Annotations for Countries: Venezuela

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Excélsior reports from Mexico City, the finance ministers of 24 nations representing the Third World signed a condemnation of the 10 richest nations, which, without taking into account the interests of the international community, revalued their currencies on the 16th of March. The minister of finance of Venezuela, who presided at the meeting, claimed that the developing countries cannot support a system of decision making in which they are not allowed to participate and went on to describe the consequences of the devaluation. First, the liquidity of the Third World countries has been affected. Second, economic planning has been disrupted. Third, special drawing rights on the International Monetary Fund have been reduced. Fourth, the devaluation retarded the growth and diversification of foreign trade. And fifth, the buying power of existing reserves has been diminished. The Venezuelan minister emphasized that developing countries have not been allowed a voice in the discussions of international monetary reforms.

Garcia of Santiago writes, "After months of relative lethargy, the guerrilla seemed to have reawakened at least in three Latin American countries. In different degrees, the Dominican Republic, Venezuela, and Argentina have suffered violent incidents these past few months. Although the streets in the Dominican Republic are still being patrolled by the army, tanks have now disappeared from sight, leaving the country relatively quiet after the excitement over the Army's apprehension of a guerrilla group last month. In Venezuela on the other hand, there has been strong urban unrest in the past two weeks. In Caracas, the disturbances began as a student protest against the closing of the Central University."

In Argentina, according to La Prensa of Lima, "A kidnapped executive has been released after being imprisoned eight days by a guerrilla group. Sources close to the executive, who is in charge of a large metallurgical factory near Buenos Aires, said that he had paid a ransom of more than five million Pesos for his release." According to the industrialist, he was kept under guard of masked men who served him his meals and brought him books to read. The books, he complained bitterly, mostly had a leftist slant. That from La Prensa of Lima.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Miami Herald reports from Rio on recent political arrest in Brazil. Grim accounts are emerging in the wake of the latest wave of political arrest, of widespread use of sophisticated torture techniques by Brazil's security forces. The accounts include use of electric shocks, prolonged interrogation, cold rooms, intense noise, and occasional physical beatings. When the details first began surfacing, many observers were inclined to dismiss them as left-wing propaganda. For many of the people who have been arrested, allegedly are members of leftist organizations ideologically opposed to Brazil's militarily controlled regime. Brazil's censored press has printed no torture stories.

The Miami Herald continues, but dozens of conversations with lawyers, doctors, politicians, and diplomats, plus details of the personal accounts from some of the prisoners who are being released have built up a massive information so consistent it no longer can be dismissed. Names of former prisoners cannot be given, because they say they have been threatened with rearrest if they talk. The details of the methods of operation of the security forces are frightening, in a country where a person accused of acting or conspiring against the rigid security laws has almost no protection. Lawyers, politicians, family and friends of some of the victims tell similar stories of the circumstances of arrest that more nearly resemble kidnappings, in which are reminiscent of Gestapo methods in Hitler's Germany.

Account after account tells of invasion of private homes by armed men dressed in civilian clothes who refuse to identify themselves. The arrested person is taken from the residence, pushed into the back of a car, told to lie on the floor and is hooded. Others are arrested sometimes during the day on city streets. One account tells of a prisoner being beaten and kicked while lying on the floor in the back of a car. This prisoner refused to talk to reporters of his experiences, but when he was released, his face still was badly cut and bruised. The hood is not removed until the prisoner already is in a cell and for the first two or three days is taken out only for long periods of questioning. During this period, the prisoner receives neither food nor water.

According to the Miami Herald, the treatment is designed to lower the physical resistance of the prisoner and to induce fear of the coming shock, humiliation, and degradation. Men and women are told to remove their clothing. Some are given thin prison uniforms, but others remain nude. They are put for varying periods in cold rooms. Descriptions of these vary from cell-like rooms to structures that resemble commercial refrigerators in which the prisoners cannot stand up. The noise treatment is given in specially prepared rooms which are silenced with acoustic tiles and in which the prisoner remains for long periods without hearing any noise, then blasts of sound are channeled into the cell.

Some prisoners say these are noises of people screaming as if in pain, and they seem to be tape recordings greatly magnified electronically. The prisoners also spend periods in rooms with metal floors through which they receive electric shocks. Details of the treatment of the prisoners have surfaced slowly, because of the difficulty lawyers and relatives have in getting in touch with the prisoners. In cases in which the people are arrested away from home, it is sometimes more than a day before relatives become concerned. From then on, locating the missing person is an extremely difficult task.

The atmosphere of uncertainty and fear this flouting the law generates has been condemned openly several times by Brazil's Bar associations and by leaders of the Roman Catholic Church. But lawyers say that despite the protest, the situation has not improved. In the recent wave of arrest, which began in March, nearly 300 persons are believed to have been detained in Rio alone. Though some of these later were released, the arrests still are going on. Nationwide, the number arrested is estimated at about 700 to 800 persons. Lawyers say they have not been able to speak to many of those still held prisoner, even though the detention has been officially notified with officials of the military courts. The security authorities say they're inquiring into two organizations, the Communist Party of Brazil and the National Armed Resistance. This report from the Miami Herald.

In a related story, United Press International reports from London. Amnesty International asked for an impartial inquiry into the alleged deaths of some 26 jailed opponents of the Brazilian military government. The organization, which is concerned with political prisoners throughout the world, said in a statement, that political prisoners have been run down or shot by friends in exchanges of gunfire with police, with such surprising frequency that we believe an impartial inquiry is essential. The organization also said it was concerned about reports that a number of those who died had been tortured while in prison.

La Prensa of Santiago reports on changing campaign practices in Venezuela. Still 10 months away from the presidential elections, Venezuela is very much immersed in pre-election politicking. Without exaggeration, the parties and candidates have already spent sums of money equivalent to the entire budgets of many less fortunate countries. In relation to the size of the population, these must be the most expensive elections in the world. How could they not be, when one minute of TV time cost about $1,000 dollars?

La Prensa continues, in previous campaigns, considerable sums were also spent, but there was more reliance on cheaper campaign techniques, such as mass rallies and public assemblies. Things have changed fundamentally however. TV is now the main vehicle for campaigning and the fault lies with the oil money and with the North American consumerism psychology applied to politics in such new sacred political texts as Vance Packard's "The Hidden Persuaders", and Joe McGinnis' "The Selling of the President", a book which describes Nixon's 1968 campaign.

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

The Miami Herald reports on one US policy which is causing dissatisfaction in Latin America—Caracas. Suspension of hemispheric trade preferences on imports of an additional 50,000 barrels per day of fuel oil will not affect Venezuela according to the minister of mines. He said, however, that the suspension of requirements that the additional fuel oil be imported from hemispheric sources shows the domestic character of the North American oil policy which absolutely does not take into account hemispheric decisions or interests. "This is perfectly clear," the minister told newsmen, "when a few assignations for the hemisphere that existed for the importation of fuel oil have been eliminated by the US government." It was reported unofficially that the Venezuelan government had handed the US government its informal objections to the new US oil policy announced by President Nixon, this from the Miami Herald.

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Venezuela, Latin America reports on a recent political development. While the guerrillas are a dying force, the student movement, or more accurately, the secondary school pupils movement, is becoming a serious headache for the government. Hardly a week now passes without one high school or another going on strike. The reason behind the strikes are generally not complex.

Overcrowding in the schools, a rigid old-fashioned syllabus, harassed teachers, and a lack of funds have caused the strikes rather than any political motives. In fact, difficulties in getting into higher education particularly universities have been the major irritant in the last few months, but neither the university authorities nor the government have seen fit to tackle the problem. This week, however, the riots were provoked by the visit of William Rogers, and particularly by the fact that his main purpose was to discuss the Orinoco heavy oil belt. This from Latin America.

Chile Hoy also commented this week on the political situation in Venezuela. Although the Christian Democratic government has kept a low political profile, several recent reports indicate that there is a significant amount of repression taking place. There are 250 political prisoners, there have been several assassinations of leftist leaders as well as anti-guerrilla campaigns. A Venezuelan press agency has also pointed out that a daily newspaper, Punto, has been censored and its editor detained. This report taken from Chile Hoy of Santiago. 

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

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

A short from the Miami Herald reports on yet another step in the continuing breakdown of the blockade against Cuba. From Caracas, Venezuela, according to official government announcement, Cuban and Venezuelan officials have begun exchanging impressions on educational matters. A delegation from the Ministry of Education in Cuba met with a Venezuelan group headed by the Venezuelan Minister of Education who said, "The meeting will serve to strengthen the mutual cooperation between both countries in cultural, educational, and sports matters." It should be noted that the meeting had special significance since it was Venezuela, which, under US pressure, introduced the motion to the Organization of American States to blockade Cuba in the first place. 

This week's feature will be a reenactment of an interview between representatives of the Santiago paper, Chile Hoy, and the Cuban President Dorticos. 

Mr. President, in the past few years in Latin America, there have been several types of revolutionary change, the military nationalism of Peru, the Chilean elections, the semi-peaceful taking of power in Argentina. My question is why do you think the guerrilla tactics which characterized the '60s, as for instance, Che's campaign in Bolivia, have been replaced by other revolutionary tactics? 

I think the guerrilla campaign of the '60s had a direct effect on what is happening now despite the fact that the guerrilla campaign did not result in any military victories. The moral and political strengths of these campaigns is affecting not only those struggling with arms, but all revolutionaries with its example of revolutionary dedication, and this influence is tremendous. The presence of Che, which I saw in my recent trip to Argentina among the people, Che's original homeland, his figure, his thoughts, his humanism, his example is greater now than during his guerrilla campaign. 

To discount the influence of Che's actions on Latin America today is to discount a driving force in the hearts of Latin American people. Of course, this does not mean that all the revolutionary struggles have to follow the tactics of guerrilla's struggle which Che promoted. His greatest influence was his example, his conduct, his revolutionary will, and today, for example, it was with great personal satisfaction and profound emotion that I heard the Argentinian people improvising a slogan which, despite the habituation coming from years of revolutionary struggle, brought tears to my eyes. The slogan which I heard every day in Argentina was, "He is near. He is near. Che is here." This slogan is a perfect example of what I was saying. 

The triumph of the Cuban revolution is definitely a great turning point in the revolutionary process in Latin America. People have said that Cuba can be a showcase or trigger for socialism in Latin America. What is Cuba's role given the current realities in Latin America's revolutionary process? 

Its main contribution is to provide an example, an example of unbending and resolute spirit. 

Mr. President, certain groups have suggested that the friendly relations between the USSR and Cuba are actually a form of dependency. It's true that, in the past, there were differences in the Cuban and Soviet perspectives, differences which today seem to have largely disappeared. We'd be interested in hearing why these differences have disappeared and what is the current state of relations between the Soviet Union and Cuba. 

There has been a detente, and the relations between Cuba and the Soviet Union are better now than they ever have been. To speak of Cuban dependency with respect to the Soviet Union, however, is to make the grave errors of confusing imperialism with cooperation between a developed socialist country and an underdeveloped socialist one. One must look at the economic trade patterns and contrast the way Russia has related to us and the way the United States had related to us. 

If we look at the economic aspects of the relations, we can see that the Soviet Union's aid has been one of the main basis for Cuban development and survival. Looking back to the first few months of the revolution, when we lost the American sugar market, there was the Soviet market to take its place. When the blockade started by the United States cut off the flow of oil from countries aligned with the United States, there was Soviet oil. During these years, regardless of how relations between the two countries were going on, even when there were disagreements, as you mentioned, Soviet economic aid kept coming without interruption. 

Today, this economic aid has qualitatively improved. Entire sectors of our economy have been developed with the economic and technical cooperation of the Soviet Union and, thanks to this aid, new industrial plants will be built, and transportation and energy production will be expanded. These new plants will be Cuban plants, not Soviet ones, not plants indebted to foreign countries. 

In addition, the Russians have made it possible for the development of the nickel and textile industries, the modernization and expansion of our sugar industry and countless other projects, and all this has been done in the context of mutual respect and absolute equality in the political relations between two sovereign governments. 

With reference to the United States, which you've mentioned, what are the changes which Cuba would require before some form of dialogue or negotiations could take place concerning relations between the two countries? 

Before even dialogue can take place, there is one condition, that the imperialist United States government unilaterally end its blockade of Cuba, a blockade which it started and it must end. Until that happens, there won't be even any dialogue. If that occurs at some time in the future, we would then begin discussions of problems common to all of Latin America and the United States. We would not merely discuss bilateral affairs concerning only Cuba and the United States, but we would have to discuss it in the context of US relations to Latin America, generally. 

Looking at things from a purely pragmatic point of view, once the blockade has been unilaterally ended by the United States, we might be interested in a broad range of economic relations, including entrance into the American market and economic and technical cooperation. This in no way would involve Cuba's revolutionary government surrendering its revolutionary principles or giving in on any conditions which it might wish to establish, but we would not limit ourselves to this. For the discussions to be fruitful, we would have to discuss not only Cuba, but Latin America and the end of the United States' jerendent role in Latin America generally. 

One way of uniting Latin America so it could negotiate with the United States might be an organization such as the one which Chile has proposed. In the last OAS meeting, a wholly new Latin American organization excluding the United States was proposed. What is Cuba's position with respect to such an organization? 

First of all, we believe, as we've stated before, that the extant Organization of American States is undergoing a grave and insoluble crisis. Cuba will not return to the Organization of American States. We respect and even feel that some countries' suggestions for reforming the Organization of American States are a positive step, but we feel that the OAS as an institution, with the presence of the United States government in its very heart, is not the ideal means for Latin America to shape its future.

We do not belong to this organization, and we feel that a Latin American organization must be created with the participation also of the English-speaking Caribbean nations, which could then collectively form a united front to negotiate with the United States and defend Latin American interests with respect to American imperialism.

Does it seem to you that Nixon, if he survives Watergate, will be able to initiate such discussions at some time in the future, or do you feel that it will be necessary to continue to exercise revolutionary patience? 

We should not speak of speed or hurrying. Revolutionary theory teaches us to be patient and also impatient, and knowing how to reconcile the one with the other is what constitutes a tactical wisdom of a revolutionary. 

The diplomatic blockade of Cuba is falling apart. It has even been suggested that other governments such as Venezuela's, for example, might establish relations with Cuba in the near future. This could present an apparent contradiction with the internal policies of these countries. What is the Cuban position with respect to this problem, that is, with respect to reestablishing relations with governments which defy imperialism, but which do not have progressive policies at home and which may even repress their own people? 

We have made it clear before that we are not interested in having relations with the countries of Latin America for the mere sake of having relations. However, we feel that reestablishing relations with Latin American countries can be useful since we agree on the principle of demonstrating our sovereignty with respect to imperialism. 

You mentioned the hypothetical possibility of a government assuming a dignified international position with respect to imperialism while at the same time, in its internal affairs, oppressing or even repressing its people violently. To begin with, it is very hard for me to see how a country could have a correct anti-imperialist position, a dignified international position and at the same time oppress or violently repress its people whether or not revolutionary struggle was occurring.

That is because an anti-imperialist position cannot be maintained by a government without some changes in internal policies. Thus, internal policies are inevitably linked to international policies, as I have said, regardless of whether or not the country is in the midst of some kind of major change.

We understand that Prime Minister Castro in his last Mayday speech reaffirmed Cuba's solidarity with revolutionary movements. 

If we didn't reform our solidarity with revolutionary movements, we will be violating our own principles. 

Based on an analysis of the results of the 1970 sugar harvest, the Cuban economy has made great progress. What are the changes which have produced such progress? 

It would take an awfully long time to list all of the changes in our economy, and we should not exaggerate. Our economic growth is of necessity limited due to the underdevelopment of our economy which we inherited, the lack of energy sources, and the difficulties an underdeveloped country has dealing with developed countries, problems such as unequal exchange, which have been mentioned in the economic literature, but obstacles in the way of rapid economic growth. 

What have been the achievements since the 1970 harvest? Some figures can quantitatively measure these achievements. For example, in 1972, the economy grew by 10%. This is an extremely high rate of growth for the 1970s, and this growth rate was achieved despite a poor sugar harvest which resulted from two years of drought and organizational problems galore. 

Despite this and despite the important role sugar plays in our economy, we reached the 10% growth figure. Of course, that means that some sectors of our economy grew even more rapidly. Construction, for instance, was up 40%. Industry, not including sugar refining, was up 15%. For 1973, we have set a goal, which we may or may not achieve, of 17% growth. Looking at the third of this year, we find that the growth rate was 16%. Production of consumer goods has increased, and this has been one of the major factors leading to the financial health of the nation. 

Well, how has it been possible to achieve such growth? 

Basically, it has been possible with the better organization, better planning and, above all, with the help of lots of people. This is not an abstract statement. It is a concrete reality which can be observed in every sector of the economy even where there have been administrative problems or a lack of the proper technology. The workers' efforts have always been present and production quotas have been met and, in some cases, surpassed under conditions which are not at all optimum due to a lack of technicians or materials. These shortages resulted from our distance from the European markets we are forced to trade with. 

Despite our support from socialist countries, they cannot physically supply us with all the capital goods, raw materials and intermediate goods that we need. Thus, we have to make large purchases from capitalist countries, with the resulting heavy loss of foreign exchange. Of course, our foreign exchange depends on our exports, which are limited, sugar, nickel, tobacco, fish and a few other lesser items. We are basically dependent on agriculture which is affected by climate changes. 

Thus, in response to your question, it is the incorporation of the workforce into the economic struggle at a higher level and the awareness of the need for such an effort and then the carrying out of these tasks, often through extraordinary efforts, which have led to this economic growth since Castro's call in his May 1st, 1970 speech..

Calls have gone up many times before for higher production. Why did the people respond more energetically this time than before? 

In the first place, it was due to the fact that it was crystal clear to many people that efforts had to be made in every sector of the economy and not just in sugar production. In the second place, it was due to the greater participation of mass organizations in economic decisions, in economic process. Finally, it was due to a growth in revolutionary consciousness which now has gone beyond the mere limits of revolutionary emotion and has matured into an awareness of the necessity of building socialism in our country if we want to get what we want. 

According to some analysis, this new economic growth is due to the abandonment of certain principles which the revolution was previously based upon. 

I don't think that's true. What principles are you referring to? 

Well, for instance, the replacement of the principle that consciousness should motivate workers instead of economic incentive in order to increase efficiency. 

It should be made clear that the importance we attribute to revolutionary consciousness has in no way been diminished, but we have noted that certain related factors such as, for example, tying salary to productivity cannot only serve as a material stimulus, but also serves to create and help people understand what is happening. Why does this occur? Because in a socialist society, which is not one of abundance, from the point of view of revolutionary justice, one must conclude that it is immoral and, thus, it does not help create consciousness if one who works less earns the same as one who works more. 

When you pay a worker according to what he has produced, that is, in relation to his productivity, this is both just and consciousness-raising. This is because, through his salary, the worker is being evaluated morally and he is being told that he was socially responsible, will have more than he was not socially responsible. It would be demoralizing and would prevent the raising of consciousness if a worker who worked less, a loafer, earned as much as a good worker. Thus, we are not cutting down the role which revolutionary consciousness should play, but we're aiding and adding new ways of raising revolutionary consciousness. 

Given the larger amounts of goods being offered, do some individuals have more access to these goods than others? 

Yes. They have greater access to un-rationed goods, but everyone gets the same amount of ration to basic goods. 

Why is it that some individuals get more on rationed goods? 

This is related to the remarks I just made linking productivity, the quality and quantity of work to salary, and this is tied to the salary scale. 

You have been listening to a reenactment of an interview between representatives of the Santiago weekly, Chile Hoy, and the Cuban President, Osvaldo Dorticos.

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. 

Two weeks after the beginning of the military coup in Chile, events there dominate the news. Although members of the Junta have made repeated claims of normalcy, and US newspapers such as The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal have characterized the military as mild and also claimed a return to normalcy, at the time this program is being produced, the Asia Information News Service monitoring wire services from Latin America reports that the Junta has just announced a state of internal war. 

In reverberations elsewhere in South America, Excélsior reports that in Uruguay the military government has shut down opposition papers, including the Christian Democrat-oriented La Hora. La Nación of Peru reports that the head of the Uruguayan government as saying that the articles on Chile would foment unrest. Also, the Brazilian military government has prohibited its newspapers from publishing or disseminating information about activities in Chile. According to The Wall Street Journal, the Bolivian military government has announced a move to arrest at least 70 leading labor leaders who were fomenting difficulties. 

Information other than official or censored reports from inside Chile are still difficult to obtain. Excélsior of Mexico City reports that Chilean Christian Democrats are still divided. Former President Eduardo Frei, implicated as early as 1970 in the ITT strategy memoranda as participating in efforts to induce economic collapse and a military intervention in Chile is reported to be supporting the Junta. While the previous Christian Democratic presidential candidate, Radomiro Tomic, is reported under house arrest. 

The English paper The Manchester Guardian noted continuing divisions in the military. The three highest ranking officers in Santiago as well as the head of the National Police did not support the coup. 

The Excélsior of Mexico reported an interview with Hugo Vigorena, the Chilean ambassador to Mexico, who resigned when his government was overthrown. The former ambassador said his government had documents and information on a CIA State plan senator, but had received the information too late to neutralize the plan. The New York Times reported that Mr. Kubisch, Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America, claimed the documents were spurious and being peddled by a known felon. He refused further public comments offering to appear in a secret session. 

The degree of difficulties inside Chile is still unknown with any precision. The official announcements of the Junta vary, beginning with a claim of 61 dead moving most recently to an admission of perhaps 250 persons killed. However, various international news agencies reported such items as that within the first 40 hours of the beginning of the coup, a Santiago hospital log indicated 500 bodies stacked in the hospital because the morgue was full and refused to accept further bodies. 

Inter Press, the Chilean news agency, which was forced to move its transmission facilities to Argentina following the beginning of the coup, reported requests from Chilean hospitals for medical supplies. Santiago hospitals were reported to be out of most medical supplies. 

The Asian News Service carried an interview from Argentina with the director of the Brazilian soccer team, which left Chile after the beginning of the coup. He reported upwards of 10,000 dead within the first three days. The Dutch newspaper Allgemeine Tagblatt reported on a telephone interview with a Dutch diplomat in Chile who reported in the initial days that the Junta was treating resisters with unimaginable violence and estimated casualties in Santiago alone at 6,000. 

Le Monde from Paris reported an interview with two Chileans held in the national soccer stadium, but released because they were the son and nephew of high-ranking military officers. They reported tortures, clubbing and executions of major proportions. British papers carried reports by two British subjects who said much of the same. 

In interviews with the US press, two American citizens, Adam and Patricia Schesch, released from the stadium after a considerable telephone and telegram campaign by citizens of their home state of Wisconsin, also noted that in the first days of the coup they saw numerous prisoners beaten to death and estimated that they directly saw 400 to 500 persons executed. Asia News Service estimated 20,000 to 30,000 dead within the first week. 

In Caracas, Venezuela, the daily paper Últimas Noticias reported an interview with a Venezuelan journalist who had been held in the national stadium for three days before being allowed to leave. He reported that he had been arrested because there were some magazines in his home published by Quimantú, the government publishing house. The Venezuelan journalist said that he could hear the cries of people being executed in the eastern grandstand of the stadium, that the blood was hosed down each morning, that survivors could see piles of shoes belonging to the previous night's victims and that the bodies were removed and blue canvas bags loaded into armed military trucks. 

A number of embassies in Chile are reported surrounded and in effect under siege to prevent persons from seeking asylum. The Guardian reports that the governments of Sweden, Finland, and Holland have announced that all aid destined for the Allende government would be frozen and not given to the Junta. Also, in a number of countries, including Mexico, Venezuela, Switzerland and Sweden, the Chilean ambassadors and diplomatic personnel have resigned rather than serve the Junta. 

Excélsior reports that the Chilean ambassador to the US is in Chile and is alive but under arrest. He has been replaced in the US by a naval officer. In London, the naval attaché has taken over the embassy there and locked out the ambassador. 

Diplomatic recognition of the Junta was initially accorded by Brazil and the two regime of South Vietnam, and the Junta claimed recognition by 17 countries as of the 22nd of September. However, according to Excélsior, that list includes Austria, Denmark, and Mexico, whereas Austria and Denmark have issued denials and Mexico announced that it would apply the Estrada Doctrine of maintaining officials at the embassy in Chile, but not extending actual recognition. 

Another reaction. La Opinión of Buenos Aires, Argentina, reported that the commander-in-chief of the Argentinian army has asked the government to immediately put an end to the US military missions in Argentina. He said that the recent events in Chile strengthened the conviction that, "the presence of North American missions in Argentina is not convenient for us."

Excélsior reported that the Chilean Junta, after outlawing the five political parties that had formed the Popular Unity Coalition and after informing the remaining parties to enter a recess, disbanding the Chilean legislature, has announced the writing of a new constitution. General Lei of the Air Force indicated that the new constitution would prevent the re-establishment of Marxism and would allow major participation by the armed forces in the political life of Chile, including in the future parliament. 

Excélsior continued that the new constitution would be actually edited by a yet-to-be-constituted jury commission and would be a corporate-type constitution in the style of the system instituted by Mussolini in Italy. That from the Mexican daily Excélsior. 

In commenting on developments in Chile, the English paper The Manchester Guardian reviewed the ITT memoranda that spoke of the need to induce sufficient economic chaos and violence into Chile to create the conditions for a military coup. The Manchester Guardian also quoted Henry Kissinger as having said, "I don't think we should delude ourselves that an Allende takeover in Chile would not present massive problems for us." 

The Manchester Guardian also referred to a meeting in October of 1971 between William Rogers, the Secretary of State, and representatives of corporations with investments in Chile, in which Rodgers made it perfectly clear that the Nixon Administration was a business administration and its mission was to protect business. 

Also, Murray Rossant, president of the 20th Century Fund, wrote in The New York Times of October 10th, 1971, that the government policy towards Chile was being formulated and that the Secretary of Treasury, John Connally, and other hard liners insist that Chile must be punished to keep other countries in check and favor a Bolivian-type solution of providing overt or covert support for anti Allende military men. That from The New York Times. 

In the most recent economic news from Chile, the black market, which was the primary cause of food shortages during the Allende period and which had been a major method of creating economic difficulties for the Allende government, has finally been outlawed. Although congressional opponents to Allende had prevented any legal moves against the black market during Allende's government, Excélsior reports that the military Junta has declared an end to black market activities. 

According to Excélsior, the Junta has also announced that gains made under Allende will not be rolled back, although all illegal worker takeovers of means of production will be cancelled and the illegally-taken-over factories, machines, and land will be returned to private entrepreneurs. Also, foreign corporations will be asked first for assistance and soon will be asked to invest and resume involvement in previously nationalized sectors. 

Excélsior also reports that the Junta has announced the formation of a Man of Public Relations composed of leading businessmen to travel internationally to explain the coup, discuss the reentry of foreign capital, and to improve Chile's new image. Already, according to the recent Junta announcements carried by the major wire services, the reported book burnings and cleaning of bookstores was carried out by overzealous persons and that at any rate the military was not against ideas and did not think that the burning of books would kill ideas. The Junta's only intention was to rid the country of alien ideas. 

The most recent information available is that despite disclaimers by the Junta, the cleaning of bookstores and the burning of books continues. The French Press Agency reports that the house of poet Pablo Neruda was vandalized by soldiers who conducted an exhaustive search, tored open beds, and burned posters, magazines, and books. 

The US government confirmed that it had granted diplomatic recognition to the Junta and the Junta declared what it called internal war, firing the mayors of all large villages and cities, the governors of all the provinces, and the presidents of the universities, replacing them with military personnel, and announced a review of all university faculty appointments. That from the Asian Information Service's compilation of wire service reports from Latin America. 

One of the international effects of the military coup in Chile is the subject of a recent article in the Christian Science Monitor. Chile's military leaders have dealt a serious blow to efforts at bringing Cuba back into the hemisphere fold. In fact, it now becomes apparent that the movement toward renewing diplomatic and commercial ties with Cuba, that was gaining momentum during the first part of the year, has been sidetracked and has lost considerable steam.

Based on surveys of Latin American attitudes, there is a broad consensus that Cuba's return to good graces in the hemisphere will be delayed because the Chilean coup eliminated one of Cuba's strongest supporters in the hemisphere. 

In seizing power, says the Christian Science Monitor, the Chilean military quickly broke off diplomatic and commercial relations with the government of Prime Minister Fidel Castro, relations that had been established by the late President Allende in 1970. 

In breaking ties with Cuba, the Chilean military leaders claimed that Cuba had involved itself in internal Chilean affairs and had been supplying the Allende government with large quantities of arms and ammunition, which were being distributed to a vast illegal paramilitary apparatus aimed at undermining traditional authority in Chile. 

According to the Christian Science Monitor, under Dr. Allende, Chile had been a leader in the movement toward reincorporating Cuba into the hemisphere system. Chile had become the driving wedge in the movement is how one Latin American diplomat put it. Now, the drive has been blunted and the pro-Cuba forces are temporarily stalled and re-gearing. 

Christian Science Monitor continues, saying that most Latin American observers are convinced that Cuba will, within time, return to the hemisphere fold and that the island nation will be accorded diplomatic recognition by the more than 20 other nations in the hemisphere, but there is still a strong feeling of antagonism toward Cuba on the part of quite a few nations, including Brazil, the largest of all. 

Before the Chilean coup, however, there was a clear indication that enough nations supported a Venezuelan initiative to end the mandatory embargo on relations with Cuba, in effect since 1964, to bring about a change in official hemisphere policy. 

At least 11 nations supported the move, just one short of a majority in the 23-nation Organization of American States, or OAS. It had generally been felt in OAS circles that Venezuela, which had been largely responsible for getting the embargo in the first place, would be able to find one more vote to support its proposal. 

Now, says the Christian Science Monitor, with Chile clearly in opposition, Venezuela's task is more difficult, and the general feeling is that Venezuela will not bring the issue before the OAS General Assembly when it meets in Atlanta next April, unless circumstances change. This from the Christian Science Monitor. 

Latin America Press, from Lima, has this to say about the December 9th presidential elections in Venezuela. There are candidates aplenty in Venezuela's forthcoming presidential election, in fact, some 14 of them, but the race is really between only two of them. Lorenzo Fernández of the incumbent COPEI party and Carlos Andrés Pérez of Acción Democrática. 

A late-blooming issue is the future of the country's oil fields. In many ways, the two candidates are very much alike, indeed some observers are very little distinguishing the two men and their respective platforms. 

Moreover, says Latin American Press, with a short time to go before the voting, December 9th, the race is widely viewed as a toss-up between the pair, both of whom are former ministers of the interior, the post in Venezuela's government charged with internal security. 

In a nation where guerrilla activity had recently flourished, both Mr Fernández and Mr Andrés Pérez have been in the national spotlight as Venezuela's "top cops", as one newspaper recently called them. 

But as election day nears, according to Latin American Press, their roles in ending urban and rural terrorism seem long forgotten. Venezuela today is enjoying a remarkable era of relative calm. Indeed, the election itself, while hard-fought, is coming off peacefully. This is in marked contrast to Venezuela's long history of dictatorship. 

If there is an issue in this election, it is oil. Here, too, the two candidates, and most of the others in the race, are more or less agreed on the policy. 

Yet, as the election nears its climax, claims Latin America Press, there is a growing awareness that whichever party wins the election is going to reap a windfall in the national treasury as world oil prices continue to rise. This year alone, Venezuela is going to have $400 million more in oil earnings, yet just four months ago there was little indication such a windfall would be flowing in. 

As voting day nears, there is a sudden flurry of interest in how this bonanza should be spent. This report from Latin America Press in Lima. 

La Prensa of Lima, Perú, gives another view of the upcoming Venezuelan elections. José Vicente Rangel, the third leading contender in the election, is fighting to bring socialism to Venezuela, nationalizing the multi-million dollar petroleum industry and the top 20 commercial enterprises. He also rejects any type of foreign dependency. 

Avoiding the old communists who abandoned their political nucleus for divergent ideologies, Rangel had two years ago in the electoral polls less than 1%, and now he can count on a figure varying between 13% and 16%. 

Rangel says, "We are going to capably exercise the rule of our country, and with this in mind, the fundamental principle of our policy is that the centers of direction of Venezuela policy be here and not abroad. Foreign policy will serve the economic development of the country, and it will be profoundly Venezuelan and genuinely national." 

Speaking on the overthrow of Allende, former socialist chief of state in Chile, Rangel states, "I am convinced that what failed in Chile was not socialism, since there was never a socialist government. Other means of transformation beside representative democracy were simply being implemented." 

La Prensa comments that Rangel plans solutions to the Venezuelan problems which, by his socialist philosophy, are similar in various aspects to those attempted in Chile. "We hope to create an economy of participation to replace the economy of segregation which exists today in Venezuela," he says. "What we are looking for is the elimination of great capital holdings and of the persons who serve the capitalist system." 

The nationalization of petroleum, which is a banner all 14 presidential candidates are waving, was originally one of the programs which he popularized most in his campaigning. "We propose that all of the petroleum industry should pass into Venezuelan hands," says Rangel. This is from La Prensa of Lima, Peru. 

Our feature this week is a historical account of the development of the oil industry in Venezuela compiled from Peter Odell's recently published study, "Oil and World Power", as well as some other news sources. Most US attention has been focused on the Middle East as a source of petroleum. However, Venezuela has been and continues to be an important supplier of oil. In 1971, 566 million barrels were exported to the United States. 

Recently, such exports have been dropping, but energy shortages in this country may eventually bring about changes, such as increased exploration for oil in Venezuela and surrounding areas. If so, it should be interesting to observe how various South American governments respond to this. 

The history of Venezuela parallels that of the Middle East in that national governments have taken a more active role in recent years. This trend, of course, reached its climax in the Arab oil reductions during the recent war in the Middle East. The question of sovereignty over natural resources will probably become more and more important, since minerals crucial to industrial growth are finite and seem to be concentrated in underdeveloped countries. 

This is one reason why it is interesting to review the evolution of relationships between the Venezuelan government, the oil companies, and the US government. 

Venezuela was the first nation to undergo a meteoric rise to significance as a major producer and exporter of oil. After 20 years of halfhearted exploration there, the big oil companies were finally galvanized into an urgent flurry of activity by their expropriation and expulsion from Mexico, where the oil industry was brought under national ownership in 1938. 

For 28 years, a succession of governments in Mexico had always seen such action as the ultimate outcome of the conflict between the state and companies, but since it had been avoided for so long, the companies had come to believe it would never happen. 

The promising prospects for oil exploitation in the Maracaibo Basin and in other parts of Venezuela now benefited from the company's need to find or quickly to replace the 15 million tons or so per year they had been lifting from their Mexican fields, mainly for sale overseas. This important stimulus to Venezuelan oil development was soon supplemented by a second, even more important one, the petroleum needs of a rapidly expanding wartime US economy. 

These wartime demands proved too great a strain on the US domestic oil industry and gave companies still greater incentives to seek new resources in Venezuela. 

As a result, oil production there rose rapidly from only 20 million tons in 1937 to some 30 million tons in 1941 and to over 90 million tons by 1946, by which time the country was the world's most important petroleum-producing nation outside the United States. Since almost all the oil was exported in contrast with the mainly domestic use of American oil, Venezuela became the world's most important oil exporter, a position which it has just held on to in 1970, but which it lost to Iran and Saudi Arabia in 1971. 

In the post-war world, which had an energy shortage as a result of dislocations in many of the most important coal-producing areas, the demand for energy from other sources grew rapidly. The political economic environment was also highly favorable to foreign investment in Venezuelan oil because the dictatorial regime there welcomed such investment as a means of amassing private fortunes for those individuals close to the regime. 

These two factors ensured the continuation of the growth of Venezuelan oil production throughout the rest of the 1940s and up to 1957. 

This 20-year period of growth was marked by only one short interlude of restraint. The few months in 1948 when a government came to power under the leadership of a political party, Acción Democrática, whose electoral manifesto called for the nationalization of the country's oil resources and whose leaders in exile had lived mainly in Mexico, where oil was already nationalized. The reaction of the oil companies to this new government was immediate and very blatant. 

Investment virtually ceased, development came to a halt and production was stabilized, while the managers of the companies concerned attempted to decide how far they would be able to work within the framework of the policies likely to be adopted by the new regime. As it turned out, their fears were short-lived. For after a short period of democratic rule, the country reverted to a military dictatorship, a reversion which was almost certainly only made possible with the active help of at least some of the oil companies concerned. 

In 1958, the conflict between the government and the oil companies seemed inevitable, as Acción Democrática still had proposals for the nationalization of the industry in its manifesto and took early action increasing taxes on the industry and giving its support to the oil unions pressure for greatly increased wages and fringe benefits, which seemed to indicate that a head-on clash was but a matter of time, but after 1958, Acción Democrática did not treat its nationalization commitments seriously, and certainly made no move in this direction. 

In fact, by this later date, Venezuela was so completely dependent economically on the oil industry that no government, and certainly not one as anxious as Acción Democrática to achieve its country's economic progress, could afford to think of action which would essentially close down the oil sector of the economy. 

No other sector could avoid repercussions from such action, and the consequent unemployment and distress would certainly undermine the government's political strength. The government's freedom of action in economic terms was thus heavily constrained, and even in political terms, there was little to be said for action which, no matter how immediately popular, seemed likely to create such stresses and strains in the system that the instigators of it were unlikely to survive. 

But if by 1958, the government's ability to act out its basic philosophical beliefs was constrained, then so was that of the oil companies. By now, they were under pressure from the US State Department to achieve an agreement with the Venezuelan government, which was believed by the United States to be the government which provided the key to the stability of the whole Caribbean area, but stability in Venezuela, particularly in the period following Fidel Castro's success in Cuba, demanded an expanding economy. 

This in turn depended upon the continuing development of the country's oil industry, which accounted for something like 25% of the country's gross national product, provided the government will over 60% of all its revenues and accounted for over 90% of the nation's total exports. 

The companies, therefore, though powerful in the Venezuelan context, had to reorientate their attitudes and policies to the even more powerful force of the foreign policy of the United States, which required that the oil industry make it possible for Venezuela to achieve its objectives of continued economic advance. 

This demanded their willing cooperation with a government which they certainly disliked and probably distrusted, but for which there was no acceptable alternative and which, therefore, they could certainly not think of overthrowing, as they had in 1948. 

Economic and political necessity, therefore, as interpreted by the United States, produced a situation in which the international oil companies, dedicated to the idea of as little government intervention in industry as possible and a government devoted in theory at least to socialist planning, had to work together. 

This development, concludes, Odell, unusual, for its time has since been paralleled in both oil-producing and oil consuming nations, as the companies have been obliged to recognize the validity and permanence of governmental concern over oil and oil policies. 

The expansion in Venezuelan oil production since 1958, states Odell, has by no means been as rapid as in the earlier post-war period, but advances have taken place and some investment has continued. Government revenues from oil have been increased, all in spite of the fact that over the period since 1958, Venezuelan oil has become increasingly uncompetitive in many markets of the world as a result of rapidly expanding lower-cost oil output from countries in the Middle East and, more recently, in North and West Africa. 

Moreover, falling costs of transporting oil across the oceans, as larger and larger tankers were brought into use, helped to eliminate 10 as well as competitive edge in markets in close geographical proximity to it than to other main producing areas. This was particularly important with respect to the US market, which had hitherto been considered the particular preserve of Venezuelan oil, but to which Middle Eastern and other oil was now attracted. 

From the interplay of all these economic and political forces, says Odell, Venezuela has since 1958 achieved an average annual growth rate in oil production of less than 3%, compared with 10% per year achieved over the previous 15 years, in spite of the fact that the closure of the Suez Canal since mid-1967 has given Venezuela oil a temporary boost in markets west of Suez, particularly in the United States. 

Though the Cuban crisis and resultant pressures by the United States Department can be seen as the main factors which have saved the Venezuelan oil industry from a serious decline in the last 10 years or so, one must also note the impact of the growing professionalism of the Venezuelan government in dealing with the companies. In earlier days, the expertise was all on the side of the oil companies, which had to respond only to the political pressure of the government. 

Since 1958, the Ministry of Mines and Hydrocarbons in Venezuela has built up a team able to urge, in technical and economic terms, with advice as to exactly how much pressure should be put on the companies to make concessions, particularly as regards taxation arrangements. 

Thus, the government has been able to increase its share of total profits on several occasions and to collect taxes in arrears the liability for which the company's challenged. This has had the effect of increasing the revenues which the country collects on every barrel of oil that is exported. This is now more than $7 per barrel, compared with less than one-tenth this amount when Acción Democrática came to power. 

By virtue of these actions, government revenues from oil have continued to grow at a rate high enough to finance requirements of the economic and social development program, the main short-term aim of the government in its oil policy. 

The government does not accept the idea of the concession system as a means of producing the nation's natural resources, except as a short-term expedient for ensuring the continued flow of oil, and in the light of external pressures, to allow the existing concessions to work their agreed areas. Since 1958, therefore, there have been no new concessions and, as a result, Venezuela's proved oil reserves will be used up in about 13 years at the current rate of production. 

If this situation continues, Venezuelan oil output must soon start to decline, and by the time the concessions are legally relinquished in 1983, it seems likely that Venezuela would be little more than a minor producer. 

In line with its philosophy, Acción Democrática has sought to resolve this issue through the establishment of a state oil company which has been given responsibilities for working any concession areas which might be relinquished by private companies and for negotiating joint arrangements to work as yet unexplored areas of Venezuela with oil potential. 

It now has producing capacity amounting to about 9 million tons per year, and in 1969 accepted offers from a dozen or so petroleum companies for joint operations in the southern part of Lake Maracaibo. 

Whether it will enable Venezuela to exercise more influence in the development of the world oil market is doubtful unless consuming countries also decide to put the oil industry under national control and then conduct their negotiations for supplies directly with other state entities in producing countries. This account of the development of the oil industry in Venezuela was compiled from Peter Odell's recently published study, "Oil and World Power", as well as some new sources. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to the Christian Science Monitor, Venezuela is about to begin a major review of its oil policies amid calls for production cutbacks. A number of voices favoring the idea of slowing production and thus preserving reserves have been raised in recent weeks, including those of key people in the nation's oil industry. While such curtailment is only being discussed at the moment, the fact that it has come up at all suggests something of the direction of Venezuelan thinking on oil. 

The issue is getting close attention in Washington because the South American nation is the second-largest supplier of oil and petroleum products to the United States. With the cutoff of Middle East Oil, Washington is increasingly concerned about Venezuela's current study of its oil production. With the Venezuelan presidential elections out of the way, the issue of oil production and the drafting of new legislation will become uppermost in Venezuelan politics. 

Although it has been something of a campaign issue, most of the 14 presidential candidates have hedged on specifics, resorting merely to general statements that new programs are needed. The two major candidates, Lorenzo Fernandez of the ruling Social Christian Party, and Carlos Andres Perez of Acción Democrática favor an early Venezuelan nationalization of the oil industry. Present oil concessions to foreign firms run out beginning in 1983, and Mr. Fernandez, for example, has called for an end to these concessions long before that date. 

One aspect of Venezuela's current oil policy debate centers on the sort of government agency that will be set up in the near future to take effectively control of the foreign operated concessions, either before 1983 or at least by 1983. The changeover will be more one of name, however, rather than actual substance since Venezuela already maintains a fairly firm control on what foreign owned oil firms do with their concession. Production, for example, is quite strictly controlled. Thus, any change in oil production levels could be decreed by Venezuelan authorities and the oil companies would have to comply. 

The call for a cutback in production is being spearheaded by Dr. Juan Pablo Perez Alfonzo, a former minister of mines and hydrocarbons, and the man widely known as the grandfather of Venezuela's oil industry. He argues that current reserve levels not only are insufficient to warrant an increase in production, but also require a production curtailment by as much as half. He would wait until the current world emergency situation as a result of the Middle East oil cutoff is resolved, but would then impose the cutback. Dr. Perez, Alfonzo, and others who seek the cutback. Point out that current production is running at 3.4 million barrels daily, almost half of which goes to the United States. That means about 1.2 billion barrels yearly. Total reserves are thought to be about 13.9 billion barrels. 

Although additional reserves may well be located, and there is also an extensive tar belt in the Orinoco River basin, which could be tapped. Dr. Perez Alfonso maintains the present production levels even though drawing significantly higher prices than was the case a few years back, will deplete the reserves too rapidly. One of his associates argued recently that present reserves ought to be made to last at least until the end of the century. The issue is far from resolved, but world oil users, including the United States, may well be faced with declining Venezuelan oil exports. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. 

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

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

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

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

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

The feature this week is a report on recent developments in Chile under the leadership of the military junta, which came to power last September in a bloody coup overthrowing Salvador Allende's democratically elected Marxist government. The situation in Chile has been of central importance in the Latin American press for the last five months. This report is compiled from the New York Times, the Mexico City daily, Excelsior, Prensa Latina, Business Latin America, El Mercurio of Chile, and a report from the World Council of Churches. 

Excelsior reports that a representative of the International Democratic Federation of Women, who visited Santiago and other Chilean cities during the week of January 8th, told the United Nations that 80,000 people had been killed and that 150,000 people had been sent to concentration camps since the Junta came to power in September. Amnesty International had formerly estimated at least 15,000 killed and 30,000 jailed.

Amnesty International has stated more recently that despite Chilean President Pinochet's claims to have stopped the practice of torture, tortures continue each day. Prensa Latina reports that at least 25,000 students have been expelled from the universities, and an astounding 12% of the active Chilean workforce, over 200,000 people, have lost their jobs. All trade unions are forbidden. Political parties are outlawed. The right to petition is denied. The workweek has been extended. Wages remain frozen, and inflation has climbed to 800%.

The sudden drop in purchasing power and the specter of hunger in Chile have caused a dramatic shift in attitude toward the Junta, the New York Times reported late last month. Dozens of the same housewives and workers who once expressed support for the Junta are now openly critical of the new government's economic policies. A working couple with four children that earns a total of 8,000 escudos monthly, estimated that with post-coup inflation, they need 15,000 escudos a month just to feed their families.

Although the belt tightening has hit all economic classes, the Times said, it has become intolerable for the poorest Chileans who must contend with such increases as 255% for bread, 600% for cooking oil, and 800% for chicken. This month, reports Excelsior of Mexico City, the food shortage has increased so much that it is practically impossible to find bread, meat, oil, sugar, or cigarettes. Gasoline prices, meanwhile, have increased 200%.

Unemployment also continues to rise dramatically. In October 1973, there was an increase of 2,700 people without jobs. And according to statistics from the National Employment Service, unemployment grows at a rate of 1000 people per week. In public services, for example, 25% of the workers were fired. The New York Times reports that those workers who are considered politically suspect by the new government authorities and factory managers are the first to be fired. 

The result has been a severe economic hardship for workers in Chile who have no way to fight since the unions and their leaders have been outlawed. The World Council of Churches estimates that 65% of the 10 million Chilean population now simply do not earn enough to eat, 25% are able to cover basic necessities, and only 10% can afford manufactured goods. 

Excelsior of Mexico City reports that the Junta has responded to the economic crisis by promising to slash public spending, which means eliminating public sector programs in health, education, and housing instituted by the Popular Unity government. The Junta has also canceled the wage increase implemented under Allende's government. Last week, Pinochet called upon businessmen to fight inflation by stopping their unscrupulous practices. 

According to Prensa Latina, political repression in Chile appears to be entering a new stage now. In many ways, it is even more sinister than the previous terror, belying the apparent tranquility on the surface of life in Santiago. Instead of the haphazard mass slaughter of the first days, there is now a computer-like rationality and selectivity in political control and repression. Instead of dragnet operations, there is the knock on the door at midnight by the Chilean political police. Instead of the major political leaders, it is the middle level cadres who are now the hunted targets. Through the use of informers, torture, and truth drugs, Chilean military intelligence are extracting the names of local leaders and militants who are being hunted down with less fanfare, but increasing efficiency. 

Another priority of the new repression is education. Many who thought they had survived the worst period are now finding that the investigation and purge of universities and schools have just begun. Professors are being told they can either resign their posts or face military trials on absurd but dangerous charges such as inciting military mutiny. Secondary education is undergoing an equally severe purge with military principles appointed and dangerous subjects like the French Revolution eliminated from the curriculum. A similar purge is beginning in primary education while all the teachers colleges have been closed for, quote, restructuring. Teachers are being classified in permanent files with categories like, "Possibly ideologically dangerous." This will make political control easier in the future. 

While the persecution of intellectuals is accelerating, the workers who bore the brunt of the initial brutal repression, have not been spared. Again, it is the local leaders, the links between the mass base and any regional or national organization, who have become the targets of the repression. In Santiago, a sit-down strike of construction workers on the new subway to protest the tripling of prices with wages frozen was ended by a police action in which 14 of the leaders were seized and executed without a trial. In the huge [inaudible 00:20:28] cotton textile factory in Santiago, seven labor leaders were taken away by military intelligence because of verbal protests against low wages. Their fates are unknown. 

According to Prensa Latina, this new phase of political repression in Chile is featuring the crackdown on social interaction. Any party or gathering of friends carries with it the danger of a police raid and accusations of holding clandestine political meetings. The crackdown on the press continues. During the last week in January, the Junta passed a law demanding jail penalties of from 10 to 20 years for any press source publishing information on devaluation of money, shortages, and price increases or on any tendencies considered dangerous by authorities. 

Although there is no official estimate of the number of political prisoners in Chile at this time, more exact figures are available about the situation of those who sought refuge in embassies. According to a report of the World Council of Churches, some 3000 Chileans are still in UN camps, looking for countries to accept them. And many more thousands are waiting just to enter the crowded camps as the first step towards seeking asylum abroad. Even those people who were fortunate enough to take asylum in an embassy have a grim February 3rd deadline hanging over them.

If they are not out of Chile by that date, the Junta has declared that there will be no more assured safe conduct passes, and all United Nations and humanitarian refugee camps will be closed down. In the meantime, the Junta has limited the number of safe conduct passes issued. While internationally, most countries have refused to accept Chilean exiles, the United States, for example, has provided visas for one family, Great Britain for none.

The policies of the Junta continue to draw international criticism. Not only has the government received telegrams of condemnation from the World Council of Churches and the United Nations, Excelsior reports that the military government's repressive policies are now the subject of investigation by the Bertrand Russell Tribunal, an international body originally convened to investigate torture in Brazil. British trade unions have made a number of strong anti-Junta moves, including a decision not to unload Chilean goods. Also, the French government has prevented two French companies from selling tanks and electronic equipment to the Junta. 

A group of goodwill ambassadors from the Junta has been striking out all over Latin America and appears to have abandoned its tour after being expelled from Venezuela early this month. The group started by being refused visas to Mexico, which feared that its presence would provoke rioting there. The first stop was Bolivia, where the visitors broke up their own press conference because of hostile questions and insulted the journalists there. Shortly after landing in Caracas, the six ambassadors were declared undesirable visitors by the Venezuelan government and put on a plane for the Dominican Republic, according to Excelsior in Mexico City. 

International criticism and rejection of Junta representatives had led to a mounting anti-foreign campaign in the controlled Chilean press on December 5th. The front page headlines in El Mercurio proclaimed, "Chile is alone against the world." The news magazine, Ercia, recently attacked the New York Times and Newsweek, and other overseas publications it considers communist controlled, under the headline, "The False Image, Chile Abroad." Junta member, General Gustavo Leigh, wants the many military governments in Latin America to form a league for self-help and consultation. 

The only international groups trying to shore up the Juntas image are the banking and business communities. There has been a dramatic turnaround in the availability of private bank loans for Chile since the coup. Under Allende, credit had dried up and by mid-1973, was down to $30 million from a high under the previous administration of Christian Democrat Frei, of $300 million. Business Latin America states that the United States was the first to make financial overtures to the new government.

Within days of the coup, the United States Commodity Credit Corporation granted the Junta a $24 million credit line for wheat imports, followed immediately by an additional $28 million for corn. In exchange, the Junta has just announced that the banks nationalized under the Popular Unity, including the Bank of America and First National City Bank, will be returned to their private owners. Compensation will be paid to Kennecott and Anaconda, and Dow Chemical Corporation has already been handed back to petrochemical industries.

According to Prensa Latina, resistance in Chile is taking numerous and varied forms. Freshly painted forbidden slogans are appearing on the walls of Santiago. The practice of writing anti-Junta slogans on Chilean paper money has become so widespread that the Junta has declared the propagandized money illegal and valueless. Resistance is also taking more organized forms. The Jesuit wing of the Catholic Church has recently taken a public stand opposing the Junta. The major cities in Chile are presently experiencing a 60% work slowdown in opposition to the Junta. 

The major proponents of arms struggle are biding their time and preparing for the moment conditions are ripe. guerrilla warfare on a small scale, however, has already begun. Rural headquarters were established in two southern mountain regions, and the military admit to have captured only a small part of the left's arms. 

This report is compiled from the New York Times, the Mexico City daily, Excelsior, the Cuban news agency, Prensa Latina, Business Latin America, El Mercurio of Chile, and a report from the World Council of Churches. 

In anticipation of Henry Kissinger's upcoming visit to Latin America, several Latin American political figures and diplomats have been speaking out on US-Latin American relations, especially economic ties. One thing which has sparked commentary is newly released figures on Mexican trade in the first 11 months of 1973. The Mexico City daily, Excélsior, reports that the bright side of the story is that Mexican exports increased by more than 6 billion pesos to a high of 27 billion pesos. However, overall, the trade picture worsened.

While money coming into the country from these exports increased by that same 6 billion pesos, money going out of the country for imports increased by some 13 billion pesos, leaving an increase in the country's trade deficit by 7 billion pesos. Excélsior concludes that if Mexico's foreign commerce did grow in 1973, its commercial imbalance grew even more. 

While from Caracas, Excélsior reports that Venezuelan president-elect Carlos Andres Perez recently revealed that his coming administration will propose a conference of Latin American countries to plan a protectionist strategy for the continent's raw materials. Perez noted, while meeting with Central American economic ministers, that, "The developed countries have been exercising an economic totalitarianism that more and more oppresses our economies and our development possibilities." The Venezuelan president-elect added that it is imperative that the developed countries pay a just price for their natural resources. That will be the only way of compensating for the prices which the underdeveloped countries have to pay for the manufactured goods and the costly technology which they are sold. 

And on the same subject, the Mexican ambassador to the United States, speaking at Johns Hopkins University near Baltimore, reported that the Latin American trade deficit in 1973 paid for some two thirds of the US balance of payment surplus. The ambassador, after pointing out that he was working with data supplied by the US Department of Commerce, noted that in 1973, the US exported to Latin America goods valued at eight million and one quarter dollars, while it imported from that region less than $7 billion worth of products. These figures indicate that Latin America contributed at least $1 billion to the US trade surplus, which was 1.7 billion in 1973. 

The ambassador went on to say that the situation is worsening. In 1960, Latin America had a deficit of $49 million. But while the price of raw materials only rose 8% in the last decade, that of North American finished goods climbed 22%. He condemned the monopoly or virtual monopoly position of capital and technology that the industrialized countries enjoy. The ambassador warned that economic coercion can produce an opposite reaction from that intended, giving as an example the disruption caused by the increase in petroleum prices. In the same statement, the ambassador analyzed in general terms North American aid to Latin America, and he emphasized that 60% of US aid must be repaid. That is, it is called aid, but actually amounts to loans of money at commercial interest rates. 

The Mexican ambassador concluded by commenting that the coming visit of Latin American ministers with Henry Kissinger, "Will be an excellent opportunity to open a continuing dialogue on the problems that the Latin American countries face." The meeting with Kissinger to which the Mexican ambassador referred is the Conference of Ministers of the Organization of American States, scheduled to be held in Mexico City at the end of the month. On its agenda will be included cooperation for development, protection and trade embargoes, solution to the Panama Canal question, restructuring of the inter-American system, international trade, the world monetary system, and the operations of multinational corporations. 

According to Latin America, Kissinger's aim is to stabilize the situation in Latin America, as he has attempted to do in other parts of the world. Traditionally, the continent has provided the United States with primary products and raw materials at relatively low cost. Now, prices on the world market are soaring, to the extent that the United States is thinking officially of endorsing long-term agreements between producer and consumer organizations. Since Kissinger took over at the State Department, Venezuela has begun to develop a petroleum policy which makes a distinction and a difference in price between the industrialized countries and the countries of Latin America. In 1973, the world price of sugar and coffee, let alone other products, broke all previous records. 

Latin America says that in spite of regional rivalries and local crises, there does exist a common philosophy among political leaders in Latin America toward the United States. However wide the political gulf that has separated past and present Latin American leaders, all agreed on a number of fundamental points. First, that the problem of US intervention, call it imperialist or paternalist, is perennial. Secondly, that Washington's policy towards Latin America has generally been aimed at securing the interests of US business. 

Thirdly, the countries of Latin America ought to take protectionist measures, regulating the repatriation of profits, taxing luxury imports, selecting the areas for foreign investment, and increasing in volume and price the export of primary products and manufactured goods. Finally, local armed forces, or part of them, have been systematically used as instruments of the foreign policy of the United States in Latin America ever since the beginning of the Cold War. Military assistance, the conferences and exchange programs and the training programs have all helped to overthrow constitutional parliamentary governments and to replace them by militarist or Bonapartist regimes. 

In diplomatic and political circles in Latin America, there is a sense of considerable expectation with regard to Kissinger. The impression of Latin American diplomats is that Kissinger now speaks for a consensus of Congress, Vice President Gerald Ford and of President Nixon himself. Add to this the fact that Kissinger can count on the support of the Soviet Union, the Chinese, and is respected, if not loved, by Europe and Japan, and it is not surprising that, in the words of a Brazilian diplomat, he should now be seen in the role of a planetary [inaudible 00:07:06]. This report has been compiled from Excélsior, The Mexico City Daily, and the British weekly and economic and political journal, Latin America. 

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. 

A recent article from the Cuban News Agency, Prensa Latina comments on the role of technology in United States-Latin American relations. If justice were really to be done when Latin American foreign ministers meet with Henry Kissinger in Mexico City at the end of February, the Latin Americans would win substantial changes in the conditions under which technology is currently transferred from the advanced capitalist countries to the nations of the Third World. For more than a decade, the governments of the continent have noted the excessive cost of modern technology under conditions in which foreign private investors control the supply and the subject is sure to come up again at the Mexico meeting.

"Up to now," says Prensa Latina, "the Latin Americans hope of gaining more access to less expensive technology has not passed the resolution stage of simply making declarations or statements of principle. Whenever reference is made to the subject, the US has rejected all such proposals for the Third World, including Latin America as happened in the last UN trade and development meeting in Santiago, Chile in 1972. In the case of all Latin American countries, with the exception of Cuba, advanced technology belongs to the big US corporations and access to it is obtained only when a company chooses to invest in a country or sell licenses. In either case, a very costly procedure for those who don't control the technology." 

Prensa Latina says that according to a recent United Nations study of 15 underdeveloped countries, the price of technology rose to $1.1 billion, a figure equivalent to 7% of the total export income of these 15 countries and 56% of all the private foreign investment they received. Brazil, with its highly-publicized economic miracle, had to pay $780 million to the transnational corporations in 1972 for the purchase of technology and is expected to pay more than $2 billion for the same item in 1980. 

Venezuela in the past decade has paid out nearly $7 billion for the purchase of US technology. This sum was paid out in the form of royalties, earnings, surtax on imported raw materials and payments to foreign technical personnel. "This makes for extraordinary profits for some corporations," says Prensa Latina. The Interchemical Company of Venezuela, for example, annually remits up to 240% of its capital in royalties alone.

According to Prensa Latina, Latin American countries have asked the United States to contribute to the creation of official organizations in which technological information would be centered and from there put at the disposal of the countries needing it. They want the US to reduce the prices of technology and to increase credits to acquire it. Also, to draw up programs for the training of technicians to use part of its gross national product for research on the specific problems of development of the continent, and to support the creation of new international legislation, which could reorganize the transfer of patented and unpatented technology to the underdeveloped countries. 

The United States already made its position known on these points at the Santiago meeting two years ago, when its representative declared that the US government would not help supply financial resources to cover new activities related to the transfer of technology. Speaking in that meeting, the United States representative stated that the official aid his country would be able to supply would not be sufficient, and he recommended that US private investments be used to fill the technological needs of the developing countries. 

"In short," says Prensa Latina, "the US policy for the Backyard continent has not changed and the technological dependency is part of this policy. Ever since Monroe put forth his doctrine that bears his name." That from the Cuban Press Agency, Prensa Latina. 

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.

The recent appointment of John Hill as United States Ambassador to Argentina, has drawn criticism in several Latin American nations. According to La Opinión of Argentina, the assignment has been condemned by the foreign minister of Venezuela, as well as by numerous political groups in Argentina. The Argentine coordinator of youth groups issued a statement last week, labeling Hill as an agent of the CIA with a well-known record of participating in military coups in other Latin American countries. 

According to a release from the Cuban News Agency, Prensa Latina, Hill has followed a political career, particularly as a foreign service officer, while maintaining close contacts with corporate interest back home. Hill began as a clerk in the US Foreign Service in 1943, but was quickly promoted to vice counsel at Calcutta, India. In 1945, he worked with the rank of Captain as a State Department representative assigned to the US Army Headquarters and the China Burma India Theater at New Delhi. Actually, this job served as a cover for an intelligence assignment for the Super Secret Office of Strategic Services, the forerunner of the CIA. Throughout the rest of his career, he continued to work closely with the US intelligence community, including the CIA. A fact confirmed in a report in the congressional record, July 14th, 1970. 

In 1949 continues Prensa Latina, Hill left government service to do a four-year stint as assistant vice president at the New York headquarters of W.R. Grace and Company, a US corporation with operations in 12 Latin American countries. In 1953, Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles appointed Hill as US Ambassador to Costa Rica. The following year, he was transferred to the same post in El Salvador. While stationed in Costa Rica, he did his best to protect the vast land holdings and related operations of the United Fruit Company.

In 1953, according to Prensa Latina, he personally took part in the negotiation of a contract between a United Fruit subsidiary and the Costa Rican government. He also helped organize the 1954 CIA overthrow of the Nationalist Arbenz' government, which threatened United Fruit's investments in Guatemala. In 1960, he was rewarded for his efforts by being elected to the board of directors of the United Fruit Company. He also served as a consultant for the company on international affairs.

Hill served briefly as assistant Secretary of State for congressional relations, 1956 to '57, during the height of the Cold War and the last years of the McCarthy period. He was then reassigned to the Foreign Service as ambassador to Mexico where he remained until 1961.

In Mexico, Hill developed a reputation for his anti-communism, accusing Castro of being a communist agent as early as 1958. Hill put on a sustained public relations campaign to bolster pro-US sentiment, but his efforts were set back when the Cuban Revolution found widespread support among Mexicans. In 1960, he forced the Mexican government to deny oil sales to Cuba. In return, he proposed to cut Cuba's sugar export quota to the United States and to raise Mexico's quota. Cuba's quota was cut shortly thereafter.

Hill left the Foreign service with the beginning of the Kennedy administration, according to Prensa Latina, and became involved in New Hampshire state politics. He took the lead from his close friend Richard Nixon and used this apparent retirement from political life to strengthen his business and political base. He became a director of United Fruit, Northeast Airlines, various mutual funds and other large corporations with substantial investments in Latin America.

Hill's expertise in international issues prompted his appointment in 1965 to the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee Task Force on foreign policy, which operated as a think tank for policies to be implemented later under the Nixon administrations. In 1968, he also joined the task force on national security. In May 1973, Hill was appointed by Nixon as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs. This biography of the new U.S. ambassador to Argentina was compiled from the Cuban news agency Prensa Latina and the Argentine daily La Opinión.

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. 

There has been speculation in the international press about the relationship between the September, 1973 military coup in Chile and the Brazilian military takeover in 1964. A recent article in the Washington Post, dateline Rio de Janeiro, substantiates many of the questions that have been raised about Brazilian influence in Chile. 

Dr. Depaiva describes himself as a mining engineer with a number of other interests. One of his recent interests as a leading figure in a private anti-communist think tank in Rio de Janeiro was advising Chilean businessmen how to prepare the ground for the military overthrow of President Salvador Allende last Fall. A founding member of a Brazilian paramilitary group says he made two trips to Chile as a courier, taking money for political actions to a right wing anti-Allende organization. 

These men are two of a number of Brazilians who acknowledge helping Chilean foes of Allende. Other private and business interests in this country gave money, arms, and advice on political tactics. There is no evidence that the Brazilian government played any role in this anti-Allende effort. Although its sophisticated military intelligence network must have been aware of it. Brazil was never publicly hostile to Allende. The Washington Post points out that the coup that brought Brazil's armed forces to power in March, 1964 appears to have been used as a model for the Chilean military coup.

The private sector played a crucial role in the preparation of both interventions and the Brazilian businessmen who plotted the overthrow of the left-leaning administration of President Goulart in 1964 were the same people who advised the Chilean right on how to deal with Marxist president, Allende. Soon after Allende's election, thousands of Chilean businessmen took their families and fortunes abroad, settling principally in Ecuador, Argentina, Venezuela, and Brazil. 

In Brazil, the well-to-do Chileans quickly found work in multinational corporations or invested their capital in new companies or on the stock exchange. And in their dealings with Brazil's private sector, they quickly established contact with the architects of the 1964 Brazilian coup. For example, they met Gilberto Uber, the wealthy owner of Brazil's largest printing business. In 1961, Uber and several powerful business associates had founded the Institute of Research and Social Studies, a political think tank with the specific object of preparing to overthrow Brazil's so-called communist infiltrated civilian government.

Between 1961 and 1964, the institute organized, financed and coordinated anti-government activities and served as the bridge between private enterprise and the armed forces before the coup. The Executive Secretary of the Institute was General Couto e Silva, who founded Brazil's Political Intelligence Agency in 1964. 

One year ago, Chilean Luis FuenZalida, who had joined Uber's Printing Company, told friends proudly, "We are going to throw out Allende, and I'm learning from Uber that the Brazilians did in 1964." Another key member of the institute and one of its founders was Dr. Depaiva, a leading conservative economist, ardent anti-communist, and an admirer of the United States, which he has visited frequently.

Depaiva also acts as a consultant to a number of US and multinational companies in Brazil. He believes the Allende government was a threat to the entire continent, but it was clear Allende would not be allowed to stay. He said, "The recipe exists and you can bake the cake anytime. We saw how it worked in Brazil and now again in Chile." 

Dr. Depaiva's recipe involves creating political and economic chaos, fomenting discontent and deep fear of communism among employers and employees, blocking legislative efforts of the left, organizing mass demonstrations and rallies, even acts of terrorism if necessary. His recipe, Depaiva recognizes, requires a great deal of fundraising. "A lot of money was put out to topple Allende," he said, "but the money businessmen spend against the left is not just an investment, it is an insurance policy." 

After Chile's coup, a prominent Brazilian historian who asked not to be named said, "The first two days I felt I was living a Xerox copy of Brazil in 1964. The language of Chile's military communiques justifying the coup and their allegations that the communists had been preparing a massacre and a military takeover was so scandalously identical to ours, one almost presumes they had the same author." 

Following in the footsteps of the Brazilian Institute and using its recipe, Chile's Gremios or Middle Class Professional Brotherhoods with Business and Landowners Associations created the center for Public Opinion Studies. Public Opinion Studies was one of the principle laboratories for strategies such as the crippling anti-government strikes, the press campaigns, the spreading of rumors and the use of shock troops during street demonstrations. The center also served as headquarters for the women's movement, which was so effectively used against the Marxist president. 

According to the Washington Post, Dr. Depaiva takes particular pride in the way we taught the Chileans how to use their women against the Marxist. In Chile, the opposition to Allende created Poder Femenino, Feminine Power, an organization of conservative housewives, professional and businesswomen who became famous for their marches of the empty pots. Poder Femenino took its cues, its finances, and its meeting rooms from the gremios, the professional brotherhoods.

Despite the directives from the male dominated leadership, Dr. Depaiva explains that, "The women must be made to feel they're organizing themselves, that they play a very important role. They're very cooperative and don't question the way men do. Both in Chile and Brazil," Depaiva points out, "women were the most directly affected by leftist economic policies, which create shortages in the shops. Women complain at home and they can poison the atmosphere, and of course, they're the wives and the mothers of the military and the politicians." 

There appeared to be no shortage of financial offers. The inflow of dollars from abroad was no secret to Allende. By early August, it had become public knowledge that the organizers of the transportation strike preceding the coup were paying close to 35,000 drivers and owners of trucks, buses, and taxis to keep their vehicles off the road. Two taxi drivers told me they were each receiving the equivalent of $3 at the black market rate for every day they were not working, and a group of truck drivers said they received $5 a day, paid in dollar bills. On the basis of this, Allende aides calculated that the 45 day strike cost close to $7 million in payoffs alone. 

It was also an accepted fact that the thousands of Chileans abroad were raising funds and sending in contributions. Jovino Novoa, a conservative lawyer and a member of the Chilean exile community in Buenos Aires said in an interview, "Of course money was sent to Chile. We all did what we could, each according to his capacity." 

This roundup of evidence linking the recent military coup in Chile with the 1964 Brazilian coup is taken from The Washington Post. 

The London News Weekly Latin America reports on developments in Ecuador, Latin America's newest oil producing nation. By mid-1972, the pipeline connecting the rich oil fields of Ecuador's northeastern jungles to the shipping ports on its western shores was completed. This boosted Ecuador to the top of the list of Latin American oil exporting nations, second now only to Venezuela.

Oil, which scarcely one year ago replaced bananas as Ecuador's leading export, is expected to bring a total 1974 revenue of over $700 million. In 1971, oil earnings were only $1 million. With world prices at attractive heights, Ecuador's fledgling state oil corporation obviously wants to get hold of as much oil for free dispersal abroad as it possibly can. At present, only the United States companies of Texaco and Gulf Oil are producing and drilling on any scale in Ecuador. 

No matter how tough and nationalistic the new oil terms might be, Gulf and Texaco seem confident that they can run a very profitable operation. Despite the flood of revenue from its oil bonanza, Ecuador's economic situation has not improved. In fact, quite the opposite has occurred. Ecuador, which continues to be classified as one of Latin America's four least developed nations, now faces an annual rate of inflation of 17%, unprecedented in recent Ecuadorian history.

Ecuador's outdated social structure has virtually prevented the huge inflow of oil money from being readily absorbed. Ecuador's archaic tax system has long been criticized. The collection of taxes has been called abusive and unjust and Ecuador's allocation of tax revenue branded absolutely irrational. 

A small number of people control the majority of Ecuador's wealth. Less than 2% of Ecuador's population has cornered 25% of the country's total wealth. Unequal land distribution, a high illiteracy rate, and a lack of adequate healthcare continue to plague Ecuador's indians who comprise well over half of Ecuador's population. The mal-distribution of wealth is compounded by a sharp fall in agriculture production brought on by the resistance of Ecuador's large landowners to the present regime's haphazard attempts at agrarian reform. 

While it is apparent that the Rodriguez Lara regime would like to control the new oil fortune and further Ecuador's economic development, recent events point toward strife and unrest. An increasing number of strikes and demonstrations staged by students, faculty, and trade unionists are expressions of discontent. It appears that rising expectations have resulted in frustration. This is clearly expressed in an Ecuadorian wall slogan, "Why is there hunger if the oil is ours?" This from Latin America, the British news weekly. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And finally, Excélsior reports that in Caracas, the Venezuelan Senate has unanimously approved a declaration denouncing the Chilean military junta for the violation of human rights. The Senate called for an end to the persecutions, jailings, torture, and executions for political motives. Senator Miguel Otero Silva said, "The Chilean drama has ceased to be a political affair and has turned into a moral outrage that concerns all of humanity." 

The senate also approved a proposal recommending that the Venezuelan ambassador to Chile be called home. The Senate later asked that the Chilean commercial attaché to Venezuela, Fernando Paredes, be declared persona non grata. The Senators indicated that Paredes had spoken insolently and disrespectfully against the Venezuelan Senate when they approved the repudiation of the Chilean junta. 

El Nacional of Caracas Venezuela reports that newly elected president Carlos Pérez announced plans on April 30th to nationalize the US-dominated iron ore industry and a broad range of other foreign-owned companies. Among the companies to be nationalized are Orinoco Mining Company, a subsidiary of U.S. Steel, and Iron Mines, a subsidiary of Bethlehem Steel. The two mine and export most of Venezuela's iron ore.

Since Pérez's party has a majority in the congress, the nationalization appears certain. Pérez also called for the nationalization of all supermarkets and department stores, including the CADA chain owned by the Rockefeller family and Sears, Roebuck. These and other companies involved in internal services will have three years in which to sell 80% of their stock to Venezuelans. Venezuela already has plans to nationalize foreign owned oil companies in the next few years. 

President Pérez met with labor leaders on April 30th to explain the measures. He said department stores would be nationalized to prevent salaries climbing by stairs, while prices take the elevator. He said salary increases will range from five to 25%, with the highest increases going to those who now have the lowest incomes. And Pérez promised the delivery of free milk to pregnant mothers, babies, and primary school children. This, from El Nacional of Caracas, Venezuela. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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