_victor perio

PEOPLE VS. PROFITS
Arms budget leapfrogging

President Carter and the Congressional hawks are ‘‘competing” to see
who can increase the military budget the fastest.

Carter’s original January budget called for ‘‘national defense” outlays.
of $146.2 billion in fiscal year 1981, up from $130.4 billion for fiscal year 1980.
In his March 31 “budget-cutting” program, Carter raised the Pentagon
budget another $4.3 billion to $150.5 billion. The Senate Budget Committee
April 2 proposed a further raise of $5.8 billion, despite the opposition of
Committee Chairman Edmund S. Muskie (D-Maine). At that level, military
spending would be $26 billion, or 20%, above the scheduled fiscal 1980 level.
And whatever figure is adopted is likely to go up further for so-called
“inflation adjustments.”’ c

Moreover, Wall Street is buzzing with expectation that Carter ‘‘ina few
months’’ will come out with totally new “post-Afghanistan” military budget
that’s far higher across the board.

There is serious opposition, including in Congress, both to the all-out
acceleration of the arms race, and the corresponding drastic slash in spend-
ing for social programs. But as yet, that has not involved masses in struggle
on the scale necessary to halt the runaway arms race.

The increases are concentrated on weapons, research and develop-
ment, and construction for strategic warfare against the Soviet Union and
intervention against the developing countries, especially in the Middle East.
Of particular concern, although not among the largest items money-wise at
this stage, is the buildup of military bases for assault against the oil-rich
areas.

According to New York Times reporter Richard Halloran, the Admin-
istration plans ‘‘a greater buildup of the base at Diego Garcia than was
previously known. .. the Administration, which has asked for $175 million in
the 1981 budget to enlarge the base, might ask twice that much... .”’ (3/30/80).

That is the base in the middle of the Indian Ocean from which U.S.
planes and warships threaten Iran, Afghanistan, the Peoples Democratic
Republic of Yemen, Ethiopia, and, indeed all of the countries bordering on
the Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf. All the former inhabitants of Diego
Garcia were unceremoniously expelled to make way for the United States
military.

Meanwhile, the armament firms are having a boom on the stock ex-
change, contrasting with the general weakness. Jack Robertson writes in
Electronic News: ‘‘Aerospace contractors, buoyed by 1979 profit jumps of

up to 300%, are wondering if the good old days have returned. Most firms are *

predicting equally good profit results for 1980—at a time when business in
general faces increasing economic uncertainties.’’ (3/24/80).

The expectation of a further multiplication of war profits stems not
only from an increasing volume of business, but a multiplied profit rate on
the business, says Robertson: “The Defense Department has more than
doubled the weighted average guideline factor for company investment on
defense contracts—from a range of 6 to 10% to a new range of 16 to 20%.
(3/10).

Carter’s hypocrisy in pretending to protect the consumer while hand-
ing out superprofitable, inflationary, military contracts reaches a new
depth in his dealing with the Mobil Corp. According to the Wall Street
Journal (4/2/80), ‘‘Mobil Oil Corp. got a new rebuke from President Carter
and a new $154.2 million contract from the Defense Department. The jet fuel
contract . .. was announced only afew hours after the President renewed his
criticism of the Mobil Corp . . . for what he said were violations of the
government’s voluntary price guidelines.”

Outrageous as they are, the profits of the armament firms are a frac-
tion of the profits of the transnational corporations from for--ign invest-
ments made possible by the military pressure of U.S. imperialism, exer-
cised directly and through reactionary regimes installed by and/or kept in
power by the U.S. military.

Last year saw a record surge in foreign investment profits. From $14
billion in 1970 the total multiplied to $35 billion in 1975, $50 billion in 1978, and
$78 billion (preliminary) in 1979. About two-thirds consists of the direct
investment profits of the oil, mining, and manufacturing companies and the
fees and royalties they receive for their ‘‘services.”’ The other third consists
of the interest received by the great banks on their overseas loans, and this
has been increasing most rapidly, as the developing countries get deeper
into debt and the rate of interest soars.

Wherever the U.S. military penetrates, the multinationals cannot be
far behind. And this applies also to the ‘China card,”’ as the growing mili-
tary collaboration and ‘‘assistance’’ of the Pentagon to the Peking rulers is
having such a destabilizing effect on the situation throughout Asia.

This from the Peking Review, No. 9, 1980, speaks for itself: ‘Wider
Scope for Foreign Investments in Guangzhou”’ (Canton—VP). ‘‘We will
offer facilities and preferential terms to foreign investors so that they can
make money. Our city, being at the country’s southern gate and with exten-
Sive ties abroad, will make use of the favorable conditions to promote
economic growth .. .” ;

Last year the city received more than 400 businessmen overseas and
signed some 600 contracts for joint ventures, compensatory trade, and the
assembling and processing of products with parts of raw materials supplied
by these businessmen. —

The late Archbishop Romero:

“The church
must accompany the
people in their
fight for liberation.”

Following are excerpts of an interview
by Prensa Latina with Dr. Oscar Arnulfo
Romero, Archbishop of El Salvador, be-
fore his assassination March 24 by right-
wing gunmen as he conducted a funeral

~ mass. The mass, ironically, was for the

mother of newspaper publisher Jorge
Pinto, who had been killed by rightwing
paramilitary gunmen. The Archbishop, an
outspoken champion of peace, of the
rights’ of the poor and oppressed, and
against El Saivador’s oligarchy, was a
1979 Nobel Peace Prize nominee.

By Mario Menendez
Rodriguez

Q: What do you regard as the cause
of violence in El Salvador?

A: The cause of all our ills is the
oligarchy, that handful of families who
care nothing for the hunger of the people
but who need that hunger to be able to
have available cheap, abundant labor to
raise and export their crops. The na-
tional- and foreign-owned. industrial
companies base their ability to compete
on the international market on starva-
tion wages. That explains the all-out op-
position to any kind of reform or union
organizing designed to improve the liv-
ing standards of the popular sectors.
The oligarchy does not allow labor or
peasant organizing, because it sees it as
inimical to its economic interests. Re-
pression against the people becomes, for
that handful of families, a necessity tor
maintaining and increasing their profit
levels, at the cost of the growing poverty
of the working classes.

Now, the concentration of wealth and
property brings concentration of politi-
cal, economic and social power, without
which it is impossible to maintain
privileges, even at the cost of human
dignity itself. In our country, that is the
root of structural violence and repres-
siye violence, and in the long run, it is
the prime cause of our economic, politi-
cal and social underdevelopment. The
armed forces are in charge of protect-
ing the interests of the oligarchy, of
guarding the economic and political
structure with the pretext that it isin the
national interest and for national sec-
urity.

All those who are not in agreement
with the state are declared enemies of
the nation and the most execrable acts
are justified as requirements for na-
tional security. :

Everything here is geared to the
interests of the oligarchy, an all-
powerful group that feels utter scorn for
the people and their rights. In this way,
the interests and the advantages of a

handful are absolutized. 4

The role of the armed forces 15
twisted out of shape: instead of serving
the genuine national interest, they be
come the guardians of the interests 0
the oligarchy, thus fomenting their ow?
economic and ideological corruption.
The same can be said of the security
bodies: instead of watching out for civic
order, they are repressive bodies used
against those who oppose the oligarchy-

Q: What is your opinion, Monsignor;
of the Revolutionary Popular Block, the
February 28 Popular Leagues, FAPU,
the Nationalist Democratic Union and
other mass organizations, which speak
of you with tremendous respect and
greatly admire your work as the head
the church? ;

A: I am happy that all those organl-
zations, which are sincerely seeking the
transformation of society, which aré
seeking a just order, recognize the sif-
cerity with which I try to serve my dio
cese. Precisely when the repression
against those organizations has been at
its worst, I have come to their defense.
In my third pastoral letter I defended
the right to organize, and in the name of
the gospel, I pledged to support all that
is just in their demands and denounc
all attempts to destroy them.

~Now, in the country’s present situa-
tion, I believe more than ever in the
mass organizations. I believe in the real
need of the Salvadoran people to or-
ganize, because I believe that the mass
organizations are the social forces that
will wield pressure, that will push to-
wards a society with social justice and
liberty. But I have also been frank with
the mass organizations, and that is 2
service which the church offers, that is,
to point out possible errors or injustices.
And I do so, I repeat, because those or-
ganizations are necessary for the pro-
cess of liberation and cannot and must
not lose sight of their reason for being:
they are a social force for the good of the
people. Fanaticism and sectarianism,
which prevent the building of a dialogue
and alliances, must be avoided. |

In politics, my role is that of
shepherd: to orient, guide, point to more
efficient objectives. And because I ad-
mire the mass organizations, I feel a
great satisfaction with the spirit of un-
ity, which is developing in life. The
commonweal must be saved by all of us
together.

Q: EI Salvador is a country where
the immense majority of people are
Catholic. However, the priests who
promote human liberation are kidnap-
ped, tortured and murdered. Among
others, there are the cases of Fathers
Grande, Barrera Moto, Navarro
Oviedo, Octavio Ortiz. What is your
opinion in this regard?

PACIFIC TRIBUNE— MAY 24, 1980— Page 8

ee