New U.S. weapon in Latin America

‘Sociological espionage’

By AUGUSTO E. BENITEZ
(Prensa Latina)

After the triumph of the
Cuban Revolution in 1959, the
imperialist governments of the
United States stepped up their
ideological offensive in Latin
America, since that area repres-
ented one of the principal main-
‘stays of the U.S. monopolies,
This does not imply, logically,
that U.S. magnates ceased to
use violence, repression and
even military occupation of re-
gions whenever necessary to
safeguard “the tranquility of
the hemisphere.”

One of the most character-
istic form of this penetration
has been the so-called sociolo-
gical research project.

Marginality Project

Research on the “marginal”
Argentines was officially begun
on January 1, 1957, and was
financed by the ultrareactionary
Ford Foundation for the two
years of the project’s existence,
at a cost of $150,000 a year. The
scientific direction of the pro-
ject was given to a group of
Latin American professionals
who thus became the instru-
ments of imperialist interests.
With this: “latin-americaniza-
tion,” the Ford Foundation was
trying to conceal its true objec-
tives: the gathering of informa-
tion on the ideology, organiza-
tional structures and_ political

class alliances of the marginat-
ed.

The project was organized by
the Latin American Institute of
Economic and Social Planning
(ILPES) and the Center for the

Economic and Social Develop-.

ment of Latin America (DESAL).

The study’s extensive ques-
tionnaire sought information on
political and trade-union parti-
cipation, opinions on urban
guerrillas and their methods of
struggle, on the role played by
foreign companies, agrarian re-
form, private property and re-
cent governments, among other
things.

These questions were asked
chiefly of agricultural workers
who live in the most impover-
ished conditions, the contin-
gents of the rural labor force
who migrate to the cities and,
not finding steady jobs, form
the floating labor force inherent
to the capitalist mode of pro-

duction, and immigrants from.

neighboring countries—or rural

The Ford Foundation study focused around the rural immigrant,
and those people living in the squalid “misery cities” that ring the
country’s urban centres.

zones — living around the cities
in the so-called misery villages.

Reactionary Role

In the polemics raised around
the unmasking of the study’s
objectives, the defenders of the
project argued that Ford had
merely “granted a _ subsidy,”
and that there was no other con-
nection with the United States.
This argument was widely re-
jected by progressive profes-
sionals, since the fact that the
study was financed by the Ford

Foundation implied that those’

participating in it were cons-
cious or unconscious agents of
the U.S. State Department.

The Ford Foundation was
created in 1936 to aid the em-
pire in its search for solution to
help the U.S. economy recover
from the crisis of 1929. In ac-
cordance with the changes tak-
ing place in the world situation,
the Foundation, after 1950, took
on vast international propor-
tions, financing research pro-
jects in more than 70 countries.

This new and refined type of
espionage attained its highest
peak with the presidency of
John F. Kennedy, who under-
stood the need to create less
brutal methods of subjugation.
And so, the Ford Foundation
became one of the basic organ-
izations ‘to help the Latin Ame-
rican countries to know and to
reform the evils besetting their
societies.”

Allende warns Chileans

SANTIAGO — In an address
to the people given before the
opening of the Chilean parlia-
ment, President Salvador Al-
lende called on ‘democratic
Chileans to struggle against the
outbreak of a civil war which
certain sectors of the opposi-
tion favor, but which the great
, majority of public opinion re-
jects.

“We are determined that pub-
lic order shall be respected and
will use every facet of the law
» against those who try to create
the conditions for civil war,”
the president continued.

President Allende also an-
nounced that a new charter con-
taining broad _ constitutional
changes is being prepared by
the government.

In 1966 McGeorge Bundy was
named president of the Founda-
tion. He had been Kennedy’s na-
tional security assistant and at
the time of his appointment,
held a similar position in the
Johnson administration. This
change shows the importance
the Ford Foundation had acquir-
ed in .the formulation of U.S.
domestic and foreign policies.

The Polemic

At the end of 1968 an acade-
mic-political polemic over, the
“marginated” population study
ocurred when the youth move-
ment of the School of Philo-
sophy and Letters in Buenos
Aires publicly denounced the
project from an anti-imperialist
position. The denunciation ra-
pidly transcended the grounds
of the university and was echo-
ed nationally and international-
ly.

Taking active part in the de-
bate were several left-wing
newspapers and organizations,
a group of sociologists who
worked in the Argentine work-
ers’ confederation (CGT), the
magazine Third World Prob-
lems, and a group of intellectu-
als. The discussions spread and
public debates were held in the
salons of the Argentine Associa-
tion of Plastic Artists, with the
presence of opponents and de-
fenders of the Marginality Pro-
ject. The Uruguayan weekly
Marcha offered its pages to the
presentation of the arguments
of both sides.

Cuba, through the newspaper
Granma, denounced at the time
that “the information gathered
by the Ford Foundation through
sociological espionage is used
by the U.S. Government to pre-
pare plans aimed at destroying
the revolutionary tendencies of
the dispossessed by means of a
more efficient organization of
repression and persecution . . .”

With the true role of the pro-
ject revealed in the historical
context of Latin America, the
Ford Foundation, repudiated by
the progressive sectors of the
world, had no choice but to
“abandon the project regardless
of the progress of the work.”

However, this r¢sounding fail-
ure has not weakened the deter-
mination of the U.S. imperialist
government to step up its cul-
tural penetration and work of
ideological deviation in the
countries of Latin.America.

N THE surface the Israeli-

Arab conflict continues

to be marked by a de-
ceptive quiet. The cease-

fire which began in mid-

1970 remains in effect

and there appears to be

little immediate prospect

of its being formally ended. Is-
rael retains its unquestioned
military ‘superiority and its rul-
ing circles seem to be in a posi-

tion to carry through their »

policy of ‘accomplished facts’
with little hindrance. Seemingly,
the Arab states are being com-
pelled to swallow the loss of
their territories:

In reality, however, the con-
flict is sharpening, hostilities are
hardening and the danger of a
fresh outbreak of large-scale
warfare is becoming greater.
Israel’s Zionist rulers are lead-
ing the Israeli people further
and further into the bog of war
and ultimate catastrophe.

The Israeli ruling clique has
never truly desired’ peace. Des-
pite hypocritical protests to the
contrary, its aim from the very
outset has been incorporate the
conquered territories into the
State of Israel. Toward this end
it has sought to create an end-
less impasse during which it
could carry out a de facto an-
nexation of these territories
through a series of “acomplish-
ed facts” which would prove im-
possible to undo. Hence the in-
sistence on direct negotiations
with the individual Arab states
“without any preconditions.”
This demand was made with full:
awareness that the Arab states
would never accept such nego-
tiations, in which Israeli posses-
sion of the conquered territories
would be used _as a club to wrest
concessions from them. In short,
it served to guarantee: that there
would ‘be no negotiations and
that these lands would remain in
Israel’s possession.

Correspondingly, the Israeli
government, though professing
to accept UN Security Resolu-
tion 242 of November 1967, has
in fact rejected it. This resolu-
tion starts by “emphasizing the
inadmissibility of the acquisition
of territory by war,” a principle
of the UN Charter. It then lays
down two principles as the basis
for negotiations: “a. Withdrawal
of Israeli armed forces from ter-
ritories occupied in the recent
conflict; b. Termination of all
claims or states of belligerency
and respect for and acknow-
ledgement of the sovereignty,
territorial integrity and political
independence of every State in
the area and their right to live
in peace within secure and re-

~cognized boundaries free from

threats or act of force.” On the
basis of mutual acceptance of
both principles, the resolution
calls for negotiation of all out-
standing questions.

The governments of Egypt, Jor-
dan and Lebanon have express-
ed their acceptance of the entire

The fight
peace if
Mi WW

MT Ll

The March 19
fairs” carries
ticle, “The Fight,
the Middle 7
Lumer which 5¢
tasks facing thé
sive movemell
signing of the
fire agreements:

Lumer charact!
signing of the “4
“forced retreah dy
growing strengl ia
anti - imper }
warns of a Bae ;
sive drive by of :
in other parts ia? F
ticularly in Afi |
dle East.” oft?

We reprint Fi)
er’s article
reasons, has ot
ed in size with ™
or su ee

Mae 4

resolution, incl 4
ciples, from jo!
more recently) i)
joined in this “Wi
ment of Syria.)
Jarring, in Fey
questionnaire o of
the Egyptia is)
Israeli governm pO 8
two promptly
affirmative.
ernment stated nat
return for Wi af
prepared to SIE” i)
with Israel, pie |
Israeli leaders od fh
decades cla! .
fondest desif@ vf}
"The Israel F. @i
ever, has t0 ef
reply to ia 0!
and has offeré™ ph
whatever to a “of!
one: square foor

A
ed territory: nth
kesmen have w1i08 i
solution as te wil)
commitment ‘ert
the occupied of A
“negotiatio ied
cognized border #h
withdrawal CO” igh
The Israel tt
fully aware
will. never ach
indeed, they she
to accept. F Od
tion is desist
real aim, nam

{i
voiced only DY ad
Gahal group it
hem Begin. only
and more Of Ch a
all sides. OMY, (I