Annotations for Countries: Peru

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

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

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

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

Argentina, Guatemala, and Venezuela, all of which have territorial disputes with Britain or former British colonies, strongly opposed Britain's application for permanent observer status at the Organization of American States. Venezuela also raised the issue of colonialism, which was criticized by Brazil and Peru on the grounds that other colonial countries such as Portugal have been granted observer status as a matter of routine. They also pointed out that Britain gave regular technical assistance to the OAS.

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

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

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

The following article on political developments in Peru since the illness of President Velasco Alvarado originated with the Latin America Newsletter. It was reprinted by the Brazilian Daily, Opinião. Peruvian President Juan Velasco Alvarado recovering in a hospital from an operation suffered a setback last Saturday when his doctors had to amputate his right leg above the knee. Official bulletins stressed the normality of such a complication, but there can be no doubt in the political impact of this new operation.

Prime Minister Edgardo Mercado Jarrín is temporarily presiding over government meetings. But until last week, Velasco still had to sign all legal instruments. The problem was partially that the Air Force minister should, in strictly military terms, take precedent. However, Mercado is probably the effective ruler of Peru at this point. Mercado is by no means as committed to radical change as Velasco, although he apparently moved to the left during his years as Peru's foreign minister.

Latin America continues. One of the most difficult tasks facing analysts of the Peruvian process has always been to cut through the revolutionary rhetoric and assess the true ideological commitment of the various generals who try so hard to outdo one another in verbal militancy. But there are interesting indications that the government's efforts to stimulate popular participation in the Peruvian revolution have been successful in awakening a militant consciousness in the workers' movement, which never existed there before. How far the militancy can control this development and how far they really want it to go remain to be seen. But the signs are that popular mobilization may be taking on a dynamism of its own.

The First National Congress of Comunidades Industriales, which entered a fortnight ago, provided some interesting evidence to support this view. A creation of the regime's theorists of social solidarity and inter-class collaboration, the Comunidades form of organization are nonetheless throwing up some radical demands which show that the class consciousness is very much alive and indeed growing. Although government officials who helped arrange the congress stressed all along its complete independence from official manipulation or influence, they were probably not prepared for the vigorous declarations of independence from the floor, which led the representatives of the ministry of industry to withdraw.

The ministry's Office of Labor Communities was also accused of lacking revolutionary consciousness and a unanimous vote accensure led to the abrupt departure of the ministry observers. Just for good measure, the Ministry of Labor was criticized for provoking industrial conflicts and the umpteenth call made for its complete reorganization.

Latin America's analysis on the Peruvian situation continues noting, although no open attacks were made on the government policy as such, a number of motions go considerably further than the official stance on such key matters as agrarian reform, nationalization, and workers' participation in decision making. The Communeros called for acceleration of land distribution programs without compensation for exppropriated landowners, complete nationalization of national resources and more active intervention by workers at all levels of management, not just on company boards. Other motions called for the immediate introduction of social ownership of the principle sector of the economy and the Comunidade organization in sectors where it does not yet exist.

From the Congress debates, it seems that despite official exhortation working class leaders persist in viewing the Comunidade as an instrument in their struggle against the capitalistas. A series of demands called for the takeover of firms which tamper with the balance sheets or to declare themselves in liquidation to frustrate the growth of the Comunidade. Other proposals are to exclude the landowners, the owners, and the executives from controlling counsel of the Comunidade and to exclude them also from the annual profit share out. Finally, delegates voted for a strengthening of the unions on the motion that they "constitute the main instrument of class struggle and defense of the workers."

To a certain amount of teaching can bring about a change in consciousness was shown by the experience of the big Northern Sugar cooperatives where, although they are a relatively privileged sector of the Peruvian working class, the field and factory workers directed their fire against the perpetuation of "capitalist attitudes among the managers and technicians." Something similar seems to be happening in industry which was previously a small and weak sector, but which is bound to grow enormously as a result of the government's accelerated industrialization programs.

The government by its no doubt well-intentioned encouragement of participation has opened the door to a militant class consciousness, which is not precisely what it intended. Although as the government is well aware, the Comuneros make up only a tiny and again privileged minority of Peru's working class, they could well become its vanguard. Unless an unexpected change of direction takes place at the top, the newfound self-confidence and independence of spirit among the leading sectors of the working class can only lead to an important radicalization of the Peruvian situation. The above analysis was from Latin America.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peru's La Prensa says that the Argentine guerrillas, who apparently have the technique down pat, successfully engineered another kidnapping this last week. The production manager of Kodak Argentina was released by his kidnappers after a ransom of a million and a half dollars was paid. This is the highest price yet exacted from an Argentine subsidiary for the return of one of its executives. In a press release which they agreed to make, Kodak announced that the man was unharmed. Although the recent kidnappings are aimed at raising money through ransoms, an additional reason this time seems to be to ensure that political prisoners held by the military junta will not be harmed. On May 25th, President-elect Héctor Cámpora, a peronist, is scheduled to be inaugurated. Cámpora has promised to free all political prisoners. This from La Prensa in Lima, Peru.

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

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

Chile Hoy from Santiago reports that the Peruvian Minister of Fisheries announced May 7th, that the state had taken control of the fishmeal industry, which earns 32% of the country's foreign exchange. The fishing industry consists of 105 factories, 1400 fishing vessels, and for the past two years has experienced a production crisis, aggravated since 1972 by the diminishing supply of anchovies. The importance of this decision is estimated to be equal to the 1969 nationalization of oil and the agrarian reform.

Using statistical tables and citing the recommendations of international agencies such as the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, the minister explained the wasteful existence of excess capacity in fishmeal factories, which could process practically a whole year's production in only 10 days. That is 10 million tons of anchovies.

The decision adopted by the military government makes economic and revolutionary logic. The rationalization of fishing production was inevitable, not only because of the excess installed capacity, or in other words idle capacity of more than 50%, but also because the structural deficiencies of this strategic economic sector contributed to its external dependency. As expected said, Chile Hoy, the big industrialist cried out in anger. According to the conservative Peruvian daily Correo, the measure is unjust, arbitrary, and inconvenient, and will result in increasing unemployment. This newspaper is owned by the wealthy fishing magnate, Luis Rossi. 

The Washington Weekly Times of the Americas commented that five US firms are affected by the Peruvian nationalization. They are Gold Kist with headquarters in Atlanta, StarKist Foods of California, Cargill of Minneapolis, and local subsidiaries of General Mills and International Protein. Assets of these companies are valued at about $40 million. Companies owned by British, French, Japanese, and Norwegian interests are also involved. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Latin America also reports on the ideological and economic developments in the Peruvian Revolution. Peru's military rulers have come under pressure recently, which they, at any rate, seem to feel threatens their image as the independent inventors of a new development strategy that is neither communist nor capitalist. There has been a spade of declarations by senior officers emphasizing the Peruvian Revolution's peculiar characteristic and last week the Prime Minister declared, "It is very easy to copy, to imitate, but very hard to create."

The government's revolutionary credentials have come under doubt, not least because of recent labor troubles. Suspicions on the left were also aroused by some interpretations of last week's visit to Lima by the United States Secretary of State Rogers. This has been seen in some quarters as the first sign of warmer relations between the two countries, particularly as it coincided with confirmation that the Inter-American Development Bank was ending its long boycott of Peru with a $23.3 million loan for agricultural development.

Further doubts have been aroused by the government's decision to postpone its proposed petroleum comunidades which would have brought into the petroleum industry the kind of workers' participation it is trying to develop for mining and industry. The well-informed Peruvian Times suggested that this was due to the dismay among the petroleum companies working here as contractors. This would clearly be particularly unwelcome to the government when it is on the verge of signing new contracts with foreign oil companies.

Latin America continues the foreign business fraternity however, is currently deeply suspicious of the government's intentions as a result of the nationalization of the fishing industry earlier this month. Uncertainty is being expressed about the part reserved by the government for foreign investors and the private sector as a whole in the country's development. In fact, public investment in the economy rose by 22.4% overall in 1972 while private investments were down by 8.9%, according to official figures.

Government spokesman continued to express their faith in the compatibility of predominant state and social property sectors with a reformed private sector in a new kind of mixed economic model. However, the figures seemed to indicate that the private sector is no more keen on being reformed by way of comunidad laboral than the unions are by being supplanted by participation devices dreamed up by the government.

An economy in which the private sector competes freely with the state and social sectors is quite contrary to the advice given by foreign experts on workers' control who do not believe in the viability of such a mixed formula or in the predominance of wage labor, which is at the very root of the present government's economic reforms. To make their scheme work, the Peruvian military authorities and their civilian theoreticians will either have to produce prodigious feats of persuasion or else modify one or more of its components. Some observers believe this modification may now have come about with the state takeover of the anchovies fishing industry.  

That the takeover has taken the form of state rather than workers control signifies a political triumph for the Minister of Fisheries, General Vanini, a brilliant shirt-sleeves populist and one of the recent Peruvian pilgrims to Cuba. The state company is clearly seen as preferable to self-managing units, which would certainly have resisted the forthcoming rationalization program. This hardly makes the government look like left wing extremists. This from Latin America.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Peruvian government of General Velasco Alvarado, according to the Manchester Guardian, is presently facing its most serious internal challenge since its seized power in 1968. Both the Guardian and the British Weekly Latin America report that there have been several confrontations over the past months between the government and organized labor. There is general dissatisfaction among the working classes with regard to the newly instituted pensions law, which substitutes retirement at age 60 for the previous arrangement of retiring after 25 years of work. Another reason for general labor unrest is the government's attempt to dissolve the various political trade unions into a single union controlled by the regime. 

Both British weeklies view the current crisis as a consequence and a test of the particular brand of nationalism implemented by this military regime in their attempt to institute a revolution from above and to steer a course between capitalism and communism. Chile Hoy offers a discussion of the current director of the Peruvian CAEM agency, which provides historical and interpretive background to the current Peruvian military regime in an attempt to explain why its policies sometimes baffled the left and the right alike. 

A government which has nationalized the US controlled international petroleum company, a government which has instituted the most comprehensive agrarian reform on the continent since the Cuban Revolution, and which is the first country in Latin America to reestablish diplomatic relations with Cuba, is also a government which continues to offer attractive concessions to foreign business investors and encourages foreign control of many sectors of the economy. The contradictions of such policies are apparent. 

What kind of transformation did the Peruvian armed forces undergo to make possible the particular approach of the present nationalist government? The Peruvian official quoted in Chile Hoy traces the preparation for change back to a realization after World War II that the capacity of a nation to guarantee its own security depends on the degree of its development. A country whose economic interests are subordinate to another country is not truly sovereign. But any attempt to reach a solution to the problem of Peru's underdevelopment inevitably involved the adoption of far-reaching institutional changes. 

There was an awareness that the armed forces as an institution must divest itself of the traditional myths of its apolitical nature, its conservative character, and the strict definition of its professional sphere of action. The formation in the 1950s of CAEM, the Center for Advanced Military Studies, was to have a profound impact on every subsequent generation of Peruvian military men. Over half of the members of the present ruling Junta share the common experience of attending special courses at the center. 

Chile Hoy's Peruvian analyst views the social origins of the Army's officer corps as a secondary factor in explaining the break with traditional alignments between the military and the Peruvian oligarchy. Because of their ethnic mixture of Indian and Spanish blood, and their provincial origins, Peruvian officers were far removed from the traditional centers of economic and political power. The policy of rotation exposed the officers to several different parts of the country during their career, giving them a direct acquaintance with the particular problems of each region. Finally, the political impact of the guerrilla movements brought the true nature of Peru's structural problems to light and demonstrated the need to alleviate the situation before the existing tensions were unleashed in violent revolution. 

In 1962, the Army took control of the government for 10 months to ensure elections. Then, in 1968, convinced that no other group was qualified to accomplish the task at hand, they instituted themselves as Peru's existing government. A balance sheet of the first five years indicates increased concessions to the interest of foreign investors, a slowing down of the agrarian reform, a waning of initial popular support, and an increase in repressive measures against dissenting sectors of the population. 

Current political tensions in the country are explained by some commentators as the result of Velasco Alvarado's recent absence from government due to a leg amputation. Other observers, however, see the current tensions as an expression of the contradictions which this type of nationalist capitalist experiment must inevitably incur. They see the Peruvian government's inability to find an adequate solution as a warning to other Latin American countries who are set on a similar course. This report from the Manchester Guardian, Latin America, and Chile Hoy. 

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

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

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

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

Latin America reports from Uruguay. In late June, president Juan Bordaberry finally succumbed to military pressure and decreed the formal death of the ailing body of Uruguay and constitutional democracy. His surrender to the military has been on the cards ever since the armed forces pressed political demands on the civilian government and forced it virtually into a junior partnership.

Since then, Bordaberry and parliament, though often in conflict themselves, managed to stage something of a comeback by taking advantage of divisions within the armed forces, but the real power remained with the army. The last straw came when Congress refused a military request transmitted through Bordaberry for the parliamentary immunity of the left-wing Senator Erro to be lifted, so that he could be charged with being allegedly the civil leader of the Tupamaros, Uruguay's Urban Guerrilla Group.

Senator Erro, a tireless critic of the Uruguay government, has strongly denounced the tortures and other abuses practiced by the Bordaberry regime and had become an obvious thorn in the government's side. Erro was interviewed by the Chilean Weekly Chile Hoy shortly before the official military takeover. He was asked:

"How would you characterize the present Uruguayan government?" 

"Power is firmly in the hands of the military regardless of the appearances they maintain. Because President Bordaberry and his cabinet can draw up a decree, but they must take it to the National Security and Police Council, and if the military doesn't like it, they'll throw it in the trash." 

"To what political tendency do most of the military leaders belong?" 

"To the right wing? Some of them tried to disguise themselves as Peruanistas. Followers of the nationalistic Peruvian military, but they can't fool anyone.

Which are the most important milestones, which mark the military's rise to power in Uruguay. "

"Ex President Areco called the Army to intervene against the alleged sedition by revolutionary groups in September 1971. In April 1972, one day after the Tupamaros executed several members of the para police force called the Death Squad, parliament voted a state of internal siege under the pretense that there would be a coup if this measure were not taken. With this step, we say that a button was pressed to put the military on the streets, and we ask, where is the second button, which will return them to their barracks? They never returned. And so it is an irreversible act, which we must now deal with. 

But the arrests of thousands of persons has produced what is called the dialectic of the barracks. Can you explain this?"

The Uruguayan army has become a torturer. It commits savage tortures and assassinations, but the moment arrives when the torturer begins to realize that the prisoner is showing him an image of the country which he did not recognize before. A country full of misery, exploited dependent where a few become rich, both inside and outside of the law. Young officials began to discover that the citizens which had been persecuted were teaching them many truths, and these young officers began to investigate financial scandals, which should have jailed very in influential persons.

Then the army intervened to stomp these investigations. And he proceeded to imprison a money changer here, an accountant there, a customs house broker. In short, the little fishes, while the big ones remained free, the high military officers betrayed the young officials and consolidated their power.

"What solution do you see for the crisis in Uruguay?" 

"Popular mobilization. There is no army which can contain an organized and mobilized population, and our people are losing their fear. Remember that when President Bordaberry called on the people to defend the state institutions, which were crumbling, of course, he mobilized only 40 or 50 persons. On the other hand, and excuse me for referring to myself here, when the problem of my expulsion from Parliament arose, we organized a caravan through the entire capital city. We filled a municipal plaza with 20,000 persons, and the people stood overnight. Outside the legislature, it is clear popular mobilization puts a break on personal ambitions."

Ero's predictions and comments turned out to have a large element of truth. His description of the armed forces has obviously been born out by recent events. However, popular mobilization in response to this has not been successful. The Miami Herald reports that the half million member National Workers Convention called a general strike to protest Bordaberry's actions and shutting down most factories and closing the port. Telephone operators refuse to accept international calls except in cases of emergency.

A strike caused fuel shortages, which threatened to halt transportation. The strike stopped publication of all newspapers. The afternoon daily, Axion, was ordered to halt publication after an editorial term, the Bordaberry action a coup. The military, however, apparently had things in hand using troops to man crucial production areas such as oil. It was declared that no elections would take place until 1976.

James Nelson Goodsell of the Christian Science Monitor gives a more historical analysis of these events. "The recent military actions have ended representative rule." He writes. "In a country that was once a model democracy. Uruguay traditionally has been the bulwark of parliamentary rule in Latin America. However, rampant inflation continuing strikes and lagging foreign sales have plagued the economy for several years. In political life the urban base Tupamaros upset society during the late 1960s and military intervention originally intended merely to squelch guerrilla, has unfortunately expanded." This review of events in Uruguay from Latin America, the Miami Herald, Chile Hoy and the Christian Science Monitor. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reaction to current nuclear testings by France was published this week by Mexico's Daily Excélsior. Peru broke diplomatic relations with France in protest of its atomic explosions. It expressed a desire for similar actions by other American countries. The French government protested, announcing that the tests could not be halted. 

Three persons representing 20 French political groups and trade unions delivered a note to President Georges Pompidou asking that an end be put immediately to the series of tests. The daily Le Monde in an editorial maintained that the government cannot ignore that psychologically, its nuclear politics are a failure, provoking indignation from other countries without attaining enthusiasm from the French people. 

In New York, Secretary General of the United Nations, Kurt Waldheim deplored the French explosion at Mururoa and asked all those interested to abide by the UN rules prohibiting nuclear testing in the atmosphere. 

But the rightest French press, Le Figaro, wrote, "It is doubtful that the New Zealanders and Australians can legitimately express an opinion concerning French defense needs because European security is none of their business." 

In Lima, Peruvian officials announced the rupture of diplomatic relations with France. They're confident, however, that relations with France will resume when France ceases the nuclear testing. 

The Santiago weekly, Chile Hoy, further states, "France insists on controlling the zones near Mururoa, which they claim to be an extension of their sea territory, but the action of expelling ships within a radius of 72 miles is beyond the limits of their sovereignty." 

Before the wave of protesting was begun, it was enough for a nuclear country to announce their testing plans so the danger zone could be avoided by ships. Now different foreign ships have decided to stay within this danger zone as a means of protest. 

The Mexico City Daily, Excélsior, reports from the United Nations, Mexico, Switzerland, and Brazil vehemently attacked the United States and the Soviet Union, who continue to conduct underground nuclear testing despite the fact that they signed a treaty 10 years ago to bring such nuclear testing to an end. There is particular concern over a new type of nuclear weapon known as the mini nuke, which is a small-tonnage nuclear weapon. It can be aimed with absolute precision and has a small concentrated effect. Critics feel that its production could easily lead to a new and dangerous arms race.

A United Nations representative pointed out that the nuclear potential of the superpowers is already equivalent to 15 tons of TNT for every single inhabitant of the planet. Mrs. Alva Myrdal, the Swedish representative, said that the majority of nations who do not possess nuclear arms consider continued testing a breach of promise and an insult to the will of the majority of nations at the United Nations Assembly. Meanwhile, in Lima, Peruvian doctor, Louis Patetta declared that French nuclear testing in the Pacific had raised the incidences of respiratory, eye and skin diseases. He also claimed that radioactivity in Lima had reached alarming proportions. This from Excélsior. 

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.

Excélsior also reports that Algeria was converted into the capital of the Third World last week when it became the seat of the fourth conference of the Organization of Non-Aligned Countries. Statement from the Latin American countries of Cuba, Peru, Jamaica, Guyana, Trinidad-Tobago, Brazil, Chile, and Argentina joined heads of state from more than 70 other Third World countries. Mexico, Panama and Ecuador and Venezuela participated only as active observers. 

The organization represents a major front of underdeveloped nations against today's superpowers. Since 1970, when the Non-Aligned Movement began relating its position to the realities of the global economic system, its conferences have become increasingly relevant and outspoken. It is the first such event at which Latin Americans will have a dominant impact. Latin America's reluctance to identify itself with the movement in the past in part had to do with its ignorance of African and Asian struggles and its willingness to identify its future development with that of Europe and the United States. Another powerful force was the fact that Latin America could scarcely be defined as non-aligned since the Monroe Doctrine. 

The Non-Aligned Countries' fundamental objective of unifying the struggle against colonialism and racism was sounded in these generally approved recommendations. The right to sovereignty over their own national resources, the regulation of developmental investments, common rules of treatment for foreign capitalists, regulations over exporting of foreign profits, and concrete means to control the operations of multinational corporations. 

The struggle for the economic nationalism was a dynamic theme enunciated by the Latin Americans. Chile exhorted the Third World to form a common front to restrain the excesses of multinationals and affirm their rights to nationalize foreign corporations when necessary for the public interest. 

Peru advocated the adoption of a worldwide plan to give coastal countries a 200-mile jurisdiction over their ocean shores as a means of affirming maritime rights. Panama reiterating its stand against imperialism harshly attacked the United States for its possessions in the canal zone. The idea proposed by the Peruvian Prime Minister Jarrin that the US-Russian detente signifies a solidarity of terror, threatening the Third World with economic aggression was generally approved. 

Also met with hardy acceptance was Castro's announcement that he has broken diplomatic relations with Israel. He condemned Israel for its continued occupation of Arab lands. At the same time as they unified their struggle against new forms of dominance and exploitation, the Third World countries agreed to the necessity of assuming their own responsibilities, analyzing their weaknesses and strengthening their countries in order to defend themselves against the imperialist and economic aggression. That from Excélsior. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This from the London Weekly, Latin America. Indeed, one of the most consistent themes in press reporting of recent events in Chile is the sternness and brutality of the measures being adopted by the junta. A Mexican journalist, Patricia Vestides, has provided new accounts of the treatment of prisoners inside Santiago's National Stadium, where she was held for three days by the Chilean authorities. According to a report this week from the Cuban News Agency, Prensa Latina, Ms. Vestides talked about her detention to reporters in Lima, Peru after she was allowed to leave Chile. 

The journalist said that she was arrested with a group of teachers, employees, and students at the technical university. She told reporters that troops had stormed the campus after an artillery attack, indiscriminately beat young and old men and women. She was taken to the defense ministry and later to the National Stadium where she said she was held with a large group of women. She said she saw soldiers beat an old man to death, and when other prisoners protested, an officer ordered them to lie down and fired over their heads. She said, "When we were told we could stand up, the old man was gone." 

Prensa Latina continues with Ms. Vestides saying that on another crucial occasion, one prisoner in a nervous crisis started walking around the grandstand among the soldiers muttering incoherently. He got into a squabble with one of the guards who shot him in the head. One woman, an Argentine filmmaker, was treated with particular brutality. Ms. Vestides said, "They beat her all over with clubs and rifle bets. She passed out several times and came back with bruises over her whole body." 

The journalist said, "One man couldn't take anymore and threw himself from the highest point of the stadium, shouting, 'Long live the people's struggle.' He fell on a wall and appeared to be dead. After a quarter of an hour, two soldiers moved him and a scream was heard. They lifted him up by the hands and feet. I think his spine was broken." This report from Prensa Latina. 

A somewhat similar story was published last week in Excélsior about a student who was kept in the National Stadium and later released by the junta. Pedro Quiroz Lauradne, the student, said, "I don't know why they didn't kill me like they did so many others. I have returned from hell. No one can really understand what it was like." He said, "No words can really describe it. The fear, the passage of time, the cold, the heat, the hardness of the concrete, the nights, the anguish. It all truly belongs to another dimension." 

The Mexico City Daily Excélsior also reports that for the first time since the coup, the military has announced full-scale military operations against resistance fighters in rural areas in both the southern and northern parts of the country. In Valdivia, in southern Chile, government planes and helicopters combined with 1000 troops in actions against organized groups of workers in sawmills of the Andes Mountains. There are unconfirmed reports that two military patrols were defeated there by groups of resistance fighters. 

35 armed civilians were reportedly arrested outside of Santiago. According to Excélsior, 32 civilians were executed recently in various parts of Santiago, and more than half of them were peasants and workers captured in the military operations in Valdivia. A group of newsmen recently visited the island of Quiriquina, where 545 civilians have been held since the coup. The island is one of four concentration camps, which according to Excélsior, have held a total of 1,700 prisoners. No information has been released on three fourths of these prisoners. 

The Washington Post has revealed that dozens of Brazilian secret police have flown to Chile to interrogate political exiles from Brazil and to bring them back to Brazil. There are an estimated 3 to 4,000 Brazilian political exiles in Chile. That report on Chile from the London Weekly Latin America, The Washington Post, the Mexico City Daily, Excélsior, and Prensa Latina. 

Both Latin America and Mexico City's Excélsior report on the Peruvian government's decision to nationalize Cerro Corporation, a North American mining enterprise. In a recent statement, the government reiterated its intention to expropriate Cerro, but stated that it will wait for an opportune moment. This decision is a likely reflection of the Peruvian president Juan Velasco Alvarado's accusation that Cerro is trying to provoke the Peruvian government into actions which could then be used against it. 

Velasco said counter-revolutionary elements had previously described the military government as communist, but their current term of abuse was Marxist. He repeated his familiar assertion that the Peruvian revolution was neither Marxist nor capitalist. 

Latin American continues that quite apart from the international considerations, which are very real and weigh particularly heavy with Peru's finance minister, Velasco faces internal problems if he goes ahead with the nationalization of Cerro. The deportations at the beginning of this month of three conservative politicians had been linked by some observers to their criticisms of the projected social property law, but Velasco made it clear that they were involved in Cerro's political offensive. 

Cerro's political importance in Peru stems in part from its large shareholdings in many national mining enterprises. Following the expropriation of all important latifundios under agrarian reform and the collapse of the national banking sector with the downfall of the Prado family, mining is the one sector of the economy in which private domestic capital still remains powerful in alliance with Cerro. If Cerro falls, these interests will feel directly and immediately threatened. 

If Cerro, now feeling that it has little to lose, escalates its campaign still further, it is hard to see how the government is to avoid joining battle. Velasco said that Peru was ready for any confrontation which might be forced upon it. But at present, the battle remains centered on public opinion, and mining sources in Peru were discounting the possibility of any early expropriation of Cerro. 

The enormous discrepancy between the government's valuation of Cerro's worth, $12 million, and the company's own estimate, 175 million, derives in large part from the fact that the company expects compensation for reserves of ore still in the ground, even when there has been no investment in developing the ore body. Under the Peruvian constitution and law, ever since the country's independence from Spain, such minerals remain the property of the state until they are mined. 

Previous negotiations with Cerro, which is the major mining complex in Latin America, were interrupted in mid-September when the company accused the government of acting in bad faith. That report from the London Weekly, Latin America.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

La Prensa of Lima, Peru reports that Peru is undergoing a period of serious unrest with violence in both Cusco and Arequipa, and statements from President Juan Velasco that, "If they want war, they will have war." The most serious trouble began November 16th with a general strike in Arequipa in support of several teachers who were arrested in connection with a labor dispute with the government. The teachers, members of the teachers' union called SUTEP, were accused of being subversives by the government. Other teachers were fired after having refused to return to their jobs.

When the government, refusing a demand for a salary increase, set a time period when the teachers must conclude their strike and return to work. Leaders of several unions in Arequipa, including the transport workers, the electrical workers, clerical workers, and store clerks, then called a general strike. Violence in Arequipa has so far left two dead and 17 wounded, and the army has imposed a strict curfew on the city.

Excelsior of Mexico City further reports that trouble broke out in Cusco on November 23rd when some 300 students rioted in the streets, fighting with police, stoning vehicles, and setting fire to a government building, the SINAMOS building. SINAMOS, which stands for the National System of Support for Social Mobilization, is the Peruvian government agency, which sets official labor policy. The students stoned the firemen trying to extinguish the fire. The building was completely was destroyed. One youth was killed and dozens injured. The police finally dispelled the rioters with tear gas. 

Meanwhile, on November 21st, according to Excelsior, President Juan Velasco proclaimed a state of siege in Arequipa and in Puno, another city in Southern Peru. Velasco issued a harsh statement vowing that, "What has happened in other parts of South America is not going to happen here." Velasco said that the teacher's strike had not been legal since SUTEP had not been recognized as a legal union by the government. He charged that the union was directed by the worst extremes of the left and the right. 

According to the British Newsweekly Latin America, the Peruvian government has foreseen a confrontation shaping up for some time now and is taking steps to win popular support for its measures. Earlier this month, a new peasants union was inaugurated in Cusco. The new union has the support of SINAMOS. The SINAMOS head addressed the group and told them that ultra-left groups were working "on behalf of imperialism and would have to be eliminated". In fact, the government recently deported to influential leftist critics, Aníbal Quijano and Julio Cotler, publishers of the magazine, Society and Politics.

This apparently signals the end of the political permissiveness of Velasco's government, which supposedly has been one of the least repressive of any government on the continent, except Chile under Allende. The proceeding report on the situation in Peru was compiled from reports from Excelsior of Mexico City, La Prensa of Lima, Peru, and the British Newsweekly, Latin America.

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to the Mexico City Daily Excelsior, Mexico's delegate to the OAS foreign minister's meeting proposed expanding the concept of attack, which appears in the Rio Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance to give the word an economic connotation. The Mexican representative denied the charge made by the Peruvian delegate that Mexico did not support the treaty. Peru proposed changing the concept of attack to that of aggression, including economic aggression. Peru also proposed establishing differences between intercontinental and extra continental aggression.

Pointing out that making this distinction was the only way for Latin America to avoid becoming an instrument of the military politics of the United States. Argentina partially supported the Peruvian proposal and Mexico, Brazil, and the United States opposed it. Excelsior goes on to say that a subcommittee on reform of the OAS approved a declaration of principles on the right and sovereignty of the states to control over their riches, natural resources, and maritime resources. A motion of the US stating that the sovereignty of a country over its resources should not affect the sovereignty of other nations was flatly rejected by almost all the delegates.

Excelsior reports that the US State Department revealed today that at next year's Inter-American Conference of Foreign Ministers to be held in Mexico, it is likely to present a program for the development of energy resources in Latin America. Excelsior also states that in Paris, European analysts warned that the oil scarcity could provoke an economic catastrophe in Latin America if the neighboring nations respond by exploiting the continent's oil resources irrationally. 

In Peru, the current junta of generals, which has governed the country since seizing power in a coup in 1968, has been called nationalist progressive anti-imperialist, even revolutionary by some. It aroused the anger of the United States in 1970 when it nationalized the International Petroleum Company, a Rockefeller subsidiary. It was quick to assure both the US government and foreign corporations that not all foreign investments in Peru would receive the same treatment.

In fact, the government has often consulted US corporations before announcing major economic guidelines and has given them a hand in planning Peruvian development strategy. Thus, foreign investments have not stopped coming to Peru since the military took power, and it is this presence of foreign firms which have made many doubt the sincerity of the Peruvian revolution.

Peru began this year by clashing with foreign fishing concerns over the limits of territorial waters off Peru. Peru insisted that foreign ships could not fish within 200 miles of the Peruvian shore unless they bought a special fishing license from the Peruvian government. Other countries, most notably the United States argued that Peru could claim only a 12-mile limit to its territorial waters. In any case, foreign boats continued to fish within the 200-mile limit and the Peruvian government arrested 25 of them, mostly American, in January.

Soon, fishermen from several countries came in and began buying licenses from the Peruvian government to fish legally. The Soviet Union agreed to respect the limits set by the Peruvian government, the US though remained intransigent.

Another problem which has plagued Peru this year is labor unrest. In May, labor troubles in several parts of Peru led to considerable speculation about the government's whole labor policy. Among developments that month were the suspension of constitutional guarantees and the arrival of strong police reinforcements to prevent a general strike in the crucial southern mining town of Moquegua. Together with the announcement by the labor minister that outdated legislation would have to be overhauled to prevent workers from abusing the right to strike.

Unabated strike activity in important sectors of the economy appeared to be causing serious concern about the likely effect on the regime's whole development strategy. The government may have been attempting to attract foreign financiers with a tougher line on labor militancy. In June, the death of a worker who had been injured in a clash with police and strike activity led the General Workers' Confederation of Peru, a communist led union, to call a one-hour general strike on June 15th.

The protest hardly affected production figures, but the communist led union seemed so passive lately that it was a measure of the pressure building up from below that a strike could be called at all. The government remained in dispute with the country's teachers, and in the northern town of Piura, more than 1000 secondary school students stoned the local headquarters of the SINAMOS, a government agency, in protest against that organization's attempt to control every aspect of popular expression. 

In November, a new peasant union was formed in Peru. It had the backing of the government and is the most ambitious attempt yet made at mobilizing the rural population in support of the government's policies. It was openly suggested by journalists who normally reflect official thinking that the government is preparing the ground for a number of drastic measures, which will require political support at all levels. Alongside the signs that the government is genuinely interested, almost for the first time in mobilizing support, there are indications of an impending purge of both right wing and left wing critics. 

Two of the most influential intellectual critics of the regime from the left, Aníbal Quijano and Julio Cotler, had their magazine, Society and Politics, closed down and were themselves deported to Argentina earlier this year. All of the government's political leverage was used to break the one-day teacher strike in November, and even a non-communist workers meeting last week received a clear warning from the labor ministry that their activities were under close scrutiny.

The labor minister, in an effort to win the support of the peasants of Cusco, told them that ultra-left groups were working on behalf of imperialism and would have to be eliminated. Although a number of inconveniently active leftists have been sent to exile during the past five years, Peru has generally been freer from repression than any country on the continent except for Chile under President Salvador Allende. It's beginning to look now as if this period of toleration is nearing an end.

According to the Mexico City Daily, Excélsior, the holdings of two major North American firms were nationalized in Latin America last week. First, the newly elected government of Venezuela announced that it would nationalize, without compensation, two large holdings of Standard Oil. The move comes at a crucial moment when petroleum-importing nations are being hit hard by the energy crisis, and it should give Venezuela a stronger voice at the conference of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries in Geneva. 

Also, La Prensa of Lima, Peru announced that the Peruvian government would begin the new year with the expropriation of Cerro de Pasco, a North American mining firm. Cerro de Pasco has had conflicts with the Peruvian government for several years, and the news of the nationalization was greeted with joy by the people of Oroya, a city in the center of Peru, which was the home of many of Cerro de Pasco's operations. The morning after the government's announcement, Oroya was covered with banners reading, "No more exploiters," and "The Cerro is ours." 

According to an Associated Press story, which appeared in the Mexico City daily Excélsior, the United States State Department expressed its hope that Cerro de Pasco would be amply compensated by Peru for the holdings. A State Department official, George West, said that the nationalization of US property must be accompanied by prompt and effective compensation. Since the Peruvian government has been careful to avoid angering the US in the past, it is likely that it will pay adequate compensation. Leaders of Cerro de Pasco are now bargaining with government officials on the price. Cerro claims that its holdings were valued at $175 million, while Peru seems inclined not to pay more than $12 million. 

The British News Weekly, Latin America reports that the expropriation of Cerro de Pasco Corporation and its assets in Peru on New Year's Day was a logical step forward in that government's efforts to bring the Peruvian economy under national control, but it had long been avoided for three reasons. In the first place, there was a very real fear that of another confrontation with Washington and of scaring off potential investors in the mining projects which the government was desperately anxious to open up. Secondly, Cerro's operations in the Central Andes are extremely antiquated having been run down over the past few years and would require substantial investment. And thirdly, Cerro de Pasco was deeply involved in the medium-sized Peruvian mining operations, which will now effectively fall into the control of the state sector of the Peruvian economy. 

Sources in Washington have been hinting recently that the Nixon administration was prepared to allow the Peruvian government to nationalize Cerro without making too much fuss and that there will shortly be a package deal covering all the matters still outstanding between the two governments. The vex question of the International Petroleum Company, a Rockefeller concern nationalized by Peru in 1968 will not be mentioned, but the Peruvians are believed to have given some ground in the question of compensation for WR Grace's Sugar Estates. 

Apparently, President Nixon's special representative James Green of Manufacturers Hanover Bank was kept informed of all developments leading up to the expropriation. The packages reported to include a number of United States loans, some of which will be used to pay compensation to the Cerro Corporation, Cerro de Pasco's parent company. 

The Cerro management is very well aware that it's 20% stake in the Southern Peru Copper Company is worth more than all of the assets of Cerro de Pasco combined. Certainly Cerro was unhappy to be losing Cerro de Pasco says Latin America, but the best two thirds of a cake is much better than no cake at all. It may yet be that there will be disputes over the whole issue as to who owes what to whom, but no one apparently expects the repeat of the international hullabaloo, which followed the expropriation of the International Petroleum Company in 1968. 

Cerro de Pasco for many years virtually ruled Central Peru. Not only were its own mines scattered through the mountains, but it purchased ores from independent miners and had large stakes in most important mining operations. It ran a large metallurgical complex, a railway, several hydroelectric generating centers and vast haciendas, which have all been expropriated under agrarian reform legislation. These holdings had been built up during the course of the past half century and formed the basis for a corporate empire with metal fabricating plants in the United States and investments in the Philippines and Chile. 

The Rio Blanco Mine in Chile was nationalized by the popular Unity government in 1971. Cerro has feared nationalization in Peru ever since the military took over the International Petroleum Company in 1968. The management was acutely aware of the company's exposure there, and this was reflected in the persistently low value of the company's shares on The New York Stock Exchange. In these circumstances, the company was reluctant to invest in its Peruvian operations. 

In the preamble to its decree of expropriation, the government accused the company of neglecting essential maintenance of polluting rivers despite government orders to clean up its operations and of exploiting only the richer ores on their mining concessions. This latter point of rapidly mining only the richest deposits just before an expropriation is important since normal mining practice is to maintain steady productivity throughout the maximum economic life of a mine. Asset strippers try to maximize profits for a few years leaving quantities of low quality ores, which by themselves would be uneconomic to mine. 

The problems which the new Peruvian company set up specifically to take over the Cerro de Pasco mines is likely to face, go far to explain why the government was always reluctant to go ahead with the expropriation, that from the British News Weekly, Latin America. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two weeks ago, the chief of the Panama government Omar Torrijos made an official visit to Argentina and Peru, Excélsior of Mexico reports. During a two-hour conference in Buenos Aires with President Perón, Argentinian support was expressed for the claims of Panama regarding the canal. Perón declared that the US must leave the canal zone to Panama unconditionally, colonization must be done away with. All Latin American countries must unite as a continent to face this problem. Perón ironically added that American and British positions were rather weakened by the oil crisis and that the American Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger's new policy must apply to South America as well as to the States. This article from Excélsior, Mexico City's leading daily. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This from the liberal British news weekly, Latin America. 

The New York Times reports that the military government of Peru has agreed to pay $76 million in compensation for United States companies it has expropriated in recent years. According to announcements made in Lima and Washington, executives of several companies with interest in Latin America were bitter. "It's the best of a bad bargain, I suppose," one declared. The $76 million will be paid to Washington to be put into a trust fund, and eventually divided among companies with claims against Peru.

This is in addition to the $74 million that Peru is paying directly to five companies; The SERO Corporation, W.R. Grace & Company, the Stark subsidiary of the HJ Heinz Company, Gold Kist Incorporated, and Cargill Incorporated. The funds for the Peruvian payment were obtained through loans made by the First National Bank of Boston.

President Nixon declared that, "Investment disputes in recent years have unfortunately troubled our traditionally good relations with a few Latin American countries. We should establish an effective, impartial mechanism to resolve these questions within the Inter-American family." One company executive was quoted, "The State Department wants a solution to protect our heavy investments now underway in the Peruvian oil fields, as well as the remaining mining operations down there." Several companies involved expressed cautious optimism.

The SERO Corporation, whose large mining operations were taken over in January, said the agreement was reasonable under the political realities in Peru today. The International Proteins Corporation, which lost its fish meal and other marine processing facilities in Peru said, "The availability of these payment funds will permit the company to accelerate its development in other parts of the world."

A number of United States oil companies, including Occidental and Texaco, are developing promising petroleum fields in the Peruvian Amazon and offshore areas. And the Southern Peru Copper Company, largely American owned, remains the largest operation of its kind in Peru. One executive of a large United States company explained, "It depends on whether you have money you want to get out, or money you want to put in. Most of the expropriated companies have written off their losses." The president of SERO said, "We will have tax loss of about $138 million that can be applied against United States taxable income beginning in 1974." W.R. Grace eliminated its Peruvian assets from corporate earnings statements in 1970, a year after its vast land holdings were taken over and converted into cooperative farms and plantations. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

This from the British Newsweek, Latin America. 

For today's feature, we'll be talking with Christopher Roper, an editor of Latin America Newsletter, the British Journal of Latin American Political and Economic Affairs. Mr. Roper is touring the U.S., gathering material for articles on current United States foreign policy towards Latin America, which is the topic of our feature today.

Mr. Roper, your Latin American newsletter claims to be completely independent of government and big business. It carries no advertising. And you say you're free to give a, more or less, consistent and reliable view of Latin America. How is the newsletter's view of Latin American events different from that of the major commercial United States press, say, the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal?

Well, I think in the first place, we are looking at the continent from day to day and week to week, and we don't just pick up the stories when they become sensational news. Our news doesn't have to compete with news from Asia, and Africa, and Europe or the energy crisis. We are steadily dealing with—there is an article on Argentina every week, an article on Brazil every week. I think the second important point is that we rely entirely on Latin American sources. I think the United States and British news media rely very heavily on their own reporters who go down there who haven't lived all their lives in those countries that they're visiting, although they're very familiar, that they don't look at it from a Latin American perspective. I think this is perhaps the central point which differentiates our journal from any other. 

I think the final point is that, we rely entirely on our subscribers for income. As soon as we cease to provide credible analysis, as soon as our facts, our reporting can be shown to be at fault, we will start to lose subscribers. I think the fact that over the last four years, something like 90% of them resubscribe every year is an indication that we're still on the right track and that's why we make this claim. 

How would your treatment of an issue like U.S. foreign policy differ from what most United States press agencies would say? I mean, for instance, would you say that basically, U.S. interests are compatible with the interests of Latin Americans? 

Well, we try to look at this, again, from a Latin American point of view, and it is quite clear that there has been a consensus of criticism of the United States from Latin America, again, over the last four or five years. In fact, probably ever since 1961, was the last time one can look back to a period of any harmony. You have to go back before the Cuban blockade. You have to go back to Kennedy's statement of the aims of the Alliance for Progress, which did at that time, receive very widespread support in Latin America. It was only when it proved to be a disappointment, and some would say, a fraud and a sham, and that you had the Cuban Intervention, you had the Dominican Republic Intervention.

You have had the treatment of Peru in 1968. I think, in the light of those events, and of course Bolivia, that people in Latin America lost faith. Though even today, Kennedy is the one name that elicits any affection among Latin Americans generally. And they don't accept that the seeds of subsequent failure were already present in Punta del Este in 1961.

How would you characterize then the editorial point of view towards Latin America of most of the United States press sources? What interests do they represent? 

Well, they represent the very broad interests of the United States government. I think that, it's quite evident if you travel a lot in Latin America, that you find that the Washington Post and the New York Times reporters spend more time in the United States Embassy, than they do talking to the Chilean, or the Peruvian, or the Brazilian people who they're visiting. They fly about the continent, staying in expensive hotels on tight schedules. And, if you're wanting to understand Latin America at all, you certainly should go by bus, and probably you should walk, because that's how most of the people in Latin America get around. 

And when, for instance, Mr. Kandell of the New York Times visits poblaciones in Chile and comes back and says that the people there had said that they hadn't been shot up by the military, one can just imagine the scene of this very gringo looking man walking into the población and speaking in a very heavily American accent, and asking them whether they've been shot up. And of course, they say, "No, no, no. Nothing happened to us here." And, he goes back and ticks another población off the list. And, charts it up as another excess of leftist reporting in Chile. But, I don't think it really reflects the reality of what is happening in Latin America. The people who are filing reports for us are people who lived in those towns and cities, and probably were themselves shot up. 

Mr. Roper, getting back to the question of current U.S. foreign policy towards Latin America, there's been a lot of press speculation recently that Cuba is changing its attitude toward the United States. From your interviews and discussions with State Department and other officials in this country, do you have any idea about the possibilities of US attitudes changing towards Cuba and about the possibilities for eventual reestablishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries? 

Well, undoubtedly, the Cubans would like to see an end to the blockade. They want better relationships with Latin American countries. Any Latin American country that has shown itself in the slightest bit well-disposed towards Cuba over the last five years has been given the warmest possible encouragement by the Cubans. This includes, as well as the Chilean, it's the Peruvians, and the Panamanians, and even the Argentinians. And certainly, friendly relationships have always been maintained with Mexico, even when the Cubans have had very serious political differences with Mexico.

I think that the Russians too, I think as part of the detante, Mr. Brezhnev and Mr. Kosygin would like to see the United States softening its attitude towards Cuba. I think that within the State Department, there are many voices who are arguing that the whole of U.S. policy towards Latin America, if there is going to be a new spirit in forming those relations, then the question of Cuba needs to be exorcised, if you like, to use a current word.

I think that Dr. Kissinger himself has argued very strongly that the old attitude to Cuba must come to an end. But, as one senior State Department official said to me, he said, "Mr. Rebozo has more influence than Dr. Kissinger on this particular question." Mr. Bebe Rebozo, who is a close friend of Mr. Nixon, has extensive interests with the Cuban exile community in Miami. Mr. Nixon has a strong emotional attachment to the exile community in Miami. His valet is a Cuban exile. And it was quite clear to me in Washington that people in the State Department weren't expecting any change. They all said that Kissinger might pull it out of the hat, but they couldn't see it. And I think that he may discuss it in Mexico City. He may, as it were, have lifted a finger. But, rather as with the Panama Canal, all the rough stuff is still ahead. 

Kissinger is undoubtedly trying to deflect attention from these previously very divisive issues. He can't solve the Panama Canal, because the United States military won't let him. He can't solve the question of Cuba because the President of the United States won't let him. But he's trying to say, "Let's bypass those issues and let's see if we can establish some dialogue on a new basis." In some ways, the timing is good. The Chilean question has been settled, more or less, to the satisfaction of the U.S. government. They took three years to engineer the coup in Chile. 

Now, that's behind them. And I think this was very important in timing the Mexican initiative, Dr. Kissinger could not have a meeting with the Latin American foreign ministers until Chile was out of the way, as it were. He said on his way back from Panama, after not settling the Panama question, but at least postponing the Panama question of at least establishing a basis for future negotiations. When a reporter asked him if the United States would recognize Cuba would end the blockade on Cuba, he said, "Why should we make Castro seem more important than he, in fact, is?" This is very much the Kissinger line. "Let's sweep these things out of the carpet and try to find a new relationship." I think, at least at a public relations level, he may be very successful. 

Besides Chile and Cuba, as you've just outlined, one of the most serious disputes the United States has had with any Latin American country in the last five years has been with expropriation of U.S. firms in Peru. What can you say about current U.S. foreign policy towards Peru? 

Well, I think the most significant thing is that the man who has been negotiating with the Peruvian government on behalf of President Nixon is Mr. James Green, who's the head of the manufacturer's Hanover Bank and represents a vast web of private sector economic interests. So, it's very hard to know whether he's negotiating on behalf of the Council of the Americas, which is the main lobby for United States business interests in Latin America. Or whether he is in fact negotiating on behalf of the State Department. It's inextricable, this web of public and private interests in Latin America.

I view the whole question of a new policy with some skepticism. I think that, the only way in which the outstanding questions can be solved is by the Peruvian government abandoning some of its earlier positions. It is going to have to give in to the demands of foreign investors if it wishes to maintain good relations with the United States.

And this is not just a question of getting further foreign investment, it's a question of getting development assistance from the Inter-American Development Bank, from the World Bank. All these things are dependent on the goodwill of the United States government, and the goodwill of the United States government is dependent on the goodwill of the private sector investors. We were told that the agreement between the United States and Peru would be announced in January that all the substantial outstanding points had been covered. This has turned out not to be so.

When I was in Washington last week, they were still saying they hoped for a favorable outcome, but it's clear that the Peruvians are being more steadfast than they might've been expected to. They were very badly frightened by what happened in Chile. I think many governments in Latin America were very badly frightened, which is another reason why Dr. Kissinger feels this is an appropriate moment to act, because to a certain extent, the governments down there are cowed. But the Peruvians are, I personally am happy to say, withstanding some of the demands that are being made on them.

And the kind of demands go well beyond just the mere treatment of investment. They include things like, the Peruvians are being asked not to trade with mainland China. Even though the United States itself is creating new relations with China, it doesn't want its client states in Latin America to trade with China. And it was making Chinese trade one of the very crucial aspects of the Peruvian and United States relations.

So, I think it's a very good example of what one might call the United States relations with a nationalistic, but certainly, not communist state in Latin America. And it's a very good example of why Latin American relations with United States have historically been so difficult, and I believe will be continue to be so difficult, perhaps until the end of this decade.

For today's feature, we've been discussing United States foreign policy in Latin America with Christopher Roper, an editor of Latin American newsletters, the British Independent Journal of Latin American Political and Economic Affairs. 

Our stories this week include a report on the recent foreign minister's meeting in Mexico City, a story of right-wing rebellion in Córdoba, Argentina, an account of the appointment of John Hill as United States Ambassador to Argentina, and a report on press censorship in Uruguay. 

From the Mexico City daily, Excélsior. A block of countries refusing to give across the board backing to Henry Kissinger's international policy, began to take shape here as Latin America's foreign ministers, except for Cuba, arrived in Mexico City for the Organization of American States ministerial meeting. Three groups emerged early in the meeting. First, the nationalist independent group made up of Venezuela, Peru, Panama, and Argentina. Second, a moderate group headed by Mexico and Colombia. And third, the pro-U.S. group, headed by Brazil and made up of Uruguay, Bolivia, and Chile.

The countries in the first group, who are opposed to any kind of U.S. paternalism in its relations to Latin America, were responsible for defeating Henry Kissinger's pre-conference proposals. Kissinger wanted to include on the agenda a discussion of the so-called energy crisis and of the world political situation. It is generally agreed that by refusing to take these subjects up, Latin America declared its independence in these matters. Kissinger will therefore be unable to speak for Latin America in post-conference discussions with other countries.

Many analysts predicted that the Latin American nations would assert their independence even more strongly during the course of the meeting over such matters as United States intervention in Latin American affairs, control of the operations of multinational corporations, transfer of technology to developing countries, and the admission of Cuba to the Organization of American States. But according to editorials from the Mexico City daily Excélsior, the Latin American nations neither asserted much independence, nor won any meaningful concessions from the United States. 

The general reaction of the Latin American press to the Tlatelolco Conference was expressed by the scorn and derision in this editorial from Mexico City's Excélsior. As had been expected, the chancellor's meeting at Tlatelolco brought no concrete successful results, at least from the point of view of Latin America. Although a conference communique stated that there was acceptance of ideological pluralism, the meeting was weakened by the anachronistic U.S. economic blockade of Cuba.

The promises of non-intervention and economic cooperation resulted in nothing which did not already exist before the meeting. "In fact," said Excélsior, "the only concrete decision reached by the conference was a plan to convene another meeting in April in Atlanta." Excélsior concluded by pointing out that the main reaction of the news agencies covering the conference was that the meeting was the most chaotic of all meetings of the American states.

In a related story, Excélsior reports that the ambassadors from Peru and Ecuador speaking at the Inter-American Social and Economic Council in that country charged the United States with protecting its own interests through international banks. The Peruvian ambassador stated that the International Development Bank has taken coercive measures to obtain its own economic ends. 

The representative from Ecuador added that the International Development Bank has frequently exercised pressure in defending the interest of multinational corporations. US Ambassador John Joseph Jova, when asked about the role of the International Development Bank in Latin America, smilingly answered that it was positive. "Nothing is more treacherous than statistics. We have to be very careful in using them." These reports from Mexico City's leading daily, Excélsior. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 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.