Annotations for Countries: Paraguay

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our feature this week is a report by German anthropologist Mark Munzel on the Indian situation in Paraguay. In South America, unlike most other areas of the world, indigenous tribes subsist in some primitive areas. However, they are fast-disappearing because of the advance of urban civilization and the repressive policies of certain governments. The purpose of this report is to demonstrate how the basic human rights, described in the United Nations Charter of Human Rights, are denied to the Aché Indians of Paraguay. Not through indifference or neglect, but by deliberate government policy of genocide disguised as benevolence. 

There has never been any particular respect for Indian lives. An early account describes the situation, "In 1903, Paraguayans shot several Aché and even cut one of the bodies into pieces and put him in a cage trap as jaguar bait." Munsusin saw a settler pull out of his hunting bag the finger of an Aché and boast about it. Then again in 1907, "They had followed the traces of the Aché, and when they reAchéd the Indians the very first evening of the journey, they slaughtered seven women and children and caught seven small children." This report by the Brazilian Ethnologist, Baldus, is neither the first nor the most cruel one concerning the inhumane treatment of the Aché over the centuries. 

Unlike the sedentary Guarani Indians, their neighbors and linguistic relatives, the majority of the nomadic Aché never surrendered to the white man. Without being exactly aggressive, they attempted to defend their territory against incursions and withdrew deeper into the forest when they could not resist. On the other hand, captive Achés, once separated from their people, proved to be of extreme tameness and have a lack of aggression against their captors and the white Paraguayans soon learned to appreciate their aptitude for any kind of agricultural labor.

The Ethnologist Clastres notes the sharp contrast between the two kinds of relations the Aché know. For an Aché tribe, there is no kind of relation to strangers other than hostility. This is in astonishing contrast to the perceptible constant effort to eliminate all violence from relations between comrades. The most extreme courtesy always prevails, the common will to understand each other, to speak with each other, to dissolve in the exchange of words all the aggression and grudges which inevitably arise during the daily life of the group.

So it seems that the captive Aché, once they realized that they have to stay among the whites forever, decided it is wiser to use their non-aggressive approach, hence the softness for which they are liked. The author says, "I have only known captive Aché, no free forest Indians, and all I can say is that I have never met any other people who are so tame and obedient. I also happen to meet at Aché's who have been captured just three days previously. They were desperately unhappy but ready to do anything they were commanded to do."

Thus, war against the Acha since colonial days has served not only to conquer new territories, but also to obtain captives as a cheap and appreciated labor force. The hunting and selling of Achés became, and still is, an important branch of the economy in areas close to the lands of the wild Aché.

The extermination of these Indians is very much related to the economic development of the country. If the remotest parts of the country were to be open to foreign investment and to international roads, as is the government's intention, the anachronism of slavery may have to be eliminated in order to make the country exhibitable to foreign eyes. But at the same time, commercial penetration is bound to render the situation of the Indians more difficult. Since 1958, and especially since 1968, their situation has indeed become worse.

This coincides with the foundation of the Native Affairs Department of the Ministry of Defense, which meant that Indian affairs were put under military control as a part of the general transfer of power from civilians to the military and with the subsequent retirement of an official in 1961. But there are also deeper reasons. Paraguay has in recent years experienced a slight economic boom. The international road through Eastern Paraguay, from Asuncion to Puerto Presidente Stroessner, was completed in 1965. An additional road, which cuts the forests of the northern Aché into two parts, was completed in 1968.

Land prices are rising in the areas which have become more accessible through the improved system of communications, as well as the price of forest products; timber, palmito, and [inaudible 00:19:41]. And most especially that of cattle, which means that less land is reserved for the Indians. Commercial penetration means, from the Aché point of view, that the forest, the indispensable basis for their hunting life, is cut down. Or at least crossed by roads that frighten away the game. There have been slight Indian efforts at resisting, especially attacks on woodcutters who were destroying trees that bore beehives. Honey is a very important element in the Aché diet. 

But more frequently, the Achés try to adapt to the new situation. If they neither wish to die from hunger on their reduced hunting grounds, nor enter the of working for Paraguayan masters, their only way out is to steal food from the Paraguayans. This is the reason for the frequent, but normally non-violent raids on white men's cattle and fields. The Achés also steal iron implements in order to compensate for their loss of territory by the intensification of subsistence technology. Those who live on the Indian frontier are thus confirmed in their hatred of Aché and so the new invaders of the forest, wood cutters, palmito collectors, and landowners, want to have the forest cleaned of Achés for they are bothered by the presence of the ancient owners of the forest.

Most sources agree that manhunts for the Aché have increased in volume and in violence during recent years. In 1968, a member of the armed forces and of the ruling political party, then vice director of the Native Affairs Department of the Ministry of Defense, wrote that the Acha were close to extinction due to repressive actions that follow any of their efforts to resist the occupation of their lands. In December, 1971, the reporter Jay Mesa of ABC Color, an important newspaper in Asuncion Paraguay, wrote of murders of fathers and mothers as the only way of seizing Aché children who are then sold and brought up as servants.

They even tell of prizes for those who managed to kill the Indians. The Paraguayan anthropologist, Chase Sardi, confirmed this in an interview in the same newspaper in 1972. "They're hunted. They're pursued like animals. The parents are killed and the children sold and there is no family of which a child has not been murdered. I was told by Paraguayan country people that the price of Aché children is falling due to great supply. It is said to be presently at about the equivalent of $5 for an Aché girl of around five years of age."

The following recently documented cases are rather typical. In 1970, [inaudible 00:22:20] learned in Itakyry of a raid that had been organized there. The killers kidnapped three children, all of whom died thereafter. On another incident, in about June of 1970, on the river Itambay, approximately 52 kilometers up river from Puerto Santa Teresa, several Indians were killed in a raid according to the claims of a palmito collector, an Indian hunter, who says he killed several Indians before he was wounded. Two kidnapped girls were given to the organizer of the raid. In February, 1972, close to San Joaquin, Munzel himself reports being told by several people of an Aché hunt in the area southeast of Itakyry.

"We were not able to gather any concrete or detailed evidence," he says, "but I believe that an inquiry commission sent to the area could easily gain this information." The massacre seems to have taken place about the middle of 1971. Various children of slain Aché parents were then deported. The kidnappers were said to have declared that the only reason why they did not take more children was that they were not able to carry off more at one time and that they were forced to leave several children with their dead parents, but that they would return to the forest later on to seize them.

Despite documentation and reports to government authorities, very little is being done about the problem. Recently, the director of the Native Affairs Department declared that there were no concrete indications of massacres of Indians in Paraguay. General Bejarano, president of the Indigenous Association of Paraguay, described massacres as problems that were normal in any part of the world. The officially recommended solution of this problem does not include the limitation of the massacres by means of legal pressure, but the installation of a reservation to which the Aché, who were a problem elsewhere, may be deported.

A well-known hunter and seller of Achés in 1950s was Manuel Jesus Pereda, a junior partner of the biggest manhunter in the area. In 1959, a band of Aché whose hunting possibilities had been reduced too much to permit the continuation of their free existence, and who were suffering strong pressure from the manhunters surrounding them, surrendered to Pereda at Torin. This was at the time when the authorities had taken some measures against the slave hunters. Afraid of legal prosecution, Jesus Pereda did not dare sell his new Indians, but used them instead as a cheap labor force on his farm at Torin.

The story he told the authorities was that the Indians had sought his protection because they loved him. Pereda was shortly thereafter nominated as a functionary of the Native Affairs Department of the Ministry of Defense. And his farm transformed into a reservation called the Indian Assistance and Nationalization Post Number One.

Extensive documentation at the Aché reservation shows this to have been the scene of criminality of the grosses sort. Jesus Pereda's first administrative act was to plunder the goods of his wards in order to sell them as tourist souvenirs. There's also extensive documentation of sexual abuse of women and of very young girls by the reservation administration. And very numerous acts of gratuitous violence, including murders of Aché. Food allocated for the Indians is often sold instead to local farmers for profit.

Also, the resources, land, and water of the reservation itself are very far from generous. Furthermore, virtual manhunts through the forest are still used to round up Indians and forcibly bring them to the reservation. Captured, domesticated Indians are encouraged to participate in this activity.

In June of 1962, the reservation of Aché numbered about 110, at least 60 of whom had been brought there by direct violence. In July of 1968, only 68 Indians were left. This demographic reduction becomes more spectacular if we take into account that the Aché are a very fertile people. Anthropologist, Chase Sardi in 1965, pointed out the absolute lack of any type of preventative medicine on the Aché reservation. Officially in 1968, the absence of medical and sanitary assistance was admitted as one of the reasons for the deaths. Other evidence shows that the oft cited biological shock of the first contact with the microbes of the white man cannot be the main reason for the disappearance of so many Indians.

Many of them had been in contact with whites before, having been captured by the Paraguayans and having escaped again before finally coming to the reservation. Besides, the greatest reduction of population took place, not when the reservation was first established, but later on. The main reasons for the reduction of the Aché population seem to be hunger and hunger related diseases, as well as the selling or giving away of reservation Indians to outsiders. 

An element of psychological importance is the brutal destruction of the cultural inheritance of these Indians. This is not the place to discuss whether primitive cultures should be preserved or modernized. What has taken place in the case of the Aché is not modernization, but the destruction of the identity and even the self-respect of the Achés as human beings. Munzel recorded on tape many songs lamenting the end of the Aché, in which the singer regards himself as no longer an Aché, not even as a human being, but as half dead.

A French ethnologist, Clastres, describes a song he recorded on the reservation. "[inaudible 00:28:00] on a sound of deep sadness and nausea," he said, "ended in a lamentation that was then prolonged by the delicate melancholy of the flute. They sang that day of the end of the Aché and of his despair in realizing that it was all over. The Aché, when they were real Aché, they hunted the animals with bow and arrow, and now the Aché are no more. Woe is us."

Especially since 1972, the Aché situation turned into a public scandal yet still no action has been taken against those who, outside the reservation, continue to hunt the Aché like animals. Still there are Aché slaves all over Eastern Paraguay. Still, countless Aché families remain separated through slavery or through the deportation of some of them to the reservation. Still, the reservation is located on such ungenerous soil that one can foresee its bitter end.

This has been a report by Mark Munzel of the International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs. The International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs is a non-political, non-religious organization concerned with the oppression of ethnic groups in various countries.

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

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

Our feature this week is a commentary on Latin American art, taken from a recent book by Jean Franco called "The Modern Culture of Latin America".

An intense social concern has been the characteristic of Latin American art for the last 150 years. Literature and even painting and music have played a social role, with the artists acting as teacher, guide, and conscience of his country. The Latin American has generally viewed art as an expression of the artist's whole self, a self which is living in a society and which therefore has a collective as well as an individual concern. On the other hand, the idea of the moral neutrality or the purity of art has had relatively little impact. 

In countries like those of Latin America, where national identity is still in the process of definition and where social and political problems are both huge and inescapable, the artist's sense of responsibility towards society needs no justification. Generally, movements in the arts have not grown out of a previous movement, but have arisen in response to factors external to art. A new social situation defines the position of the artist, who then improvises or borrows a technique to suit his purpose. 

Ms. Franco's book is a careful study of these changes in the artist's attitude to society and the way that this is expressed in literature and, to some extent, the other arts. She begins her analysis with the year 1888, the year of the publication of an influential volume of poetry by Ruben Dario, the leader of Latin America's first native artistic movement, known as modernism. 

Modernist is a term used to characterize many diverse writers, such as Nicaraguan Ruben Dario, the Cuban Jose Marti, and the Colombian, Jose Silva. All of these writers had a great deal in common. The type of society the modernist hated above all was contemporary bourgeois society. This may seem strange, since Spanish America was only at the margin of industrial and capital expansion.

Yet the poets did not have to see dark satanic mills on their doorsteps to realize that a new and disturbing force was looming over them. The cash nexus, destructive of all other human relations, was what the artist most feared. Indeed, many of the prose pieces written by the modernists are in the nature of allegories about the relation of the artist to a materialist society. The poet's hatred of the materialism of his age was often to remain exclusively verbal.

But there were very many different shades of social involvement. From Dario's aloofness to the militant commitment of Jose Marti, a dedicated fighter for Cuban independence, nothing could be further from an elite attitude than these words of Marti. "Poetry is the work both of the bard and of the people who inspire him. Poetry is durable when it is the work of all. Those who understand it are as much its authors as those who make it. To thrill all hearts by the vibrations of your own, you must have the germs and inspirations of humanity. Above all, you must live among a suffering people." 

After this early period, characterized by a real or symbolic rebellion, came an intense concern with culture rather than politics. A new influential movement known as Arielism took its name from an essay by Uruguayan Rodo, in which he emphasized the spirituality of Latin American culture, especially when contrasted with the vulgar neighbors to the north, the United States. There was an emphasis on original native culture and efforts to revive the memories of heros of the past. 

After the first World War, the Latin American intellectuals began to seek some roots in the cultures of the Indian and the Negro, and in the land itself, alternative values to those of a European culture, which seemed on the verge of disintegration. Literature about Indians and Latin America was to have two distinct functions. One was to fulfill a direct social purpose by arousing a general awareness of the plight of submerged sections of the population. The other was to set up the values of Indian culture and civilization as an alternative to European values. 

This tenancy found its best expression in Mexico, where the world famous muralists Diego Rivera, Orozco, Siqueiros, and O'Gorman revived mythological Indian figures with very beautiful and innovative techniques. The Negro tradition expressed itself in the 1920s within Cuba and fostered a great deal of literature, as well as music. This trend towards more native emphasis in Latin America was a very important stage of development. At its most superficial, it was a gesture of defiance towards Europe and the United States. At its best, it did justice to hitherto ignored, if not disparaged segments of the population. 

In the 1920s, the world gradually began to divide into the hostile political camps of communism and fascism. Political concern was almost unavoidable. Whether such concern would be reconciled with the pursuit of art was another matter. Some intellectuals became militants and abandoned their painting or poetry. Some put their art to the service of a message. A few attempted to find a form of art which would universalize their political concern. 

In Latin America, many communists and socialist parties were founded and run by the artists and intellectuals. The most outstanding example was the Mexican Communist Party, which had, at one time, no less than three painters, Rivera, Siqueiros, and Guerrero on its executive committee. In Peru, the socialist party was founded by an intellectual, Mariategui. In 1936, the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War drew many more writers and artists into the left-wing ranks, and prompted middle-class intellectuals to join with workers and peasants. 

Of all the poets and authors involved in this political reawakening, Pablo Neruda, the Chilean poet, succeeded most in bringing political elements into poetry without sacrificing originality or creative depth. While arguing that poetry should not be separated from everyday life, but rather should be impure, as he put it, "corroded as if by an acid, by the toil of the hand, impregnated with sweat and smoke, smelling of urine and lilies". He still managed, as is obvious from the quote, to use very striking and beautiful imagery. 

The novelists of the early 20th century also show political concern, but are preoccupied with such philosophical and ethical issues as authenticity. Carlos Fuentes and Juan Rufo in Mexico both struggled with the problems of the Mexican consciousness. Ms. Franco writes, "In the modern novel, revolution is no longer seen as a total solution. At best, it is only an essential first step. The real battle, it has suggested, is now within the human mind and particularly within the minds of the upper and middle classes, whose failure to construct a reasonable society is one of the tragedies of Latin America." 

For a century and a half, the republics of Latin America have been following different paths. Mexico has undergone a social revolution. Paraguay has lived under a series of dictators. Argentina's population has been transformed by immigration from Europe. Obviously, such factors have their repercussions in the continent's literature, which besides common Latin American features, has also specifically Argentinian, Mexican, or Paraguayan characteristics. 

These local variants are not necessarily political. The incidents of illiteracy, the presence of a large rural population also affect the artistic environment. This does not mean that socially underdeveloped countries do not produce good literature, but simply that in such places the artist's task is lonelier and more difficult. 

Most countries in Latin America have experienced political oppression during the present century, and in many, the condition has been constant. Contemporary literature abounds with the personal testimonies of men who have been imprisoned and persecuted by dictators. In many countries, the problem of oppression is much wider than the immediate physical consequences. The writer suffers from the much slower torments of frustration, lack of freedom to write as he wishes, and a crushing intellectual environment. To be born and grow up in a Latin American dictatorship is, to use the words of Asturias, "to be born into a tomb". 

Two outstanding writers, Augusto Roa Bastos and Miguel Angel Asturias, the first from Paraguay and the second from Guatemala, have succeeded in gaining an international reputation, despite the inhibitions of their background. Asturias' book, Men of Corn, traces the dispossession of the Indians and the commercialization of agriculture. Roa Bastos' short story, "The Excavation", presents a nightmare of frustration in which those who rebel against the status quo are shamelessly murdered. The works of such writers as Asturias and Roa Bastos only serve to emphasize the tragic waste of human potential inherent in a dictatorship. These problems are particularly relevant to the Brazilian situation today, where a censorship of all printed and electronic media is unlimited. 

Latin American intellectuals have always been intrigued with the subject of revolution. The Mexican experience of 1910 is very prominent in the literature and art of the last decades. The Cuban Revolution has also had a great effect on national cultural life. Although the changes in the political and social life of Cuba are still too recent for a solid judgment to be formed, the revolution of 1959 changed the social structure of Cuba. Most of the upper class and many of the middle and professional classes left the island.

A vigorous campaign against illiteracy has brought into being a new amass readership, encouraged to write and help to publish by the official Union of Artists and Writers, and by the prizes offered by the Casa de las Americas, which acts as a cultural clearinghouse. Book production has enormously increased, and there are now available cheap editions of many Cuban and Latin American classics.

In a 1961 speech to intellectuals, Castro guaranteed freedom of literary expression, declaring, "Within the revolution, everything, outside the revolution, nothing," a guarantee that was repeated by other leading intellectuals and which has allowed a remarkable variety of styles. Unlike Soviet writing, realism has not been the only permitted style. Science fiction, fantasy, and black humor are all common. Within the first 10 years, the struggle in Cuba has not meant the sacrifice of spontaneity and variety. It'll be interesting to see whether, in time, totally new art forms will emerge. 

To declare one's self an artist in Latin America has frequently involved conflict with society. In the 19th century, the artist was divided from most of his fellow countrymen because of his culture and upbringing. As we have seen, the majority of 19th century reformers were also political fighters dedicated to reforming their society. It was only towards the end of the century, with modernism, that it was even suggested that art might be more important than the political struggle. 

This did not mean that they had given up on social programs. On the contrary, the modernist ideal of society was the exact contrary of the vulgar materialism, which they regarded as the symptom of the age, and their way of life was a protest against those who were uncritical of bourgeois values. Without abandoning ideals of culture and refinement, the Arielist generation saw itself as moral leader. The artist put his faith in education and in the written word as a means of changing society. 

However, ultimately, neither the written word or education was effective. The Arielist generation was overtaken by a rising tide of unrest, by the shattering impact of world events such as the Russian and Mexican revolutions and the First World War. The post-war generation was no longer in a position to feel superior. The masses had become a power to be reckoned with. The intellectual was therefore obliged either to regard himself as an ally of the masses, a helper in their cause, or if he could not do this, he tended to stand aside, proclaiming that politics and social reform belonged to a world of appearances. 

At any rate, there are many signs that Latin American literature has come of age. Two Nobel Prizes in the last five years have gone to Latin Americans, Miguel Angel Asturias of Guatemala, and Pablo Neruda of Chile. The work of these two men effectively summarizes many of Ms. Franco's points about Latin America and the artist's social concerns. Asturias' most famous series of novels deals with the role of foreign banana companies in his native country, and Neruda's verse is an enthusiastic witness to the success of the new Chilean regime. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The single most important event in Brazil this year was the announcement in June that current military president, Emilio Médici, will be succeeded next March by another general, Ernesto Geisel. In this analysis, we will look at developments in three main areas and attempt to foresee what changes, if any, can be expected when Geisel assumes power. We will examine Brazil's economic development, its role role in Latin America, and recent reports of dissidents in Brazil. The military has been in power in Brazil since 1964, when a military coup toppled left liberal president Goulart.

Since then, Brazil has opened its doors to foreign capital, attempting to promote economic development. In some ways, results have been impressive. Brazil's gross national product has grown dramatically in recent years and it now exports manufactured goods throughout the continent, but this kind of growth has not been without its costs. The Brazilian finance minister received heavy criticisms this march for two aspects of Brazilian economic development.

The first was the degree of foreign penetration in the Brazilian economy. For example, 80% of all manufactured exports from Brazil come from foreign-owned subsidiaries. The second problem brought up was the incredible maldistribution of income in Brazil. The rub of the critic's argument is the top 5% of the population enjoys 40% of the national income, while the top 20% of the population account for 80% of the total. Moreover, this heavily skewed distribution is being accentuated as Brazil's economy develops. Whether any of these policies will change when Geisel comes to power next March or not as uncertain. Some feel that he is an ardent nationalist who will be called to business interests.

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

Brazil has sometimes been called the United States Trojan Horse in Latin America. The idea is that Brazil will provide a safe base for US corporations and then proceed to extend its influence throughout the continent, either by outright conquest or simply economic domination. Brazil has, to be sure, pretty closely towed the line of US foreign policy. It has taken the role of the scourge of communism and has been openly hostile to governments such as those of Cuba and Chile under Allende, and it is clear, as has been stated before, that American corporations do feel at home in Brazil.

Brazil, of course, discounts the Trojan horse theory and instead expresses almost paranoia fears of being surrounded by unfriendly governments, whether for conquest or defense though, Brazil has built up its armed forces tremendously in recent years. In May of this year, Brazil signed a treaty with neighboring Paraguay for a joint hydroelectric power plant. Opposition groups within Paraguay called the treaty, a sellout to Brazil, and it is generally agreed that the treaty brings Paraguay securely within Brazil's sphere of influence.

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

While these developments seem to point to an aggressive program of Brazilian expansion, some observers feel that Brazil may be changing its policy in favor of more cooperation with its Latin American neighbors. They point to the Brazilian foreign minister's recent diplomatic tour in which he spoke with representatives of Peru and Chile as evidence. Others expect Brazil to continue its expansionist policies. It is interesting to note that General Geisel has the full support of the conservative General Golbery, the author of a book proclaiming that Brazil's domination of Latin America is manifest destiny.

During the past year, there have been increasing reports of dissidents against Brazil's military regime. In recent months, the Catholic Church has risen to protest occurrences of torture of political prisoners with surprising boldness. In April, 24 priests and 3000 students held a memorial mass for a young man who died mysteriously while in police custody. The songs in the service which was conducted in a cathedral surrounded by government troops were not religious hymns but anti-government protest songs. 

The real blockbuster came a month later when three Archbishops and 10 bishops from Brazil's Northeast issued a long statement, a blistering attack on the government. The statement, which because of government censorship did not become known to the public for 10 days after it had been released on May the 6th, is notable for its strongly political tone.

The declaration not only attacked the government for repression and the use of torture, it also held it responsible for poverty, starvation wages, unemployment, infant mortality, and illiteracy. In broader terms, it openly denounced the country's much boned economic miracle, which it said benefited a mere 20% of the population, while the gap between rich and poor continued to grow. There were also derogatory references to the intervention of foreign capital in Brazil. Indeed, the whole system of capitalism was attacked and the government accused of developing its policy of repression merely to bolster it up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This from the liberal British news weekly, Latin America. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Puerto Rican weekly, Claridad, reports that Cuba's long political and economic exclusion from the Latin American family of nations may be coming to an end. An associated press sampling has found that a majority of the members of the organization of American States might welcome the Communist Island nation back into the organization. Cuba was expelled from the organization in 1962, and a series of economic and political sanctions were applied against Fidel Castro's government, then in power for three years. Other leaders no longer afraid of Cuban backed guerrillas or possible retaliation from the United States are voicing similar feelings. 

For years, Castro branded the OAS an American puppet and expressed no interest in rejoining the group. But recently, reports Claridad, Cuba has increased its bilateral ties with Latin American nations. Argentina pressed an intensive trade campaign with Cuba extending a $1.2 billion credit and then selling Ford, Chrysler and General Motors cars produced in Argentina to Cuba. There is still considerable opposition, especially for military backed anti-communist governments to removing the political and economic sanctions against Cuba. But the AP survey showed that thirteen countries were inclined to review the sanction policy. Nine opposed a review, but for considerably differing reasons. 

Favoring the review, Mexico for example, has always held open a dialogue with Havana and has politely disregarded suggestions that it shouldn't. Argentina and Peru are ardent champions of a new look at Castro. English speaking Caribbean nations are hoping to open new trade lanes. All these governments, with the exception of Peru, have freely elected regimes. 

The strongest opponents of lifting the political and economic blockade are the right wing military controlled regimes. Chile, Brazil, Uruguay and Paraguay are reluctant to forget Castro's attempts to foment revolution in South America. Bolivia still recalls how the late Argentinian Cuban Che Guevara attempted to topple its government in 1967. It took months of jungle fighting to stop him. 

Chile now furnished in its opposition to Cuba claims Castro sent some 2000 Cubans to Chile during the regime headed by Marxist President Salvador Allende. This report from Claridad of San Juan, Puerto Rico.