Annotations for Countries: Switzerland

In Brazil, currently ruled by a right-wing military organization, an editorial headline, "Brazil Will Have The Bomb", the pro-government Rio weekly Manchete said Brazil would put into operation a "great power policy" sooner than anyone imagined. Referring to the recent purchase of French Mirage jets, Manchete said, "No one should be surprised if after the mirages, in an almost inevitable progression to cover the next decade, they'll come Phantoms, F-111s, modern tanks, Polaris nuclear-powered submarines, aircraft carriers, satellites, rockets, and the atomic bomb itself." The Weekly said that the Brazilian military power would not be used against anyone, but rather as a "persuasive force," but the atomic bomb is as they say, perhaps a military necessity for Brazil. Manchete generally reflects the thinking of the Brazilian military government.

In a more peaceful vein, an article from Latin American Newsletter, entitled "Bears Like Honey", reports that a major deal with the Soviet Union seems likely to follow the journey of the head of Brazil's sugar industry to Moscow. Neither the Brazilians nor the Russians seem anxious to give the negotiations the prominence they deserve. The Cuban government sent a discreet protest to Moscow last week manifesting Havana's concern at the official welcome accorded by the Soviet authorities to the president of Brazil's Instituto de Azucar.

The officials' trip during the week before Easter was deliberately played down by the authorities so as not to attract attention. The reasons are clear, Moscow did not wish to offend Havana and the Brazilians are always sensitive to possible reactions from Washington. The overt purpose of the trip was to exchange views on matter of mutual interest ahead of this week's conference in Geneva, where a new international sugar agreement is to be discussed. That from Latin America Newsletter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And what's been your activity since then? 

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

Who supports the military? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Miami Herald reports that 30 years of democracy in Uruguay have ended in a military-backed coup by the current president Juan Bordaberry. The demise of the Switzerland of the Americas, reputed for years to be Latin America's most progressive country, has been a slow and lengthy process. Gradual Errosion of the country's economic position, runaway inflation, which reached nearly 100% last year, widespread popular opposition to governmental policies, increasing thirst for power on the part of the military, and a gradual eradication of all civil rights, these were the prelude to the events of late June. 

The Manchester Guardian claimed that the response to the deterioration of government in Uruguay was to be found in increased workers' militancy, the longstanding successes and popular support won by the Tupamaros guerrilla group, the high percentage of the vote pulled by the leftist Broad Front coalition in the 1971 elections, the constant exposure and public outcry at scandals in the government, and the increased use of torture and United States developed military and police technology, which failed to either eradicate the revolutionary opposition or to satisfy demands for more effective government. 

Bordaberry was driven to take a drastic step. On June 27th, he dissolved Congress. Public response came in the form of a general strike, which continues to virtually paralyze the country. Industrial production has ceased, banks have shut down, public and private transportation has come to a standstill.

To counter this popular resistance, says the Manchester Guardian, Bordaberry, in a move without precedent in Uruguayan history, declared that the country's largest and most powerful labor union shall be henceforth illegal. The leadership of the National Workers Convention went immediately underground. It is known that the government has issued a list of 52 union leaders who are to be arrested on site.

Still, the general strike continues. Despite efforts by the military and some technicians to reopen the most vital plants, striking workers have been threatened with being fired and being inducted into the army. Many have been rounded up and are being held in a large football stadium.

La Nación of Bueno Aires comments that the battle between Bordaberry and the Congress has been a long one. Congress has been fighting off its own demise since February of this year. At that time, the army intervened in the government process to force Bordaberry to set up a council of national security to be controlled by three top military officers. In March, when Congress reopened, Bordaberry proposed anti-union legislation and the institution of new security measures. He also demanded the lifting of parliamentary immunity from two opposition senators. 

Congressional hearings on one of these congressmen, Enrique Erro, continued throughout April and May. Erro contended that the attack against him was motivated by his documented charges that the military had carried out illegal arrests, tortures, and murders against members of the opposition. He also uncovered evidence of US involvement in these activities. The senators refused to revoke Erros' immunity, and in the face of their opposition, the alliance between Bordaberry and the military became stronger. In April, Bordaberry appointed three military commanders in chief as official advisors to the president, and the Council for National Security began investigating and firing school teachers and principals whom they considered too liberal. 

By early June, the crisis was coming to a head. Members of the opposition parties boycotted the meetings of the legislature to prevent passage of Bordaberry's repressive legislation. And on June 27th, he ordered the military to surround the congressional palace and then dissolved Congress. 

Excélsior of Mexico City comments, "Those who hope for nationalist progressive solutions, somewhat along the lines of the current Peruvian government, were disappointed. The younger and more progressive officers were outmaneuvered by the Army's nationalist conservative wing, who have consistently called for a more authoritarian regime and who are reputed to have been preparing Parliament's demise for the past six months, through the Army Intelligence Unit." 

"Since the decree, the country has been in turmoil. Daily activity has been brought to a halt by the general strike. A large woman's march through Montevideo to Constitution Square, in protest of the suspension of Congress, was disbanded by police and tanks. Bands of youths hurled stones at public buses, defying the strike, at least one of the youths was killed by the police." This report compiled from the Miami Herald, the Manchester Guardian, La Nación of Buenos Aires, and Mexico City's Excélsior. 

Uruguay's president, Juan Bordaberry, now vested with dictatorial powers, discussed the causes which motivated him to dissolve the Uruguayan Parliament in an exclusive interview with a correspondent of the Argentine daily La Nación. In the interview, Bordaberry stressed his conviction that despite certain similarities with the Brazilian military regime, his government's newly assumed stance is "strictly Uruguayan."  

Bordaberry denied any imitation of Brazilian political practices on the part of his government, but he admitted to a certain sympathy for the Brazilian regime and stated that both governments share a common desire for democracy against communism. Referring to his recent visit to Argentina for the inauguration of the new Peronist president, Hector Campora, Bordaberry denied that angry crowds had shouted "murderer", "torturer" to him as he passed by.

The proposed constitutional reform, according to Bordaberry, will have as its primary goal the limitation of parliamentary power in order to prevent its encroachment on the power of the executive. "Such a procedure, he added, is in line with all modern constitutions." In light of the current political events in the country, Bordaberry indicated that the population is not up to an electoral campaign. Consequently, the constitutional plebiscite will be postponed until the national elections in 1976. This interview is translated from La Nación of Buenos Aires. 

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. 

Two foreign executives have been kidnapped recently in Argentina in apparently separate incidents. The newspaper Excélsior of October 24th reports that Kurt Schmid, Latin American director of the Swiss airline Swiss Air, was kidnapped on October 22nd by the ERP, People's Revolutionary Army. The leftist guerrilla group is asking 125 million pesos ransom, about $10 million, a record-breaking amount. 

Five executives from Swiss Air have flown from Geneva to Buenos Aires to conduct negotiations with the urban guerrilla organization. The ERP was declared illegal by the Argentine government in September. Up until now, the highest ransom paid for any foreign executive in Argentina is 40 million pesos or $3 million for the release of John Thompson, director of Firestone, in July of this year. 

Excélsior also reports that David Wilkie, general director of the North American Petroleum Enterprise, Amoco Argentina Oil Company, a subsidiary of Standard Oil, was kidnapped on October 23rd. His ransom has been set at $1 million. Company officials denied that Wilkie had been kidnapped, claiming that he was in Chicago. Nevertheless, police sources affirmed that negotiations were being held to obtain Wilkie's release. It was not known whether the ERP was responsible for Wilkie's abduction. This report on kidnappings in Argentina from Mexico City's daily, Excélsior. 

The Mexico City Daily Excélsior reports that the Mexican government has announced that some businesses formerly under state control are now on sale to private investors. Purchasers may either make direct offers or they may buy stock in various concerns. More than 300 enterprises will be affected, including the iron, steel, chemical, petroleum, mining, textile, and automobile industries. Banks, hotels, restaurants, and theaters will also be transformed from the public to the private ownership. Medical services and other social services will also be included. 

At the same time, the Director of the National Finance Ministry announced that the government wished to promote the Mexicanization of foreign enterprises by giving technical and financial aid to private industry, as it did recently in the case of Heinz International. President Echeverria was asked if the government's moves indicated that Mexico was no longer on the road to socialism. "No", he has said, "There are simply some businesses which the state should not administer." He referred to the Mexican economy as a mixed economy.

Excélsior continued that there is much controversy in Mexico over these recent governmental decisions. Leading industrialists have voiced the opinion that businesses and government can work hand in hand for the good of Mexico. Pedro Ocampo Ramirez, on the other hand, editorializing in the Excélsior, states that the private industry will not want to invest in those businesses which are doing poorly. He says, "And if the industries are prosperous, it is absurd to put them in the hands of a privileged few instead of conserving them as an instrument for the common good". 

Excélsior also reports that the universities in Uruguay remained occupied by the armed forces while hundreds of teachers and students, including the rector, remained in jail while four investigations were carried out, judicial, police, financial and administrative investigations of the national university, which was seized by the military government last week. 

The military intervention in the university was approved by Uruguayan President Bordaberry on October 28th after the death of an engineering student who supposedly made an explosive device which burst accidentally. The interior minister of Uruguay said that this explosion and the presence of other bombs constituted a plan to overthrow the government. 

The situation of higher education is one of the most burning problems of the Bordaberry government, cites Excélsior. For example, the International Commission of Jurists in Geneva announced that they deplore the closure of the University of Uruguay and pointed out that the imprisonment of the rector and professors is an attack on intellectual freedom and a violation of university autonomy. 

According to Excélsior, the director of the social science faculty of the University of Uruguay said, "The university was the only institution in Uruguay which was unharmed during the military escalation which demolished the legislature, the courts and the labor unions". Because he was in Argentina at the time, the director was the only university authority not arrested by the military last week in Uruguay. 

The director said, "In the political and social landscape of Uruguay, the university was a democratic center of clear opposition to the dictatorship imposed last June. The results of the September university elections indicated clearly the anti-military and anti-dictator sentiment of the whole institution."

Excélsior continued that the social science director said that the military version of the death of a university student while preparing a bomb was absolutely false. He said, according to Excélsior, "This is a story fabricated by the military. It was outside forces which planted the bomb. There is evidence that the bomb was of industrial construction, a type which only the armed forces possess. The two individuals who set the trap belonged to a paramilitary police force and were seen leaving the room where the explosion occurred when the victim was approaching. There are eyewitnesses to all of this". That a report from Mexico's Excélsior. 

In Uruguay, previously known as the Switzerland of Latin America, the major news of the year is the so-called military coup by installment plan. Beginning over a year ago, the military gradually increased its control over the government, culminating last June in a de facto coup, which left the president as titular head of state. Although the parliament, opposition parties, and trade unions were effectively outlawed, and the military exercised executive power. The union staged an almost total general strike, but could not hold out past the second week.

Subsequent developments have included the military attack on the university, violating university autonomy, arresting students, faculty, and nine of the 10 deans, and so shutting down the last domain of opposition. The situation in Uruguay was popularized in the highly-documented movie, "State of Siege".

As background to those developments, it can be noted that Uruguay, a small nation between Argentina and Brazil, on the South Atlantic coast, is a highly Europeanized country, largely populated by immigrants from Europe. Although Uruguay was richer and more developed economically than most ex-colonies, the economy began to stagnate in the mid-1960s.

Accompanying the economic stagnation was a high rate of inflation, reaching 100% last year. Since 1967, workers' real buying power had been cut almost in half. The economic stagnation and inflation was accompanied in the previous administration of President Pacheco, with considerable corruption. In the context of such problems and such corruption, social discontent increased.

Some of the most noticeable manifestations of that social discontent were the actions of the Tupamaros. The Tupamaros styled themselves as a Robin Hood-like urban guerrilla band with a revolutionary program. They expropriated food and medicine and distributed it to poorer neighbors. Their actions were often spectacular, and their demonstration of the possibility of opposition to the country's power structure served as an inspiration and received considerable sympathy.

However, as the Tupamaros have themselves stated in communiques, their actions were not well-connected with community and workplace organizing efforts, and so served only as occasional spectacular actions. Since the Tupamaros also engaged in considerable economic research and investigations of corruption, they were able to expose both the corruption and the structural economic difficulties plaguing most Uruguayans.

On one occasion, the Tupamaros delivered a document file on extensive corruption to the justice officials. Shortly thereafter, the file mysteriously disappeared and the officials complained that they could no longer proceed with the investigation, whereupon the Tupamaros obligingly resupplied the officials and the news media with copies of the then highly publicized corruption.

Aside from their attacks on corruption, the Tupamaros were intent on exposing the structural difficulties in the economy, which allowed a small percentage of the population to be very wealthy, and exercised nearly total economic control, while most Uruguayans suffered with the economic stagnation and inflation.

The Tupamaros were criticized by the official representatives of the power structure for being subversive and criminal. Political moderates criticized the Tupamaros for giving the military an excuse for further repression. The Tupamaros replied that it is silly to blame those who are oppressed for the oppression, but agreed that mere exposition of economic difficulties and occasional spectacular actions were no substitute for widespread popular organizing efforts.

The rising social discontent with the economic and political power structures of Uruguay came to a head in April of last year, when President Bordaberry, himself implicated in the corruptions of the previous administration, decided to declare a state of internal war against the Tupamaros, rather than work to rectify the structural defects of the economy.

Bordaberry, in declaring a state of internal war, opened the door for active involvement by the military in the internal affairs of the country. The initial effect of the internal war against what was called, "Leftist subversion and criminality", was twofold. First, the state of siege reduced the operational effectiveness of the Tupamaros so that when the military began going after more moderate political figures later on, it no longer had to worry about reprisals from the Tupamaros.

Secondly, in the various raids against Tupamaros hideouts, the military found great quantities of research material documenting economic problems and corruption. A number of cabinet ministers, and even President Bordaberry's personal secretary, eventually had to resign. The discoveries heightened a split in the armed forces, with more progressive members arguing that corruption and economic crimes were as bad as the subversion to which the Tupamaros were accused, and that there was little point in attacking manifestations of social discontent without trying to resolve the underlying structural, social problems.

However, the more conservative elements in the armed forces managed to outmaneuver the progressive officers, ending the possibility that a progressive military might solve problems.

One other effect of the internal state of siege declared by Bordaberry, was the exposure of the extent of liaison work between the Uruguayan military and police and United States advisors on counterinsurgency and interrogation methods.

By November of last year, the military's active involvement in internal affairs in the name of maintaining order and national security had expanded considerably, especially because of the amount of corruption discovered by the military.

In November of that year, the military was investigating a prominent politician and businessman using leads supplied by the Tupamaros' files. The politician bitterly complained that the military was overstepping its bounds, and the military arrested him on charges of slandering the military and being suspected of corruption. The politician was eventually released, but there was a serious confrontation between the political government and the military.

By the beginning of 1973, the tension between the civilian government and the military over the issue of corruption and how to deal with social unrest, was running very high. The British Weekly Latin America speculated that the economic forecast and plan presented in January was so bleak that no one wanted responsibility, least of all the military. And that consequently, the military did not move as far as it might have.

However, by the end of January, reports and investigations of corruption by the military had become so frequent and strong that President Bordaberry threatened to limit the power of the chiefs of the armed forces to make public statements. This angered the military, especially as further scandals broke out in February concerning highly placed politicians.

A state of near civil war existed with different branches of the military on different sides. The cabinet resigned, and consequently lines of authorities were no longer clear. The Army and the Air Force Commanders presented a 16-point program for the economy and public order, including the creation of a National Security Council under control of the military, and with President Bordaberry remaining as Constitutional Chief Executive, but in effect, subservient to the National Security Council.

President Bordaberry's position deteriorated further in March when the mystery of how Uruguay had managed to pay foreign debts due last year was revealed. It was revealed that the Central Bank had secretly sold one-fifth of the country's gold stock through a Dutch bank. The gold reserves had been sold in complete secrecy, as a deceptive solution to the country's balance of payments problems.

By April, however, Bordaberry managed to form an alliance with the conservative sectors of the military, who were less concerned about corruption or progressive solutions to the economic problems. A major factor in the formation of the alliance was the demand by the Central Confederation of Workers, the main union, for a 30% wage increase to offset the deterioration of buying power due to inflation. The conservative sector of the military agreed with Bordaberry to completely reject any wage increases. In return for the military's backing of the denial of wage increases, President Bordaberry allowed the military to increase its scope of operations against manifestations of social discontent.

The military requested that the parliamentary immunity of a senator be lifted. Senator Enrique Erro had been a constant critic of the military's increased power and of a military solution to social problems. The military accused him of collaboration with the Tupamaros and demanded that his parliamentary immunity be lifted. When the Senate refused to lift immunity in May, the military moved troops into the capital. The crisis was averted when the question of parliamentary immunity was sent to a house committee for reconsideration.

However, in late June, a final vote was taken in Congress, and the military's request was denied. The Congress refused to waive parliamentary immunity for Senator Erro, who the military wanted to try for collaboration with the Tupamaros. As a result, President Bordaberry, acting with the National Security Council, then responded by dissolving Congress. Thus, through the National Security Council and with President Bordaberry still the titular head of state, a de facto military coup had been taking place. The National Confederation of Workers did what it had said it would do in the face of a military coup: it called a nationwide general strike. The strike was nearly total.

The government responded by declaring the union illegal and arresting most of its leadership. However, the union was well-organized with rank-and-file solidarity and indigenous leadership, so the strike held. Many workers occupied their factories. Nonetheless, after two weeks, the military was still in armed control, and the workers running out of supplies could not continue the strike, and so called off the strike in mid-July.

Repression and a general state of siege continued. The union organizations went underground. The Tupamaros announced they were reorganizing, and the government was forced to take a variety of actions, such as closing down even the Christian Democratic paper, Ahora, briefly, following the coup in Chile, to prevent public discussion. In October, the military sees the University of Uruguay following the student elections in which progressive anti-dictatorship groups received overwhelming support. Nine out of the 10 deans were arrested, along with many students and some faculty.

The installment plan coup in Uruguay was thus complete. The coup took the form of emerging of presidential and military power in an alliance between the president and the conservative sectors of the more powerful military. Although Uruguay had been known as the Switzerland of Latin America, because of its long tradition of democratic governments and its relatively industrialized economy, Uruguay is now under the control of right-wing military leaders. The effective failure in the 1960s of the Alliance for Progress Efforts at Economic Development showed that the Uruguayan economy was not developing, but was stagnating.

The stagnation was accompanied by a general inflation that resulted in a reduction of the real buying power of most Uruguayans. The Uruguayan power structure, while not seriously threatened during previous periods of economic development, was threatened as the economy stagnated. Rather than help in rectifying the structural economic problems, however, the president had the military move actively into domestic affairs to suppress manifestations of social discontent.

The military, its power, and sphere of operations greatly expanded, was in the control of more conservative, higher officers who then joined with the president in setting up a National Security Council to effectively run the country. The alliance between the president and the military then abolished Congress, outlawed the main labor union, and seized the university.

This summary of events in Uruguay for 1973 was compiled from the newspapers: Marcha of Uruguay; Latin America, a British News weekly; and Excélsior of Mexico City.

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.