i A hg re

' Critical strategic and military importance of being able to

Revolution
U.S. style -

_ After the American military intervention in its war of
independence, Cuba had for all practical purposes be-
come a U.S. possession. But the Spanish-American War
taught the U.S. a lesson: it made Washington realize the

Move its Pacific Fleet to the Caribbean and the Atlantic,

and vice versa, on short notice, without having to sail >

ot Cape Horn in a journey that took weeks to com-
plete.

If American domination of the continent was to be 3
complete, military forces would have to be deployed u

much faster. The U.S. began then to plan for the of
commencement of construction of a canal in Central <§

America, In fact, several American administrations long
Pondered the idea, and at that early point there was
ready in existence a treaty between the U.S. and
Nicaragua calling for the construction of such a canal
through Lake Managua.

_ However, it came to the attention of the United States
that a canal through Panamanian territory would un-
doubtedly be easier and shorter. It was agreed to pro-
ceed with plans for this undertaking. There was, how-
ever, one small obstacle to be solved before construction
Could get started: the Central American country known
today as Panama simply did not exist; it was a province
of Colombia.

The U.S. attempted at first to negotiate a treaty with
the Colombian Government. Talks began and a tentative
treaty was initialled, but thé Colombian parliament re-
fused to ratify it and the deal fell through. The American
government decided then to play a different card.

Ever since independence, the province of Panama had
caused headaches for the Colombian central government
due to an ever-present sentiment toward home rule and
eventual secession. The U.S. then offered arms and
Political support to the would-be separatists in exchange
for the Panama Canal Zone after independence.

Shortly after, things escalated into open subversion
and U.S.-sponsored rebellion against Colombia’s cent-
Tal government. Once Bogota realized the extent and
implications of the rebellion, it moved troops into
Panama province to check the uprising. True to his ““Big
Stick" policy, president Roosevelt ordered American
warships to the area, which kept the Colombian forces at

bay, and proceeded to issue formal recognition to the
new country.

Shortly afterward, a new treaty was signed with
Panama’s ruling bourgeoisie, which granted the U.S.
control in perpetuity over a strip of land 16 kilometres
wide on both sides of the canal, which was to become
American territory.

Backgrounder

ES aE ES

At the same time, the United States demanded and
obtained the right to intervene militarily and otherwise in
any part of the territory of the republic, should ‘“‘peace
and order’ be threatened.

American expansionism in Latin America was now in
high gear. In a no-holds-barred policy of blatant im-
perialism, the United States took it upon itself to act, in
Roosevelt’s words, as ‘‘an international police force’’ in
the continent. The U.S. entered fully into fierce competi-
tion with European powers for the lion’s share of the
Latin American pie, seeking to reassert once and for all
the ‘‘America for the Americans’’ philosophy vis-a-vis
these European powers.

In 1902 Venezuela’s economy was in a slump and the
country was forced to default on its foreign debt. A naval

THE PANAMA CANAL ... a small token of appreciation from the Panamanian bourgeoisie to their U.S. friends.

expeditionary force made up of British, Italian and Ger-
man warships, sent at the request of bankers from these
three countries, blockaded Venezuela’s coastline until
such time as full payment was made. :

The conflict was eventually solved through American
mediation, which served the purpose of establishing
once and for all the tenets of the Monroe Doctrine. The
United States now reigned triumphantly over Latin
America. 2

In 1910 the Mexican Revolution broke out, providing
another opportunity for American hegemony to be exer-
cised. Of the several provisional governments that suc-
ceeded one another until the end of the Revolution, that
of General Huerta proved particularly distasteful for
president Woodrow Wilson. In 1914, an American
expeditionary force landed on Mexico’s east coast, oc-
cupied the port city of Veracruz and began marching on
Mexico City, eventually ending in failure.

In 1917, American troops drove into Mexico in hot
pursuit of Pancho Villa, the peasant revolutionary
leader. All of this, naturally enough, was done with the
aim of ensuring that the Revolution would have an out-
come favorable to the U.S., since as early as 1910 over
75% of the Mexican mining industry, for example, was in
the hands of American concerns.

This backgrounder on Latin America is third in a seven-
part series by José Amor de la Patria.

_ Who wants a lame duck leader? —

On Friday night (Feb. 27) we watched
Progressive Conservatives go through a a
rather dreary, somewhat underhanded
exercise of putting the skids under Joe
Clark, Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal
Opposition in Parliament. The gimmick
used was simple but effective. Just a
“‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’ vote for a leadership re-

view convention.
: * * *

Alfred Dewhurst

Marxism-Leninism Today |

Department and media but cooled
considerably our relations with Iran. The
eagerness of the Tories to curry favor
with the U.S. was vulgarly displayed by
Clark’s declaration that he favored mov-
ing Canada’s embassy in Israel to
Jerusalem. This pleased Israeli au-
thorities and their U.S. patrons, as well
as right-wing Zionist circles in Canada,
but it did nothing to win friends for

One-third of the 2,000-odd delegates
voted for a review. Two-thirds voted
against. This was a disaster for Joe Clark.
‘It means that his days as leader of the
federal Conservatives are . probably
numbered. Such an outcome clearly in-
dicates the Official Parliamentary
Opposition (hence our interest) and the
Conservative Party are saddled with a
lame duck leader. é
True to Tory practice, the stated roo
of the Conservatives’ leadership crisis is
that Joe Clark isn’t a ‘‘winner’’. Delegate
after delegate interviewed on TV took up
this refrain, while adding in sickening re-
petition, that Joe is a ‘“‘hard-working”’
man of ‘‘integrity’’, ‘honesty’? and
‘courage’. All of these are admirable
qualities (if such be the case). But obvi-
ously, not enough for the power brokers
of the Conservative Party. For to them,
power is the name of the game.
* * *

Joe Clark couldn’t hang onto power
for the Conservatives when he had the
chance. So, throw him to the wolves as
the scapegoat for the anti-people policies
the Tories pursued while in office for a
few short months in 1979. But, rather

than examine their reactionary policies,

‘the Tory power brokers chose to cover
-up by turning the spotlight of party criti-

cism on Glark’s demonstrated ineptness
as prime minister, and his public image of
a bungling, presumptuous, second-rate
politician.

In order to refresh our memory of Joe
Clark’s days as Canada’s prime minister,
we briefly review some of those policies
he tried to put into practice on behalf of
the Conservative Party which, in the
main, accounts for Clark’s unpopularity
among the electorate.

* * *

In essence the policies pursued by the
short-lived Clark government were
takeaways from the working people and
giveaways to the giant corporations, as
well as economic and political sell-outs to
U.S. imperialism. In particular, they in-
cluded massive grants and tax write-offs
to the corporations, guaranteed high
prices to the oil multi-nationals — all at
the expense of the working people
-through higher taxes, interest rates and
higher living costs.

These policies included also, an orien-

tation on selling natural resources at the
expense of building industry and provid-
ing jobs for Canadians; granting offshore
rights to the provinces and the decen-
tralization of the federal structure of the
country, at the expense of universal so-
cial standards such as medicare, health
and. welfare, education and vocational
training.
ok * *

Above all else, they included a U.S.
oriented, right-wing Conservative Party
policy in the sphere of foreign affairs, of

all-out support of the Carter Doctrine. _

That Doctrine proclaims the right of the
United States to defend U.S. imperialist
interests anywhere in the world, in what-
ever way the U.S. administration deems
necessary. In other words, a blank
cheque for U.S. imperialism to interfere
into the internal affairs of any country
where it desires to do so.

Support for U.S. interference in the
affairs of other countries, found expres-
sion in the adventuristic caper in effect-
ing the escape of U.S. Embassy officials
from Iran through the Canadian Em-
bassy in that country. This caper won
fulsome plaudits from the U.S. State

Canada among the Arab countries.
* ok *

But most damaging to Canadian in-
terests, was the unseemly haste of the
Clark government to follow the lead of
the U.S. administration in imposing
sanctions against the Soviet Union in re-
taliation against that country’s honoring
its treaty obligation with Afghanistan to
render it military assistance, on the law-
ful request of the Afghan Government.

The Tories joined Canada to the U.S.
grain embargo against the Soviet Union
at the expense of Canadian grain growers.
The Tory federal government drasti-
cally cut back its scientific and cultural
exchanges with the Soviet Union at the
expense of Canadian science and culture.
And, most stupidly, it boycotted the

- Moscow Olympics, depriving Canadian

athletes of the opportunity to compete
with their peers on a world scale, and
Canadians the opportunity to view this
outstanding world event.

: eee Get :

Truly, the Progressive Conservative
Party is the most pro-imperialist U.S.
party in Canada. That is why Joe Clark
isn’t a ‘‘winner’’.

PACIFIC TRIBUNE— MARCH 13, 1981— Page 5