By VICTOR PERLO:
The key issue in Peru is the
- prolonged robbery of the coun-
try by Standard Oil (New Jer-
sey). “

Jersey Standard seized Peru's
main oilfields in the 1920s. The
new Peruvian military govern-
ment has nationalized Standard’s
properties there. It has also
taken over 19 large cattle ranch-
es, totaling 135,000 acres, from
the U.S.-owned Cerro de Pasco
Corp., and distributed the land
to individual peasants and co-
operatives. It has ordered that
the foreign banks be sold to 75

t Peruvian ownership by
the end of 1969. The chief target
is Standard’s banker, Chase Man-
hattan, which bought up the 38-
branch Banco Continental of
Peru in 1964,

Standard Oil and Chase Man-
hattan, of course, are the main-
stays of the Rockefeller family.
The Cerro Corp., parent of Cer-
ro de Pasco, also bears the farh-
ily brand, in the person of direc-

_tor Teddy Francis Walkowicz.
He is an employee of the Rocke-
feller’ Brothers for them on a
number of key companies they
own or control.

It is possible that the Governor
of New York’s visit to Latin
America for the new Administra-
tion was influenced by these
events.

On Feb. 6, after several months
of preliminary actions, the Peru-
vian government finally took
over all the holdings of Interna-
tional Petroleum, Ltd., the Jersey
Standard subsidiary in Peru. Pre-
sident Alvarado announced that
the government would take
steps to collect the $690 million
owned the people of Peru by the
company for its activities there
since 1924.

Earlier Peru had offered to
pay $54 million for the national-
ized properties — although this,
apparently, would be an offset
against debts. Standard Oil de-
manded $120 million, and U.S.
newspapers use the company
publicity figure of $200 million
as its investment in Peru.

If anything, the Peruvian gov-
ernment was too generous in its
offer. U.S. oil companies, in re-
ports to the U.S. Commerce De-
partment, placed their combined
investments in Peru at the end
of 1967 at $38 million. Calcula-
tions based on data contained in
Jersey Standard’s Financial and
Statistical Supplement to its
1967 Annual Report indicate that
it values its properties there at
less than $30 million.

The corporation is not really
interested in compensation. It
names an impossible figure as a
pressure tactic to balk the na-
tionalization. It wants to get
back the lucrative property stol-
en from a corrupt regime 45
years ago. According to U.S.
government figures, on average
investments of $33.5 million in
Peru in 1967, U.S. oil companies
obtained net income of $18 mil-
lion, a 54 percent return on in-
vestment. About four-fifths of
that goes to Jersey Standard.
State Department sources, un-
Officially, described Peru’s ac-
tions as “throwing the gauntlet”
in the face of Standard Oil and
the U.S. government, aided by
imperialist allies, Which has used
bribery, economic pressures, and
threats of force to seize and
maintain the petroleum property
for Standard Oil all these dec-
ades.

Last December the State De-
partment sent a tough note to

Peru takes action
against US control

Peru. It announced that:

“The note reaffirms the right’

of the United States to make
representations on behalf of its
nationals who have investments
abroad as may be necessary to
protect their legitimate interests
under international law. It points
out that the United States, like
other governments, has long had
the practice .. . of representing
its nationals who own interests
in foreign corporations.

“.. . in protecting its nation-
als the United States Govern-
ment . . . seeks only the rights
to which they are entitled under
international law, including
prompt, adequate and effective
compensation.” (International
Commerce, 12-23-69)

There is no such “international
law,” aside from the “big stick”
of imperialist warships and bom-
bers. There does exist, however,
an international law wtih some
standing.

It consists of United Nations
resolutions, upholding the in-
alienable sovereignty of each
country over its natural resour-
ces, and the right to exploit them
in its own interests. This in-
alienable right supersedes any
treaty or concession granted by
a corrupt government, or any
forceful seizure by an imperial-
ist invader. The latest such ;vso-
lution was passed by the General
Assembly November 19, 1968,
by a vote of 94 to 0 with 9 ab-
stentions.

The United States and other
imperialist countries abstained.
The resolution was introduced
by Poland, the Ukraine, Libya,
Ghana, and Panama.

The State Department’s talk
of “prompt, adequate and effec-
tive compensation” is a ploy. It
backs the corporations’ high and
immediate compensation de-
mands, with the aim only to
force return of the seized prop-
erty.

In 1899 a British company
bought the subsoil rights to a
large oil-bearing area of Peru.
This violated the law retaining
subsoil rights to the nation.
After a long dispute, a British-
dominated international tribunal
awarded the property to the Brit-
ish company. It was then trans-
ferred to the Canadian company,
Internationa! Petroleum, whose
stock was bought up by Jersey
Standard.

In 1963, when the company re-
fused to pay modestly increased
taxes, the Peruvian Congress
nullified the 1922 award and the
Senate voted in favor of nation-
alizing the property. The British
government protested to Peru,
on the grounds that it had been
a party to the award. The Cana-
dian government protested on
the ground that the oil company
was Canadian. The U.S. govern-
ment stayed in the background,
saying “it will accept any solu-
tion satisfactory to the com-
pany.”

But now Washington has to
run with its own ball. It claims
the Canadian incorporation of
the company is meaningless, that
the United States is the aggriev-
ed party.

For nearly 50 years Peru has
been rent by internal strife be-

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—FEBRUARY 28, 1969—Page 8, ,

tween local tyrants, mainly large
owners who sell out natural re-
sources to American imperialism,
and the patriatic forces of the
country. Often Congress attemp-
ted to uphold national sovereign-
ty, impeding sellouts by succes-
sive presidents and dictators.

The dispute has been especial-
ly severe since 1947, when in-
vestigations indicated that the
largest probable oil reserves in
South America were in Peru’s
Amazon basin. The then Peru-
vian Government hired the firm
of Hoover, Curtis, and Ruby,
headed by the son of the late
President Hoover, to draw up
its petroleum concession law.
Naturally, it was super-generous
to oil companies and stingy to
Peru. The Peruvian
turned down the law, but the
company has enjoyed compar-
able conditions most of the time.

Because of continuing disputes
and political instability, the oil
companies held back on all-out
development of this rich area.
But in 1956 Jersey Standard took
a 2.5 million acre concession in
the headwaters of the Amazon,
alongside smaller concessions
to other companies. In 1968 out-
put started to rise rapidly.

In his 1963 election campaign
Belaunde Terry promised strong
action against the oil companies.
But at the first gestures, the
U.S. government invoked finan-
cial pressures and Belaunde
backed down. As political unrest
mounted in 1963, he was forced
to raise outstanding issues
again, including back taxes owed
by Jersey Standard.

Washington’s reaction was
immediate. The United States
and Britain, under U.S. pressure,
refused to sell warplanes to Pe-
ru. But France sold Peru Mirage
jets.
The U.S. cut off aid, and im-
posed such financial terms that
Peru was compelled to turn them
down. In the typical “Alliance
for Progress” pattern, the “aid”
to Peru usually consisted of
fresh loans to pay off old debts
and compound interest to U.S.
bankers.

Inflation and mass struggles
increased. The U.S. demanded
“austerity” taxes on the poor.
The Peruvian Congress refused.
All this extra Washington pres-
sure was Clearly directed at the
modest Peruvian claims on Jer-
sey Standard.

Finally Belaunde knuckled un-
der and signed an agreement
letting the company off com-
pletely from paying any back
debts to Peru. In reaction to
this the military ousted him. In
its first act the Junta annulled
the Belaunde sellout. Continued
Jersey Standard and Washington
obstinacy left no alternative. It
had to be either surrender or
the ultimate nationalization, just
completed, of the properties.

There have been many coups
in Peru’s history. But this is the
first time any Peruvian govern-
ment has taken firm action
against foreign-owned compa-
nies,

What has changed?

The military represents an
amalgam of class forces. In ad-
dition to the traditional land,

owning class, there is increasing
representation of the petty bour-
geoisie and other social sectors.
The working class is growing in
Latin America, and so are its
Communist-led segments. Peas-
ant struggles for land have been
especially strong in Peru. The
working class increasingly com-
petes with the old rulers for the
support of the middle sections
of society, including those within
the armed forces.

Notre Dame Professor Fred-
.rick B, Pike, specialist in Peru-
vian history, wrote last May that
the Peruvian military “in many
of its sectors has proved surpris-
ingly progressive and socially
conscious.” (N.Y. Times, May
26, 1968).

Ten years ago the Cuban re-
volution shook the position of
U.S. imperialism throughout Lat-
in America. Cuba's survival and
development continue to streng-
the anti-imperialist forces. The
bloody crimes of U.S. imperial-
ism and the heroic victories of
the Vietnamese people against it
have had a most profound effect
recently. H. J. Maidenberg, in a
year end review article entitled
“Latins Calling the Tune on In-
vestments,” writes:

“Lately, Latin military officers
have been impressed by the fail-
‘ure of the well-equipped United
States forces to cope with insur-
gents in Vietnam, and they have
turned increasingly to studying
solutions to social problems as
well as war games.” (Jan. 20,
1969) .

A final, and extremely impor-
tant factor, is the developing
economic strength of the social-
ist countries, and their readiness
to cooperate with countries at-
tempting to achieve economic
independence and progress.

Latin American governments
and people have seen Soviet and
other socialist country aid de-
feat the rigid U.S. embargo
against Cuba, erect the Aswan
Dam, provide the main where-
withal for the development of
heavy industry in India. More
and more Latin American coun-
tries are breaking with the U.S.-
directed prohibition against
trade and diplomatic relations
with the socialist countries.

The flagship of the Mexican
merchant fleet, Azteca, was de-
livered by a Polish shipyard in
1968. Soviet trolley-buses are
providing the first decent tran-
sit service to the working class
subsurbs of Bogota. Venezuela
concluded a deal involving seve-
ral hundred million dollars with
Romania. Chilean industrializa-
tion is being aided by the
U.S.S.R. and Czecholsovakia.

In the summer of 1968, the
first Peruvian missions visited
socialist countries to work out
trade agreements, and to get
assistance for developing Peru-
vian-owned fishing and mining
industries. Reciprocal visits were
made by delegations from social-
ist countries. Peru set up a spe-
cial commission to sponsor East-
West trade.

Assurance of cooperation
‘strengthened the will of patri-
otic Peruvians to resist U.S.
economic and financial black-
mail. Since the coup, diplomatic

relations have been established,
for the first time, with four go.
cialist countries.

The struggle over Peru’s fy.
ture is far from over. Standard
Oil and U.S. imperialism are
powerful, and retain strong
allies among Peruvian reaction.
aries. While the junta has not
been repressive against the
masses so far, no such regime
is a reliable substitute for 4
government democratically based
on workers and peasants.

But regardless of the outcome
of the immediate struggle, it
has already established a high-
water, mark for the battle
against U.S. oil imperialism
along the west coast of South
America. The factors making for
this struggle will continue to
gain strength as the world bal-
ance of forces continues to move
in favor of socialism and against
imperialism.

Today thousands of American
workers are striking against the
international oil trust. Al! auto
drivers pay its exorbitant prices,
It is a common exploiter and
monopoly robber of American
and Peruvian peoples.

The United States govern-
ment, which sometimes masks
its pro-company position at
home, makes no bones about it
overseas. It has cut off al! “for-
eign aid” to Peru. Peruvian Fin-
ance Minister General Angel
Valdivia said that international
banking interests are pressuring
Peru for a favorable settlement
of the Jersey Standard dispute.

Officials of the International
Monetary Fund “said that if the
International Petroleum prob-
lem isn’t settled, they would
suspend” Peru’s legal authority
to draw on I.M.F. funds, and
cancel a recently granted $75
million stand-by credit. The
Peruvian Minister said that of-
ficials of the U.S. Agency for
International Development, of
the U.S. dominated World Bank
and Inter-American Develop-
ment Bank, were also pressur-
ing his government. (Lima press
conference, Dec. 11, 1968.)

Further, if Peru does not cap-
itulate by April, the U.S. threat-
ens to suspend Peru’s sugaf
quota, which brings in $65 mil-
lion of revenue, under the
Hickenlooper amendment to the
foreign aid law.

The oil company supporters
in Washington will not hesitate
to use armed intervention
against Peru if other methods
fail, and if they think they can
get away with it. They are still
stubbornly trying to hold onto
South Vietnam and protect the
investments there of Standard
Oil and Chase Manhattan Bank,
among others—not to mention
the two new oil concessions
granted very recently to un
named U.S. companies by the
moribund Saigon puppet gov-
ernment.

The American people want no
Vietnams.. in Latin America.
They should speak up, demand
hands off Peru. They should in-
sist on:

e No economic
against Peru.

e Restoration of normal econ-
omic and diplomatic relations
with Cuba.

e An end to U.S. military
missions and bases in Latin
America.

e Renunciation of the doc
trine of U.S. government sup
port for private foreign invest

ments,

sanctions