Annotations for Countries: Colombia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Latin America reports on Brazil. The forthcoming goodwill visits by the Brazilian foreign minister to Venezuela this month, and later to Colombia, have served to remind Brazil's neighbors of Brazilian wariness and strategic caution. There are fears that the liberalization of certain regimes will be a threat to the Brazilian military dictatorship and upcoming elections in Venezuela may bring a liberal Christian Democrat into power. However paranoiac and unrealistic some of these fears may seem, the fact remains that the military nervousness is reflected in an extraordinary arms buildup.

At the end of last month, it was announced that Brazil was buying 58 fighter bombers at a cost of $100 million from the United States to join the 16 Mirage Jets and four other planes bought last year, in addition to Brazil's own production of fighter bombers made under an Italian patent. This re-equipment of the air force is coupled with similar re-equipment of the Army, which recently bought a large number of self-propelled guns from the United States and increased production of small arms. Last year, Brazil's military expenditure formed 18.7% of the national budget.

For many years, one of the major complaints of underdeveloped countries has been that they did not receive a fair price for their raw materials. Another complaint was that the prices for raw materials fluctuated so much, it was impossible to plan investments in their economies. 

Over the past decade, the answer to these complaints has been international agreements which stabilized prices on raw materials. The International Coffee Agreement was one such accord. It was first signed in 1963 between the United States and other coffee consumers and 41 coffee producers, including Brazil and Colombia. The agreement fixed prices and assured a steady supply to consumer nations.

As Opinião of Rio de Janeiro notes, the agreement has now collapsed. The basic reason is that the supplier nations wanted a higher price to compensate for the losses suffered when the United States devalued the dollar last year. The United States refused to agree to this price hike and the agreement lapsed last October. 

The coffee-producing countries are now trying to take matters into their own hands. Brazil, Colombia, the Ivory Coast, and the Portuguese colonies will soon establish a multinational corporation which will control prices and supplies on the world market. The corporation statutes were written in Brazil. As Opinião notes, the purpose of the new multinational company will be to keep the price of coffee up, ensure a supply to consumers, and prevent manipulation of prices by the huge importing firms in the United States, such as General Foods. 

Opinião concludes that the new corporation could result in an important modification in the international coffee market which will favor the underdeveloped world. This report from Opinião in Rio de Janeiro. 

Chile Hoy of Santiago reports that former Colombian dictator, Rojas Pinilla, has surprised everyone by announcing that his daughter, Maria Eugenia Rojas Pinilla, will be the candidate of his party in the presidential elections in 1974. Pinilla's party, the National Popular Alliance, more widely known as ANAPO, lost the 1970 presidential elections by a mere 45,000 votes, and there is considerable cause for believing ANAPO's claim that the vote count was rigged against them. 

Maria Pinilla will no doubt benefit from the fact that the two major parties of Colombia, the Liberals and the Conservatives, are ideologically quite similar. ANAPO's platform of redistribution of the country's wealth has brought it massive support among Colombian prisons and workers in larger cities, and Maria Pinilla's challenge to the Liberal-Conservative coalition could make this one of the most interesting elections on the continent next year. This from the Santiago Weekly, Chile Hoy. 

Excélsior of Mexico City announced last week that representatives of three international organizations sent by the United Nations to investigate the situation in Chile have accused the Chilean military junta of systematic violation of human rights by submitting political prisoners to treatment so humiliating and degrading that they had never seen such treatment in any country. 

This group, which included representatives of the International Movement of Catholic Jurists, the International Federation of Human Rights, and the International Association of Democratic Jurists issued a statement in Santiago before leaving for New York to make its official report. And it said that it had irrefutable cases proving mass executions in workers' communities, tortures of men and women, and outright military attacks on streets filled with people. 

At the same time in Rome, the secretary of the International Bertrand Russell Tribunal denounced the arrest by the junta of a Brazilian mathematician whose tongue he said was cut out by the military. Also, the secretary general of the Organization of American States said in Columbia that the committee and human rights of that organization will investigate the violation of human rights in Chile. 

In response to this international outcry, the military junta has imposed strict censorship on the diffusion of information on executions, death tolls and political prisoners. Newspapers and radio and TV stations were ordered not to release anything except officially authorized bulletins on these matters. Excélsior also reports that the junta has been feeling other types of international pressure as well. At the same time that it announced the executions of nine more civilians, the junta expressed its profound concern and disagreement with the statement issued by Pope Paul VI when he criticized the violent repression being conducted by the junta. 

The head of the junta, Augusto Pinochet, expressed concern about the possibility that the United States Congress might pass a bill sponsored by Senator Edward Kennedy, which calls for suspension of all aid to Chile until the junta ceases its campaign of political repression. General Pinochet insinuated that Senator Kennedy was under the influence of communists. Senator Kennedy's measure has passed the Senate and is currently under consideration by a House-Senate conference committee.

And further coverage of Chile last week, Excélsior reports that the junta has announced a series of austerity measures for the Chilean economy, which according to the junta will affect all Chileans, but the burden will fall most heavily in the poor of Chile. The goal of the new measures, say the generals, is to be sure that Chile produces more than it consumes.

A late bulletin by the Asia News Service, which has been monitoring events in Chile, reports that in Chile, a wave of price increases was announced over the weekend by the ruling military junta. According to Prensa Latina, price hikes effective October 15th varied between 200 and 1,800%, and it affects products like rice, sugar, oil, feeds, shoes, clothes, and 70 other items. Sugar was brought up by more than 500%, while bread and milk are up more than 300%.

The junta has eliminated the popular program initiated by Allende of providing a half liter of milk free to all children. The largest price increase was for tea, a popular item, which was brought up nearly 2,000%. Excélsior reports that one of the first steps taken by the junta was the cancellation of wage and salary increases, which had been granted by the Popular Unity government to keep up with price increases.

Another subject which Chile watchers are concerned about is resistance to the junta. The London Weekly, Latin America, notes that the calling up of Air Force reserves last week and the announcement that the Army was considering a similar measure combined with the linked-in curfew suggests that resistance to the junta was persisting. Excélsior talked with Luis Figueroa, one of the highest leaders of the now outlawed Central Workers' Union, the communist led Chilean trade union syndicate. 

"We communists," said Figueroa, "Have always enjoyed peaceful means of struggle in Chile, and we would like to continue in that way, but the military junta through its brutality and repression have forced us to use other methods, and we must now continue our struggle clandestinely." This report on Chile was compiled from reports from The New York Times, The Guardian, the London Weekly, Latin America, and the Mexico City Daily, Excélsior. 

Mexico City's Excélsior reports that this year's Continental Conference of American Foreign Ministers was held last week in Bogotá, Colombia. In anticipation of the meeting on intercontinental cooperation and foreign policy, Bolivian chancellor Alfredo Vázquez Carrizosa stated, "Latin America needs to deliberate alone in order to plan its points of view so that it might not be said that the final plan for Inter-American cooperation came from the US State Department." 

This comment accompanied his announcement that US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger would not attend. 

Excélsior continues. In view of that possibility, Carrizosa continued, "We have complained for many years that Latin America is not able to deliberate alone. It must always be with the presence, the guardianship, the sanction, and in the shadow of the US Department of State." In stating that such a conference should be a dialogue and not a monologue, Carrizosa went on to say that the session was planned so as to develop within an essentially Latin American atmosphere. 

In closing, Carrizosa reaffirmed his hope that Latin America this time might define its own needs and priorities and then present them to the United States for consideration. That is from Excélsior of Mexico City. 

La Prensa of Lima, Peru reports on the Latin American Foreign Minister's Conference in Bogota, Colombia. Although some observers, including the Cubans, characterized the meeting as premature, a degree of consensus was developed among the foreign ministers, and the meeting concluded with a declaration of mutual agreements in the form of an eight-point agenda for a further meeting next February in Mexico City.

The most important points are the unanimous support of all Latin American and Caribbean countries for Panama's efforts to win full sovereignty over the canal zone, the need for the United States cooperation in controlling interference by multinational corporations in domestic politics of countries in which they have investments, and the need to eliminate economic sanctions as a weapon of foreign policy against countries in the region, and the need to reorganize the entire inter-American system, especially the need to change the structure of the United States' relation with Latin America.

The Peruvians were particularly emphatic in their calls for Latin American solidarity with countries that expropriate the assets of multinational corporations. The Peruvian position is consistent with their concerns earlier expressed at the Latin American organization of energy. That from Le Prensa of Lima, Peru. 

Excélsior of Mexico City reports that opinion in Latin America is divided on the effects of the reduction of Arab oil production. For 48 hours after the announced reduction of oil production in international economic circles, it was considered very unlikely that Latin America would suffer effects of the energy crisis. It was noted that the countries developed industrially in the region, such as Mexico and Argentina, are almost self-sufficient in petroleum. The only exception would be Brazil, the principal importer of hydrocarbons in the Latin American region. 

However, according to Excélsior, the director of the Mexican oil concern affirmed that Mexico cannot withstand a world energy crisis, although it would not be affected in the same manner as other countries. In Venezuela, with less optimism than the international economic circles of Buenos Aires, authorities of the Ministry of Mines and Hydrocarbons are studying the shortages in countries such as Brazil and Colombia. It was indicated that there are cases in Central America in which electric plants and hospitals could be closed for lack of fuel. 

According to Excélsior, in Argentina, the State petroleum monopoly assured that the country can be self-sufficient in fuel for 15 more years, although the volume of reserves necessitates the search for substitutes already. Venezuela, the principal producer and exporter of petroleum in the region, is being pressured by its regular customers, the United States and Europe, to not reduce its normal deliveries, which reach the neighborhood of 3 million barrels daily. The United States is the principal purchaser of Venezuelan petroleum. 

The Venezuelan minister of Mines and Hydrocarbons noted that his country is actually almost at the limit of its extractive capacity. That is, there is no possibility that Venezuela can increase its production. The reserves of the country decrease at the rate of 1,200 million barrels annually. 

According to Expreso of Lima, Peru, in Peru the possibility is now under study of reducing the consumption of petroleum used in the industrialization of sugarcane production. Also, the price of gasoline will be increased. The Lima paper Expreso, which is the voice of the Peruvian government, recently accused monopoly producers in the capitalist system for the actual crisis in petroleum. 

Expreso emphasized that the United States has calculated reserves for 60 years and can at this moment satisfy its internal demands, but the monopolies live at the expense of resources from other countries and prefer to unleash a crisis now in order to later obtain more profits, according to Expresso. The world petroleum crisis should be thus more a political emergency than an economic one. According to Expreso of Lima, Peru, and Excélsior of Mexico City. 

The News Loop Weekly Latin America states that the release of two ships, one Cuban and one Soviet, from detention by the Canal Zone authorities earlier this month was an excellent augury for the arrival of Ellsworth Bunker in Panama this week and the start of the first serious Canal Treaty negotiations since the 1968 military coup the. Ship's detention at the behest of the Chilean Junta for turning back after the September coup in Santiago, and so failing to deliver goods bought by the Allende government enraged the Panamanians as a typical example of how, in their view, a Latin American political dispute in which Washington has an interest can impinge on the supposedly free traffic through the Panama Canal controlled by the USA. In the Panamanian view, such things could not happen if it controlled the canal itself. 

The Christian Science Monitor reports that Ellsworth Bunker will confer for a week with Panama's foreign minister Juan Antonio Tack. They will discuss Panama's insistence on a new Panama Canal Treaty to replace the 1903 treaty hastily negotiated by the US with the then two-week-old Republic of Panama. Egged on by President Theodore Roosevelt, Panama had just torn away from its mother country, Colombia. As Secretary of State John Hay wrote a friend at the time, the United States had won a treaty "very satisfactory to the United States, and we must confess, not so advantageous to Panama." 

Repeatedly down the years efforts to draft a new treaty that while protecting the vital interest of the United States, would give the proud small Republic of Panama less cause for complaint and more financial rewards have failed. Sometimes the stumbling block has been the influence in Congress of the 40,000 American Zonians who want no change in their comfortable colonial style of life. Sometimes it has been the posturing for home audiences by Panama's politicians. However, by 1964, the stalemate erupted in anti-American riots that killed four Americans and 22 Panamanians. In 1967, president Lyndon Johnson offered new treaty concessions, but they were unacceptable to Panama. Now in January comes the 10th anniversary of the rioting. 

Mr. Tack and his chief, General Torrijos Herrera, Panama's strongman, both want a new treaty. The Latin American foreign minister's meeting at Bogotá recently unanimously voted to back Panama's request for a new treaty. And last March's United Nations Security Council session in Panama clearly favored the idea. Although the United States vetoed a resolution that called on the parties to work out a new accord. Since then, the US and Panama have steadily narrowed their differences. Actually, appointment of Mr. Bunker is seen widely as an indication that Washington is now prepared to compromise and work out a new treaty. 

Panama is willing to allow the US to operate and defend the existing canal, which cost $387 million to build and which opened to world traffic in 1914. It has no objection to the United States improving the present canal with a new set of locks that might cost $1.5 billion or even building a new sea level canal that might cost $3 billion, take 15 years to build and 60 years to amortize, but it wants a definite treaty to end in 1994. The United States, for its part, has been holding out for guaranteed use for at least 85 more years, 50 years for the present canal, plus 35 years if a new canal is ever built.

Panama also wants an end to US sovereignty in the Canal Zone, that 53-mile channel with about 500 square miles on either side that cuts the small country in half. Panamanians traveling between one part of their country and the other must submit themselves to United States red tape, United States Police, United States jurisdiction. This rankles, and virtually all of Latin America now backs Panama.

Panama is reported willing to grant the United States two major military bases to defend the canal, one at the Atlantic end, one at the Pacific, but it wants to eliminate the nine other US bases and place all 11,000 US military personnel in the country on a status of forces agreement such as the United States has with Spain and many other allied countries. United States negotiators stress that Panama derives an annual $160 million merely from the presence of 40,000 Americans on its soil. But a recent World Bank study has pointed out that this now represents only 12% of Panama's gross national product and that this 12% is the only part of the gross national product that is not growing. This report is from the Christian Science Monitor. 

Today's feature will be an interview with Dr. Richard Schaedel, professor of anthropology at the University of Texas at Austin concerning his recent trip to Chile. Professor Schaedel has traveled extensively in Latin America, was a visiting professor at the University of Chile in Santiago and organized the Department of Anthropology there in 1955 and has served Chilean universities in a consultant capacity frequently, most recently, three years ago. 

Dr. Schaedel, what was the purpose of your recent trip to Chile? 

Well, there were actually two purposes, one being personal. I had my son down there and was concerned that he leave the country as soon as possible. Second was essentially to inform myself as to the real nature of the takeover and its consequences for the social science community in Santiago, not just the Chileans and the social science community, but also social scientists from other Latin American countries, a number of whom had been jailed or harassed in various ways and several of whom had actually been killed.

So that since reports were, to say the least, confusing emanating from the press, I wanted to take firsthand stock of the situation and also form an estimate of the likely number of graduate students and professionals in the social sciences who would probably be looking for positions in other Latin American countries or in Europe or the United States as a result of their inability to get along with the junta or because of persecution by the junta directly.

We've heard that in most Chilean universities, certain entire departments and particularly social science courses have been abolished. Is that true from your findings? 

Yes, that's very definitely true. Particularly this affects sociology. It's very unlikely that the career of sociology, at least to the doctoral level, will be continued in Chile, and it's possible that Catholic University may allow a kind of degree but not the full doctorate, whereas the University of Chile will simply give general introductory courses and there will be no advanced training.

There was an important Center of Socioeconomic Studies, CESO is the acronym, and that was totally abolished. This institute had been carrying out very important original social science research on contemporary Latin America over the past decade, and it established a ratifying reputation and that's been completely abolished. Essentially, it was a institute functioning within the total University of Chile system.

Another institute which was somewhat autonomous and concerned itself with rural affairs, ESERA is the acronym. This was directed by a North American with the funding from FAO, Food and Agricultural Organization in the United Nations, and this was heavily intervened. That particular institute wasn't abolished, but all of the research that had been carried out, the papers, the records of that research were appropriated by the junta and were given over to a paper factory. These are just a few examples of the kind of measures that are being taken to suspend the training of social scientists, particularly at the higher level. 

Dr. Schaedel, from your recent visit to Chile, do you think the press reports of thousands of summary executions, unauthorized search and seizure of residences and torture of suspected leftists, do you think these reports have been accurate? 

Yes, I think there's no question that all these things occurred. I think the only issue is to determine quantitatively how accurate they were. One of the basic problems is simply the overall body count, a result of how many people are actually killed as a result of the takeover, both in the immediate fighting on September 11th and succeeding days, and also in the executions that were conducted out of the Stadium of Chile and the National Stadium. A lot of controversy is waged in the press on this subject, and I would say that the estimates, the minimal estimates that, below which, it would very hard to go, would be somewhere in the range of 3,000 to 5,000, and it's quite probably a larger number than that. 

The junta has consistently refused to allow any of the international agencies the opportunity to establish these figures for themselves, and it certainly is not interested in carrying out or reporting on the number of people killed. Incidents of torture in the stadium are abundantly verified by a number of, certainly I had the opportunity to speak to about 10 people in Santiago who were eyewitnesses to this. Unauthorized search and seizure, everyone that I talked to in Chile could give me evidence on that. Houses have been searched up to three times, including the house of the resident representative of the United Nations in Santiago. 

So generally speaking, I would say that with very few exceptions, most of the reports are essentially accurate with this reservation that I don't think we'll ever be able to get a good quantitative estimate of the number of people who have been tortured, the total number of illegal search and seizures, or even the total number of deaths. All this will have to be reconstructed and extrapolated from the eyewitness accounts. 

I'd just like to mention in passing that I got a document from a Colombian faculty member at the School of Social Sciences in Chile who had spent 30 days being moved from the stadium of Chile to the National Stadium, and prior to that he had been in several other places of detention and it's a rather gruesome account of the kinds of things that happened to him. He was a Colombian citizen who was seized at his house on the very day of the takeover, and his account of what took place, I'm just getting translated now and intend to turn it over to the Kennedy Committee, but this kind of document is hard to come by, especially from people who are still in Chile.

Those that have left are somewhat reluctant to compromise themselves because of friends and relatives that they might have there, but I can certainly say that, generally, the image projected by the press is correct.

From your experience, what is the political and economic direction being taken by the junta now? 

Well, I would say that it's following, and this has been pointed out by a number of reporters, that it's following the model of Spain. They are drafting a totally new constitution, and there are every indication that the constitution will be based on the so-called gremio or guild organizations, by professions rather than on any system of what we would consider electoral parliament.

And this new constitution is being drafted by three lawyers. It's on a corporatist model, and elections will definitely not take the form they have in the past. So it will be an elimination of a representative democracy, which is the former government Chile has had.

And such other measures as have been taken with regard, for example, to education, we can judge a little of the tendencies. Obviously, the most obvious one is the suppression or elimination of all Marxist literature. And then decrees have been passed, revising the curriculum of high school education, eliminating anything having to do with political doctrine, discussion of social reactions to the Industrial Revolution and things like that. So I guess, very simply, yes. If you want to call the government of Spain fascist, then the government is following very deliberately that model.

What else can you say about the situation in Chilean educational institutions now in terms of curriculum reform, overall educational reform?

Well, essentially, the situation in the universities of Chile is that they are all being intervened. The exact format that the revised university is going to take is somewhat clouded because there hasn't been a new statute governing university education, but it's fairly clear that they will definitely suppress social science training at the upper levels that would have to do with any independent investigation of political ideologies in their relationship to class structure or class organization. These matters will certainly not be permitted. 

And by and large, I think you could say that the reaction to the junta is fairly clear in its persecution of the international schools that have been based in Santiago. The School of Social Sciences is going to have to move, and the other organizations such as the Center for Demography, which is a UN organization, and even the Economic Commission for Latin America are beginning to wonder whether they should or even will be allowed to continue. The very fact that they've been able to intimidate, that the junta has been able to intimidate these international social science organizations, I think gives you a pretty good reading as to the kind of suppression of what we would consider to be normal social science training and research. Prospects are fairly grim. 

What kinds of efforts are being made in other countries, in particular in the United States, to help university professors and students who've been dismissed by the junta? 

Well, in the United States, there's a nationwide group organized which counts with the participation of practically every stateside university, which is setting up a network of offers for people who possibly need jobs or graduate fellowships. This is operating out of New York as a small funding grant from the Ford Foundation and operates in connection with a Latin American social science center based in Buenos Aires, which has been very active in trying to rehabilitate the already sizable number of Chilean and other Latin American academic refugees, you might say, in other countries of Latin America, so that the United States effort is integrated with the Latin American effort and is aimed primarily at avoiding, if possible, a brain drain, locating Chilean social science in South America, if possible, or Latin America in general, prior to opting for providing them jobs up here.

However, I think the effort is very worthwhile, and I'm sure, despite the efforts to accommodate social sciences in Latin America, social scientists in Latin America, a number of them will be coming to the States and also to European centers. Europe has also indicated an interest in rescuing Chilean social science.

Thank you, Dr. Schaedel. We've been talking today with Dr. Richard Schaedel of the Anthropology Department at the University of Texas at Austin, who recently returned from a fact-finding mission in Chile to investigate the situation of the social sciences after the September coup. 

It has been said that to some extent the stage four Colombia's recent problem of plagued in 1973 was set during the closing moments of the 1972 session of congress. A Molotov cocktail hurled into the congressional chamber brought to an abrupt end what had proven to be an extremely slow and unproductive year of lawmaking. 

Among the endless list of legislation left pending were vital bills dealing with agrarian reform as well as long awaited reform in urban, university, labor, and electoral sectors. 

This continued non-committal position towards significant social reform on the part of Congress as well as that of President Misael Pastrana Borrero, coupled with an unprecedented rate of inflation dealt Colombia a year of frequent and often quite violent domestic unrest. The three active communist guerrilla organizations all intensified their operations in February by carrying out a rash of sporadic attacks on large landowners and kidnapping several wealthy industrialists. Laboring the guerilla activity a national security threat, the Colombian government launched a two-pronged attack on the three groups, which included introducing the death penalty and beginning a sweeping search-and-destroy effort. 

By the end of October, a Colombian army spokesman announced that they had nearly eliminated the most powerful of the insurgent groups and that it would be turning its attention to a second guerrilla outfit. 

The Pastrana Borrero administration was also forced to deal with major strikes and demonstrations by truck and bus operators, teachers, students, and landless peasants. The two major factors said to have spurred the protests have been the rising cost of living and public outrage over alleged tortures and unnecessary killings of students and workers as well as guerrilla leaders. 

Although by early November of 1973 there was a move toward positive negotiations, the yearlong Colombia-Venezuela dispute over the demarcation of their territorial waters continues without solution. The extremely heated debate stems from their common belief that the disputed area in the Gulf of Venezuela contains rich oil deposits. Colombia's interest in the outcome is compounded by its realization that at the end of the coming fiscal year, it will no longer be an oil exporter, but rather an oil importer. 

As with most of its neighbors, a spiraling inflation has upset Colombia's economy during 1973. The rate of inflation, which reached 30%, has seen the greatest increases in the price of food and petroleum products. The irony of the situation is that, for Colombia, 1973 has been an exceptionally profitable year. There was a rise in total exports of nearly 40% over the previous year. At the close of the year, however, it appears that the government's measures of scattered price fixing have failed to provide a deterrent to the inflationary trend. 

Perhaps of greatest significance is that against the background of widespread political unrest, Colombia's three major political parties have managed to successfully appoint their presidential candidates and carry out vigorous campaigns for the upcoming election in April. This year's elections are doubly significant in that they indicate the decline of the 16-year-old national front agreement between Colombia's conservative and liberal parties. 

Under this agreement, the two leading parties have willingly alternated in power from one term to the next, thus severely limiting the hopes for the third party, ANAPO, National Popular Alliance. 

The pact was to have extended through the 1974 election. However, major splits within the two leading parties during their 1973 conventions have resulted in the premature cancellation of the National Front Pact. The conservatives and liberals have nonetheless settled on a somewhat modified version of the same agreement by which the losing party will automatically fill certain vital cabinet positions. The ANAPO candidate whose strength as astounded, many observers would, it has been said, be overthrown by the Colombian army immediately were she elected.

The greatly reformed minded Maria Eugenia, who has wide popular backing may be weakened regardless of the vote of the still farther left communist and Christian democratic candidates because of the pre-planned nature of the Colombian elections. They have customarily been marked by extreme apathy. This April's election is proving to be no exception.

Military thinking on guerrillas in Colombia is taking a new twist. As La Marcha reports from Bogota that on the 15th and 16th of December, the armed forces of Colombia engaged in stiff fighting with guerrilla groups who operate in various regions of the country. In the Department of Antioquia, the army faced a unit of the National Liberation Army commanded by Fabio Vasquez Castanio and killed three guerrillas. After the battle, the army announced that three industrialists held by the liberation forces had been freed. 

The battle unfolded in the mountains, which surround the Sierra Nevadas of Tolima and Huila at more than 12,000 feet altitude. Criticism was raised that the operation put in grave danger the lives of those kidnapped, but Marcha goes on to report, "Of even more interest than the fighting at Antioquia is the new military attitude towards the causes, program, and social origins of the guerrillas." 

All this encompassing a situation, which will yield to the armed forces a decisive role in Colombian society, will change now, from the regime of the national front and alliance of the conservative and liberal parties in command for the last 15 years, to a regime in which only one party will exercise power. In a book which he edited, Jorge Mario Eastman revealed his conversations with an important military leader, a colonel by the name of Rodriguez, for whom, "The objectives of the guerrillas are foremost social objectives, and to fight them, it is necessary to go to the sources. That is to say, to undertake profound reforms in an unjust society." 

Eastman reproduces a document written by the army for the National Commission, which studied the country's unemployment problem. In the report, the army sustains that repressive action is indecisive in combating the guerrillas. In the same document, the army criticizes the government's negligence in maintaining its borders, especially that with Brazil, and it asserts that, "National security is also based on the economic and social security of the people." 

These concepts seem clearly inspired by the positions taken by the Peruvian and Argentine military in the last meeting of Latin American military heads in Caracas. Certainly, the reconsideration of the true origin of the guerrillas does not mean that the army, for a moment, has reconsidered its decision to exterminate them. Far to the contrary, the change of attitude of the army towards the guerrillas, the offensive the army has mounted against their last readouts, seems to confirm that the changes are deep and can transform the army in the coming years into a decisive factor in Colombian social and political life. 

To most experts, it is clear that should the guerrilla resistance cease, the army will be able to confront whatever civilian government there is. With this argument, we have fulfilled our part of the anti guerrilla action in maintaining order, but the causes which give birth to them still exist. That is to say, here seems to be repeating itself the experience of the Peruvian military dictatorship who after defeating the guerrillas of the left militarily raised the banners of the guerrillas in legitimizing their own takeover. This report from La Marcha, a newsweekly of Colombia.

Excélsior of Mexico City reports that the United States and Panama have agreed on eight points of a new treaty concerning the Panama Canal. General Omar Torrijos of Panama, who has been negotiating with US Ambassador-at-large Ellsworth Bunker, has described the agreement as non-colonialist. 

While Prensa of Lima, Peru provided background noting that Panama has long considered the canal a natural resource that is exploited by a colonial power. Panamanian Foreign Minister Juan Antonio Tack has stated, "The main aspiration of the Panamanian nation is to have a Panamanian canal." Panama has been at the negotiating table with strong international backing. It had the support of the non-Aligned Nation Summit Conference, the recent Latin American foreign ministers meeting in Bogota, and the UN Security Council, whose vote last March in favor of Panama was vetoed by the United States. 

President Nixon recently asked Congress to approve legislation that would first allow Panama Street vendors to sell lottery tickets inside the canal zone, and second, turn over two US military airfields in the zone to the government of Panama. Foreign Minister Tack welcomed the proposed surrender of the military installations, but he was quick to add that the gesture was strictly a unilateral US initiative and not a product of negotiations between the two countries. Panama considers the massive US military presence in the canal zone illegal and has called for the elimination of all US bases. 

The Pentagon finds this unacceptable. The 500-mile-square canal zone is a virtual US garrison complete with 11,000 troops and 14 military bases and training centers, including the Pentagon Southern Command Headquarters. Southcom is the communications and logistics center, which directs and supplies all US military activities in Central and South America. The Canal Zone military schools, including the US Army School of the Americas, and a Green Beret Center, have trained over 50,000 Latin American military men in the last 20 years, most notably in counterinsurgency and internal security programs. 

The announcement that an agreement had been reached does not settle all these questions, but it does seem to be a breakthrough. Henry Kissinger announced in Washington that he would go to Panama at the end of January to sign the treaty. There are some indications however, that the treaty will meet opposition in the US Congress. Senator James McClure has sent a telegram to President Nixon asking him to reconsider what he calls "this incredible proposal."

One of the controversial points in the return by stages of full Panamanian sovereignty in the canal zone. Panama will gradually gain control of postal, police and tribunal services. Water and land that aren't indispensable to the functioning of the canal will also be returned to Panama. Whether or not Panama will ever have total control of the canal, however, remains to be seen. That report on the United States Panamanian Treaty is taken from Excelsior of Mexico City and La Prensa of Lima, Peru. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Today's feature is the energy crisis as seen from Latin America. 

Amid varied opinions as to the causes and effects of the oil crisis certain facts stand out. Importing countries cannot absorb increased prices and inflation is inevitable. 

According to Latin America, a British weekly of political and economic affairs, Peru, which imports 35% of its oil and has sold it on the internal market without a price rise for more than a decade is faced with a problem. How can the inevitable price rise, now scheduled for January, avoid hitting the poorest sections of the community? This is a particularly delicate problem for the government since it is suffering from the most serious crisis of confidence it has known in the past years. 

Peru's long-term problem is not so serious. The Amazon field should be producing significantly by 1975 when Peru aims to be self-sufficient and exploration is going ahead offshore. 

Colombia has the opposite problem, currently self-sufficient it is likely to be importing oil by 1975. Here too the internal price is subsidized heavily and a price rise in spite of government denial seems imminent. 

Some increase in inflation is inevitable in Mexico where the domestic price of petrol has been put up 70% and gas has gone up by more than 100%. 

Opinion in some quarters of Mexico is particularly bitter and Miguel Zwionsek in a December 31st editorial in Excélsior, one of Mexico City's leading dailies, lays the blame for the crisis at the feet of the transnational oil companies as he declares: 

"Before the Arab Rebellion, and for the last 50 years through the control of petroleum reserves in the Mideast by the seven Sisters Oil consortium, crude oil prices were unilaterally fixed by the international oil oligopoly without any regard to so-called market forces. The World Oil oligopoly manages petroleum prices at its pleasure. If these phenomena do not fit well in the idyllic tail of a free world of free enterprise, so much the worse for those who take the story seriously."

Mr. Zwionsek to clarify this charge, continues by saying that: 

I have here a somewhat indiscreet declaration of the Royal Dutch Shell President made in London, December 10th. While the Arabs say that the supply to Great Britain is assured, the transnationals consider it their responsibility to manage their own world system of petroleum rationing. Translated into plain language this declaration is saying that if indeed the crude producers have beaten us, the transnational giants, the consumers will pay the bill. 

It is estimated that as oil prices double for the Third World countries, they will pay $3.8 billion more this year for petroleum imports. Thus, the weakest of the Third World countries will pay the final bill for the Arab rebellion. As was to be expected the transnationals will come out unscathed by the phantasmagorical world oil crisis. 

This editorial opinion by Miguel Zwionsek appeared in the Mexico City daily Excélsior December 31st, 1973. However, not all writers agree that only the weakest Third World countries will feel the effect. Reflecting on the crisis many are reexamining their relations with the industrial countries and their own development programs. Paulo R Shilling examining the problem in an editorial appearing in the December 28th issue of Marcha, an Uruguayan weekly, analyzes the case of Brazil. Mr. Shilling begins by declaring that: 

The Brazilian energy policy constitutes a prime example of the two development possibilities, independent or semi colonial of a developing country. The independent policy consists in evaluating one's own resources to overcome the barrier of under development. During the government of Marshall Eurico Gaspar Dutra and later under the government of the Bourgeois Alliance headed by Juscelino Kubitschek, the policy inspired by the petroleum monopolist then eager for new markets was imposed. 

New consumers of petroleum had to be created. The truly national plans for the automobile industry had aimed at meeting the basic needs of public transportation and freight transportation and the mechanization of agriculture. To the contrary, the many automobile factories which were installed in the country on shameful terms of favors and privileges are totally foreign controlled and seek exclusively easy profits without any consideration for authentic development. In fact, the number of tractors manufactured equals only 5% of the total of vehicles produced. 

As the internal market was very limited, the government succeeded, by the concession of official credit to the middle class, in artificially inflating the demand for private autos. This policy, brought to its final conclusion by the military dictatorship, caused a total deformation of Brazilian society. With a per capita income of only $500, and that very poorly distributed, Brazil is still included in the underdeveloped classification. However, by furnishing a market for the international monopolists, and winning politically, the middle class, a super structure of privilege equivalent to the most highly-developed countries, has been created. 

This massive increase in the number of vehicles, especially passenger cars, is almost solely responsible for the fantastic increase in petroleum consumption in the past few years. The situation becomes still more absurd, from the point of view of independent national development, if we consider that the fuel consumed by the passenger cars of the new rich is produced with almost completely imported petroleum. 

Having given massive admittance of the middle class to the automobile era, importation has increased five times in 13 years. For 1974, predicting an importation of 260 million barrels, the expenditure will reach the fantastic foreign underdeveloped country a sum of 2 billion US dollars. 

The enormous sacrifice of the Brazilian people, who produce more every year, and each year, consume less, at the level of the working class, to increase exports means nothing in terms of genuinely national and popular development. All the increase gained in 1973 will be destined for the acquisition of fuel in order to offer the new Brazilian rich a level of comfort equal to that of the developed countries. Mr. Shilling speculates why this policy is allowed to continue. 

Up till now, the Brazilian government has not taken any steps to limit the consumption of petroleum derivatives. How can it be done without affecting the euphoria of the rich and middle classes, the base that sustains the government? How can it be done without prejudicing the sales of the automobile monopolies? How can it be done without disturbing those states within the state, which, like Volkswagen, have a budget greater than that of various states of the Federal Republic of Brazil? How can it be done without tarnishing the image of the Brazilian miracle abroad, fundamental to obtain more investments and loans? 

As an alternative Mr. Shilling concludes by suggesting that the effects of the crisis: 

Could as well always be regulated by our governments, which, revealing a minimum of independence, might break with the seven sisters, British Petroleum, Shell, Exxon, Chevron, Texaco, Gulf, and Mobil, and take steps to negotiate directly with the state organizations of the producing countries. Eliminating the predatory intermediary would assure a complete supply and the impact of price increases would be less. The increase in importations could be eliminated in part by drastic restrictions on the extravagant use of petroleum derivatives and with an offensive of higher prices on the raw materials which we export. Those who will be the scapegoats in this case would be the imperialist countries. 

Mr. Paulo R. Shillings editorial appeared in the December 28th '73 issue of Marcha, published weekly in Uruguay. 

From Brazil itself, Opinião of January 7th, 1974 reports that Brazil is feeling the Arab oil boycott. On the 27th of December, the National Petroleum Council approved a 19% price increase for ethol, 16.8% for regular gas, 8.5% for diesel fuel. According to an official of the council, increases for gasoline, which is destined for individual consumption, are higher than those of diesel and other combustibles, which have a greater effect on the economy. 

But the January 14th Opinião cautions that because the Brazilian economic model is so tied with the world economy, the Brazilian economy will always reflect the general tendencies of the world capitalist system, and the Arab petroleum boycott brought great uncertainty about Brazilian economic prospects for 1974. In 1973, for the first time in recent years, it was not easy to resolve certain contradictions. For example, between growth of exports and supplying the internal market between inflation and excessive influx of foreign capital. 

How will the current oil shortage affect Brazil? Opinião explains that in many advanced countries, a decrease in production has already been noted because of the oil shortage. As a result, they require less materials. In Brazil's case, the growth of gross domestic product is closely related to growth of exports. The probable decline in exports in '74 will provoke a decline in gross domestic product. Along with probable decreasing exports, the higher price of petroleum will reflect itself in almost all of Brazil's imports, freight costs, as well as doubling petroleum prices themselves.

Opinião concludes that to a certain degree, Brazil's economic problems are a result of the advances it has achieved in its interaction with the world economy. If the increases of imports and exports obtained in the last few years, aided by foreign credit facilities, permitted the maintenance of a high-economic growth rate, now, at this critical moment for the world market, Brazil will have to pay the price.

This from Opinião of Brazil, January 7th and 14th, 1974. 

We conclude today's feature with a speculation by Luis Ortiz Montiserio, appearing in Mexico City's Excélsior, January 14th, on the lessons to be learned from the current oil crisis. 

One is able to predict the true intention of the recent declarations of the US Secretary of Defense, who is threatening with the use of force, the Arab countries that have decreed the petroleum embargo against the West. It is curious to note that the inheritors of the democratic traditions have changed overnight into bad losers. Economic aggression, a fundamental arm in United States relations with weak countries, cannot be wielded by its former victims. The use of violence vehemently condemned by Western civilization is now being piously proposed. 

A fight with all Third World countries is impossible. To our mind, economic pressures never have been the best instrument of international relations. Today it is the producers of petroleum who use their valuable raw materials to influence international decisions. Hardly yesterday, it was those same economic pressures that the great powers manipulated to control policies and influence the weak nations. If indeed we agree that its use is dangerous, we cannot help but consider its great potential and the lesson to be taught to the great industrial powers. This editorial by Luis Ortiz Montiserio appeared at January 14th in Mexico City's daily, Excélsior. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This from the liberal British news weekly, Latin America. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

This from the British Newsweek, Latin America. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In a recent article entitled "Central America: Made Martyr by The Big Fruit Company", La Opinión, an Argentine newspaper reports on the US-based Standard Fruit Company. Standard Fruit unilaterally suspended its import of bananas from Honduras in reprisal for an agreement Honduras made establishing an export tax on bananas of $1 per case. According to Standard Fruit, the agreement will bring Honduras unemployment and cause a drop in wages, as well as affect banana production in all of Latin America's other banana-producing nations. The decision, reports La Opinión, was made public by Standard Fruit following an interview which several of the corporation's highest officials had with Honduran President López Arellano. 

Officials spokesmen have stated that Honduras remained firm in defense of its recent agreements, reached collectively with Panama, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Guatemala, Costa Rica, and Colombia. Standard Fruit alleged in a press statement that the rise in the export price of bananas will diminish North American banana consumption, thus making it necessary to adjust the supply in order to compensate for the new situation.

Standard Fruit announced its intention to take such action at a recent meeting of Latin American banana producers held in Honduras. During the meeting, a Standard Fruit official warned all of the various representatives that it would suspend all banana shipments out of Honduras if the $1 tax was agreed upon. The threat, which would hurt, especially Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and Honduras, was ignored by all of the representatives present. 

Following the meeting, a Costa Rican newspaper, Latin, reported on the reaction to Standard Fruits actions by Costa Rican President José Figueres. Figueres labeled Standard Fruit's operations colonialist. The Costa Rican President also said that Standard Fruit was the only foreign fruit company which had refused to pay the $1 export charge. Addressing his country in a national television broadcast, Figueres stated, "It is a typically colonialist attitude and has caused us great difficulty. However, we will not alter our approach and we'll do what must be done." 

Standard Fruit's hardline policy, reports La Opinión, is due to two chief factors. Standard Fruit fears that competitors will move in and capture its market when its prices rise. The company also fears that the banana producers, if not dealt with firmly, will pursue with greater interest their recent tendency towards trade with Socialist nations. 

This report on the banana trade in Central America was taken from the Argentine daily, La Opinión, and the Costa Rican paper, Latin. 

In Colombia, there will be few excuses for Alfonso López Michelsen if he fails to make a success of the administration he will form when he assumes office in August. Having won comfortably over half the votes in the recent elections, and with a Liberal majority in Congress, he has fully achieved the mandate he sought from the country. The only fly in the ointment was that although this was the first meaningful contest between Colombia's two traditional parties, the Liberals and Conservatives, since their National Front agreement was established 16 years ago, nearly half the electorate failed to vote. 

The fact is, however, that the electors were offered a significant choice between the reformism of López Michelsen, diluted or not, and the development a la Brazil of his Conservative rival Alvaro Gómez Hurtado. In an astute speech when his victory was announced, López Michelsen promised that despite his total victory, he would honor the agreement to share government posts between Liberals and Conservatives. But he strongly implied that he would be calling only on the moderate wing of the Conservative party, and in fact, the Liberals are jubilant that the reactionary Gómez Hurtado wing looks as if it may be finished forever. 

What does seem clear is that López Michelsen succeeded in hitting exactly the right note in the current state of Latin American politics. It is evidently of some importance that another constitutional regime after Venezuela should have strengthened its position at a time when others further south are either looking shaky or have been violently overthrown.

But perhaps more important is the opening that López Michelsen has created at a time when similar political openings have emerged in such diverse countries as Mexico, Honduras, Brazil, and Argentina. Even if they're largely rhetoric in a number of cases, they are not without significance domestically. Clearly the talk of agrarian reform, a better distribution of wealth, a break between state and church, new divorce proposals and so on from López Michelsen has helped to create a new situation in Colombia, whether it is all carried through effectively or not. 

Equally important is the impact on the country's position abroad. The nationalism, which characterizes, say, the Acción Democrática government in neighboring Venezuela is likely to be closely reflected in Bogotá. Indeed, López Michelsen has referred to his friend, Venezuelan President Carlos Andres Perez, and the two country's policies are likely to be closely connected during the next four or five years. This must mean more power to the Andean group and rather stricter though perhaps more secure conditions for foreign companies operating in Colombia. Among other things, it may mean a review of such deals as the projects to develop the country's coal, gas, and oil reserves in conjunction with the United States and Brazil. 

For Peru in particular, the Colombian election result must be wholly satisfying. Support from another Andean country will be very welcome at a time when external threats seem manifold. Panama and Venezuela, too, will be pleased. Prospects now look better than ever before for a settlement of the longstanding dispute between Colombia and Venezuela over territorial waters. 

One possible solution suggested by López Michelsen was the joint development by the two countries of the natural resources, mainly oil, under the seabed. If they work closely together, Colombia and Venezuela will clearly be an important political force in the Southern Caribbean, more so at a time when the major power in the area, the United States, is suffering from an almost daily decline of government. This, from the British news weekly, Latin America.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The British news weekly Latin America reports that a recent decision of Chile's interior minister seems to indicate an important change within the power structure of the armed forces there. General Oscar Bonilla overruled the local military commander of San Fernando and commuted the death penalty of five members of the Chilean Socialist Party. This intervention is an indication that the Junta is planning to reorganize the country's power structure. According to Latin America, the Junta now seems to be swinging back to centralization. 

The provinces themselves are to be reorganized. The military commanders are to be made accountable to the center, and the paramilitary police force, the Carabineros, are to be integrated into the army. These are all signs that the armed forces are reorganizing the country for their perpetual control of power. Junta members have never suggested that they would step down, but in the first months after the coup, there were still some moderate elements in the army. Since then, however, these moderate officers have been weeded out. 

The power has shifted firmly into the hands of the hardliners, and there is no longer seems to be any serious debate within the armed forces about the desirability of remaining indefinitely in power. 

Excélsior of Mexico City notes that one of the Junta's main problems is dealing with international opinion. The most recent difficulties have arisen with Colombia, Venezuela, and England. Colombia recently announced the withdrawal of its ambassador from Chile. This action was brought on by Chile's violation of an agreement concerning asylum in the Colombian embassy. The Colombian ambassador has been unable to provide safe conduct passes for the prisoners in the embassy. Although Colombia's move does not represent a complete rupture of relations with Chile, it seriously strains them. 

In Venezuela, there has been a barrage of articles in magazines and newspapers denouncing the Junta. Elite, a magazine run by one of the most powerful groups of editorialists in Venezuela, recently published an article entitled "Our Black Book on Chile". The article charged that members of the armed forces who would not conspire against Allende were tortured. The moderate periodical Semana denounced the barbaric situation in Chile and claimed that the conditions in the prison camps do not begin to satisfy the terms of the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war. 

Perhaps the most serious international difficulties which have arisen lately center around Chile's relations with England. The British government has instructed Rolls-Royce to cancel its contract to overhaul aircraft engines for the Chilean Air Force and has banned the export of spare parts to Chile. This was announced by Prime Minister Harold Wilson in the House of Commons amid shouts of approval from Labor Party members. Wilson said that Rolls-Royce workers had refused to fill orders for the Chile Junta. 

Progressive circles in Britain have been demanding a full embargo on arms deliveries to the fascist regime. Their demands include cancellation of the Labor government's decision to deliver to the junta for warships that are being built in British shipyards. Wilson criticized the previous British government for their quick recognition of the military Junta. That report on events in Chile from the British news weekly, Latin America, the Mexico City daily Excélsior, and the Venezuelan newspapers Elite and Semana.