Annotations for Countries: Bolivia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What kind of factory was it?

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

What were the working conditions there and wages?

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

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

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

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

You were arrested last December?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

The series of revelations about illegal actions on the part of political and governmental officials in the United States, known as the Watergate affair, has received wide coverage in the Latin American press. Rio de Janeiro's Jornal do Brasil, for example, devotes a full page to it daily. The editorial comment has also been extensive. Today, we will review some of this commentary on Watergate, and also describe how the scandal is having political consequences in one Latin American country, namely Costa Rica.

President Nixon has never been a popular figure in Latin America and the Latin press has shown little sympathy for his plight because of Watergate. Most papers clearly doubt that Nixon knew nothing of the break-in plans or the coverup. Rio de Janeiro's Opinião, for example, asks if Nixon can honestly maintain himself as President. The Weekly sees Nixon retreating from one strategic position to another in his statements as new facts emerge. Opinião concludes by wondering if Nixon's defenses will be strong enough to resist whatever facts are revealed next. 

La Prensa of Lima also sees Watergate as Nixon's Waterloo. If Nixon is getting a bad press in Latin America, the same cannot be said for American institutions. The Congress, courts, and especially the American press, has received wide praise in Latin America for pursuing the investigation. As La Prensa of Lima notes, "This may be Nixon's Waterloo, but nobody is talking about a Waterloo of democracy. It is precisely thanks to democracy," La Prensa continues, "That the secret sins have been unveiled." The Lima daily then concludes that only through a free press and enlightened public opinion can a democracy remain healthy and this is the most positive sign of Watergate.

Siempre! Of Mexico City says one of the characteristics of a representative democracy is that the authorities are not immune to punishment for crimes which they commit in the performance of their duties. Siempre! sees Watergate as proof that American institutions function well. Opinião of Rio de Janeiro also sees the scandal as a sign of the strength of American institutions. However, some of the revelations which have come from the Senate investigations have infuriated Latin Americans. This is especially true in Mexico since the congressional hearings have revealed that the Central Intelligence Agency has been operating there. 

Excélsior of Mexico City notes that the White House asked the FBI not to investigate certain aspects of the transfer of campaign contributions from Mexico because it would lead to disclosures of clandestine operations of the CIA. Excélsior thinks that fact deserves Mexico's protest and immediate change in United States policy, which flagrantly violates the principle of nonintervention. Excélsior continues the participation of the CIA in the internal affairs of Chile, the sending of Green Berets to Bolivia to combat Che Guevara, the aggression against the Dominican Republic, the case of the Bay of Pigs invasion, the invasion of Guatemala in 1954 to overthrow the Arbenz regime, are only some of the precedents of the intervention of Watergate in the affairs of Latin America.

Excélsior continues by noting that the CIA, a White House spokesman, and President Nixon himself have denied any connection of the CIA with Watergate in Mexico, but all have implicitly admitted that the CIA previously carried out operations there. Excélsior concludes that the Mexican government may not make a formal protest because of the friendship which unites the United States to Mexico. However, it will be necessary to employ firmness to demand that Mexico's political sovereignty is no longer violated by the CIA. While secret CIA activities are highlighted in the Mexican press, a different sort of problem faces the government of Costa Rica, which has been splashed with some of the mud of the Watergate scandal. 

Latin America reports that several days ago serious charges were leveled at the President of Costa Rica, Jose Figueres, claiming that $325,000 had been deposited in his New York Bank account through a Vesco-linked company. Vesco, a wealthy Wall Street financier, has recently been indicted of embezzlement and has been linked to the Watergate scandal. The Costa Rican President vigorously denied the allegations and defended Vesco's conduct saying that in Costa Rica, if nowhere else, it had been honest. As in so many other areas of the Watergate scandal, a great deal of questions concerning the high level involvement remained to be answered, this from the British News Weekly Latin America. 

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. 

This week's feature concerns the military dictatorship in Brazil. The following interview with Brazilian exile, Jean Marc von der Weid was made while he was on a national speaking tour sponsored by the Washington-based Committee Against Repression in Brazil. Von der Weid was a student leader in Rio when he was imprisoned and tortured in 1969. He was subsequently released from prison in 1971 along with 69 fellow prisoners in exchange for the kidnapped Swiss ambassador to Brazil. We asked Jean Marc von der Weid about his involvement in the student movement in Brazil.

Well, I was president of the National Union of the Brazilian Students, and I was elected in 1968 in an underground congress. The student movement was strongly opposed to the Brazilian dictatorship that came to power in 1964 by the overthrow of the constitutional government of João Goulart. The National Union was banned, was out-ruled in 1965, and it went underground, but it had a normal support the support of the overwhelming majority of the university students in Brazil, and I was elected with the participation of 200,000 students. 

The university students in Brazil were fighting for some specific goals, at the beginning against the repression on university, and again, the banishment—the decree that closed the National Union of Brazilian Students and fighting for the right of a free association. And also, they began to fight against the whole system of dictatorship and oppression, not only on students, but also on all the Brazilian society. So, we criticized the repression on the working class and the trade unions and on the peasant leagues and all the imprisonments and everything. 

And also, we had a specific problem in terms of the university that was the military government proposed university reform based on a US aid program that should transform the public university in Brazil in a private foundation. And already, two American foundations were proposing to invest on that. Those foundations were the Rockefeller and the Ford Foundation. And so we strongly opposed to that and for two reasons. One is that in general, the middle class student has not the money to pay for the university so lots of us would have to quit.

And another point that we didn't want the American foundations, that means foreign foreign enterprises, to control the universities in Brazil. We thought this would be against the national interest of the Brazilian people. And so we fought against this reform in a very successful way. In a way, until today, they could not, let's say, completely impose it.

And finally, in general, in a very general analysis, we knew that our specific problem in terms of university reform or freedom of association at university was closely linked with the problems of the Brazilian society in general. So, we were fighting for the liberation of the Brazilian people from foreign domination. So, we saw that, for example, that if it was necessary for the American money to dominate the Brazilian university, that exist because they dominated already the Brazilian industry so they needed to adapt the university to their needs on the industry. 

So, we began a very strong anti-imperialistic campaign in Brazil. And this campaign, one of the big points of it was the 1969 demonstrations against the visit of Governor Rockefeller to Brazil. And this was one of the charges on my trial in 1970.

Could you describe your imprisonment and torture and then later release? 

Well, in 1969, the end of '68 and during 1969, well, I was already—how do you say this in English?—being searched by the Brazilian political police because of my role as student leader. And they took 24 hours to identify me as a student leader, as the person they were searching. And when they did so, they transported me to the Island of Flowers. That was the Marine battalion headquarters where the Navy information service worked. 

And then I was submitted to a continuous torture during four days and four nights. And this torture consisted on electric shocks, beatings on the kidneys, well, almost—on the whole body, on the head, very strongly on the head in the kind of torture they call telephone. And also, I was all the time suspended by hands and feet from a rope and then spanked and received electric shocks in that position. There were also some other things like drowning or a false firing squad. 

Well, then I spent almost one year and a half in prison in the Island of Flowers and then in the air force base of Rio, and in very bad conditions. We were threatened several times to be shot, those they considered irrecuperable? Yeah. 

And I was released in January '71 in exchange of the release of the kidnapped Swiss ambassador who was kidnapped by a revolutionary organization in Rio. And then I was sent to Santiago with 69 other political prisoners. 

And what's been your activity since then? 

Well, I have been traveling around in North America, mainly in Canada, and Europe and also Santiago, Chile, to denounce the violations of human rights and the crimes of the Brazilian dictatorship and to develop a consciousness, an awareness on the international public opinion to that and to develop pressure on the Brazilian dictatorship, at least to limit the level of violence they're using today. 

Who supports the military? 

Well, the support of the Brazilian dictatorship is a very narrow one. They just have the military forces, and even the military forces are divided in different factious groups. And they have the support of a very small strata of the Brazilian upper class, perhaps 5% of the Brazilian population. And these people are those who are profiting from the exploitation of the 95 million Brazilians who are suffering this economic miracle. And these are, let's say, the Brazilian supporters of the military dictatorship. 

But the main supporters of the military dictatorship or the foreign powers, like the United States and other investors in Brazil, like Germany, Japan, Switzerland, France, Italy, Belgium, Holland, Sweden, England. All them—Canada, are big investors in Brazil. And the US are the most important investors. The American money controls, let's say it's 55% of the whole foreign investment. And they control 75% of the capital goods production and the durable goods production and 52% of the non-durable goods. So, our economy is completely controlled by foreign investment and mainly US investment. 

To guarantee these investments, the American policy in Brazil is to support the military dictatorship with the Military Assistance Act and with the public safety program of the US aid. And that even a direct, let's say, diplomatic support for the General Médici, who is the current dictator. So, it's very clear that the American strategy for Brazil is to make Brazil the privileged satellite of the United States in economic, political, and military terms.

And the Brazilian army is being prepared, as the Brazilian generals say themselves, to face the internal and external war at the same time, if necessary. That means to oppress the Brazilian people and people from other nations in the continent. So, there's a kind of Vietnamization of Latin America, if we can say so. The Brazilian armed forces are being prepared to fight for the American interest in the whole Latin America. And this can provoke in this next 10 years, let's say, a general conflict and a general struggle in Latin America.

Can you give some incidents of how Brazil has played this gendarme role in Latin America? 

Yeah, there are two good examples. One is Bolivia. Brazil has prepared the Colonel Banzer's coup d'état of 1971 since the '70s, since the General Torres came to power in 1970. And in the first attempt of the coup d'état that failed, the one that failed at the beginning of '71, a Brazilian brigade invaded the border of Bolivia and had to come back when the coup failed. Then, they prepared it better and giving weaponry and money and a kind of base, let's say, a Rio guard base to the reactionary rebels of Colonel Banzer. And so Banzer's government is a satellite from Brazil right now, and the Brazilian troops has received order to invade and occupy Santa Cruz if the coup d'état not work in La Paz. 

That was an interview with Brazilian exile Jean Marc von der Weid. You have been listening to Latin American Press Review, a weekly selection and analysis of important events and issues in Latin America, as seen by leading world newspapers, with special emphasis on the Latin American press. 

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. 

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. 

Dictatorship in Bolivia may possibly be diminishing, reports Latin America. So-called President Hugo Banzer caught observers by surprise last weekend by announcing that the process of returning Bolivia to constitutional rule would begin next year. He said the concrete measures required to implement this proposal would be announced during the coming months, and that in the meantime, he would appoint a commission to study modifications to the country's electoral law. Such modifications would ensure that the law would be appropriate to the present time and to the interests of the nation. 

Politicians were cheered by the announcement and seemed to have taken Banzer's somewhat vague timetable for elections to mean that they would be held next year. In fact, sources close to Banzer believe he has area intention of staying where he is for the next three years or so in order to consolidate what he regards as his particular achievements. 

This week's feature deals with recent events in Chile. A recent Associated Press article summed up the Chilean situation, reporting on the resignation of several ministers as part of a political shift taking place. President Salvador Allende is moving towards less military participation in his government after revolt and attempt attempted coup by several low ranking rightist officers. About 100 members of the second armed regiment assaulted the defense ministry and presidential palace with tanks and automatic weapons. The gunfire killed 22 and wounded 34 other people, mostly civilians.

Although the revolt was easily squelched with the aid of the higher ranking military who feel a commitment to defend the Constitution, Allende decided to form a new cabinet without the participation of the armed forces. Much of the political tension leading up to this crisis arose from the controversial strike of the copper miners at Chile's biggest mine.

The strike lasted 76 days and cost Chile an estimated $60 million in lost production. Strike related violence also cost two lives and resulted in injuries to more than 100 persons. There was a great deal of controversy over the way the Allende regime professing a socialist ideology should handle disputes with their constituency, the workers. Related to this was debate over the validity of the miner's claims. While critics such as Hugo Blanco, well known South American revolutionary writing for Intercontinental Press Service, supported the minor's claims, others have been severely critical of what they term "elitist demands".

In a recent interview, David Barkin of the City College of New York questioned fellow economist Andrew Zimbalist. Zimbalist recently returned from Chile where he had been working with a government planning agency, effectively points out some of the difficulties and sides with the government. Subsequent to this interview, the minors did in fact accept a government settlement and have returned to work. However, the Chilean economy has been severely damaged. In the following interview, Zimbalist and Barkan examined the reasons for the strike as well as its political implications. This interview comes to us from Chilean newsletter produced by the What's Happening in Chile Group in New York City. 

We've been reading a lot in the New York Times about the Chilean labor problems and especially the strike at El Teniente copper mine, one of the largest copper mines in the world. Most especially, we've read about a lot of violence and the fact that copper exports from Chile have been stopped because of these events. Could you comment on the coverage of those events by the New York Times and tell us a little more about what's happening? 

Sure. True to form, the New York Times has succeed in completely distorting the events at this of the copper Strike. The two articles that I read this past week on the strike failed to mention what seems to me to be the most fundamental aspects. One, that it is a strike instigated by the right. Two, that the demands that the right are raising are completely illegitimate, which is to say that they're asking for that the workers of El Teniente receive a 150% readjustment for the rate of inflation when all the other workers in the country are receiving 100%.

And this would be to make the most privileged sector of workers in Chile, even more privileged. The government has, and is one of the first governments to do this in Chile, guaranteed a 100% to everybody, so nobody is hurt by inflation. The right has taken advantage of this and is trying to claim that the workers at El Teniente should get 150%, an outrageous demand not justifiable on any terms. The New York Times article did not mention this.

The other thing, and perhaps even more egregious, that the New York Times article did not mention is that today only 20% of the workers at El Teniente are on strike. 80% are working. And the workers that are on strike are workers that are in the opposition to the government, they're administrative workers, they're white collar workers, and they're not the blue collar workers. Even though the New York Times article says that this is creating a conflict between the government and the blue collar workers of the country. 

The fact that it's the white collar workers that are on strike, that makes the current episode very strikingly similar to the episode last October when the truck drivers were on strike and the New York Press or the United States Press in general made it seem like it was a workers strike, when in fact it was owners of the trucks which initiated the strike, which was taking place in Chile. Is the parallel correct in looking at the current event in light of what happened last October, and can you tell us a little about why the right has chosen the copper mines as the object of their strike? 

The parallel is the following that the right in October for 30 days orchestrated a general strike. The strike was a failure because it didn't have worker support. 99% of the white and blue collar workers in the country were working. The right this time around, more determined than ever, has decided that the only way they're going to get a general strike to work is to divide the working class, and they're trying to do that by using those sectors of the white collar workers where they have some support to support a political strike, and this is what they're doing.

They've tried to do that at El Teniente and they succeeded to some extent. They tried to do it at Chuquicamata, which is the other large copper mine in the north and other copper mines. In fact, labor leaders of El Teniente traveled several hundred miles to these other mines to try to instigate these strikes. They failed. They're also trying, of course, to do it in other industrial sectors, but to date have also failed. Now the second part of your question was related to—

Why they've chosen the mines themselves as the object? 

Yeah, the other part of their strategy having a general strike is to affect the sector of the economy that is most vital to the economy. Copper accounts for 80% of the export earnings of Chile, or 80% of the dollars that Chile earns comes from copper. And El Teniente incidentally produces something of 50% of the copper in the country, a little bit less perhaps.

Now, Chile doesn't have the dollars to import the raw materials and the imports they need for production, and they need a lot of them because their industry has to date or up until the end, they've been based upon foreign capital and foreign technology and to service that technology, they need inputs that aren't producing the country. So if they don't have the dollars to buy those input and if they don't have the dollars to buy the food that's necessary to feed the population and other items, then the economy approaches chaos, and this is what the right is trying to do.

They're trying to create the situation of chaos to justify a military intervention which would supersede Allende. Now, there's no indication at the present that the military is disposed to do this, but the right goes ahead with the strategy of creating more and more chaos. This general strike has cost Chile some 30 million in dollars, in foreign exchange earnings. If the strike continues, it will cost them more if they generate sympathy strikes in other parts of the country amongst the white collar workers who are already in the opposition, and I should point out that somewhat around 20% of the workers in Chile are in the opposition to the government, and these workers almost universally turn out to be white collar workers, and the blue collar workers in almost a %100 of them are supporting the government. 

So if the right does succeed in dividing the workers, some of the white collars from the mass of the workers, and continues to generate the sabotage, then they are hoping that the situation will call for a military intervention saying that the situation is unsalvageable in any other way. And this would of course usurp Allende's powers.

These sorts of economic problems which are being generated by a small segment of the labor force must be having repercussions throughout the rest of the country. Could you comment on that a little? 

Well, as I say, they've tried, they've gone to the other mines, they've gone to other industries. They're generating other sorts of economic chaos from the black market, controlling distribution mechanisms. In fact, at El Teniente, as a means of sabotage, they've blockaded the road to the mines for the workers. The 80% that want to work have been blockaded. They've been terrorized. They've in fact blown up several factories—a factory in Concepcion that was completely destroyed.

They've intercepted distribution of industrial inputs. They intercepted, for example, during the strike of October, which was the planting season in Chile. They intercepted the distribution of seed and fertilizers, which lowered the agricultural production this year, and of course, food is a basic item, and there's no better way to make people revolt against the government than to starve them. Now, they haven't succeeded fortunately in doing that, but the strategy is to raise the level of the sabotage and raise the level of the disturbance so that there would be no other alternative but to have a military intervention.

When you talk about this industrial sabotage and problems of the white collar workers, you're talking about a very special echelon of the labor force. What about the other groups, the large members of blue collar workers, the rest of the labor force, which is in fact trying to fight this? We read about conflicts between the workers and we read even about workers being killed. Could you comment about that in the light of this? 

Well, the only thing to say is that the great majority, the great great majority, and it has to be over 95% of the blue collar workers are supporting the government. Several months ago, there was a march in favor of the government and from the headquarters of the Christian Democratic Party, which is an opposition party, came some shots and killed a blue collar worker. Methods of terrorism. They'll resort to anything to try to divide workers, to scare workers. And I would say that it's going to be very hard for them to divide the blue collar workers, very hard for them to take them away from supporting the government. 

This must be causing substantial sacrifices then, for the blue collar workers. I mean it's substantial problem for them, specifically if they're being prevented from going to their work at the mines, for example. 

At El Teniente there are serious problems. On the whole, everybody's experiencing more problems than Chile, but we can say without hesitation that the blue collar workers today in Chile are eating much, much better. They're consuming 20% more. They have better housing, they have better facilities, better plumbing, electricity where they haven't had it before. In the factories they have medical centers, in the factories they have dental centers, in the factories they have libraries, they have cultural groups. In short, they have everything. They have a lot of things that they never had before and are very satisfied. 

Nevertheless, the present crisis does add up to a great many political problems for the Allende government. To what extent is there any external participation in this current political crisis, this Chilean play of power, and is the United States involved in any way in this internal power play? 

Yeah, it's very hard to see the CIA. There is indirect evidence that they're doing something. For instance, during the general strike of October, curiously, a very large amount of dollars entered the country that wasn't accounted for either by increasing exports or by loans or whatever. And one noticed this because the exchange rate for the dollar or the dollar in relationship to the escudo became much less valuable, and that only happens through the situation of supply and demand when you have more dollars.

And it was very clear then that the United States or somebody, some conduit was funneling dollars to support the strike, to support the truckers in October, the same thing is happening now. There are sorts then of this indirect evidence, but we know more directly that in Bolivia there are Brazilian and Bolivian troops mounting on the Chilean border, at which point or if they'll ever intervene. If they'll ever invade Chile, we don't know, but they're preparing to do that. We don't know if they would initiate a conflict or jump in once a conflict had been started.

One last short question, and that is these international and in internal political events which are occurring in Chile leave most of us in America in a quandary. How do we get the sort of information or how can we reinterpret the sort of information that is available in such a way that would permit us to understand better what's happening in Chile? Are there any sources of news outside the United States which might be available here? For example, the European Press. Is the European press reporting it differently and better? 

Well, I'm living in Chile. I'm not all that familiar with the European Press. There are papers like Le Monde, which are in French, that report better, of course. But I can say that in New York City, there's The Guardian. And there's very good coverage in The Guardian. There's good coverage in The Nation. I understand, of course, that's not a daily paper. I would say for weekly reports on Chile, The Guardian is fine. 

Thank you very much. We've been speaking with Andrew Zimbalist, who is in from Chile, where he's been working on problems of economic development in the present government of Salvador Allende. 

Political analysts were surprised when Bolivia's President Banzer announced that his country would return a constitutional rule in 1974 and hold free elections. Panorama of Buenos Aires, Argentina interpreted the announcement from two sides. According to the government, the call for elections was spontaneous and did not arise from political pressures. However, the opposition seized the action as a mere opportunist attempt to prevent a coup by younger members of the bureaucracy.

If this last hypothesis is accepted, Banzer's announcement reflects the growing weakness of his government. Everything indicates that the government, which took over after the feat of the Nationalist General Torres, has not been able to stabilize itself. This was a result of the resistance created by the repressive policies, which bonds are instituted as soon as he announced himself President.

Panorama says, "The regime was threatened in October of last year when the government approved a monetary devaluation of 66% causing a severe fall in wages and salaries." Because of this devaluation, the opposition struggle was joined by some middle class sectors, those which during the previous regime had been pushed to the right. Ever since the beginning of the year, the younger members of the bureaucracy have objected to the repressive methods of the generals and colonels that were running the country. When an army official caught in what was apparently an upper echelon power struggle was killed by agents, in the course of interrogation, the government's position became even more vulnerable. 

The elections concludes Panorama will be difficult to monitor, and enormous frauds will be possible because of the large distances and the lack of communication between election districts. Nevertheless, one concrete gain has been made. The opposition has forced Banzer to free a great many political prisoners and allow many exiles to return. This from Panorama, in Buenos Aires. 

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. 

On July 26th of this year, Cuba celebrates the 20th anniversary of the attack on the Moncada army barracks. This insurrection led by a young lawyer named Fidel Castro was by any military standards a failure. More than half of the 167 attackers were killed during the attack or as a result of the tortures to which they were later submitted. Almost all the survivors, including the leaders, went into prison and when released into exile. 

It was from their exile in Mexico that some of them returned three years later to begin the guerrilla actions in the mountains of Cuba's easternmost province. A guerrilla campaign in which small victories alternated with severe setbacks until popular support increased. The fronts multiplied and the tide of victory mounted. On New Year's Day 1959, Batista's hated regime was replaced by revolutionary government. 

During its brief 14 years of power, that revolutionary government has transformed the face of Cuba and has transformed the Cuban people as well. One of the major goals of the Cuban Revolution has been to incorporate all its citizens into active participation in national life. Development of rural areas has been encouraged in preference to urban centers as a means of eliminating the marginalization of the peasant sector of the population. 

Another front in the battle to break down the distinction between city and countryside has been the policy of bringing the cultural advantages of the city to the rural peasantry. The first campaign of this nature continues to be the most famous. The literacy campaign of 1961 reduced illiteracy from 27% to 2% in the space of one year. In Cuba, universal literacy was seen as a prerequisite for revolutionary change because it set the stage for the spread of revolutionary culture throughout the entire country. 

Any appraisal of revolutionary culture in Cuba should look at three areas of artistic production. First, the performing arts, music, dance, theater, and especially film. Second, the plastic arts, poster, design, painting, sculpture, and architecture. The third category that of literary production is too vast to be included in this brief survey. 

It should be noted however that there has been a virtual explosion in Cuban letters since the revolution, in the novel and short story, poetry, essay and creative nonfiction, as well as in the publication of many influential periodicals. In fact, the literary coming of age apparent throughout Latin America is attributed by many literary critics to the inspiration and example of the Cuban Revolution. 

Even during colonial times, the island of Cuba was famous for its music, for its seductive blend of African and European rhythms. For the style and verb of its tropical dancers, alongside this showy strain, which to some extent came to be associated with the vice and exploitation that flourished when Cuba was the brothel of the Caribbean.

There also existed a more intimate folk song tradition derived from the Spanish than the African. It was these popular folk musicians, for example, who set Jose Martí verses to a traditional melody, thus creating the well-known "Guantanamera". Both the Afro-Cuban rhythms and the simpler folk melodies still coexist in revolutionary Cuba, but it's primarily the latter that has been recruited into the service of the revolution.

Carlos Puebla, Cuba's best known songwriter, composes songs celebrating the lack of discrimination in the revolutionary society, satirizing the organization of American states, which expelled Cuba from its membership, urging the Cubans to cut that cane and eulogizing Che Guevara. Cuba has organized festivals of popular and protest music enabling musicians and singers from all over Latin America to share their music and learn from one another. 

The island famous for the Rumba and the Mamba also boasts one of the world's leading ballerinas, Alicia Alonso. Now almost completely blind, she continues her dancing and continues to direct Cuba's ballet troop as they perform in Cuba and countries around the world. 

Cuban theatrical companies are semi-autonomous collectives of varying styles and aims all operating out of the National Cultural Council. Like the other art forms in Cuba, the theater remains very open to influences from abroad in content as well as technique, but they managed to impart a particularly Cuban flavor to everything they produce. Cuba has produced several excellent playwrights since the revolution, but the playbills boast names of plays all over the modern world, including the US. 

Some companies have their home base in rural areas on the theory that the troops should interact with the segments of the population least contaminated or deformed by capitalist culture. All theatrical performers spend two years performing in the countryside in lieu of military service, and most companies make annual tours to the rural areas. 

It is, however, the Cuban film industry, which is generally credited with having developed the greatest revolutionary art form. The Cubans believe that of all the 20th century art forms, cinema is the most significant with the greatest revolutionary potential. Within that medium, the revolution is striving to develop its own forms and cultural values to free itself from the techniques and values which commercial interests have placed on film. 

Film in Cuba, before the revolution, has a long and not so exciting history. In the early part of the century, when the film industry was in the infancy, Cuban entrepreneurs imported films from France and Italy, but with the advent of the talkies, US influence began. The attempts of early Cuban filmmakers to develop a national cinema drawing from Cuban history and folklore were overpowered by the efforts of those interested in films for quick exploitation and profit. 

From 1930 until the Triumph of the Revolution in 1959, the Cuban film industry mimicked US models incorporating Cuban music and dance into the thin and melodramatic plots of musicals and detective stories. Because of the setup of international film production and distribution chains, Cuba had no access to an international audience except through co-production with Mexico or some other country. 

Domestic audiences preferred films from the US or Mexico, anyway. So on the eve of the revolution, the Cuban film industry was primarily dedicated to the production of commercial advertising shorts, technical and scientific films, and newsreels for domestic consumption. 

In the course of the guerrilla struggle against the dictatorship, a few newsreels and documentaries were made by revolutionaries in the Sierra and the Urban Underground. Though of rudimentary film quality, these films were a concrete step in the process of converting a traditional tool of the dominating classes into a tool for the defeat of those classes. One of those bearded filmmakers in fatigues was Alfredo Guevara. Fidel called on him shortly after the triumph of the revolution to draft a law founding the Cuban Film Institute. 

In March of 1959, only two months after the revolutionaries came to power, the first law in the field of culture was proclaimed. It founded the ICAIC, Cuban Institute of Film, Art and Industry. In effect, the Institute is sort of a ministry of film with Alfredo Guevara as its head. It oversees all aspects of the Cuban film industry, the training of film students, the production of newsreels, documentaries, and features, the supervision of Cuban theaters, the import and export of films. 

Cuba has some 500 movie theaters, but 25% of them are concentrated in Havana. In deciding upon its economic priorities, the Cuban Film Institute has invariably sacrificed sophisticated equipment which would improve the technical quality of their films in favor of what they see as more necessary expenditures. 

The first priority was consistently been securing the necessary equipment and operators to expose the widest possible audience to the experience of film. Cuban now has over 100 mobile theaters, redesigned trucks equipped with 16 millimeter projectors, and driven by a single projectionist who wanders through the remote Cuban countryside, giving free film showings on the spot. 

These shows invariably consist of a newsreel, a feature, and one or more documentaries. One of the most engaging Cuban documentaries called "Por Primera Vez", For the First Time, simply records the joyful response of a peasant audience as they view a moving picture for the first time. 

Despite several technical and financial limitations, Cuban documentaries span a wide geographical and cultural range. The most famous of the Cuban documentary filmmakers, Santiago Alvarez, uses montages of still photographs, pen and ink drawings and cartoons to compose brilliant film essays on the Indochina War, events in the US, and the Third World, as well as Cuban topics. 

It was not until 1968 that Cuban feature film production really began to flourish. That year saw the release of two of the finest Cuban feature films to date. "Memories of Underdevelopment" views the revolution through the eyes of an intellectual of upper middle class background whose family and friends have fled to Miami. 

The film and the novel on which it is based both confront the problems of creating a revolutionary consciousness in a culture long convinced of its own inferiority and imitative of the dominating culture imported from the US. "Lucia", another award-winning Cuban feature looks at three revolutionary periods in Cuban's history through the lives of three Cuban women. 

The current rate of feature film production in Cuba indicates a new period of growth. The success of one particular film, "The Adventures of Juan Quin Quin", may spark a trend towards more humorous films, which explore revolutionary themes in a lighthearted vein. Others forecast a greater use of third world solidarity themes and a new look at contemporary revolutionary conflicts. 

Painting sculpture as traditional plastic arts have undergone relatively little change in Cuba since the revolution. Architecture and poster design, on the other hand, have changed significantly for economic as well as ideological and social reasons. In architecture, as in the other arts in Cuba, there has been a continuing dialogue as to the responsibility of the architect in answering and shaping the needs of the new revolutionary society. The fact of socialism in the country, de-emphasizes large private houses in favor of community centers, apartment complexes, group recreational facilities, schools, and the like. 

Entire community complexes called micro cities, which include necessary public services and recreational facilities are springing up in the countryside further, helping to break down the distinction between urban and rural areas. Like other less substantial art forms, revolutionary Cuban architecture too is compelled to innovate because of the shortage of building materials produced by the US sponsored blockade. The blockade doesn't succeed however, in keeping out inspiration from various sources around the world. 

In the field of the plastic arts, it is the work of the graphic artists that has received the greatest acclaim. Before the revolution, poster art like the film, was virtually non-existent in Cuba. It has now come to be along with the film, one of the two primary revolutionary art forms. With a demise of the profit system in Cuba, advertising as it has been known, becomes instantly obsolete. But instead of disappearing, billboards and wall posters began to multiply. Instead of exhorting consumers and sparking private appetites, Cuban poster art concentrates on building shared ideals, sympathies and responsibilities. 

The posters testified to Cuba's current struggle to claim her place in history among the self-determining nations of the world. They commemorate Che's death in Bolivia, urge solidarity with the struggle of the peoples of Indochina, encourage Cubans to get polio vaccinations and join volunteer work brigades, announce films and other cultural events, and spark public debate on such issues as whether or not to raise the price of rum and cigarettes.

The Cuban artists are not purists. They borrow images from everywhere, never hesitating to expropriate, the most recent produce of Bourgeois culture, if it can be turned to meet their needs. For a government attempting to revolutionize the consciousness of its people to fundamentally alter human nature and create a new man, all of society is transformed into a school, and posters are an important method of public education.

As even this brief summary indicates Cuba possesses a rich national culture, diverse, and developing. The economic and ideological blockade against Cuba has had no visible success in stunting Cuba's cultural growth. In fact, in cultural terms, the principle result of the US blockage has been the cultural impoverishment of the American public. US citizens who are interested in contemporary Cuban literature find that Cuban books are only available here after the lengthy process of being reprinted in Spain or another Latin American country. Cuba's world renowned ballet troop will never dance before North American audiences as long as the blockade continues to stand. 

Film goers find it impossible to see Cuban films of international acclaim and the few films which managed to enter this country are subject to mysterious disappearance or illegal confiscation. More important still, as long as the blockade continues, there can never be any sustained and open exchange between culture workers from Cuba and the United States; painters, graphic artists, architects, poets and novelists, teachers, critics, songwriters, and popular musicians, all those people whose work and existence helps build national and international culture. 

Chile Hoy reports from Brazil that the left could take power in most any country in Latin America, but if this happens, what measures would the Brazilian military adopt? they ask. This question, phrased in 1969 by high level officers of the Advanced War School in Brazil, was answered by the highest echelons of the armed forces in a recently released classified document entitled Plan Alpha, in the following manner. If the left took power in Latin America, Uruguay and Chile being the most likely places, the Brazilian armed forces would adopt the following measures. First, they would strengthen and perfect the internal security of Brazil, and secondly, they would transform into strategic areas for Brazil through possible military interventions, various countries and regions, including all of the Uruguayan territory, parts of Brazilian territory, the Guyanas and Paraguay.

The Brazilian military Plan Alpha is not a mere project on paper, as many believed when it was revealed after being smuggled out of secret army files. Ever since the leftist Popular Unity government took power in Chile, the plan appears to be implemented in accelerated form. First, there were expanded arms purchases. Brazil spent $270 million on defense in 1971 and projected spending 800 million in '73, having recently concluded with the Nixon administration in the US, the largest arms deal in Latin American history.

In addition, they have rigorously followed part two of the plan. The aggressive presence of the Brazilian military in Uruguay and Bolivia coincides with the political and economic changes in those countries. Also in Paraguay, the Brazilian regime owns enormous quantities of land along the borders.

Chile Hoy continues that after the Bolivian coup overthrew the moderate liberal Juan Torres, Brazil immediately sent $54 million of credit to the new military regime as well as selling arms to the Bolivian army. A new highway is being constructed through Bolivia to northern Chile and will provide easy access for arms and troops. Before, Bolivia was a landlocked buffer state between the two countries, now it is practically an appendage to Brazil. In another instance, the Brazilian military has a well-known contingency plan known as "Operation 30 hours" to move into Uruguay if opposition to the recent military takeover there becomes too strong. This from the Santiago Weekly, Chile Hoy. 

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.

Meanwhile, in Caracas at the 10th Annual Conference of the Inter-American Army, Peru accused the United States of accusing Latin American armed forces to serve its own purposes. At the same conference, the Brazilian representation represented the opposite thesis regarding the position to modify the Reciprocal Support Treaty. They stated that, "Our enemy continues to be the international communist movement." This proclamation by the Brazilian generals was interpreted by observers to be a denunciation of the Peruvian project. 

Also, meeting in Caracas was the Confederation of Latin American Workers who claimed militarism is in the service of exploitation. They cited the military governments of Brazil, Bolivia, Uruguay, Nicaragua as examples. The workers stated that militarism in Latin America has institutionalized dependence and alienation. That report from Excélsior. 

Our feature today is an interview with Ms. Elizabeth Burgos, who spent most of last year in Chile working on a book with her husband, Régis Debray. Ms. Burgos, originally from Venezuela, has spent many years studying Latin American politics and has visited Chile several times. Our subject today is the coup in Chile and its effects. Tell us, Ms. Burgos, we've heard a great deal about what's happening in Chile. We've heard many conflicting stories.

There have been a lot of reports of a lot of brutality, repression, mass arrests and executions, while the military junta in Chile has been telling us that things are relatively stable and that there's really not a great deal to worry about. Based on your experiences in Latin America and your experiences in Chile and your knowledge of contacts and informational sources, what do you think the situation is in Chile?

The situation in Chile is that the repression is going on. Maybe they don't kill people like in the first day of the coup, but they do still kill people, and it's very—Witness say that in the morning, it's very usual to find bodies of people killed in the street very early in the morning. They use the coup to do this work, the junta. And the repression is going on. In the stadium, for instance, there are 8,000 prisoners in very bad conditions. And there are two islands where they have concentration camps.

So the repression is going on in Chile. It's not finished. The life in Chile is completely changed after the coup. Chile was the most liberal country in Latin America, and now you have a country where the schools and the universities are leading by military, directors and people who direct the schools and university have been fine.

There is no possibility to have library. People who were known that having good library, those books have been burned. The bookshops, books from bookshops have been burned too. So it is not only a repression against people, but it's a repression against culture and minds. The junta ask people to—They give money to people, they pay them in order to inform about people who had sympathy with Allende's government. And by this way, they arrest every day more and more people without any proof, only because if a neighbor wants to denounce to say that you were involved with Allende's government, only having sympathy is enough for them to arrest people. 

One thing we've heard particularly a lot about is the question of foreign political exiles in Chile. We were told that there were a lot of people who had escaped repression from military governments, particularly those in Uruguay and in Bolivia and Brazil who were living in Chile at the time of the coup. And there's been a lot of concern expressed about that. Could you tell us, do you feel that's a serious problem? And do you know of any steps that are being taken either by the United Nations or the US government or any other groups to intervene on behalf of these political exiles? What's the situation with them? 

Yes. We have to say that Chile has always been the country where exiles used to go because it was a very liberal country, even before Allende's government. Even when the Christian Democrat were in power, Chile had always this politic of receiving exile from other countries. So it is true that they were about, maybe 5,000 to 10,000 people from several countries from Latin America, especially from Bolivia, Brazil, and Uruguay.

And the junta start a campaign against them from the beginning, saying that they were Jews, because they couldn't say that only because they weren't from those countries and they knew that they weren't fascists. So it was to prepare the Chilean and the world public opinion to the fact that they were going to send them to their countries. It happened in the very few first day of the coup that several Bolivians have been sent to back to Bolivia.

To be prosecuted there by the Bolivian government for their political— 

Yes, they are persecuted from the Bolivian government, which is a fascist government too. And those people have been sent from there to Bolivia, and when the United Nations knew this situation, they have made interventions. And now, it seems that the United Nations, we can see that maybe they could avoid this. They have several centers in Santiago now where those people are, but we still don't have new about all those people. We know that some of them are there safe. But I hope the United Nations is going to take really this responsibility to send those people to other countries where their life could be safe. 

Another thing that's been particularly talked about a lot here in the United States is the question of resistance to the military junta. Before the coup in Chile, a lot of people predicted that there would be a lot of armed resistance. And indeed, when the coup broke out, we did hear some reports of scattered resistance, and since then there's been a lot of conflicting reports about that.

The junta, of course, claims that now that things are quiet and they have things in control. What are your opinions about, first of all, the degree of any resistance now or the possibilities that the left might be laying back now and organizing themselves for a more concerted effort at armed resistance later on? What's the status there?

During the coup, after the coup, there was a lot of resistance, especially in the factories where workers fought very hard. They had been bombed, especially the two factories, Yarur and [inaudible 00:21:34], and then lot of workers have been killed. There was also resistance in the south of Chile.

And in Valparaiso were reported 2,000 people killed only in one day. But now, I don't think there is what we can say resistance. Now, it is resistant to save the life of people because the repression is so hard, that the army is searching house to house during the night, during the coup—it's why this coup is still going on.

Because they need every day, some few hours to search for guns and for people, especially for people that they know that they are not in prison and that they are not dead. Especially leader of the Socialist Party, of the Communist Party, of the MIR and of the MAPU and Workers' leader. Because what the junta had decide, and it's very clear, is to kill all people who could make resistance against this, the fascist men, Bolivia. I don't believe that there is still resistance in the way that we could think. Maybe there are—I guess they're organizing themselves for a future resistance. 

One thing that was said, particularly that the junta was well-prepared for the coup and that they anticipated particularly that there might have been resistance among workers in factories. And that in the month or so preceding the coup, that they went about disarming workers in factory. Was this the case? 

Yes, yes. Since last year, because the coup was going to happen last year. Last year, we had the same strike, lorry strike, shop striked. All was prepared. But it seemed that the ruling class in Chile wasn't prepared for the coup, so it took a year to prepare more and more this coup. And during this year they used this law of controlling of arms that the Congress had vote, but they used this law only against the unions and against the left. So the searching for guns start six months before. And so they control it. They knew all the houses or people who were involved in the Unidad Popular. 

What do you think the effects will be of the coup, both on the continent of Latin America and internationally? One thing we've heard, there seems to be some rumblings of the increase of repression in Uruguay, Argentina, Brazil perhaps, Bolivia. And another question in line with that is the question, generally, internationally, among communist socialists and leftist people of the question of electoral strategy, what about those international repercussions? 

The significance of the coup in Chile is very wide internationally, and especially for Latin America. I think imperialism is using Brazil in Latin America as their sort of agents because they don't want to make the same mistake that they have done in Vietnam. I mean, direct intervention. So they can't agreed with the fact that there could be a sort of block, a block of country like Peru, Chile, Argentina, and Bolivia.

The first country, which four who felt is Bolivia. So fascism was imposed in Bolivia by the Brazilian government. Then the country in which the situation was the most explosive after Bolivia was Chile. So now Chile felt too. So we have now Peru and Argentina, which are in danger of coup.

And at the same time in other countries in Latin America where there are sort of Democrat representative governments or even military, this could reinforce the right fraction of the armies of those countries. So it seemed that Latin America is now facing a new period of dictatorship, military dictatorship, like before '68—before the Cuban Revolution.

And in the other hand, in the question of taking power by election, I mean a socialist movement, Chile was a sort of process, very important for those people who say that it's possible. Chile showed that it's possible, but it seemed that it's not possible to keep the power, taking power by elections with and—keeping the same army and the same security service—I mean police and so, of the former regions.

Fairly briefly, what do you think will be the policy of the United States towards the no Chilean junta, either on the question of a political exiles or just generally the question of foreign aid and foreign aid and assistance in general? Do you think it'll be significantly different from their policy toward the Allende regime? 

Yes. At first, the United States cut off the aid to the Allende's government when Allende took power. And I believe that now they are going to give them to the junta, millions and millions of dollars, to improve immediately the economical situation in which the United States put the Allende's government. That is clear.

But I knew that the Senate last week vote against the resolution to cut all aids to Chile until the civil rights are restored. This resolution are very important because the junta, they are aware that they couldn't do all what they're doing without international campaign against this. So it was very important what the American Senate has done.

You have been listening to an interview with Ms. Elizabeth Burgos, a woman who has spent the last year in Chile and who has spent many years studying politics in Latin America. 

Our feature this week is a reenactment of an interview conducted by a reporter from the French newspaper Rouse with a leader of the revolutionary left movement in Chile, more commonly known as MIR. The MIR supported the Popular Unity government of former president Salvador Allende, but they always maintained that a peaceful road to socialism would not be allowed by the right-wing leaders of the economic status quo, and that armed struggle was inevitable. 

Thus, at several points in the following interview, the MIR criticizes what they call the reformist path of electoral politics and conciliation. While many of the terms and political strategies discussed in the interview differ from those frequently heard in the political discussions in the United States, the interview is important because it is the first statement by any group resisting the Junta to emerge since the coup on September 11th. 

The interview took place on October 1st in secret in Chile, since those answering the questions are currently been sought by the military. The newspaper Rouse began the interview by asking MIR, "Had you already foreseen this coup? What are the first lessons that you've drawn from it?" 

"The coup d'etat that took place on September 11th was politically written in events that had already happened. We were prepared from a political as well as an organizational point of view, and we have prepared the sectors of the working-class and those of the presentry which we directly influence. We have not stopped denouncing the allusions of reformist strategy, allusions that cannot but disarm, in the full sense of the word, the Chilean people." 

"In that sense, the September 11th coup confirms in the most tragic way our predictions and analysis. It was written in the events of the short terms since June 29th. It was clearly apparent at that moment that a section of the army was ready to do anything in order to confront a popular mobilization, which was becoming larger and larger." 

"From then on, the principal concern of the military heads and of those who had been appointed to government posts could be reduced to one thing, to maintain discipline and cohesion in the military within that last rampart of bourgeois order and of imperialist order. The majority of the officers were in favor of the golpe or coup." 

"At the same time, one witness during those last months a mobilization and heightening of consciousness among the Chilean workers, which was totally new, having no common measure with anything that had transpired before. It is a phenomenon that was disseminated by the revolutionary press throughout the world. I won't get into that now, although that is the fundamental element of the last period." 

"In practice, to their concerns, by their enthusiasm, entire sectors of the Chilean working-class had begun to break away from the orientation of reformist directions. If the bourgeoisie and imperialism can to a certain extent tolerate Reformism, such a phenomenon cannot last very long. The means of production come more and more into the hands of the workers, and the previous capitalist owners of the means of production get more and more upset. This mobilization did only make the coup unavoidable, but also made the confrontation inevitable. It is crucial to underline the massive, global confrontation." 

"What did you do to help the emergence of that proletarian power and its consolidation?" 

"All of our militants participate fully in the birth process of popular power and in many cases played a decisive role in its consolidation, but they were far from being the only ones. The militants from the Socialist Party also played an important role in many cases, but since it was a question of an extremely wide phenomenon, especially in the Cordones industrial belts, one cannot speak only in terms of a consolidation of organized forces." 

"In fact, it was a question of a totally exemplary phenomenon of a massive ripening of workers' consciousness. In this framework, whenever possible our activities and propaganda, agitation and organization, always aim towards accelerating and consolidating that process. I would also like to add that we've considered of prime importance our work with respect to the army. This work is now the main accusation against us." 

"About this work you did with respect to the army, and without going into details which have no place in a public interview, were there important divisions or evidence of resistance within the army at the moment of the coup?" 

"Rumors to that effect have not ceased since September 11th. In fact, although there have been no decisive divisions in the armed forces as a whole, one would to be blind in order not to see the differences between the various sectors. Within the Junta in power, it is undoubtedly members of the Navy and Air Force that represent the ultra elements, but one should not overestimate them. They will not fail to reflect the very real divisions which exist in the bourgeoisie." 

"It is certain that sectors of the dominant class will have disagreements with the politics of the Junta, but right now there is just an almost unanimous sigh of relief, but at what a price. Let us not forget that many sectors which are joined to Christian democracy, in particular, have an old tradition which joins them to bourgeois democracy. A certain bourgeoisie legality and all that has been swept away by the coup. Not to speak of the excesses which seem to bother some of those gentlemen." 

"A more significant element in the armed forces is the fact that certain regiments did not really participate in the daily operations of house searches and repression. I am not saying that they are dissident. Rather, it's a question of tactical precaution on the part of the Junta to avoid the sharpening of potential splits." 

"In order to answer your question precisely, I can say that the fragmentary information that we have on the situation of the army indicates that in the beginning there were quite a few refusals to obey on the part of certain soldiers and sub-officers. They were all shot immediately. At least 10 of these cases were reported directly or indirectly, and therefore there must have been many more. That makes work within the army extremely difficult, almost impossible in certain cases." 

"On the other hand, if there were a political and military revolutionary offensive which appeared as a real alternative, there is no doubt that a good number of sub-officers and soldiers would be on our side. Several times during the house searches, soldiers, sub-officers and even officers closed their eyes, let us say, when they found weapons. They said, 'All we ask is that you don't use them against us.' " 

"Considering this, therefore, we will avoid in the near future irresponsible acts which might help to cement the armed forces into a homogeneous block, and we will work towards furthering the slight but significant manifestations of resistance within the army." 

"You talk of work plans of a political and military revolutionary offensive, but the thing that strikes us the most is the absence of visible signs of such an offensive." 

"That's true. At least at the level of visible signs, as you say, but on this point we must be very lucid because of the weight of the reformist illusions, mainly because of the blind politics of reformist directions, which have caused the Chilean workers to lose the battle. For this lost battle they have paid a great, great price. In editing the information which comes to us from all the suburbs of Santiago and from the rest of the country, we estimate at 25,000 dead, the number of victims from this battle." 

"According to our information, this number circulates also in the military high command and every day the number increases. The day of the coup the workers regrouped massively in work sites which they had already been occupying for several weeks. In many factories, the workers defended themselves heroically, in hand-to-hand combat against the military who were bent on retaking the factories, but the proportion of power was to unequal." 

"The military was armed to the teeth with modern weapons, using also tanks and at times air power. In contrast, the workers were very poorly armed, almost not armed at all in certain cases. The military were a well-coordinated centralized force carrying out a plan which had been extremely carefully prepared in advance. The workers from the different factories, from the different areas were not centralized, were not even coordinated among themselves." 

"Nevertheless, it took about five days, sometimes longer, for the military to defeat the industrial areas around Santiago. In the provinces, things happened generally in the same manner. This explains the great number of dead during the first few days. In certain places it was a veritable massacre. In one of the most important factories in Santiago 200 dead bodies were taken out of the basement. Under such circumstances, retreat was inevitable." 

"You characterize the actual situation as a retreat and not as a crushing defeat." 

"Without any doubt, because in spite of the extraordinary number of victims, the repression in most cases has not been selective at all. A fact that one must know and make known to the outside world is that a great number of militants, syndicates and political cadres perished at their posts, but the revolutionary organizations, ours in particular, have not been dismantled. In spite of two heavy losses, the essential core of our structure and our apparatus are absolutely intact." 

"In this sense, we have been consistent in our analysis and the measures we have taken have borne fruit. The military know this and it bothers them terribly. Their victory communiques are tainted by an undercurrent of fear. Without conviction, they exhibit material and weapons that have been seized and try to demoralize us by pretending to have made massive arrests in our cadres, but they know that they're lying and this is a decisive factor in the phase that is now beginning. A factor which allows us to talk of inevitable revolutionary offensive." 

"What about the other leftist organizations? In particular the parties in the Popular Unity Coalition". 

"Although I have had contacts with militants of the Communist Party, Socialist Party and the MAPU, United Popular Action Movement, I will talk with prudence and on an individual basis. About the MAPU, although it is a small group, I think I can say that it has not suffered much damage, either in its organization or in its structure. About the Communist Party, it seems that many intermediate cadres disappeared or were arrested." 

"One thing is certain, the core of the party in Santiago, notably, is completely disoriented. In one blow, the illusions about the peaceful road to socialism have fallen. In addition, the structure of the Communist Party seems to be deeply disorganized, although the leadership of the Communist Party has participated in the battles in the Cordones. Today, a great number of militants have no precise guidelines and are left completely on their own." 

"As for the Socialist Party, the situation is relatively complicated, given the complexity of the cross-currents which existed in the party when it was in power. The structure itself of the Socialist Party did not prepare it for the situation, but many militants, many revolutionary currents with the Socialist Party, which had their own struggles and organized cadres, fought the repression and are preparing for future struggles. There again, our responsibility is very great." 

"How does the MIR plans to carry out this responsibility?" 

We advocate the formation of a revolutionary front, which according to us, should regroup the parties of the Popular Unity and ourselves. The task of this front would be to prepare, as soon as possible, a counter-offensive against the actual regime, a political and particularly a military counter-offensive." 

"What is the current climate that the Junta is creating for you to work in?" 

"The climate of xenophobia that the Junta is trying to foment surpasses the imagination. Here also it is necessary to mobilize people outside of the country. Our militant comrades, political refugees, even simple residents, Bolivians and especially Brazilians risk their lives every instant. They are the Jews for the Junta. Simply because they speak with an accent, they are turned in by their neighbors." 

This concludes the reenactment of an interview between MIR and the French newspaper Rouge. 

The junta is continuing with its efforts to stamp politics out of the Chilean consciousness until the country is back on its feet again. El Mercurio, one of the few newspapers still allowed to publish in Chile, carried on the front page of a recent issue, a decree by the junta outlying all Marxist political parties and declaring all others in recess. The Marxist parties now illegal include the Socialist, Communist, Radical, Christian left, Movement of the United Popular Action and Independent Popular Action Party. 

El Mercurio of Chile continues that the major non-Marxist parties now in recess include the Christian Democrats, the National Party, the Radical Left, the Radical Democratic Party, the Democratic National Party. The junta is also depoliticizing the universities, according to El Mercurio. 8,000 of the 19,000 students at the University of Concepción were expelled for leftist activities, including every student enrolled in the School of Journalism and the Institute of Sociology. Those expelled cannot enroll in any other college in Chile, according to El Mercurio of Chile. 

The Chilean ex-ambassador to Mexico, Hugo Vigorena, claims that 60 people have taken refuge in the Mexican Embassy in Santiago, and are awaiting safe passage out of the country. Vigorena says that their situation is desperate, but that negotiations for their safe conduct do not look hopeful. Troops remain stationed around the embassy to prevent Chileans from seeking asylum there. 

Excélsior notes that meanwhile the Junta is working to establish beneficial foreign relations, Brazil has announced the extension of a $12 million worth of credit to Chile. A delegate from the International Monetary Fund is scheduled to arrive in Chile to discuss the resumption of important loans and credit denied Chile under Allende's regime. General Pinochet, the head of the Junta, has announced plans to meet with the Bolivian president, Hugo Banzer. That report on Chile from the Mexico City daily, Excélsior, and from the Chilean daily, El Mercurio. 

In Bolivia, the regime of general Hugo Banzer has been beset by economic chaos, social unrest, and threats of an ultra-right coup during the past year. Many analysts interpreted Banzer's decision of last July to hold free elections in 1974 as a sign of the weakness of his government. The instability of the situation in Bolivia is further underscored by Banzer's recent unexpected announcement that he will not be a candidate for office in next year's promised elections.

General Banzer, an impeccable conservative and anti-communist, who was trained at the School of the Americas in the Panama Canal Zone and in the United States, came to power in 1971 by means of an unusually bloody coup against the left-wing government of Jose Torres. At that time, he received an outright grant of $2 million from the United States and has done little to disturb US officials during his term of office.

At the beginning of 1973, Bolivia was still reeling from the effects of a 66% currency devaluation enacted a year ago. At that time, the government froze wages while the cost of living rose 50%. To make matters worse, President Nixon announced in March of this year that the General Services Administration would start selling its large stockpile of metals, bringing down the price of 10, upon which the Bolivian economy depends, by 13 cents a pound. In an attempt to ward off a new crisis, Banzer lifted the wage freeze and left open the possibility of upward adjustments.

At the same time, however, the price of wheat, meat, coffee, and potatoes went up. The economic situation has given rise to protests by consumers and small merchants, the Underground Trade Federation and the 5,000 small and medium tin mine owners have also staged protests. In October, 89 labor leaders were arrested for plotting to overthrow the government leading to strikes involving 40,000 trade union workers.

Banzer has also failed to keep the support of the two main political parties upon which he has depended in the past. The moderate National Revolutionary Movement, the MNR, and the ultra-right perhaps misnamed, Bolivian Socialist Falange, FSB. In May, Banzer reshuffled his cabinet to give the moderates a slight political advantage. His recent decision of late November to reshuffle his cabinet again, this time in favor of the conservatives, led to the complete withdrawal of the support by the more moderate MNR.

It has been suggested that the MNR will seek to form some alliances with leftist groups. Banzer's recent announcement that he will not be a candidate for office in 1974 suggests that the situation is out of his hands and that Bolivia may look forward to a period of rule by the ultra-right.

The single most important event in Brazil this year was the announcement in June that current military president, Emilio Médici, will be succeeded next March by another general, Ernesto Geisel. In this analysis, we will look at developments in three main areas and attempt to foresee what changes, if any, can be expected when Geisel assumes power. We will examine Brazil's economic development, its role role in Latin America, and recent reports of dissidents in Brazil. The military has been in power in Brazil since 1964, when a military coup toppled left liberal president 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 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 maldistribution of income in Brazil. The rub of the critic's argument is the top 5% of the population enjoys 40% of the national income, while the top 20% of the population account for 80% of the total. Moreover, this heavily skewed distribution is being accentuated as Brazil's economy develops. Whether any of these policies will change when Geisel comes to power next March or not as uncertain. Some feel that he is an ardent nationalist who will be called to business interests.

Others recall that it was Geisel who provided lucrative investments to foreign companies, including Phillips Petroleum and Dow Chemical, when he was president of Petrobras, the state oil industry, which was once a symbol of Brazilian nationalism. They also say that he has consistently supported the concentration of wealth into fewer hands.

Brazil has sometimes 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 towed the line of US foreign policy. It has taken the role of the scourge of communism and has been openly hostile to governments such as those of Cuba and Chile under Allende, and it is clear, as has been stated before, that American corporations do feel at home in Brazil.

Brazil, of course, discounts the Trojan horse theory and instead expresses almost paranoia fears of being surrounded by unfriendly governments, whether for conquest or defense though, 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.

The treaty was viewed with dismay by Argentina, which has feared the spread of Brazilian influence on the continent for years, especially in Bolivia, Paraguay, and Uruguay. A Brazilian military buildup along its border with Uruguay caused some alarm last year. And this spring, an Uruguayan senator said he had discovered a secret Brazilian military plan for the conquest of Uruguay. According to the plan, Uruguay was to be invaded in 1971 should the left wing Broad Front coalition win 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. Others expect Brazil to continue its expansionist policies. It is interesting to note that General Geisel has the full support of the conservative General Golbery, the author of a book proclaiming that Brazil's domination of Latin America is manifest destiny.

During the past year, there have been increasing reports of dissidents against Brazil's military regime. In recent months, the Catholic Church has risen to protest occurrences of torture of political prisoners 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 a month later when three Archbishops and 10 bishops from Brazil's Northeast issued a long statement, a blistering attack on the government. The statement, which because of government censorship did not become known to the public for 10 days after it had been released on May the 6th, is notable for its strongly political tone.

The declaration not only attacked the government for repression and the use of torture, it also held it responsible for poverty, starvation wages, unemployment, infant mortality, and illiteracy. In broader terms, it openly denounced the country's much boned economic miracle, which it 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.

The military regime is also threatened by a major conflict with trade unions. Because of government efforts to cut dock workers wages, dock workers threatened to strike against reorganization of wage payments, which union officials said would've cut wages 35 to 60%, but since strikers could have been tried for sedition, they opted for a go-slow, which began on July 25th in Santos, Brazil's main port. After six weeks, the government announced restoration of wages, froze them for two to three years.

The freeze will have the effect of diminishing wages as much as the government wanted to in the first place. At this time, the unions are appealing the case through the courts. The military rulers are also under pressure from the Xavante indians, who warned President Medici in November that unless a start is made within a month to mark out the Sao Marcos Reservation, they will have to fight for their lands.

The latest reports indicate that a number of Indians have captured arms and are massing in the jungle. At the same time, the government continues to be plagued by guerrilla operations on the Araguaia River. Various incidents during the past months have signaled the impotence of the armed forces in the face of these guerrilla activities. In São Domingos das Latas, a little town about 30 kilometers to the east of Marabá, along the Trans-Amazonian Highway, two landowners have been killed by the guerrillas for collaborating with the armed forces.

The guerrillas have distributed a manifesto written in simple direct language dealing with the principle demands of the local population. The Army claims that the guerrilla forces have been reduced to half a dozen fugitives, but civilians in the area estimate that there are from 30 to 60 members of the guerrillas, who seem to enjoy a fantastic popularity among local people.

Excélsior of Mexico City reports that Brazil's military dictator, Médici, will soon step down and be replaced by another military man, Ernesto Geisel. Geisel was elected by Brazil's so-called Electoral College, a group of politicians chosen for their loyalty to the military. The London News weekly, Latin America, noted that the legal opposition party in Brazil, the Brazilian Democratic Movement, said that this election was more democratic because the electoral college had been enlarged. There is a feeling that Geisel in power may signal a period of relaxed government control on political and renewed activity, but says Latin America, the British News weekly, "There is unlikely to be any change in the present political situation until the immediate economic problems facing Brazil have been solved or at least brought under control." 

Despite present government efforts to hold down inflation to 13% last year, private statistical analysts say that Brazil's inflation in 1973 was more like 20% or even 30%, and there seems to be little doubt that due to the world trade situation, the problem will be even worse this year. Heavy, across-the-board price increases have already been announced in the first week of 1974. Cigarettes have gone up by 20%, telephones by 15%, and of course, petroleum has gone up by over 16%. 

In an attempt to contain the rapid increase in the price of basic foodstuffs, the government has taken drastic measures. The official price of beef for internal consumption was cut by an average of 40% in the middle of December, and the export quota reduced by 30% for the next three years. The purpose of the quota reduction was to divert beef, which has been getting record prices on the world market to Brazilian consumers. The end result of the price cut, however, has been the almost complete disappearance of quality beef from the shops and markets. 

"An even greater problem for Brazil," says Latin America, "is the oil crisis." About 45% of Brazil's energy consumption comes from oil, as the government has progressively tried to eliminate the dependence on wood as a fuel since it has resulted in the large-scale destruction of the country's timber reserves. Brazil has to import about 720,000 barrels of oil daily, and the new international oil prices, Brazil's 1974 petroleum bill, could come to about $3 billion or nearly half the value of Brazil's total exports for last year.

With Brazil having to import so much of its oil, many have wondered why. Instead of exploring its own potential oil fields, Petrobras founded a subsidiary, Bras Petro, which joined with Chevron Oil to explore for petroleum in Madagascar. Later, Brazil joined the Tennessee Columbia Corporation to seek oil in Colombia. So far, Brazil and its joint US ventures have invested some 20 million in exploration efforts in Colombia, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Madagascar, Venezuela, Bolivia, and Tanzania. The contracts negotiated run from 10 to 20 years. 

There are indications that Brazil may itself now be penetrated by US oil corporations. Something Petrobras was originally formed to prevent. The Brazilian weekly, Opinião, reported that former Secretary of State William Rogers during his visit to Brazil last May, expressed special interest in reaching an agreement between US oil firms and the Petrobras for the exploration of Brazil's Continental Shelf. 

In Brazil, where Petrobras autonomy is synonymous with Brazilian nationalism, such joint ventures are bound to raise questions about Brazil's independence. Though United States participation in other aspects of Brazil's political and economic life causes little official concern. 

The issue of United States corporations' domination of other Latin American countries through Brazilian expansion has been a sensitive one and fears of Brazilian military invasion have also been raised. 

Two weeks ago, the Venezuela newspaper El Mundo reported that Bolivia will be the first country invaded by Brazil. The plan developed on February of 1973 was exposed in a photographed document belonging to the Brazilian army. The pretext for the invasion of Bolivia would be to combat the threat of communism, which the plan detailed would extend to other Latin American countries, if not extinguished. 

Only last week, the daily Jornal do Brasil reported operations by the Brazilian armed forces, which were supposedly aimed at increasing reconnaissance of their borders with Bolivia, Peru, Colombia, Venezuela, and Guyana. The Brazilian daily said that one of the maneuvers could well have been a practice for an invasion of Bolivia. 

It is not the first time such revelations have occurred. A senator of Uruguay, another country bordering on Brazil, reported last summer in Marcha that Brazilian troops have violated his country's border on several occasions. Also, last summer, troops and armored units of the Brazilian Army's third core, its biggest and best military outfit were reported to have penetrated Uruguay by one of the four major highways which Brazil built on the border between the two countries. In April of 1972, a Brazilian plan for the invasion of Uruguay was revealed only days before presidential elections in that country. The plan and Brazilian military maneuvers were considered a threat in case the left centrist Broad Front coalition won the elections. 

This report compiled from the British Weekly, Latin America, the Mexico City Daily, Excélsior, the Brazilian daily, Jornal do Brasil, the Venezuelan daily, El Mundo. 

On January 10th, Peruvian president, Juan Velasco Alvarado, in calling for a conference of Peru's five neighboring countries, unveiled a proposal for their limitation of arms purchases. The proposal, which would include Peru, Bolivia, Colombia, Chile, Brazil, and Ecuador, calls for the elimination of unnecessary military expenditures during the coming 10-year period. 

According to the Mexico City daily, Excelsior, Peru presently ranks fourth in total dollars spent on military armaments, behind Brazil, Argentina, and Venezuela, respectively. Brazil, who easily heads the list of Latin American nations, spends almost twice as much on arms as second-ranked Argentina. Chile, over the past three years, however, has maintained the highest rate of military spending as a percentage of gross national product, that being 22.4%. The arms limitation proposal dubbed by President Velasco, The Pact of Honor, contends that by freezing arms purchases and postponing a needless arms race, great amounts of vital monies can be channeled into programs of economic, social, and educational development. 

Thus far, says Excelsior, the proposal has been thoroughly backed by both Colombia and Bolivia, virtually ignored by Ecuador, and all but rejected by Brazil. Chile, whose military chiefs have publicly voiced interest, has been clear, however, in expressing its feelings of skepticism and impracticality of the plan. This can be witnessed in a statement from El Mercurio, Chile's pro-government newspaper, which said that any disarmament at present would jeopardize Chile's security both internally as well as externally. Military circles in Brazil received the proposal with indifference. The Brazilian paper, Folha de Sao Paolo, pointed out that the Brazilian armed forces are the most powerful in South America because in 1973, they acquired large amounts of modern equipment and war material. 

In an editorial, Excelsior cites four possible motives for Peru's position. The first and rather dubious motive is that Ecuador, using its recent landslide oil revenue for armaments, might hope to reclaim the two oil rich Amazonian provinces, which it lost to Peru in 1941 as a result of a violent border dispute. Another theory based on continuing Peruvian publications is that Chile's arms purchases are a preparation for a preemptive strike against Southern Peru, thus adding Chile to the list of credible enemies. Thirdly, Brazil's expansionist tendencies have evoked fear throughout Peru, as well as throughout Brazil's other neighboring countries.

And lastly, amid speculation that somewhere in Latin America, there have already been purchases of ground-to-ground and ground-to-air missiles, Peru sees the escalation into missile weaponry as dangerous, as well as disastrously expensive. Regardless of what the motive, The Pact of Honor will certainly become the topic of great debate in the coming year, beginning in February at the Foreign Minister's Conference to be held in Mexico City. This report on Peru's proposed arms pact was compiled from Mexico City Daily, Excelsior, the Chilean daily, El Mercurio, and the Brazilian newspaper, Folha de Sao Paulo.

The weekly Latin America, reports that in recent months, not even the middle classes have been able to buy enough food in La Paz, Bolivia. Producers and merchants have found it far more profitable to smuggle their wares in military transport, according to some reports, across the frontier to Peru, Chile, Brazil, or Argentina, where prices were up to twice as high as in Bolivia. Bread has virtually disappeared from the shops, and what there was had an ever higher proportion of animal fodder mixed with the flour.

The problem has now been eliminated by raising prices to the levels prevailing in neighboring countries. This has been accompanied by a wage increase of $20 per month, perhaps an 80% rise for some industrial workers in La Paz. But the opposition to a 140% increase in the price of essential goods announced on January 21st has been paralyzing. The new measure threatens to lead to a replay of the events of October 1972 when Bolivian president, Banzer, devalued the Bolivian currency and froze wages. Unrest spread throughout the country, and Banzer sent troops and tanks to repress demonstrations in the streets.

Currently, as reported in Marcha of Montevideo, Uruguay, 14,000 industrial workers in La Paz and more than 40,000 miners went out on strike to protest the increases. Police guarded plants left idle as an estimated 100,000 workers joined in the strike. 12,000 workers held the largest protest demonstration in recent times at the La Paz Stadium. They demanded a minimum of $60 compensation per month to offset an increase in prices of food, transport, and other goods and services. Excelsior of Mexico City documents the strike, saying that union leaders declared that the government price increase is a true aggression against the working man's economy, and added that the wage of $20 fixed by the government is in no way a solution to the situation of hunger and misery into which working people are falling. 

The Bolivian Minister of Labor, referring to the workers' strike, said, "The workers have no reason to protest since the steps the government has taken are precisely aimed for them." Critics note that last year's price increases did nothing to halt inflation or scarcity. Bolivia, one of the poorest countries on the continent, had 60% inflation last year, and an increase of 6% per month is estimated for this year. 

Protest has broken out in other areas also, says Excelsior. In Cochabamba, where workers were protesting the price rise, five people were injured in a confrontation between police and workers. On one side of the conflict are the military and political forces that support the regime of President Banzer and his repressive tactics of annihilation of all subversive groups. And on the other are the majority of labor unions who are set on striking until the regime does something towards alleviating the soaring food prices. In another development in Cochabamba, according to Excelsior, the government sent tanks and infantry troops to dissuade 10,000 peasants who have blocked the highway from Santa Cruz to Cochabamba in protest of the high cost of living.

The peasants, many of whom are armed with ancient repeating rifles, have said they will not remove the barricade until the government rectifies its economic policy, which has caused a shortage of food supplies. Excelsior reports that an agrarian leader said, "We would rather die of their bullets than of hunger." When the troops came to break up the blockade, the peasants succeeded in kidnapping a high ranking military official who remains in their custody.

The strikes and protest, which also includes striking bank employees, construction workers, and bakers, are among the worst in the last 29 months of President Banzer's administration. Banzer has declared a state of martial law and has suspended all civil liberties. The Bolivian Catholic Church, in a strongly worded statement, has announced its support for the Bolivian strikers. The church declared that the people are going through a most difficult economic period and that it would be naive to attribute food shortages to purely internal causes. The government had prohibited the church from initiating or participating in any strikes. This report on striking Bolivian workers is compiled from Excelsior of Mexico City, the news weekly, Latin America, and the weekly, Marcha, from Montevideo, Uruguay. 

The feature this week is a report on recent developments in Chile under the leadership of the military junta, which came to power last September in a bloody coup overthrowing Salvador Allende's democratically elected Marxist government. The situation in Chile has been of central importance in the Latin American press for the last five months. This report is compiled from the New York Times, the Mexico City daily, Excelsior, Prensa Latina, Business Latin America, El Mercurio of Chile, and a report from the World Council of Churches. 

Excelsior reports that a representative of the International Democratic Federation of Women, who visited Santiago and other Chilean cities during the week of January 8th, told the United Nations that 80,000 people had been killed and that 150,000 people had been sent to concentration camps since the Junta came to power in September. Amnesty International had formerly estimated at least 15,000 killed and 30,000 jailed.

Amnesty International has stated more recently that despite Chilean President Pinochet's claims to have stopped the practice of torture, tortures continue each day. Prensa Latina reports that at least 25,000 students have been expelled from the universities, and an astounding 12% of the active Chilean workforce, over 200,000 people, have lost their jobs. All trade unions are forbidden. Political parties are outlawed. The right to petition is denied. The workweek has been extended. Wages remain frozen, and inflation has climbed to 800%.

The sudden drop in purchasing power and the specter of hunger in Chile have caused a dramatic shift in attitude toward the Junta, the New York Times reported late last month. Dozens of the same housewives and workers who once expressed support for the Junta are now openly critical of the new government's economic policies. A working couple with four children that earns a total of 8,000 escudos monthly, estimated that with post-coup inflation, they need 15,000 escudos a month just to feed their families.

Although the belt tightening has hit all economic classes, the Times said, it has become intolerable for the poorest Chileans who must contend with such increases as 255% for bread, 600% for cooking oil, and 800% for chicken. This month, reports Excelsior of Mexico City, the food shortage has increased so much that it is practically impossible to find bread, meat, oil, sugar, or cigarettes. Gasoline prices, meanwhile, have increased 200%.

Unemployment also continues to rise dramatically. In October 1973, there was an increase of 2,700 people without jobs. And according to statistics from the National Employment Service, unemployment grows at a rate of 1000 people per week. In public services, for example, 25% of the workers were fired. The New York Times reports that those workers who are considered politically suspect by the new government authorities and factory managers are the first to be fired. 

The result has been a severe economic hardship for workers in Chile who have no way to fight since the unions and their leaders have been outlawed. The World Council of Churches estimates that 65% of the 10 million Chilean population now simply do not earn enough to eat, 25% are able to cover basic necessities, and only 10% can afford manufactured goods. 

Excelsior of Mexico City reports that the Junta has responded to the economic crisis by promising to slash public spending, which means eliminating public sector programs in health, education, and housing instituted by the Popular Unity government. The Junta has also canceled the wage increase implemented under Allende's government. Last week, Pinochet called upon businessmen to fight inflation by stopping their unscrupulous practices. 

According to Prensa Latina, political repression in Chile appears to be entering a new stage now. In many ways, it is even more sinister than the previous terror, belying the apparent tranquility on the surface of life in Santiago. Instead of the haphazard mass slaughter of the first days, there is now a computer-like rationality and selectivity in political control and repression. Instead of dragnet operations, there is the knock on the door at midnight by the Chilean political police. Instead of the major political leaders, it is the middle level cadres who are now the hunted targets. Through the use of informers, torture, and truth drugs, Chilean military intelligence are extracting the names of local leaders and militants who are being hunted down with less fanfare, but increasing efficiency. 

Another priority of the new repression is education. Many who thought they had survived the worst period are now finding that the investigation and purge of universities and schools have just begun. Professors are being told they can either resign their posts or face military trials on absurd but dangerous charges such as inciting military mutiny. Secondary education is undergoing an equally severe purge with military principles appointed and dangerous subjects like the French Revolution eliminated from the curriculum. A similar purge is beginning in primary education while all the teachers colleges have been closed for, quote, restructuring. Teachers are being classified in permanent files with categories like, "Possibly ideologically dangerous." This will make political control easier in the future. 

While the persecution of intellectuals is accelerating, the workers who bore the brunt of the initial brutal repression, have not been spared. Again, it is the local leaders, the links between the mass base and any regional or national organization, who have become the targets of the repression. In Santiago, a sit-down strike of construction workers on the new subway to protest the tripling of prices with wages frozen was ended by a police action in which 14 of the leaders were seized and executed without a trial. In the huge [inaudible 00:20:28] cotton textile factory in Santiago, seven labor leaders were taken away by military intelligence because of verbal protests against low wages. Their fates are unknown. 

According to Prensa Latina, this new phase of political repression in Chile is featuring the crackdown on social interaction. Any party or gathering of friends carries with it the danger of a police raid and accusations of holding clandestine political meetings. The crackdown on the press continues. During the last week in January, the Junta passed a law demanding jail penalties of from 10 to 20 years for any press source publishing information on devaluation of money, shortages, and price increases or on any tendencies considered dangerous by authorities. 

Although there is no official estimate of the number of political prisoners in Chile at this time, more exact figures are available about the situation of those who sought refuge in embassies. According to a report of the World Council of Churches, some 3000 Chileans are still in UN camps, looking for countries to accept them. And many more thousands are waiting just to enter the crowded camps as the first step towards seeking asylum abroad. Even those people who were fortunate enough to take asylum in an embassy have a grim February 3rd deadline hanging over them.

If they are not out of Chile by that date, the Junta has declared that there will be no more assured safe conduct passes, and all United Nations and humanitarian refugee camps will be closed down. In the meantime, the Junta has limited the number of safe conduct passes issued. While internationally, most countries have refused to accept Chilean exiles, the United States, for example, has provided visas for one family, Great Britain for none.

The policies of the Junta continue to draw international criticism. Not only has the government received telegrams of condemnation from the World Council of Churches and the United Nations, Excelsior reports that the military government's repressive policies are now the subject of investigation by the Bertrand Russell Tribunal, an international body originally convened to investigate torture in Brazil. British trade unions have made a number of strong anti-Junta moves, including a decision not to unload Chilean goods. Also, the French government has prevented two French companies from selling tanks and electronic equipment to the Junta. 

A group of goodwill ambassadors from the Junta has been striking out all over Latin America and appears to have abandoned its tour after being expelled from Venezuela early this month. The group started by being refused visas to Mexico, which feared that its presence would provoke rioting there. The first stop was Bolivia, where the visitors broke up their own press conference because of hostile questions and insulted the journalists there. Shortly after landing in Caracas, the six ambassadors were declared undesirable visitors by the Venezuelan government and put on a plane for the Dominican Republic, according to Excelsior in Mexico City. 

International criticism and rejection of Junta representatives had led to a mounting anti-foreign campaign in the controlled Chilean press on December 5th. The front page headlines in El Mercurio proclaimed, "Chile is alone against the world." The news magazine, Ercia, recently attacked the New York Times and Newsweek, and other overseas publications it considers communist controlled, under the headline, "The False Image, Chile Abroad." Junta member, General Gustavo Leigh, wants the many military governments in Latin America to form a league for self-help and consultation. 

The only international groups trying to shore up the Juntas image are the banking and business communities. There has been a dramatic turnaround in the availability of private bank loans for Chile since the coup. Under Allende, credit had dried up and by mid-1973, was down to $30 million from a high under the previous administration of Christian Democrat Frei, of $300 million. Business Latin America states that the United States was the first to make financial overtures to the new government.

Within days of the coup, the United States Commodity Credit Corporation granted the Junta a $24 million credit line for wheat imports, followed immediately by an additional $28 million for corn. In exchange, the Junta has just announced that the banks nationalized under the Popular Unity, including the Bank of America and First National City Bank, will be returned to their private owners. Compensation will be paid to Kennecott and Anaconda, and Dow Chemical Corporation has already been handed back to petrochemical industries.

According to Prensa Latina, resistance in Chile is taking numerous and varied forms. Freshly painted forbidden slogans are appearing on the walls of Santiago. The practice of writing anti-Junta slogans on Chilean paper money has become so widespread that the Junta has declared the propagandized money illegal and valueless. Resistance is also taking more organized forms. The Jesuit wing of the Catholic Church has recently taken a public stand opposing the Junta. The major cities in Chile are presently experiencing a 60% work slowdown in opposition to the Junta. 

The major proponents of arms struggle are biding their time and preparing for the moment conditions are ripe. guerrilla warfare on a small scale, however, has already begun. Rural headquarters were established in two southern mountain regions, and the military admit to have captured only a small part of the left's arms. 

This report is compiled from the New York Times, the Mexico City daily, Excelsior, the Cuban news agency, Prensa Latina, Business Latin America, El Mercurio of Chile, and a report from the World Council of Churches. 

According to the Mexico City daily, Excélsior, more than 10,000 Bolivian peasants blockading a highway near Cochabamba were attacked last week by government tanks and mortar fire. A dozen people were killed and many more were wounded. The peasants, who were rebelling against drastic price increases and food shortages, had taken as hostage General Perez Tapia, who was sent to negotiate with them. The nation's strongman, General Hugo Banzer, announced that the troops were dispatched to rescue the captured general. Perez Tapia himself, however, told a different story. He said that after fruitful dialogue, the peasants released him with a message that they would lift the blockade as soon as Banzer came to negotiate with them. Instead, Banzer sent the troops. 

According to the Christian Science Monitor, some observers in Bolivia say that General Banzer's current troubles are so serious that they could signal the beginning of the end for his government. In chronically unstable Bolivia, governments have a way of coming in and going out in rapid succession. Actually, General Banzer has been in power longer than the average. His government, when he came into office, was the 187th in Bolivia's 148 years of independence.

During his tenure, General Banzer has faced a series of tests, but his rightist-oriented government has managed to stay in office through a combination of military muscle and moderate political support. In recent months, there has been growing evidence of military divisions. Leftist-leaning military officers who supported the government of General Juan Jose Torres, whom General Banzer deposed, have long been unhappy about the conservative political and economic direction of the Banzer government. 

Now they're being supported by a growing political opposition, sparked by the withdrawal of the MNR, a leading political party from the civilian-military coalition supporting General Banzer. MNR leader and former president Victor Paz Estenssoro was exiled in the wake of the MNR's withdrawal, and this in turn has caused further bitterness on the part of many Bolivians. In addition, the MNR has strong ties with elements in the peasantry, including the well-organized peasant forces in the Cochabamba area where the current wave of peasant unrest began. It is presumed that the MNR's troubles with the Banzer government are a factor in the current peasant revolt. At the same time, however, the revolts erupted last week largely because the government imposed 100% increases in the prices of basic foodstuffs. 

The government justified the increases on the basis of a need to keep food from being smuggled out to Bolivia to neighboring countries, where higher prices are being paid. But the peasants, who live an impoverished existence, rejected this argument. They were also supported by industrial workers in La Paz, Cochabamba and Santa Cruz, who staged a series of one-day strikes last week to protest the price hikes. As the strikes, revolts, and unrest mounted, General Banzer imposed a state of siege throughout the country. Just a step short of full martial law, the state of siege permits the government to ban rallies and demonstrations, and allows the police to make arrests and carry out searches without warrants. 

Excélsior reports that Banzer has blamed the recent troubles on communist agitators. He charged that the peasant rebellion was organized in Paris by the noted French Marxist Regis Debray and former Bolivian official Antonio Arguedas, with the support of Fidel Castro. Banzer declared that agitators got 10,000 peasants drunk on chicha, a local whiskey, and paid them huge sums of money to revolt. He called on citizens to kill all extremists and communists, and promised that if the citizens did not do so, the government would. This report on peasant unrest and reprisal is taken from Mexico City's daily Excélsior and the Christian Science Monitor. 

According to the British news weekly Latin America, more than 20 Latin American foreign ministers will meet in Mexico City on February 21st with United States Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. The foreign ministers plan to raise a number of issues which they feel must be resolved in order to open the new dialogue promised by Kissinger. One of the major questions will be the role of US multinational corporations. There are serious problems, states one agenda point, with the transnationals, which interfere in the internal affairs of countries where they operate, and which tried to remain outside the scope of the law and jurisdiction of national courts. 

Another issue will be the perpetuation of Latin America's dependence on the United States for technological know-how. Mexico, for example, estimates it pays $180 million annually just to acquire patents and technical know-how developed by the United States. Latin American countries want the United States to help create an organization which can put technological knowledge in the hands of the developing countries to reduce the price of technology and to increase aid and credits to acquire it.

The restoration of Panama's sovereignty over the canal zone is also high on the agenda. Pressure will likely be placed on the United States to move ahead on a treaty based on the principle signed by Panama and the United States on February the 7th, and Kissinger is also likely to be pressed, at least privately, to lift the US embargo of Cuba.

There has been a flurry of press speculation that Cuba is changing its attitude towards the United States. A routine statement of Cuba's conditions for talks by its ambassador to Mexico was widely reported as a softening of the Cuban position, and Leonid Brezhnev's visit to Cuba, coupled with Soviet foreign minister Andrei Gromyko's trip to Washington has been portrayed as further pressure on Fidel Castro to seek détente with United States.

In anticipation of Kissinger's trip to Mexico on February 21st for the Latin American Foreign Ministers Conference, several major newspapers, including the New York Times and Los Angeles Times have endorsed a change in US policy toward Cuba. The Nixon administration is reportedly split on the question, and Kissinger says that the US would re-examine its policy only if Cuba changes its attitude towards the United States.

The Cuban foreign ministry has emphatically denied any change in its attitude toward the United States. In a statement refuting the claim that the ambassador's statement in Mexico signaled a Cuban initiative for detente. The foreign ministry said Cuba will not take the first step in restoring diplomatic ties, and that the United States must first unconditionally lift its embargo and acknowledge that it has no right to intervene directly or indirectly in matters concerning the sovereignty of Latin American countries. Cuba also insists on its sovereignty over Guantanamo, where the United States maintains a naval base. 

Among the statesmen who have commented recently on United States Cuban relations was Argentine president Juan Perón, who expressed his opinion that the United States should definitely lift the economic blockade imposed on Cuba, and also declared that the Caribbean country should be integrated into the Latin American continent as it was before the blockade. The Mexico City daily, Excélsior, quoted Perón, who said he thought Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev's recent visit to Cuba was positive if this visit helps to reduce the tension between a Latin American country and the United States. 

Referring to the economic blockade, Perón said that it constituted a tragic error of North American policy. All of what has occurred between the two countries since the imposition of the blockade in 1961, said Perón, has been the direct result of this tragic policy. Perón emphasized, it is necessary that Cuba once again becomes what it always was, a country integrated into the Latin American continent.

Of course, Cuba has an economic system different from our own, but haven't we maintained for almost a century the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of another country? The Argentine government last year awarded Cuba $200 million in credits to buy Argentine manufacturing goods and other trade contracts have been signed between the two countries since the reestablishment of diplomatic relations in May of last year.

Excélsior of Mexico City reports that Senator Edward Kennedy proposed a four-point plan to normalize relations between Cuba and the United States and other Latin American countries. As a first step, Kennedy suggested that Secretary of State Henry Kissinger at the next foreign minister's meeting, support any initiative which will give the OAS member the liberty to act independently in its relations with Havana. If such a resolution is approved, the commercial and economic blockade of Cuba imposed by the OAS in 1964 would be annulled. 

Excélsior went on to say that Kennedy, in addition, proposed the renewal of air service between the US and Cuba as a means to reunite Cuban families and added that the Nixon administration should encourage an interchange of people and ideas between both countries. Finally, Kennedy said that the United States should take advantage of the reduction of antagonisms that would follow the previous steps in order to initiate a process of official diplomatic normalization that would include the opening of consular offices. 

The Senator, according to Excélsior, put in doubt the state department's declaration that the Cuban policy of exporting revolution is a threat to the peace and liberty of the continent. He cited in contrast Pentagon experts who said that Cuban help to subversive groups is actually minimal. Kennedy underlined the fact that Soviet leader Brezhnev, in his visit to Cuba last week, stated that the communists do not support the exportation of revolution. He added that it is doubtful that Latin American nations would imitate Cuba since this island suffers great economic difficulties, depends enormously on the Soviet Union and maintains a closed political system. 

Diplomat John Rarick expressed his opposition to Kennedy and blamed Cuba for what he called an increase in communist activity in Mexico and Bolivia. For his part, senator Byrd speaking in Congress, reiterated his appeal to normalize relations between Havana and Washington. He said that to renew relations with Cuba does not signify that the United States has to adopt their policies. In the same way, it doesn't signify such to have relations with the Soviet Union. 

This report taken from Excélsior of Mexico City and Latin America, a British economic and political weekly. 

The British News weekly Latin America reports that hardly had President Velasco of Peru called for the elimination of "unnecessary military expenditure" when the Brazilian press announced massive and prolonged military maneuvers on its northern and western frontiers. These maneuvers cover Brazil's so-called Amazonian frontier. Observers have compared these operations with those that took place last year on the frontiers with Argentina and Uruguay, which at the time were widely interpreted as a show of strength to Brazil's southern neighbors. At the same time, Venezuelan sources alleged that Brazil is creating a powerful fifth army for the control of its Amazonian frontiers. 

The news of the military operations came at a time when complaints by Brazil's neighbors about peaceful infiltration of frontier areas by Brazilian settlers have swelled into a veritable chorus. In Paraguay, the opposition has alleged that in one area, some 37,000 Brazilian families have installed themselves on Paraguayan soil. 

The main criticism of Brazil, however, has come from Venezuelan sources. The spearhead of this attack has been the Caracas evening paper, El Mundo, which claimed to have discovered a secret Brazilian plan to invade neighboring countries if any of their governments go communist. According to El Mundo, the first objective of Brazilian expansionist plans is Bolivia, where Brazilian landowners in the Abuna River area are alleged to be a bridgehead for further Brazilian incursions. 

The paper declared the immediate objective to be iron ore deposits, but added that if the Bolivian government showed a nationalist or left-wing line, Brazil would support a secessionist movement in the Bolivian state of Santa Cruz, which borders Brazil. El Mundo said warnings about Brazilian incursions on the frontier with Venezuela itself had already been made in secret reports by the Venezuela military to the government. 

Some support for the El Mundo story has come from a report by a military specialist, Hermann Hauser, who said Brazil has been establishing heavily armed military posts along the border with road links to major military bases in the state of Rio Branco. Venezuelan's forces in the area, according to Hauser, consists of a mere handful of national guards. One member of the Venezuelan Congress alleged a plot supported by the Pentagon for Brazil and Colombia to create a territorial crisis with Venezuela, and he demanded that the Venezuelan government should set up an inquiry into the extent of Brazilian penetration of Venezuelan territory. 

The Brazilian government has, so far, made no official denial of these allegations, and the Brazilian press in general has made no comment, possibly because of fears of censorship. However, the Rio de Janeiro daily, Jornal do Brasil, has come out with the spirited defense of the newly announced military operations. It said every nation had the right to carry out military operations on its own territory and that only the bad faith of speculative commentators could attribute expansionist designs to perfectly normal military maneuvers. 

These operations it said were also in the interests of Brazil's neighbors, since the frontier areas were notoriously under policed and so open to illegal paramilitary operations against those countries as much as against Brazil itself. The papers said the allegations of Brazilian expansionism were being made by those who "seek a pretext to divide South America into two, Spanish America and Portuguese America." 

This from the liberal British news weekly, Latin America. 

From the Brazilian capital, special invitations have gone out to certain Latin American heads of state, reports Excélsior. Four Latin American government chiefs from Chile, Bolivia, Paraguay, and Uruguay will attend the coming Brazilian presidential inauguration. General Ernesto Geisel, who is to be sworn in, was appointed by the current head of the Brazilian military government, and afterwards approved by Congress. President Nixon, also invited to the ceremony, will send his wife Pat as his personal representative, accompanied by Nicholas Morley, a Florida banker. 

Excélsior notes of the four Latin Americans attending the inauguration represent countries where there have been military coups in recent times, and all are governed directly or indirectly by military regimes. The Uruguayan chief of State, Juan Bordaberry, is the only one democratically elected. However, nine months ago, he overthrew Uruguay's government with the aid of the military and dissolved the Congress. All the other chiefs rose to power through coups. The first was General Alfredo Stroessner in Paraguay 13 years ago. General Hugo Banzer assumed power in Bolivia through a military blow in 1971, and General Pinochet is the chief of the Chilean military Junta, which overthrow democratically elected President Salvador Allende in September of 1973. 

These military coups are often interpreted as expansions of Brazilian power on the continent. Commenting on Brazil's expanding imperialist role, Excélsior notes that as a consequence of the new militarism in Latin America, Brazil has not had to employ arms itself. Brazilian expansion has been possible through diplomacy, commercial agreements, and the judicious use of money. Brazil's latest acquisition has been Chile. The rightest Chilean coup opened Chile's doors to economic and political penetration by Brazil. Brazil has been accused of generously financing Chile's generals, and is now bombarding Chile with financial credits and exports. 

Similarly, Excélsior says that Bolivian politics have become an open confrontation between generals who are pro and anti Brazil, and that Bolivia's President Banzer was almost overthrown several months ago when he attempted to sell more oil to Argentina than Brazil. But says Excélsior, "The best example of Brazilian expansion is Uruguay, whose democracy was overthrown following the Brazilian example." Trade unions, the press, and democratic institutions were annulled or repressed. Today, Brazilian investors are particularly busy in Uruguay, buying land and dominating commerce. 

It is said, as well, according to Excélsior, that the head of the Chilean military Junta, General Pinochet, will use his trip to Brazil to propose the formation of an anti-communist axis in Latin America. Pinochet did not publicly confirm the rumor. The rumor gained strength, however, when it was reported that the head of the Chilean Junta was disposed to overcome old antagonisms with Bolivia and talk with Bolivia's General Banzer. The two countries do not have diplomatic relations. The Brazilian chancellor refused to comment on the idea of the formation of an anti-communist axis. This report from Mexico City's leading daily, Excélsior. 

Our feature this week is on Brazilian economic expansion in the context of US Latin American relations. Sources included are the Mexico City daily, Excélsior, the British news weekly, Latin America, and the Brazilian weekly, Opinião.

Traditionally, Latin Americans have resented what they call "Yankee Imperialism". They see the United States, a rich, powerful industrial country, extracting Latin America's raw materials to feed US industry, but leaving Latin America underdeveloped. As a result, their economies have been oriented to producing raw materials and importing manufactured goods. Not only does this prevent any great expansion of Latin American economies, but it puts Latin American countries in an ever worsening trade position since the price of manufactured goods increases faster than the price of raw materials. 

When the United States has extended loans to Latin America to help them develop their industry, there have always been political strings attached. If a country's politics become too radical, if they threaten foreign investment, the loans are shut off. 

Besides acting as a political lever, United States loans also open Latin American investment opportunities to United States capital. By pressuring creditor countries to accept informed investment and providing the funds necessary for the development of an infrastructure that the foreign enterprises can use, loans have won easy access for United States capital into Latin America. The consequence of this is a significant loss of national sovereignty by Latin American countries. 

Recently it appears that one Latin American country, Brazil, has assumed the role of imperial power. Using resources gained from its close friendship with the United States, Brazil has made considerable investments in raw material production in neighboring Latin American nations, as well as African countries. Investments include oil in Columbia and Nigeria, cattle in Uruguay, cattle and maté in Paraguay, as well as the hydroelectric plant and rights to Bolivia's tin.

The Brazilian government has also extended loans, and more importantly, exerted political pressure in favor of the right wing coups. Brazil's totalitarian military regime has, at the cost of civil liberties and social justice, brought stability. It has also attracted a flood of foreign loans and investments through its policies. In 1972 alone, more than $3 billion in loans were pumped into their economy. Foreigners are invited into the most dynamic and strategic sectors of the economy.

Brazil's friendliness to foreign capital has led them to be, in Richard Nixon's opinion, the model for Latin American development. It has also brought them, by far, the greatest chair of loans to Latin America. The deluge of foreign exchange has led Brazil to look abroad for investment opportunities and raw material sources. A recent article in Mexico's Excélsior describes Brazil's new role in its neighbors, economies, and policies. 

When Simón Bolivar struggled to liberate the Spanish colonies in South America, the great liberator dreamed of two nations on the continent. He never imagined that the Spanish and Portuguese halves of South America could ever be united. 

Today, however, unification of the continent is being affected by the gradual expansion of Brazilian political and economic influence over the Spanish-speaking half of South America. Whether South America's term the expansion the new imperialism, or a natural manifest destiny, it is most pronounced in Uruguay, Paraguay, and Bolivia, three of Brazil's smaller neighbors. And recently, the shadow of the green giant has been hovering over Chile too. 

One important side effect of Brazil's growing influence has been the isolation of Argentina, her chief rival for supremacy on the continent. By removing Argentina's influence from their neighbors, Brazil has sharply reduced her status as a power in Latin America, both politically, and more importantly, economically. 

Although she did mass troops on Uruguay's border, her gains of recent years were achieved through diplomacy, trade packs, and the judicious use of money. Paraguay was Brazil's first success. Paraguay, a wretchedly poor nation of 2.5 million people, was offered credits. Her military rulers recorded and her major export, cattle, was given a good reception. 

In exchange, Brazilians have been permitted to buy vast tracks of Paraguayan land, make other important investments, and open Paraguay's markets to Brazilian products. Today, many young Paraguays are working in increasing numbers for Brazilian farmers and industrialists. The Brazilian cruzeiro is becoming a power in Paraguay. 

Last year, the promise of more cruzeiros led Paraguay's government to grant Brazil rights over major rivers for the construction of massive hydroelectric power systems. Brazil needs more electric power for her booming industry. The Argentines complained bitterly about the diversion of the benefit of those rivers from their territory, but they felt they could not protest too loudly because Brazilians are becoming the important customers of Argentine commerce. 

Bolivia is another triumph for the Brazilian foreign ministry. By winning over key military men, the Brazilians helped install General Hugo Banzer as president of Bolivia in 1971. When Hugo Banzer tried to sell more of his country's oil and natural gas to Argentina rather than Brazil a few months ago, he was almost toppled from power. His fate was widely discussed in Brazil and Argentine newspapers at the time, but Brazil's surging economy needs the oil and gas and the outcome was never in doubt. 

Bolivian politics is now an arena for open conflict between military leaders who are either pro Brazil or anti Brazil. Those who favor closer ties to Brazil cite the economic benefits that result from the commercial investments pouring into Bolivia from her neighbor. 

Those who oppose becoming Brazil's 23rd state want their country to remain fully independent. They believe Bolivia's potentially wrench in minerals, and that should be used for her needed development. Few people in South America have any doubt about which side is going to prevail. 

Uruguay is a prime example of Brazilian expansionism. Uruguay, after years as a beacon of democracy, but as an economic laggard, was taken over last June by her military men in the Brazilian manner. Labor unions, the press, and democratic processes have since been scrapped or repressed 

Nationalists in all three countries, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Bolivia, are lamenting the fact that their long awaited economic boom comes at a time when their people are losing control over their own economies. Last September's rightest revolution in Chile, another former democratic bastion in South America, opened that country to Brazilian political and economic domination. 

Brazil is also looking to Africa as a source of raw materials and a field for investment. There have been numerous indications recently that Africa looms large in Brazil's future trade plans. Africa has important resources such as petroleum, copper, and phosphates, which Brazil needs. Closer economic and diplomatic relations which African nations will guarantee Brazil access to these raw materials. Closer relations with Africa also fit into Brazil's strategy to become a spokesman for the Third World. An article in Brazil's weekly, Opinião, discusses the signs of increased Brazilian interest in Africa's raw materials and consumer markets. 

It is possible that in the near future students of international relations will cite the joint declaration of friendship of the Brazilian and Nigerian chancellors as an important step in strengthening Brazil's political and economic ties to Africa. The visit of Nigeria's chancellor, an important public figure in Africa, is a sign of the closer relations to be expected in the future between Africa and Brazil. 

It is not surprising that Nigeria is the first African country with whom Brazil is trying to affect closer relations. Aside from being the most populated country in Africa, with one fifth of the continent's total population, Nigeria also has a second largest gross national product in Africa. Between 1967 and 1970, it registered an annual growth rate of 19%, which was second only to Zaire. Thanks particularly to its large increase in petroleum production, which compensates for Nigeria's under development, primitive agriculture, and internal political divisions, Nigeria's on the verge of becoming the African giant. 

Presently Africa's second leading petroleum producer, it will shortly overtake Libya for the lead in Africa. By 1980, Nigeria is expected to surpass Kuwait and Venezuela and become the world's fourth largest petroleum producer. Nigeria is an ideal partner in the Brazilian grand strategy of closer relations with Africa. Even in a superficial analysis, trade between Brazil and Nigeria appears promising. Nigeria has a potentially vast market with a large population, and, relative to the rest of Africa, a sophisticated consumption pattern. 

Furthermore, Nigeria can offer Brazil an excellent product in return petroleum. It also is undergoing import substitution industrialization, which favor Brazilian inputs. The two countries, both ruled by military governments, have obvious immediate interests in common. Probably most important is maintaining the price of raw materials, such as cocoa, for example. In addition, Brazil's desire to weaken its dependence on Middle Eastern oil because of its obedience to the wishes of United States diplomacy makes the Nigerian source even more inviting. 

Although Brazil is a new customer to Nigeria, trade between the two countries reached $30 million last year. This total is expected to mount rapidly in the next few years. Brazil's Minister of Foreign Affairs has already drawn up a list of over 200 goods and services, which can be absorbed by Nigeria. Numerous Brazilian industrialists and officials are going to Africa to study the potential market for sales and investments. 

In recent days, there have been indications that Brazil will increase her trade with countries in what is known as Black Africa. The first of these was the announcement that Brazil might form binational corporations with African countries to exploit the great existing phosphate reserves of the continent, some of which are still virgin. The formation of binational corporations with African countries would guarantee the importation of increasing volumes of phosphates. When one realizes that Brazil imports 85% of the nutrients in the fertilizers it uses, the importance of such corporations is obvious. 

Another indication of Brazil's African strategy is the arrival of Zaire's first ambassador to be sent to Brazil. The ambassador expressed interest in increasing trade between the two countries, stating, "The Brazilian experience with building roads and applying scientific research to agriculture and industry can be of much more value to Zaire than the experience of European countries because Zaire and Brazil share the same climate." 

At present, commerce between the two countries is almost negligible. Zaire buys a small number of cars and buses from Brazil and sells a small amount of copper. However, this situation is expected to change radically in view of the negotiations, which will be carried out when Zaire's president visits Brazil in 1974. 

Plans to increase trade with countries in Black Africa are made without prejudice in Brazil's regular commerce with South Africa and Rhodesia, by opening important sectors of her economy to foreign interests and keeping her dissidents in poor under control, Brazil has been able to accumulate foreign exchange and expand into the economies of fellow Third World countries. Along with an economic tie, such as commerce, investments, and loans comes political influence. That influence has already manifested itself in the right wing coups in Bolivia, Uruguay, and Chile. It remains to be seen whether Brazil's African partners will succumb to the Brazilian rightist pressure. 

This has been a feature on Brazilian economic expansion, including excerpts from the Mexico City daily, Excélsior, the British News Weekly, Latin America, and the Brazilian Weekly, Opinião. 

In recent weeks, there have been two new presidents installed in Latin America, namely in Brazil and Venezuela, and the contested Guatemalan election of early March has brought considerable commentary from the international press. A columnist from the Mexican Daily, Excélsior had this to say about these political power shifts. 

The recent Guatemalan elections were far from an example of representative democracy. Three military officers contested the presidency and one of them General Montt, a Christian Democrat claims victory in spite of the fact that General Laugerud, of the Conservative Nationalist Coalition, officially won. It is not strange that the Guatemala electoral process was dirty and deceptive. If one remembers that Guatemala has been submerged in a wave of violence that is similar to the one which rocked Colombia in the 1950s.

Right wing paramilitary groups and left wing guerrilla organizations have been at war in Guatemala for many years. In 1971, under the Arana government, there were close to 1000 political assassinations, 171 kidnappings, and 190 disappearances. The majority of these committed by right-wing terrorists with no visible attempt by the government to control them. 

Excélsior continues pointing out that the more conservative sectors of our continent have been more pleased with the March 15th presidential change in Brazil. General Ernesto Geisel has been designated, not elected, president of that country. He is the fourth general to occupy this post since 1964, the year in which the military overthrew the civilian Goulart administration.

The outgoing president Medici noted the non-partisan character of the Brazilian regime, perhaps implying that the military rule has been institutionalized, that the Brazilian government has become a military counterpart to the Mexican PRI, where the individuals rotate power, but where the regime remains intact.

The Brazilian inauguration ceremony was cold and calculated, says Excélsior. Crowds of people were not present, the streets deserted, demonstrating that the regime is not interested in establishing even an appearance of popularity. On the other hand, the Brazilian inauguration attracted what might be called the Fascist Club of Latin America. Attending the inauguration were Pinochet of Chile, Bordaberry of Uruguay, and Banzer of Bolivia.

The leadership of this club belongs, of course, to the so-called non-partisan regime of Brazil, which represents the best alternative that US Foreign Policy offers to progressive attempts in other directions, such as the former Allende government in Chile.

Excélsior points out that the Brazilian model boasts an 11% annual growth rate in its economy, but over half its population earns only about $100 a year and suffers chronic malnutrition. The Brazilian politicians emphasize the economic growth rate, but hide the figures on the distribution of that wealth. This editorial from Mexico City's, Excélsior. 

Excélsior also reports that the Bertrand Russell Tribunal declared last week in Rome that the governments of Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, and Bolivia were guilty of repeated and systematic violations of human rights. The president of the tribunal added that the accused governments constitute a continuing crime against humanity. 

The current Bertrand Russell Tribunal on repression in Brazil, Chile, and Latin America is a descendant of the Russell Tribunal on United States War crimes in Vietnam, which convened during the 1960's. The tribunal is an international jury composed of prominent intellectuals from Europe, Latin America, and the United States, including Jean Paul Sartre, former Dominican President, Juan Bosch, and Colombian writer, Gabriel García Márquez. During last week, it considered evidence presented by political refugees from Latin America. 

The tribunal concluded that civil law has been unknown in Brazil since the military coup in 1964, that there was political repression in Bolivia and that the Uruguayan military government used torture on its opponents. Concerning Chile, the tribunal's verdict labeled the current military government illegitimate. 

The tribunal stated that the Uruguayan regime has lost all respect for human rights and has arrested people without charge in order to terrorize the population. For example, the tribunal cited the case of banning the newspaper Marcha and the arrest of the prize-winning writer, Juan Carlos Onetti. 

The tribunal also affirmed that multinational companies, as well as what it called ruling classes in countries which are aligned with these firms are the major beneficiaries of these four regimes. The tribunal issued an appeal to the governments around the world to cut off all military and economic aid to these four South American countries and it urged a coordinated international campaign for the liberation of political prisoners. The tribunal will convene its next jury later this year to examine the role of the US government and multinational companies in Latin America, as well as to investigate cases of torture in other countries such as Paraguay, Guatemala, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and Puerto Rico. 

In addition to the findings of the Bertrand Russell Tribunal, Mexico City's Excélsior reports the following on similar actions taken by the London-based organization, Amnesty International. At its April 1st general meeting in the British capital, the group called on General Ernesto Geisel, the recently installed president of Brazil to free all of Brazil's political prisoners. 

Amnesty International is a prestigious organization which has defended political prisoners in both communist and non-communist countries throughout the world. Amnesty International's letter to President Geisel was made public on the 10th anniversary of the military coup in Brazil, which facilitated the present regime's assumption of power. The letter also asks that Geisel will release information on some 210 political prisoners who died under what was termed mysterious circumstances following their arrest. 

Amnesty International, continues Excélsior, has long defended in any country, political prisoners that have not employed acts of violence in opposing their governments. The London group recently presented the same list of prisoners to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. In closing its session, Amnesty International affirmed that it would continue to collect documentation, which would prove that the torture of political prisoners is still being carried out by the new Brazilian regime. That from the Mexico City daily, Excélsior.

Since the Brazilian military came to power in 1964, civil liberties in Brazil have been severely restricted. The Christian Science Monitor reports on one Brazilian newspaper's fight for freedom of the press. The São Paulo newspaper O Estado de São Paulo, has felt the censor's blue pencil more than any other paper in Brazil during the past several years. On almost any given day, there will be several columns on news pages and on the editorial page given over to poetry.

This is a clear indication to O Estado readers that the censors have been at it again. In fact, O Estado editors have the poetry in type and ready to use. While most of Brazil's press has been intimidated by the succession of military-dominated governments since 1964, O Estado has stubbornly refused to back down. It is regarded in Brazil as one of the few defenders of freedom of the press. 

The military since 1964, have, in a sense, constituted themselves as Brazil's only political party. Electoral politics as known over the years simply no longer exist. There are to be sure two official parties. One of them supports the government. It of course, is in the majority. The other party is a made-to-order opposition and has virtually no clout. Despite the columns of poetry it runs in place of news and comment, O Estado is clearly one of the two focal points of opposition to the military. The other is the clergy of the Roman Catholic Church. Many of the churchmen are hoping that Brazil's new president, General Geisel will be less authoritarian than his predecessor. "It is too much to hope that he'll change everything," a São Paulo clergyman said, "but we have hopes that he will be more conscious of personal liberty and human rights than General Médici, the former president." 

A major test of general Geisel's purported liberalism will be his reaction to the student unrest which the New York Times has reported on many Brazilian campuses. Brazilian university students have taken advantage of the recent change in governments to embark upon increased protests. While this activity is not worrisome by the standards of some countries, it has caused concern in Brazil's official circles.

A strike began a week ago at São Paulo School of Medicine in protest against the present system of internship. All 1,000 students are backing the strike action. Since the school year opened at the beginning of this month, there have been strikes in the University of São Paulo's Department of Social Sciences and in two university branches. There has also been a flurry of protest pamphlets in various universities. Leaflets distributed at the Federal University of Bahia, in the Northeastern city of Salvador, note a worsening of the situation there. 

São Paulo University's Department of Social Sciences has called for renewed debate in the university on political, economic, and social events in Brazilian society, and has organized a series of lectures by prominent liberal figures, including some teachers who have been barred from teaching at the school. Militants at the School of Communications and Arts in São Paulo University have begun issuing pamphlets against their director, accusing him of arrogant authoritarianism and of acting like a gendarme. São Paulo University's Council of Academic Centers recently issued a communique supporting various protest movements and declared that 1974 would be extremely important in the students' fight to strengthen their free and independent organizations. 

A Communications student declared that the basic problem is a lack of liberty. He was protesting against the presence of police agents inside the university and the lack of true student associations. The national and state student organizations were disbanded at the outset of the 1964 military coup and have never been restored. Since then, student protest and repression have come in waves. A forceful crackdown in 1971 and widespread arrests a year ago served to curb student demands until recently. The academic centers, which are isolated groups serving generally as social clubs, are now debating their role under the new Geisel government. One group is urging increased militancy and closer contacts among the centers. 

The recent prosecution of a Brazilian congressman under the National Security Law has cast doubt on President Geisel's liberalism. The Brazilian weekly Opinião reports that Congressman Francisco Pinto has been charged with subverting the national security by defaming Chile's chief of state. When the Chilean General Augusto Pinochet attended Geisel's inauguration a month ago, Pinto denounced the head of Chile's Junta as a Fascist and the oppressor of the Chilean people. Under new Brazilian laws, Congressmen are not immune to prosecution if they injure or defame the laws of national security. If convicted, the congressman faces two to six years in prison. 

This is the first time that Brazil's military government has formally charged a member of Congress with public offense to a chief of state. In the past, other congressmen have used strong language to denounce other leaders such as Richard Nixon, Juan Perón of Argentina, and Premier Fidel Castro of Cuba. 

The Pinto case has stirred much common and concern in opposition circles in Brazil in view of widespread hopes that the inauguration last month of General Geisel as president was a step toward liberalization. General Geisel has publicly declared that he favors a gradual but sure return to Democratic rule in Brazil and has promised a new voice in policymaking to Congress. Congress has been powerless in recent years.

Mr. Pinto himself expressed the view that the government's action against him was intended to placate not only General Pinochet, but also Brazil's hard line military leaders who have expressed concern over a slight relaxation of censorship. The congressman's five-minute speech included a warning against what he described as the Chilean leader's plan to create an anti-Communist axis with Brazil, Paraguay, and Bolivia. The speech has not appeared in full in the government-censored press. These reports on developments in Brazil appeared in the Christian Science Monitor, The New York Times, and the Brazilian weekly Opinião. 

The British Newsweek, Latin America reports on Bolivia's attempt to reclaim passage to the sea. The idea that Peru and Chile could be on the point of going to war seems absurd and it has formally been denied by the government's concerned, but there can be no doubt that the possibility exists of a serious confrontation over Bolivia's efforts to recover its lost coastline. The simplest solution to Bolivia's problem would be a corridor running down to Arica, but this would require the agreement of Peru. President Juan Velasco Alvarado seems to shut off any speculation over this point.

When he said last week, "I do not believe any Peruvian would be in favor of giving Bolivia an outlet to the sea at Arica." He went on to say that Peru, on the other hand, did favor a solution by which Chile would return to Bolivia, a portion of the coastal strip around Antofagasta, which Bolivia lost in the War of the Pacific in 1879. He said this had been made quite clear in the communique after his meeting with President Hugo Banzer last year. Such a solution would have the additional advantage from previous point of view of cutting Chile's territory in two and perhaps reopening territorial questions which had seemed definitively settled by the Treaty of Ancon. 

Velasco's words were less well received in La Paz, where it was argued by official spokesman that Peru was going back on the insurances given to Banzer last year. The Bolivians themselves were not entirely at one over the matter. President Banzer had to contradict the words of his defense minister who had spoken to the press of the armed forces having a secret treaty to obtain access to the sea. The Minister clearly hinted that this consisted of a military strategy, Banzer's assertion that Bolivia sought only a peaceful solution failed to calm the situation. 

Argentina has reacted somewhat curiously in the pages of the Buenos Aires press. La Opinión, which reflects the views of an important segment of Perón's cabinet, published a front page article on the subject signed by the North American futurologist, Herman Khan. Khan argued that the current tensions in Latin America were caused by Brazil's objective of opening a way to the Pacific. He said that if Brazil achieved its goal, Argentina would be shut into a situation of geopolitical isolation, and this prospect is intolerable to Buenos Aires. 

The various actors in the drama have different motives. Bolivia is making the running, but this is not new. Bolivian governments, particularly military governments, have long been devoted to this particular cause. They're probably anxious to take advantage of the present situation to keep the issue alive. In his context, it is probably in their interest to persuade the Bolivians to agree to Arica, even though they must know that this will be unwelcome to the Peruvian government.

The Chileans are anxious to please the Brazilians and an international row with Peru could be a useful diversion from their domestic difficulties. The Brazilians are saying very little, but are certainly backing Bolivia's aspirations and could be said to stand to gain for any conflict between the Spanish speaking nations of South America. 

It is hard to see why the Argentines wish to escalate the situation, and it could be that it is no more than La Opinión's desire for exciting front page copy. It could also be, however, that the Argentine government is generally alarmed and is seeking to bring the issues out into the open before the situation deteriorates further. The United States, too, would seem at first sight to be anxious to reduce tension in the area, particularly since they have recently made peace with Peru. A limited war would be more likely than almost any other conceivable circumstance to lead to revolution in Latin America. 

Finally, the Peruvians are almost certainly honest in their desire to avoid conflict and ascribe the whole affair to an international anti-Peruvian plot. Perhaps a better way of explaining this situation in which countries are apparently preparing for a war, which none of them wants to fight, is to see the situation as a reflection of real underlying tensions among the nations of South America. The law of opposites led during the late 1960s to both Argentine and Andean responses to the challenge of Brazilian expansion. The uneasy equilibrium, which had been established on this basis was weakened by the Bolivian coup of August, 1971, and by last year's Uruguayan coup. 

It was finally destroyed by the Chilean coup last September. This posed a direct threat to Argentina, which began to feel encircled by Brazilian client states. It also promised to change fundamentally the character of the Andean group. The current state of tension seems to reflect the difficulties encountered by various countries involved in adjusting to the radically altered situation. This from the British News weekly, Latin America. 

The Christian Science Monitor comments on the recent wave of nationalizations announced by the new government in Venezuela. "We are not in an excessive hurry," says Venezuelan President Carlos Andrés Pérez about putting his country's economy in the hands of Venezuelans. But we cannot hold back a decision, and that decision shows that President Pérez and his new government expect to have huge foreign-owned oil enterprises in Venezuelan hands within two years.

They will begin moving immediately to nationalize the iron mines and steel furnaces of two United States firms, and they have told other foreign investors that they must reduce their ownership of plants, service industries, and other activities to 20% of the facilities within three years. It is too early to assess the full impact of the Venezuelan decisions, says the Christian Science Monitor. 

But they involve billions of dollars worth of foreign investment. The oil industry alone, which is heavily owned by United States Enterprises, is a $5 billion investment. Whereas the iron ore, manufacturing, and service industries represent another $1 billion or more of investment. The action comes as a shock to many a foreign investor in Venezuela's booming economy. It amounts to the most significant and far-reaching nationalization movement in Latin America in a decade.

It clearly came as a surprise to many foreigners, and particularly to North Americans whose oil, mining, and service investments in Venezuela account for nearly 80% of all foreign ownership in South American countries. They had expected the oil nationalization, which under the terms of leases and other concession agreements, would've automatically occurred in 1983. But they had not been prepared for the mining and service industry takeovers announced by President Pérez in a May Day speech and then amplified in subsequent remarks by members of his government. 

In the mining field, the Venezuelan subsidiaries of both the U.S. Steel Corporation and the Bethlehem Steel Corporation are involved. Both have concessions that are due to run out in the year 2000, but President Pérez says, "We are taking them back now." US Steel through its subsidiary, the Orinoco Mining Company, is the larger of the two, with an investment of $330 million. President Pérez said he planned to adhere strictly to the Andean Pact decisions that govern the operations of foreign investments in the Six Nation Andean common market, of which Venezuela is a member.

Pact provisions set up formulas for foreign investment percentages in many industries, including raw material exploitation and certain service and product industries. President Pérez's decision to adhere to these formulas is regarded as a more severe application of the provisions than that taken by other Andean Pact members; Columbia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, and Chile. This comment on Venezuelan nationalization appeared recently in the Christian Science Monitor. 

A more recent declaration by the Venezuelan president was reported by the Caracas daily, El Nacional. President Andrés Pérez announced May 16th, the beginning of the nationalization of oil companies operating in Venezuela. Pérez called May 16th, "One of the major dates in Venezuelan history." And he added that, "Today, Venezuela begins the final stage towards sovereign ownership of its natural resources." He went on to say that a new historical epic has opened for Venezuela, the same age which has begun in Latin America and all of those countries which have been the victims of economic totalitarianism by the developed nations.

President Pérez pointed out that the legitimate rights of the transnational corporations and the United States will be respected in the state takeover. He assured the foreign companies that they could continue their activities without interference until the nationalization process is completed. The President did not specify the date by which the concessions and properties of foreign oil firms will come under state control, although a government spokesman has said that the nationalizations will be completed before the end of the President's five year term. This from El Nacional in Caracas, Venezuela. 

And finally, the British news weekly, Latin America, had this to say about developments in Venezuela. President Pérez's new economic policy based on oil wealth and reflecting a strong nationalist sentiment has delighted the left and has infuriated a large part of the private sector. With his new policy at home and abroad, Pérez has stood recent Venezuelan politics on its head. Remembered during his election campaign as the former tough anti-guerrilla interior minister and seen as a strong friend of foreign business interests, Pérez has now amazed friend and foe alike by announcing a nationalist and progressive program.

Referring to Pérez's plans to increase workers' salaries and reorganize the country's whole financial system, Latin America points out that it is oil that makes all this possible. With estimated oil earnings of well over $15 billion this year, two and a half times as much as last year, Venezuela is in danger of being swamped with money, which it cannot absorb in a hurry.

This would force a currency reevaluation, bringing in its train a flood of cheap foreign imports and a strong disincentive to industrial and agricultural development, not to mention a worsening of the contrast between the rich and the poor. The new economic policy is designed to prevent just this. Instead of squandering money, as in the past, on useless construction works like massive freeways, at least half the earnings from oil are to be transferred to a special domestic development fund. Most of the rest will be used for investment and aid to other Latin American countries. In the next few years, Venezuela is therefore likely to be one of the most influential countries in the continent, concludes Latin America. 

The Christian Science Monitor comments on the recent wave of nationalizations announced by the new government in Venezuela. "We are not in an excessive hurry," says Venezuelan President Carlos Andrés Pérez about putting his country's economy in the hands of Venezuelans. But we cannot hold back a decision, and that decision shows that President Pérez and his new government expect to have huge foreign-owned oil enterprises in Venezuelan hands within two years.

They will begin moving immediately to nationalize the iron mines and steel furnaces of two United States firms, and they have told other foreign investors that they must reduce their ownership of plants, service industries, and other activities to 20% of the facilities within three years. It is too early to assess the full impact of the Venezuelan decisions, says the Christian Science Monitor. 

But they involve billions of dollars worth of foreign investment. The oil industry alone, which is heavily owned by United States Enterprises, is a $5 billion investment. Whereas the iron ore, manufacturing, and service industries represent another $1 billion or more of investment. The action comes as a shock to many a foreign investor in Venezuela's booming economy. It amounts to the most significant and far-reaching nationalization movement in Latin America in a decade.

It clearly came as a surprise to many foreigners, and particularly to North Americans whose oil, mining, and service investments in Venezuela account for nearly 80% of all foreign ownership in South American countries. They had expected the oil nationalization, which under the terms of leases and other concession agreements, would've automatically occurred in 1983. But they had not been prepared for the mining and service industry takeovers announced by President Pérez in a May Day speech and then amplified in subsequent remarks by members of his government. 

In the mining field, the Venezuelan subsidiaries of both the U.S. Steel Corporation and the Bethlehem Steel Corporation are involved. Both have concessions that are due to run out in the year 2000, but President Pérez says, "We are taking them back now." US Steel through its subsidiary, the Orinoco Mining Company, is the larger of the two, with an investment of $330 million. President Pérez said he planned to adhere strictly to the Andean Pact decisions that govern the operations of foreign investments in the Six Nation Andean common market, of which Venezuela is a member.

Pact provisions set up formulas for foreign investment percentages in many industries, including raw material exploitation and certain service and product industries. President Pérez's decision to adhere to these formulas is regarded as a more severe application of the provisions than that taken by other Andean Pact members; Columbia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, and Chile. This comment on Venezuelan nationalization appeared recently in the Christian Science Monitor. 

A more recent declaration by the Venezuelan president was reported by the Caracas daily, El Nacional. President Andrés Pérez announced May 16th, the beginning of the nationalization of oil companies operating in Venezuela. Pérez called May 16th, "One of the major dates in Venezuelan history." And he added that, "Today, Venezuela begins the final stage towards sovereign ownership of its natural resources." He went on to say that a new historical epic has opened for Venezuela, the same age which has begun in Latin America and all of those countries which have been the victims of economic totalitarianism by the developed nations.

President Pérez pointed out that the legitimate rights of the transnational corporations and the United States will be respected in the state takeover. He assured the foreign companies that they could continue their activities without interference until the nationalization process is completed. The President did not specify the date by which the concessions and properties of foreign oil firms will come under state control, although a government spokesman has said that the nationalizations will be completed before the end of the President's five year term. This from El Nacional in Caracas, Venezuela. 

And finally, the British news weekly, Latin America, had this to say about developments in Venezuela. President Pérez's new economic policy based on oil wealth and reflecting a strong nationalist sentiment has delighted the left and has infuriated a large part of the private sector. With his new policy at home and abroad, Pérez has stood recent Venezuelan politics on its head. Remembered during his election campaign as the former tough anti-guerrilla interior minister and seen as a strong friend of foreign business interests, Pérez has now amazed friend and foe alike by announcing a nationalist and progressive program.

Referring to Pérez's plans to increase workers' salaries and reorganize the country's whole financial system, Latin America points out that it is oil that makes all this possible. With estimated oil earnings of well over $15 billion this year, two and a half times as much as last year, Venezuela is in danger of being swamped with money, which it cannot absorb in a hurry.

This would force a currency reevaluation, bringing in its train a flood of cheap foreign imports and a strong disincentive to industrial and agricultural development, not to mention a worsening of the contrast between the rich and the poor. The new economic policy is designed to prevent just this. Instead of squandering money, as in the past, on useless construction works like massive freeways, at least half the earnings from oil are to be transferred to a special domestic development fund. Most of the rest will be used for investment and aid to other Latin American countries. In the next few years, Venezuela is therefore likely to be one of the most influential countries in the continent, concludes Latin America. 

The Caracas daily, El Nacional, carried an editorial on the recent treaty signed between Brazil and Bolivia. On May 22nd, Bolivia's president Hugo Banzer signed the agreement of industrial economic aid with Brazil. The treaty has important implications. Brazil is not just any neighbor. In recent years, especially since the military overthrow of President Goulart in 1964, the Amazonian giant has demonstrated that it wants to play an important part in Latin America. The head of the Brazilian cabinet and chief collaborator of Brazil's President Geisel recently affirmed Brazil's imperial aspirations.

He believes expanded influence is Brazil's "manifest destiny." In keeping with her expansionist policy, Brazil has enjoyed growing influence in Bolivia since General Torres was ousted from Bolivia's presidency in 1971. Torres had refused to export iron to Brazil. Torres successor and Bolivia's current president, Hugo Banzer, has been much friendlier to Brazil. Indeed, many analysts believe that Banzer is in power thanks to Brazilian pressure. Banzer was one of only four Latin American presidents invited to the inauguration of Brazil's new president, General Ernesto Geisel. 

The other three were the heads of Uruguay, Chile, and Paraguay. The Brazilian-Bolivian agreement will create a disequilibrium in Latin American politics. Argentina is most damaged by the Brazilian-Bolivian pact since it is now surrounded with Brazilian allies. In a move to neutralize Brazilian influence, Argentina's president, Juan Perón will visit Paraguay in early June. There are also rumors that Perón will visit Bolivia in an effort to improve Argentine-Bolivian relations. The Brazilian-Bolivian treaty, which so concerns Argentina, establishes an enclave of industrial development in Bolivia's southeast. 

The Brazilian government has guaranteed a market for Bolivian industrial goods in Brazil. Brazil also loaned Bolivia $10 million at 5% annual interest and financed the local costs of the projected programs in the agreement. Brazil pledges aid in an effort to secure an inter-American development bank loan for Bolivia. The loan is to be used to construct a pipeline to Brazil. Finally, Brazil agreed to grant Bolivia a longtime wish, a pathway to the sea. Brazil promised Bolivia free access to the Brazilian ports of Belém, Pôrto Belo, Corumbá, and Santos. In return, Bolivia pledged to Brazil a daily supply of 240 million cubic feet of natural gas for 20 years. 

The agreement has the drawback of possibly loosening Bolivian sovereignty over her southeast. Bolivia's southeast is especially vulnerable to Brazil's expansionist pretensions. Poorly linked to the rest of the country, and with a pro Brazilian elite, the southeast could easily have been separated from Bolivia. This has in fact happened before when Brazil annexed the rubber rich Acre territory from Bolivia at the beginning of the 20th century. There is today increasing Brazilian influence in Bolivia's border provinces. 

In one province, 20,000 of the total 32,000 inhabitants are Brazilians. They are imposing their language on the Bolivian province, and the medium of exchange is the Brazilian currency, the cruzeiro. By extending high interest rate loans, the Bank of Brazil has been able to acquire much Bolivian land through foreclosures. The El Nacional editorial concludes its analysis of the Brazilian-Bolivian treaty by stating "We do not applaud treaties, which only reinforce the position of reactionary governments." 

"Agreements behind the public's back, surrender of natural resources and indiscriminate acceptance of foreign loans will sooner or later bring about public outcry." That from that El Nacional editorial. More recent news in El Nacional confirms the editorial's judgment. After the treaty signing was announced, a meeting of numerous labor unions and political parties repudiated the treaty. The Bolivians said that the treaty, "Betrayed the national interest and endangered Bolivia's sovereignty by opening it to Brazilian influence." 

The treaty also provoked demonstrations in Bolivia. El Nacional reports that the afternoon after the treaty signing, police and paramilitary groups dispersed some 3,000 student demonstrators from the University of San Andrés. Later in the day, Bolivia's government announced the expulsion of three opposition political leaders. The leaders were accused of conspiring to damage Bolivia's economy through protests about the gas sales to Brazil. That night, hundreds of Bolivian students returned to the streets to demonstrate against the Brazilian-Bolivian treaty. 

The military then declared a state of siege. The three exiled political leaders appeal to workers, students, and peasants to unite against the government. The exiled leaders believe Bolivia's president, General Banzer, is attempting to establish a dictatorship. In response to the leader's plea, students at Cochabamba's Catholic University manifested their discontent with the treaty. They also protested the visit to Bolivia of Brazil's president, Ernesto Geisel with chants of, "Geisel go home." The students at Bolivia's San Andrés University have gone on strike for an indefinite period. This story about the new Brazilian-Bolivian treaty is from the Venezuelan daily El Nacional.