm Dassault, which tried to sell its patent for the construction of its mirage jets in Brazil. Although in its propaganda, the Brazilian military government insists that the massive arms purchases are only in keeping with their intention to "modernize the army." Realistically, this arms race has one objective, to enable the Brazilian army to repress liberation movements both within and without that country.

Unfortunately, the increased militarization of Brazil is occurring in the context of growing tensions between the Brazilian government and other Latin American countries. Opinião, Brazil's major daily, reports from Rio, that Brazil and Paraguay are in the final planning stages of a huge hydroelectric dam on the Paraná River, and the agreement on the project will probably be signed next month when Paraguay's president visits Brazil.

The Itaipu Dam will be the largest in the world, cost over $2 billion supplied by the Brazilians, and provide energy to a huge area in Southern Brazil and Eastern Paraguay. The project has been criticized severely by the Argentinian government and by influential newspapers in Buenos Aires. Opinião predicts that the protests will grow now that the Peronist Party has won the elections, because the Peronists were outspoken during the campaign in criticizing Brazil's tampering with the Paraná River Basin.

Opinião continues that there are three basic reasons for Argentina's negative reaction to the proposed dam. First, it will seriously affect the flow of the Paraná River with unknown consequences for the trade and agriculture of six Argentine provinces. Secondly, the Brazilian project will make the construction of an Argentine hydroelectric plant further down the river impossible. Finally, the project has military implications, for if the Itaipu Dam is built, the Brazilians will have their hand on the faucet of the Paraná River and could use the dam as a weapon during war. For instance, flooding Argentina's most important and populous cities.

Opinião believes that the Argentinians have just complaints and urges the Brazilian government to stop rushing the planning stages and discuss the problem with neighboring countries. The Rio paper calls for a "disarmament of spirit without which it will be impossible to unite the forces necessary for the integral utilization of the Paraná River." That from Opinião.

Other observers are less optimistic than Opinião about the possibilities of an Argentine-Brazilian accord. Latin America sees the election of the strongly nationalistic Peronista Party in Argentina as likely to sharpen conflicts between the two nations. He reports that the Brazilian foreign office was preoccupied with Perón's victory and seized the deteriorations of relations as inevitable. The new government in Argentina, according to the Brazilian analysis, will be more than nationalistic. It will be overtly opposed to Brazil.

The probable foreign minister of the new Argentine regime has already spoken of smashing the Brasilia-Washington axis and it is expected that Argentine diplomats will soon try to restore Argentine influence in Uruguay, Paraguay, and Bolivia. Latin America concludes that an alliance of the other Latin American nations against Brazil is a distinct possibility if the Peronists can solve some of Argentina's internal problems. That from Latin America.

The following article on political developments in Peru since the illness of President Velasco Alvarado originated with the Latin America Newsletter. It was reprinted by the Brazilian Daily, Opinião. Peruvian President Juan Velasco Alvarado recovering in a hospital from an operation suffered a setback last Saturday when his doctors had to amputate his right leg above the knee. Official bulletins stressed the normality of such a complication, but there can be no doubt in the political impact of this new operation.

Prime Minister Edgardo Mercado Jarrín is temporarily presiding over government meetings. But until last week, Velasco still had to sign all legal instruments. The problem was partially that the Air Force minister should, in strictly military terms, take precedent. However, Mercado is probably the effective ruler of Peru at this point. Mercado is by no means as committed to radical change as Velasco, although he apparently moved to the left during his years as Peru's foreign minister.

Latin America continues. One of the most difficult tasks facing analysts of the Peruvian process has always been to cut through the revolutionary rhetoric and assess the true ideological commitment of the various generals who try so hard to outdo one another in verbal militancy. But there are interesting indications that the government's efforts to stimulate popular participation in the Peruvian revolution have been successful in awakening a militant consciousness in the workers' movement, which never existed there before. How far the militancy can control this development and how far they really want it to go remain to be seen. But the signs are that popular mobilization may be taking on a dynamism of its own.

The First National Congress of Comunidades Industriales, which entered a fortnight ago, provided some interesting evidence to support this view. A creation of the regime's theorists of social solidarity and inter-class collaboration, the Comunidades form of organization are nonetheless throwing up some radical demands which show that the class consciousness is very much alive and indeed growing. Although government officials who helped arrange the congress stressed all along its complete independence from official manipulation or influence, they were probably not prepared for the vigorous declarations of independence from the floor, which led the representatives of the ministry of industry to withdraw.

The ministry's Office of Labor Communities was also accused of lacking revolutionary consciousness and a unanimous vote accensure led to the abrupt departure of the ministry observers. Just for good measure, the Ministry of Labor was criticized for provoking industrial conflicts and the umpteenth call made for its complete reorganization.

Latin America's analysis on the Peruvian situation continues noting, although no open attacks were made on the government policy as such, a number of motions go considerably further than the official stance on such key matters as agrarian reform, nationalization, and workers' participation in decision making. The Communeros called for acceleration of land distribution programs without compensation for exppropriated landowners, complete nationalization of national resources and more active intervention by workers at all levels of management, not just on company boards. Other motions called for the immediate introduction of social ownership of the principle sector of the economy and the Comunidade organization in sectors where it does not yet exist.

From the Congress debates, it seems that despite official exhortation working class leaders persist in viewing the Comunidade as an instrument in their struggle against the capitalistas. A series of demands called for the takeover of firms which tamper with the balance sheets or to declare themselves in liquidation to frustrate the growth of the Comunidade. Other proposals are to exclude the landowners, the owners, and the executives from controlling counsel of the Comunidade and to exclude them also from the annual profit share out. Finally, delegates voted for a strengthening of the unions on the motion that they "constitute the main instrument of class struggle and defense of the workers."

To a certain amount of teaching can bring about a change in consciousness was shown by the experience of the big Northern Sugar cooperatives where, although they are a relatively privileged sector of the Peruvian working class, the field and factory workers directed their fire against the perpetuation of "capitalist attitudes among the managers and technicians." Something similar seems to be happening in industry which was previously a small and weak sector, but which is bound to grow enormously as a result of the government's accelerated industrialization programs.

The government by its no doubt well-intentioned encouragement of participation has opened the door to a militant class consciousness, which is not precisely what it intended. Although as the government is well aware, the Comuneros make up only a tiny and again privileged minority of Peru's working class, they could well become its vanguard. Unless an unexpected change of direction takes place at the top, the newfound self-confidence and independence of spirit among the leading sectors of the working class can only lead to an important radicalization of the Peruvian situation. The above analysis was from Latin America.

Today's feature concerns Panamanian discontent with the current Canal Zone treaty and the politics made evident during the recent United Nations Security Council meeting, which was convened in Panama City in order to focus on this issue. The article was chosen not so much because of the Panamanian problem's importance as a single issue, but because it is illustrative of changing alliances and growing nationalism in Latin America. But as a preface to the Panamanian article, we include an article from this week's Le Monde, which is a virtual litany of the woes that the failed US policy during this month of March.

The Unida Popular government of Salvador Allende, termed Marxist with virtually unanimous reprobation by the North American press, has strengthened its position in Chile as a result of the March 4th legislative elections.

In Paraguay, an aroused military now has control over the government in the name of principles, which would not at all be disavowed by the Tupemaros.

President Luis Echeveria Alvarez of Mexico is preparing to fly, first to Europe to strengthen his bonds with the common market and then to Moscow and Peking. This voyage is unlikely to inspire joy in Washington in view of the intense pressure exerted by the United States on former President Lopez Mateos to give up his projected encounter with General De Gaulle in 1963. To leave no doubt of his desire for greater independence from Washington, Mr. Echeverria recently addressed the Mexican Congress, which has just adopted a law imposing rigorous controls on the deployment of foreign capital. The speech was an unusual event in Mexico where the head of state goes to Congress only once a year for his State of the Union message.

In Lima, Peru the heir apparent to General Juan Velasco Alvaro, who has just undergone a serious operation, is Prime Minister Luis Edgardo Mercado Jarrín, who also holds the defense portfolio. It was he who, when foreign minister, firmly placed Peru alongside the non-aligned nations of the Third World. He, along with President Allende warmly approved the project proposed by Mr. Echeverria at the last Junta meeting in Santiago, Chile, calling for a charter of economic rights and obligations for all nations.

Also, despite pressure from Washington's tuna lobby, Ecuador's Navy is harassing the Californian factory ships fishing within the country's 200-mile territorial limit, a limit now adopted by most Latin American nations.

Le Monde continues that Venezuela has joined the Andean group formed by Chile, Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, and Colombia, whose common legislation regarding foreign capital is not very different from that contemplated in Mexico City.

And while there is little to glad in the hearts of Washington leaders in any of these tidings, Le Monde continues, it would seem that the Peronist landslide of March the 11th would prove even more worrisome. For provided the military now in control in Argentina honors the electoral verdict, this development upsets the entire balance of power in the southern part of the continent for given the nationalism anti-Americanism, even slightly left-leaning tendencies in modern Perónism, it is not unreasonable to think that Argentina under Peronist leadership might provide effective opposition to Brazil's sub imperialist ambitions. So decried in chancellor's up and down the continent as well as lend its hand in obstructing US economic hegemony in Latin America.

And, Le Monde says, as for Panama, the extraordinary meeting of the United Nations Security Council in Panama City, which opened last Thursday was a heaven sent opportunity to raise an insistent voice against the continuation of what is called the colonial enclave, the zone controlled by the American company running the canal and by Pentagon's Southern command. This article was taken from the French Daily Le Monde.

The following feature length article on Panama is from The Guardian. The United Nations Security Council meeting in Panama last March 15th to 20th might mark a turning point in the decline of US domination of South and Central America. The meeting which the Panamanian government has been planning for over a year focused its fire on the main current issues involving US hegemony over the region. In particular, the nationalist Panamanian government of General Omar Torrijos has struggled to overturn the US domination of the canal zone, a 500 square mile area which cuts Panama in half. The zone includes the Panama Canal itself and the surrounding area, which houses no less than 14 different US military bases.Torrijos wasted no time in bringing this issue before the conference. In his keynote address, he denounced US control of the canal zone as "neo colonialism," which he then traced back over the 70-year history of US Panamanian relations. While making few direct references to the United States, Torrijos spoke of the zone as "a colony in the heart of my country," and also said that Panama would never "be another star on the flag of the United States."

In addition, the Guardian continues, Torrijos denounced, with extensive support from other non-aligned nations, the economic sanctions opposed against Cuba by the organization of American states at the demand of the United States. The 10 Latin American ministers present at the meeting, all invited by the Panamanians, included Raul Rojas, Cuban foreign minister.

John Scully, the US's new delegate to the UN had earlier replied to Torrijos on several points, saying that the United States was willing to revise the treaty, particularly its most objectionable clause, which grants control of the zone to the United States permanently. Scully implied the United States would be willing to accept a 50-year lease with an option for 40 years more if engineering improvements were made to the waterway. Panama formally introduced a resolution at the March 16th meeting of the security council, calling for Panamanian jurisdiction over the canal zone and its neutralization. This resolution was supported by 13 members of the 15 member Security Council, but vetoed by the United States vote. Great Britain abstained.

The Guardian goes on to say that the Panamanians carefully and skillfully laid the groundwork for the United Nations meeting, waiting for a time when they not only held a seat on the security council but chaired the proceedings. By the time their proposal for the Panama meeting came up for a vote in January, the United States was so outmaneuvered that the only objection the US could raise to the UN floor was to complain of the cost of the meeting. At the same time in the statement of the press, the UN's delegation made it very clear that its real objection to the meeting was that it would be used as a forum for attacks on US policies towards South America. Once the Panamanians offered a $100,000 to pay most of the UN costs, however, the US resistance collapsed.

But the Panamanians, the Guardian says, never made any secret of their intentions for the meeting whose very site, the National Legislative Building, is only 10 yards from the zone's border.

Until 1903, Panama was not an independent nation, but was part of Colombia. After the Colombians refused to a agree to an unfavorable treaty over the building and operation of the canal by the US, the US engineered a Panamanian Declaration of Independence 10 weeks later. Two weeks after that, the US rammed through a treaty even more onerous than the one rejected by Colombia with a new country now called Panama.

Protests over the US control of the zone led to invasions by US troops on six separate occasions, between 1900 and 1925. Both public and governmental protests in Panama forced the United States to sign a slightly more favorable treaty in 1936, but US attempts to make new gains led to demonstrations in 1947 and again in '58, '59.

In January 1964, when students demonstrated near the border of the canal zone, planning to raise the Panamanian flag within the zone, US troops fired on them, killing 22 Panamanians and wounding more than 300. This is well remembered in Panama.

The canal zone was again involved on October 11th, 1968 when Torrijos then the leader of the country's army, took power. Torrijos overthrew President Arnulfo Arias, who had become unpopular for his weak stand in talks with United States over a new treaty concerning the zone. In his first two years in power Torrijos policies, The Guardian states, were similar to those of many South American military dictators. He savagely suppressed spontaneous as well as organized, popular liberation movements. Even during this period however, the United States was not completely sure of Torrijos loyalty. And while he was in Mexico in 1969, the Central Intelligence Agency supported a group of military officers attempting to overthrow him. The coup failed and the officers were imprisoned by Torrijos. Several months later, they escaped, were given asylum in the canal zone and flown to United States. Then in June 1971, an attempt was made to assassinate Torrijos.

Whether from personal conviction, desire to build popular support for his government or antagonism arising from the coup attempt, Torrijos's direction began to change. He refused to agree to the new treaty. He held elections in August of 1972. He refused to accept the yearly US canal rental of $1.9 million. We note that the US' annual profits from the zone alone, not including the canal itself, over $114 million a year, and Torrijos instituted a program of domestic reforms.

Torrijos also expropriated some larger states while increasing government credit and agricultural investments to aid poor peasants. A minimum wage was introduced and a 13th month of pay at Christmastime, over time, premiums and other benefits. 100 land settlement communities were created with about 50,000 people living on them and working government provided land.

The economic philosophy of Torrijos, The Guardian reports, seems somewhat similar to that of other nationalistic left leading groups such as the Peruvian military junta.

The article goes on to say, but major problems remain for the country. About 25% of the annual gross national product comes from the canal zone, and United Fruits still controls the important banana crop. Panama also continues to invite US investment and offers special treatment for the US dollar and high interest rates for bank deposits. While the government has helped encourage economic development with several public works projects, spending is now leveling off, partly because of Panama's growing international debts and the currency inflation plaguing the country. Because of its debts, it has also suffered a growing balance of payments deficits.

A better renegotiation of the treaty then is of economic as well as of political importance. The Panamanian position on a new treaty asks for termination of US administration in 1994, an immediate end to US control of justice, police tax, and public utilities in the zone, an equal sharing of canal profits, which are estimated to have totaled around $22 billion since its opening, the turning over of 85% of canal zone jobs and 85% of wages and social benefits there to Panamanians and military neutralization of the zone.

The Guardian continues that this last demand is the most disagreeable to the US, especially since it is coupled with the demand for the removal of all US bases from the zone. The US is willing to compromise on money and other issues, but not on the military question. The reason is simple. The Canal Zone is the center for all US military activity in South America, including the Tropical Environmental Database, the US Army School of the Americas, and the US Southern Military Command, which controls all US military activities in South America and the Caribbean, except for Mexico.

The zone also includes missile launching and placements and a new US aerospace cardiographic and geodesic survey for photo mapping and anti-guerrilla warfare campaigns. The special significance of these bases becomes clear within the general US strategy in South America. As Michael Klare writes, in War Without End, "Unlike current US operations in Southeast Asia, our plans for Latin America do not envision a significant overt American military presence. The emphasis in fact is on low cost, low visibility assistance and training programs designed to upgrade the capacity of local forces to overcome guerrilla movements. Thus, around 50,000 South American military officers have been trained in the canal zone to carry out counterinsurgency missions and to support US interests in their countries. In addition, the eighth Army special forces of about 1100 troops specializing in counterinsurgencies are stationed in the zone, sending out about two dozen 30 man mobile training teams each year for assistance to reactionary armies. This whole operation is as important and less expendable than US control of the canal waterway itself."

Thus, The Guardian article concludes Panamanian control of the Zone then would not only be a big advance on the specific question of national independence, but also would strike a powerful direct blow at US hegemony all over the South American continent.

More recent articles carry evaluations of the outcome of the security council meeting. Associated Press copy reports that General Torrijos said that he was not surprised by the US veto of the resolution before the UN security meeting "Because Panama had been vetoed for 60 years every time it tried to negotiate." The General said he was pleased with the seven-day meeting of the security council, the first ever held in Latin America, but even more pleased by the public support Panama received from other members of the Security Council. He said, "I look at it this way, only the United States voted to support its position, 13 other countries voted for Panama."

Torrijos later taped a national television interview in which he praised the Panamanian people for their calmness and civic responsibility during the council meeting, he said, "Violence gets you nowhere, and the people realize this." But General Omar Torrijos also says that he started immediately consulting with regional political representatives to decide what his country should do next in the Panama [inaudible 00:28:57] negotiations with the United States.

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.

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.

Many Latin American newspapers commented this week on the surprising degree of unity displayed at a UN Economic Commission for Latin America, ECLA, gathering during the last week of March in Quito, Ecuador. The wire service Prensa Latina reports that the Latin America of 1973 is not the Latin America of 1962. No longer is it Cuba alone that engages in vast economic and social transformations in this hemisphere, and ECLA must be prepared to face this new stage. This was the gist of the statements made by Cuban Deputy Prime Minister Carlos Rafael Rodriguez, head of his country's delegation to the 15th meeting of ECLA, which took place in Quito. The Cuban minister cited as facts which prove the new situation in Latin America, the process of construction of a socialist economy in Chile, the Peruvian revolutionary process and the results of the UN Security Council meeting held in Panama recently.

Rodriguez said, "We Latin Americans have come to an agreement at least on what we don't want, and that is backwardness, illiteracy, hunger and poverty, which are prevalent in practically every society in the region. Without an ingrained desire for development, without the determination and the will for development of the peoples, development is absolutely impossible," he added. He went on to say that one cannot demand sacrifices from people where 5% of the population receives 43% of the national income and 30% barely received 10 or perhaps 15%.

The head of the Cuban delegation said, according to Prensa Latina, that "accelerated development under the existing conditions implies in investments that the peoples cannot tackle for a lack of resources. After affirming that, here is where international financing comes into play." He said that "As far as the great capitalist economic powers are concerned, their help should not be considered as a gift, but rather as restitution for all the pillage the Latin American peoples have been subjected to." He added, "Such financing will never be obtained without the people struggle." This report from the Latin American wire service, Prensa Latina

Chile's participation in last month's ECLA meeting is reported in the Santiago weekly, Chile Hoy, which said that, "In clear language, the Chilean delegation to ECLA described the causes of the low level of economic development in Chile in recent years. The directions undertaken by the Allende administration, the successes of these strategies, and finally, the obstacles which block this path. In our judgment," said that Chilean delegation, "a number of historical errors were committed during this century in our country, which led to negative results for the Chilean people."

"In summary, we can point out seven fundamental errors. First, the surrender of basic natural resources to foreign capital. Secondly, a narrow base for the national economy with only one industrial potential, copper, generating a national external dependence, financial, commercial, technological, and cultural dependence. Third, land ownership remained in the hands of a few large landowners. Fourth, manufacturing was concentrated in the hands of a few monopolies. Fifth, Chile fell into intense foreign debt, $4 billion through 1970, the second largest per capita debt in the world, behind Israel. Sixth, establishment of a repressive state, which maintained an unequal distribution of income within the framework of only formal democracy. And seventh, the limited economic development was concentrated geographically in the capital of Santiago creating a modern sector while the rural provinces stagnated."

Chile Hoy goes on to say that, "Demonstrating the historical failure of capitalism in Chile, the Chilean delegate showed that in the 1970 presidential elections, two candidates who won over 65% of the votes suggested two different reforms. The Christian Democrat Reform had the goal of a socialist communitarian society, and the popular Unity's goal was the gradual construction of a true socialist economy. Since the popular unity won the election, there have been distinct revolutionary changes in the government's two and one half years in power, the recovery of national ownership of natural resources, the elimination of industrial monopoly through the formation of the area of social property, which is creating the mechanisms for workers' participation, nationalization of the finance and foreign commerce sectors. The Chilean state now controls 95% of credit and 85% of exports as well as 48% of imports. Further changes are that large land holdings have been expiated."

"The reformed sector now represents 48% of arable land, and with the passage of a new law during 1973, the second phase of agrarian reform will begin. Also, changes in international relations shown in the widening of diplomatic and commercial agreements, Chile is less dependent than before, and the diversification of our foreign relations permits us to say with pride that we are no longer an appendix of anyone. In addition, a vigorous internal market has been created raising the buying power of the people redistributing income and increasing national consumption." Chile Hoy further states that, "We are alleviating the burden of the inherited foreign debt. We hope that during 1973, we obtain the understanding of friendly countries in order to relieve our international payments problems." This report on Chile's statement at the ECLA gathering is from the Santiago Weekly, Chile Hoy.

The British News Weekly, Latin America gives a more detailed account of the main issues of the ECLA Conference. "The most remarkable feature of the meeting of the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America, ECLA, which ended in Quito at the end of March, was the degree of Latin American unity. The mutual distaste felt by the governments of Brazil and Central America on the right and Chile and Cuba on the left was no secret, and since development strategy was what the discussion was all about, a good deal of mutual recriminations might have been expected, but mutual interest prevailed. Faced by the economic power of the world's rich and particularly the United States, every Latin American country appreciated the need to stick together. Indeed, there seems to have been a tacit understanding that Latin American governments would not criticize one another. As a result, nearly all their fire was concentrated on the US with a few broad sides reserved for the European economic community."

"In fact," says Latin America, "only the United States failed to vote with the rest, including even the Europeans for the rather gloomy report on Latin America's development strategy over the past decade. One of the reports Chief criticisms was directed at the growth of Latin America's enormous external debt, now estimated at around 20 billion dollars, and it called for refinancing and even a moratorium on payments in certain circumstances. This of course affects the US first and foremost, as did the criticisms of private investment and the financing of foreign trade. But the United States ambassador refrained from the hard line retaliations that had been expected by the Latins. Instead, more in sorrow than in anger. He urged them to look at the advantages of private investment and pointed out that the US imported more Latin American manufactured goods than any in other industrialized country, and instead of voting against the report, he continued himself with abstaining."

Latin America continues commenting that, "The United States was also in the firing line with the resolution denouncing transnational companies for the enormous economic power which is concentrated in them and allows them to interfere in national interest as has happened in some cases. This echoed the resolution approved at the security council meeting in Panama and coincided with the Senate hearings in Washington on the attempt by IT&T to finance a CIA operation against Dr. Salvador Allende in 1970.

There was also considerable interest in the proposal put personally by the Chilean delegate, who emphasized he was not speaking for his government, that the United States and European members of ECLA should be expelled. This proposal is unlikely to be carried through, but is symptomatic of the Latin American desire to have an influential body of their own to look after their own interest without interference. It was notable too that all Latin American governments, whatever their political coloring, felt able to support the recommendation that social development and reforms should accompany economic development, something which would appear to run counter to current Brazilian development strategy," concludes the weekly Latin America.

Another hemispheric meeting with important consequences for US Latin American relations was the Organization of American States meeting the first week of April in Washington. Mexico City's Excélsior comments that, "The Latin American OAS members who have recently reasserted their continental solidarity in Bogota, Panama, and Quito are now seeking US isolation from their affairs. The most recent assembly during the first week of April officially called in order to examine political, economic, cultural and administrative problems also dealt in a radical way with the entire inner American system, with the hope of reducing the influence exercise by Washington. At the last three assemblies in Bogotá, Panama and Quito, Washington was accused of many actions detrimental to Latin American interests, and subsequently manifested a rather hostile attitude towards the accusing countries. Came voting time, and the US abstained."

"The most recent OAS assembly began and operated in the air of uncertainties," says Excélsior, "primarily because all members, including the US, realized that some fundamental structural modifications must be made, but no one was sure how to go about initiating them. The central debate centered on two issues. Venezuela challenged the validity of the OAS mission by inviting the entire assembly to reflect on the political nature of the institution within the international perspective. The second point was brought up by OAS Secretary General Galo Plaza, who proposed a revision of the inner American cooperation system. More specifically, he proposed the prevention of unilateral services and agreements, which often have detrimental results. For Latin America. The US attitude was one of surprise, but the problem they said was not insurmountable." This comment from Excélsior in Mexico City.

The Jornal do Brasil from Rio comments on the opening of the OAS meeting. "The days are long gone when the organization of American states with its orthodox image and its ideological and political unity constituted one well-tuned orchestra under the constant and undisputed direction of one director. Ideological pluralism is the order of the day in Latin America, and there is no longer any way the United States or anybody else can impose unity. The Jornal's editorial goes on to say that Brazil, though it is not encouraged or even liked the development of ideological pluralism in Latin America, must accept the facts and learn to live with them. Brazil cannot turn its back on the continent through lack of interest or resentment at the turn of events because Brazil belongs with Latin America."

The problem at the OAS meeting, therefore will be to establish new objectives for the organization. Ideological pluralism has made the OAS unfit for many of its former task, such as military planning on a hemispheric scale. However, the organization still can be used for presenting a united Latin American view to international groups on certain issues such as the demand for a 200-mile fishing limit. The Jornal do Brasil concludes that, "The OAS must change, but still can be useful to Latin nations."

April 1st was the anniversary of the 1964 military coup in Brazil, which has resulted in a military government to the present time. This anniversary was treated very differently by two newspapers. The Jornal do Brasil in Rio noted the ninth anniversary of the 1964 Brazilian Revolution and in its editorial commended President Médici for emphasizing the social aspects of the Revolutions program. Médici in his address to the nation mentioned the construction of housing for low income groups, the multiplication of schools and plans for sanitation as the great accomplishments of the government installed by a military coup in 1964. These social developments are based on the economic progress of the country since '64 and will eventually lead to the complete modernization of Brazilian society and a mature political system. The Jornal do Brasil feels this is already happening and points to this year's local elections where the government party received large majorities as proof of Brazil's political development.

An opposite view was given the anniversary by Campainha, a weekly newspaper published by Brazilian exiles in Chile. Campania says, "Nine years ago on April 1st, 1964, there was a military coup in Brazil. The national and international patrons shook hands and mobilized their troops to block the struggle of the people. Today completes nine years of dictatorship, nine years of superexploitation, misery, repression, and torture. Some of the achievements of the Brazilian generals are: the working class lost the right to demonstrate or to strike. The wage control law of 1965 states that wages can only rise in accordance with the cost of living. The result of this is the decline in value of real wages by 36% between 1958 and 1969. Because of wage controls over time is obligatory. Factory workers must work 10 hours a day. The awful working conditions and long hours are responsible for more than a million and a half industrial injuries in 1971 alone."

Campainha concludes, "Nine years after the coup, we have in front of us the same task; to organize the resistance to the dictatorship, to stop the disintegration of popular struggles, to organize the resistance in each factory, in each farm, in each university, in each workplace, Chilean workers, Latin American workers. What happened in Brazil is called totalitarian. It is called superexploitation and oppression. This is what the Brazilian military dictatorship wants to export to all of Latin America. To stop this from happening, there exists only one path: to organize the Latin American working class against the Brazilian dictatorship and their sub-imperialist politics. This comment from the Brazilian Exile Newspaper, Campainha.

This week's feature deals with the recent discovery of the Nixon administration's collusion with the International Telephone and Telegraph Company, IT&T, to overthrow the government of Chilean President Salvador Allende. But surfacing also is the discovery that the US State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency massively financed efforts, which led to the defeat of Allende's bid for the presidency in 1964.

Further discoveries have shown that the US government is presently working in collusion with the US-based corporation, Kennecott Copper Company, to affect a worldwide embargo on nationalized Chilean copper in an attempt to ruin the Chilean economy and topple the Allende government. The Guardian reports that US Senate hearings on efforts by the Nixon administration and US corporations to sabotage the Chilean government of Salvador Allende have begun to have repercussions. Two weeks ago, Allende announced the suspension of economic talks between Chile and the US In light of revelations during the Senate hearings on the Nixon administration's collusion with IT&T to overthrow Allende's popular Unity government.

The most important new development has been the report that the top level National Security Council allocated $400,000 to the Central Intelligence Agency for propaganda to be used against Allende during the 1970 Chilean presidential election campaign. Other testimony has revealed that IT&T offered a $1 million fund to help defeat Allende. Edward Gerrity IT&T Vice President for Corporate Relations offered the excuse that the fund was to promote housing and agricultural grants to improve Chile's economy, but former CIA director John McCone testified that he had transmitted an IT&T offer of the money to block Allende's victory to the CIA and the White House. Former US ambassador to Chile, Edward Korry refused to comment on this or other questions at the hearings, including IT&T memos, which claimed Korry was instructed by the White House to do all short of military action to prevent Allende from taking office.

The most important new development has been the report that the top level National Security Council allocated $400,000 to the Central Intelligence Agency for propaganda to be used against Allende during the 1970 Chilean presidential election campaign. Other testimony has revealed that IT&T offered a $1 million fund to help defeat Allende. Edward Gerrity IT&T Vice President for Corporate Relations offered the excuse that the fund was to promote housing and agricultural grants to improve Chile's economy, but former CIA director John McCone testified that he had transmitted an IT&T offer of the money to block Allende's victory to the CIA and the White House. Former US ambassador to Chile, Edward Korry refused to comment on this or other questions at the hearings, including IT&T memos, which claimed Korry was instructed by the White House to do all short of military action to prevent Allende from taking office.

The Guardian further states that IT&T is now trying to collect a $92 million claim with the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, OPIC, a US government-sponsored institution designed to reimburse companies which have overseas assets nationalized, but at the subcommittee hearings show that IT&T helped provoke the nationalization. OPIC will not have to pay on the claim. The details of IT&T's 18-point plan designed to ensure that the Allende government does not get through the crucial next six months were exposed in IT&T memos uncovered and released in March, 1972 by columnist Jack Anderson.

At that time, according to both IT&T and the Chilean government, both sides were near agreement on compensation, but the Anderson revelations of IT&T's attempts to overthrow the UP led the Chilean government to break off the talks. The UP government is now preparing to nationalize the Chilean telephone company, in which IT&T owns a major share worth about $150 million dollars. A constitutional amendment allowing for the nationalization is now going through the legislative process, although the government has been operating the company since 1971. In addition to its share in the phone company, IT&T owns two hotels, a Avis car rental company, a small telex service, and a phone equipment plant in Chile.

Talks on renegotiations of the Chilean debt to the US and on the resumption of purchased credits to Chile began last December and resumed in March. The next day the talks were suspended by the Chilean government in response to the latest revelations. Chile owes the US about $60 million for repayments of debt from November 1971 to the end of 1972, out of a total debt of $900 million dollars. Another controversial question, which the Chilean foreign minister says is now holding up an agreement, is the question of compensation for US copper companies whose holdings have been nationalized. Under a 1914 treaty between Chile and the US, the disagreement on copper compensation could be submitted to the international panel for non-binding arbitration. Chile has offered to use this means for arriving at an agreement, but the US refuses. This report is from The Guardian.

But US efforts to thwart the development of socialism in Chile are not a recent phenomenon. In a Washington Post news service feature, the post claims that massive intervention by the Central Intelligence Agency and State Department helped to defeat Socialist Salvador Allende in the 1964 election for president of Chile. American corporate and governmental involvement against Allende's successful candidacy in 1970 has been the controversial focus of a Senate foreign relations subcommittee investigation into the activities of US multinational companies abroad.

But the previously undisclosed scale of American support for Christian Democrat, Eduardo Frei against Allende six years early makes the events of 1970 seem like a tea party according to one former intelligence official, deeply involved in the 1964 effort. The story of the American campaign, early in the Johnson administration, to prevent the first Marxist government from coming to power in the Western hemisphere by constitutional means was pieced together from the accounts of officials who participated in the actions and policies of that period.

The Washington Post concludes, "Cold War ideology lingered, and the shock of Fidel Castro's seizure of power in Cuba still was reverberating in Washington. 'No More Fidels' was the guidepost of American foreign policy in Latin America under the Alliance for Progress. Washington's romantic zest for political engagement in the Third World had not yet been dimmed by the inconclusive agonies of the Vietnam War. 'US government intervention in Chile in 1964 was blatant and almost obscene,' said one strategically-placed intelligence officer at the time. 'We were shipping people off right and left.

Mainly State Department, but also CIA, with all sorts of covers.' A former US ambassador to Chile has privately estimated that the far-flung covert program in Frei's behalf cost about $20 million. In contrast, the figure that emerged in Senate hearings as the amount IT&T was willing to spend in 1970 to defeat Allende was $1 million." This from the Washington Post News Service.

The most recent tactic used against the Allende government by the Nixon administration and the US corporations has been an attempt to impose an economic embargo against Chilean copper. The North American Congress on Latin America, NACLA, reports that, "Since the Kennecott Copper company learned of the Allende government's decision to deduct from its indemnification the excess profits Kennecott earned since 1955, the company's position has been that Chile acted in violation of international law. The Allende government determined the amount of excess profits by comparing the rate of profit the nationalized companies earned in Chile to the return on capital invested elsewhere."

NACLA reports that Kennecott first tried to get satisfactory compensation by litigating in Chilean courts. When this failed, it threatened actions abroad in a letter directed to the customers of El Teniente Copper. In essence, Kennecott resolved unilaterally to try to coerce Chile to pay Kennecott for its properties. Kennecott's strategy has transformed a legal issue into a political and economic struggle. The loss of its Chilean holdings inflicted a heavy loss on Kennecott. In 1970, Kennecott held 13% of its worldwide investments in Chile, but received 21% of its total profits from those holdings. The corporation earned enormously high profits from its El Teniente mine. According to President Allende, Braden's, Kennecott subsidiaries, profits on invested capital averaged 52% per year since 1955, reaching the incredible rates of 106% in '67, 113% in '68 and 205% in '69. Also, though Kennecott had not invested any new capital, it looked forward to augmented profits from the expansion of production in its facilities due to the Chileanization program undertaken by the Frei government.

Although Kennecott was hurt a great deal in losing the Chilean properties, it did not lose all. In February '72, Chile agreed to pay $84 million, which represented payment for the 51% of the mines bought under the Chileanization plan. Chile also agreed to pay off the loans to private banks and to the export import bank that Kennecott had negotiated to expand production in the mines. Further, Kennecott has written off, for income tax purposes, its equity interest of $50 million in its Chilean holdings. Generally, such deductions not only mean that the US taxpayer will absorb the company's losses, but also that attractive merger possibilities are created with firms seeking easy tax write-offs.

Nevertheless, the Chilean expropriations came at a particularly bad moment for Kennecott because the corporation was under attack in other parts of the world. Environmentalist questioned Kennecott's right to pollute the air in Arizona and Utah, and other groups attempted to block Kennecott's plans to open new mining operations in Black Mesa, Arizona and Puerto Rico. On the legal front, Kennecott is contesting the Federal Trade Commission's order to divest itself with a multimillion dollar acquisition of the Peabody Coal Company. In all of these cases, Kennecott has taken an aggressive position to protect its interest at home and around the world. In September, 1972, Kennecott's threats materialized into legal action, asking a French court to block payments to Chile for El Teniente copper sold in France.

In essence, Kennecott claimed that the expropriation was not valid because there had been no compensation. Therefore, Braden was still the rightful owner of its 49% share of the copper. The court was requested to embargo the proceeds of the sales until it could decide on the Braden claim of ownership.

The NACLA report continues, "To avoid having the 1.3 million payment embargoed, French dock workers in Le Havre, in a demonstration of solidarity with Chile, refused to unload the freighter. The ship sailed to Holland where it immediately became embroiled in a new set of legal controversies, which were ultimately resolved. Finally, the odyssey ended on October 21st, '72 when the ship returned to Le Havre to unload the contested cargo. Copper payments to Chile were impounded until the court rendered a decision on its competence to judge the legality of the expropriation. Chile was forced to suspend copper shipments to France temporarily. The legal battle spread across Europe when Kennecott took similar action in a Swedish court on October 30th. Most recently, in mid-January 1973, Kennecott took its case to German courts.

NACLA states that, "It is not easy to ascertain the degree of coordination between Kennecott and the US government on their policy toward Chile." The State Department told us in interviews that Kennecott is exercising its legal rights as any citizen may do under the Constitution, but a reporter for Forbes Magazine exacted a more telling quote. When asked if there had been any consultation between Kennecott and the State Department, the State Department spokesman said, "Sure, we're in touch from time to time. They know our position." The Forbes reporter asked, "Which is?" The spokesman replied, "We're interested in solutions to problems, and you don't get solutions by sitting on your hands."

In fact, US government policies and Kennecott's actions fully compliment each other. They share the same objectives and function on the same premises of punitive sanctions and coercive pressures guised in the garb of legitimate legal and financial operations. Kennecott's embargoes will necessarily serve as a factor in the current negotiations between Chile and the US government. Whether or not the government was instrumental in Kennecott's actions, the United States now has an additional powerful bargaining tool. The Kennecott moves were denounced by all sectors of Chilean political life as economic aggression violating national sovereignty.

Other Latin American nations have also condemned Kennecott. Most significantly, CIPEC, the organization of copper exporting nations, Chile, Peru, Zaire, and Zambia, which produced 44% of the world's copper, met in December 1972 and issued a declaration stating they would not deal with Kennecott and that they would refrain from selling copper to markets traditionally serviced by Chilean exports. Such solidarity is important because it undercuts the Kennecott strategy in the present market where the supply is plentiful. Kennecott cannot deter customers from buying Chilean copper if they have nowhere else from which to buy.

Even within the US, the embargo has not proven totally successful. The Guardian reports that there have been some breaks among the US banks, Irving Trust, Bankers Trust, and the Bank of America are carrying on a very limited business with Chile and various companies continue to trade on a cash and carry basis. In a number of respects, US policy has backfired. If the US will not trade with Chile, its Western European competitors will fill the markets formally controlled by US companies. The US pressure has also helped to intensify the anti-imperialist reactions of a number of South American countries within the US and its multinational corporations. The Panama meeting of the UN Security Council is just one example of this.

Every week brings new defeats for the US strategy in South America. At the recent session of the UN Economic Commission for Latin America in Quito, Ecuador, South American countries unanimously condemned US economic policy toward the continent. The resolution was based on a detailed report showing how South America suffers great economic losses because of unequal trade agreements with the US. This report from The Guardian.

Question, what were the Watergate defendants doing 12 years ago?

Answer, invading Cuba.

That from Tricontinental News Service, which reminds us that at 2300 hours on the night of April 16th, 12 years ago this month, the CIA was somewhat involved in the Bay of Pigs invasion. So was Richard Nixon, who was directly involved in the effort while Vice President. So were other now familiar persons. Namely, the man in charge of the actual invasion, was Everette Howard Hunt Jr. One of his planning aids was Bernard L. Barker, a high ranking Central Intelligence Agency officer, and one of the organizers of the invasion was James McCord. Other operatives included Frank Sturgis, Virgilio Gonzalez, and Eugenio Martinez.

Tricontinental continues that, in contrast to Nixon's current well-noted reticence about his relations to these men, Nixon then insisted, in his book, "Six Crises", on taking credit for having a direct and substantial part in planning the Bay of Pigs invasion that was carried out by Hunt, McCord, Sturgis, Barker, and others. That from Tricontinental News Service.

Moving on to news of other less covert diplomacy by the United States. Opinião of Brazil reports that the United States Department of Defense has announced that General Creighton Abrams, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will soon visit several countries in Latin America.

Opinião reports from Rio de Janeiro that Brazil will be one of the nations visited by Abrams, and says that there are two theories in diplomatic circles to explain the reasons for the trip.

The first and simpler one is that Abrams is laying the groundwork for President Nixon's visit to Brazil later this year. The Brazilian press has reported rumors of this trip for some time now, and Opinião feels it is certain that Nixon will visit Brazil to consolidate political, economic, and financial ties between the two countries.

Opinião continues, explaining that the second interpretation of Abrams visit is more complex. Some see it as the start of a diplomatic counteroffensive on the part of the United States against the growing ideological pluralism in Latin America, represented especially by Argentina, Chile, Peru, and Panama. Observers feel that Spanish American nations are trying to cut the economic ties which make them dependent on the United States. And that the US and the person of General Abrams will be trying to stem the rising tide of anti-Yankee feeling, probably with the help of Brazil, which feels itself more and more isolated from its Spanish-speaking neighbors, that from Opinião.

Censors struck the newspaper Oestado de São Paulo, and its afternoon sister paper, Journal da Tarde, prohibiting three stories in each. Oestado covered up the censored items with letters to the editor, while Journal da Tarde used kitchen recipes. Had the papers printed the vetoed stories, federal police would've seized all the issues as they came off the press.

Unfortunately, that may be our last report from Opinião. This independent weekly has been shut down by the Brazilian regime and the publisher arrested for editorial speculation on the military regime's succession, a theme currently forbidden in the press. Brazil has a recent history of severe press censorship, started by the military after their coup in 1964. Just prior to the shutdown of Opinião, the Miami Herald reported concerning two other papers from Brazil that-

The Herald continues that censors are assigned by Brazil's military run government are on permanent duty at the Oestado building. The censored items were a story from the Inter American Press Association meeting in Jamaica, saying that there was press censorship in Brazil. Also, a critical quote from a federal congressman from the only political opposition party allowed in the country and testimony in a case of alleged corruption in the Army. Two days later, according to the Miami Herald, the state government withdrew its advertising from the same two newspapers. It should be noted that Oestado and the Journal da Tarde are Brazil's principle daily newspapers. We know that Brazil is the US government's major ally in South America, with Nixon having expressed the hope that other Latin American countries would follow Brazilian leadership.

Continuing our coverage of a US diplomatic offensive, or counter offensive in Latin America, The Guardian reports that preceding General Abram's planned visit, United States General Vernon Walters, second in command of the Central Intelligence Agency, visited Brazil last month. After his visit, Brazilian General Mello declared that the United States and Brazil, "Will continue their struggles against communism, which is showing its claws in South America."

In another view of impending diplomatic developments and especially Nixon's possible trip to Latin America, Excélsior of Mexico reports that Nixon would encounter considerable hostility. Nixon, Excélsior reports, will encounter a Latin America radically different from that of 15 years ago when he made his last state visit there.

The hostility with which he was received in touring several countries as Vice President reflected an anti North American sentiment that had at the time barely taken hold among the students and workers. A decade later in several nations, Excélsior says, the sentiment has spread reaching even official levels. In addition, the internal situation of most countries has changed. Only in Paraguay where Alfredo Stroessner remains dictator is the political atmosphere unchanged.

In Peru, 15 years ago, Nixon was welcomed by protests and stones, but he received an official apology from the government. Now, the government there itself has had several serious run-ins with the US foreign investment policies. In Venezuela, 15 years ago, Nixon was bombarded by eggs, tomatoes, and rocks, and the army was forced to intervene to literally save Nixon's life from a so-called mob. Now, while there are officially amicable relations between the two governments, Venezuela has imposed severe restrictions on the US companies operating in the region, and a humorist there suggests that Nixon had better keep a low profile.

Excélsior also reported that in evident disregard for Latin American needs and opinions, Nixon made a speech, April 10th, asserting that, "Multinational corporations are a viable source of world prosperity," and asking the US Congress not to pass reform legislation attempting to curb their power. In addition, Nixon's new foreign trade proposals have been described by the Mexican ambassador as posing an enormous threat to Mexico. Nixon announced that if he had his way, the US would help Latin American countries only if they helped the United States. That poses a problem for Latin American countries since they are already running a major trade unbalance that is in the favor of the United States, that from Excélsior.

In addition to the trip of General Vernon Walters, second in command of the Central Intelligence Agency, the announced trip of General Creighton Abrams of the joint Chiefs of staff and the possible trip of Nixon to Latin America, William Rogers of the State Department has announced some plans for a trip. The Miami Herald reports that Secretary of State, William Rogers, will visit a half a dozen key countries in a two-week trip through Latin America next month. The 14-day trip, tentatively set from May 5th to 20th, will include stops of between one and two days in at least five Latin American nations, Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina before the inauguration there of the new Peronist government on May 25th are certainties. Columbia and Venezuela are likely stops and Peru is a possible one.

The Miami Herald continues noting that Chile, where the United States faces some of its most difficult bilateral issues, will not be included on the Roger's itinerary. Nor will Panama, where the United States has come under increasing pressure over the canal. Among bilateral issues to be raised are those of trade and tariffs, petroleum, the law of the sea, the changing role of the United States and a Latin America anxiously asserting political and economic self-determination. No high ranking US official has systematically visited Latin America since New York Governor Rockefeller undertook a protest marred country by country tour in 1969. The Nixon administration has consistently ranked Latin America near the bottom of its foreign policy priorities, but President Nixon, in a recent message to Latin American leaders, promised to accord inter-American affairs priority consideration during this, his second term. That from the financial section of the Miami Herald.

Meanwhile, as US diplomats plan their trips, Latin American officials are not exactly waiting around. Excélsior reports that Mexican President Echeverria was visiting Moscow. President Echeverria also announced during his trip to Europe, Moscow, and Peking that he definitely will not establish relations with General Franco, the US ally who has been ruling Spain since the fascist victory there in the 1930s. Excélsior further reported that Echeverria did meet in Paris with Perón and cordial relations between Mexico and Argentina are expected to develop after the popularly elected Peronist candidate takes office when the military steps down. That report from the Mexican daily Excélsior.

Shifting from diplomatic moves by diplomats returned to the activities in Argentina, where the lame duck military regime of President Lanusse, having finally allowed elections and lost to the Peronist candidate Cámpora is having difficulties. Latin American Newsletter reports.

The shooting of the head of the military intelligence in Córdoba, the kidnapping of the former Chief of Naval Intelligence and the kidnapping of three executives of foreign companies were merely the most noteworthy items in a guerrilla offensive, which shook all of Argentina during the first weeks of April. The present escalation of guerrilla activity began at the end of March with the occupation of the partially built atomic power station of Atucha, an event which scared some officials with the implication of what might've been had the nuclear reactor been operational.

The Atucha raid and most of the activity in March were the work of the Trotskyist, Ejército Revolucionario del Pueblo (ERP), and this was to be expected in view of the ERP, independence of the Peronist government elect. The subsequent operation of the Montoneros and the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias (FAR), were less predictable as many had expected, a truce by these pro Peronist guerrillas until after the handover of power on the 25th of May at least.

There are probably a number of different considerations which the Fuerzas Especiales have had to take into account. In the first place they could not allow the ERP to appear as the only armed vanguards still operating. This would've created the impression that the Trotskyists were the only authentic revolutionaries. The second motive was probably the need to obtain funds now before the new government is formed at the end of May to meet future contingencies without having to embarrass the incoming Peronist administration. The third element is an overt desire to maintain the tension, to signal to both the Peronist leadership and the armed forces that the guerrillas have the guns, as well as the popular support to back the demands for revolutionary changes in June. Once the new government is in power.

It seems likely, Latin American news continues, that the successful kidnapping of the former Chief of Naval Intelligence, Admiral Aleman and the attempt to kidnap Colonel Iribarren, who was killed when he resisted, were prompted by the needs to guarantee the safety of guerrilla prisoners, while the question of an amnesty is debated. President Lanusse completely denied the possibility of an amnesty at the end of last month. In a formal statement on the subject. Allaman's kidnappers were new formed part ERP 22nd of August, a section of the ERP which had actively supported the election of Hector Cámpora on the 11th of March. One curious detail of the kidnapping was that the admiral's nephew, a young militant of the ERP, took part in the operation. A communique said that all of the election results had raised hopes for the freedom of political prisoners, "The only way to guarantee their liberty is the massive mobilization of the people and the action of the armed vanguards."

Colonel Iribarren, the chief of intelligence of the third Army in Córdoba, Latin American newsletter reports was shot close to his home last week when he refused to accompany a group of Montoneros who held up his car. Iribarren was promoted general posthumously and the news attended the funeral in Buenos Aires. Following Iribarren's death, there were long meetings of the high command of the Army to decide on new anti-guerrilla tactics and provisions.

In comparison with the attacks on senior military personnel, kidnappings of foreign executives are now routine, Latin American continues, the most noteworthy facts about the latest batch are that Kodak paid a million and a half dollars in ransom a near record to another new guerrilla organization, the Fuerzas Argentinas de Liberacion Nacional, a Maoist group for the release of a United States executive. The Bank of Boston had to pay rather less $750,000 for the release of the manager of the Rosario branch office of it's bank who had been held by the ERP. The latest kidnapping of the British Head of Nobleza Tobacco Company, a subsidiary of British American Tobacco, seems to fit neatly into the pattern and provided his employers [inaudible 00:13:24] to pay for his release. There is no reason why any executive should fear kidnapping. On the other hand, there must come some limit to the ransoms which the companies are willing to pay, and soon it will be some companies turn to pay up for the second time. When that happens, there may be trouble.

The implications of the present guerrilla campaign for the future are undoubtedly important. Perón and Cámpora in particular are going to have to decide on what line to take. Cámpora has said slightly unconvincingly that the problem will disappear when his government is installed in May. This is unlikely, even though a temporary truce is possible. It would not be easy for the Peronist leadership now to turn on their guerrilla supporters who contributed in many ways to the Peronist victory, but nor will management of the armed forces be easy if the guerrillas continue to grow in strengthen prestige. The situation might be manageable if all the guerrillas were Peronists, but with Trotskyists and Maoists also in the field, it seems likely that the capitalist principle of competition will ensure continuing turbulence. This from Latin American newsletter.

The ecology movement has recently captured the public's attention in industrialized countries. As the deterioration of the environment becomes more evident and the scientific evidence on the dangers of pollution accumulates, it is to be hope that Western Europe, Japan, and the United States will begin to implement policies to protect the ecosystem, but the programs proposed while popular at home are being seen as a threat to development in many parts of the world.

Some underdeveloped countries view ecological concerns as yet another obstacle created by the developed countries to their economic growth and are refusing to defer their dreams of industrialization because of the dangers to the ecology. The conflict between industrialized nations and the Third World over ecology is in its early stages, but important political, legal and moral questions have been raised, and these questions are of such a fundamental nature that there is some doubt as to whether they can be solved peacefully. Today we will describe the position Brazil took at the United Nations Conference on the human environment in Stockholm last year and then discuss some of the implications of their position. Though we feel that the issues advanced are of extreme importance, ironically, it seems to us that it will not be Brazil, but other poorer countries that will find themselves immersed in these conflicts.

Brazil's position in Latin America is most unique. Brazil has neither been resigned to the status of a non-developing satellite of the developed world, but neither is it moving in the direction of attaining development according to socialist models, nor is it moving towards an economics of cooperation with other underdeveloped nations. Instead, Brazil's governing military group is attempting rapid growth in industrialization similar to the developed mental methods followed by Western capitalist countries earlier in their histories. Brazil is one of the few Third World countries, perhaps the last, that has a chance of making it into the ranks of the so-called developed countries under this model of western, i.e. Capitalist development. Brazil's development seems to look favorably upon by the United States, Japan, and Western Europe, and it will presumably assume a place alongside these economically, politically and militarily.

We do, however, in the more general case, agree strongly with these articles' concerns over impending conflicts between developed and undeveloped nations over the usage of world resources. For given the disproportionately enormous resource usage patterns of the developed capitalist countries, it is reasonable to speculate that the development of most of the Third World will indeed be opposed by the economic elites of the developed nations as these powerful nations vie for control of limited resources. The following then is the Brazilian administration's arguments for its right to develop without regard to ecological considerations. The arguments are those developed in a series of articles from Brazil's daily Journal do Brazil, and it's weekly, Realidad.

The Brazilians were unusually blunt in Stockholm, arguing that the worst form of pollution was human poverty and that the industrial nation's concerns about the quality of air and water were luxuries the poor countries could not afford. Brazil's Minister of the Interior told the Assembly on Environment that quote, "For the majority of the world's population, the bettering of conditions is much more a question of mitigating poverty, having more food, better clothing, housing, medical attention and employment than in seeking atmospheric pollution and its reduction."

Brazil's Minister of the interior's argument is open to criticism because rapid industrialization in the Third World without income redistribution often does not improve conditions for the vast majority of the population. Certainly the so-called Brazilian economic miracle has caused widespread suffering among the lower classes. In fact, it has decreased the proletarian share of goods because capital accumulation for industrialization is being achieved by a reduction in workers' real wages. In fact, the situation is so appalling that even Brazil's President Médici remarked publicly last year that, "The economy is doing well and the people are doing poorly."

Yet the Brazilians press on with their policies, justifying them with the convictions that at some point in the future, industrialization will indeed produce great benefits for all classes. This may or may not be true, but from an ecological viewpoint, the important thing is that urgent attempts to industrialize will continue under this model of development.

Basically, the issue as Brazil sees it, revolves around how new ecological concerns will affect their rates of development. Brazilians want to close the enormous and widening gap between themselves and the industrialized nations. While they recognize that ecological problems are not illusory, they feel that a concern for the environment is a trap which may frustrate their desires for rapid development, and they cite three reasons for that fear.

First, devices to reduce chemical and thermal pollution will be expensive and may in addition require lowering production to levels where the environment can absorb the waste generated. It's also observed that precious investment funds would become tied up in non-productive anti-pollutant devices which do not generate new capital. Perhaps most importantly, an anti-pollution campaign would increase the prices of each item produced. The consequences of a jump in prices would be disastrous for a developing economy because it would reduce the already small market for manufactured goods and create a structural block to any further economic growth. Therefore, the Brazilians do not want to take on the economic burdens of protecting the environment. They argued in Stockholm that the rich nations never had such a burden during the 19th century when they were industrializing, and that if the Third World is ever to catch up, it must now have all the advantages the developed world once did.

A second fear expressed by the Brazilians was that the issue of ecology will be used by the industrialized nations as a rationalization to block the Third World's development. They are afraid that rich consumer countries unable or unwilling to control pollution at home and conscious of rendering resource supplies will use these as a justification for keeping a large percentage of the species in underdevelopment and poverty. Ecological concerns have already had an effect, in fact on loan practices from the developed world. As Kalido Mendez, a delegate to the Stockholm Conference pointed out, "It is no accident that the only contributions from the industrialized world that have not declined in the past few years have been military funds and funds designated for population control."

Kalido Mendez's fears, "Namely that the developed countries will act to block development of most of the Third World, seem very real to us. It is however, our perception of the political map that Brazil's development will be permitted even aided by the first world in an effort to make her a partner in maintaining the current power distribution."

The third fear Brazil expressed in the Stockholm conference was that the ecological issue may sometime be used as an entering wedge by the industrialized nations to interfere in the internal affairs of the Third World. While this possibility seems remote at the moment, the situation could become extremely explosive if there were an ecological crisis, such as an oil shortage. Brazilians are especially sensitive to any infringement on their sovereignty because of a developing conflict over their usage of the Amazon River basin and a not dissimilar argument with Argentina over the Parana river. Both of these questions were raised at Stockholm.

The particulars of the Amazonian basin argument are as follows, the consequences of tampering with the ecology of the Amazon may have a very serious ramification for all people. Some scientists estimate that as much as one half of the world's oxygen supply may be generated by the foliage of this huge tropical forest. Also, that the tropical forest ecosystem is a very fragile one. Misuse of the areas such as caused by heavy mining and timbering and the concomitant erosion could convert that area of extremely thin soil layers into a desert within a generation. This may be an overstatement, but it is clear that the area plays a very important role in the world's ecosystem.

The Brazilians, on the other hand feel that for their successful development, they need to be able to exploit these frontier lands much as the United States used the West as a vast reservoir of untapped natural resources for population relocation and to be meted out as incentives for investment. Thus, through expensive governmental programs like the construction of the Trans-Amazonian Highway and grants of millions of acres to multinational corporations, the Brazilians are trying to develop the virgin area quickly. Brazilian army engineers have cut huge swaths through the jungle to open roads.

The international corporations, mostly United States based, have begun to exploit timber and mineral resources and plan to turn thousands of square miles of forest into pasture land. All of this is being done very rapidly with only a superficial knowledge of the Amazon's ecosystem and with the hope that these disruptions of the forest will not touch off an ecological disaster.

It should be noted as an important aside that the involvement of multinational corporations are an aggravating element in this conflict between rapid development and ecological soundness. Because they remit large profits to their headquarters, usually in the United States, they increase the extent of ecological exploitation necessary to produce the desired level of development for Brazil itself. Finally, international corporations seem to be beyond the control of any nation and try to maximize profits without regard for the wellbeing of any single country. It appears doubtful that these companies will adopt policies which follow sound ecological principles.

When Western environmentalists criticize the opening of the Amazon because it is being done too quickly without sufficient consideration for ecological consequences. The Brazilians answer quite simply, the Amazon is theirs and they will broke no interference, or to state the matter more sympathetically to the Brazilians, they have no intention of maintaining the Amazon as a pollution free zone so that the industrial nations can keep their industrial economies and consumption levels at the current high polluting levels. In effect, the Brazilians are claiming the right to develop at the cost of nature as the US did and continue to do so.

A similar and equally unbending position is taken by the administration on the question of an enormous hydroelectric plant it's building on the Parana River, the Argentinians through whose country this river also flows, argue that the project will wreck havoc with the ecology of the entire area harmfully affecting fishing and farming. The Argentinians during the conference in Stockholm unsuccessfully lobbied for an agreement that would've required a nation to supply information to its neighbor about any project which might cause damage to the neighboring country.

Argentina is not in good economic or political shape at this time, so a military confrontation over the Parana does not seem likely. However, the problem certainly illustrates the explosiveness of the entire question of developmental projects and their effects on the ecology of neighboring countries. One can imagine, for example, how the US might react if the Canadians set about implementing a developmental plan that affected the entire Mississippi Valley. Argentina believes it is facing just such a situation now, and most other Third World nations will probably be in similar positions in the coming decade as competition for materials, energy, and the use of the environment increases.

In this report, we have emphasized the fears that underdeveloped nations feel about the ecological issue, and how it might slow their development and compromise their sovereignty. There is no doubt that if they followed the industrialized country's advice and took better care of the environment, their rate of development would be slowed. Furthermore, their assertion that the rich nations industrialized without considering the ecological balance is historically accurate, and it is also correct to say that almost all pollution comes from Europe, Japan, and the United States, but all the arguments in the world do not change certain grim realities, which must be faced by rich and poor nations alike, for there is an ecological crisis and it does involve all of humanity.

If there is a solution at all to this problem, it must fly with the richer nations. It was the industrialized nations which created the environmental crisis in the first place through decades of dumping waste into the biosphere. It was their non-rational, indeed wasteful usage of energy and natural resources that hastens us towards scarcity. The developed countries have accustomed themselves to using grossly and equitable shares of the world's limited resources, and it is a continuance of this policy, which will absolutely prohibit Third World development and make clashes between poor and rich nations over resource usage inevitable. As these practices continue, it is hardly realistic to ask the undeveloped world, not to pollute and to remain undeveloped while the developed world continues it's high pollution and consumption rates.

So the industrialized nations must cease polluting and bear the economic burden for cleaning up their own territories. More importantly, the general high level of industrial activity must be controlled. To achieve this, the richer nations must stop expanding their economies so rapidly. In other words, the industrialized nations must be willing to reduce their standards of resource use and energy use, while helping to raise the economies of other countries out of their current conditions of abject poverty. They must make a serious attempt to redistribute their wealth, which would allow the Third World countries to be industrialized in an environmentally sound way.

Unfortunately, we do not expect this to happen because we see no way it could be done given the present political, economic, and military structures of the richer nations. Perhaps an ecological disaster will be necessary to awaken people to the need for fundamental change on a global scale. Our hope is that such a disaster will not do irreparable harm to the biosphere. Perhaps wars for the control of natural resource and the usage of energy will be inevitable before people become enlightened as to the consequences of so, does equal a distribution of the world's wealth. Here to, we can only hope and plead that somehow reason and a sense of human solidarity can spare humanity this sort of bloodbath.

Two comments in the Latin America press seemed to sum up the general feeling on the continent in the wake of the recent organization of American States meeting in Washington DC. Mexico's President Echeverría, when asked by Rio de Janeiro's Opinião about his opinion of the organization was replied, "The OAS? Does it still exist? It is necessary to reconstruct it on different bases. It is necessary to establish a new regional organization which does not exclude anybody, including Canada and Cuba."

In Lima, a newspaper favoring the government, El Expreso, said that the Latin Americans now need a Declaration of independence equal to the one the North Americans gave to England in 1776, and concluded that the organization of American states will not survive if the United States continues to dominate it.

A more detailed view of the OAS (Organization of American States) meeting was given by the British Weekly, Latin America, which said that the general assembly of the OAS ended its meeting in Washington two weeks ago without voting on the question of Cuba's readmission, or the lifting of diplomatic and economic sanctions against the island. Although there was undoubtedly a majority in favor of ending Cuba's isolation, most delegates withdrew from the brink of an outright confrontation with the US, which continued to object to Havana's military links with Moscow, and maintained that despite certain changes, Cuba was still interfering in other countries' internal affairs. A working group was set up to find a compromised solution with both Chile and Brazil among its members representing the most extreme viewpoints on Cuba.

It was also agreed unanimously to form a commission to study the complete restructuring of the OAS, and there was a unanimous vote for ideological plurality in the hemisphere. A resolution approved by 21 votes to none, with only the United States and Honduras abstaining, called on Washington not to sell its strategic mineral reserves in a way that would harm Latin American economies.

Another resolution approved unanimously, except for the abstention of the US, called on Washington to prevent transnational companies from intervening in other countries internal affairs. This report from the weekly Latin America.

There's increasing concern in Latin America with what is considered distorted press coverage of the area by United States Media. Chile Hoy reports with obvious interest on the work of a Rutgers University sociologist analyzing US press coverage of Salvador Allende. Dr. John Pollock, whose work has also been cited by Mexico City's Excélsior, did a detailed analysis of US press reportage of the Chilean president's visit to the United States last December. In an article published in The Nation, he claimed that a mission of important information is systematic, and includes even the most basic data. For instance, the New York Times, Washington Post, Christian Science Monitor, Miami Herald, and Los Angeles Times all failed to mention the fact that Allende had been received triumph fully and enthusiastically in Peru and Mexico on his way to the US. In addition, Pollak singled out phrases such as, "Acrobat," "Wiley fox," and, "Skillful juggler," as prejudicing news reports. This from Chile Hoy in Santiago.

La Nación from Buenos Aires reports on the current US-Chile negotiations. If the United States insists on compensation for certain North American properties that have been nationalized, Chile will invoke a 1914 treaty, which calls for an international commission of five members to arbitrate discussion in case of stalemate. Because of disagreements as to the extent of compensation, Chile has been unable to refinance its external debt with the United States, which consists of $1,200,000,000. Vital lines of public and private credit have been cut, and Chile faces difficulties in obtaining goods from North American suppliers. This report from La Nación in Buenos Aires.

La Prensa of Lima comments about internal political struggles in Chile. The revolutionary leftist movement in Chile directed strong criticisms against the reformists, intensifying the struggle between the radical left and the government of President Allende. In a public declaration, the organization denounced a reprimand, which the president had addressed to some radical groups who were involved in the attempted takeover of some businesses. The radicals termed Allende's speech alarmist and accused him of threatening the workers. Later on radio and TV, Allende said he would go to any lengths necessary to prevent illegal action. "The rights of workers are one thing," he said, "But hasty, demagogic and spontaneous acts are another." The radicals replied that it was an objective fact that workers and peasants throughout the country had been mobilized by inflation and lack of supplies and not by extremists. This from La Prensa, the Peruvian Daily.

The pro-government press in Chile has accused the opposition of launching a campaign to discredit the armed forces, and in particular, the commander in chief and former interior minister, General Carlos Pratts. The opposition evening paper, La Segunda, alleged that Pratts had told a meeting of 800 officers that he supported the process of change being carried out by President Allende. Other opposition papers have alleged that several senior officers have been prematurely retired because of their opposition to the government's education reform bill.

Peru's La Prensa says that the Argentine guerrillas, who apparently have the technique down pat, successfully engineered another kidnapping this last week. The production manager of Kodak Argentina was released by his kidnappers after a ransom of a million and a half dollars was paid. This is the highest price yet exacted from an Argentine subsidiary for the return of one of its executives. In a press release which they agreed to make, Kodak announced that the man was unharmed. Although the recent kidnappings are aimed at raising money through ransoms, an additional reason this time seems to be to ensure that political prisoners held by the military junta will not be harmed. On May 25th, President-elect Héctor Cámpora, a peronist, is scheduled to be inaugurated. Cámpora has promised to free all political prisoners. This from La Prensa in Lima, Peru.

Opinião of São Paulo comments on the fact that prominent members of the Brazilian Congress have recently demanded more democratization of the nation's political institutions before this election of a new president, which will occur later this year. The president of the House of Deputies recently expressed these goals in an interview with Rio's Jornal de Brazil. He defended the need for greater participation on the part of the Congress on the grounds that Brazil has the necessity of presenting itself in foreign lands as a democratized nation. Other members of the Congress, even within the government's party, have echoed these sentiments. Opinião however thinks this will all come to nothing, and the congress will have the opportunity to discuss the choice of the next president only after the army has effectively made that choice.

An open declaration of war by the Brazilian church against the government seems to have been the effect of the memorial service for geology student Alexandre Lemi who was killed while in the custody of São Paulo security services. Latin America News Weekly reports that Alexandre Lemi, 22, was one of the brightest students in the geological faculty of Sao Paulo University, and came from a traditionally Catholic family. He was arrested on March 16th for being a member of the National Liberation Force. On March 17th, he was killed while in police custody, ostensibly by passing motor vehicle. The official police report issued by the security secretary of São Paulo said he was taken to a street crossing where he had a meeting with a friend at a bar, and while the security agents remained at a distance, he ran away across the road where he could not be followed because of the amount of traffic, but was run over by a truck.

Police refusal of an appeal from the boy's parents for their son's body, and of a call by the Council of the University's teaching staff for an exhumation and postmortem, is being seen in some quarters as proof that this was an official murder. But Alexandra's death, in a manner all too common in present day Brazil, would've passed without notice had it not been for the shattering effect of the memorial mass held for him and the Cathedral da Sé, presided over by the Archbishop and Bishop of Sorocaba, assisted by 24 priests. The mass was fixed for 6:30, but by four o'clock the center of São Paulo was occupied by armed police and shock troops, while the university was surrounded by military police.

Nevertheless, 3000 students managed to enter the cathedral. No doubt to their surprise, the first song in the service sheet, which had been prepared by a special commission was no hymn, but a song prohibited by the Brazilian censorship, and who's author, Geraldo Vandré, lives in exile. The liturgy of the mass included the words, "We are imprisoned in our egotism instead of catering for the great causes of our society," and one of the songs proclaimed, "We offer the end in the asking, the hard struggle between the old and the new, the dark night of the people and the dawn of the resurrection."

"If the liturgy was subversive," says Latin America, "The sermons were almost revolutionary". The Bishop of Sorocaba accused the government openly. "We are unable to give the lie to the police accusations against this young student. God knows and He will be the judge, but I find that he was barbarically liquidated." The cardinal, in the first words of his sermon, noted that even Christ after his death was returned to his family and friends. The representative of Roman power was able to do that much justice. The repercussions were immediate. A complete censorship was imposed on any reference to the mass in press, radio, and television. The government was further embarrassed by the fact that the mass was on March 30th, the day before the anniversary celebration of the revolution of 1964.

But the censorship was broken. São Paulo's channel five television station broadcast a news flash for which it has been punished under the national security law. More daring was the weekly Opinião, which has recently been increasing sales in leaps and bounds as the only publication that dares to criticize the government. Not only did it publish a brief report on the mass, as well as the security secretary's statement, but it also gave an interview with the cardinal in which he described the people of São Paulo as living in a situation of emergency in relation to wages, health, and public security.

Nemesis for Opinião was not slow in coming. The censorship has demanded that all its material must be submitted to the sensors 48 hours before going to press, effectively making publication impossible. This week's proposed edition, which it is understood, will not be appearing, had 8 of 24 pages completely censored. The censored pages contained material on wage problems, the political situation, and Brazilian investments in Bolivia. A protest has already been made by the Inter American Press Society to the Brazilian government while the Estela de São Paulo and Jornal da Tarde, two other newspapers, have announced that they will accept no government advertising nor government announcements for publication, as a protest against censorship. The government has banned live television reporting as dangerous, and all programs must in the future be prerecorded.

"But whatever happens to the press," concludes Latin America newsletter, "The real importance of the death of Alexandre Lemi is that the church has revealed a newfound and aggressive militancy. If, as it appears, the church is now on a collision course with the government, there is little doubt who will win in the end. The government may be able to suppress a handful of left-wing terrorists, but the Christian Church has for nearly 2000 years, thrived on persecution and martyrdom and always come out on top. All the signs are that Alexandre Lemi is to be presented as a martyr of the regime." This from Latin America.

Religious militancy is also appearing in the Dominican Republic. The Miami Herald reports that the country's Roman Catholic Church has denounced that there is no respect for human life in the Dominican Republic. In an Easter message before numerous government officials at Santo Domingo's Cathedral, a bishop said, "There is no respect for human life here. Human life is worth less than a cigarette in our country." The priest charged that inhumane punishments are being inflicted on inmates in Dominican jails, and that brutal assassinations occur frequently. He added that, "Hunger and misery affect most of the people in the country."

Opinião of Rio de Janeiro reports that Pablo Picasso's death received wide coverage in the Latin press. Picasso was admired in the hemisphere not only for his painting, but for his political stance against the Franco regime in Spain. A member of the French Communist Party since 1944, Picasso once summed up his views on the relationship between art and politics while answering critics of his leftist stance.

"What do they think an artist is? An imbecile who only has eyes if he's a painter, or ears if he is a musician, or a layer in each chamber of his heart if he's a poet, or that he's simply a boxer, only muscles. On the contrary, an artist is at the same time a political being, always aware of the pains, conflagrations, or happy incidents of the world, shaping himself in their image. How could it be possible not to feel interest in other people, and because of an ivory tower of indifference, disconnect oneself from the life which they bring with such open hands? No, painting was not created to decorate apartments. It is an instrument of war with which to attack the enemy and defend ourselves from him." This from Opinião.

For today's feature, we've invited economist David Barkin to discuss the problem of unemployment in Latin America. David's a participant in the conference on US/Mexico Economic Relations this week on the University of Texas campus, is currently teaching economics at the City University of New York, and has traveled widely in Latin America. He visited Cuba for two months in 1969 at the invitation of the Cuban government, has worked with Chilean economists off and on for the past four years, and has done extensive research and has taught economics in Mexico for about five years.

David, someone at the conference the other day stated that unemployment rate in Mexican agriculture is 46%. Could you comment on this figure, and include what efforts are being made by the Mexican government to correct this problem?

The problem of unemployment in Mexico is very serious because of the nature of development, which is leading to the development of commercial agriculture in selected parts of the country. In a few selected parts of the country. And the rest of the agricultural sector is stagnating. People are being forced out of the agricultural sector, but those who remain are finding themselves without the resources and without the government assistance which is necessary for them to become productive members of the society.

The 46% unemployment figure in Mexico is a reflection of the fact that although a lot of people remain in the agricultural economy, many of them are not producing nearly as much as they might produce were resources available for the production of goods which could satisfy the needs of the mass of the people in the population. In the urban sector, the problem is not quite as serious in absolute magnitude, but perhaps in human terms even more serious. The misery associated with urban unemployment is greater than that with rural unemployment. And the slums in the large Mexican cities are growing year after year. The unemployment rate in Mexico City and in other urban areas in the country may be as high as 30 or 40 percent, if you consider what these people could produce if they were working fully in productive occupations, satisfying the basic needs of people, which at the present time aren't being satisfied.

Now, in terms of what the Mexican government is trying to do to solve the problem, they have undertaken a large program of public works projects, and are trying to encourage additional investment both by Mexicans and foreigners. The problem with this program is that it is designed to satisfy the needs of only a small proportion of the Mexican population, perhaps only 30% of the population. 30% of the population with income levels far above those of the other 70% of the population who live at bare levels of subsistence, and many of them living at below the level of what we would consider dignified living levels. It does not seem to me, nor to many of the representatives at the conference that the present development programs of the Mexican government are going to be able to seriously attack and make inroads into the problem of unemployment in Mexico. This is further compounded of course by the high rate of population growth in Mexico, but even if population growth rates were to decline in Mexico, it's not clear that they would be able to solve the unemployment problem with their present approach.

What about the effect of US investments in Mexico on the employment problem?

US investments are particularly injurious to the Mexican people because they're creating a type of industry which is displacing people in favor of machines, for the production of whatever goods are being produced in Mexico. US investments are generally what we would call capital intensive. That is using machinery to replace people in the production of goods. The goods which are produced are the kinds of goods which we, Americans, consume, but which because we are so rich, the middle level American standard of living is so high compared to that in Mexico, the kinds of goods which are produced are only able to be bought by those people in the 30% that I cited, who have sufficient income to buy those kinds of goods. That is they have income like a middle income level person in this country might have. An average person.

As a result, American investment is only heightening the problem in Mexico, creating additional difficulties because they are creating the appearance of modernity and creating a whole gamut of goods which the whole population can see but does not have access to.

What about the Mexicanization regulations that are being discussed now in Mexico in terms of affecting foreign investment? Is that going to solve any of the problem?

The Mexicanization legislation, which is designed to put some curbs on foreign investment is designed to attack a different problem. A problem that American foreign investment is making inroads into the capital equipment, the machinery and the factories which is owned by Mexican entrepreneurs. Until recently, Americans have been going into Mexico and purchasing outright large factories in large parts of the economy owned by Mexicans, and what the new legislation is designed to do is to try to stem this tide. It is not designed to prevent foreign investment, and it is not designed to prevent the sorts of effects which I just talked about, but rather to try to give the Mexican some protection in the face of the large transnational corporations who are trying to get greater control over the Mexican economy.

David, what about unemployment in Chile under the popular Unity government? What is Salvador Allende doing to correct this problem?

Well, unemployment in Chile was a growing problem during the last part of the 1960s. The economy was stagnating and unemployment rates in the city of Santiago, which is the most highly developed part of the country, reached as high as 10 and 12%. Now, that's very serious in an industrial labor force, which was as fully integrated into the modern sector of the economy, as is the case in many of our own North American cities.

10% and 12% unemployment for the group as a whole is very serious, and the Allende government's first problem, first priority when taking over was to do something about this problem. What they did was to redistribute income in a very simple, straightforward way by directing that wages be increased while profits be frozen. This sort of measure led to an immediate reactivation of the economy and an increase in demand by workers and the lower socioeconomic groups in the population, which made it possible for the government to increase employment in firms which it was taking over because private entrepreneurs were not responding to the increase in demand by the lower classes, and in instead trying to shift their resources to production of goods for the upper classes. As a result, in 1972, employment rates had gone down to below 4%. Quite an achievement in a very short period of time.

The Cuban government claims to have created a full employment economy. David, you've visited Cuba and you've written a book about Cuba. From your experience, how has this been accomplished?

Basically, the reason—the way in which unemployment has been eliminated, in fact the employment problem has been changed from one of unemployment to one of over full employment and a shortage of labor, is by a change in the basic assumptions on by which people are asked to participate in the economy.

In an economy based on a market system, people must work, produce sufficient income for an employer in order to provide that employer with a profit. If the person could produce something for the benefit of society, but that production is not profitable for some private entrepreneur, that person is not going to be employed. In Cuba, a person who could produce for the benefit of society, even if it doesn't go to the benefit of one individual in the society, can and must be employed.

In fact, during the first years of economic reorganization in Cuba, people were absorbed into the economy through a vast educational effort in 1961, a vast medical effort, and the expansion of production in every sector of the economy. Social services and productive services were expanded so that by the late 1960s the problem in Cuba was not how to find work for people, but rather how to encourage people who previously did not consider themselves part of the workforce to join the workforce, and now old people who were previously retired are performing useful social tasks for the society, people who are in schools, children and young people are being asked to join as part of their regular school program in productive tasks, and women and disabled people are also being fully incorporated into the economy.

I'd like to go on though and explain the nature of the unemployment problem and the way in which the Cubans solve it differently than say the Mexicans. Sugar cane cutting is a very difficult task and it requires in the pre-revolutionary era, about 300 to 400,000 people during four months a year, working 12 hours a day and sometimes as much as seven days a week during four months a year to cut the sugar cane. During that period they were paid sufficient income to live on for 12 months, but only at the very, very miserable levels of subsistence, which prevailed in Cuba at that time. Most of them didn't have access to meat and milk, for example. But they were unemployed for eight months of the year.

In the post-revolutionary government era, it's impossible to conceive of people being idle for eight months a year because of the very, very serious needs of people throughout the whole economy to solve productive problems, and to increase production in agriculture and industry and in services. As a result, most of these people who were working in sugar were incorporated into other activities. Reorganization of agriculture, livestock industry, and things like that. As a result, they were not available full-time during the sugar harvest for cane cutting.

When cane cutting needs were great, the entire population was recruited for sugar cane cutting on a voluntary basis. And people worked in brigades based on workplaces, and went into voluntary areas, and people at the factories remaining at the productive jobs and in the bureaucracy were expected to do the work of other people, to cover their jobs while they were absent. As a result, a technical problem, the cutting of sugarcane is solved in present day Cuba not by allowing people to be unemployed, which is the case of our migrant farm workers and of migrant farm workers all over the hemisphere, but rather by getting brigades of voluntary workers to achieve this task in a collective way.

This I think has great lesson for us in America, because we assume that people must be employed only at a specific task, and if that task is not available, then they're going to remain unemployed, as is the case of migrant farm workers. When we cannot create sufficient jobs because of specific political policies, policies of the government, we are in a quandary. We don't know how to provide these people with sufficient income and still remain with the incentive system to encourage them to work when we need them to work at low wages. As a result, we have a technical problem which translates itself into a social problem. The social problem of poverty, and widespread un- and underemployment, with the impossibility of many groups in our population finding work at all. Especially women and some third world groups.

The technical problem could be solved in our country, but not under the assumption that people must work to provide a profit for a small group of employers. It's only if they could work by satisfying social needs that we're going to be able to attack the basic underlying problem of poverty.

The latest developments in the Watergate scandal are receiving wide international attention. Mexico's Excélsior, for example, reported extensively on former Attorney General Mitchell's payments of more than $2 million to Republican spies, and the paper provided detailed reports on subsequent events.

The Watergate affair has also occasioned some editorial comment in the Latin American press. Brazil's News Weekly Visão said, "The revelations surrounding Watergate will not have much practical effect since Nixon is already reelected. The wave of mud, which stretches from the Democratic headquarters to the basement of the White House will result in a few convictions, but little else."

Visão continues, "At this point, it is possible to expect that the case will end with a few resignations, because of sudden illness in the family or pressing private business affairs of some prominent White House aides. Certainly the interest of justice will not be entirely served, though the law makes no distinction between those who execute a crime and those who order it. Experience clearly shows that the former almost always go to jail, while their chiefs only lose their jobs. But it is also easy to predict that the example of Watergate will serve some use and that this type of electoral politics will lose for a good while its attractiveness."

"We conclude," Visão writes, "That the wave of reaction created around Watergate was not useless. It was a wave which was born after the official investigation had dried up and became irresistible, in spite of the frank opposition and all the capacity for pressure of the most powerful force of the republic, the White House."

Other types of police activity of the United States also received attention in the Latin American press. Excélsior, the Mexico City Daily, comments that the Watergate scandal has shown that in violent clashes against anti-war demonstrators in the US, the attackers have not always been US citizens who support the war, but frequently Cuban refugees drafted by the CIA. These counter demonstrators use typical storm trooper tactics. Their clumsiness and immorality are a well-known disgrace.

But in the US, it is aggravated by taking advantage of former exiles who are all ready to do what is requested of them, not only to assure their own refuge, but as a repayment of gratitude. Publicly, little has been said of the government officials who recruited the Cuban exiles. One of the Cuban witnesses in the Watergate affair described how upon being apprehended by the police while in the act of assaulting an anti-war demonstrator, he pointed to his recruiters and was immediately set free. It is clear that the Cuban youth were recruited to commit an illegal act, guaranteed impunity by the same authorities whose job it is to prevent and punish such crimes.

Another comment on US police. A Brazilian exile publication Frente printed in Chile, has made public a letter from the late FBI boss J. Edgar Hoover, praising his agents who took part in the 1964 coup against Brazilian President Joao Goulart. Directed to a Mr. Brady, the letter read, "I want to express my personal thanks to each of the agents posted in Brazil for service rendered in the accomplishment of Operation Overhaul." Hoover continued, saying that he felt admiration at the dynamic and efficient way in which you conducted such a large scale operation in a foreign country and under such difficult circumstances. "The CIA people did a good job too. However, the efforts of our agents were especially valuable. I am particularly pleased the way our role in the affair has been kept secret," Hoover concluded. This is from Frente.

Excélsior reports that the People's Republic of China and Mexico have signed a commercial agreement, the first in history between the two countries. The agreement involves immediate sales to China of more than $370 million dollars in Mexican products and was reached during President Echeverria's recent trip to China.

The Miami Herald reports another result of Echeverria's trip. President Luis Echeverria of Mexico gained a diplomatic success today with the announcement by his government that China will sign a treaty assuring Latin America of freedom from nuclear weapons. A spokesman for the Echeverria government in China said, Chairman Mao of China will sign the Treaty of Tlatelolco in all its meanings. The pact, signed by Latin American nations in 1967, bans nuclear arms from all of Latin America. This is the first time one of the five nuclear powers has said it would sign all of the treaty. Until now, China has refused to sign the agreement if their other powers did not approve it without restrictions. The United States and Great Britain have signed only parts of the pact, while France and Russia have agreed to none of it as yet.

Tri Continental News service reports on the Latin American reaction to the US strategic reserve's policy. The Nixon Administration's plan to sell 85% of the US' non-ferrous metal reserves and other minerals on the open world market is causing great concern in many underdeveloped countries, particularly those of Latin America. The US government has traditionally stockpiled vast reserves of strategic materials for use in case of a national emergency and as a hedge against the ups and downs of the world market. Nixon now claims that the US economy and technology are sufficiently dynamic to find substitutes for scarce materials during possible large scale conflicts, and has presented a bill to Congress authorizing sale of almost nine tenths of the US strategic reserves, which would flood the world market next year if approved.

Tri Continental News Service continues, at a recent meeting of Latin American energy and petroleum ministers, the Peruvian Mining and Power Minister called the US government's moves in reality economic aggression against the Latin American countries. He went on to explain that such a move would force down prices of those materials and have a disastrous effect on the economies of Latin America. Chile, Peru, and Bolivia, who export one or more of the affected minerals, would be hurt most severely. Guyana, Mexico and Columbia would also suffer negative effects.

Excélsior reports that the Peronist government of Argentine President-elect Hector Cámpora has organized a youth militia to support the revolutionary action of the government that will assume power May 25th. Formed on instructions from the ex-Argentine president General Juan Perón, the youth militia will participate in all the processes of liberation, from revolutionary work to the control of the actions of the government. The militia will deal with questions like the control of prices and even the action of the government in large terms and will be supported or criticized according to whether the people feel the actions of the youth militia are just or unpopular. Whether or not certain sectors of the youth militias will be armed is not certain. Any violence against the regime will determine whether or not the militias will be armed, a spokesman stated, so that the people will be able to continue to advance the revolutionary process.

In a later related story, the Miami Herald reports from Buenos Aires, the army announced Friday it will not tolerate the organization of people's militias sponsored by Peronist youth. The army chief of staff sent a message to all army units stating, "In view of public statements by leaders of certain political sectors regarding the organization of people's militias, the army announces its opposition to such projects. It will not tolerate the existence within the nation of armed organizations other than the traditional armed forces."

The Miami Herald reports from Rio on recent political arrest in Brazil. Grim accounts are emerging in the wake of the latest wave of political arrest, of widespread use of sophisticated torture techniques by Brazil's security forces. The accounts include use of electric shocks, prolonged interrogation, cold rooms, intense noise, and occasional physical beatings. When the details first began surfacing, many observers were inclined to dismiss them as left-wing propaganda. For many of the people who have been arrested, allegedly are members of leftist organizations ideologically opposed to Brazil's militarily controlled regime. Brazil's censored press has printed no torture stories.

The Miami Herald continues, but dozens of conversations with lawyers, doctors, politicians, and diplomats, plus details of the personal accounts from some of the prisoners who are being released have built up a massive information so consistent it no longer can be dismissed. Names of former prisoners cannot be given, because they say they have been threatened with rearrest if they talk. The details of the methods of operation of the security forces are frightening, in a country where a person accused of acting or conspiring against the rigid security laws has almost no protection. Lawyers, politicians, family and friends of some of the victims tell similar stories of the circumstances of arrest that more nearly resemble kidnappings, in which are reminiscent of Gestapo methods in Hitler's Germany.

Account after account tells of invasion of private homes by armed men dressed in civilian clothes who refuse to identify themselves. The arrested person is taken from the residence, pushed into the back of a car, told to lie on the floor and is hooded. Others are arrested sometimes during the day on city streets. One account tells of a prisoner being beaten and kicked while lying on the floor in the back of a car. This prisoner refused to talk to reporters of his experiences, but when he was released, his face still was badly cut and bruised. The hood is not removed until the prisoner already is in a cell and for the first two or three days is taken out only for long periods of questioning. During this period, the prisoner receives neither food nor water.

According to the Miami Herald, the treatment is designed to lower the physical resistance of the prisoner and to induce fear of the coming shock, humiliation, and degradation. Men and women are told to remove their clothing. Some are given thin prison uniforms, but others remain nude. They are put for varying periods in cold rooms. Descriptions of these vary from cell-like rooms to structures that resemble commercial refrigerators in which the prisoners cannot stand up. The noise treatment is given in specially prepared rooms which are silenced with acoustic tiles and in which the prisoner remains for long periods without hearing any noise, then blasts of sound are channeled into the cell.

Some prisoners say these are noises of people screaming as if in pain, and they seem to be tape recordings greatly magnified electronically. The prisoners also spend periods in rooms with metal floors through which they receive electric shocks. Details of the treatment of the prisoners have surfaced slowly, because of the difficulty lawyers and relatives have in getting in touch with the prisoners. In cases in which the people are arrested away from home, it is sometimes more than a day before relatives become concerned. From then on, locating the missing person is an extremely difficult task.

The atmosphere of uncertainty and fear this flouting the law generates has been condemned openly several times by Brazil's Bar associations and by leaders of the Roman Catholic Church. But lawyers say that despite the protest, the situation has not improved. In the recent wave of arrest, which began in March, nearly 300 persons are believed to have been detained in Rio alone. Though some of these later were released, the arrests still are going on. Nationwide, the number arrested is estimated at about 700 to 800 persons. Lawyers say they have not been able to speak to many of those still held prisoner, even though the detention has been officially notified with officials of the military courts. The security authorities say they're inquiring into two organizations, the Communist Party of Brazil and the National Armed Resistance. This report from the Miami Herald.

In a related story, United Press International reports from London. Amnesty International asked for an impartial inquiry into the alleged deaths of some 26 jailed opponents of the Brazilian military government. The organization, which is concerned with political prisoners throughout the world, said in a statement, that political prisoners have been run down or shot by friends in exchanges of gunfire with police, with such surprising frequency that we believe an impartial inquiry is essential. The organization also said it was concerned about reports that a number of those who died had been tortured while in prison.

La Prensa of Santiago reports on changing campaign practices in Venezuela. Still 10 months away from the presidential elections, Venezuela is very much immersed in pre-election politicking. Without exaggeration, the parties and candidates have already spent sums of money equivalent to the entire budgets of many less fortunate countries. In relation to the size of the population, these must be the most expensive elections in the world. How could they not be, when one minute of TV time cost about $1,000 dollars?

La Prensa continues, in previous campaigns, considerable sums were also spent, but there was more reliance on cheaper campaign techniques, such as mass rallies and public assemblies. Things have changed fundamentally however. TV is now the main vehicle for campaigning and the fault lies with the oil money and with the North American consumerism psychology applied to politics in such new sacred political texts as Vance Packard's "The Hidden Persuaders", and Joe McGinnis' "The Selling of the President", a book which describes Nixon's 1968 campaign.

The weekly report Latin America from London states that the US government is considering selling surplus stocks of a herbicide used in Vietnam to the governments of Brazil, Venezuela, and Paraguay. The herbicide Agent Orange was withdrawn from military use in Vietnam, because it was believed to damage human and animal fetuses in the womb, resulting in deformed children.

For our feature today, we'll be talking with Mary Elizabeth Harding, an American citizen who worked for 14 years in Bolivia with the Roman Catholic Order of Maryknolls Sisters. Mary was arrested on December 5th in Bolivia and charged with belonging to a terrorist organization. International press coverage and protests were credited for securing her release this last January 14th. Mary, how did you happen to go to Bolivia in the first place and what kind of work were you doing?

Well, I went to Bolivia in 1959 as a Maryknoll sister. I was assigned there and I worked for about four years with children in a little parish school in Cobija, Bolivia. Then I went up to La Paz, which is the business center and the political center of the country, and I began to see through my work with public school children there, how very difficult life was for working class people in Bolivia. I was aware that the religious community was more accepted by the people who owned the business, the people who owned the factories and in La Paz than the working class people. I began to question my commitment to the religious community, and in 1970 I asked to be released from Maryknoll. That time I was working in a factory. I stayed on working in the factory until about a year later, then I began teaching English to support myself.

What kind of factory was it?

It was a plastics factory. Came this little factory where we made a plastic tooling and bagging and little plastic artifacts, little kitchen utensils, spoons, cups, saucers, things would be stamped out of these hydraulic machines.

What were the working conditions there and wages?

It was a pretty difficult place to work. The machinery was very old, very unreliable. Accidents were frequent, and when I say accidents, I mean bad accidents because remember, these machines close under tons of pressure. Now when they don't open again, then until they're ready, and if you got a hand or your fingers caught in the machine, it meant you lost that part of your hand.

What were the circumstances of your arrest and how were you finally released?

Shortly after I went to La Paz, I began to question the role of my religious community as being an agent in bringing about the kind of changes that I felt were needed in Bolivia. I began to develop a friendship with many young people in the country who also had reached this level of questioning how much longer we could go on. The way we saw it, we were putting band-aids on a completely sick, corrupt body, and we felt that to really put Bolivia back in the hands of Bolivians would mean a drastic, a radical change in her whole economic and political system. I really consider it an honor to have met some of these young people. Most of them are no longer alive. One fellow died in the guerrilla focal that took place in 1970.

I became very concerned about the question of the conditions of the people who were arrested in the country. I was very concerned for the political prisoners and I was very active in a group. See, there was actually a committee for the Defense of Human Rights in Bolivia, which had a recognized charter from the United Nations. But the situation was so tense and has been so tense and so difficult since August of 1971 when Hugo Banzer Suarez came into power, that we were literally afraid to reactivate this committee, to organize a committee which would try to defend the human rights of people arrested for political reasons in Bolivia. We set up kind of a network of reaching the prisoners with supplies, with food or clothing or medical things. Then they in turn let us know of the condition of the people in the prisons and who had been arrested and where they were. It was the only way the families of the prisoners could keep in touch with the people in the prisons.

You were arrested last December?

I was arrested on the 2nd of December, and I was released on the 14th of January. I was arrested by these secret agents that are used by the police now. They're not uniformed men. They carry no identification. You're transported in automobiles that have no license plates. I was taken to the Ministry of the Interior and I was pretty badly treated there for a few days, and I think that's quite significant. I don't know if people realize, I think some people think that the brutal treatment or the torturing of political prisoners goes on kind of around the fringes of the government, that the government doesn't really have the responsibility for, can't really control it. That's not true. No, I know in my own case, I suffered several beatings right there in the Ministry of the Interior. I know the case of a 67-year-old woman, Delfina Burgoa, who was arrested and taken to the Ministry and beaten, terribly tortured for information.

I remained in the Ministry for about 12 days, and then I was taken to the police station where I stayed in solitary confinement for four weeks, and then I think it was a accumulation of pressures. People here in the States were writing letters to me in care of the president of the country. People were writing letters to Senator Kennedy because I'm from Massachusetts and to Senator Church because they knew that—Well, he had made some very interesting observations about American economic assistance, which were picked up in the Bolivian newspapers, and I had sent those clippings to him and kind of maintained a contact with him. So those people put on the pressure that they could, and my friends in La Paz were continually visiting the consul and the Minister of the Interior.

Is your case unusual in Bolivia, or are there many people in Bolivia who are in prison for political reasons?

There must be a thousand people right now in prison in Bolivia. That might not impress you terribly when you think of 200,000 political prisoners in South Vietnam. But when you remember that there's—the Bolivian population is 4 million and some. The people who would be politically aware, the people who live around the cities, who would be more conscious of what's going on, what was involved in the change of government, that wouldn't be more than maybe 300,000 people. When you take into consideration the fact that periodically 20 or 30 people are released from jail and sent out of the country, and then another 20 or 30 take their places in the jail, the number of a thousand becomes very relative.

Are most of these political prisoners people that are involved in organized subversion of the government or—It seems like that would be harder.

Subversion is a very good term. It's pretty hard to define what subversion is all about. This particular government, the government of Hugo Banzer Suarez, considers any criticism or any offering of alternative solutions for Bolivia's problems as subversion. The people in the jails in Bolivia are many students, professional people, there are many women in prison. No respect is made for a woman's condition. I know of several cases of women who were expecting children when they were arrested and pretty badly beaten up. I know of a case of a Bolivian intellectual, a man who founded the Partido Indio in Bolivia. He was accused of criticizing the government and these secret agents went to his house to arrest him, but they didn't find him. The only one in the house was his nine-year-old grand-nephew, so they took that child. He was later released among the men who escaped from Quati back in November of '72.

There were many young fellows in that group, 15, 16 year old boys. I know people who have been murdered. I know people who have suffered very serious consequences as a result of the treatment they received in prison. Now, no one who's in jail in Bolivia who's considered a political prisoner has ever passed to the judiciary process. No one has ever had a trial. The right to habeas corpus is not respected. This guarantee is written into the Constitution, but General Bond said, wrote it right out by a supreme decree, and the Association of Professionals challenged the president on that. They challenged the constitutionality of that, and when they did, their leader, the man who was the head of the Association of Professionals, was arrested.

Mary, there's a lot of criticism of US support of military dictatorships in, for instance, Brazil, Argentina, and other Latin American countries. What's the US policy toward the Bolivian government?

The United States policy is very clear towards the present Bolivian government, and it was very clear towards the government that just preceded General Hugo Banzer Suarez. The man who was in office before, he was in office for some 10 months, and he received $5 million worth of economic assistance. The American company, the construction company, Williams Brothers, that was building the pipeline to pipe out the natural gas just couldn't complete its contract. They couldn't complete the construction of that pipeline under General Torres, but it was miraculously completed under Hugo Banzer Suarez and the amount of economic assistance to the General Suarez was–in the first six months of Suarez' period, he received nine times what Torres had received in a year—in 10 months.

The United States has very direct economic interests in Bolivia. Bolivia has very rich mineral reserves. Everyone's heard of Bolivian tin. Well, Bolivia also has deposits of zinc, tungsten, radioactive materials, and a real wealth of petroleum resources. The Denver Mining Corporation is now investing some $10 million dollars in exploiting the tungsten outside of Aruro and the Union Oil Corporation of California has been given the franchise to develop the oil reserves down in the Santa Cruz area. Bolivia right now represents a very good place to invest capital from the United States of America.

Mary, what do you think North Americans can do to help the Bolivians in their struggle against repression?

I think the best thing North Americans can do for Bolivians or other Latin Americans, other third world people, is to become politically aware and conscious of what's going on here right in their own country. When we talk about economic assistance and how that's used to manipulate the internal politics of countries like Bolivia, there's a long history of this in Bolivia, we're talking about dollars and cents that we as American citizens pay into in the form of taxes. I think we have to become conscious of the fact that this money that we kick in is used then to manipulate other countries.

The United States government, state department officials who are represented in the embassies of foreign countries are, they are not to let the Bolivians know how the United States, how American citizens feel for them and are really anxious to see them develop their own country. They're there for the specific reason of protecting the investments of United States' economic interest. Like the Oil Corporation of California that we mentioned, Gulf had tremendous money invested in Bolivia and received some seven times more in profits than she lost in that famous $80 million loss when Gulf was nationalized.

Thank you, Mary. We've been talking today with Mary Elizabeth Harding, a former Maryknoll sister who spent 14 years working in Bolivia, was arrested last December by the Banzer government in Bolivia, and finally released in January of this year.

Chile again appears to be increasingly embroiled in open conflict between economic classes, reminiscent of last fall's scenario. The following article from Le Monde is entitled, "Is Chile on The Road to Civil War?"

The Chilean capital was last week plunged into violence and disorder comparable to that which reigned last October when the truckers and shopkeepers strike brought on a situation so crucial that the very existence of the regime was thought to be in danger. Groups of young 15 to 18-year-old anti-government students swarmed into the city center last week, chanting anti-government slogans and openly seeking clashes with the police and with supporters of the Popular Unity government.

Probably for the first time in the nation's history, the seat of government in Central Santiago was a target of demonstrators' anger. A Molotov cocktail was hurdled at the building and several windows, including those in President Allende's own offices, were broken under a hail of stones. This anti-government demonstration by Christian Democrat students and rightist and extreme rightist militants was ostensibly to protest against the implementation of a scheme for a unified national school. But clearly, the issue was a pretext since the project had been abandoned by the government for this year.

Recent events seem to fall into a program of stepped up violence expressly designed to recreate conditions of last October's crisis. Steps have been taken in the past three weeks, which include repeated anti-government demonstrations in the heart of Santiago. In last April, a number of communist and socialist party premises, homes, and newspapers were sacked across the country and in the capital in an apparently coordinated operation.

Le Monde continues saying that the Christian Democrats who, on occasions, have flirted with the idea of a dialogue with the government, seemed to have fallen back on a policy of unreserved hostility. This particularly, since Mr. Allende publicly referred to a Washington Post article stating that Eduardo Frei, the Christian Democrat candidate, had received $20 million from the CIA and from US-based multinational corporations to finance his 1964 electoral campaign.

The Christian Democratic Party appears determined to go to war against the social sector of the economy by introducing a reform bill meant to repeal the entire policy of nationalization. The rightist National Party will obviously go along with the Christian Democrats.

Faced with the growing threat to the government, the workers have again expressed solidarity and readiness to mobilize as in October to defend their factories and offset the rightist inspired violence, Le Monde continues. One hundred thousand workers living in the southwest industrial belt of Santiago have declared a state of general alert. Despite all government efforts to prevent the situation from taking too dramatic a turn, the entire nation wonders anxiously whether Chile is engaged in an electable course towards civil war. That from Le Monde.

Another article, this time from Latin American Newsletter and postdating the above story, reports subsequent developments in the crisis. The article begins, "After street riots in which a pro-government worker was killed, tension has raised to the level of last October and relations between Popular Unity and the Christian Democrats are worse than ever. Unidad Popular, the governing coalition, is blaming the death on the Christian Democrats since the shots which killed the worker appeared to come from the party's building, outside which the pro-government demonstration was held."

In the confused situation prevailing, no firm evidence has been found as to who actually fired the shots, but the Christian Democrats at first denying the responsibility, then said that they had to defend themselves because the demonstrators were about to attack their headquarters and the government had deliberately left them without proper police protection."

Latin American Newsletter goes on to say that relations between both sides are now so bad that most observers are discounting any prospect of functional compromises or cooperation in congressional work, which it is thought President Allende was seeking with the Christian Democrats.

To block any such synthesis would certainly be in the interest of the right, indeed, some people in the government side are saying that the current wave of violence is a deliberate right-wing provocation. Certainly, there is evidence of right-wing thugs egging on opposition student demonstrators who clashed with pro-government students last week.

Latin American Newsletter goes on to observe that with the church still showing signs of withdrawing its tacit support of the government, especially over the new education program, and the army also appearing to be reserving its position, Allende is undoubtedly in trouble. Moreover, this is occurring simultaneously with a difficult congressional struggle with the opposition of nationalization. The above article was from Latin America Newsletter.

An even later article, this time from the American Daily at the Miami Herald, reports that the Marxist blood government decreed a state of emergency on May 5th in the province of Santiago, banning public gatherings and putting the military in charge of public security. The undersecretary of the interior said the mild form of martial law was imposed, "in the face of a state of social agitation troubling Chile." An anti-government demonstrator was shot and killed, and four others were wounded Friday night in an anti-government protest in Santiago.

In Concepción, a major city in another province, thousands of anti-government demonstrators protesting the shooting, battled police Saturday for two hours. The state of emergency declared May the 5th affects three and a half million people in Chile's largest province, where about one third of the country's population lives. Last October, the government similarly declared a state of emergency in most Chilean provinces to deal with widespread disturbances and strikes by truck owners, shop owners, and some professionals. The demonstration in Concepción on Saturday was organized jointly by the Christian Democratic Party and by the right-wing Fatherland and Liberty organization.

In Brazil, currently ruled by a right-wing military organization, an editorial headline, "Brazil Will Have The Bomb", the pro-government Rio weekly Manchete said Brazil would put into operation a "great power policy" sooner than anyone imagined. Referring to the recent purchase of French Mirage jets, Manchete said, "No one should be surprised if after the mirages, in an almost inevitable progression to cover the next decade, they'll come Phantoms, F-111s, modern tanks, Polaris nuclear-powered submarines, aircraft carriers, satellites, rockets, and the atomic bomb itself." The Weekly said that the Brazilian military power would not be used against anyone, but rather as a "persuasive force," but the atomic bomb is as they say, perhaps a military necessity for Brazil. Manchete generally reflects the thinking of the Brazilian military government.

In a more peaceful vein, an article from Latin American Newsletter, entitled "Bears Like Honey", reports that a major deal with the Soviet Union seems likely to follow the journey of the head of Brazil's sugar industry to Moscow. Neither the Brazilians nor the Russians seem anxious to give the negotiations the prominence they deserve. The Cuban government sent a discreet protest to Moscow last week manifesting Havana's concern at the official welcome accorded by the Soviet authorities to the president of Brazil's Instituto de Azucar.

The officials' trip during the week before Easter was deliberately played down by the authorities so as not to attract attention. The reasons are clear, Moscow did not wish to offend Havana and the Brazilians are always sensitive to possible reactions from Washington. The overt purpose of the trip was to exchange views on matter of mutual interest ahead of this week's conference in Geneva, where a new international sugar agreement is to be discussed. That from Latin America Newsletter.

The following article on Argentina's current state of crisis is from Latin America Newsletter. Argentina's military regime is currently in what can best be called a state of high hysteria. Once again, there is speculation as to whether the military junta that is currently ruling Argentina will permit the transition to civilian rule as scheduled for May 25th. Héctor Cámpora, the Peronist candidate, won the presidential elections conducted earlier this spring in a climate of dwindling effectiveness on the part of the military rulers. The juntas' reluctance to give up the official control they do exercise is however being exacerbated by Argentina's condition of increasing militancy on the part of both Peronist and non-Peronist oppositions.

Two events in particular appear to be the proverbial last straws on the camel's back. The first of these was the announcement by the Secretary General of the Peronist Youth Movement that the movement proposed to organize popular militias stating that they would be necessary to ensure implementation of the civilian government's programs. The second event was the shooting of Admiral Quijada by a member of a non-Peronist revolutionary group called the Ejército Revolucionario del Pueblo. The shooting was a declared reprisal for the Trelew Massacre for which the admiral was regarded as directly responsible.

The Associated Press reported that Admiral Quijada was killed by two guerrillas riding double on a motorcycle. They opened fire when the admiral's limousine slowed at a traffic light. Quijada's chauffeur shot back and fatally wounded one. Police sources said that the guerrilla's body was found later in a flower strewn apartment in a well-to-do part of Buenos Aires. Floral wreaths on the street in front of the building called the attention of the police to the apartment. The apparent inability of the government to guarantee the safety of even their senior officers is causing great alarm in military in executive circles.

Since the March 11th elections, guerrillas have killed two ranking military men, kidnapped two others, raided half a dozen police stations, shot six policemen, set off a bomb at the naval headquarters and taken credit for other robberies, bombings and armed sign painting attacks on government installations. Not to mention several extremely profitable kidnappings of high executives. And what is even more apparent is that popular support for these armed movements does not seem at an all-time low.

The hysteria of the right wing of the military was perhaps most clearly revealed during the wake before the admiral's funeral. Angry navy officers demanding stiff measures against left wing movements shouted insults at the president of the governing military junta, General Alejandro Lanusse, when he and his wife appeared at the wake of the navy admiral. Lanusse left the wake at the navy headquarters soon after his arrival. Also, during the outbursts, the Navy officials refused to let former president Arturo Frondizi even attend the vigil. He was pushed to the ground during an angry argument with the navy officers when he tried to enter the wake.

Latin America Newsletter continues that the capitol and five provinces were placed under Martial Law. Hector Cámpora, the Peronist president-elect, who tries to thread the impossible line of fire between the military regime and the increasingly popular militancy flew home from Europe upon the request of General Lanusse. Cámpora's line on the guerrilla has until now pin to blame military violence and repression. Most recently, he has said that he was confident the violence would stop when he took power on the 25th of May. He's supported in this by the published declarations of all the guerrilla groups, including the ERP.

But Cámpora warns, if the incoming government is prevented by the armed to forces from carrying through the reforms promised in the electoral program, then "the guns will be heard." It is unlikely that Cámpora will abandon this line. He has resolutely refused to condemn the guerrillas and has remained firm on the question of a broadly based amnesty for all political prisoners. At the same time, he's clearly going to be under great pressure from the armed forces to say something to disassociate himself from the latest wave of guerrilla activity. The state of emergency decreed on Monday by President Lanusse is unlikely to contribute to the prevention of violence, but it could be the cover for a new phase of direct military rule. That from Latin American Newsletter.

La Nación of Buenos Aires reports that in Montevideo, Uruguay, all eight daily newspapers have closed, three under government decree and the others by a strike protesting the government action. President Juan Bordaberry on Friday ordered La Mañana, Ahora and El Popular shut down for three days starting Saturday for allegedly publishing state secrets. One of the editors was temporarily detained by the police. Excélsior of Mexico reports that thousands of students participated in the funeral procession for four of their companions killed in May Day clashes with the police. The funeral ceremonies held May 3rd went off without incident following two days of disturbances. The violence was touched off May Day when police tried to stop 300 students in a building of the autonomous University of Puebla from joining a downtown May Day demonstration.

Receiving front page coverage in the US press was the kidnapping of US Consulate General Leonhardy, Mr. Leonhardy was safely released May the 7th in exchange for the kidnapper's demands.

The Christian Science monitor notes that the terrorist kidnapping of the United States Consulate General in Guadalajara, Mexico's second city, could hardly come of a more difficult time for President Echeverría. Fresh back from a month-long world trip designed to enhance Mexican global prestige, the Mexican leader this past week has been faced with mounting student unrest spotlighted by the killing of four students in Puebla.

Moreover, the continuing activity of guerrillas in the mountains south of Mexico City is causing new concern. And now comes the abduction of Consul General Terrance G. Leonhardy, coupled with the terrorist demands that the Echeverría government released 30 political prisoners in exchange for consul. The government quickly agreed to the release and the 30 were flown to Havana in a Mexican Air Force plane. The secondary and tertiary demands, namely reading of the kidnapper's public message and a ransom of one million pesos were also met in the government's concern to protect the consul general's life. This from the Christian Science Monitor.

This week's feature is on Mexico and we're happy to have Robert Hedner with us who has been a correspondent to Mexico for some time. What can you tell us given the recent kidnapping of the American consulate about the guerrilla movements in Mexico?

Well, first of all, due to the attitude of the government and the controlled press, little is really known about the guerrilla movement. The government either denies their existence or claims that they have just been destroyed or alternatively says they're only a matter of thieves and assassins anyway and they can be dealt with by the local police. The press complies by relegating all reports of guerrilla activities to the crime pages. So, it would seem that the Mexican authorities would prefer that Mexico be known as the country with the highest crime rate in the world rather than having foreign investors and tourists and most importantly their own population suspect that a widespread popular movement may be developing.

How widespread would you say that movement is?

Well, I think first of all, we have to speak of various local movements rather than a national movement. There doesn't seem to be evidence that there's any national coordination among these various local movements. The strongest movement is undoubtedly that of in Guerrero, which is in the state and the southeast of—excuse me, the southwest of the country and is headed by Lucio Cabañas. Judging from the repression there, the movement seems to be very strong indeed. There's been two to three years of repeated search and destroy missions in Guerrero. The former leader of the movement, Genaro Vázquez, was murdered by the police about a year and a few months ago, has now become a national hero.

Napalm has apparently been used, American helicopters, CIA-trained counterinsurgency teams, but all of this has failed to diminish the growing movement. Growing in any case, if we can measure it by the attacks on military camps, army convoys and the repeated kidnappings of the past year and a half, which now have been reported in the newspapers. There's also mass repression in Guerrero, reports of mass arrests in the slums of Acapulco and the other major cities in Guerrero, and also reports of what the Mexicans call "Vietnam villages", which are what we call strategic hamlets, villages surrounded by barbed wire in order to control the rural population.

So, that apparently, Lucio Cabañas, his group is not just a guerrilla band, but a popularly supported movement, not just in the countryside but in the cities of Guerrero and not just in Guerrero, but also in neighboring southern states. There have been many reports of other guerrilla movements such as in Sinaloa, in Tlaxcala, in Chiapas, and in various other parts of the republic.

Are there any reports of activities in some of the major cities?

Yes. There have been numerous reports of urban guerrillas, particularly in Monterey and Acapulco, in Mexico City, but in almost all the main cities of Mexico. And in all of them, you find now that the banks have details of soldiers outside them guarding them. Usually these guerrillas demand the freeing of political prisoners, and this suggests that the Mexican jails are once again overflowing with them. I think the most important urban guerrilla movement has been that of in Chihuahua. In January of '72, a number of the downtown banks were expropriated, as the guerrillas put it. Some of the guerrillas were then arrested. There were reports of there being tortured and even of murders in jail.

In the face of these reports, a popular assembly was called Foreign Chihuahua and 15,000 people turned out for the first one. Subsequently, a popular tribunal was formed to judge first the local repression, but then finally the repression on a national scale to judge the whole regime and it's a permanent political organization, and there now have been popular assemblies in other cities in Mexico, including Puebla and Monterey. So that there seems to be a connection and certainly a great impact between the guerrilla movements, the underground and clandestine movements and these popular movements. But in some, again, I would say that there's no national coordinated movement with a national program, but rather growing local guerrilla actions and then generally, a growing political movement despite sophisticated and very violent repression in Mexico.

Guerrilla movements sound rather strange to us. I was wondering if you could explain some why there are guerrilla movements and why these movements seem to be growing.

Well, I think the fundamental and root cause is the distribution of the social product in Mexico, a distribution which despite, or rather really because of Mexico's wanted economic growth in the past 20 or 30 years is very, very uneven. The 50% at the bottom of the social scale received 15% of the national income and the 15% at the top, those have been benefiting from this economic growth now receive 60% of the national income. This of course after American corporations have subtracted their part.

Why is the income so concentrated or so uneven?

Well, as in all societies, control of the means of production determines how the product will be distributed. In Mexico, which is a dependent capitalist society, the means of productions are controlled by the foreign monopolies in alliance with a local big bourgeoisie. Together, they have pursued an economic policy, which they call import substitution, which is finally responsible I think for the nature of the distribution of the social product there.

This particular policy of import substitution, what is that? Can you describe that?

Yeah. I think there are two ways of looking at it. One, from the point of view of the Mexican and the other from the point of view of the multinational corporations. The Mexicans, and for the underdeveloped countries in general who undertake this kind of policy, it means the substitution of products previously imported from the metropolitan countries, almost always manufacturing, manufactured products, substituting for these imports by making the products at home, by importing the means of production to make them. That is, instead of importing commodities, you import machinery and you make the products at home.

Where did they get the capital for that? How is that arranged?

Well, the capital comes from multinationals. And from the point of view of the multinational corporations, this is a very attractive policy. Rather than export to Latin America manufactured items made by expensive American labor, you export your youth machinery and you get the super exploited Latin American worker to produce the products. And in exchange for this flexibility, you get a guaranteed monopoly in the national market and tax concessions from the local bourgeoisie anxious to share in the profits from foreign capital investment.

However, this process does create serious problems. The one thing, it's based on an existing and given market, that is all it does is substitute where the product is made, and since this foreign investment is attracted by low wages, it's very difficult to expand the market. What happens is to the extent that the market is expanded is it is expanded by deepening it, the 15% or so who are benefiting from this process by more, television sets and automobiles, let's say. So, that capital moves from one branch, which has been substituted such as textiles to another branch, such as television sets, and then when this branch is saturated, when the market has been used up or can't expand anymore, capital has shifted into another branch such as now petrochemistry, or intermediate production goods in general.

But what happens is that the population remains underfed and underclothed and 15% of the population, which benefits from the process continues to benefit and the gap grows wider. It also causes balance of payment problems because the whole process is finally dependent on foreign loans to pay for the importation of machinery from the metropolitan countries.

Given this economic situation, what are the multinationals in the Mexican government planning to do?

I think basically they're planning to follow the Brazilian model, the model that Brazil has followed since 1964, which is to emphasize exportation, to try to solve the balance of payment problems by exporting manufactured items principally to the regional markets in Latin America. However, this also creates problems, perhaps even more serious problems. In order to participate in the world market, the Mexican industry must become more efficient. It's now been protected by 30 years of high tariffs in this import substitution policy, so that it is very inefficient. Therefore, productivity has to be increased, machinery has to be bought, the industry has to be modernized.

Well, it's obvious that the companies which can afford to buy machinery will be the big ones, the monopolies, the foreign monopolies particularly, so that those companies which will benefit from the process will be the North American companies, who will continue to penetrate the Mexican market even more so. The small businessman will be the one who will suffer. He's been protected by this import substitution policy, but now tariffs are being lowered again to raise the efficiency of Mexican industry.

And finally, since the whole process is based on increasingly sophisticated machinery, technological unemployment will rise. The only thing that the president of Mexico, Echeverría, has done to deal with these contradictions, particularly among the smaller businessmen, is to present his policy as a very nationalistic anti-imperialist policy that Mexico will grow greater and begin to export. In fact, it is anything but an anti-imperialist policy and Echeverria is perhaps the new model of the anti-imperialist imperialist statesmen.

How would you see then the future of this development that would seem that the income distribution is already severely strained and that the possible growth plans for the economy would emphasize exports rather than improvement of the mass standard of living at home, that would only seem in the long run to make things worse?

Yes. I think that on the one hand, there will be some attempt to co-opt the working class as they have been to some extent the unionized working class co-opted since World War II. But they haven't been so much co-opted, as had their trade union organizations controlled and dominated. But they will try to create a kind of labor aristocracy in Mexico, but it'll be very, very difficult in the face of falling wages.

I think the only thing that would really be left for the government is what they're already doing, which is massive repression of any kind of political descent, mass descent movement. There will be increasing political prisoners and the left will be faced with the job of really implementing the worker, peasant, student and unemployed alliance that they have been talking about. I think a great deal will depend on the working class movement. If the working class movement, which has arisen in the past few years and has threatened the control of the trade unions in the past two or three years, if this movement becomes more than a syndicalist reformist movement and begins to become a revolutionary movement to align with the campesinos, to align with the unemployed and with the students, then I think Mexico will be entering into a pre-revolutionary, even a revolutionary period.

And the whole, I think an interview in El Punto Crítico, which is the finest magazine in Mexico for this kind of information, an interview with one of the guerrillas, one of the Chihuahua guerrillas perhaps summarize what we can expect in Mexico in the next few years. This prisoner was in jail and heard that one of his compañeros, one of his associates had been captured. He later heard the next day that there had been a shootout in the jail and that someone was killed. He was told that. When he asked who it was that was killed, he received no answer and was just left wondering what had happened to his compañero.

A few hours later, the subdistrict attorney came in and the interview goes on and says, "He told me that the dead man was Raul Diaz," his campanero. I answered him. I said to him, "Revolutions are made with the barbarity of some and the sacrifice of others. And I think this is what we can expect will continue to be the case in Mexico, and even more so in the next few years. Barbarity on the one hand and enormous sacrifice on the other."

Excélsior reports from Mexico City that, on May 1st, while workers' demonstrations were taking place in all parts of the republic, mass political murder again struck the Mexican democratic struggle. The scene was Puebla, traditional bastion of the Mexican right, noted traditionally for its numerous churches and, more recently, for its ferocious politics.

According to Excélsior, five students were gunned down and a dozen others, including four police, were injured when members of the student movement attempted to distribute leaflets at the local Mayday parade. According to police, the students had attempted to alter the direction of the parade. The official statement of the student organization claimed that the students were killed at a meeting called to discuss and protest the imprisonment of students passing out literature to the workers. Police open fired at the meeting from nearby rooftops and a number of students were shot down.

Excélsior continues, the following day, as President President Luis Echeverría ordered an investigation of the incident, Puebla's governor stated that the killings ought to be a lesson to the students. Days later, the governor himself was in turn deposed due to a growing nationwide reaction, including a national university protest strike and numerous protests from students and worker organizations.

Puebla industrialists and businessmen organize a transportation and service stoppage to protest the deposition of the governor, while students and workers attempted to organize a mass meeting, later prohibited, to protest the stoppage. 20,000 sympathizers attended the funeral of the murdered students.

According to Punto Crítico, Puebla has been the scene of political assassination for nearly a year now. Ever since the student movement under left wing, including communist party, leadership attained a strong measure of influence in university affairs in 1972. The students attempted to carry out reforms widening the social base of the university. They set up service brigades to supply medical aid, social services, and general information to local peasants and workers unemployed in the crisis-ridden textile industry of Puebla.

In July, a young architect and director of the Free People's High School was gunned down in the streets of Puebla apparently by members of a national fascist political organization. Despite demands for a thorough investigation and government promises to comply, to this date, no one has been accused of the crime. In October, the right organized an anti-communist and pro-religious demonstration. Amid growing labor and peasant solidarity and demonstrations of support from other universities, the reaction continued to grow. Last winter, the organizer of the service brigades was also killed in Puebla. According to reports, this investigation has also gone un-investigated by the authorities.

As Punto Critico and Siempre! describe it, Puebla is at the heart of an attack on the universities by organized elements associated with industry and the labor union bureaucracy who wish to discourage mounting student participation in the worker and peasant movements growing noticeably since 1968. The university have recently been the scene of what the government calls an educational reform designed to depoliticize the university. Puebla has now become the symbol to many of this policy. During the weeks, students in Mexico City attempted to demonstrate in solidarity with the Puebla victims. The demonstration was prohibited by government officials, and those students who persisted were violently dispersed according to Excélsior. As yet, no one has been arrested for the murders in Puebla. This report on Puebla was from Excélsior, Siempre!, and Punto Critico.

The London News Weekly Latin America reports that the dramatic new initiatives launched by President Nixon in Europe and Asia this year and last are not to be matched in the region nearest to the United States, Latin America. This is the only conclusion that can be drawn from the Latin American section of his annual policy review to Congress last week, which was significant for what it did not say than for what it did. The only major positive move to be announced was that the president himself is to make at least one trip to Latin America this year, preceded by his Secretary of State, William Rogers. In the light of the Watergate scandal and of the current bad relations between the US and Latin America, it may be doubted whether President Nixon's trip would be any more successful than his disastrous tour of Latin America as General Eisenhower's vice president in 1958.

Latin America continues, certainly, there is little enough in the policy review for Latin Americans to welcome. An assertion of the president's desire to underscore our deep interest in Latin America through closer personal contacts was not accompanied by any concession to Latin American interests or aspirations. Only, perhaps, the Mexicans can find some satisfaction in Nixon's promise of a permanent, definitive and just solution to the problem of the high salinity of Colorado River waters diverted to Mexico, but there was no give it all in the United States position on many of the other broader disputes with Latin America. On the Panama Canal issue, he appealed to Panama to help take a fresh look at this problem and to develop a new relationship between us, one that will guarantee continued effective operation of the canal while meeting Panama's legitimate aspirations.

Panama's view, however, is that its effort to persuade Washington to take a fresh look at the problem had been frustrated for so long that its only recourse was to make this matter an international issue at the United Nations Security Council. On this, President Nixon merely noted disapprovingly that an unfortunate tendency among some governments and some organizations to make forums for cooperation into arenas for conflict, so throwing the blame back on Panama.