Is Monroe turning over in his grave? The apparent conflict of interest the United States finds itself in over British military action in the South Atlantic because of Washington’s treaty obligations, is examined in this article by Alexander Baryshev in the Soviet journal New Times: * * * The conflict over the Falkland Islands (the Malvinas) which has led to a military clash between Britain and Argentina has brought into the open the crisis of the inter-American system knocked together by the United States in the Western Hemisphere. Washington’s nega- tive role has been spotlighted again. The White House has openly sided with London and decided to impose military-economic sanctions against Buenos Aires. The Argentine memorandum to the Organization of American States points out that this step could mean a split in the inter-American system. Indeed, in its present © shape this system is proving incapable of solving not only the acute social and economic problems of the region, but also the political, diplomatic and military problems connected with the defence of the interests of Latin American countries. Inter-American relations are based on the Inter- American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance signed in Rio de Janeiro by 20 Latin American countries and the United States in 1947 on Washington’s initiative. The main provisions of the Rio de Janeiro Treaty were incor- porated in the Charter of the Organization of American States (OAS), which was established later. The ‘‘core”’ of the Treaty is Article 3, which reads: ‘‘The States agree that an armed attack by any state against an American state shall be considered as an attack against all the American states.’’ The OAS Charter, too, besides a formal pledge of assistance to the economic, social and cultural development of the participating states, also envisaged ‘‘joint defence:”’ Holding forth during the drafting of the Rio pact about “inter-American solidarity,’’ “‘common destinies’’ and even “‘fraternal alliance,”’ its Washington sponsors also recalled the ‘‘America for the Americans’’ doctrine pro- claimed by President Monroe back in 1823. On the whole, the Treaty is a continuation of past wort News Backgrounder Alexander Baryshev American policy, Senator Smith said during the signing of the Rio pact. In the Monroe Doctrine the U.S. had declared that any attack on any American state to the south of us would be regarded as a manifestation of an unfriendly attitude towards the United States. In the Rio de Janeiro pact this became the doctrine for the entire Western Hemisphere, he said. Has the mechanism of the Rio pact ever been set in motion? It has. On Washington’s insistence. Need for the pact arose in 1962, when attempts were made to isolate Cuba, which had thrown off the chains of U.S. domination, on the pretext that it was the ‘‘tool of a foreign power.” Recourse to it was taken also in 1965 in order to stamp out the flames of a popular uprising against the dictatorship in the Dominican Republic. To be sure, neither Cuba nor the popular uprising in the Dominican Republic represented any danger to the security of the Western Hemisphere. But today a situa- tion has emerged when it would seem that the pact essentially based on the Monroe Doctrine ought to be activated, even if only the letter is observed. For one of its signatories is threatened with a massive armed attack by a non-American power, Britain. In this situation, fraught with a very real danger, Argentina applied to the inter-American system for an urgent convocation of the consultative conference of the Foreign Ministers of the OAS countries.The United States strongly objected — and no wonder! What did the Monroe Doctrine or the Rio pact matter when Washington’s links with one of its principal partners in the aggressive North Atlantic bloc were at stake? However, since more than the required two-thirds of the votes (18) were cast for the convocation of the con- ference, it did take place. Even before it opened the U.S. representative in the OAS intimated that his government regarded it as extremely inappropriate that the OAS proposed to examine this problem from the standpoint of the Rio de Janeiro 'freaty. Then Haig declared ‘‘it wouH be neither appropriate nor effective to treat this displ# within the collective security framework implied by ™ Rio Treaty.’’ Why inappropriate? No explanation W4 given on this score. As is known, a resolution calling on Britain to discot tinue immediately hostile actions in the South Atlant and to restart peaceful talks with Argentina was adop™ by an overwhelming majority of votes. The conferem™ also condemned the economic and political measul¥ undertaken in violation of the U.N.. Charter, measul detrimental to the people of Argentina and negativ affecting normal business relations between count ies: Characteristically, the U.S. representative attemp f to expunge from the resolution everything that would, i! his opinion, be unacceptable to Britain. Specifically,” objected to the recognition of Argentina’s sovereign” over the islands. After which, as might have been & pected, the United States refused to vote for a resoluti# supporting Argentina. The present conflict shows that os two Americas a ft drifting farther and farther apart. It demonstrates of again the need for a radical reorganization of the it American system, of the OAS, in which Washing disregarding the political realities on the conti wants to see only an instrument of neo-colonialism. | Venezuela’ s Foreign Minister José Zambrano accu the United States of violating its treaty obligations to Vy OAS countries. President Fernando Belaunde Terry “| Peru has expressed readiness to give every support Argentina in its conflict with Britain. The Cub? government issued a statement in which it says that “ the hypocrisy of the so-called inter-American aystel knocked together by the United States’ imperialists ” serve their own interests is now laid bare by attack on! Latin American country. The American government ¥ sided with the aggressors and is rendering them UD mited military and political support. Once again ™ Latin American and Caribbean peoples see for the™) selves how much the inter-American reciprocal assis tance treaty is really worth and who their histori@ al enemy is. 4 DR a ee ae a eS a eee PPE OT” eI A r * Intemational Focus How’s that for ‘common interests’? If it ever occurred to you that U.S. policy toward Latin America just doesn’t make sense, that it ranges between aggressive, contradictory and just plain ignorant, a latest White House gaff won’t help in figuring out just who is running the store. In the aftermath of the U.S. support for British actions, some thoughtful U.S. writers have suggested Reagan has done irreparable damage to America’s image in Latin America. Certainly that’s true. Following Haig’s ‘“‘honest broker’’ charade (in which he simply bought time for Thatcher to assemble her fleet) the U.S. dropped all pretenses and openly supported its NATO ally. This initial back- ing has been added to by more meaningful aid — including the use of American bases, log- istical and intelligence support and now providing Britain with the Sidewinder missile. Washington has also used its - clout to swing other western states such as EEC and Canada behind a boycott of Argentina, adding to the pres- sure and certainly giving Br- tain that needed ‘‘justification’’ for its case. U.S. representatives have also busily carried Britain’s fight into the Organization of American States, trying to ~ break Latin American unity against the re-institution of colonialism. All this, of course, has created dismay and bitterness in Latin America —. even among those who took this long to see the real purpose of U.S. Latin American policy. It’s nothing short of baffling, then, to read that Ronald Reagan sent a message May 25 to the government of Argen- tina on that country’s National Day in which he said, ‘‘it has never been more important to reaffirm the common interests and values that link Argentina and the United States ...”’ Argentina responded, pro- fessing astonishment. ‘‘It doesn’t make sense in light of U.S. support for Britain,” came the reply. To make sense of that act, the United States should have attached the message to one of, its incoming Sidewinders. Rigged vote better than no vote? Thomas Enders, U.S. Assis- tant Secretary of State for Latin America, shows just how it’s done to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. Testifying before a House appropriations sub-committee dealing with Reagan’s ‘‘aid’’ package for El Salvador, En- ders, had no problem explain- ing away the right-wing government’s abandonment of PACIFIC TRIBUNE—JUNE 11, 1982—Page 10 the previous land reform pro- gram. He also doesn’t worry a bit that the action was led by the killer president of El Sal- vador’s assembly, Robert D’Aubuisson. ‘It’s not sur- prising a law-and-order leader was elected,’’ says Enders. Not surprising indeed. D’Aubuisson is known throughout the land as the man behind the murder of former Archbishop Oscar Romero. His death squads have left thousands of mutilated bodies by. the roadside. The man says he’Il dump na- palm over the countryside to defeat the guerillas and was called a ‘psychological killer’ by the former U.S. ambas- sador to El Salvador. D’ Aubuisson rode to power March 28 in a rigged election Trudeau and MacGuigan cal- led ‘‘better than no election’’. He openly professed to return all land to the big landowners and smash all resistance. Now he’s paying off. The U.S. hoped former pres- ident Duarte would hang on, but there’s the ARENA party | in. power and D’Aubuisson holding the reins. ‘‘The wrong guys won,’’ lamented the chairman of the U.S. House Inter-American Affairs sub- | committee. None of this bothers Enders. Communism, after all, must be resisted even if you must kill every El Salvadorean to do it. And what does our Mac- Guigan say as this murderous fascist takes power? He doesn’t seem to notice. Four million march for peace Our Berlin correspondent ‘Fils Delisle reports this week on an unprecedented weekend ~ | in the GDR. Four million | young people right across that country marched and rallied for peace, May 29-30. In 3,000 marches, demonstrations, concerts and meetings the youth there spoke in one voice for a nuclear freeze in Europe, for disarma- *ment — for their right to life. Perhaps the most moving of all, Delisle writes, were the gatherings at former nazi concentration camps Sach- senhausen and Buchenwald where the pledge was taken that never again would war | emanate from German soil.