Annotations for Countries: Argentina

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

Latin America's report continues that, in a clear reference to the dispute with Chile over compensation for the copper mines taken over from United States companies, the president said adequate and prompt compensation was stipulated under international law for foreign property nationalized. There was no sign of any concessions there nor did Nixon envisage any reconciliation with Cuba, which he still saw as a threat to peace and security in Latin America. Furthermore, his proposal that any change of attitude towards Cuba should be worked out when the time was ripe. With fellow members of the Organization of American States, OAS, came at a moment of deep disillusion with the OAS on the part of many Latin American governments. The review displayed no understanding in Washington of why nearly all Latin American and Caribbean governments sympathize with Chile and Panama and many, if not most, want to reestablish relations with Cuba.

Nixon's undertaking to deal realistically with Latin American governments as they are, providing only that they do not endanger peace and security in the hemisphere, merely begs the question that Latin Americans have been posing for years nor did the review reflect in any way the Latin American feeling expressed with a unanimous vote at last month's meeting of the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America, ECLA, in Quito that the countries of the region are helping to finance the rise in United States' standard of living at the cost of their own impoverishment.

Latin America concludes that there is some satisfaction at President Nixon's call to Congress to revise the legislation that imposes penalties on countries which arrest United States' fishing vessels in territorial waters the USA does not recognize, but many Latin Americans see this merely as a recognition that the existing policy hurts United States' interests, but the failure of Washington to appreciate Latin America's views may not be the main feature of the United States' policy towards Latin America this year. Unless the White House can overcome the Watergate scandal and revive its decision-making process, the United States will be quite unable to react to the new Peronist government in Argentina or exert any influence over the selection of Brazil's new president. This report was taken from the London News Weekly Latin America.

This week's feature taken from The Guardian provides the historical background to the inauguration of Peronist Hector Campora as president of Argentina on May 25th.

Argentina's struggle for national independence spans 150 years. The Argentinian people fought first against the Spanish colonialist, later against the British and, finally, against US domination. The victory of the Peronist presidential candidate, Hector Campora, in the March 11th elections is an integral part of that struggle and an important step forward for it. After almost two decades of oppression and anti-Peronist propaganda, the majority of the Argentinian people have continued to support the nationalist and anti-imperialist ideals of Peronism.

To understand this, it is necessary to analyze the political economic program of Peronism in its first period of power, 1944 to 1955, the developmentalist or demo-liberal politics that overthrew him and the continuing struggle of the workers' movement against the pro-imperialist military and civilian governments that followed.

The Guardian goes on to say that the rise of Peronism took place at a time of important structural changes in the Argentine economy. During the 1930s, under the control of the most conservative groups, industrialization of the country began. The coming to power of the military in 1943 marked the end of Argentina's dependency on British capitalism which had been based on its exploitation of the country's raw materials. A new era, accelerated by World War II, consolidated a new kind of economic dependency based on control by multinational corporations of industry and control of Argentina's domestic markets.

Peron participated in the 1943 military coup and gained popularity through his position as minister of labor and welfare, but the very activities which made him popular with the people, his support of their struggles, brought him the antagonism of the more conservative forces in the government which demanded his resignation and imprisonment. They were faced, however, with an unheard-of situation, the mobilization on October 17th, 1945, of thousands of Argentinian workers. The main organizer of this march was Maria Eva Duarte, later, Peron's wife and the key figure in Peron's election to the presidency one year later.

In office, according to The Guardian, Peron's policies were characterized by programs to regain the national wealth, to strictly control the agro exporting sector of the economy, to institute protectionist policies, to encourage the development of Argentinian industries, to improve the salary and working conditions of the country's workers, and to generally heighten the national consciousness.

As a result of Argentina's large volume of exports during World War II, Argentina's gold reserves had increased considerably. Peron utilized these funds in order to promote industry and, since Great Britain refused to pay its war debts immediately unless Argentina would accept used war materials, the Peronist government opted for nationalizing the railroads, telephone and transportation systems throughout the country to pay the debt. The politics of state investment enabled the country to build up a merchant fleet and a commercial air fleet and the improvement of social services, gas and electricity and, had it not been interrupted by the reactionary 1955 coup, the metallurgical and oil policies of the government would've put Argentina in a position to meet its own national needs.

"In 1950," says The Guardian, "the Peronist government faced the beginnings of several crises, a shortage of funds for capital investment, crop failures and declines in exports, underlying these problems with a growing strength of US influence in South America and the decision of a large sectors of the national ruling class to abandon their alliance with a working class and to join the monopolies and foreigners in opposition. This was prompted by a number of factors. One was the limitations placed by the government on corporate profits through its full employment policy and support for high wages and unionization. A law on foreign investment enacted in 1953 sought the decline of foreign investments in the auto, petrochemical, and other industries. A shortcoming of this law was that it forced Argentinian capitalists to invest in industries not particularly suitable for the Argentinian economy."

The military's second coup attempt in its September 1955 succeeded in overthrowing the government with their liberating revolution. The triumph of this coup brought about a factional struggle within the military which led in November 1955 to the victory of the most reactionary wing led by General Aramburu. A period of repression ensued against loyal Peronist. Hundreds of people were imprisoned, assassinated or driven into exile. Progressive social laws were abolished. Political parties were dissolved, and workers' rights were removed, but the popular opposition to the government, the resistance period, had only begun. Much of the working class was still loyal to Peronism. The Peronist government had represented an important experiment, an anti-imperialist government, which supported mass mobilizations and had given a tremendous amount of political consciousness to the Argentinian workers.

"After 1955," The Guardian continues, "the anti-national and anti-pop forces held the reins of government, an alliance of those most closely tied to imperialism, the big companies and those involved in the export industry and those sectors of the national ruling class most hostile to the pro-working class reforms of the government. Once the constitutional Peronist government was overthrown, the armed forces and the civilian governments that followed put forward two solutions to the problem of Argentina, developmentalism and demo-liberalism. Demo-liberalism is the expression of those economic sectors which are the most conservative and powerful. It seeks monetary stability and maintenance of the status quo. The developmentalist model prefers development to monetary stability and, in order to achieve its ends, it supports the massive participation of foreign monopoly capital. Both schools recommend unemployment as a means of increasing profits."

Between 1955 and 1958, the armed forces ruling, through Aramburu, concentrated on destroying the defenses against foreign penetration implemented during the Peronist government and followed the developmentalist economic policies. Foreign investment was again encouraged. The political economy of this period was primarily based on the Prebisch plan which had two main objectives. Through the manipulations of statistics, it tried to discredit the Peronist government. Secondly, it put forward a reconstruction program for the Argentine economy, the transfer of large amounts of national income to the agricultural sector by increasing agricultural prices, by the removal of foreign controls and the freezing of all salaries. It also emphasized foreign investment. This plan was formulated mainly in response to the demands of US-controlled organizations, particularly the International Monetary Fund.

"In 1958," explains The guardian, "when the military decided to return to civilian rule, the Peronist supported the developmentalist politician Arturo Frondizi. The developmentalists, as opposed to the demo-liberals, believe that rapid economic development is preferable to the maintenance of the status quo, but the developmentalists also favor large-scale use of foreign aid and investment. This led to rapid inflation, international debt and greater US control. Important in this process was a 1958 law which put forward the following points, that foreign capital would have the same rights as national capital, that the investments would be used in building new plants and expanding old ones and, finally, that the profits could be taken out of the country although only under certain conditions. As far as the military was concerned, though Frondizi's mistake was that he allowed the Peronist to operate with some freedom. After a Peronist won a gubernatorial election, the army again took power and began a new wave of repression."

With the Peronist and the masses again safely suppressed, the military again organized elections in 1963, and Arturo Illia became president. The civilians were unable, however, to stabilize the situation to the satisfaction of the foreigners, besides mass pressure had forced the government to take some nationalistic acts. At the end of 1963, Illia nullified oil contracts favorable to international monopolies at the expense of Argentinian companies. The next year, the central bank increased restrictions on the export of profits by multinational companies, forcing them to reinvest. These measures, along with the revival of the mass movement, provided the military with the excuse for their 1966 coup.

"Since then," The Guardian points out, "the military has ruled Argentina under General Juan Carlos Ongania in 1966 to '70, Roberto Levingston in 1970 and Alejandro Lanusse in 1970 to the present. The monopolies and foreign companies were again brought to power. Ongania's economic minister, for example, was Krieger Vasena, who was a director of more than 12 US subsidiaries. Vasena instituted many pro-foreign measures, a 40% devaluation, wage cuts for workers, reduction of import taxes by up to 50%, and denationalization of some state-owned companies. With such policies, nearly 3,000 Argentine companies became bankrupt during 1970 alone."

But resistance developed on a stronger basis than ever before. One of the most important of the popular struggles of 1964 was the uprising in Córdoba over inflation and the freezing of workers' wages. The conflict began in the northeastern city of Corrientes where students, campus workers and faculty protested against increases in food prices in the student cafeteria. Two days later, in Rosario, the struggle was escalated, and police killed a student. The agitation spread to Tucuman and Córdoba.

The two union confederations existing at that time joined forces and waged an effective general strike. Army units in Córdoba were harassed by snipers who utilized barricades and rooftops, the most important aspects of the uprising called the Cordobazo. With a mass participation of the working class and the establishment of real unity between the workers and students, the people supported the actions with food for strikers, providing refuges for pursued demonstrators and by harassing the army and the police.

The Guardian states that, "As a result of the uprising, Minister Vasena, the architect of the government's economic program, was removed from office and General Ongania had to resign. This period also saw the beginning of the present armed urban groups like the Peronist Montoneros who kidnapped former Director General Aramburu who was executed in May 1970. The Montoneros and other Peronist groups also participate politically within the Peronist movement itself in which they formed part of the left wing. Even with repression, armed actions continued. The Revolutionary Armed Forces, another Peronist group occupied the town of Garin, only 43 miles from Buenos Aires. A platoon of 46 people occupied police, railroad and telecommunication stations, isolating Garin from the rest of the country, carrying out political meetings and broadcasting information of the resistance."

The continuation of the popular struggle forced Lanusse to begin negotiations with Peron who understood the corner in which the military found itself. While Peron took his time talking, Lanusse desperately juggled ministries and plans. While agricultural prices went up 25%, wages were cut and meat was rationed. Caught between the escalating actions of the armed groups and the collapse of Argentina's economy, Lanusse was forced to meet most of Peron's terms in calling the March 11th elections this year. The Peronist coalition received 52% of the votes compared to the radical party, the ruling class' major hope, which won only 21% of the vote.

The Guardian continues, "The task of the new Campora government will certainly not be an easy one because of the poor economic condition that Argentina finds itself in today. While the annual inflation rate has run at 70%, wages have increased by only 42%. While large amounts of resources are transferred to the agricultural and exporting sectors of the economy, the country's purchasing power is constantly declining. There are an estimated 1 million people unemployed with an equal number of underemployed. While production went up 44% between 1960 and 1969, employment increased by only 13% and the relative wealth held by the working class decreased. Finally, official statistics indicate that Argentina has a foreign debt of about $6 billion dollars, of which almost half will have to be paid this year."

The Campora government's plans in dealing with these problems will be shaped largely by the way the Peronist movement overcomes internal contradictions In its coalition. The Peronist left consists of the most militant unions and workers, the youth movement and the armed organizations. They're opposed particularly by the union bureaucrats and politicians. Peron, while maintaining his position of overall leader of the movement, has sided with the left on a number of occasions recently. One of the most important questions facing the government will be whether it will conduct mobilizations of the workers and peasants or whether it will take a mildly reformist top-down route.

The Peronist left and many of the country's independent radicals believe that they must participate within the context of this developing struggle. As a document of the Peronist Youth Group of Córdoba stated, we have to create the conditions that will enable us to implement the government that we won through the ballot. The government's long-term strategy should become clear shortly after Campora's inauguration. As Peron himself has said, "We will first take the presidency and, a month later, we will assume power."

On a practical note, David Belknap of the Los Angeles Times service reports kidnapping for politics or profit or both has created a demand for a new kind of insurance in Latin America, and the latter has lately become available. English underwriters, most of the members of the Lloyds of London Group, now offer kidnapping insurance. Policies that will reimburse the hefty ransoms currently being exacted south of the border by urban guerrilla organizations.

With a present annual average of more than one big money kidnapping a week, Argentina is a prime market for the new insurance, now available everywhere in Latin America according to industry sources here. Besides Argentina, nations with kidnapping problems dating from as long ago as 1968 include Columbia, Guatemala, Mexico, and Venezuela.

Brokers hesitate to discuss for publication details of the new insurance. Beyond saying that it is available to families and corporations with the name or names of insured individuals specifically mentioned in the policies. That means that if the top five men of a company are mentioned and number six gets snatched, the policy doesn't apply, said one industry source. Blanket coverage isn't available yet, the concept is still too new for blanket premiums to be calculated. This from the Los Angeles Times service. 

The news agency, Prensa Latina reports from Buenos Aires, Argentina. The new government of Peron's Hector Campora, will order an investigation into the events at Trelew Navy Air Base in which 16 political prisoners were murdered declared Vice President-elect Vicente Lima. The events occurred on August 22nd, 1972 when 19 political prisoners who had escaped from Rawson Prison in Patagonia were machine-gunned in their cells after capture. 16 were killed and three seriously wounded by Navy personnel.

The vice president-elect reiterated that the new administration will send the legislature a bill for a full amnesty for political prisoners. Argentina has about 5,000 such prisoners, including many urban guerrillas. The military have stated they will not permit the amnesty.

We begin with a number of reports from Argentina where on May 25th, elected President Hector Campora assumed the office of president after what has been a suspenseful transfer of power from a military dictatorship.

The Miami Herald reports from Buenos Aires that Hector J. Campora, fulfilling a campaign pledge, began freeing political prisoners Friday within hours after assuming the presidency of Argentina, and ending seven years of military rule.

The new president himself had been a political prisoner when he was briefly jailed in 1955 after a military coup overthrew the labor-based government. Campora now 64, read a three-hour acceptance speech denouncing foreign imperialists and the outgoing military government.

Representatives of 82 governments attended the ceremonies, unique in the annals of protocol. Campora had President Salvador Allende of Chile and Osvaldo Dorticós of Cuba sign the pact of transmission of power. Campora in his speech argued that his predecessors sold out to foreign banks and multinational corporations, and quoting repeatedly from Peron, Campora outlined goals of redistribution of wealth, worker participation in industries, free health service and state built housing. "Argentina will seek close relations with all nations," he said, "but the closest will be with the countries of the third-world and particularly those of Latin America." That report from the Miami Herald. 

La Nación from Buenos Aires reported that among Campora's first acts upon becoming president and taking control away from the right wing military, was the releasing of political prisoners, the decriminalization of the Communist party, and the reestablishment of diplomatic relations with Cuba, relations, which have been broken since 1964 when the US government insisted upon a policy of isolating Cuba. 

The French press service Agence France reports from Havana that, "It is considered here that Argentina's recognition of Cuba will probably considerably strengthen the pro Cuban movement in Latin America. Cuban officials hope this diplomatic gesture will deliver the coup de grâce to the anti-Cuban blockade decreed in 1964 when the US insisted that a sugar cane curtain be constructed around Cuba, similar to the bamboo curtain constructed around China and the iron curtain around the Soviet Union." This from Agence France. 

Excélsior from Mexico, reported that Campora is proposing new rules for foreign investment in Argentina. Meanwhile, Excélsior says, "Political pressures are mounting. The Army is angry at the new turn of events, resenting the initiative of ex-president General Lanusse in turning power over to civilians. The left wing has also been putting pressure on the new government, continuing its guerrilla activities up until the last minute."

Recently, however, the strongest guerrilla group in Argentina, the People's Revolutionary Army, has released a very strong statement. According to the release, the group will not threaten Campora or his constitutional government, but will continue in armed struggle against the multinational enterprises and counter-revolutionary armed forces. "We will not attack the government", they say, "unless it attacks the guerrillas or the people." But it criticized the Peronist movement as conciliatory and compromising over the past 18 years, saying "If President Campora wants real liberation, he would take the hands of the people instead of consorting with the generals." This report from Excélsior, Mexico City's daily. 

In line with the just mentioned policy statement, guerrilla activity has continued. The Miami Herald reports from Buenos Aires that the Ford Motor Company began meeting leftist guerrilla demands with $400,000 in cash donated to children's hospitals, and 3000 food packages delivered to a shanty town. Some Peronist youths were reported opposed to accepting the food, because it came as a result of terrorist activities.

However, the Reverend Carlos Mugica, a leader of the Liberal Religious Movement, told them, "Now is not the time to quarrel about ideologies. Let's get this food to the people. At least the children will have tasted milk in cocoa once in their lives." About 100 persons, many wrapped in tattered ponchos against the chill autumn wind watched the food being stacked in the church.

In a news conference at the huge children's hospital in downtown Buenos Aires, hospital director Don Juan Carlos O'Donnell said a check for 2 million pesos that is $200,000 was delivered. A similar amount was paid to the Children's Hospital in Catamarca. The People's revolutionary Army told Argentina's Ford subsidiary last Tuesday that if $1 million were not paid, executives of the firm would be kidnapped or killed. That from the Miami Herald. 

Shifting from Argentina to Mexico, the assassination of several students in Puebla, Mexico has brought about consequences to that state and the nation of Mexico as a whole. Latin American newsletter reports that the governor of Puebla was forced to resign in the wake of the uproar over the death of several students killed by police on Mayday. The departure of the government had been the aim of the Puebla university students and of the rector, for some time. A number of students, and last year, two well-known faculty members, had been murdered by extreme right wing groups and many beaten up, but the Mayday incident was the last straw, and the governor was forced to resign. 

However, his resignation brought reaction from conservative groups urging a hard line against students and dissidents. The chamber of commerce called a 24-hour strike and local banks and businesses closed their doors, with business leaders describing the departure of the governor as, "Yet another step in the communist escalation." 

At the national level, President Echeverría has been having problems too in that his handling of the kidnapping of US consul in Guadalajara, Terence Leonhardy, was attacked by Mexican conservatives as weak, since Echeverría accepted the guerrilla's demands. That from Latin American Newsletter. 

Plotting and infighting among right wing groups reached a new high in Bolivia. Latin America newsletter reports that it had been a good week for President Hugo Banzer. Not only has he eliminated his arch right wing rival Colonel Selich, but his police had another success against one of the left wing guerrilla organizations, killing two members in a La Paz suburb. 

The Selich business was undoubtedly a far greater significance. The ex-colonel and one-time ally of Banzer who was exiled in January 1972 after being sacked as interior minister, was caught plotting with a group of army officers and civilians in a middle class suburb of La Paz. A few escaped, but Selich and others were captured and taken to the interior ministry which he had once controlled.

Later, according to an official communique, he was moved in handcuffs to another building where he suffered "crisis nerviosa" trying to escape, but fell down some steps and died of his injuries. To some Bolivians, this "unfortunate accident", as the government statement described it, may appear to have a measure of rough justice since Selich was largely responsible for devising a way of executing political prisoners by throwing them out of helicopters.

Latin American newsletter continues that a fanatical anti-communist, Selich played a key role both in the capture of Che Guevara in 1967 and the coup which brought Banzer to power. Rewarded with the interior ministry, he soon began to accuse Banzer of being soft on left wing's subversion and tried to run the government himself. He found himself as a result exiled to be ambassador in Paraguay, where he continued plotting, mostly with dissident fascist groups, and so was dismissed from the embassy, moving on to Argentina. His fellow plotters this time appear to have been second rank officers, three colonels and a lieutenant, and no very important civilians. 

Although the plot may not have been very serious, the removal of Selich, will lift a source of rightwing pressure from the Banzer regime, and no doubt ease his mind. More important perhaps, the president will be able to point to the attacks on him from the extremes of both left and right, and so emphasize his own position in the center, and play up the extent of his support. This would be helpful at any time, but a moment when many Bolivians are incensed that the United States planned to sell off a great part of its strategic stockpile of tin and other medals, Banzer could find himself with an unprecedented measure of support, at least until the next plot. This from Latin America. 

However, the report that Selich had fallen down some stairs was later updated in a way that may remove any advantages President Banzer may have hoped for. Chile Hoy reports that the surprising confession of the Bolivian Interior Minister that agents of the Banzer government had actually assassinated Colonel Selich let lose a political crisis in the country that could cost Hugo Banzer the presidency. There are too many Selich's or similar right-wing army officers in the Bolivian armed forces to allow this type of proceeding to pass unnoticed.

The three security agents who tortured Selich until he died, declared that, "We had never intended to kill him," and asked for God's pardon. The Interior Minister said that the three would be judged severely, but this did not calm the storm. The armed forces commander said that the action compromised the bands of government and emphasized that the Army would demand the maximum punishment for those responsible for the killing, regardless of what position they had held.

In a brief report, La Nación of Argentina noted that Colombian author, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, who just was awarded a $10,000 prize from the University of Oklahoma and the Magazine Books Abroad, has announced that he will donate his prize money back to the United States for the defense of political prisoners. That from La Nación. 

This week's feature is a published interview with a member of an Argentinian guerrilla organization called The People's Revolutionary Army. Unlike last week's feature, it provides a rather critical examination of Peronism and of Argentina's new Peronist government. 

Much attention has been paid recently in the World press to the March 11th election and May 25th inauguration of Dr. Hector Campora, a Peronist, as Argentina's new president. In the first election permitted by the Argentine military since their 1966 coup, the Peronist Coalition, which claims to be based upon strong, popular support of the labor movement, won the popular support of the Argentine people. Since Campora's inauguration, his government has released more than 600 political prisoners, most of whom had been jailed for terrorist activity against the military dictatorship, and has lifted the bans on communist activity. Also, he established diplomatic relations with both Cuba and Chile, expressed some verbal solidarity with the guerrilla movement, and requested a truce between the government and then guerrillas. 

The world press has paid special note however, to activities and proclamations of a guerrilla organization, which calls itself the People's Revolutionary Army, which has stated that it will not join in the Peronist Coalition and will continue armed guerrilla warfare within Argentina. Tagged by the World press as Trotskyists, the People's Revolutionary Army claims that the tag is insufficient. They are the "Armed Organization of the Revolutionary Workers Party of Argentina", and their organization encompasses Argentine patriots and nationalists of many different political ideologies. In a rare interview with staff members of Chile Hoy prior to Campora's inauguration, the People's Revolutionary Army describe the reasons for their non-support of the new Peronist government. 

We think that this unusual interview illuminates some of the political and economic dynamics, the manifestations of which seem to be keeping Argentina on the front pages of the world newspapers. In as much as the spokesman for the guerrilla organization uses Marxist economic terminology, his usage of the following terms should be noticed. "Capitalist" is the class name given to those people who own or who control for-profit the means of production. That is the factories, the banks, the transportation facilities, often the land, et cetera. In poor and underdeveloped countries, many of the capitalists are foreigners, North Americans, and increasingly Western Europeans or Japanese, hence the term "Imperialist". 

On the other end of the economic and power scale are the working people, or as the Marxists refer to them, "the masses" or "the people", who own only their own labor power and sell this to the capitalists. These constitute, of course, the majority of a population. The "Bourgeoisie" are the capitalist, and as the term is used in this article, also those people who, while not themselves the super rich nevertheless, do have their interests sufficiently aligned with the capitalists so that they support capitalist institutions and capitalist societies. Here then is the interview:

A question? How do you characterize the Peronist Coalition and the Campora government in particular? 

We are not unaware that in the heart of Peronism there are important progressive and revolutionary popular sectors that make it explosive, but we don't feel this should fool anyone, because what predominates in Peronism and even more in the coalition is its bourgeois character. For in its leadership as in its program and its methods, the next parliamentary government of Campora will represent above all the interests of the bourgeoisie and of the capitalists. 

A question, how is this massive popular vote for the Peronist coalition to be explained then? 

For us, it reflects at the same time the repudiation of the military dictatorship, which was very unpopular and the persistence of the ideological influence of the bourgeoisie. It is necessary to remember that the masses were only able to choose from among the different bourgeois variants in the electoral arrangement that the dictatorship structured. And among the bourgeois candidates the majority of the working class opted for the Peronist coalition, which had based its campaign on a furious and productive confrontation with the military government, and on pro-guerrilla arguments. 

What then are the true purposes of the Peronists in the current government? 

Their leaders and spokesmen have explained them quite clearly. They say that they are to reconstruct the country, to pacify it by means of some social reform. This along with the maintenance of "Christian style of life", a parliamentary system, private enterprise, and a continuation of the competition of foreign capital. All of the elementary measures for a true social revolution, namely agrarian reform, the expropriation and nationalization of big capital, urban reform, a socialist revolutionary government, all of these are completely absent in the plans and projects of the coalition. The bourgeois sectors of Peronism dominate the government. 

Another question. Apparently the Peronist coalition cannot be considered a homogeneous whole, as there are different tendencies within it, some of them revolutionary and progressive, which produces contradictions within the whole. How does the People's Revolutionary Army respond to this? 

Truly, as we indicated earlier, in the heart of the Peronist front government and in the parties which compose it, they will have to be developed an intense internal struggle, led fundamentally by the revolutionary and progressive sectors within Peronism, that even as a minority must struggle consciously for a program and for truly anti-imperialist and revolutionary measures.

The People's Revolutionary Army will actively support these sectors of Peronism in their struggle, and will insist upon a coalition of the progressive and revolutionary Peronist organizations and sectors with the non-Peronist organizations, both in their work to mobilize the masses for their demands, and in the preparation for the next and inevitable stage of more and new serious confrontations between the people in the bourgeoisie.

Another question. We imagine that the Campora government will not be the ideal government envisioned by the military. Can we then disregard the possibility of a coup d'état? 

It is certain that this parliamentary government will not enjoy the complete confidence of the military, which has accepted the Campora government as the lesser evil, and as a transition to try and detain the advance of revolutionary forces. But we think that the military coup will remain latent, with coup intentions however, growing in direct proportion to the success in broadening mass mobilizations. 

In the case of a military coup, where will the People's Revolutionary Army be? 

Of course, we'll be shoulder to shoulder with progressive and revolutionary Peronism, in order to confront any attempt to reestablish the military dictatorship. 

In recent declarations, the president-elect Hector Campora, has asked the Argentine guerrilla organizations for a truce in their activities beginning May 25th in order to, "Prove whether or not we are on the path of liberation and if we are going to achieve our objectives." You have given a partial acceptance of this request. What is the basis for that decision of yours? 

The request of Dr. Campora arose as a consequence of various guerrilla actions. We understood that the request of the president-elect implied the total suspension of guerrilla activities. We believe that the Campora government represents the popular will, and respectful of that will, our organization will not attack the new government while it does not attack the people or the guerrillas. Our organization will continue, however, combating militarily, the great exploiting companies, principally the imperialist ones and the counter-revolutionary armed forces, but it will not attack directly the governmental institutions nor any member of President Campora's government.

With respect to the police that supposedly depend on executive power, although in recent years, they have acted as an axillary arm of the present army, the People's Revolutionary Army will suspend its attacks as long as the police do not collaborate with the army in the persecution of guerrillas, and in the repression of popular demonstrations.

What are the factors determining your less than total acceptance of the truce? 

We have stated them too in our reply to Campora. In 1955, the leadership of the political movement that Dr. Campora represents, advise the country to, "Not let blood be spilled, avoid civil war and wait." The military took advantage of this disorganization and disorientation of the working class and of people in general to carry out their coup and were able to overwhelm progressive organizations. The only blood that wasn't spilled was that of the oligarchs and the capitalists. The people on the other hand, witnessed the death through massacre and firing squad of dozens and dozens of the finest of their young. 

In 1968, the same leadership advised the nation to vote for Frondizi and this advice when followed prepared the way for the military takeover. In 1966 the same leadership then counseled the nation to, "Reign back until things become clear." And this action when followed, allowed freedom of action to the new military government. 

So when I reply to Dr. Campora, we specifically stated, our own Argentinian experience has shown that it is impossible to have a truce with the enemies of the nation, with its exploiters, with an oppressive army, or with exploitative capitalist enterprises. To hold back or to diminish the struggle is to permit its enemies, to reorganize and to pass over to the offensive. 

What sort of relations does the People's Revolutionary Army maintain with other armed Argentinian groups? 

Since our creation, we have made and continue to make an appeal for a unified effort of all the armed revolutionary organizations with the idea of eventually forming a solid, strong, and unified People's Army. In such an organization, they would undoubtedly be both Peronists and non-Peronists, but all would be unified by a common methodology, namely prolonged revolutionary war and a common ideal, the building of socialism in our country. We have many points of agreement on fundamental issues, so we maintain fraternal relations with all of our fellow armed groups. 

A final question. You have explained the policy to be followed after May 25th, as laid out in your reply to Campora. What will be the policy of the Revolutionary Workers Party and the People's Revolutionary Army in relation to labor union policy, legally permitted activities, the united front and so on? And how do you contemplate combining legally and non-legally permitted activities? 

Our legally permitted activities will be oriented towards the consolidation and the development of an anti-imperialist front, in common with progressive and revolutionary sectors. We will concentrate all our immediate activity in mobilizing popular opinion towards the release of all political prisoners, repeal of all repressive laws, legalization of all political organizations of the left and the press, and an increase in the real wages of the working class. In relationship to the army, we propose the development of an active educational campaign among draftees, calling upon them not to fire upon the people, nor to participate in repression, encouraging desertion of soldiers and calling upon them to join the People's Revolutionary Army. 

In relationship to the popular front, the Peronist front, we call upon all of the left, all labor, popular progressive and revolutionary organizations to close ranks, to give each other mutual support, and to present an organized common front to the political, ideological, and military offensive of the bourgeoisie, not only in its repressive form, but also in its current populous diversionary one. 

As concerns the relationship between legally and non-legally permitted operations, we wish to carefully maintain the clandestine cell structure of the People's Revolutionary Army and of the Revolutionary Workers Party, so as to assure the strict carrying out of security measures and ensure their safety. But we wish to amplify to the maximum, the legally permitted activities of the organization and that of those groups on its periphery. And through this combination of legally permitted activities and illegal ones, we will attempt to procure the greatest advantage from the potential, which the vigor of the popular support gives to our organization. 

To sum up as far as your organization is concerned, what is the watch word for the present situation? 

We'll make no truce with the oppressive army and no truth with exploitative enterprises. We will seek immediate freedom for those imprisoned while fighting for freedom. Also an end to oppressive legislation and total freedom of expression in organization. We will try to build unity among the armed revolutionary organizations who we will struggle or die for the Argentine. 

Thank you. Our feature today has been a published interview with a member of an Argentinian guerrilla organization called The People's Revolutionary Army. The interview was published in the Chilean newspaper, Chile Hoy. The People's Revolutionary Army is known as the strongest and most effective guerrilla group operating in Argentina and was able, for instance, on the mere threat of a kidnapping, to force Ford Motor Company to give $1 million to various children's hospitals in Argentina. 

The growing feeling of nationalism in every country he visited is the most significant impression reported after a 17-day trip to Latin America by Secretary of State William P. Rogers. "We do not see why we can't cooperate fully with this sense of nationalism," he said. Rogers, who recently returned from an eight-country tour, said that, "Contrary to some news reports, the nationalistic feelings apparent in the countries he visited carry no anti-American overtones." The secretary said that there was not one hostile act directed at him during his trip. Rogers said the United States will participate actively in efforts to modernize the organization of American states and emphasized United States willingness to encourage hemispheric regional development efforts. This from the Miami Herald. 

There were several comments in the Latin American press concerning Secretary of State Rogers' visit to the continent. Secretary Rogers' trip was ostensibly aimed at ending paternalism in the hemisphere. However, Brazil's weekly Opinião found little change in the fundamental nature of United States policy. While Rogers' words were different from those of other US officials, his basic attitudes on things that really matter seemed the same.

Opinião points to two specific cases, what it considers an intransient and unreasonable United States position on the international coffee agreement, something of vital importance to Brazil. Second, Rogers promised favorable tariffs on Latin American goods, but failed to mention that the US would reserve its right to unilaterally revoke these concessions without consultation. Opinião in short found Rogers' promise of a new partnership in the hemisphere to be the same old wine in new bottles.

La Nación of Santiago, Chile was even more caustic. It accused the Nixon administration of talking about ideological pluralism and accepting diversity in the world while at the same time intensifying the Cold War in Latin America by maintaining the blockade of Cuba and reinforcing the anti-communist role of the Organization of American states. La Nación concludes that the United States is the apostle of conciliation in Europe and Asia, but in Latin America it is the angel of collision, the guardian of ideological barriers.

La Opinión of Bueno Aires was less critical of Rogers' trip. It felt that the US Secretary of State was in Latin America to repair some of the damage done to Latin American US relations by Washington's excessive admiration for the Brazilian model of development, and also to prepare the way for President Nixon's possible visit, now set tentatively for early next year.

Rogers showed some enthusiasm for the wrong things, according to La Opinión, such as the Colombian development, which is very uneven and foreign investment in Argentina, which is not especially welcome. Rogers also ignored many important things such as the Peruvian revolution, but La Opinión concludes, "Even if Rogers' trip was not a spectacular success, something significant may come of it in the future." This report from Opinião of Rio de Janeiro, La Nación of Santiago, Chile, and La Opinión of Bueno Aires.

Another report from Excélsior concerning Paraguay reports that the major opposition party of Paraguay, the Radical Liberal Party, issued a statement opposing the Treaty of Itaipu with Brazil in which it denounced the secrecy of the terms and the condescending attitude of Brazil. The treaty, signed in Brasilia, calls for the construction of a jointly owned hydroelectric plant. In condemning the Paraguayan government for accepting terms which the opposition party says are highly favorable to Brazil, the Radical Liberals said the treaty, "Opens the dangerous doors of Brazilian domination." 

Latin America has interpreted the signing of this treaty as a significant turning point in the struggle between the two relative superpowers, Brazil and Argentina, over the "buffer" state of Paraguay. The issue of the hydroelectric project and dam may appear minor, but on close examination has a great deal of significance. There are strong indications that the environmental effects of the dam will adversely affect the Argentinian port of Rosario, which is not far downstream. 

Latin American Newsletter reports from Argentina that the most important political facts of President Cámpora's first week in office were the unease with which the trade unions greeted new plans for social reforms. The enthusiasm of the working class itself, however, is very strong, and when former popular leader Juan Peron returns to Buenos Aires accompanied by the new President, he will be greeted by at least a million happy Argentinians. Their delight at the complete surrender of the former military rulers will not have worn off and the real difficulties involved in the transition will not yet have been faced. 

The real question is the price that powerful middle class industrialists may have to pay for the new liberal government. As Latin America puts it, "Nothing less than a real transfer of income to the poorest 40% of the community will really eliminate the possibility of a revolution." Current economic plans involve holding down both prices and wages, but are also aimed at reversing the decline in the working class's share of national income, which has dropped from 55% in 1955 to less than 43% today. This from the British News Weekly, Latin America. 

The continuing threat of Argentinian guerillas poses yet another problem for the new government. The Miami Herald reports that an action similar to a one last month, where Ford Motor Company was forced to donate enormous sums to charity. Four armed men abducted British-born financier, Charles Lockwood. At the same time a spokesman for General Motors said the company had received a telephone kidnap threat unless it rehired 1000 laid off workers, but said, "We are not complying." Witnesses said Lockwood, 63, was seized shortly after leaving his home and that his chauffeur was wounded in the abduction.

Unconfirmed reports said kidnappers were demanding $1 million for his safe return. A spokesman for the guerilla organization said the caller who demanded that the company rehire all the people laid off in the past two years said that the company's principle executives would be kidnapped unless they complied. "We are not complying," the spokesman said.

Meanwhile, there appeared to be little substance to a report that 21 prominent Communist party officials have been kidnapped by supporters of the new Peronist government, according to United Press International. United Press, which had reported the kidnapping on Tuesday, said Wednesday the report had been based on an unconfirmed press release release from members of a Supreme Security command that backs new Peronist President, Hector J. Cámpora. 

Right-wing provocation seems to be on the rise in Chile. Besides the Right's involvement in the current miner strike, Chile Hoy reported last week evidence of a plot against the popular unity government. Roberto Thieme, a Chilean Fascist, declared to the Paraguayan press last week that to bring down the government of Salvador Allende is the only way to destroy the Marxism that pervades Chilean society. Thieme is presently on a tour of Paraguay, Bolivia, and Brazil, openly plotting against the government of Chile. He abandoned his political asylum in Argentina to seek support for his conspiracy. Brazil and Bolivia are the primary training grounds for the leadership of "Patria y Libertad", the Chilean Fascist organization of which Thieme is a leader. 

Thieme is seeking economic and military aid from Paraguay, Bolivia, and Brazil, three countries which speak loudly in the international arena of the principle of non-intervention and which are good examples of the undemocratic dictatorship that the burning patriot Thieme proposes for Chile. This report from Chile Hoy. 

On June 21st, 1955, Juan Perón was deposed by the military in Argentina and sent into exile. For this reason, he chose June 21st, 1973 as the date of his triumphant return to Argentina. Opinião of Rio de Janeiro comments on what Perón's role will be in the new Peronist administration. On the domestic front, Perón will play the father figure trying to keep peace in the movement and balancing the demands of the older technocrats in the established labor bureaucracy against those of the younger radicals who want to mobilize the population for deep social change immediately. Opinião quotes Perón as saying, "I have to reconcile the two groups. I cannot favor one or the other, even if one of them is correct." Perón will be the final arbitrator of domestic issues when conflicts arise between factions. 

Opinião continues by noting that in foreign affairs, Perón will also have a crucial role as a super diplomat. In a few weeks, he will visit China to sign a trade agreement. He also intends to travel throughout Latin America to capture the leadership position for Argentina in the new wave of nationalism sweeping the continent. Finally, it is expected that he will appear at the coming UN General Assembly. Opinião concludes that the new administration in Argentina is making Perón the indispensable man in the government. This is dangerous, however, since Perón is 78 years old. This from Opinião of Rio de Janeiro. 

Despite the careful formulations of the new Peronist government's economic team in Argentina, the continuing effective agitation by leftist organizations suggest serious confrontations for Perón to deal with after his return to Buenos Aires this month. Latin America Newsletter comments on the strategies of some of the Argentine guerrilla groups. In open press conferences last week, leaders of the Ejército Revolucionario del Pueblo, ERP, the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias, FAR, and the Montoneros described to reporters their policies with regard to the new government.

Despite their differences, the Marxist ERP, which now rejects the label Trotskyist, and the various Peronist organizations, seem likely to follow similar tactics. The ERP will need to fund itself by further kidnappings of foreign businessmen, but both groups are likely to concentrate on building support at a base level in factories and the working class districts of the large cities.

According to Latin America, both the ERP and the Peronist guerrilla leaders described foreign monopolists, local oligarchs, and the armed forces as the principal enemies of the change in Argentina. The ERP, which split shortly before the March elections over the attitude the movement should adopt towards Héctor Cámpora's electoral campaign seems to have modified its position. The movement's best-known leader told reporters that the ERP would not attack the government directly, and last week it released its two political prisoners, both of whom were military officers. 

Pressure on the government is being brought in a number of ways, according to Latin America. Government buildings and hospitals are occupied by militants demanding better working conditions and pay for nurses and cleaners. Butchers' shops are invaded by housewives determined to enforce official price controls. Student mobilization led to the appointment of new university authorities. The release of 400 guerrillas has led to a widespread movement for an improvement in prison conditions. 

At some point, there will be a military reaction to the present popular triumph, but when that moment comes, the army will face far more determined, popular opposition than has been possible during the past six years, even though the present atmosphere of revolutionary carnival will not persist. 

Of course, very much depends on Perón, says Latin America, who returned last week and doubtless feels his well-proven political skills will enable him to handle turbulence from any quarter, left or right. 

But Argentina is not the same as it was when he left involuntarily 18 years ago. And although he may be counting on the popular mobilization by young revolutionaries to avoid any recurrence of the disaster that occurred in 1955, it remains to be seen whether he can hold them in check today. This analysis is from the London Weekly Latin America. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Miami Herald reports from Buenos Aires. Foreign businessmen and their families are quietly leaving Argentina in substantial numbers in the face of a wave of kidnapping and extortion that has frightened the entire business community of this country. Sources within the American business community here estimate that 50 American families have left already and others are preparing to go. 

Numerous guerrilla organizations have made it quite clear that foreign capital is not wanted in the country. They have been very successful at bloodless kidnappings and have won some popular support by forcing US companies to pay ransom in the form of donations to slum projects, poor areas and hospitals. 

Contrary to original reports of the bloody shootout last week at Ezeiza Airport in Buenos Aires, it now appears that the violence was initiated by right wing Peronists. The shooting which killed 20 and injured 200 of a massive crowd awaiting the arrival of Juan Perón was originally blamed on the youth wing of the Peronist movement. According to the London publication Latin America, however, evidence is mounting, which shows that the shooting was begun by members of the rightist general labor confederation and was directed at Peronist youth columns in the crowd. 

At a recent meeting, the Organization of American States survived some vehement criticisms and emerged relatively unscathed. Argentinian diplomats reflecting the new leftist Argentinian regime objected strongly to the exclusion of Cuba from the discussions. It was also suggested that the Organization of American states be replaced by a new and specifically Latin American body. Such sentiments have also been voiced by Peru. 

However, the United States still has several strong supporters on the continent. Brazil and Bolivia proved their allegiance by warning against destruction of the organization of American states. Nevertheless, even they could not agree with the US ambassador's speech, which claimed that the Organization of American States successfully served to avoid domination by any one member. This from the British News Weekly, Latin America. 

The Miami Herald reports that 30 years of democracy in Uruguay have ended in a military-backed coup by the current president Juan Bordaberry. The demise of the Switzerland of the Americas, reputed for years to be Latin America's most progressive country, has been a slow and lengthy process. Gradual Errosion of the country's economic position, runaway inflation, which reached nearly 100% last year, widespread popular opposition to governmental policies, increasing thirst for power on the part of the military, and a gradual eradication of all civil rights, these were the prelude to the events of late June. 

The Manchester Guardian claimed that the response to the deterioration of government in Uruguay was to be found in increased workers' militancy, the longstanding successes and popular support won by the Tupamaros guerrilla group, the high percentage of the vote pulled by the leftist Broad Front coalition in the 1971 elections, the constant exposure and public outcry at scandals in the government, and the increased use of torture and United States developed military and police technology, which failed to either eradicate the revolutionary opposition or to satisfy demands for more effective government. 

Bordaberry was driven to take a drastic step. On June 27th, he dissolved Congress. Public response came in the form of a general strike, which continues to virtually paralyze the country. Industrial production has ceased, banks have shut down, public and private transportation has come to a standstill.

To counter this popular resistance, says the Manchester Guardian, Bordaberry, in a move without precedent in Uruguayan history, declared that the country's largest and most powerful labor union shall be henceforth illegal. The leadership of the National Workers Convention went immediately underground. It is known that the government has issued a list of 52 union leaders who are to be arrested on site.

Still, the general strike continues. Despite efforts by the military and some technicians to reopen the most vital plants, striking workers have been threatened with being fired and being inducted into the army. Many have been rounded up and are being held in a large football stadium.

La Nación of Bueno Aires comments that the battle between Bordaberry and the Congress has been a long one. Congress has been fighting off its own demise since February of this year. At that time, the army intervened in the government process to force Bordaberry to set up a council of national security to be controlled by three top military officers. In March, when Congress reopened, Bordaberry proposed anti-union legislation and the institution of new security measures. He also demanded the lifting of parliamentary immunity from two opposition senators. 

Congressional hearings on one of these congressmen, Enrique Erro, continued throughout April and May. Erro contended that the attack against him was motivated by his documented charges that the military had carried out illegal arrests, tortures, and murders against members of the opposition. He also uncovered evidence of US involvement in these activities. The senators refused to revoke Erros' immunity, and in the face of their opposition, the alliance between Bordaberry and the military became stronger. In April, Bordaberry appointed three military commanders in chief as official advisors to the president, and the Council for National Security began investigating and firing school teachers and principals whom they considered too liberal. 

By early June, the crisis was coming to a head. Members of the opposition parties boycotted the meetings of the legislature to prevent passage of Bordaberry's repressive legislation. And on June 27th, he ordered the military to surround the congressional palace and then dissolved Congress. 

Excélsior of Mexico City comments, "Those who hope for nationalist progressive solutions, somewhat along the lines of the current Peruvian government, were disappointed. The younger and more progressive officers were outmaneuvered by the Army's nationalist conservative wing, who have consistently called for a more authoritarian regime and who are reputed to have been preparing Parliament's demise for the past six months, through the Army Intelligence Unit." 

"Since the decree, the country has been in turmoil. Daily activity has been brought to a halt by the general strike. A large woman's march through Montevideo to Constitution Square, in protest of the suspension of Congress, was disbanded by police and tanks. Bands of youths hurled stones at public buses, defying the strike, at least one of the youths was killed by the police." This report compiled from the Miami Herald, the Manchester Guardian, La Nación of Buenos Aires, and Mexico City's Excélsior. 

Uruguay's president, Juan Bordaberry, now vested with dictatorial powers, discussed the causes which motivated him to dissolve the Uruguayan Parliament in an exclusive interview with a correspondent of the Argentine daily La Nación. In the interview, Bordaberry stressed his conviction that despite certain similarities with the Brazilian military regime, his government's newly assumed stance is "strictly Uruguayan."  

Bordaberry denied any imitation of Brazilian political practices on the part of his government, but he admitted to a certain sympathy for the Brazilian regime and stated that both governments share a common desire for democracy against communism. Referring to his recent visit to Argentina for the inauguration of the new Peronist president, Hector Campora, Bordaberry denied that angry crowds had shouted "murderer", "torturer" to him as he passed by.

The proposed constitutional reform, according to Bordaberry, will have as its primary goal the limitation of parliamentary power in order to prevent its encroachment on the power of the executive. "Such a procedure, he added, is in line with all modern constitutions." In light of the current political events in the country, Bordaberry indicated that the population is not up to an electoral campaign. Consequently, the constitutional plebiscite will be postponed until the national elections in 1976. This interview is translated from La Nación of Buenos Aires. 

The first of several reports from Argentina comes from the Mexican daily, Excélsior. In a move which surprised most observers, Argentinian President Hector Cámpora, recently resigned his post in order to allow former president Juan Perón to return to power. Two hours after a provisional president was sworn in, Perón announced that he would accept the candidacy for the presidency. With a voice hoarse from a recent cold, the 77-year-old ex-president said it would be a tremendous sacrifice for himself. 

Although Cámpora was elected earlier this year on a slogan of "Cámpora in office, Perón in power," few expected to see Perón take the reins of power directly. This year's elections were the first in which Peronist candidates were allowed to compete in since Perón was ousted in 1955. The Mexican daily, Excélsior, asked some military officials, Peronists, radicals and unionists if Campora's forced resignation was not virtually a coup. Most all replied that, in any case, it was a gradual coup supported by the armed forces and political leaders of the country. Perón will likely be opposed by extremists of all parties as well as many guerrillas who earlier fought for him. 

In a recent editorial, Excélsior points out that conditions in Argentina are very different from the post-war era, when Perón had built a huge popular following. Instead of an economic boom due to high world prices of Argentine exports, as was the case before, there is now a serious economic crisis as well as political and social upheaval. While Perón returns from his long exile to capitalize on nationalist, socialist and populist sentiments in Argentina, Excélsior hints that Argentinians may soon grow disenchanted with a Perón who can no longer give all of them what they expect from him. 

The Santiago weekly, Chile Hoy, made an in-depth attempt to analyze the political content of Peron's ideology known as "Justicialismo". Perón and his followers described their ideal as quote, "national socialism." However, there seems to be a great deal of disagreement over exactly what this means. Even as late as 1970, Perón himself, unfortunately, identified national socialism with "fascism", Hitler's term for a country unified under the leadership of big business and authoritarian government. Campora, the recently-removed president who has just handed over the reins of power to Perón, had expressed interest, in quote, "humanistic capitalism". 

Vice President Lima has always made references to a pluralistic democracy concept of the French philosopher Maritain. The Peronist Youth, on the other hand, see Peronism as the first age of a progressive scientific socialism. In an interview which appeared in the magazine, Nouveau Confirmado, with Vice President Lima, the following dialogue developed. 

What does national socialism mean? It seems to be a mysterious expression of Peronist propaganda. Is it really socialism? 

National socialism is what Jacques Maritain calls "pluralists democracy", which he explained by saying that property should not be concentrated, also, within the definition of national socialism, is the definition of what it is not. It is not Marxist socialism. 

How would you, for example, socialize property? How would you give it a social contact? 

Social income, socialized incomes, that is what we will do. 

A shoe factory, should it continue being owned privately or should it become state property, or should it belong to those who work it? 

I think the factory must belong to the workers and owners both. I believe in co-ownership and co-operation. That is what the world is moving towards. 

Chile Hoy concludes by pointing out that Peronism is determined more by its actions than by its words, and that its actions will be determined by the direction that political and class struggles take in Argentina in the future. 

The British weekly, Latin America, reports from Argentina that Córdoba is once again the focal point of popular discontent in the country. The situation there is a microcosm of the conflict developing around the Peronist position. Life in Córdoba, the capital of Argentina's hinterland and the center of the automobile industry, has not been radically changed since the 25th of May when the Peronists came to power. Kidnappings and bombings against the corporations continue, and militant left-wingers within the union movement see the metropolitan government in Buenos Aires as the enemy no matter who is in the Casa Rosada. 

The leader of the light and power workers in Córdoba and the only non-Peronist union leader of any importance in Argentina has been openly defying the Peronist leadership of the General Federation of Workers. He did so this week by independently organizing a trade union meeting of delegates, including some Peronists from all the northern provinces. 

The governor of the province of Córdoba and his deputy both represent the most combative wing of the Peronist movement. They cooperated with labor leaders in 1969 in orchestrating the Córdobazo, a militant protest which lasted for several days and which may be said to have begun the progressive collapse of the military government culminating in the accession to power of President Hector Cámpora and consequently, we suppose, of Peron. Perón and Cámpora are well-aware of the difficulty of the situation in Córdoba. Last week, they resisted demands that the federal government intervene in the provincial government. The problem of Córdoba is akin to that post by the Peronist Youth Movement and has been expressed as the choice between order and popular mobilization. 

Latin American Weekly continues that one faction is strongly urging a reorganization of the Peronist movement in a way that would strengthen the authoritarian and vertical command structure and reduce the influence of the popular revolutionary tendencies. Although the expected reorganization has not yet been announced, some attribute this delay to the reported illness of Perón. 

La Mayoria, a newspaper which has been perhaps the best mirror of Peronist opinion came out on the other side of the debate. It published an impassioned editorial which called for a continuous dialogue with the youth movement. It warned that, without the youth, the justicialista movement would limit itself. 

The weekly Latin America carries on with the report of the situation between the Argentinian guerrillas and the new Peronist government. General Juan Perón and the former president Hector Cámpora looked as if they have won an important victory over the People's Revolutionary Army as a result of Campora's recent nationwide broadcast. In his speech, he made it clear that the Peronist government would not tolerate, quote, anarchy or violence, quote, a strong law and order statement which clearly put the guerrillas on the spot.

Their reply the following day on television indicated their acute awareness that their worst fears could be realized, that is, their isolation from popular sympathy because of a major government propaganda campaign. Certainly, this appears to have been Peron's main tactic in dealing with the guerrillas.

It is rumored that Perón does not intend to have even the Peronist guerrilla groups represented on the hierarchy of his new movement to which he's presently applying his thoughts. Moreover, it seems that the guerrilla's best friend in the cabinet, the minister of the interior, is about to lose his job to an officer who has never been a member of the Peronist movement. 

Another rumored casualty is the head of the tourism department, the right-wing Peronist widely held responsible for the Ezeiza Airport massacre. This would neatly balance the departure of the other minister, allowing the government to claim the victory of maintaining a geometric center between left and right extremes. It would seem that the People's Revolutionary Army may have a difficult choice to make, either to pit its strength against the Peronists and faced almost certain isolation or else to revise some of its more militant postures. 

The Latin America Weekly concludes that Peron's strategy undoubtedly demands order and it is likely that he personally can count on keeping the movement united under his banner despite the stresses and strains which will undoubtedly continue to show through, but the economic cost is likely to be high. The finance minister has upped his estimate of the likely budget deficit to 12% of the gross domestic product.

A transfer of resources on this scale from the private to public sector will in itself have a revolutionary impact. Efforts are being made to cut back the deficit, and there is every reason to suppose that, once again, it will be the interior of the country which is asked to bear the burden. Noises from Córdoba suggest that it may not be borne willingly or for long. This report from Latin America.

The Peruvian Daily, La Prensa, reports that the University of Buenos Aires, Argentina's main university, has canceled an agreement with the Ford Foundation. The same decree announced that employees of multinational corporations may not be employed as teachers at the university. The reason for the break with the Ford Foundation was expressed in a press conference. University spokesman said that all organizations which impose a criteria that is not part of the popular national revolution will not be allowed to influence university decisions regarding the type of teaching or the designation of teachers. 

La Prensa continues that the agreement signed in 1966 was established for the formation of specialists in the agricultural economy, and we note that the Ford Foundation, under the guise of objective technical assistance, had been propagandizing for the US-sponsored Green Revolution which actually was a boondoggle for multinational agri businesses and, therefore, Ford Foundation was asked to leave. 

This week's feature will be a reenactment of an interview between representatives of the Santiago paper, Chile Hoy, and the Cuban President Dorticos. 

Mr. President, in the past few years in Latin America, there have been several types of revolutionary change, the military nationalism of Peru, the Chilean elections, the semi-peaceful taking of power in Argentina. My question is why do you think the guerrilla tactics which characterized the '60s, as for instance, Che's campaign in Bolivia, have been replaced by other revolutionary tactics? 

I think the guerrilla campaign of the '60s had a direct effect on what is happening now despite the fact that the guerrilla campaign did not result in any military victories. The moral and political strengths of these campaigns is affecting not only those struggling with arms, but all revolutionaries with its example of revolutionary dedication, and this influence is tremendous. The presence of Che, which I saw in my recent trip to Argentina among the people, Che's original homeland, his figure, his thoughts, his humanism, his example is greater now than during his guerrilla campaign. 

To discount the influence of Che's actions on Latin America today is to discount a driving force in the hearts of Latin American people. Of course, this does not mean that all the revolutionary struggles have to follow the tactics of guerrilla's struggle which Che promoted. His greatest influence was his example, his conduct, his revolutionary will, and today, for example, it was with great personal satisfaction and profound emotion that I heard the Argentinian people improvising a slogan which, despite the habituation coming from years of revolutionary struggle, brought tears to my eyes. The slogan which I heard every day in Argentina was, "He is near. He is near. Che is here." This slogan is a perfect example of what I was saying. 

The triumph of the Cuban revolution is definitely a great turning point in the revolutionary process in Latin America. People have said that Cuba can be a showcase or trigger for socialism in Latin America. What is Cuba's role given the current realities in Latin America's revolutionary process? 

Its main contribution is to provide an example, an example of unbending and resolute spirit. 

Mr. President, certain groups have suggested that the friendly relations between the USSR and Cuba are actually a form of dependency. It's true that, in the past, there were differences in the Cuban and Soviet perspectives, differences which today seem to have largely disappeared. We'd be interested in hearing why these differences have disappeared and what is the current state of relations between the Soviet Union and Cuba. 

There has been a detente, and the relations between Cuba and the Soviet Union are better now than they ever have been. To speak of Cuban dependency with respect to the Soviet Union, however, is to make the grave errors of confusing imperialism with cooperation between a developed socialist country and an underdeveloped socialist one. One must look at the economic trade patterns and contrast the way Russia has related to us and the way the United States had related to us. 

If we look at the economic aspects of the relations, we can see that the Soviet Union's aid has been one of the main basis for Cuban development and survival. Looking back to the first few months of the revolution, when we lost the American sugar market, there was the Soviet market to take its place. When the blockade started by the United States cut off the flow of oil from countries aligned with the United States, there was Soviet oil. During these years, regardless of how relations between the two countries were going on, even when there were disagreements, as you mentioned, Soviet economic aid kept coming without interruption. 

Today, this economic aid has qualitatively improved. Entire sectors of our economy have been developed with the economic and technical cooperation of the Soviet Union and, thanks to this aid, new industrial plants will be built, and transportation and energy production will be expanded. These new plants will be Cuban plants, not Soviet ones, not plants indebted to foreign countries. 

In addition, the Russians have made it possible for the development of the nickel and textile industries, the modernization and expansion of our sugar industry and countless other projects, and all this has been done in the context of mutual respect and absolute equality in the political relations between two sovereign governments. 

With reference to the United States, which you've mentioned, what are the changes which Cuba would require before some form of dialogue or negotiations could take place concerning relations between the two countries? 

Before even dialogue can take place, there is one condition, that the imperialist United States government unilaterally end its blockade of Cuba, a blockade which it started and it must end. Until that happens, there won't be even any dialogue. If that occurs at some time in the future, we would then begin discussions of problems common to all of Latin America and the United States. We would not merely discuss bilateral affairs concerning only Cuba and the United States, but we would have to discuss it in the context of US relations to Latin America, generally. 

Looking at things from a purely pragmatic point of view, once the blockade has been unilaterally ended by the United States, we might be interested in a broad range of economic relations, including entrance into the American market and economic and technical cooperation. This in no way would involve Cuba's revolutionary government surrendering its revolutionary principles or giving in on any conditions which it might wish to establish, but we would not limit ourselves to this. For the discussions to be fruitful, we would have to discuss not only Cuba, but Latin America and the end of the United States' jerendent role in Latin America generally. 

One way of uniting Latin America so it could negotiate with the United States might be an organization such as the one which Chile has proposed. In the last OAS meeting, a wholly new Latin American organization excluding the United States was proposed. What is Cuba's position with respect to such an organization? 

First of all, we believe, as we've stated before, that the extant Organization of American States is undergoing a grave and insoluble crisis. Cuba will not return to the Organization of American States. We respect and even feel that some countries' suggestions for reforming the Organization of American States are a positive step, but we feel that the OAS as an institution, with the presence of the United States government in its very heart, is not the ideal means for Latin America to shape its future.

We do not belong to this organization, and we feel that a Latin American organization must be created with the participation also of the English-speaking Caribbean nations, which could then collectively form a united front to negotiate with the United States and defend Latin American interests with respect to American imperialism.

Does it seem to you that Nixon, if he survives Watergate, will be able to initiate such discussions at some time in the future, or do you feel that it will be necessary to continue to exercise revolutionary patience? 

We should not speak of speed or hurrying. Revolutionary theory teaches us to be patient and also impatient, and knowing how to reconcile the one with the other is what constitutes a tactical wisdom of a revolutionary. 

The diplomatic blockade of Cuba is falling apart. It has even been suggested that other governments such as Venezuela's, for example, might establish relations with Cuba in the near future. This could present an apparent contradiction with the internal policies of these countries. What is the Cuban position with respect to this problem, that is, with respect to reestablishing relations with governments which defy imperialism, but which do not have progressive policies at home and which may even repress their own people? 

We have made it clear before that we are not interested in having relations with the countries of Latin America for the mere sake of having relations. However, we feel that reestablishing relations with Latin American countries can be useful since we agree on the principle of demonstrating our sovereignty with respect to imperialism. 

You mentioned the hypothetical possibility of a government assuming a dignified international position with respect to imperialism while at the same time, in its internal affairs, oppressing or even repressing its people violently. To begin with, it is very hard for me to see how a country could have a correct anti-imperialist position, a dignified international position and at the same time oppress or violently repress its people whether or not revolutionary struggle was occurring.

That is because an anti-imperialist position cannot be maintained by a government without some changes in internal policies. Thus, internal policies are inevitably linked to international policies, as I have said, regardless of whether or not the country is in the midst of some kind of major change.

We understand that Prime Minister Castro in his last Mayday speech reaffirmed Cuba's solidarity with revolutionary movements. 

If we didn't reform our solidarity with revolutionary movements, we will be violating our own principles. 

Based on an analysis of the results of the 1970 sugar harvest, the Cuban economy has made great progress. What are the changes which have produced such progress? 

It would take an awfully long time to list all of the changes in our economy, and we should not exaggerate. Our economic growth is of necessity limited due to the underdevelopment of our economy which we inherited, the lack of energy sources, and the difficulties an underdeveloped country has dealing with developed countries, problems such as unequal exchange, which have been mentioned in the economic literature, but obstacles in the way of rapid economic growth. 

What have been the achievements since the 1970 harvest? Some figures can quantitatively measure these achievements. For example, in 1972, the economy grew by 10%. This is an extremely high rate of growth for the 1970s, and this growth rate was achieved despite a poor sugar harvest which resulted from two years of drought and organizational problems galore. 

Despite this and despite the important role sugar plays in our economy, we reached the 10% growth figure. Of course, that means that some sectors of our economy grew even more rapidly. Construction, for instance, was up 40%. Industry, not including sugar refining, was up 15%. For 1973, we have set a goal, which we may or may not achieve, of 17% growth. Looking at the third of this year, we find that the growth rate was 16%. Production of consumer goods has increased, and this has been one of the major factors leading to the financial health of the nation. 

Well, how has it been possible to achieve such growth? 

Basically, it has been possible with the better organization, better planning and, above all, with the help of lots of people. This is not an abstract statement. It is a concrete reality which can be observed in every sector of the economy even where there have been administrative problems or a lack of the proper technology. The workers' efforts have always been present and production quotas have been met and, in some cases, surpassed under conditions which are not at all optimum due to a lack of technicians or materials. These shortages resulted from our distance from the European markets we are forced to trade with. 

Despite our support from socialist countries, they cannot physically supply us with all the capital goods, raw materials and intermediate goods that we need. Thus, we have to make large purchases from capitalist countries, with the resulting heavy loss of foreign exchange. Of course, our foreign exchange depends on our exports, which are limited, sugar, nickel, tobacco, fish and a few other lesser items. We are basically dependent on agriculture which is affected by climate changes. 

Thus, in response to your question, it is the incorporation of the workforce into the economic struggle at a higher level and the awareness of the need for such an effort and then the carrying out of these tasks, often through extraordinary efforts, which have led to this economic growth since Castro's call in his May 1st, 1970 speech..

Calls have gone up many times before for higher production. Why did the people respond more energetically this time than before? 

In the first place, it was due to the fact that it was crystal clear to many people that efforts had to be made in every sector of the economy and not just in sugar production. In the second place, it was due to the greater participation of mass organizations in economic decisions, in economic process. Finally, it was due to a growth in revolutionary consciousness which now has gone beyond the mere limits of revolutionary emotion and has matured into an awareness of the necessity of building socialism in our country if we want to get what we want. 

According to some analysis, this new economic growth is due to the abandonment of certain principles which the revolution was previously based upon. 

I don't think that's true. What principles are you referring to? 

Well, for instance, the replacement of the principle that consciousness should motivate workers instead of economic incentive in order to increase efficiency. 

It should be made clear that the importance we attribute to revolutionary consciousness has in no way been diminished, but we have noted that certain related factors such as, for example, tying salary to productivity cannot only serve as a material stimulus, but also serves to create and help people understand what is happening. Why does this occur? Because in a socialist society, which is not one of abundance, from the point of view of revolutionary justice, one must conclude that it is immoral and, thus, it does not help create consciousness if one who works less earns the same as one who works more. 

When you pay a worker according to what he has produced, that is, in relation to his productivity, this is both just and consciousness-raising. This is because, through his salary, the worker is being evaluated morally and he is being told that he was socially responsible, will have more than he was not socially responsible. It would be demoralizing and would prevent the raising of consciousness if a worker who worked less, a loafer, earned as much as a good worker. Thus, we are not cutting down the role which revolutionary consciousness should play, but we're aiding and adding new ways of raising revolutionary consciousness. 

Given the larger amounts of goods being offered, do some individuals have more access to these goods than others? 

Yes. They have greater access to un-rationed goods, but everyone gets the same amount of ration to basic goods. 

Why is it that some individuals get more on rationed goods? 

This is related to the remarks I just made linking productivity, the quality and quantity of work to salary, and this is tied to the salary scale. 

You have been listening to a reenactment of an interview between representatives of the Santiago weekly, Chile Hoy, and the Cuban President, Osvaldo Dorticos.

A view even more critical of the Banzer regime was published this week in an interview by the weekly Chile Hoy. Ruben Sanchez was the only high Bolivian official that remained faithful until the end of the leftist nationalist government of general J.J. Torres. Sanchez fought on the front lines with the Colorado regiment against the 1971 military coup launched with the support of Brazil and the United States that brought Hugo Banzer to power. Even in exile after August of 1971, he contributed to the formation of the anti-imperialist front, the present government's exiled military opponents. In Buenos Aires, he was interviewed by Chile Hoy, the Santiago Weekly, "What do you think of the announced elections of Banzer?" 

"It seems to be a desperate maneuver. It's a cover to hide their contradictions and to distract from the popular discontent generated by the poor economic situation and the unending military repression. It is characteristic of the irresponsible mishandling of domestic and foreign policies." 

"Do you believe there are minimum conditions for realization of normal elections in Bolivia?"

"Absolutely not. You can't talk of elections with the jails full of patriots. You can't talk of elections when all of the popular organizations are exiled by the regime. The general amnesty and the removal of restrictions upon the trade unions and political parties are the basic conditions for solving the crisis that grips the country. For many people, their only dream is to have the right to participate in the national debate." 

"In your opinion, what is the actual situation of the Banzer regime?"

"The regime has no real popular base. The two parties that actually wield the power fight against each other. The internal divisions within the ruling parties are more obvious every day. The regime is set up by, maintained by and financed by the CIA and the Brazilian military." This interview with a leader of the Bolivian opposition from Chile Hoy. 

In striking contrast to original estimates of Perón, an almost magical change of heart has led the United States to view Perón as Argentina's best hope. The New York Times comments that, "In a reversal of attitudes, the United States government has come to view Juan Domingo Perón not as a menace, but as Argentina's best hope for political stability and economic progress." 

This reappraisal was advanced in interviews by top officials of the State Department involved with South American affairs, and was confirmed by the Argentinian Embassy as its understanding of current United States policy. 

The new position of the United States comes as no surprise to leftist elements in Argentina and throughout Latin America who have bemoaned Perón's moves toward the right for many weeks. In reorganizing his political movement at home, Perón seems to have embraced conservative elements within his party by his appointments of two right-wing labor leaders to important positions within the party. 

Meanwhile, members of the Peronist Youth Movement who are responsible for mass mobilizing in support of Perón are angry because they were not consulted in the recent restructuring of the party. According to Latin America, Perón himself doubtless realizes that he is placing a tremendous strain on his political basis. They have long comforted themselves with the belief that he was quite different from men like José Rucci, leader of the General Labor Confederation. And last November, Perón played up to this belief, murmuring to the youth leaders that he knew who the traitors were. 

Now the revolutionaries are having to fall back on a new formulation, which is that Perón is surrounded by reactionaries who keep him a virtual prisoner. The preceding article by Latin America. 

In further news of Brazil, the Cuban Press Agency, Prensa Latina, reports that Uruguayan National Party Senator Wilson Ferreira, exiled in Buenos Aires, has claimed that Brazilian troops have violated Uruguayan territory on several occasions. This follows a series of reports of ominous preparations by the Brazilian dictatorship. Troops and armored units of the Brazilian Army's Third Core, its biggest and best equipped military outfit, are reported to have penetrated Uruguay by one of the four major highways which Brazil has built on the border between the two countries. The construction of the highways and the rapid buildup of troops along the border came under fire from the Montevideo press in 1971 when the existence of this operation was revealed on the eve of Uruguayan presidential elections. 

According to some sources, the Brazilian regime had prepared an invasion plan which was to culminate with the total occupation of Uruguay within 30 hours if the left-wing broad front coalition won the elections. Although the operation was seen at the time as little more than an intimidation measure at a time when the Uruguayan working class was able to offer much stronger resistance than it can under the present dictatorship conditions, the resilience have established a history of strong arm methods. 

Meanwhile, in Uruguay, the Guardian reports the Uruguay working class is back on the job this month, but discontent against the new dictatorship boils beneath the surface. The National Workers' Confederation called off its two-week general strike, July 11th, vowing to continue the struggle through different routes and methods. The strike ended four days after a militant demonstration of some 50,000 workers, students and housewives against the Bordaberry government.

Dozens were wounded by police. The strike lasted 15 days, despite heavy armed repression and government efforts to divide workers. Military units forced refinery workers to return to their jobs. Some 1500 union leaders were jailed. Thousands of workers were arrested and herded into sports stadiums for lack of prison space. Two deaths were reported in demonstrations by students and women.

Repression against the workers is likely to increase. The dictatorship has declared that it will regulate strikes and control union elections in order to promote a free, strong and Uruguayan syndicalism. Brazil's heavy-handed intervention in the right wing coup included a $30 million loan to the Bordaberry government plus military equipment. In accord with the Brazilian formula, President Bordaberry may be replaced by a military junta. Armed forces occupied the presidential mansion July 28th, claiming that Marxist subversion threatened to smash the government. This from the Guardian. 

Excélsior of Mexico City adds that Uruguayan police opened fire on a thousand demonstrators at the National University in Montevideo last week while armed troops patrolled the nation's capitol. Dozens were injured by police gunfire and many were arrested. Police reportedly searched the homes of university students and professors, but authorities declined to say if any arrests were made. Last month, university demonstrations were accompanied by showers of homemade bombs thrown at the police from rooftops in the city. 

These demonstrations are only a part of the political upheaval which has raged in Uruguay since President Juan Bordaberry dissolved the National Congress on June 18th and set up a military dictatorship. Soon after the coup, the National Workers Union called a general strike which paralyzed the country, but this was brutally repressed by the government.

Many observers feel that the way was cleared for the June military takeover in April of last year when the government waged an all-out war on the Tupamaros, an urban guerrilla group. While many of the more moderate figures in the previous Uruguayan government found the Tupamaros leftist politics too extreme, it has felt that the strength of the Tupamaros guerrillas kept the right wing military from taking over the government completely.

Now that the Tupamaros have been defeated and the military has indeed taken over, many moderates perhaps now regret that they did not object to the military's brutal campaign against the Tupamaros last year. But while the Tupamaros were defeated, they were not exterminated. They issued a statement recently calling for a reorganization of the popular forces for a war against the fascist dictatorship. While admitting that they were defeated last year because they underestimated the Uruguayan military and overestimated their own strength, the Tupamaros said they would increase their organizing of the working classes and pledged to continue the revolutionary struggle. This from the Mexico City daily, Excélsior. 

Barry Rubin, the New York Guardian staff correspondent, writes that the July 13th resignations of Argentine President Héctor Cámpora and Vice President Vicente Lima were seen by many leftist Argentinians as a move to the right by the Peronist government. In choosing a new president, the left wanted Argentine leader, Juan Perón, to agree to run with Campora as vice president, but an August 4th national meeting of the Peronist movement put forward the candidacy of Isabel Martinez, Perón's wife.

The 200 Peronist party delegates at the meeting are generally believed to have acted at Perón's request. Perón will run for the president in the September 23rd election and will almost certainly win. His main opponent will be Ricardo Balbin, leader of the Radical Party. Balbin, the candidate favored by the United States, will have the support of a rightist anti-Perón front. This report from The Guardian.

Excélsior, of Mexico City, reports from Argentina that General Juan Perón, ratified as presidential candidate in the upcoming elections, has proclaimed that his health is excellent. The ex-leader, 77 years old, announced his decision to run at a national convention, while millions of people demonstrated in support. He delineated as his primary goal unifying all Argentinians. He said, quote, "We will go slowly, but we will proceed." 

He appeared with his wife Isabel, who has been nominated as the vice presidential candidate. Perónsaid that his government would not present any spectacular plans for development, but rather, carefully studied projects, and he criticized economists and politicians who called for rapid development as the top priority for Argentina, saying that the super developed countries regret what they have done, because their technology has caused the destruction of their natural resources. That from Excélsior. 

Latin America, in a more detailed analysis of the Argentinian political maneuvers, points out that the nomination of Isabel Martinez de Perón by the Justicialista party congress as her husband's running mate in the September presidential election seems to be a holding formula which might be altered should the radical party leader, Ricardo Balbin, become available for the vice presidential nomination. Both Perón and Balbin have continued to explore the possibility of a joint, radical Peronist ticket, but the political obstacles in Balbin's acceptance of the vice presidential spot seem formidable. 

While the radicals continue to debate the unpalatable choice with which they're faced, Isabel Perón fits neatly with the new image of Peronism. If Albin fails, Perón has another alternative scheme of his sleeve, the creation of a council of state with members drawn from all political sectors to assist the president. Like the proposed electoral pact with the radical party, such a broadening of the Peronist government's institutional base would help eliminate any threat of a new intervention by the armed forces. 

The British Newsweek continues that the ex-president Hector Campora is about to be sent as ambassador to Mexico, thus ending the attempt of the Peronist youth to build him up as the champion of the left. Perón is denouncing guerrilla activities in terms which seem extraordinary when compared to his defense of the guerrillas only last year. Then he said they were the natural response to an oppressive dictatorship. Today, however, he says that they are agents of international communism. 

For the time being, there is little the left can do. So much face was placed in Perón that even the most amazing inconsistencies have to be accepted or explained away. This from the British News Weekly, Latin America. 

Another country which deserves special attention at this point is Uruguay, a small nation wedged between Argentina and Brazil on Latin America's South Atlantic coast. The past six months have seen the collapse of civilian rule in Uruguay and the institution of a military dictatorship. Actually, the constitutional fabric of Uruguay has been disintegrating for quite some time. Former president Jorge Pacheco ruled the better part of his term in office by decree and through emergency security measures.

And, like the Uruguayan Congress, it was constantly riddled by scandals exposing the corruption of the regime. The current president of Uruguay, Juan Bordaberry, can hardly pose as a champion of democracy and civil power either. He was a long serving member of the Pacheco government and his own term has been marked by brutally repressive measures at times. The growing involvement of the armed forces in Uruguayan political life began in April of last year when President Bordaberry declared a state of internal war and called in the armed forces to confront the Tupamaros, an urban guerrilla group.

The Tupamaros, and armed group dedicated to the establishment of a new social order, have gained great support among Uruguayan urban masses in recent years simply because in cities such as Montevideo, there are serious social problems which previous Uruguayan regimes, both military and civilian, have failed to deal with. The Tupamaros, in fact, seem to have had some effect even on the military. In the battles waged last spring, many of the captured guerrillas began to tell their captors that the real enemies, cattle smugglers, corrupt politicians, tax dodgers, and currency speculators, were still at large, often in high places in the government.

As a result, many Uruguayan soldiers and even some senior officers emerged from the campaign saying that the Tupamaros would not finally be defeated unless the root causes of the country's social and economic problems were tackled. Yet despite the reservations of some officers, the military accomplished its task of defeating the Tupamaros with brutal effectiveness.

This military campaign against the Tupamaros had two important consequences. First, the most powerful force on the left had been eliminated, and thus, leftist leaders in both the military and in Congress were in a weakened position. When the military began going after more moderate political figures later on, it no longer had to worry about reprisals from the Tupamaros. Secondly, the material buildup of the military gave them much more political clout. This clout was demonstrated in February, when a clash between Bordaberry and the armed forces resulted in a state of near-civil war.

Bordaberry, however, realizing that the military held the cards in any such confrontation, was forced to accept a junior partnership with them. A National Security Council was set up, which placed Bordaberry virtually under the military's control. The Congress, relegated to a somewhat lower position, was furious, and many of its members made strong anti-military statements. The weeks following the military's intervention in February saw the increasing hostility between the Congress and the military, with Bordaberry somewhere in-between.

By April though, an alliance was clearly emerging between Bordaberry and the conservative sectors of the military. First, Bordaberry created a special junta of commanders in chief to advise him. Also, the National Confederation of Workers, Uruguay's largest trade union syndicate, demanded a 30% wage increase to make up for cost of living increases since the beginning of the year. The military supported Bordaberry and his flat rejection of this demand.

In fact, Bordaberry allowed the military to step up its program of political arrests and systematic torture, and even supplied it with some of the most repressive legislation in the world. An issue of increasing importance to the military was that of the parliamentary immunity from arrest. One Senator, Enrique Erro, was a constant thorn in the military's side, and in April, the National Security Council accused Erro of collaborating with the Tupamaros and asked that his parliamentary immunity be lifted. 

When the Senate refused to lift Erro's immunity in May, the military moved troops into the capitol. A crisis was averted when the question was sent to a house committee for reconsideration. In late June, a final vote was taken and the request was again refused. This time, Bordaberry responded by dissolving the Congress altogether, making the military takeover complete. The National Confederation of Workers did what it always threatened it would do in the event of a military coup and immediately called for a nationwide general strike. The government responded quickly and brutally.

It officially dissolved the National Confederation of Workers and arrested most of its leadership as well as other prominent trade unionists. But this decapitation failed to do the job, the unions were well-organized on a grassroots level and had support from students as well. Many workers occupied their factories, and student demonstrations and other agitation kept the army and police constantly on the run. 

As the strike went on, continuous arrests overflowed the jails, and police began herding prisoners into the Montevideo football stadium. Finally, the strike collapsed and Bordaberry was able to bring things somewhat under control, but opposition continues. Anti-government demonstrations have recurred and another general strike has been threatened. Bordaberry certainly did not eliminate all of his opposition by dissolving the Congress and crushing the general strike. The Tupamaros, for example, have been slowly rebuilding their strength and avowed to continue their struggle. 

This has been a summary and background of important events in the past six months in two Latin American countries, Chile and Uruguay. These analyses are compiled from reports from several newspapers and periodicals, including the London weekly, Latin America, the Mexican daily, Excélsior, the Chilean weekly, Chile Hoy, and the Uruguayan weekly, Marcha. 

The winds of change have been blowing in Argentina for the past six months. They have brought the return to power of Juan Domingo Perón, the 77-year-old man who, even in his 17-year absence, has controlled the largest political movement in Argentina.

Perón first came to power in 1943, as a part of a military coup. Gaining a firmer grip on power in the immediate post-war years, Perón favored significant state intervention in the economy and high import barriers to keep foreign industrial competition out and allow Argentine industry to develop. Such nationalistic policies aroused the ire of the United States, but with the help of huge export earnings due to the high world price of Argentine beef, they spurred tremendous growth in the Argentine economy.

In order to consolidate his power base, Perón mobilized Argentine masses, both by creating a huge peronist party apparatus and building the trade union movement. In the early fifties though, Argentina's post-war boom began to slacken off and Perón was weakened politically as a result. In 1955, the military stepped in and took over the government, condemning Perón to exile. In the years since Perón's downfall, the peronist Party has been prohibited from participating in Argentine elections, but the party has remained active and has cast blank votes in the elections.

These boycotts of the elections have shown that, even while in exile, Perón was and is Argentina's most popular political leader. The current series of events began last fall when the military government of Alejandro Lanusse announced it was considering allowing Perón to return to Argentina. In November, the government kept its promise and Perón flew to Buenos Aires, the nation's capital, and began negotiating with the ruling military leaders on what role his party would play in the upcoming March elections. The Argentina Perón returned to though was quite different from the Argentina Perón left 17 years ago.

Deep divisions exist in Argentina and in the peronist movement itself. Clearly the most conservative element of the peronist movement is the General Workers Confederation, the huge union apparatus set up during Perón's previous regime. Over the years, though, the General Workers Confederation has championed the cause of Perón's return, but has been noticeably timid in fighting for workers' benefits. Thus, the union leadership has gotten along well with the military governments and has virtually lost contact with the masses it ostensibly represents.

The peronist element which is responsible for much mass mobilization is the leftist Juventud peronista or a peronist Youth Group, whose socialist- sounding slogans frighten many of the old-line peronists, especially when they see the peronist Youth's ability to turn out crowds. In addition, there are peronist guerrilla groups who have added clandestine operations to their socialist platforms. Still farther to the left are the non-peronist guerrilla groups, such as the ERP, the People's Revolutionary Army, who have made it clear that they consider foreign monopolists, local oligarchs, and the armed forces, the enemies of the Argentine people.

The ERPs now famous kidnappings of foreign business executives and other operations make them a force to be dealt with in Argentine politics. It was into this political arena which Perón stepped when he began bargaining with the military in November and December.

Perón wanted to be able to run in the March presidential elections himself rather than simply a representative of his party. At this point, Perón was considered a revolutionary of sorts and was feared by the United States government and foreign businessmen. When the military refused to let Perón himself run in the elections, the disappointed leader returned to Spain and Hector Cámpora was chosen to run instead. This was considered a victory for the left wing of the peronist movement.

Since Cámpora was felt to be an ardent nationalist and an anti-imperialist when the elections were held in March, Cámpora was an easy winner and speculation began as to what kind of government could be expected when he took power on May 25th. Revolutionary guerrilla groups anticipating a friendly regime stepped up their activities in April and May. The ERP got $1 million worth of medical equipment for the poor from Ford Motor Company for the release of a kidnapped Ford executive.

Such activities caused many foreign businessmen to leave Argentina. When Cámpora and the peronist actually took power on May 25th, though it became clear that they had no intention of radically transforming Argentine society immediately. Although some boldly independent foreign policy moves were made, such as the recognition of Cuba and other socialist regimes, no sweeping domestic changes were announced. Meanwhile, popular pressures within Argentina continued to build through June.

In addition to continued guerrilla activity, government buildings and hospitals were occupied by workers demanding better wages and working conditions. Such developments did not go unanswered by the right wing forces in Argentina at a welcoming demonstration for Perón's return at a Buenos Aires airport, thugs hired by the conservative leadership of the General Workers Confederation opened fire on a peronist Youth column in the crowd. In the resulting shootout, 20 were killed and more than 200 injured. Also, the General Worker Confederation has undertaken a campaign of brutal repression against a rival union in the important industrial state of Cordoba.

The Cordoba Union has rejected a leadership of the general workers confederation and has instead defined its movement in terms of class struggle. In July, most observers were stunned when President Hector Cámpora announced that he was resigning in order to allow Perón to take the reins of power directly. Thus, new presidential elections will be held in September, and Perón is a shoo-in to win, but Perón seems to have moved significantly to the right in recent weeks in both cabinet appointments and in restructuring his party, Perón seems to have embraced conservative elements and left the more radical sectors of the peronist movement out in the cold.

Reflecting the shift, the United States has suddenly taken an about face and has endorsed Perón. It appears to many now that Peron's revolutionary statements earlier this year were simply a part of his strategy of constructing a broad populist front to isolate the military and allow him to return. However, deep divisions exist within the Argentine society and the popular forces unleashed in recent months may prove somewhat difficult to contain.

The last country we will look at today is Brazil. While Brazil has not experienced the political turmoil of other countries in this broadcast, developments in Brazil are important, simply by virtue of the importance of Brazil on the continent. The single most important event in Brazil this year was the announcement in June that the current military president, Emilio Médici, will be succeeded next March by another general, Orlando Geisel.

In this analysis, we will look at developments in three main areas dealing with Brazil and attempt to foresee what changes, if any, can be expected when Geisel assumes power. First, we will examine Brazil's economic development and its effects. Next, we'll look at Brazil's foreign policy and its role in Latin America, and finally, we will deal with recent reports of torture by the Brazilian government.

The military has been in power in Brazil since 1964, when a military coup toppled left liberal president João Goulart. Since then, Brazil has opened its doors to foreign capital, attempting to promote economic development. In some ways, results have been impressive. Brazil's gross national product has grown dramatically in recent years, and it now exports manufactured goods throughout the continent, but this kind of growth has not been without its costs. The Brazilian finance minister received heavy criticisms from his countrymen this March for two aspects of Brazilian economic development. 

The first was the degree of foreign penetration in the Brazilian economy. For example, 80% of all manufactured exports from Brazil come from foreign owned subsidiaries. The second problem brought up was the incredible mal distribution of income in Brazil. The essence of the critic's argument is that the top 5% of the population enjoys 40% of the national income while the top 20% account for 80% of the total, and moreover, this heavily skewed distribution is becoming worse as Brazil's economy develops.

Many of these same criticisms were raised again in May when Agricultural Minister Fernando Cirne Lima resigned in disgust. He said it would be preferable to cut down Brazil's growth rate to some 7% or 8% in the interest of a more equitable distribution of income. He also said, "The quest for efficiency and productivity has crushed the interests of Brazilian producers of the small and medium businessman to the benefit of the transnational companies."

Whether any of these policies will change when Geisel comes to power next March or not is uncertain. Some feel that he is an ardent nationalist who will be cold to business interests. Others point out though that the interests which have maintained the current military regime are not likely to stand for any radical changes. Brazil has sometime been called the "United States Trojan Horse" in Latin America.

The idea is that Brazil will provide a safe base for US corporations and then proceed to extend its influence throughout the continent, either by outright conquest or simply economic domination. Brazil has, to be sure, pretty closely toed the line of US foreign policy. It has taken the role of the scourge of communism on the continent and has been openly hostile to governments such as Cuba and Chile, and there's no doubt that American corporations do feel at home in Brazil.

Brazil, of course, discounts the Trojan Horse theory and instead expresses fears of being surrounded by unfriendly governments. But whether for conquest or defense, Brazil has built up its armed forces tremendously in recent years. In May of this year, Brazil signed a treaty with neighboring Paraguay for a joint hydroelectric power plant opposition groups within Paraguay called the treaty a sellout to Brazil, and it is generally agreed that the treaty brings Paraguay securely within Brazil's sphere of influence. In fact, the Paraguayan Foreign Minister said recently Paraguay will not involve itself in any project with any other country without prior agreement of Brazil.

The treaty was viewed with dismay by Argentina, which has feared the spread of Brazilian influence from the continent for many years, especially in Bolivia, Paraguay, and Uruguay. A Brazilian military buildup along its Uruguayan border caused some alarm last year and this spring and Uruguayan senator said he had discovered secret Brazilian military plans for the conquest of Uruguay. According to the plan, Uruguay was to be invaded in 1971 if the left wing Broad Front Coalition won the Uruguayan elections.

While these developments seem to point to an aggressive program of Brazilian expansion, some observers feel that Brazil may be changing its policy in favor of more cooperation with its Latin American neighbors. They point to the Brazilian foreign minister's recent diplomatic tour in which he spoke with representatives of Peru and Chile as evidence, but if Brazil's attitude towards its neighbors is beginning to thaw, it will be sometime before many countries can warm up to Brazil's ominous military regime. 

Since the military regime came to power in Brazil, there have been increasing reports of torture of political prisoners. In recent months, the Catholic Church has risen to protest such occurrences with surprising boldness. In April, 24 priests and 3000 students held a memorial mass for a young man who died mysteriously while in police custody. The songs in the service, which was conducted in a cathedral surrounded by government troops, were not religious hymns but anti-government protest songs. The real blockbuster came though a month later when three Archbishops and 10 Bishops and from Brazil's northeast issued a long statement, a blistering attack on the government.

The statement which because of the government's extreme censorship, did not become known to the public for 10 days after it had been released, is notable for its strongly political tone. The declaration not only attacked the government for repression and the use of torture, it also upheld it responsible for poverty, starvation, wages, unemployment, infant mortality, and illiteracy. In broader terms, it openly denounced the country's much vaunted economic miracle, which its said benefited a mere 20% of the population. While the gap between rich and poor continued to grow, there were also derogatory references to the intervention of foreign capital in Brazil. Indeed, the whole system of capitalism was attacked and the government accused of developing its policy of repression merely to bolster it up.

Such a statement could hardly have occurred in the view of many observers without the green light from the Vatican, something which gives Brazil's military rulers cause for concern. The government up to now has been able to stifle dissent through press censorship, but with the prospect of statements such as these being read from every pulpit and parish in the country, it would appear that the censorship is powerless. Whether by design or pure force of circumstances, the church is on the verge of becoming the focal point of all opposition, whether social, economic or political to Brazil's present regime, perhaps because of pressure from the church. The government recently admitted that torture had occurred in two cases and the offending officers are awaiting trials. 

In the view of some observers the mere fact of these two trials is an admission by the government that torture is being used in Brazil and this in itself is a step forward. It is being seen as an indication of new and less repressive policies to be introduced when General Ernesto Geisel takes over their presidency next year, but others are less optimistic. They point out that these cases relate only to common criminals and that this cannot be taken as an indication of any easing of repressive measures against political prisoners. 

This week's feature has been a summary and background of important events in the past six months in two Latin American countries; Argentina and Brazil. These analyses are compiled from reports from several newspapers and periodicals, including the London weekly, Latin America, the Mexican daily, Excélsior, the Chilean weekly, Chile Hoy, and the Uruguayan weekly, Marcha.

After 17 years of military rule in Argentina, the Peronist party has returned to power, and presidential elections are being held next month in which Juan Peron himself will run. Peron, who earlier this year was considered to be a revolutionary of sorts, now appears to be arranging a right centrist regime, and has thus received the blessings even of the United States State Department.

One result of Peron's new-found conservatism is that the leftist Peronista, or Peronist Youth Group, whose work among Argentine masses has given the Peronist movement much of its strength, has been virtually excluded from the new government. This has been a bitter pill for the militant Peronist youths to swallow, for during the 17 years of Peron's exile, it was they who bore the brunt of confrontations with the military dictatorship.

Recently, however, a strategy for dealing with Peron's upcoming administration is beginning to emerge. A Peronist guerrilla group, the Peronist Armed Forces, has published its own evaluation of the situation. According to them, a policy for the new phase must necessarily begin with the actual political state of the masses. The working classes entered the broad front of the classes, and is aware of the limits which this implies. The statement is speaking here of the broad populist anti-military coalition, which Peron assembled to allow him to return to power.

The statement continues, the masses now hope for a breathing space after 18 years of exploitation, a phase of peace and prosperity, sufficient to allow them to recover from the blows they have received. They seek to restore and surpass the conditions they enjoyed between 1945 and 1955, when they won paid holidays, collective bargaining, full employment, job security, freedom to organize and participation in power. Today, with wages down, 1.5 million unemployed, collective agreements which are not honored, and with union organizations in the hands of a bureaucracy which is ready to sell out the workers, the masses are in a state of weakness which prevents advance.

The group statement continues, "The masses are not looking for an ideal socialism at the present time, but the prosperity and social justice which they do seek is more than the national bourgeoisie is either willing or able to concede at the present time. For this reason, the leadership of the bourgeoisie and the anti-imperialist front is challenged by the masses, and this challenge should be the concrete point of departure for any revolutionary strategy." This position is important because it provides the Peronist youths with a way out of their political isolation, and should ensure the future unity of the movement. 

Youth for Peron and their guerrilla allies are clearly confident that the inherent contradictions of the present process, in which Peron is trying to mediate between the claims of the working class, national capitalists and foreign investors, will lead to a new radicalization of the Peronist Movement as a whole. Until that time comes, the Youth for Peron is content to remain on the sidelines, with its militants busy consolidating their work of organizing the basis. According to Latin America, well-informed sources credit them with having 100,000 active militants, whose confidence of the present is buoyed up by their belief that they can mobilize the people. This previous article is from the British News Weekly, Latin America. 

The right-wing forces which have been operating against Chile's President Salvador Allende finally succeeded last week when the armed forces staged a violent coup d'état and seized control of the Chilean government. The following report on events in Chile are compiled from reports from the Associated Press, the London weekly Latin America, the Mexico City daily Excélsior, and the Chilean weekly Chile Hoy. 

The coup began when the military surrounded the presidential palace last Tuesday and demanded the resignation of Allende and his Popular Unity government. Allende refused and the military attacked using tanks, troops, and air force bombers. Allende himself is dead. Chilean military and police say he killed himself, although others believe he was murdered. The Chilean ambassador to Great Britain said that he personally challenged the military's story. Allende was buried in a small family funeral on Wednesday. 

The military leaders closed all government radio and television stations and imposed press censorship. Martial law has been declared and there are reports that any civilians found with arms are being executed on the spot. Obviously intent on crushing all opposition, the military has also burned the Socialist Party headquarters. 

It was originally announced that a four man junta would rule the country. Since then, the head of the junta has proclaimed himself president and congress is to remain in recess until further notice. 

The military says that things have returned to normal in Chile, but at the time this program was recorded, there were still reports of considerable resistance. One battle was reported on the outskirts of Santiago in a factory, and snipers have been firing from buildings throughout the city. Reports of casualties run as high as 4,000 dead. The military has been arresting hundreds of socialists and communist leaders, supposedly for questioning only, and they have been threatening to blow up any building containing snipers or resistors. 

Talk of a military coup in this troubled country has been abundant ever since General Carlos Prats resigned as minister of the defense and head of the military in late August. Prats was a strict constitutionalist and a well-known opponent of military intervention against the elected government. 

Meanwhile, early this month, the crippling truck owner strike remained unsettled and was accompanied by increasing violence. The fanaticism of Allende's right-wing opponents was revealed two weeks ago when Roberto Thieme, the leader of the revolutionary Fatherland and Freedom Organization was arrested. Thieme who was wanted for a collaboration in the attempted coup last June admitted that the truck owner strike was planned and launched solely to overthrow the government.

Thieme also said that the Fatherland and Freedom Organization planned sabotage attacks in connection with the strike and that they had taken part in the assassinations in July of Allende's naval aide-de-camp. He further said that they had made great efforts to strengthen rightist forces in the military.

The crisis deepened last week when the Christian Democrats, Chile's major opposition party, reversed its position and joined with right-wing parties, including Fatherland and Liberty in the Chilean Congress and offered a resolution calling for Allende's resignation. Eduardo Frei, a Christian Democrat and former president of Chile, issued a statement in which he blamed Allende for all of Chile's problems and he seemed willing to support a military coup. 

The military seems to have been preparing for the coup for the past three months, in that it has been systematically removing arms from civilians, especially in factories in which Allende's support has been the strongest. These arms seizures, the sudden rightward swing of the Christian Democrats, and Thieme's detailed description of the Fatherland and Freedom's activities, almost make it seem as if the coup were a well-orchestrated plan, of which many were aware. 

Allende of course observed these developments too, and last week he canceled his trip to the Non-Aligned Countries Conference in Algiers and had several emergency meetings with military leaders, his cabinet and members of the Popular Unity Coalition. With leaders of the armed forces, Allende discussed reform of laws regulating the military's activities. 

According to the Mexico City daily Excélsior, Allende told other government leaders that only two things could solve the crisis: A dialogue with the Christian Democrats or a national plebiscite. The dialogue with the Christian Democrats was out of the question since they had thrown their forces behind the right. 

A plebiscite would have helped since Allende's Popular Unity Coalition had done increasingly well at the polls since it captured the presidency three years ago. Anti-government strikes including the recent truck owner strike and brief sympathy strikes by lawyers, engineers, and technicians have been among relatively small well-paid sectors of the Chilean workforce and these groups would not likely have countered Allende's working class strength in a national election. However, not all sectors of the Popular Unity Coalition could agree on a plebiscite and measures were not adopted in time. 

Reports from unidentified sources within the United States government say that the US was in informed of the coup a full two days before it happened and that the Nixon administration supported the actions of the military. Government spokesmen have denied the report saying that no US government agencies had any prior knowledge or complicity in the coup. 

Juan Peron, who will almost certainly be elected president of Argentina next month, said that while he does not have the evidence to prove it, he believes the United States government engineered the coup. Others believe that while the United States may not have been directly involved in the coup itself, the United States and its US corporations have at least indirectly contributed to the downfall of the Popular Unity government. For one thing, when the Popular Unity government came to power, the United States cut off all economic aid to the country, but doubled the amount of money given to the Chilean military. 

When Chile nationalized the United States copper companies two years ago, the US demanded compensation for the property. Allende politely responded that since the excess profits removed from Chile at a rate of 52% above investment a year by the copper companies was far greater than the value of the company's holdings, there would be no compensation. Since then, Kennecott, a huge American copper company, has filed suits in French, German, and Italian courts trying to stop companies in those countries from buying Chilean copper, thus denying Chile valuable export earnings. 

Even more importantly, the United States government has used its powerful influence to stop all loans and credits to Chile from multilateral lending agencies such as the Import-Export Bank, the World Bank, and the Inter-American Development Bank. Many of these loans, especially those from the Import-Export Bank, are not really loans as such, but simple credits which allow the nation to make purchases from companies in larger nations on the basis of repayment within 30 to 90 days. 

When these credits were cut off, Chile had to find large amounts of foreign currencies in advance in order to make such purchases. Often unable to get such amounts, Chile has been faced with shortages of many essential imported goods. Thus, for example, the shortage of replacement parts for cars, trucks, and buses, which led to the transportation owner strike, which eventually precipitated the coup, can be traced directly to United States policy within these multilateral lending agencies. 

The same mechanisms have also led to shortages of food and other essentials which has heightened Chile's inflation. It is perhaps for these reasons that Allende told the United Nations last December that the US is waging economic war on Chile. 

Also in March of 1972, documents were revealed which showed that IT&T had contributed heavily to the campaign funds of Allende's opponents, and Allende has been bitterly resentful of what he calls IT&T's attempts to foment a civil war in his country. For instance, IT&T was said to have put $500,000 into Chile's opponent's campaign chest in 1968. 

Some groups around the country who have been critical of US policy have staged protest rallies in the United States, in Paris and in other countries in Latin America, and have frequently quoted the statement issued by Allende as the military was attacking the presidential palace only hours before his death. Allende said, "I will not resign. I will not do it. I am ready to resist with whatever means, even at the cost of my life, in that this serves as a lesson in the ignominious history of those who have strength but not reason." 

This report on the coup in Chile was compiled from reports from the Mexico City daily Excélsior, the London weekly Latin America, the Associated Press, and the Chile weekly Chile Hoy. 

Excélsior of Mexico also reports that Argentina has decided to support the Peruvian project to reform the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Support. The Peruvian resolution calls for a deletion of what it calls a list of justifications for economic aggression. The project was submitted by Peru at the Special Reform Commission of the Inter-American System of the Organization of American States meeting in Washington DC. 

Argentina's ambassador stated that his country supports with special interest the idea of collective action in cases of economic aggression. He pointed out that the Peruvian project would amplify the area of action available to the members in time to reduce the concrete cases of armed aggression. 

Peru's delegation insisted that all political and ideological clauses be eliminated from the treaty and suggested that a permanent council for progress be implemented to ensure economic security. 

The British news weekly, Latin America, reports from Argentina that the Juventud Peronista, the youth wing of the Peronist movement, seems to be on the way to consolidating its position in the movement and that Jose Lopez Rega, the most intransigent foe of the young militants, has lost ground decisively. 

As background information, it should be remembered that the Peronist Party received a massive electoral vote in the first free elections after years of harsh right-wing military rule. It was the activity of numerous guerrilla organizations, usually composed of younger militants, which deserved considerable credit for the forcing of the military to allow elections. However, the Peronist movement as a whole is an amalgam of great diversity, including many who hold onto the name of Peron, many who supported the Peronists in expectation of social justice, but also some very conservative nationalists who border on being fascists. 

Consequently, after the Peronist electoral victory, there was considerable turmoil in the movement and Peron soon began to chastise and caution the more militant left elements to the point of almost excluding them from party councils. However, the Peronist youth recently moved to generally accept the Peronists' broad front strategy and Peron began a rapprochement with the Peronist youth. 

The military Junta seems firmly in control in Chile after staging a successful overthrow of the government of President Salvador Allende on September 11th. The following report on recent events in Chile and world reaction to the coup is compiled from the New York Times, the Associated Press, the Miami Herald, the Mexico City daily, Excélsior, NACLA, Prensa Latina, and The Guardian. 

The Junta headed by General Augusto Pinochet issued a communique recently in which he said that the armed forces were searching the country to put down extremist forces. The military said they would expel from the country all of the Latin American leftists who had taken refuge there during Allende's rule. At the same time, relations were broken with Cuba and the entire Cuban diplomatic mission was put in a plane to Havana.

The Junta's interior minister, General Óscar Bonilla said the military took over the government because more than 10,000 foreign extremists living in Chile, including exiled guerrillas from Uruguay and Brazil, posed a threat to the country. The armed forces had to intervene in order to safeguard the destiny of the country, seriously threatened by extremist elements, Bonilla said.

Organizations in the United States, which have been expressing concern about the fate of the foreign exiles in Chile, also estimated their number at 10,000. Other sources have indicated that an equal number of Chileans were left dead in the wake of the coup. The military said that many Chileans and foreigners were being detained at the Ministry of Defense, the Military Academy, various military posts, and the dressing rooms of the national soccer stadium. A television station broadcast films of 60 prisoners in the dressing rooms, their hands clasped behind their heads. 

There were widespread reports that could not be confirmed that many former officials and supporters of Allende's popular Unity Coalition had been executed by the military. The North American Congress in Latin America, NACLA, a research group on Latin American affairs in the United States, monitored reports from Cuba and Inter Press News Service. They said that these sources and ham radio reports from Santiago all reported widespread fighting and the execution of many of Allende's associates and supporters. NACLA quoted Inter Press Service as saying that at least 300 foreign exiles were killed during and after the military takeover. 

NACLA also said the coup was an attack not only on the popular government of Chile, but the entire anti-imperialist movement in Latin America. Censorship was imposed on the Chilean media and foreign journalist dispatches. The Junta announced that 26 newspapers and magazines were told to suspend publication indefinitely because they were opposed to the Junta's goal of depoliticizing Chile. 

While the extent of resistance in Chile is uncertain due to conflicting reports, much of the rest of the world has raged in protest. An estimated 30,000 protestors filed past the Chilean embassy in Paris, brandishing red flags and banners and shouting "Coup makers, fascists, murderers!" and "Down with the murderers in the CIA!" Thousands of demonstrators marched in Rome, where a group calling itself the International Militant Fellowship claimed responsibility for a pre-dawn fire bombing of the Milan office of Pan-American World Airways. The group said the attack was in retaliation for participation in the coup by US imperialists. 

The West German government withheld recognition of the new Chilean regime for the time being, and in protest of the coup, canceled credits of 35 million marks, which it had agreed to extend to Chile. The World Council of Churches asked the Junta to respect the rights of political exiles in Chile, and the secretary general of that organization expressed the council's concern over the brutal rupture of Chilean democratic traditions. 

In Latin America, reactions were much stronger. The Argentine government declared three days of national mourning for the death of President Allende, and 15,000 marched in a demonstration in that nation's capital protesting the coup. Telecommunications workers in Buenos Aires staged a one-hour strike in solidarity with the Chilean workers who were killed by the troops of the military Junta.

Also in Buenos Ares, the movement of third-world churches condemned the coup and exhorted all Christians to fight the military dictatorship. Juan Perón, who will soon be elected president of Argentina, said that while he does not have the evidence to prove it, he believes that the United States engineered the coup. Venezuelan president Raphael Caldera called the military takeover a backward step for the entire continent.

In Costa Rica, thousands of students marched in protest of the coup and in solidarity with Chilean resistance fighters. While the Costa Rican government offered political asylum to Chilean political refugees. One of the loudest protests came from Mexico City where 40,000 joined in a protest march shouting anti-US slogans and burning American flags. 

An indictment of the type of economic colonialism, which had Chile in its yoke was voiced by Osvaldo Sunkel, a noted Chilean economist when he appeared last week before a United Nations panel investigating the impact of multinational corporations. The panel was created largely because of Chile's charges that the International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation had tried to block the election of Dr. Allende in 1970. United Nations officials maintained that there was a strong sentiment for such an inquiry apart from the ITT case. 

In his remarks, professor Sunkel charged that foreign corporations were bent on siphoning off resources of the developing countries. He heatedly disputed testimony by five corporate officers that their concerns had contributed to the health and welfare of the countries where they operated. He said, "I get scared, really scared when I hear such individuals speak of social responsibility. Who has appointed a small group of individuals to decide the fate of so many?"

Sunkel said, "The government of President Allende made an attempt at changing the structure of underdevelopment and dependence in Chile. It may have had many failings and committed many errors, but nobody can deny that it attempted to redress the unjust economic and social structure by fundamentally democratic means."

While much of the anger and protest around the world seems directed at the United States, State Department and White House officials have consistently denied that the US was involved in the coup in any way. Nevertheless, critics of the Nixon Administration's policy in South America blamed the United States for helping create the conditions in which military intervention became an ever stronger likelihood. Joseph Collins of the Institute for Policy Studies said the tactics were economic chaos.

Collins said that Chile had become the first victim of the Nixon-Kissinger low profile strategy in which credits are withheld while military assistance continues to pro-American armed forces. Military assistance to the Chilean regime continued throughout the three-year presidency of Allende, however development loans were halted. Collins said US companies had put pressure on their subsidiaries and on foreign associates not to sell vitally needed equipment and spare parts to Chile.

The following commentary on the role of the United States in the Chilean coup comes from The Guardian. "US involvement could be seen on several levels. US Ambassador Nathaniel Davis went home to Washington per instructions September 6th, returning to Santiago September 9th, only two days before the coup. Davis was a high-ranking advisor in the National Security Council from 1966 to '68 and later served as US Ambassador to Guatemala during the height of the pass pacification program against leftist forces there.

When Davis came from Guatemala to Chile in 1971, he brought a number of aides with him who had helped run the repression there. The State Department trains people for special jobs, and Davis seems to have specialized in these kinds of operations," says The Guardian.

According to The Guardian, Davis's philosophy of international relations was expressed in a speech in Guatemala in 1971. "Money isn't everything," he said, "love is the other 2%. I think this characterizes the US' policy in Latin America." The New York Times reported that the US was not at all surprised by the coup and that US diplomats and intelligence analysts had predicted a coup would come three weeks earlier.

"In another interesting possible prediction," claims The Guardian, "the State Department called back four US Navy vessels, which had been heading into Chilean waters for annual naval maneuvers scheduled to begin September 13th. The State Department claims that this was done when news of the revolt came, but some sources say that the order came before the beginning of the coup indicating prior knowledge."

The Guardian claims that US corporations were clearly pleased by Allende's overthrow. When news of the coup came, copper futures rose 3 cents on the New York Commodity Exchange, but the US government is cautioning against too optimistic a view on the part of expropriated companies since a too rapid return of nationalized properties would only heighten antagonisms and further reveal the coup's motivation. The preceding report on recent events in Chile was compiled from the New York Times, the Associated Press, the Miami Herald, the Mexico City Daily Excélsior, NACLA, Prensa Latina, and The Guardian. 

Cuba has made headlines in the Latin American press recently due to Fidel Castro's participation in the Non-Aligned Nations Conference in Algiers last month, and to Cuba's loud protest to the Chilean coup in the United Nations. The Mexico City Daily Excélsior reports that Henry Kissinger has announced that the US will begin consultations with other member countries of the Organization of American States to determine the possibility of reestablishing relations with Cuba.

Kissinger stated that the US will not act, as he put it, "unilaterally", but in accordance with the other member countries. He has not, however, stated when and in what form the first steps will be taken. Seven members of the OAS have already broken with the US supported attempt to isolate Cuba. They're Mexico, which never accepted the decision of rupture, Chile until the overthrow of the government there, Peru, Barbados, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, and Argentina. A number of these countries maintain that the OAS should allow its members the liberty to decide in diplomatic relations with Cuba.

Fidel Castro's Summit meeting two weeks ago with four leaders of the independent Commonwealth Caribbean is part of Cuba's continuing effort to eliminate any possible threat from its immediate neighbors. The British News Weekly Latin America reports that although it lasted barely three hours and was a stopover en route to the non-aligned nations conference in Algiers, Fidel Castro's meeting with four prime ministers of the English-speaking Caribbean was highly significant for an area still divided and ruled as efficiently as ever by the great powers. The four meeting Castro at Port of Spain's airport were Eric Williams of Trinidad and Tobago, Forbes Burnham of Guyana, Michael Manley of Jamaica, and Errol Barrow of Barbados. 

It is too early says Latin America to say what park Cuba would be willing to play in the region's economic and other groupings, but since the four independent Anglo-Caribbean states opened diplomatic relations with Havana 10 months ago, the Cubans have worked steadily to build up contacts. Cuban sugar technicians have visited the islands to offer advice and aid about the commodity which dominates the economies of all of them. Cuban fisheries experts will soon go to Guyana under an agreement signed two weeks ago. Ministerial delegations from all four states have been to Cuba and Castro's journey from Havana to Trinidad via Guyana inaugurated a regular air service between Cuba and the islands. 

Apart from the basic wisdom of making friends with one's smaller neighbors when under threat from the US only 90 miles away, the four states could be a source of economic relief to Havana. The recent major oil strikes off Trinidad and the prospect of others off the coast of Guyana would be a useful way to lessen dependence on Eastern Europe, which currently supplies all Cuba's oil needs. As for regional solidarity, Cuba might be instrumental in encouraging more effective use of bauxite as a weapon against the rich nations. 

Latin American newspaper concludes that even in Central America, traditionally the hardcore of the right wing, pro-Washington resistance to Cuba, Honduras became the first country of the group formally to renew trade relations with Havana by signing a $2 million agreement to buy Cuban sugar. But all these advances have been overshadowed by Argentina's billion dollar credit to Cuba to buy machinery and other equipment. This is the most important step so far towards reducing Cuba's dependence on the Soviet block. This from the weekly Latin America. 

The Chilean coup has captured headlines for the past three weeks. For today's feature, we'll be talking with someone who's just returned from two years spent traveling and doing research in Chile. Alan Marks worked for a year in a research capacity for the Institute of Training and Research of the Chilean Agricultural Reform Agency. Alan, it must be hard for many North Americans to imagine what it's like to live in Chile under the Allende government. What were your initial impressions of the Chilean society and culture? 

The first two things that I noticed was the incredible freedom of the press and the political sophistication of the people. The press ran articles all the way from the extreme right to the extreme left. It seemed as though any kind of newspaper at all was permitted there. There was no press censorship whatsoever. As far as the political sophistication, anyone from a store owner to a factory worker would have their own political ideas, very well formulated as to Chile, the United States, and the whole world. 

Could you describe your work in the Agrarian Reform Agency? 

Yes. The agrarian reform was initiated under the government of Fray in 1968. Its intention was to expropriate from the very large landowners, big ranches and farms, latifundios, which were not producing and which were needed very much to produce in Chile. The land was first of all not well cultivated, and secondly, the workers who were working for these large landowners were not receiving a wage that was livable.

They lived in extreme poverty and many times were starving. Therefore, the intent was to expropriate these large latifundios and turn them over to the campesinos, to these poor families, to work themselves. I went out to work in a collective farm unit called "asentamiento" in the south of Chile. From this point of view, I was able to observe some of the reforms in the very important areas that Allende had promised. These were in the areas of medicine, of housing, of education, and of work.

First of all, Allende promised that each infant and school-aged child would receive a half a pint of milk a day. The National Health Service undertook to get milk to each child, to each cooperative, to each farm in all of Chile. Furthermore, it saw to it that each child had all of his inoculations against the dread diseases, thereby wiping out dread diseases in Chile. The second point was housing.

On this collective farm unit, each family got to have their own house, whereas before there had been five or six families in one house. Now each had their own house. Some of the people would work, they would form one committee of the working committee, which would go and construct houses for everyone. The rest of the people would carry on the work in the fields.

Here in the US, for the past six months, we've been hearing of strikes, food shortages and antigovernment demonstrations, and yet we also have heard that the Unidad Popular, Allende's party, strength was increasing at the polls. How can this be? 

Well, this worried me also. I was in the United States in December and I was reading the articles in the press, which indicated that they were anticipating the opposition to get 67% of the congressional seats and thereby impeach Allende, and furthermore they intimated that there were food shortages, that people were starving and so forth. Quite concerned for the friends I'd made down there, I returned in January with some anxiety.

Upon arriving, I realized that this was largely myth. In the first place, there was as much food as you could possibly want. All of the fruits and vegetables were in abundance and were being sold everywhere. There was a shortage of meat. This was due to two causes. The first and fundamental cause was that the poorer people, the lower class of people in Chile, had never been able to afford meat before. Since Allende's government, everyone in Chile has been eating meat and therefore it wasn't in as great of quantities.

A second point was that at different times in Chile, some of the rightest landowners who had chicken farms or in some cases cattle would either drown all their chickens or would send their cattle away secretly to Argentina trying to create an artificial shortage. Another important point was that when Allende first took over and the right decided that they wanted to begin some sort of a panic, the very rich people, all of whom had big storehouses and refrigerators went to the stores and bought in abundance all of the essential items.

Well, even in this country, I think that would create a panic and would deplete the basic inventories. Well, this was especially so in Chile, and consequently there have been times when things were not available immediately and people had to form lines to wait for them to be distributed.

Another very important point is that Allende always moved very slowly as he was an enabled to by the Constitution, and he made no attempt to expropriate the basic industries of distribution of foods. Now, this created a very real problem. The government owned only 28% of this distribution, and this 28% quite naturally went to the areas of the most need of the poorer people in the poblaciones all around the city of Santiago and the major cities.

The 72% that was controlled by the right somehow didn't very often make it into the markets. It seemed to go directly into people's backyards and into storehouses. There were scandals where hundreds and thousands of gallons of cooking oil were discovered in vats and warehouses where people had been storing them trying to create an artificial problem.

Furthermore, what would happen is there was a black market whereby since there was a shortage, the people who did have the things hoarded could then go and sell them at 10 to 50 times their normal value, thus producing an inflation as well as maintaining the shortage for all practical purposes so that in fact, it was largely a losery, this shortage in this discontent, the strikes sometimes were three or four people and were in very small groups of opposition, people that would go on strike.

Whereas the Popular Unity party and the majority of the people continued working and continued living well, in fact living better perhaps than they ever had before in their lives. This was reflected, I think, very well in the March elections.

In spite of all of the sabotage by the right, in spite of all of the economic problems in Chile due to the credit blockade of the United States, which deprived them of many basic raw materials, the people were going without certain things, the major portion of the Chilean people did understand who was responsible, what were the causes of the shortages of the problems, and voted accordingly. In 1970, Allende got 36% of the vote. In 1973, in these very difficult times, he got support of 44%. 

We know there was a truck owner strike in October of '72, which was very similar to the strikes which precipitated the coup. Can you tell us something about the events of last October? 

Yes. Last October was a very important time for Chile. The truck owners decided to strike thereby paralyzing the 3000 mile long country. Distribution of the agricultural products, raw materials and minerals is carried on chiefly by trucking and Chile, and whereas one product may be grown in the South, it may have to be distributed to the north and so forth.

Furthermore, in a very well orchestrated campaign to force Allende into submission, the right called on all shop owners, called on all owners of any kind of stores to close their shops, called on all the people not to go to work. This was an attempt to force the government forces into returning all of the factories to the owners and returning some of the large latifundios to the original owners.

It met with very, very significant failure, this policy of the right, because the left, the Popular Unity party continued to work, refused to shut down, worked even though they didn't have all the necessary food, got to work even though a lot of the buses were not running because they had been sabotaged with tacks or one thing or another. Above all, they kept the basic industries and the basic factories open and functioning so that Chile was not paralyzed.

The most important industries were in fact carrying on. The other very important thing that developed out of this was that there was a belt formed around Santiago. The factories in Santiago are all in the outskirts of the town along the major thoroughfares, along the major highways in and out of Santiago. They went to their factories.

They remained on vigil at the factories, protected them, and furthermore, effectively controlled any of the transportation in and out of Santiago, a force very important to them for the future, and certainly we know that these factories have been kept open and the only way that these people could be vanquished would actually be by killing them all because these people were prepared to fight to the death for the factories that now had a very real meaning to them, had a very real power for them. 

Alan, some have said that Allende moved too quickly and boldly with nationalizations and other measures. Do you feel that Allende could have avoided a clash with the US by moving more slowly or being more diplomatic? 

I think that Allende was very diplomatic. In fact, phrase proposals when on his campaign in 1964 were almost as far-reaching as anything that Allende ever got to do. Nationalizing basic industries had been promised to the Chilean people for years, and it's something that everyone was in agreement with. I don't think any Chilean would ever say that they shouldn't nationalize the copper industry, but Fray didn't fulfill his promises in a large number of areas.

It was very important for Allende's credibility for him to move directly in affecting these reforms that he had promised. Now, as far as moving quickly, there are certain limitations to how quickly you can move when you are a candidate or are a president like Allende, who has promised very strictly to remain within the constitutional framework.

He was so much more of a constitutionalist than any other figure I've ever seen, and given the conservative constitution of Chile, all of his actions, all of his proposals, always had to go for review before the Congress, so that really Allende moved very slowly. There were very few factories that were touched.

The important latifundios were expropriated and were given over to the farm workers, but the owners still maintained their own little farm off of this, and I would say that that Allende did anything but move quickly. This was the main criticism of him by the left and Chile was that he moved too slowly.

We've been talking today with Alan Marks who worked for a year in research capacity for the Institute of Training and Research at the Chilean Agrarian Reform Agency.

Two weeks after the beginning of the military coup in Chile, events there dominate the news. Although members of the Junta have made repeated claims of normalcy, and US newspapers such as The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal have characterized the military as mild and also claimed a return to normalcy, at the time this program is being produced, the Asia Information News Service monitoring wire services from Latin America reports that the Junta has just announced a state of internal war. 

In reverberations elsewhere in South America, Excélsior reports that in Uruguay the military government has shut down opposition papers, including the Christian Democrat-oriented La Hora. La Nación of Peru reports that the head of the Uruguayan government as saying that the articles on Chile would foment unrest. Also, the Brazilian military government has prohibited its newspapers from publishing or disseminating information about activities in Chile. According to The Wall Street Journal, the Bolivian military government has announced a move to arrest at least 70 leading labor leaders who were fomenting difficulties. 

Information other than official or censored reports from inside Chile are still difficult to obtain. Excélsior of Mexico City reports that Chilean Christian Democrats are still divided. Former President Eduardo Frei, implicated as early as 1970 in the ITT strategy memoranda as participating in efforts to induce economic collapse and a military intervention in Chile is reported to be supporting the Junta. While the previous Christian Democratic presidential candidate, Radomiro Tomic, is reported under house arrest. 

The English paper The Manchester Guardian noted continuing divisions in the military. The three highest ranking officers in Santiago as well as the head of the National Police did not support the coup. 

The Excélsior of Mexico reported an interview with Hugo Vigorena, the Chilean ambassador to Mexico, who resigned when his government was overthrown. The former ambassador said his government had documents and information on a CIA State plan senator, but had received the information too late to neutralize the plan. The New York Times reported that Mr. Kubisch, Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America, claimed the documents were spurious and being peddled by a known felon. He refused further public comments offering to appear in a secret session. 

The degree of difficulties inside Chile is still unknown with any precision. The official announcements of the Junta vary, beginning with a claim of 61 dead moving most recently to an admission of perhaps 250 persons killed. However, various international news agencies reported such items as that within the first 40 hours of the beginning of the coup, a Santiago hospital log indicated 500 bodies stacked in the hospital because the morgue was full and refused to accept further bodies. 

Inter Press, the Chilean news agency, which was forced to move its transmission facilities to Argentina following the beginning of the coup, reported requests from Chilean hospitals for medical supplies. Santiago hospitals were reported to be out of most medical supplies. 

The Asian News Service carried an interview from Argentina with the director of the Brazilian soccer team, which left Chile after the beginning of the coup. He reported upwards of 10,000 dead within the first three days. The Dutch newspaper Allgemeine Tagblatt reported on a telephone interview with a Dutch diplomat in Chile who reported in the initial days that the Junta was treating resisters with unimaginable violence and estimated casualties in Santiago alone at 6,000. 

Le Monde from Paris reported an interview with two Chileans held in the national soccer stadium, but released because they were the son and nephew of high-ranking military officers. They reported tortures, clubbing and executions of major proportions. British papers carried reports by two British subjects who said much of the same. 

In interviews with the US press, two American citizens, Adam and Patricia Schesch, released from the stadium after a considerable telephone and telegram campaign by citizens of their home state of Wisconsin, also noted that in the first days of the coup they saw numerous prisoners beaten to death and estimated that they directly saw 400 to 500 persons executed. Asia News Service estimated 20,000 to 30,000 dead within the first week. 

In Caracas, Venezuela, the daily paper Últimas Noticias reported an interview with a Venezuelan journalist who had been held in the national stadium for three days before being allowed to leave. He reported that he had been arrested because there were some magazines in his home published by Quimantú, the government publishing house. The Venezuelan journalist said that he could hear the cries of people being executed in the eastern grandstand of the stadium, that the blood was hosed down each morning, that survivors could see piles of shoes belonging to the previous night's victims and that the bodies were removed and blue canvas bags loaded into armed military trucks. 

A number of embassies in Chile are reported surrounded and in effect under siege to prevent persons from seeking asylum. The Guardian reports that the governments of Sweden, Finland, and Holland have announced that all aid destined for the Allende government would be frozen and not given to the Junta. Also, in a number of countries, including Mexico, Venezuela, Switzerland and Sweden, the Chilean ambassadors and diplomatic personnel have resigned rather than serve the Junta. 

Excélsior reports that the Chilean ambassador to the US is in Chile and is alive but under arrest. He has been replaced in the US by a naval officer. In London, the naval attaché has taken over the embassy there and locked out the ambassador. 

Diplomatic recognition of the Junta was initially accorded by Brazil and the two regime of South Vietnam, and the Junta claimed recognition by 17 countries as of the 22nd of September. However, according to Excélsior, that list includes Austria, Denmark, and Mexico, whereas Austria and Denmark have issued denials and Mexico announced that it would apply the Estrada Doctrine of maintaining officials at the embassy in Chile, but not extending actual recognition. 

Another reaction. La Opinión of Buenos Aires, Argentina, reported that the commander-in-chief of the Argentinian army has asked the government to immediately put an end to the US military missions in Argentina. He said that the recent events in Chile strengthened the conviction that, "the presence of North American missions in Argentina is not convenient for us."

Excélsior reported that the Chilean Junta, after outlawing the five political parties that had formed the Popular Unity Coalition and after informing the remaining parties to enter a recess, disbanding the Chilean legislature, has announced the writing of a new constitution. General Lei of the Air Force indicated that the new constitution would prevent the re-establishment of Marxism and would allow major participation by the armed forces in the political life of Chile, including in the future parliament. 

Excélsior continued that the new constitution would be actually edited by a yet-to-be-constituted jury commission and would be a corporate-type constitution in the style of the system instituted by Mussolini in Italy. That from the Mexican daily Excélsior. 

In commenting on developments in Chile, the English paper The Manchester Guardian reviewed the ITT memoranda that spoke of the need to induce sufficient economic chaos and violence into Chile to create the conditions for a military coup. The Manchester Guardian also quoted Henry Kissinger as having said, "I don't think we should delude ourselves that an Allende takeover in Chile would not present massive problems for us." 

The Manchester Guardian also referred to a meeting in October of 1971 between William Rogers, the Secretary of State, and representatives of corporations with investments in Chile, in which Rodgers made it perfectly clear that the Nixon Administration was a business administration and its mission was to protect business. 

Also, Murray Rossant, president of the 20th Century Fund, wrote in The New York Times of October 10th, 1971, that the government policy towards Chile was being formulated and that the Secretary of Treasury, John Connally, and other hard liners insist that Chile must be punished to keep other countries in check and favor a Bolivian-type solution of providing overt or covert support for anti Allende military men. That from The New York Times. 

In the most recent economic news from Chile, the black market, which was the primary cause of food shortages during the Allende period and which had been a major method of creating economic difficulties for the Allende government, has finally been outlawed. Although congressional opponents to Allende had prevented any legal moves against the black market during Allende's government, Excélsior reports that the military Junta has declared an end to black market activities. 

According to Excélsior, the Junta has also announced that gains made under Allende will not be rolled back, although all illegal worker takeovers of means of production will be cancelled and the illegally-taken-over factories, machines, and land will be returned to private entrepreneurs. Also, foreign corporations will be asked first for assistance and soon will be asked to invest and resume involvement in previously nationalized sectors. 

Excélsior also reports that the Junta has announced the formation of a Man of Public Relations composed of leading businessmen to travel internationally to explain the coup, discuss the reentry of foreign capital, and to improve Chile's new image. Already, according to the recent Junta announcements carried by the major wire services, the reported book burnings and cleaning of bookstores was carried out by overzealous persons and that at any rate the military was not against ideas and did not think that the burning of books would kill ideas. The Junta's only intention was to rid the country of alien ideas. 

The most recent information available is that despite disclaimers by the Junta, the cleaning of bookstores and the burning of books continues. The French Press Agency reports that the house of poet Pablo Neruda was vandalized by soldiers who conducted an exhaustive search, tored open beds, and burned posters, magazines, and books. 

The US government confirmed that it had granted diplomatic recognition to the Junta and the Junta declared what it called internal war, firing the mayors of all large villages and cities, the governors of all the provinces, and the presidents of the universities, replacing them with military personnel, and announced a review of all university faculty appointments. That from the Asian Information Service's compilation of wire service reports from Latin America. 

The following summary of Perón's triumph in Argentina is compiled from Excélsior. Juan Perón regained the presidency of Argentina on Sunday after an absence of 18 years. The 77-year-old Perón received almost 62% of the vote in a landslide victory. His wife Isabel was elected vice president. Perón's victory statement, according to the Associated Press, read, "I cannot say anything because the people have done it all. Now is the time for me to speak, but the time for me to act." Perón stated that he might soon make realistic changes in Argentina's economy, but the first order of business is political. After the political situation is settled, the economy will arrange itself. 

The closest runner-up in the election, Ricardo Balbín of the Radical Civic Union, received 24% of the vote. The member of the Popular Federalist Alliance, a center-right coalition, got 12% of the vote, while the Socialist Worker Party received less than 2%. 

When Perón is inaugurated October 12, he will regain the office that he lost to a military Junta in 1955. Perón came to power as part of the military coup in 1943 and was elected president of Argentina in 1946. Under his administration, workers and trade unions prospered. Workers received substantial wage increases and gained more benefits, such as paid vacations. 

The present Peronist movement is an amorphous coalition of conservatives, including the old-line trade unionists and bureaucrats, and leftists, particularly the leftist Peronist youth. This is an uneasy coalition at best, so it is no surprise that signs of a split between the two groups is already apparent. A violent confrontation occurred between the two factions in June, when Perón returned to Argentina from Spain. Shooting broke out between the Peronist youth and right-wing trade unionists, killing 20 people and causing the huge airport reception for Perón to be cancelled. 

The choice of Perón's third wife, Isabel, as the vice presidential candidate was designed to avoid factional strife, sure to result if one of the other two factions was represented in the choice of the vice presidential candidate. 

This from Excélsior of Mexico City.

A series of what might be construed as political assassinations have followed in the wake of Juan Perón's ascension to the presidency of Argentina. According to reports in Mexico City's daily Excélsior, José Rucci, the leader of the General Worker's Confederation, was gunned down on September 25, in front of his home. Scarcely 24 hours later, the leader of the Perón's Youth Movement, Enrique Grinberg was the victim of four armed assassins. 

Excélsior quotes a communication from Grinberg's organization as saying that the death was the work of a right-wing group, trying to impede the events of the people on the road to liberation. The communication underlying the fact that Grinberg's only crime was being connected with Peronism.