Editorial A giant step back During the six short days Israeli President Chaim Herzog spent in Canada, the Israeli army deported eight more Palestinians from their homeland, dynamited seven more houses in the occupied territories, laid charges against three Knesset members who met with Palestine Libera- tion Organization leader Yasser Arafat (speaking to PLO representatives is a crime under Israeli law), killed five more Palestinians and wounded 25 more. This is the army Herzog says is using “utmost restraint” in dealing with the intifada, the 18-month-old Palestinian uprising. During a visit Ottawa billed as promoting Israeli-Canadian friendship, the Israeli leader was given a platform on Parliament Hill, at York University where he received an honourary degree, and with the prime minister, cabinet ministers, business and community leaders. He used these opportunities to lecture Canadians on the “unethical” treatment of Israel in the media and to warn against Ottawa’s upgraded relationship with the Palestinian Liberation Organization. What are the armed forces to do when confronted with a society that “sends its children to carry out acts of violence?” Herzog asked. He neglected to supply the answer inherent in the Israeli army’s practice — kill the children. Herzog was not only given top diplomatic treatment — only a handful of world leaders have been given the opportunity to address a'joint session of the House of Commons and Senate — he was also the recipient of fulsome praise from Mulroney. : As Ian Watson of the National Council on Canada-Arab Relations said, Ottawa’s red carpet treatment of the Israeli president sent “the wrong signals.” Rather than being a model of restraint, the Israeli army has been left nervous and weakened by its failure to subdue the intifada. It is an occupation force left so impotent that its members would “punish” a four-year-old child for throwing a stone by holding its hand ona burning tire until the bone was exposed. It isan army so allergic to the sight of the Palestinian flag that it forces children at gun point to remove the offend- ing objects from high tension wires. It has become an oppressor so fearful of its victims that it makes the teaching of Palestinian children a crime. It was Israel’s blatant disregard for fundamental human rights which compelled Ottawa to take a critical stand in the United Nations. It was the PLO’s repeated offerings of compromise to facilitate a negotiated settle- ment to the conflict which pressured Mulroney into offering minimal recognition of the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. These measures were small, but long overdue, steps forward in Cana- dian foreign policy. Last week’s actions demonstrated a giant step back- wards. Youssef l'Humanité (Paris ) IPIBONE EDITOR Sean Griffin ASSOCIATE EDITOR Dan Keeton BUSINESS & CIRCULATION MANAGER Mike Proniuk GRAPHICS Angela Kenyon Published weekly at... _.. 2681 East Hastings Street Vancouver, B.C.,/5K 1Z5 Phone: (604) 251-1186 Fax: (604) 251-4232 Subscription rate: Canada: @ $20 one year @ $35 two years ®@ Foreign $32 one year Second class mail registration number 1560 BY A. ALLARD During its eight-year reign, the Reagan administration relied on the Santa Fe Document to shape its policies in Latin America. Crafted by a group of the presi- dent’s personal advisors, it states that “inter American relations are the shield of security of the New World and the sword for the expansion of power for the U.S.” More specifically it asserts that “war and not peace is the norm that rules inter- national affairs,” adding, “war is inherent in humanity.” While imperialism was held back on a global scale by Gorbachev’s peace offen- sive, in Latin America the sword was fre- quently brandished for the “expansion of U.S. global power.” The invasion of Grenada, the blockade of Nicaragua, the constant intervention in Central America, the permanent threat to Cuba and pres- sure on Panama are outstanding exam- ples. Last January, George Bush crowned his long political career by sitting himself - in Lincoln’s chair and just as his predeces- sor relied on Santa Fe I, Bush uses Santa Fe IL as his policy manual for Latin Amer- ica and the Caribbean. The sequel is an updated, more worri- some version of the original. Roger W. Fontain, son-in-law of Reagan’s foreign policy advisor Richard Allen, was involved in preparing both documents. Fontain was key advisor to Reagan for Latin America and a supporter of both Cuban counter-revolutionary groups and Gua- temalan fascists. Also involved in the doc- uments’ preparations were Francisco Bouchey, David Jordan, Gordon Summer and Lewis Tambs — a select and well known group of hawks in American polit- ics. In Santa Fe IT, the authors make note of the great “problems on the horizon.” For them communist subversion and a.terror- ist network exists in any territory running from Mexico to Chile, making the entire Pacific Coast south of the Rio Grande a region of general conflict. Nicaragua and Cuba continue as stum- bling blocks. One of the document's goals is the destruction of the Sandinista regime. Commentary It also has a strategy to respond to the “crisis” that will develop in Cuba the day Fidel Castro disappears from the scene. Santa Fe II sees the U.S. armed forces along with judicial power as key compo- nents in the structure of Latin American regimes which enable them to confront what Washington calls permanent low- intensity conflicts that can turn into guer- illa movements, as in El Salvador. It proposes that the U.S. extend its aid program to Latin American military -groups under the rationale that local insurrections are incited from the outside. It also proposes developing a policy of democratization for Nicaragua which would put into action the doctrine of low- intensity conflict. This, it says, would prove to Latin Americans that they must turn back the communist tendency in their countries, achieve democracy in the region and satisfy their aspirations for self- determination with help from both the Sante Fe Il a blueprint for U.S. intervention Congress and executive of the United States. In the context of Santa Fe II, the latter has recently developed in Panama. Under the Carter-Torrijo treaty the canal zone is to be returned to Panamanian control at the end of the century. Bush, like Reagan, is playing all his cards to prevent this from happening. General Manuel Noriega is no paragon of virtue, but his principled pro- Latin American position against the Goli- ath of North America cannot be ignored. The barefaced American intervention over the past months, the threat of inva- sion by the U.S. troops stationed in the Canal Zone, the smear campaign con- ducted by the mass media throughout North and South America, particularly in the English language press which bor- dered on hysteria, adds up to direct manipulation by the recent Organization of American States meeting. This confirms what was already estab- lished about the OAS in Santa Fe II and indicates that the policy of the present U.S. administration toward Latin America and the Caribbean can only be more danger- ous than the boastful posturing of Ronald Reagan. ‘ 3 4 Pacific Tribune, July 17, 1989