Annotations for Countries: Chile

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are changes going on in Chile these days. Excélsior of Mexico City reports from Santiago. President Salvador Allende announced his new cabinet, which excludes its former military members, and recommended the continuation of a clear and energetic political economy to avoid the spiraling inflation which endangers the benefits won by Chilean workers under the Allende regime. Five days after the collective resignation of his 15 ministers, Dr. Allende retained nine of them, transferred one to another ministerial post, and named five new ministers.

Undoubtedly, the most important change is the retirement of the three military members of the former cabinet, including General Carlos Prats, commander in chief of the Armed Forces, who held the interior minister post and Air Force Commander Claudio Sepulveda, former mining minister. Circles opposed to the Popular Unity government interpreted the dismissal of the military representatives as a triumph of the more radical over the moderate sector of the governing coalition. Nevertheless, President Allende maintained that the retirement of the military from the cabinet resulted from the fact that "I considered that they completed their mission," which led them to form part of the administration, namely to resolve the crisis provoked by the wave of strikes last October and to assure the normal development of the electoral process, which culminated in the congressional elections last March.

After explaining that the military ex-ministers will continue to make their contributions with patriotism and responsibility to the technical completion of their activities and to the development of the national economy, President Allende referred to the present economic situation of the country, which he said, "Obliges us to a clear and drastic political economy, which will carry us forward without vacillation. This cabinet," he went on, "Must forcibly combat the hoarding of consumer goods, the black market, and must protest once more against the inaction of the Congress, the instrument which is empowered to punish those forces which injure the economic life of Chile and cause incalculable social damage." Allende also exhorted the leaders of the parties, which constitute the Popular Unity government, to impose a discipline which will eliminate the spontaneity of some sectors in order to demonstrate that we, the popular representatives, understand the great historical meaning of the process which is developing in our country. This report from Excélsior.

The recent meeting of the Economic Commission for Latin America, a respected and influential branch of the United Nations, has provoked a great deal of discussion in the Latin American press. Excélsior of Mexico City reports that Raul Prebisch, Executive Secretary of the Commission, issued a call for serious structural reforms in Latin American countries. "These reforms," he said, "are a necessary, though not sufficient condition, for overcoming the contradictions that imported technology creates for Latin America." He discussed the difficulties that the Economic Commission has had in its work because of forces opposed to development in Latin America and called for renewed strength within the organization for objective research. The Latin American economist spoke out against what he called "dependent capitalism" saying that its benefits were limited to elites and did not extend to the great majority of people.

In a speech sent from his hospital bed to the Commission's meeting, Peruvian President Velasco Alvarado, spoke of the great revolutionary current in Latin America of which he felt his own country was an example. Mexico's official participation in the conference took the form of several warnings, including the danger of international trade and tariff agreements, which are made without the participation of Third World nations. The Mexicans also requested that ECLA begin a systematic study of the characteristics of multinational corporations in Latin America whose activities in the region seem to be a major source of economic decision making.

Latin America, a British periodical, points out that the main feature of this 25th anniversary meeting has been more bitter Latin American criticism of the United States. So, with the United States veto in the Security Council in Panama last week and the Organization of American States meeting in Washington next week, the United States will have been Latin America's whipping boy three weeks in a row. "What may cause anxiety in the State Department," Latin America writes, "is the stark public revelation of the incompatibility of interests between the United States and Latin America."

The Cuban speaker encountered widespread Hispanic support when he said that, "At the present moment in history, there is no community of interests between the United States of America and the other countries of the hemisphere." He attracted even more sympathy for criticizing proposals to move certain Economic Commission agencies from Santiago de Chile to Washington and even for calling for the expulsion of the United States, Britain, France, and the Netherlands from the Commission so that it could be truly representative of Latin America and the Caribbean.

Juan Perón's electoral victory in Argentina and the political embarrassment suffered by the United States in Panama in March indicate a new willingness on the part of Spanish-speaking countries in Latin America to assert themselves. This has left Brazil, one of the United States' strongest supporters in the hemisphere, in an increasingly isolated position. This week's feature from Rio de Janeiro's Opinião discusses the possibilities of and fundamental reasons for a diplomatic realignment, which seems to be taking place in the Western Hemisphere.

Opinião asks, "Does some antagonism exist between Brazil and the rest of Latin America? Is Brazil the second-largest country in the Americas trying to exercise a type of sub imperialism in the hemisphere? And with the rush of huge foreign firms to Brazil, is that nation not transforming itself into a type of bridgehead over which the companies will carry out their actions in the hemisphere or is it exactly the opposite of all this? While Brazil transforms itself rapidly into a modern industrialized nation, are the majority of neighboring countries bogged down without direction in a swamp of under-development, looking for a scapegoat to explain their own failures and afraid of Brazilian development? Are they not the ones who are conspiring to encircle Brazil?"

As strange as these questions seem, they have influenced the actions of a good number of nations of the continent. Ever since President Nixon affirmed at the end of 1971 that as Brazil leans, so leans the rest of Latin America. Accusations and denials of a pretended hegemony have been issued with frequency from Brazil as well as from its neighbors. At the end of March, for example, an important leader of the Peronista party denounced a Washington Brasilia access and the ambition of the Brazilian government to try and exercise a delegated leadership and serve as a bridge for the entrance of an ultra capitalistic form of government incompatible with the interests of Latin America.

Opinião continues by noting that the declarations of the Peróneus leader are perhaps the most dramatic in a series of events which appear to be separating Brazil more and more from Spanish America. In Panama, the Panamanian foreign minister, speaking at the close of the United Nations Security Council meeting, talked about the awakening of Latin America and referred to the almost unanimous support of neighboring countries for panama's demand that the United States withdraw from the canal zone. To this same meeting, the Brazilian foreign minister had sent a telegram of evident neutrality, asking only for just and satispharic solutions to the problem of the canal.

After the meeting of the Security Council, the ministers of Panama and Peru announced that they are going to suggest a total restructuring of the Organization of American States, the OAS. Brazilian diplomacy, however, has systematically supported the OAS, which is seen by various Latin nations as an instrument used by the United States to impose its policies on the continent.

It was the Organization of American States which legalized the armed intervention of a predominantly American and Brazilian troops in the Dominican Republic in 1965. The Organization of American States also coordinated the political, economic, and diplomatic isolation of the Cuban regime within the Americas. Another event in February of this year can also be interpreted as a tendency away from Brazil's foreign policy, this time in the economic sphere. President Rafael Caldera announced that Venezuela, one of the richest nations in Latin America, and until recently, closely tied to the United States, would join the Andean Pact, an association formed in 1969 by Ecuador, Chile, Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia.

The pact was one of the solutions devised by the Andean nations to overcome the obstacles to regional integration found in the Latin America Free Trade Association. These nations saw the association as an instrument for large European and American firms, based in Argentina, Mexico, and Brazil, to realize their transactions more easily.

Opinião continues. "Today when the Argentinians have already announced that their intention to join the Andean Pact, where there are significant restrictions on foreign capital. Brazil is preparing a plan destined to permit the survival of the Free Trade Association. Thus once again, moving in the opposite direction of its Spanish-speaking neighbors. At the same time Brazil faces another political problem in the Americas. During the past decade, various nationalistic governments have appeared on the continent with widely divergent tendencies, including Chile, Peru, Mexico, Ecuador, and most recently Panama and Argentina. This new situation has given rise to a policy of coexistence, which is termed by the diplomats as ideological pluralism. This pluralism accepts the collaboration among governments of different natures and is opposed to the ideological frontiers against communism practiced by the Organization of American States, an idea which seems to orient Brazilian diplomacy to the present day."

Opinião speculates that Peronism could be the new element which will separate Brazil even more dangerously from the rest of Latin America. Representatives of the government elect in Argentina have already announced their intentions to denounce accords reached by the Brazilians and the present Argentine government over the utilization of the water of the Paraná River. At the same time, many nations in Latin America believe Brazil is trying to create its own sphere of influence. As typical examples, they cite the cases of Paraguay and Bolivia. The latter nation received $46 million in aid from Brazil last year while during the same period, the United States contributed only a little more, 52 million.

Opinião concludes that Brazil's economic growth, obvious favor in the eyes of American business and government officials, and the search for areas of influence, all indicate the emergence of a Brazilian sub imperialism in Latin America. There are two interpretations of this new phenomenon however as Opínion notes. "One sees Brazil always acting in accord with American interests while others feel it is acting for its own ends." To explore the subject further, Opínion offers three special reports from its correspondence on relations of Brazil with the rest of Latin America.

Opinião diplomatic correspondent filed the following report. "The idea of a diplomatic plot against Brazil is at best speculation. Concretely, Brazil's diplomacy in Latin America is in great difficulty, and therefore, there exists a possibility of isolation. The announcement of Brazil's foreign minister that he will visit the Andean Nations implies a recognition of this possibility and is an evident effort to avoid a total collapse. But the basic reason for the phenomenon is in Brazil's fixation with instruments of policy considered outmoded, such as the Latin American Free Trade Association and the Organization of American States, even the North Americans since this and in a recent interview, William Rogers, the United States Secretary of State, suggested a transformation of the OAS, the Organization of American States. However, Brazil clings to these old organizations."

Opinião correspondent continues. "In mid-March, the Brazilian Department of State announced that it was preparing a plan to save the Latin American Free Trade Association and that Brazil saw this as indispensable to the solution of Latin America's commercial problems. Other Latin nations feel, however, that the 12-year-old association has done nothing to fulfill its promise and has benefited the great Latin American firms, the only ones with the power, organization, and dynamism necessary to take advantage of the concessions granted to encourage industrial development. The consequences of the Free Trade Association agreements have been that the multinational corporations have established a division of labor among their Latin American factories. Through the agreements, they trade with one another and even win new markets while benefiting from suspensions of tariffs."

The Brazilian idea of integration through the Free Trade Association appears therefore as an attempt to create an ample market for multinational corporations. An OAS study of the continent's economy in 1972 affirms that 90% of all manufactured goods produced are made by subsidiaries of American firms. These firms export 75% of their products to other Latin countries and over half of this commerce is, in reality, internal trade between different branches of the same corporation. It is therefore clear why United States corporations are so interested in Latin American free trade. It opens a market too attractive to be ignored. Brazil's efforts to save this free trade area are not likely to find support in the rest of Latin America. As to Brazil's fixation on the Organization of American States, the recent meaning of the United States Security Council in Panama seems to have decreed the end of that obsolete instrument. The president of the OAS was not even invited to speak at the meeting.

One Latin American commented that the OAS evidently no longer had any importance in the solution of Latin American problems. With the demise of the Organization of American States, the rigid ideological stance of Latin America, born of the Cold War, will also disappear. Opinião correspondent concludes that, "Latin America is now going to assume its own personality in the pluralistic context and this is the reality which Brazil must recognize if it wants to avoid the total collapse of its Latin American diplomacy."

But the battle is really not against Brazil as some poorly informed or cynical editorialist pretend. Opinião correspondent says, "The battle is against the action of the great imperialistic powers that transformed Brazil into a spearhead for their interests." He says, "In this rich dialectic of Latin American history, the presence of a Brazil, overflowing with economic power and ready to join the Club of the Great Nations, encountered the Treaty of Cartagena, which created the Andean Pact in an effective agreement, which integrates six nations and imposes severe restrictions on foreign investment. The Peronists want to join this pact, and given the economic structure of the Andean region, it is clear that Argentina's entrance constitutes a necessary contribution to the solution of problems which affect the viability of the agreement."

Opinião analysis continues with a report on the significance of the elections in Argentina for the rest of the continent. Perón's triumph in the March 11th elections was the most important fact of the past few months in Latin American history when there were many decisive events. When Perón launched his party's platform in December of last year, he ended his message to the Argentine people by prophesizing, "In the year 2000, we will be united or we will be subjugated." The Argentine people believed this and when they elected Perón's party, they not only voted against 17 years of military inefficiency, but also, with a consciousness of the importance of historical development, and opted for the union of Spanish-speaking America. It was not only Perón's program, which created a consciousness of the problem. Undoubtedly, the country's geopolitical awareness was a direct consequence of Brazil's emergence as a power with pretensions to hegemony on the continent.

Argentina has the space, resources, and experience to supply all that is lacking in the Andean Nations, but it has above all, a tradition of popular masses who are profoundly committed to militant, Peronist, nationalism, which could function as the true backbone of the new attempt to integrate Spanish America. The emergence of a nationalistic type government in Uruguay, seen as a distinct possibility since the Peronista victory, is probably the next step and what Opinião reporter thinks is inevitable. The creation of one great Latin American country stretching from ocean to ocean, the only organization capable of confronting the multinational corporations and Brazil, which is being manipulated by the multinationals.

The final part of Opinião's report is an interview with Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo, an important figure in Perón's party and considered the probable next foreign minister of Argentina. Sorondo notes that this is a special time in Latin America, a time when new historical forces are at work and new configurations are emerging. He stated that it is necessary to converse, to dialogue, and to seek new forms of understanding, but the Argentine did not confine himself to diplomatic platitudes. He reiterated his opposition to what he termed the Brasilia Washington Axis.

Sorondo called this axis, "An obstacle for the unification of Hispanic America and a bastion of melting national firms interested in maintaining the dependence and backwardness of the Latin American peoples." He concluded by saying that the subject will require the future Peronist government to recuperate the Argentine predominance in the region and to discuss with neighboring countries modalities of economic interdependence and to impose energetically the imposition of an ultra capitalistic domination manipulated by huge companies without nations that are establishing themselves in Brazil. This report was taken from Opinião of Rio de Janeiro.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There've been several strong reactions to US Secretary of State Rogers recent visit to Latin America that were ignored in the US press, but received ample coverage in Latin America. This report from Chile Hoy the Santiago weekly, is typical. 

The old rhetoric of the good neighbor no longer serves to suppress Latin American insubordination to aggressive US policies, leaving a trail of popular protest in Caracas and Bogota, prearranged tribute in Managua, and cold official receptions in Mexico City and Lima, Secretary of State, William Rogers arrived May 19th at his first breathing spot, Rio de Janeiro in Brazil, in his impossible goodwill mission to Latin America.

Rogers seeks to soften the growing Latin American reaction to the imperialist policies of his country, expressed clearly in recent international events and to make the road that President Nixon will soon follow, less rocky. Since the Secretary of State can obviously offer no real solutions to the antagonism between his country and Latin America, he has embellished his tour, characterized as a diplomatic diversion by an American news agency, with gross rhetoric. That from Chile Hoy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Several significant events in the continuing political struggles in Chile have been reported by Excélsior. In Santiago, the government of President Salvador Allende has rejected any kind of mediation in the two-month-old strike at the huge copper mine known as El Teniente. The statement reaffirmed the position of the government to hold down large wage increases which would heighten the serious inflation the country now faces. A previous announcement had indicated the government's opposition to the strikers' suggestion of mediation by the National Confederation of Copper Workers. This is consistent with a Allende's announced intention of ending special privileges enjoyed by certain sectors of the Chilean labor force, which have enjoyed higher pay than other sectors. 

Meanwhile, eight opposition radio stations advised the government that they would not comply with the new law designed to integrate the stations into a national network and that they would refuse to pay any fines imposed. This declaration follows the government's order that all stations must broadcast a daily program of official government announcements. It is thought that the order was given largely in response to the failure of many stations to broadcast an important speech by the Minister of Housing, that from Excélsior. 

The work of the opposition parties in Chile continues full strength this week as the Christian Democratic sectors among the miners and white-collar workers of the nationalized El Teniente copper mine remain on the strike that began in late April. In May, the Christian Democratic workers burned cars, fought with police, and seized a Socialist Party radio station in the city of Rancagua. The strike is costing Chile a million dollars a day. Though the strike demands are economic, its political character is seen in the rejection of any government solution, as well as the firm support given by the newspapers, radios, and political organizations of Chile's extreme right, which has been built up over a period of years only by being able to repress the labor movement. 

The London Weekly Latin America comments that early in June, the state-owned Chilean Copper Corporation declared a freeze on all June deliveries from the El Teniente mine where some of the miners have been on strike for the past two months. For July, 50% of deliveries from El Teniente and all deliveries from Chuquicamata mine, where white-collar workers have struck in sympathy with the El Teniente strikers, are similarly affected. Between them, the two mines produce two-thirds of Chilean copper production. 

The strike has political overtones, claims Latin America. Only the most highly paid workers are involved in the strike, which concerns a dispute over production bonuses. Young Christian Democrats have organized marches of support for the strikers. Outbreaks of violence between strikers and the security forces have increased sharply since an employee of the mine was shot dead last week when he started to drive his vehicle over a patrol guarding miners who were still working. Several people on both sides have been injured and 33 arrested. The halt in copper exports will further aggravate the country's economic difficulties. 

The Santiago weekly, Chile Hoy, gives an analysis of the crippling copper miner strike which lays the blame on the opposition Christian Democratic Party. The miner strike at El Teniente mine has just completed its second month. Until now, its result has been a loss of $40 million in expected copper revenue, the suspension of copper shipments to Britain and Germany with the accompanying deterioration of the image of Codelco, the state-run copper enterprise in terms of its ability to complete its contracts, a congressional censure of two government ministers, and a climate of explosive tension in the northern city of Rancagua. For much less reason than this, ex-president Eduardo Frei ordered the Army in 1966 to violently repress the striking miners at El Salvador Mine, killing six miners. 

The most painful aspect of the situation for the Chilean working class is a fragmentation caused by the strike within the copper workers who manage one of the most vital industries in Chile. For years, the Christian Democrats worked to divide Chilean workers and its Catholic unions were the worst enemy of the Central Workers Federation. As in all sectors which the Christian Democrats are not able to actually control, they promote fractionalism and division inside the Federation. This is the purpose of the El Teniente strike. It is strictly an economist struggle. 

Chile Hoy goes on to say the progressive sectors of the miner's union resolved this time to sacrifice their immediate needs for a higher living standard, viewing the strike issue as a question of political conscience. The strike vote at Chuquicamata mine demonstrated this new "conciencia", 1,750 against the strike in 1,450 in favor. This increasingly class-conscious attitude was expressed last week in Rancagua during a demonstration of solidarity with the two censured cabinet ministers. 

A union leader advised the miners that the strike was characterized by the eagerness of the right-wing Christian Democrats to impose the minority's wishes upon the majorities and thus destroy the base of union democracy. He said that this method was an old tactic of the Christian Democrats and that the El Teniente strike was one more move designed to destroy the popular unity government. This report on the copper miner strike in Chile is from the weekly, Chile Hoy. 

Excélsior, the Mexico City daily, gives a more recent account of the increasing unrest and tension caused by the strike in Chile. Excélsior reports from Santiago that last week, public forces used armored cars and tear gas to disperse striking miners concentrated in front of the Christian Democratic Party barricades in Santiago. 

Carlos Latorre, one of the youth leaders of the Christian Democratic Party, called out to the militants to unite rapidly and repel the police aggression but the police forces were able to dismantle further concentration. Speakers for the state-owned copper corporation, Codelco, announced that Allende had made the same offer to the striking copper miners, which weeks ago was refused. Namely, a subsidy of $240 monthly to compensate for the rise in the cost of living, which has been 238% in the past 12 months. The strikers asked for a 41% raise in salary. 

Sub-Secretary of the Interior, Daniel Vergara, announced that he had drafted orders to arrest the director of La Segunda, the afternoon edition of the newspaper El Mercurio, and to arrest the director of Radio Agricultura. Vergara said these medias broadcasted false news. After the disturbances, Allende emphasized that the doors of the palace are open to the workers, whoever they may be. This from Excélsior of Mexico City. 

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. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

While wiretaps, break-ins, and other acts of political espionage are being revealed in connection with the Watergate case, certain events evolving, Chilean officials raised the possibility of an entirely new dimension to the allegations against the US government. According to the New York City Police, the Manhattan home of the Chilean Ambassador to the United Nations was illegally entered in April of 1971. While a few valuables were reported missing, the ransacking of important papers and documents leads observers to believe the break-in was not an ordinary burglary. 

Also, at approximately the same time as the break-in at the Democratic National Headquarters in the Watergate Hotel, the Chilean embassy was illegally entered. It has been suggested that the intruders may have been looking for documents related to the Chilean expropriation of IT&T or evidence of ties between Cuba and Chile. When viewed alongside recent Watergate revelations of US government wiretaps of foreign embassies, these mysterious break-ins raised serious questions about the diplomatic techniques of the United States government. This from the Santiago Weekly, Chile Hoy. 

There is still very little detailed information concerning a recent coup attempt in Chile. According to a brief Miami Herald report, however, several low ranking members of the military were responsible for the coup attempt. They were arrested by pro constitution officers. The commander of the Santiago Province said the plot had been totally aborted. He declined to say whether civilians were involved in the plot. This from the Miami Herald. 

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. 

At a recent meeting of an Organization of American States Committee, the Chilean delegate denounced those who oppose modifications on the inter-American system as being tied to the United States. The Mexican daily Excélsior reported this week that the special committee for the reorganization of the inter-American system meeting in Lima, Peru re-examined the entire structure of inter-American relations.

Mexico stated that the United States must be prepared to accept certain economic changes, such as liberalization of markets, stabilization of Latin American export prices, and certain adjustments in the granting of financial and technical aid. In an intense emotional speech, which lasted almost two hours, the Chilean delegate termed ridiculous the idea that the people of Latin America and the United States have a convergence of interests.

The Chilean delegate said, "It is a lie. We are not the same. We are not of the same family. We do not have the same interests nor the same ideas, nor the same intentions. We do not want a system which will continue to contribute to the prosperity of the most powerful nation." Excélsior commented that at one point, the Chilean delegate raised his fist and pounded the table hard, sending microphones bouncing to the floor and upsetting a water pitcher. 

He continued, "This should not be taken as a personal or political attack. The United States is in a powerful position both politically and economically. What then is its goal? Above all, it is the protection of that position. What are the goals of the people of Latin America? What are the goals of underdeveloped nations? To enhance our prosperity and to allow our people to build their own road to development." 

The Chilean spokesman then began reading figures from an economic study. He said that, "While in the 1950s, United States invested almost $3 billion in Latin America, it extracted almost $13 billion in profits and dividends. In the period from 1960 to 1967, the imbalance was even worse. Investments totaling 985 million yielded over 6 billion in profits and dividends. Furthermore," he said, "this incredible deficit was not compensated for by financial help from the Inter-American Development Bank, the World Bank, the United States Treasury, or the International Monetary Fund." This from the Mexican daily Excélsior. 

Mexico City's Excélsior reports on recent events in Chile. President Salvador Allende confirmed in early July, at the swearing in of the new Chilean cabinet, that his government will remain faithful to norms already established of pluralism, liberty, and democracy to lead the way to socialism. Eight ministers retained their posts in the new cabinet, which was reorganized after the frustrated military coup of last month. The new members include four socialists, three communists, three radicals, and five representatives of four lesser parties. This report from the Mexican daily, Excélsior. 

Focusing next on Chile, Excélsior reports that the president of the Central Labor Union, also minister of labor, announced that 80 factories have been taken over, this occurred June 29th, by workers who supported the government against the attempted right-wing coup. The minister added that some of these factories will be incorporated into the publicly-owned sector and will form part of what is called Chile's social area. Industries will also be incorporated if they are monopolies or if they are small, but of strategic importance.

These industries are expected to follow certain conditions set up by the Central Confederation of Trade Unions, among which are respect for the quotas of production assigned by the government and autonomous control of operations. The secretary general of the Socialist Party, in a speech before workers, stated that the takeovers are part of a legitimate defense of Chile in the face of the recent coup attempt.

The minister of the interior in Chile recently affirmed that there will not be a dictatorship of any sort. During a special session in the Chamber of Deputies, he stated that it is true that the Chilean are living in a climate of tension and this has caused critical situations for the government as have constitutional reform, economic problems, the control of arms and the occupation of factories and industries. The interior minister added that democratic procedures and civil rights will continue in Chile and that changes will continue to be made within the law and the constitution. That from Excélsior. 

For a more harmonious note, we next report on popular music in Latin America. There has long been a rich tradition of communicating concerns and struggles, victories and defeats of working people through popular music. There has been a resurgence of interest and enthusiasm about this musical tradition in Chile in recent years, and many Chilean musicians have been active in the profound cultural and social changes occurring in their country.

One of these musicians is Isabel Parra, daughter of Violeta Parra, the well-known folk singer and partisan of Chilean peasants and workers. The Santiago magazine, Chile Hoy, published an interview with Isabel Parra shortly after her return from a concert tour in Ecuador. After discussing her tour, she commented on some of the present concerns of art workers in Chile.

Ms. Parra recalled that the Chilean group always performed to full houses. She remembered one performance in particular. At a concert near Quito, a group of priests, along with wealthy Chileans now living in Ecuador, passed out circulars calling for a boycott of what they called the Communist Concert. They said that the songs were not messages of love and peace but were carriers of Marxist-Leninist ideology. These same boycotters, however, attended the concert, and their participation was to attack the performers with shouts and insults. In response to this, the performers responded and described the Chilean situation, noting that words about love and peace are not enough to overcome economic bondage. 

Isabel Parra continued the interview by discussing the problems of making progressive music and culture easily available to all the people. "I think that it's an injustice that the communication media prohibit the broadcast of our music," she said. "There is a power struggle in Chilean music since the right wing, the richer class, still controls most of the broadcasting facilities, but the leftist media also suffer from weaknesses.

There is still no sensitive criteria which provides an honest musical selection. We must present all types of new, original music in different places," she continued, "putting this music to good use. Of course, we must mobilize ourselves. We must sing in the universities, in labor unions, in factories, in state farms, in the neighborhoods, but we lack the organization to manage this. However, we are determined to create this organization." This report from Chile Hoy.

The unsuccessful attempt at a military coup against the Chilean government June 29th has provoked a series of responses in this country that still totters on the brink of generalized violence. The Santiago Weekly Chile Hoy reports that as a court-martial continues investigating the rebellion, hundreds of factories are presently being occupied by the one-million-strong Chilean Workers Federation. Rumors of more unrest in the military abound and the opposition Christian Democrats and National Party members are claiming that the workers have been armed by the government and organized into a Marxian people's army. 

"On the morning of June 29th," says Chile Hoy, "as rebel tank units were firing on the presidential palace, President Allende called upon the workers to occupy all the country's industrial enterprises. This call was immediately carried out as worker committees organized a seizure and administration of factories throughout the country. The occupation order is still in effect, and as this is being written, it is fair to say that every major industry in Chile is now in the hands of the workers with only a few exceptions. Before the attempt attempted coup, some 285 companies were in state hands. Today, approximately 600 are being occupied and nationalized." 

When Allende was asked in a July 6th press conference what the government was planning to do with hundreds of illegally occupied factories, he replied that, "Each case would be studied by the workers and the Ministry of Labor and an individual decision would be reached in each case." "Without exaggerating the situation," says Chile Hoy, "it is fair to say that the Chilean ruling class was dealt their heaviest economic blow, yet as this leaves them very little industry." 

Needless to say, the right wing opposition has not sat still and calmly watched these events. They have been very active and quite vocal in their attempts to incite the armed forces to engage in a coup. 

However, in many ways, the Chilean armed forces are different than those of other Latin American countries. They have a long tradition of respect for the Constitution and for established government and are hesitant to intervene. It would be illusory though to deny that there are sectors of the military who would collaborate with the right in another coup or to crush the workers' movement. 

In the days following the coup attempt, it was known that certain officers groups were meeting and indirectly trying to make demands on the government to force it to give in to an invisible coup. The two basic demands of these groups were to return the factories and to include Christian Democrats in the new cabinet. This from Chile Hoy. 

The London weekly, Latin America, reports from Chile that for the first time in two years, the right-wing Christian Democrats have been talking to the government instead of engaging in a mutual slinging match. The right-wing leadership of the Christian Democratic party agreed to talks only after an urgent warning from the church that civil war could be imminent. This followed last week's assassination of President Salvador Allende Naval aide-de-camp, Captain Arturo Araya, and widespread sabotage upon the declaration of another transportation owner strike similar to last October's, although bus and taxi drivers did not immediately join in the stoppage, except in a few areas. 

By the end of last week, the situation looked exceptionally grave. Although the Christian Democrats remained deaf to Allende's desperate appeals for talks, both left and right pinned the guilt for Araya's assassination on opposing extremists. Though the right seemed to have a much more clear-cut motive to provoke a military coup. 

On Monday, however, the political temperature dropped several degrees when talks between the government and opposition got underway as a result of the church appeal. But although the imminent threat of civil war has receded, many observers feel the country may have passed the point at which compromise is possible. On both sides, there are powerful groups and individuals strongly opposed even to seeking one. 

Most socialists and the revolutionary left feel that the working class is becoming imbued with a really revolutionary spirit. They cite the occupation of factories, the development of local workers councils, and they are not willing to lose it. 

The opposition, on the other hand, seems to be preparing a last ditch stand to defend Chile's traditional institutions. Allende, believing that everyone would lose in the event of a confrontation and that the first to be lost would be such revolutionary reforms as he has been able to achieve looks increasingly isolated in the middle. This report on Chile from Latin America. 

Dr. Barkin, could you please describe the current situation in Chile? 

That's hard, but in a word I guess we could say it's confused. The present situation is one of a great deal of upset of strikes throughout the country, of great deal of scarcity of food, and of a great deal of political maneuvering. But to understand what's going on, we cannot simply stay in the events of the month of July or June, but we have to go back to the month of October when we had the large strike, which lasted almost a month and in which the truck drivers began—who tried to force the Allende the government to go easy on some of its policies of changing the economic structure so that the people who were working in the factories and in the fields could improve their living standards. 

Back in October, the strikes by the truck drivers, who also are the truck owners, forced a confrontation in which Allende came out winning. By Allende I mean the Popular Unity government, which was legally elected as the government of Chile back in 1970 and has a six-year term of office. 

Now, that situation, which happened in October, created a large economic upset for the country. $200 million is the estimated cost of that situation because of lost exports and economic upset in the country. 

During that period of time, as I said, Allende came out winning because what happened was the government came out with more support among the working classes who realized that the truck owners and other small business people and large business people, of course, were very much up in arms against the interests of the working classes, against the interests of the peasants, because these groups of people represented interests which were not directed towards satisfying basic housing, medical care, educational and food needs for the mass of the Chilean people. As a result, you had a situation in which Allende won, basically. He won, he was able to reestablish a balance of power with Salvador Allende the president at the political helm. 

Now in June, you had another series of events which culminated in a strike by one group of people within the copper mines, the administrative workers. The administrative workers within the copper mines were arguing that they should get an escudo and one half increase in pay for every escudo, that all the other workers in Chile got as a result of inflation. 

Now, this was an inadmissible situation for the Chilean government because the copper workers were already the best paid workers in Chile. As a result, there was a huge and lengthy and very costly copper strike, which took place in Chile. That was resolved, but it was resolved, again, at the cost of great deal of political turmoil, which involved Allende taking very strong measures. 

Now, during the past six or seven weeks, the situation has gotten worse in the sense that the right has correctly seen itself as being threatened by the growing strength that Allende has shown among the working classes, and has therefore had to take much more severe measures to try to control or to get back some of the power which led to the assassination of Allende's military aide-de-camp, the Navy man who was shot in a very, very brutal fashion, machine-gunned in his home one evening several weeks ago. 

Now, what that has forced Allende to do is again, to take stronger measures, and has forced, again, a heightening of tension. But has at the same time made it quite obvious to large segments of the Chilean population that there are conflicts, very severe conflicts of interest between what the right is trying to do and what the Popular Unity government is trying to do. But the Popular Unity government in turn finds pressures from the left, which is asking that Allende go even further in taking over enterprises which are owned by the people who are creating the civil war. 

And about the role of the United States, in December, Salvador Allende denounced past aggressions of the United States economic interests against the Chilean people. Do you think intervention in Chile's affairs continues? 

That question's very hard to answer, because obviously—the answer Chileans give is clearly yes. Although the people who are involved in this are not carrying cards which say, "I'm a member of the CIA" or "I work for ITT." 

What happens is that there's a great deal of intervention in a number of different fronts. The most obvious of them being that the right wing still finds economic support, the right groups. Not only Patria y Libertad or Father Land and Freedom Group, which is the group that's responsible for the assassination of Allende's aide-de-camp, but also for the centrist groups or the so-called centrist groups, the Christian Democratic groups, which are now the opposition party in Chile. 

These groups find, through their normal economic ties with America's largest multinational corporations, that it is easy to find economic and political support, and as is quite clear from an analysis of the American press, the American press is still trying to mobilize American opinion against attempts to give the Chilean working classes a decorative standard of living by claiming that this is going against American interests. 

What it seems to me is that we have to try to understand that it's different groups of Americans who have interests in the welfare of different parts of the Chilean population, and that our support must be for the working people, the people and the peasants who are trying to improve their standard of living. But it seems clear that at least economic support is coming from the United States to help in these counter-governmental efforts. 

On the international front, Chile is finding a great deal of support in most international organizations from groups that are not controlled by the United States government. 

Have recent events hurt Allende's popularity among the working class? 

That is a very important question to answer because in it lies the possibility of understanding three more years of Popular Unity government. I think that contrary to hurting Popular Unity and Allende's popularity, recent events have strengthened it. We have the March 4th elections as testimony to that, where there was a very, very substantial increase in voting and in voting for the Popular Unity government throughout broad sectors of the economy, including the famous conservative women. And I say famous because women are supposed to be, in Latin America, traditionally conservative and traditional. 

As a result, the women's vote is taken as a particularly strong vote of confidence in Allende. What happens is I think that the women realize more than ever how it is that prices and supplies are being manipulated in the grocery stores for the benefit of certain people, and are going through a process of trying to understand the economic situation, and realize that they have to support certain actions. 

Interesting thing, since March, I think his popularity has grown even more with the recent events in the assassination, the copper strike and things like that, so that the right and the Democratic Christian groups have been forced to accelerate their own activities because they feel menaced by the growing solidarity within the working classes. 

If anything, the interesting thing about the working classes and the polarization and Allende's popularity has been their growing radicalization and their demands for more stringent and stronger moves by the government than the government feels it can politically go through right now. But in electoral terms and in terms of the future, I think that yes, his popularity has grown. 

Will the Allende regime survive the current difficulties, and what do you foresee for the future? 

I think I just tried to indicate that yes, the Allende government will survive. The Allende government will survive because Salvador Allende has demonstrated himself to be a magnificent politician, an extraordinarily agile person in terms of manipulating and in terms of playing a very delicate political game, which is heightening, which is becoming more serious, and the stakes are getting higher. Both the threats and the stakes are higher also. 

Right now, Allende has successfully resolved the conflicts between the extreme right and the extreme left by playing a centrist ground. As a result, he's getting attacks from all sides. He's trying a dialogue with the Christian Democrats, which I think is going to have very problematic results. None of these attempts in the past have worked, and I don't think they'll work now, but we'll see. 

But let me just close by saying in the future, I think that there's a great deal of reason to be optimistic because what's happened is the working classes, the majority of the people are beginning to take their own dynamic in trying to control their own lives and in demanding voices, which during past years have been spoken for by the leaders of the country. 

As a result, you have a situation in which the industrial and the agricultural sectors of the economy are beginning to demand participation in decision-making in an autonomous way. And if nothing else, that's perhaps the most exciting thing that's in the future for Chile. 

In view of your optimism for the future, what do you think about the rumors that Chile is on the brink of civil war? 

I think those rumors are very convenient fabrications and misunderstandings by different groups, both within Chile and especially in the American press. The notion of civil war itself is a very difficult notion in a country with a president who's trying to lead the country on a transition through a peaceful way and through the political process. 

The political game in Chile is a very, very complicated one. And the stakes are high, and Allende's success is the reason why the right has been forced to take some of the violent actions that it's taking, and why the economic sabotage, which is going on throughout the economy is taking place. 

The threats from the left are very clear, and I think that there's an attempt by the left, by some elements within the extreme left to also suggest that the country is on the brink of civil war. 

But civil war would require a different sort of display of forces and a different sort of availability of arms and distribution of those arms, than is currently available in Chile. The armed forces are very powerful, and the United States has equipped them very well during the past three years. And they have up to now been very effective in controlling the distribution of arms and have recently been collecting a great number of loose arms, which they find among different groups in both the right and the left. 

The armed forces, if it came to a showdown, would probably support the Christian Democratic groups, but I don't think that that kind of showdown is in the offering, and I don't think that civil war is the way in which the political problems of Chile are going to be resolved. 

The Puerto Rican Weekly, Claridad, reports from Santiago, Chile that only a few weeks after the frustrated attempt by the Chilean army to overthrow the government of President Salvador Allende, the popular government appears strengthened by it. Within hours of the attack, the civilian accomplices of the mutiny, flushed out by their failure, began to run for cover. Five top leaders of the right-wing Fatherland and Freedom Organization released a statement from Ecuador where they'd received political asylum admitting their participation in the coup attempt and calling on all their members to go underground. The document was published in the Daily, Ultima Hora, and is signed by Pablo Rodriguez and other Fatherland and Freedom leaders. 

Ultima Hora on June 30th said the coup was part of a vast plot, which apparently included the entry into Chile of fascists trained abroad. On the same day as statement made by the government declared that the hands of foreign governments, fascism and all Chilean rightists are involved in this. Vigilance committees of the workers have been formed in work centers all over the country to defend the nation from further right-wing actions. A deputy of the coalition that brought Allende to power, Unidad Popular, was quoted as saying that, "There are hundreds of parliaments in the factories and they're more genuine and democratic than the traditional one." 

These parliaments, the workers' councils, have full political freedom of expression for Christian Democratic workers as well, many of whom took part in the anti-coup preparations. President Allende and the government have called for a dialogue with the opposition, except for the Fatherland and Freedom and the National Party, which was also responsible for the coup attempt. This has put the conservative leadership of the Christian Democratic Party in a tough spot. To refuse the negotiations would alienate much of the party's working-class membership.

One important economic development is the ending of the two-month-long strike at El Teniente Copper Mine, which had cost Chile some $80 million. The strikers, made up of one fourth of the miners and three-fourths of the white collar workers at the mining complex, accepted the new terms proposed by President Allende. The right wing had used the strike as a rallying point for demonstrations, marches, sabotage, propaganda, and attacks on government leaders and officers. Meanwhile, serious strikes plaguing the trucking and transportation industries remain unsettled.

The British News Weekly, Latin America, reports from Chile that one of the issues at the heart of the Christian Democrat's decision to break off talks with President Salvador Allende last week was Allende's resistance to the demand for the armed forces to be represented in the cabinet. This, paradoxically, was the reverse of his attitude last October, when truck and bus and taxi owners staged a paralyzing strike, similar to that declared at the end of last month. In October, the armed forces joined the cabinet in a stabilizing move, which prevented the country drifting into civil war. 

The situation is very different now. Not only has the country itself been so sharply polarized that compromise is almost impossible, as the difficulties in the talks between Allende and the Christian Democrats have demonstrated, but the armed forces themselves have become deeply embroiled in the current political strife. The resultant strain is evident not only in the armed forces relations with the left and with the right, but also among the military themselves. Senior officers are being classed by left-wing politicians, not always entirely fairly, as "golpistas" or "no-golpistas".

That is, as to whether or not they would support military intervention in the form of a coup. One left-wing commentator was reported as stating, "The armed forces must be either for or against the people." This would appear to leave little room for the military's own hopes, backed by Allende himself, namely that the military should remain outside politics and retain popular respect.

The British News Weekly continues that many on the left and in the trade unions were already unhappy about the armed forces' program of searching for arms, particularly in the factories and offices taken over after the attempted military coup at the end of June. This resentment boiled over last week, when a worker was shot dead by troops searching for arms in a factory in a southern city. The local socialist deputy denounced the regional army commander as a megalomaniac and a madman, which brought about outraged protests from other generals.

This week, however, it was the opposition's turn to be unhappy with the military, as they began to carry out Allende's strict instructions to requisition trucks belonging to striking owners, and to protect convoys of those not on strike. The army and police have firm orders to shoot anyone attacking these convoys, and already four people have died.

The resumption of Allende's talks with the Christian Democrats still looks very uncertain, despite some measure of agreement over legislative matters. He certainly will not agree to de-nationalize any industries already taken over. Also, it would be disastrous for him to ask the military to dislodge the very militant workers who have occupied a number of factories since the attempted coup in June.

Even if he agrees to include the military in his cabinet, this is likely to create as many problems as it solves, particularly among his own supporters, many of whom fear this may spell the end of the government's revolutionary policies. For the first time, the armed forces are a divisive rather than a unifying factor. This report on Chile was taken from the British paper, Latin America.

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. 

Our feature this week is a background analysis of recent events in Chile provided by a group of North Americans called "The Source for North American information", which provides English language news and analysis from Chile. 

This open letter begins, "Chile is entering a decisive stage in its history. Tensions and conflicts which have been held in check for many years are finally surfacing. This process is complex and extremely serious, and as such warrants the understanding of the United States peoples. As US citizens, we have been living in Chile since 1970 and who like everyone else, have been caught up in this increasingly conflictive process, we feel that the people in the United States probably do not fully understand the importance of recent events.

In this brief document, we can neither present a complete summary of recent events in Chile, nor untangle all the misinterpretations and half-truths which appear in US news reports. All we can hope to do is to expose some of these systematic distortions and give you a general framework through which you can begin to understand the real significance of events here."

The recent attempt by sectors of the Chilean army and the fascist organization, Fatherland and Liberty to topple the Unidad popular government coalition by means of a military coup made it apparent to both Chileans and foreigners alike that this nation's peaceful road to socialism is fast exhausting itself. The June 29th uprising, though quickly crushed by loyal troops, has ushered in a new stage in Chile's stormy process. 

In the weeks following the attempted coup hostilities have mounted dangerously. The opposition parties, the Christian Democrats and the National Party have issued threats and ultimatums to the government. The gist of these is that either the Unidad Popular renounce its basic program of transition to socialism or accept the responsibility for any violence that might occur.

In the past, Unidad Popular's enemies have not balked at restricted and strategically timed use of violence. This violence has included the murder of an army chief just before Allende took office, shooting peasants in the South, burning Unidad Poplar party headquarters, bombing a government TV broadcast tower and many other instances, but now for the first time, significant segments of the opposition advocate nothing short of a military takeover.

Confronted by such threats, workers throughout the country have occupied their places of work and have vowed to defend them to the end. In short, dialogue has all but ceased. The nation's institutional framework is tottering and it now seems, little to save Chile from open and widespread conflict. 

What has brought Chile to this point? A view prevalent in the US press is that the economic chaos and political instability was created by the Unidad Popular, and only drastic action can restore the peace and wellbeing which supposedly characterized pre Unidad Popular Chile. The main problem with this view is what it leaves unsaid about Chile's past. 

Economic disorder, extreme social and political instability have indeed made Chile a difficult place for anyone to live at this point, but the current turmoil is hardly an example of life under socialism. Rather, it should be clearly understood to be the chaotic and explosive state of affairs caused by the all-out efforts of a powerful minority to preserve the inherently chaotic and violent system through which it has long prospered. 

Under that system, a nation blessed with vast reserves of national wealth has been unable to provide a majority of its people with even the basic necessities of life. When Unidad Popular took office, 40% of Chilean's suffered from malnutrition. 68% of the nation's workers were earning less than what was officially defined as a subsistence wage and another large number of people were living only slightly above what we would call the poverty level. 

While allowing millions of Chileans to live under such conditions, this system permitted foreigners to drain off vast quantities of the nation's natural wealth. In the past 60 years alone, the US copper companies operating in Chile have taken home profits equivalent to half of the value of all the nation's assets accumulated over a period of 400 years. What little remains of the country's wealth has traditionally been concentrated in the hands of a privileged few. 

This irrational system has been marked throughout Chili's history by a long, bitter and often bloody class struggle. On the one hand, the nation's peasants, miners, factory workers, manual laborers of all kinds, the many sub and unemployed, the vast majority of the population commonly referred to as the working class has demanded a larger share of the nation's social wealth. On the other hand, the nation's upper class, the large landowners, industrialist bankers, those who own and control all the major means of production and sources of wealth in the country, frequently as partners or representatives of foreign interests, have fought to retain its political and economic control of the society. 

The middle class, small and medium landowners, small and medium entrepreneurs, clerks, professionals, white collar workers and public employees have shifted their allegiance between these two antagonistic groups in accord with how they perceive their short range interests. 

Over the years, the Chilean working class struggle has grown in strength and size. It has evolved from sporadic spontaneous uprisings to more organized and strikes, and from there it has entered the arena of parliamentary politics. As it has advanced, the national upper class and the foreign interests whose profit depend upon the continued economic and political power of this local upper class have defended their threatened control. To do so, they have used a variety of means. Violent repression was one. 

On a number of occasions, it took the form of out and out massacres, one example of which was the slaying of some 2,000 striking nitrate miners, port workers and their families, all unarmed, in the town of Iquique in 1907. But as the working class organized in the socialist and communist parties and others made its way into the realm of electoral politics, the elites were forced to change its tactics. If the vote of the organized working class now was strong enough to elect congressmen, then the upper class had to appeal to them in order to win these votes. With practice, the upper class mastered the art of promising enough to win elections while leaving the basic structures of the capitalist society intact once they were in office. 

The party which proved best at the strategy was Eduardo Frei's Christian Democrats. In the 1964 presidential campaign, heavily financed by the US and by Chilean conservatives, the Christian Democratic Party promised the electorate a, "Revolution in liberty." 

This revolution contained many measures traditionally promised by socialism; redistribution of the national income, massive social welfare programs, agrarian reform, banking and tax reform, an end to unemployment and inflation, an attack on monopolies, and increased economic independence. All was brought about in, "Liberty." That is, without class struggle. 

The Christian Democrats easily won the election. They were supported by the conservative elites, who saw the Christian Democrats as a way to keep out the socialists and communists while including the peasants who were attracted to the notion of land reform, large sectors of the middle class, and some workers who had lost faith in capitalism but were taught to fear socialism and were convinced the Christian Democrats offered, "A third way." 

In practice, however, the Christian Democrats simply didn't deliver. Frei promised a lot, but his primary allegiance was to the Chilean upper class. Thus he did not redistribute income because it would've meant taxing the monopolists. He did not curb inflation because the industrialists would not voluntarily freeze prices. Instead of nationalizing copper, Frei, quote, "Chilean-ized it," buying up shares of stock at rates highly favorable to the US copper companies. 

The piecemeal reforms which actually were carried out mainly benefited the middle classes, increasing the gap between them and the working class. The reform, like Frei's elections, were mainly funded through the US Alliance for Progress, which attempted to prove that capitalism was indeed flexible enough to provide a substantially better life for the oppressed. Its main accomplishment for Chile was a huge foreign debt, some $4 billion by 1970. 

Shortly before his party's term was up, one Christian Democratic Congressman summarized its failures in the following words, "We have a historical responsibility and we have done very little for that 85% of the population which voted for a revolution while we are making continual concessions to an oligarchy and a bureaucratic minority of 15%." 

By the 1970 elections Frei's Revolution in Liberty and the US Alliance for Progress had been such a flop that Christian Democratic spokesman edged closer to socialism to hold onto their worker and peasant basis. They spoke carefully of a non-capitalist way to development and even of communitarian socialism. The only party openly opposed to a sharp break with the past was the conservative national party whose sole con turn was to defend its members' monopoly interests. Together, the Christian Democrats' near socialist and the Unidad Popular's frankly socialist programs received 64% of the vote. 

Since then, as the Unidad Popular has tried to implement its program of peaceful advance towards socialism, the Christian Democratic Party has changed its position drastically. From its socialist- sounding 1970 campaign platform, it shifted to support the conservative National Party candidates in various local elections to full alliance with the National Party in the March, 1973 congressional elections to its current position of threatening the government with a military takeover. 

As the Christian Democrats have shifted to the right, they have lost many of their party members who sincerely wanted change. The first splinter group formed the MAPU party. The second formed the Christian Left. Both parties joined the Unidad Popular Coalition. The US press still calls the residual Christian Democrats a, "Left center party". But if that was ever true, it is old history now. The intensification of the class struggle which has split the Christian Democrats has over the course of the past few years divided the entire country into two camps. 

Given Chile's history of domination of the great majority by the local upper classes and foreigners, what is the situation now? Why is there such confusion and instability? On an institutional level, the current conflict is primarily the product of the 1970 elections, which gave control of the executive branch of the government to the representatives of the working classes, the peasantry, the poor, while the legislative and judicial branches remained in the hands of the old ruling classes. 

Unidad Popular's, "Peaceful transition to socialism," called for a legal process which would gradually turn over control of the nation's basic sources of wealth and power held by foreign interests and the Chilean upper class to the workers and to the poor. With the unanimous consent of Congress, Allende began to nationalize the country's natural resources using laws already on the books.

He brought industrial monopolies and banks into the publicly controlled or social area of the economy and broke up the large land holdings which were characteristic of the agrarian sector. If at first the elite were too shocked by its electoral defeat to prevent this, it soon reorganized and fought back with all the arms at its command. One of the strongest is the Congress where opposition parties hold a majority of both houses.

The other tactic of the upper class has been to disrupt the economy, hoping that the disruption will demoralize Allende supporters. By calling the economic disruptions strike, the upper class has tried to imply that workers disagree with Allende, implying that few people actually support the government's position. 

In addition to the local upper class, foreign interests have tried to stop peaceful progress. The Senate hearings on ITT's activities in Chile showed that US corporations and government officials worked to defeat Unidad Popular in 1970 and tried to prevent a Allende from taking office after he won the presidency. Since then, US banks, corporations, the press and government agencies such as the CIA has sided with the Chilean upper class. They have acted in many ways to paralyze and discredit the Unidad Popular. 

The US copper companies, especially Kennecott, have attempted to block Chilean shipments of copper to Europe. The US Export Import Bank, the US dominated World Bank, and the Inner American Development Bank and US private banks have cut loans to Chile and private US corporations have curtailed credit for shipment of replacements parts to Chile, thus effectively denying these nations these items. 

Various CIA agents acting in Chile are implicated in the activities of openly seditious groups. US dollars also have supported opposition strikes such as the October owners strike, when truck owners were paid to stop transporting goods and offers were also made to pay workers if they stopped producing. US funds were also used in the 1964 and 1970 election campaigns, both times against Allende. 

This open letter concludes that the left parties in Chile explored a new road to social justice, the Via Chilena, which was intended to provide a peaceful transition to socialism. This road was blocked by the upper classes using its congress, its courts, its economic power, and most recently, cooperative sectors of the armed forces. In President Allende's words, "It is not the fate of the revolutionary process, which hangs in the balance. Rather, Chile will inevitably continue its march towards socialism. What the fascist opposition threatens is the completion of this process by peaceful means in accordance with our historical tradition. The local upper classes and foreign corporations are trying to make peaceful progress impossible".

This has been report from the Fuente de Información Norteamericana, a group of North Americans who have been providing English language news to North America. 

For today's broadcast, we have compiled a summary and background of important events of the past six months in two Latin American countries, Chile and Uruguay. These analyses are compiled from reports from several newspapers and periodicals, including the London weekly, Latin America, The Mexican daily, Excélsior, the Chilean weekly, Chile Hoy, and the Uruguayan weekly, Marcha. By far the most troubled country on the continent this year has been Chile, whose Marxist president, Salvador Allende was elected in 1970 on a platform of carrying out a program of peaceful socialist revolution. Soon after his election, Allende legally carried out several popular measures, including the nationalization of major US copper companies holdings and extensive agrarian reform measures. 

While these steps won widespread approval among Chilean workers and peasants, they incurred the wrath of the United States and powerful opposition groups within Chile. Thus, the first two years of Allende's administration have been marked with political and economic battles between Allende's Popular Unity government and powerful Chilean interest groups and political parties backed by the United States, as well as by confrontations with the United States government itself and US corporations over issues such as compensation for nationalized industries.

In October of last year, a truck owner's strike, in opposition to the popular Unity government, paralyzed the country. The Allende government received a big boost in the Chilean congressional elections last March though, when the Popular Unity Coalition increased its representation in both the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate. While the vote left the Popular Unity Coalition still short of a majority in the Congress, the results were considered evidence of the growing popularity of the government among Chileans.

In the weeks following the congressional elections, the Christian Democrats, the major opposition party seemed to soften its defiant stand against the Allende government. Party leaders announced that the Christian Democrats would end their alliance with several smaller right-wing parties, and that the party would pursue an independent, more flexible line. The storm clouds broke though, in late April, when miners at El Teniente, a nationalized copper mine, went on strike.

The strikers, many of whom were white-collar workers, and all of whom were among the highest paid workers in Chile, walked out demanding higher production bonuses. The Allende government, which had vowed to end privileged sectors of the Chilean labor force, firmly refused the striker's demands. Seeing an opportunity to mobilize opposition against the government, opposition groups seized the strike as an issue and began organizing support for the strikers. The Christian Democrats fell into line and began attacking the government vehemently.

In May, clashes between the government and opposition became increasingly bitter, as economic problems and the El Teniente strike encouraged the opposition forces to use bolder tactics. Early that month, groups of 15 to 18-year-old students swarmed into Santiago, chanting anti-government slogans and openly seeking clashes with police and supporters of the popular Unity government. The demonstration, which was organized by the Christian Democrats, culminated in the throwing of Molotov cocktails.

In another demonstration, shots apparently fired from the Christian Democrat party headquarters killed one student. The crisis continued through April, as clandestine operations by rightist groups occurred with growing frequency. A socialist party radio station in Rancagua was seized, and a number of communist and socialist party premises, homes, and newspapers across the country were sacked in an apparently coordinated effort.

Such confrontations continued through May and June as economic problems worsened and the El Teniente strike remained unsettled. Talk of armed confrontation was widespread and Allende warned that rightest groups were planning a coup d'etat attempt. While these struggles raged in the streets of Chile in the months of May and June, the battles between Allende and the opposition filled the halls of the Chilean Congress as well.

At a convention of the Christian Democratic Party in early May, the hardliners favoring a position of militant opposition to the Allende government, gained the upper hand. As a result, the Christian Democrats once again joined hands with other opposition parties in Congress, and clashes with the government over legislation became increasingly bitter. Debates raged over Allende's educational reform bill, agrarian reform measures, and legislation dealing with nationalization of foreign holdings.

At one point, certain members of Congress tried to have Allende removed from office by using a clause in the Chilean constitution, which was intended for cases in which the president was seriously ill. Allende in response is said to have considered exercising his constitutional right to temporarily disband Congress and immediately call new parliamentary elections. Matters came to a head on June 29th when certain sectors of the army attempted a military overthrow of the popular government. Most of the armed forces rose to defend the government and the revolt was crushed. 

Actually, the attempted coup and its defeats were a big boost for the Allende government. The determination of the military to defend the Constitution served as a warning to right-wing extremists who might've been thinking of armed confrontation, and it crushed the hopes of those who were hoping the military would intervene against the government. Soon after the attempted coup, a compromised settlement was reached at the El Teniente strike.

The Allende government was thus given a breathing spell. The respite was short-lived, however, as the Christian Democrats soon renewed their attacks in Congress and even more serious transportation owners went on strike in early August complaining that they have been unable to get spare parts for their vehicles.

Opposition parties, including the Christian Democrats have once again taken the side of the strikers against the government and truck owners who have refused to observe the strike have been subjected to increasing violence. The past months have been marked by bombings, sabotage, and assassination, and many observers feel that the nation is careening towards civil war. At the time this story was written, the strike was unsettled and the situation looked grave, but civil war had not yet erupted. 

Before leaving Chile, two important points should be made about the six months of strife. Just mentioned first as a North American correspondent recently said, "the United States is directly responsible for much of the current turmoil in Chile". When Chile nationalized US copper companies holdings two years ago, the US demanded compensation for the property. Allende politely responded that since the excess profits removed from the Chile by the copper companies was far greater than the value of the company's holdings, there would be no compensation.

Since then, the United States government has used its powerful influence to stop all loans and credits to Chile from multilateral lending agencies such as the Import Export bank, the World Bank, and the Inter-American Development Bank. 

Many of these loans, especially those from the Import Export bank, are not really loans as such, but simply credits which allow small nations to make purchases from companies in larger nations on the basis of payment within 30 to 90 days. When these credits were cut off, Chile had to find large amounts of foreign currencies in advance in order to make such purchases. Often unable to get such amounts, Chile has been faced with shortages of many essential imported goods.

Thus, for example, the shortage of replacement parts for cars, trucks, and buses, which has led to two transportation owner strikes and serious domestic turmoil can be traced directly to United States policy within these multilateral lending agencies.

The same mechanisms have also led to shortages of food and other essentials which has heightened Chile's inflation. It is perhaps for these reasons that Allende told the United Nations last November that the US is waging economic war on Chile.  The second point, which should be made about the recent turmoil in Chile, is that reports of such strife often make it appear as if Allende's nation has turned against him. In fact, though most indicators show that Allende and his Popular Unity Government are now more popular than ever.

Allende was elected three years ago with a bare plurality of the votes, but since then, local and congressional elections have consistently shown dramatic rises in his popularity. Also during the aborted coup attempt last June, workers in hundreds of factories throughout the country armed themselves and seized their factories. This serves as an indication that there are many Chileans who definitely feel that the Popular Unity Program of change is their revolution, and that if it is threatened, they are prepared to defend it.

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.

The Mexico City Daily Excélsior reports that the Chilean government last week outlawed the Chilean Truck Owners Association, and called upon all patriotic Chileans to act to break the six-week-old lockout, which has thrown much of Chilean society into disarray. The Popular Unity government called on workers, peasants, students, and all Chileans, to put every vehicle that can move on the roads to help transport badly needed medical supplies and food. The Chilean interior minister announced that the Popular Unity government decided to nullify the existence of the Truck Owners Association because it is proved that its strike had the aim of provoking a coup d'etat, or civil war. This from the Mexican Daily, Excélsior. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This week's feature is on the recent history of US press coverage of Chile. We will be drawing on an article printed in the magazine, The Nation, in January of 1973 by John Pollock of the Department of Sociology and Political Science, Rutgers University. Dr. Pollock is also a member of the Chile Research Group in Livingston, has done research in Chile, and has been specializing in the US press coverage of Chile. 

Mr. Pollock's analysis opens with the US press coverage of Dr. Allende's speech at the United Nations in December of 1972. 

Typical press coverage of Allende's visit is best examined by referring to the major US newspapers which report regularly on Latin American affairs: The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Christian Science Monitor, The Wall Street Journal, the Miami Herald, and the Los Angeles Times. These papers generally included the following information in reports on Allende's speech. 

One, he called Chile the victim of serious economic aggression by US corporations, banks, and governmental agencies, accomplished through denial of previously available loans, interference by IT&T in Chile's internal affairs, and a boycott of Chile's copper in foreign markets. 

Also, he called the economic blockade of his country an infringement of Chile's sovereignty condemned by United Nations resolutions and a problem for all Third World countries, and that IT&T and Kennecott denied any efforts at interference in Chile's internal affairs or any other wrongdoing. 

Mr. Pollock continues noting that divergent opinions were presented, but the appearance of balance was specious. Although President Allende's views and those of US ambassador to the United Nations, George Bush, as well as those of IT&T and Kennecott copper companies were all mentioned, none of the opinions was investigated or tested in any serious way. 

These leading newspapers did not simply fail to weigh evidence regarding the charges made, they never raised any serious questions about the charges at all. The overall impression was given that Allende was pandering to an automatic anti-American sentiment, easily aroused in an audience comprised largely of Third World countries. 

The New York Times had the gall to run an editorial titled, "What Allende left out." For those unfamiliar with recent developments in Chile or with the press coverage of them, the Times editorial might have appeared reasonable, but close examination of political events there and the reporting of them yields a quite different impression. It is not Allende but the United States press which has left out a great deal. 

None of the newspapers had prepared readers for Allende's visit with substantial background information on Chile and its concerns. None of them mentioned that in stops en route in Peru and Mexico, Allende had been accorded tumultuous welcomes. 

Referring to IT&T activities in Chile, three of the newspapers, including The New York Times, failed to mention IT&T correspondence revealed by Jack Anderson and never denied by IT&T, which implicated that company in efforts to topple the Allende government, and only the Miami Herald linked IT&T to reports of specific subversive terrorist activities culminating in the assassination of Chile's General René Schneider, the army commander-in-chief. 

Only one newspaper, The Wall Street Journal noted that Allende nationalizations actions were legal, having been authorized by a constitutional amendment passed unanimously by the Chilean Congress in January of 1971, which set forth procedures for expropriating mines owned by Anaconda and Kennecott. The most important provision as reported by the Journal was that any profits since 1955 in excess of 12% of the concerns' investments in Chile should be deducted from the payment of the expropriated properties. 

The Journal was alone again in devoting substantial attention to Allende's claim that Kennecott had arranged a boycott of Chile's copper exports to European ports. In fact, it was the only paper which considered the issue of corporation induced embargoes against small countries sufficiently important to explore in any detail. 

Nor did any paper attempt to determine, and only The New York Times mentioned at all, whether Kennecott Copper had indeed made astronomical profits in Chile. According to the Times, Allende charged that from 1955 to 1970, Kennecott had made an annual average profit of 52.8% on its investment. That higher return would doubtless have had provoked substantial comment if reported in any context other than that of Allende's critical speech. 

The omission of important questions was not the only striking tendency in press reporting on Allende's UN presentation. Also evident were characterizations of the Chilean president as essentially insincere and duplicitous. Suggestions that he was more concerned with maintaining an act, charade or a popular posture than with accomplishing what he has often claimed to care about, the achievement of socialism within a democratic framework. 

Noteworthy in this connection was The New York Times editorial with reference to Allende's "cleverness" at the UN. A Washington Post editorial tried to dismiss Allende's presentation as full of "inflammatory tinsel" insinuating "that the beleaguered Chile's beleaguered president did unfortunately, the easy popular thing. Mr. Allende indulged in dubious and gaudy rhetoric." Such characterizations hint that the Chilean president is ineffectual and ridiculous, not to be taken seriously by serious people. 

Mr. Pollock continues, "The crucial questions left unasked and the belittling of the report of Allende presented in press reports, especially in the editorials of two of the nation's foremost opinion shapers, The Washington Post and The New York Times, are not simply troublesome elements in the press coverage of a single event. Rather, they are part of a consistent set of themes and omissions periodically evident in reporting on Chile ever since Allende's election in September 1970. Careful analysis of that reporting reveal several disturbing tendencies." 

One, our newspapers have usually omitted information on the vast minority of Chileans. Most reporting on citizens' reaction to the Allende regime is based upon interviews with privileged national business leaders, large landowners or owners of medium-sized firms. The results of such interviews, anti-Allende in tone, are presented as typical of popular reaction to the new president. Seldom are opinions solicited from those most likely to support Allende: organized labor, unorganized labor, the unemployed, farmers on small and medium-sized plots of land, and the poor generally. 

A second noticeable omission in the US reporting on Chile is the failure to cover right-wing activities. Left-wing activities by contrast receive substantial since sensationalist attention. For example, many articles have been written about the threat to Chile's political system from the Left Revolutionary Movement. Genuine concern about threats to the stability of the Chilean political system would, one might suppose, stimulate press coverage of political activity on both the left and the right. Yet even a cursory review of press reports will disabuse any one of that assumption. 

Activities of the right extremist organizations such as Patria y Libertad, which trains children in the use of arms and forms secret paramilitary organizations in middle-class areas are never mentioned. Indeed, those groups are hardly even reported to exist. It is customary in addition for disruptions to be reported in a way that fails to identify the ideological persuasion of the protestors. They're presented as upset citizens while protestors presumed to be left-wing are characterized in sensationalist terms. 

Consider the report of an assassination clearly by rightist forces of the army chief of staff in an effort to block Allende's ratification by the Chilean Congress, and a subsequent retaliatory assassination assumed to have been performed by the left. The New York Times correspondent wrote that, "Extremists have already produced two major crises since Allende was elected. The assassination of General Schneider, and nine months later, the assassination by left-wing terrorists of Edmundo Zujovic." The right-wing assassinations are simply assassinations. Those from the left are left-wing terrorists. 

Furthermore, in reporting on the victims, there was scarcely any mention of the fact that General Schneider, the one killed by rightists, had been a major force in maintaining peaceful constitutional democratic rule, while the person killed in retaliation by the leftists had been as a previous minister of the interior directly responsible for the torture of political prisoners. 

Mr. Pollock continues that suppressing information on right-wing activity extends to a near blackout on news about disruptive or distasteful activities by Allende's opponents. The most glaring example of such emissions is found in the coverage of a street demonstration by 5,000 women who in early December of 1971 protested food rationing in Santiago. The March of the Empty Pots, so-called because the participants banged empty saucepans as they marched, was reported by several papers. Only one however mentioned any clear estimate of the general social or economic origin of the women, information any reader would consider essential to assess the political implications of the march. The Christian Science Monitor noted that the sound of the marching pots was loudest in the wealthiest sections of Santiago. 

In contrast to the North American papers, highly respected foreign sources did as a matter of course identify the socioeconomic origins of the women. Le Monde, the French paper, the British weekly Latin America, and Excélsior, the Mexican equivalent of The New York Times all reported that the marching women were upper middle and upper class. 

In addition, the US press reported that the women's march was led by groups of men wearing safety helmets and carrying sticks and was broken up by brigades of leftist youths wearing hard hats and carrying stones and clubs, and by an overreacting Allende who asked police to disperse the women. The foreign press, on the other hand, reported that women were led by goon squads of club wielding men, called the march a right-wing riot, and reported it broken up by police after the president and his palace had been stoned by the women. 

A fourth omission, perhaps more flagrant than the others, is the virtual absence of evidence suggesting that Allende has made any social or economic progress whatsoever. News reports and editorials have abounded with dark hints that the Chilean economy and Chilean politics are on the brink of upheaval and Cassandra-like accounts bewail reports of food shortages, unemployment, inflation, and the scarcity of foreign exchange, as though economic ruin were just around the corner. 

What go unreported in the United States are social and economic statistics available to any reporter who cares to examine them. There is some evidence that Chile's first year under Allende, 1971, far from inducing despair, gave reason for hope. Agricultural production doubled. The consumer price index rose at only one half the rate registered during the last year of President Frei's administration, and the construction industry grew by 9%. Unemployment, again contrary to US press reports, declined from 8.3% in December of 1970 to 4.7% a year later. 

Food shortages do exist, but they're a product not of government food austerity policy, but of the increased purchasing power of Chile's working classes. Food production has actually increased in Chile, but the working classes and the poor are buying much more. 

Allende raised wages and froze prices in profits ensuring that the salary and wage segment of national income increased from 51% in 1970 to 59% in 1971. Finally, during Allende's first year, Chile's increase of gross national product was the second highest in Latin America at 8.5%. Our reporters have failed to record such indicators of progress and have fairly consistently labeled Chile's future as dismal and clouded. 

The US press in reporting the economic difficulties and the food lines managed to leave the impression that the socialist leadership was at fault for the grave economic situation, whereas actually the Chilean economy had long been in crisis and Dr. Allende was elected in large part in response to the disastrous economic policy of earlier pro-US governments, and indeed the situation was quite measurably improving for broad sectors of the population after Allende's election. Up until concerted efforts by the threatened local and foreign economic interests began to disrupt the economy in hopes of fomenting unrest sufficient to cover a coup. 

In particular, the reported food shortages were not as such shortages but reflected the fact that for the first time, major sectors of the population could buy more food so that although more food was being produced, demand outpaced supply requiring rationing that upset the wealthier classes who resented the partial equalization of access to food. 

We add that Dr. Allende's popularity and support was consistently growing as proven in the congressional elections. Consequently, the right-wing attempts to reimpose its control could no longer happen peacefully and concerted rightist disruption of the economy began so as to set the stage for a military coup on the pretext of restoring stability. The US press managed to leave the impression desired by foreign and national business leaders. 

A fifth major omission in coverage of Chilean politics is perhaps the most obvious of all. It is difficult to talk about the State of Delaware without mentioning the Du Ponts, and it would be bizarre to talk about Montana without speculating on the role of Anaconda Copper. Yet our reporters somehow managed to write about Chile without examining the political influence of Anaconda, Kennecott Copper, and IT&T. 

Mr. Pollock concludes that the omissions of information on the opinions of less affluent Chileans and the absence of reports on right-wing activity or the disruption activity by Allende's opponents, the failure to report economic and social progress where it's occurred, and the paucity of investigations of multinational corporate activity give a distorted portrait of Chilean political system. 

The foregoing feature is based upon work by Dr. John Pollock of the Department of Sociology and Political Science, Rutgers University and is available in the magazine, The Nation of January 1973. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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