Annotations for Countries: Uruguay

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

La Nacion reports from Buenos Aires. In Montevideo, the armed forces courted troops all over the country and sent controls through all central areas of the capitol. After which the generals denounced the immorality of Congress of the political parties and the public administration and announced that they would not hesitate to eliminate any obstacles to what they termed public happiness. The message from the three branches of the military, which lasted 22 minutes, was broadcast to the entire country with the approval of President Juan Bordaberry. The military leaders said that the Congress and other groups were obstructing reforms promised to the armed forces by Bordaberry last February. It emphasized the corruption of government officials who borrowed money from the Central Bank to pay for electoral campaigns and luxurious homes. The military denunciation fell as a political bombshell in Uruguay. All but one political party abstained from comment.

The nature of the new power struggle in Uruguay is extremely ambiguous. Richard Gott of The Guardian sees some of these major changes as ones that will affect power alignments on the continent. He explains, "For the past few years, Uruguay has been little more than a satellite of Brazil, but with the explosion of nationalism in Argentina with the Peronists back in power and its growth in Uruguay itself in military form, there will now inevitably be new links across the river plate between Argentina and Uruguay." On the other hand, Latin America claims that some reformists believe the initiative is now slipping back into the hands of the right wing with an alliance between the right wing military and Bordaberry.

Also, despite reform-minded comments such as, "The Tupamaros will continue to exist so long as that economic and social conditions which led to their formation persist. A new proposed law sounds as repressive as ever. This legislation would make possible indefinite detainment on a military order of persons whose conduct suggests they might be inclined to commit crimes against the state, persons who have assisted persons who are accused of planning to commit crimes against the state, persons who frequent the same places as those accused of crimes against the state, and persons who might be associated with subversive elements through the possession of some object which had belonged to the subversive elements."

Latin America also points out that the preamble of the new law refers to instincts of special ferocity, genuine criminal delirium, the flowering of inherited tendencies, subhuman fear and vengeance, peculiar to psychopathic personalities. This immediately denies the serious and real challenge presented by the Tupamaros and attempts to explain away an entire organization with all its political and operational complexity in terms of individual pathology. This from Latin America, The Guardian, and La Nación.

La Nación of Buenos Aires reports that in Montevideo, Uruguay, all eight daily newspapers have closed, three under government decree and the others by a strike protesting the government action. President Juan Bordaberry on Friday ordered La Mañana, Ahora and El Popular shut down for three days starting Saturday for allegedly publishing state secrets. One of the editors was temporarily detained by the police. Excélsior of Mexico reports that thousands of students participated in the funeral procession for four of their companions killed in May Day clashes with the police. The funeral ceremonies held May 3rd went off without incident following two days of disturbances. The violence was touched off May Day when police tried to stop 300 students in a building of the autonomous University of Puebla from joining a downtown May Day demonstration.

Receiving front page coverage in the US press was the kidnapping of US Consulate General Leonhardy, Mr. Leonhardy was safely released May the 7th in exchange for the kidnapper's demands.

The Christian Science monitor notes that the terrorist kidnapping of the United States Consulate General in Guadalajara, Mexico's second city, could hardly come of a more difficult time for President Echeverría. Fresh back from a month-long world trip designed to enhance Mexican global prestige, the Mexican leader this past week has been faced with mounting student unrest spotlighted by the killing of four students in Puebla.

Moreover, the continuing activity of guerrillas in the mountains south of Mexico City is causing new concern. And now comes the abduction of Consul General Terrance G. Leonhardy, coupled with the terrorist demands that the Echeverría government released 30 political prisoners in exchange for consul. The government quickly agreed to the release and the 30 were flown to Havana in a Mexican Air Force plane. The secondary and tertiary demands, namely reading of the kidnapper's public message and a ransom of one million pesos were also met in the government's concern to protect the consul general's life. This from the Christian Science Monitor.

The Miami Herald this week commented on the effect that the May 4th kidnapping of a US consul in Mexico has had on the Mexican people. The dramatic kidnapping of a US diplomat has suddenly thrust an unheard of guerilla organization into prominence in Mexico. Almost overnight, the name FRAP has become a commonplace. It stands for Fuerzas Revolucionarias Armadas del Pueblo, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of the People. Up to now, Mexico had been relatively free of the urban guerrilla activity that has swept Latin America in recent years. Anti-government groups have sprung up and died out here without the spectacular publicity of the Tupamaros in Uruguay or the underground groups in Brazil.

But FRAP succeeded by kidnapping US consul, Terrence G. Leonhardy in Guadalajara on May 4th and holding him until the government released 30 prisoners and arranged a ransom of $80,000. In all Leonhardy was in guerilla custody for 76 hours. He was not harmed. The prisoners were flown to Cuba and given asylum. FRAP in the meantime, won wide publication of a manifesto assailing the Mexican government and emphasizing what it termed the injustices against Mexico's poor. Never before in Mexico's turbulent history has a single anti-government group put its political philosophy before so many people so rapidly.

The FRAP manifesto was very much to the political left and called on the poor to join in an armed fight against social ills by overthrowing the government. Authorities in the interior ministry, which deals with political matters and subversion say they know little about FRAP. Who its members are, where it is headquartered, or who directed the abduction of Leonhardy. The manifesto was well written and well reasoned. Leonhardy reported being asked questions apparently prepared by someone with more education than the men who handled the actual abduction and guarded him.

The manifesto touched on some sore points in Mexican society. It noted the huge gap between rich and poor, charged exploitation of rural and urban poor by landowners and industrialists, accused the establishment of failing to provide educational opportunities to the poor, and claimed that both the poor and poorly educated are mistreated by police and politicians. It accused the government of trying to convince Mexicans that guerrillas are common criminals, cattle thieves, hired killers, enemies of the country, people who work against Mexicans and other such things.

FRAP said it and other guerrilla groups had entered the armed fight because they feel it is necessary to put an end to this privileged caste, which for hundreds of years has been enriching itself at the cost of the sweat under subhuman conditions of the laborer, the farmer, and all workers in exchange for a miserable salary, which is barely enough for bad food.

The manifesto apparently met with much sympathy in Mexico. It expressed what the Mexican middle and lower middle classes discuss in their homes. Through radio and television the manifesto reached millions of illiterate poor. It's said that the poor are no better off than before this country's 1910 agrarian revolution, aimed at ending the oppression of the rural dwellers. Mexico has a population of close to 50 million. Its per capita income is among the highest in the developing world, a bit more than $600 a year, but 13 million Mexicans live on less than that. About half a million campesinos or peasants earn no more than 16 cents a day. 

A factory worker in Mexico City probably earns the minimum daily wage allowed by law, $2 and 52 cents a day. The contrast between rich and poor is evident throughout Mexico. Lavish homes are walled off from tin and cardboard hovels. Multi-million dollar luxury hotels in Acapulco are within walking distance of abject poverty. This report from the Miami Herald. 

Also from Prensa Latina. The Uruguayan government has sent Congress a bill considerably curtailing trade union rights. According to the government, the bill is designed to depoliticize union activities. It enjoys the support of the Junta of Armed Forces Chiefs who described as legitimate any action that the president might undertake in that sphere. The Powerful Trade Union Federation with almost half a million members in a country whose total population is two and a half million oppose this attempt to curtail union rights.

Congress will also vote on the dangerous state law, which includes up to six years imprisonment for sympathizing with the Tupamaro guerrillas and which sets forth a series of offenses that in the view of one opposition lawmaker amounts to the civic death of Uruguay. This report from Prensa Latina.

The British Newsweekly, Latin America continues on the Uruguayan situation. The attempt by military justice to lift the parliamentary privileges of Senator Enrique Erro seemed unlikely to succeed in the Senate this week, and the military were quite unable to resist the Senate committee's demand to interview the guerrilla prisoners who informed against Erro. It remains evident that the military did not win an outright victory last February. The limits of military power and authority have not yet been properly tested, and they may require a new institutional crisis to indicate where the frontier runs.

On Monday, Amodio Perez, a former leader of the Tupamaros who defected last year, was brought before the Senate committee, which is considering the Erro case and repeated his charge that the Senator had sheltered Tupamaros. The appearance of Amodio Perez still evidently in military custody was really more interesting than his evidence, as it had been widely rumored that he was enjoying the fruits of his defection in Paris or some other European capital.

But outside the further uncovering of bureaucratic scandals, the military seemed to be right behind President Juan Maria Bordaberry's hard line on labor and social questions. While nationalists all over Latin America still cherish hopes that the Peruanista faction and the Uruguayan armed forces will emerge victorious, the Cuban News Agency, Prensa Latina this week voiced Cuban disgust with the way things are going, citing continuing arrests, systematic torture of detainees and new repressive legislation. This from Latin America. 

Focusing next on one country where Secretary of State Rogers was welcome, namely Brazil, Opinião from Rio de Janeiro, and Marcha, the Uruguayan paper comment on the international implications of President Medici's recent visit to Portugal. 

Opinião reports that on his recent trip to Portugal, Brazil's President Medici was asked by Portuguese authorities for support of Portugal's colonial policy in Africa. Portugal, which is increasingly isolated within the United Nations because of this policy, is seeking diplomatic support and perhaps military aid, for its policy of maintaining colonies in Africa, despite world opinion and strong movements for national liberation in these colonies. 

The Portuguese press, pointed up a dilemma in Brazilian foreign policy. For over a decade, Brazil has been interested in extending its economic and diplomatic influence in Africa. Brazil's official position is that it will try to penetrate Africa on all fronts. However, as Marcha points out, there are only two doors to Africa, through the Portuguese colonies or by way of the independent nations of Black Africa. 

If the Brazilians support the Portuguese, they will have access to the markets of Angola and Mozambique and will win favor with the white supremacist government of South Africa. Yet if Brazil chooses to support Portugal, it will be siding with the colonial powers and will anger and alienate black independent African nations. As Senegal's representative to the United Nations expressed it, "Brazil must choose between justice and injustice, between supporting an Africa free of colonialism and supporting Portugal." 

Marcha concludes that the Brazilians will most probably support Portugal, because it wants to become a great power and sees more immediate advantage for itself in close ties with South Africa. Opinião is not so sure of this and sees Brazil's position as still neutral. However, Opinião concludes that Brazil will have to make a decision soon. This from Opinião of Rio de Janeiro and Marcha of Montevideo. 

Excélsior of Mexico City reports on the political situation in Uruguay. President Juan Bordaberry established a new civic military regime last week, decreeing several measures to combat subversion and economic crimes. He also intervened in several state organizations with the help of the armed forces. The radical, though not surprising measures arose largely because of the weakening of political and parliamentary support for the President.

After the rebellion of the armed forces in February, several generals confronted parliament with the support of Bordaberry. It seems that the President has chosen to follow the strong leadership of the army rather than be responsive to the legislative bodies. The Uruguayan regime seems to be teetering on the narrow edge between formal democracy and defacto dictatorship. The new government decrees simplify the apprehension of suspected political enemies by virtually dropping all limitations on police in such cases. They also prohibited any news concerning sedition or political protest unless it was an official release. This report came from Mexico City's Excélsior. 

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. 

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. 

Following the disillusion of democracy in Uruguay by the US-backed right wing, resistance continues. Latest reports from Uruguay from the Mexico City paper, Excélsior, indicate an escalation of unrest there. The government has intensified its manhunt for labor leaders utilizing a joint effort of the military and the domestic police force. The search is particularly aimed at leaders of the National Convention of Workers which have been forced to operate clandestinely since Bordaberry, the president, officially dissolved the major labor unions of the country. 

In addition to the top 52 labor leaders whose pictures have appeared in all Montevideo dailies, the government is also seeking the arrest of local leaders who have managed to maintain a resistance movement throughout the month-long general strike. The strike, of course, was called in response to the military-backed coup in the latter part of June. Union sources have indicated that 450 labor and political leaders are being held in El Cilindro, the municipal building in the capital city of Montevideo. 

In further news of Brazil, the Cuban Press Agency, Prensa Latina, reports that Uruguayan National Party Senator Wilson Ferreira, exiled in Buenos Aires, has claimed that Brazilian troops have violated Uruguayan territory on several occasions. This follows a series of reports of ominous preparations by the Brazilian dictatorship. Troops and armored units of the Brazilian Army's Third Core, its biggest and best equipped military outfit, are reported to have penetrated Uruguay by one of the four major highways which Brazil has built on the border between the two countries. The construction of the highways and the rapid buildup of troops along the border came under fire from the Montevideo press in 1971 when the existence of this operation was revealed on the eve of Uruguayan presidential elections. 

According to some sources, the Brazilian regime had prepared an invasion plan which was to culminate with the total occupation of Uruguay within 30 hours if the left-wing broad front coalition won the elections. Although the operation was seen at the time as little more than an intimidation measure at a time when the Uruguayan working class was able to offer much stronger resistance than it can under the present dictatorship conditions, the resilience have established a history of strong arm methods. 

Meanwhile, in Uruguay, the Guardian reports the Uruguay working class is back on the job this month, but discontent against the new dictatorship boils beneath the surface. The National Workers' Confederation called off its two-week general strike, July 11th, vowing to continue the struggle through different routes and methods. The strike ended four days after a militant demonstration of some 50,000 workers, students and housewives against the Bordaberry government.

Dozens were wounded by police. The strike lasted 15 days, despite heavy armed repression and government efforts to divide workers. Military units forced refinery workers to return to their jobs. Some 1500 union leaders were jailed. Thousands of workers were arrested and herded into sports stadiums for lack of prison space. Two deaths were reported in demonstrations by students and women.

Repression against the workers is likely to increase. The dictatorship has declared that it will regulate strikes and control union elections in order to promote a free, strong and Uruguayan syndicalism. Brazil's heavy-handed intervention in the right wing coup included a $30 million loan to the Bordaberry government plus military equipment. In accord with the Brazilian formula, President Bordaberry may be replaced by a military junta. Armed forces occupied the presidential mansion July 28th, claiming that Marxist subversion threatened to smash the government. This from the Guardian. 

Excélsior of Mexico City adds that Uruguayan police opened fire on a thousand demonstrators at the National University in Montevideo last week while armed troops patrolled the nation's capitol. Dozens were injured by police gunfire and many were arrested. Police reportedly searched the homes of university students and professors, but authorities declined to say if any arrests were made. Last month, university demonstrations were accompanied by showers of homemade bombs thrown at the police from rooftops in the city. 

These demonstrations are only a part of the political upheaval which has raged in Uruguay since President Juan Bordaberry dissolved the National Congress on June 18th and set up a military dictatorship. Soon after the coup, the National Workers Union called a general strike which paralyzed the country, but this was brutally repressed by the government.

Many observers feel that the way was cleared for the June military takeover in April of last year when the government waged an all-out war on the Tupamaros, an urban guerrilla group. While many of the more moderate figures in the previous Uruguayan government found the Tupamaros leftist politics too extreme, it has felt that the strength of the Tupamaros guerrillas kept the right wing military from taking over the government completely.

Now that the Tupamaros have been defeated and the military has indeed taken over, many moderates perhaps now regret that they did not object to the military's brutal campaign against the Tupamaros last year. But while the Tupamaros were defeated, they were not exterminated. They issued a statement recently calling for a reorganization of the popular forces for a war against the fascist dictatorship. While admitting that they were defeated last year because they underestimated the Uruguayan military and overestimated their own strength, the Tupamaros said they would increase their organizing of the working classes and pledged to continue the revolutionary struggle. This from the Mexico City daily, Excélsior. 

The Guardian reports from Uruguay that the Uruguayan dictatorship of President Juan Bordaberry is desperately attempting to destroy its left opposition before it can fight back effectively. 

The Guardian article says that attacks have been launched against leftist political parties, trade unions, and universities. University autonomy was ended August the 1st. Four days earlier, the government passed new union regulations aimed against the Communist Party led National Workers Confederation, which led a two-week-long general strike immediately following the military coup that dissolved the Parliament. The National Workers Confederation itself was declared illegal June the 30th, three days after the coup.

The union has 500,000 members out of the country's total population of nearly three million. A union leader who escaped government repression and reached Cuba, told the press conference there last week about developments during the strike. The union leader, who asked to remain anonymous, said that within an hour of Bordaberry's dissolution of Congress, the National Workers Confederation was able to paralyze 80% of the country's economy. The strike was supported by students, teachers, and after the first week, by the Catholic Church. 

"Because the general strike began just before payday," the Guardian article says, "Workers did not have much money, but block committees were organized for food distribution". The National Workers Confederation leader said that some elements in the Navy and Air Force supported the strike and refused to participate in the repression against it. At one point, sailors saluted striking dock workers in Montevideo. About 200 officers were arrested for disobeying orders, some of them after trying to hold a protest meeting. 

At Uruguay's only oil refinery, though, soldiers did aim rifles at workers and held them as hostages to ensure the arrival of the second shift, forcing them to work. Sabotage forced the closing of the refinery 48 hours after workers damaged a chimney. At a power plant, workers through a chain against the generator, destroying it. Technicians from the power plant hid to avoid being forced to repair it, but were captured by the military after two days. 

Several workers were killed and many were injured during the demonstration in Montevideo. By June 11th, however, the National Workers Confederation said that the workers were exhausted and out of funds. The Confederation directed them back to work, without, however, gaining any concessions and with 52 of their leaders still in prison. 

A number of opposition leaders still remain in jail, including retired General Liber Seregni, the leader of the leftist Broad Front, and Omar Murda, national director of the liberal National Party. The Broad Front and the National Party, along with the communist and socialist parties, have formed a united front against the dictatorship. Those groups, together with the National Workers Confederation, called a one-day general strike for August the 2nd. 

In another important development, the Tupamaros, a guerrilla group, released a statement at the end of July calling for a people's war against the dictatorship. This was the first public statement issued by the Tupamaros since large scale repression began against them in April of 1972. The Tupamaros said the general strike had shown that revolution is a possibility in their country.

The organization also made a self-criticism that it had underestimated the enemy, which had much more power than they had earlier realized. And on the other hand, they said they did not give proper evaluation to the tremendous capacity for struggle of the people, and they confined themselves too much to their own forces. "Without the participation and the leadership of the working classes," they said, "No revolution is possible."

Uruguay is currently being run by the National Security Council created by the military last February. The organization consists of the chiefs of three military services, president Bordaberry, and the ministers of interior, foreign relations, defense, and economy. The council is being aided by the military intelligence service. The military intelligence service has the main responsibility of counterinsurgency against the Tupamaros and repression of political opposition, including torture of political prisoners. The Guardian article concludes that although the workers are well organized and fought hard, they see ranged against them not only the power of the Uruguayan military, but also that of Brazil and US supporters.

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

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

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

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

Another country which deserves special attention at this point is Uruguay, a small nation wedged between Argentina and Brazil on Latin America's South Atlantic coast. The past six months have seen the collapse of civilian rule in Uruguay and the institution of a military dictatorship. Actually, the constitutional fabric of Uruguay has been disintegrating for quite some time. Former president Jorge Pacheco ruled the better part of his term in office by decree and through emergency security measures.

And, like the Uruguayan Congress, it was constantly riddled by scandals exposing the corruption of the regime. The current president of Uruguay, Juan Bordaberry, can hardly pose as a champion of democracy and civil power either. He was a long serving member of the Pacheco government and his own term has been marked by brutally repressive measures at times. The growing involvement of the armed forces in Uruguayan political life began in April of last year when President Bordaberry declared a state of internal war and called in the armed forces to confront the Tupamaros, an urban guerrilla group.

The Tupamaros, and armed group dedicated to the establishment of a new social order, have gained great support among Uruguayan urban masses in recent years simply because in cities such as Montevideo, there are serious social problems which previous Uruguayan regimes, both military and civilian, have failed to deal with. The Tupamaros, in fact, seem to have had some effect even on the military. In the battles waged last spring, many of the captured guerrillas began to tell their captors that the real enemies, cattle smugglers, corrupt politicians, tax dodgers, and currency speculators, were still at large, often in high places in the government.

As a result, many Uruguayan soldiers and even some senior officers emerged from the campaign saying that the Tupamaros would not finally be defeated unless the root causes of the country's social and economic problems were tackled. Yet despite the reservations of some officers, the military accomplished its task of defeating the Tupamaros with brutal effectiveness.

This military campaign against the Tupamaros had two important consequences. First, the most powerful force on the left had been eliminated, and thus, leftist leaders in both the military and in Congress were in a weakened position. When the military began going after more moderate political figures later on, it no longer had to worry about reprisals from the Tupamaros. Secondly, the material buildup of the military gave them much more political clout. This clout was demonstrated in February, when a clash between Bordaberry and the armed forces resulted in a state of near-civil war.

Bordaberry, however, realizing that the military held the cards in any such confrontation, was forced to accept a junior partnership with them. A National Security Council was set up, which placed Bordaberry virtually under the military's control. The Congress, relegated to a somewhat lower position, was furious, and many of its members made strong anti-military statements. The weeks following the military's intervention in February saw the increasing hostility between the Congress and the military, with Bordaberry somewhere in-between.

By April though, an alliance was clearly emerging between Bordaberry and the conservative sectors of the military. First, Bordaberry created a special junta of commanders in chief to advise him. Also, the National Confederation of Workers, Uruguay's largest trade union syndicate, demanded a 30% wage increase to make up for cost of living increases since the beginning of the year. The military supported Bordaberry and his flat rejection of this demand.

In fact, Bordaberry allowed the military to step up its program of political arrests and systematic torture, and even supplied it with some of the most repressive legislation in the world. An issue of increasing importance to the military was that of the parliamentary immunity from arrest. One Senator, Enrique Erro, was a constant thorn in the military's side, and in April, the National Security Council accused Erro of collaborating with the Tupamaros and asked that his parliamentary immunity be lifted. 

When the Senate refused to lift Erro's immunity in May, the military moved troops into the capitol. A crisis was averted when the question was sent to a house committee for reconsideration. In late June, a final vote was taken and the request was again refused. This time, Bordaberry responded by dissolving the Congress altogether, making the military takeover complete. The National Confederation of Workers did what it always threatened it would do in the event of a military coup and immediately called for a nationwide general strike. The government responded quickly and brutally.

It officially dissolved the National Confederation of Workers and arrested most of its leadership as well as other prominent trade unionists. But this decapitation failed to do the job, the unions were well-organized on a grassroots level and had support from students as well. Many workers occupied their factories, and student demonstrations and other agitation kept the army and police constantly on the run. 

As the strike went on, continuous arrests overflowed the jails, and police began herding prisoners into the Montevideo football stadium. Finally, the strike collapsed and Bordaberry was able to bring things somewhat under control, but opposition continues. Anti-government demonstrations have recurred and another general strike has been threatened. Bordaberry certainly did not eliminate all of his opposition by dissolving the Congress and crushing the general strike. The Tupamaros, for example, have been slowly rebuilding their strength and avowed to continue their struggle. 

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

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.

In the wake of the military takeover of the Uruguayan government last June, thousands of political arrests have been made. As a result, Uruguay's prison population of politicians, workers, and urban guerrillas has overflowed into the Cilindro Sports Stadium, the prison ship, Tacoma, and numerous military garrisons. In reply to protests regarding conditions in the overcrowded jails and emergency areas of confinement, the Interior Uruguayan Ministry held a lottery on Independence Day, 25th of August, to gather funds for the improvement of the jails. 

One of the most well-known prisoners is Liber Seregni, who, until his arrest in July, was a member of the Uruguayan Senate and a member of the opposition party, Frente Amplio. Seregni's wife commented recently that the aim of the government's Let's Dignify our Prisons campaign appears to be to turn Uruguay into one big jail. The campaign for the freeing of Liber Seregni has brought international response, including a letter from Angela Davis, who promises to fight for the liberty of Liber Seregni and all political prisoners.

Ironically, Liber Seregni is more dangerous to the government in jail than he was at large, because the issue goes far beyond the Frente Amplio leader. It has attracted attention to some 4,000 political prisoners, ranging from members of Congress to Tupamaros and their sympathizers, many of whom have been held for months without ever being brought to court. The unnerving part of living in Uruguay today is that numerous people who have never taken part in revolutionary activity have been arrested merely on suspicion of presumed links with sedition.

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. 

Uruguay has been admired by many as one of the most democratic countries in Latin America. Since the coup which occurred there last June however, the government of Juan Bordaberry has proved to be one of the most repressive on the continent. Latin America now reports that-—

A further meeting between Juan Bordaberry and the country's military authorities could well lead to the actual outlawing of Uruguay's communist party. The move was urged last week by the director of the Army's Institute for Higher Education, and the interior minister admitted that government was considering the possibility. As if preparing the ground, the government has been emphasizing the threat to Uruguay posed by international communism.

Fidel Castro has been cited as instructing the Tupamaros to collaborate closely with the communist party. And the Soviet ambassador was called to the foreign ministry to receive a strong protest against the condemnation of the Chilean coup published in the Boletín Informativo Sovietico de Prensa, which is distributed by the embassy in Montevideo.

"Domestically too", says Latin America, "anti-communism of the crudest kind has come to the fore". Last week, the opposition press was virtually silenced. Even the Christian Democrats, Ahora, was also shut down for a week, and the opposition radio station CX30 was closed down for its coverage of Chile.

This was the first closure of a radio station since 1955, when various radio stations were temporarily silenced for their involvement in the anti-Perónist coup. Of course, the actual prescription of the communist party would only take the existing situation one step further. Party political activities of all kinds have been virtually brought to a standstill. That report on Uruguay from 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. 

The military-backed regime in Uruguay last week extended its control in that country by attacking the universities. The Christian Science Monitor reported from Montevideo that Uruguay's army was in occupation at the University of Montevideo. Authorities said discovery of arsenals of homemade weapons allegedly produced by left-wing students justified the occupation. But student sources denounced the occupation as a long-expected plan to seize control of Uruguay's centers of higher education, the last major organization still independent since President Bordaberry staged his military-backed coup in June. 

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. 

The Montevideo weekly, Marcha, points out that for three days the daily press wrote of the subversive materials found by the military in university buildings and invited the public to examine an exhibit of these materials. Among the subversive materials were copies of "The Naked Society" by Vance Packard, "Tupac Amaru" by Boleslaw Lewin, and all Marxist literature. An investigation will determine if these books belong to university libraries or are being sold. In the same way, they will determine if other subversive material, such as naphtha-enclosed bottles, was actually for the purpose of building maintenance and cleaning. That article appeared in Marcha from Montevideo, Uruguay. 

The Miami Herald reports an special from Montevideo, Uruguay, that following the recent military government's seizure of the university there, the government appears to have removed almost all opposition. In mid September, the generals permitted student selections at the university. The result was a victory for the Frente Amplio, a leftist coalition of parties whose leader in the presidential elections of 1970 is now under house arrest in rural Uruguay. 

Informed sources here in Montevideo note that there had been more or less a tacit accord between the new student leadership and the government that barring violent demonstrations, the 120-year-old autonomy of the campus would be respected. In sending troops into the campus and in rounding up leftist student leaders and faculty, Uruguay's military leaders seem to have broken their side of the bargain. 

The Miami Herald special continues that, furthermore, this year inflation in Uruguay will reach about 80%, and owing to the economic stagnation of the past decade, Uruguay now has a foreign debt hovering near the $1 billion mark. Production on the nation's fertile pasture lands of cattle and sheep is still stagnant, though recent sharp increases in prices paid for beef overseas have added dramatically to Uruguay's earnings. Still many of the nation's most highly-skilled workers are migrating to the cities of southern Brazil and to Buenos Aires across the river in search of opportunity. That from The Miami Herald. 

Updating the previous article and indicating that the military seizure of the university failed to summon opposition, Excélsior on December 2nd reports from Montevideo, Uruguay, that the government outlawed all political parties, except the Christian Democrats, and outlawed labor unions and student federations, proscribed their newspapers and seized their offices. 

According to Excélsior, hundreds of soldiers and police, other combined forces, were deployed on the highways and were searching all vehicles to prevent the escape from the country of the leaders of the outlawed organizations, but officially only one arrest was reported, that of the editor of the newspaper El Popular, which is the organ of the Communist Party. The editor was detained when security forces occupied the newspaper's offices. 

Uruguay remained without media outlets for the left. Of the four papers still being published in the country, only El Día could be considered an opposition periodical, although very moderate. The ban was signed by president Bordaberry. The official statement accused leftist organizations of following a policy contrary to the representative, republican, democratic system. 

The communist and socialist parties were accused of being for a number of years inspiration and instruments of subversion, and sustained that Marxist ideologies created an artificial class struggle to destroy national unity and the economy. The Communist Party, founded in 1920 and declared legal three years later, was one of the most important in Latin America and had 70,000 members. Its organ, El Popular, began publication in 1958. 

After the military takeover of the government last June, the paper was suspended on various occasions for up to 60 days. The Communist Party began recently to publish under another name, Crónica. Both papers have been suspended. 

According to Excélsior, now only Última Hora and Ahora of the Christian democrats are appearing. The government has declared illegal the National Confederation of Workers and arrested the president of the opposition party Frente Amplio. That from 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.

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. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This from the liberal British news weekly, Latin America. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

This from the British Newsweek, Latin America. 

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 Uruguay, a correspondent for the Buenos Aires daily La Opinión reported recently that the distinguished Uruguayan weekly newspaper Marcha has been shut down indefinitely and its editor, 71-year-old economist Carlos Quijano, arrested. This is the culmination of a repressive campaign by the civilian military regime against the opposition press.

Last September, the regime of Juan Maria Bordaberry decreed that all information about the Chilean political process had to come from Uruguayan government sources or from the Chilean military Junta. The tough conditions laid down by the state security law have forced Marcha to shut down several times in the last few years. After June 1973, Quijano had to reduce the weekly to three international pages and running only brief articles on the Uruguay situation.

In a story related to the closure of Marcha, almost three weeks have gone by since the arrest in Montevideo, Uruguay, of Juan Carlos Onetti, 64 years old, considered the country's best writer and ranked by many among the three or four leading novelists in Latin America, Onetti remains in jail. The charge against him is having participated in a literary jury that awarded first prize to a short story subsequently declared obscene and subversive by Uruguay's right-wing, military-controlled government. The story is based on the killing of a police in inspector by Uruguayan Tupamaro guerrillas about four years ago. 

This story on events in Uruguay from The New York Times. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That same Mexico City daily, Excélsior recently ran this analysis of events in Uruguay. A year has passed since the Uruguayan Armed forces issued a wide-ranging program of national reconstruction. Eight months have gone by since the military found that this declaration was not enough and decided to institute a joint dictatorship with the Uruguayan President Juan Bordaberry, a conservative elected in 1971. Now, the military hierarchy is chafing once again, and most every Uruguayan expects the armed forces to push Mr. Bordaberry aside at any moment and take absolute power. One high ranking Uruguayan army officer was recently quoted as saying, "If we are going to be blamed for all of the failures, then we should assume complete power and responsibility." 

Uruguay with only 2.8 million people, was once considered the citadel of the good life in Latin America and was able to boast a standard of living, which rivaled several European countries. However, says Excélsior, Uruguay is now in the grips of a devastating decline, which began two decades ago. Uruguay's problems which remain without solution have accelerated tremendously over the last four years. First to go in the once prosperous nation was economic stability. The cattle and sheep raising industries declined, imports rose and government spending increased. Today, one out of every four Uruguayans is a member of the country's unwieldy bureaucracy. For the average Uruguayan this has been reflected most dramatically by a rise in prices of more than 1000% since 1968. 

It was also in the late 1960s, says this Mexican newspaper, that an effective urban gorilla movement, the Tupamaros was born. The Tupamaros, themselves sons and daughters of an increasingly impoverished Uruguayan middle class, have since their founding challenged the government and gained considerable support among the Uruguayan people. Their activities have included kidnappings of foreign businessmen and government officials. 

Within the past year, however, the Tupamaros have been nearly crushed by a repressive military counterinsurgency program. The government's often violent policies have had their repercussions as Uruguay's democratic institutions have also fallen victim of the repression. Beginning last June, Congress was dissolved, Uruguay's largest labor organization was broken up, the Marxist parties banned, and other parties declared inactive. In addition, the Uruguayan press has been muzzled with at least seven leftist publication shut down. 

The Uruguayan University's rector and deans have been replaced after being held in jail for two months on charges of subversion. The country's best writers are also in jail, including Juan Carlos Onetti, widely acclaimed as one of the continent's leading novelists. No one seems to know just how many political prisoners there are in Uruguayan jails today, according to Excélsior.

A year ago, they numbered about 1500, but recently several politicians and diplomats have estimated that this figure has doubled. There are Tupamaros among them to be sure, but the list of Uruguayan political prisoners also include such prominent politicians as Liber Seregni. Seregni, himself a retired general, was the presidential candidate of a leftist coalition in the last election. He was accused of having committed offenses against the Constitution. Yet that document has been largely ignored by the Uruguayan government during the past year. 

As the political and economic situation in Uruguay worsens the trend toward immigration among Uruguay's wealthy, skilled, and educated class also increases. The passport office has been so deluged by applicants that the waiting list now extends to March 1975, and no new requests are being accepted. 

For the military, the crux of Uruguay's problems lies with numerous civilian politicians and leftists who are allegedly to be found anywhere. In a 32-page document inserted in all Uruguayan newspapers in February, the armed forces charged that Marxist infiltration had extended to labor, student, intellectual and even theatrical circles. 

Uruguay's business community, on the other hand, complains that the tax structure must be altered so that there must be a rollback in state industries before the private economic sector can grow again. But despite a ban on strikes, which last year cost Uruguay three-fourths of its annual growth, there has been no noticeable economic surge. Even the most optimistic forecast point to a $50 million trade deficit this year in a country whose foreign debt is already estimated at some $600 million. 

At least part of the blame for Uruguay's downward economic spiral may be placed abroad, according to this leading Mexican daily. The oil crisis hit Uruguay harder than any other country in Latin America. Gasoline which sold for 50 cents a gallon last year, now costs $2.30 a gallon. 

With the failure of even the most drastic attempts to solve Uruguay's staggering economic problems, conservatives and anti Marxists are concerned that the military is rapidly becoming as discredited as the traditional politicians they replaced. That report on current trends in Uruguay from the Mexico City daily Excélsior. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reports from the Montevideo weekly Marcha indicate that a military coup may be imminent in Uruguay. Last week, all military troops and police were called to their barracks while the commanding officers of the armed forces held secret talks. The result was the resignation of the commander-in-chief of the army, General Hugo Chiappe. General Chiappe is thought to have opposed a complete military takeover of the government. The army chief has been replaced by General Julio Vadora, Uruguay's army attaché in Washington, until Vadora's returned from the United States. 

He has been temporarily replaced by one of the hard line officers who is head of the country's strongest garrison in Montevideo and a strong admirer of Brazil's military regime. Now, the president of Uruguay, Juan Bordaberry, has been ordered to restructure his cabinet and to change his economic policy. The military wants him to remove some of his key civilian advisors who are presently ministers of economy, finance, and agriculture. According to Marcha, these events could signal a further blow to Uruguay's long tradition of democratic government. 

The military in which in previous decades had been virtually a forgotten force has become increasingly dominant in politics since it was called upon to crush the Tupamaro Urban Guerrilla Movement in 1972. Since last June, there has been only a thin civilian facade to the government. At that time, President Bordaberry backed by the military dissolved Congress and disbanded the largest labor organization and all political parties in the country. News of the present political crisis seems to have been kept within government circles and thus has aroused little popular unrest in Uruguay. 

The newspapers, which have been under censorship for several months, carried only a brief official communique on the removal of General Chiappe. All Argentine newspapers were confiscated by the government because they contained information concerning the military situation in Uruguay and news of the firing of the army commander in chief. The political reshuffling comes at a time of extreme economic hardship for the Uruguayan people. Inflation has caused prices to rise more than 1,000% since 1968. 

The high world price of fuel oil, all of which must be imported, has caused shortages and cutbacks in heating and light. Despite the damp and cold of late fall, heating systems have been turned off in factories and offices, and few cars are to be seen in the streets as gasoline costs over $2.50 per gallon. That from the Montevideo weekly, Marcha. 

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.