Latin America
_ Kingpin in
U.S. strategy

This series of articles, prepared for the
Tribune by José Amor de la Patria, will offer readers a
grounding in the long and complex history of imperialist
Penetration into Latin America. They are designed to
Provide readers with a better understanding of today’s
Srowing struggles in the region for social and national
liberation.

In the period between 1800 and 1820, the kingdom of
Spain lost most of its colonies in Latin America. Napo-
leon’s Grand Army had invaded the home country and
the king, Ferdinand VII, was forced to flee into exile.

Monarch, undertook the autonomous administration of
the interests of the Spanish Crown in his absence, only
to unleash a process of liberation from colonial rule that
Could not be contained.

the exception of Cuba and’ Puerto Rico, became inde-
pendent nations during this period. In 1825 Great Bri-
tain granted formal recognition to the new American
States. France did so in 1826. Both European powers
had a high stake in ensuring complete independence of
the former colonies from Spanish rule. : .

England in particular, having been at odds with Spain
for along time, and having already begun a most drama-
tic and rapid process of industrial expansion — the
Industrial Revolution — badly needed the natural re-
Sources and raw materials the new continent could
yield and supply to its economy, and eventually won
the upper hand in the dispute.

Most of the infant nations had just emerged from
fighting long and hard wars of independence, especially
after the Spanish Crown attempted to recover the run-
away colonies, and their practically non-existent and
drained economic structures were much too weak to
appropriately resist the impetus of British aggression,

Plays of military might or direct military intervention,
= was the case in Uruguay, Argentina and the Carib-
an.

ee

wey
a i be

€ colonies, while professing allegiance to the |

Most countries of present-day Latin America, with -

particularly. when it came together with massive dis- .

Since early times it has been acknowledged in the U.S. that Spanish America not only had strategic and military

e

importance, but that it was also a source of cheap natural resources and raw materials essential to USA.

Although these wars had seemingly brought about a
certain degree of political independence, economically
and otherwise Spanish America had jumped out of the
frying pan only to fall into the fire of European and later
American insatiable appetites for its raw materials and
natural resources.

The history of the continent since has been one of

Backgrounder

economic and political dependence, first on England
until the end of the 19th century, then on the United
States through today.

Early in time, since the enunciation of the Monroe
Doctrine and of ‘‘Manifest Destiny of Continental Ex-

pansion’”’ (1823 and 1860, respectively), it was acknow- .

ledged in the U.S. that Spanish America not only. had
strategic and military importance, but that it was also a

source of cheap natural resources and raw materials of
yet untapped potential, without which the American
economy. would find it hard to develop and grow.

North American intervention in Latin American af-
fairs began early in the last century. After the collapse
of the short-lived Confederation of Central American
States in 1823, Great Britain grabbed the opportunity
and moved in, as she did elsewhere in Spanish America.
Vast concessions to English interests, for example,
were forced upon Nicaragua in its West Coast for the
exploitation of timber resources.

U.S. President James Monroe had the same year put
forth a concept that was destined to become the corner-
stone of American policies towards Latin America:
‘‘America for the Americans’. American attitudes at
the time and the concrete measures implemented dur-
ing the Manifest Destiny years lead any observer to
think that what was actually meant was ‘‘America of
the South”’ for the ‘““Americans of the North’’.

An editorial in the Toronto Globe and
Mail for February 4 acclaimed the advent
of the U.S. Reagan administration for
Ushering in an ‘‘age of reason’’. It
greeted Reagan’s malicious slander di-
Tected at Soviet leaders as ‘‘plain, blunt
talk” reminiscent of the brinkmanship
Strategy followed by former U.S. presi-
dent Eisenhower and former secretary of

\

The Globe and Mail's ‘age of

ee al “

_| Marxism-Leninism Today

Alfred Dewhurst

terized by the escalation of the arms
drive (of which the deployment of the
neutron weapon is the most inhuman
expression) on the part of the NATO
countries, and designed to alter the in-
ternational balance of forces in favor of
imperialism.

By means of its get-tough policy, so
blatantly trumpeted by the Reagan

State John Foster Dulles

Rk

The editorial, titled ‘‘Mr. Reagan’s
Tealism’’, warns that its ‘tage of reason”
will not be a ‘comfortable or comforting
era’’. For, says the Globe, ‘‘this realism
obliges us to recognize that there will be
risks involved, above all the risk of cross-
ing the line between confrontation and
Conflict.’” (our emphases) However, it

appears that the Globe is gungho for

“us”? to take that risk.

It considers the ‘‘benefit’’ of
Confrontation as being ‘‘worth the risk”’
of conflict. However, according to the
Globe, the key risk is ‘‘that the com-
munications that remain necessary for
the mutual survival even of two funda-
Mentally antagonistic systems and
Societies will be lost or choked to the
Point of inadequacy.’’ Nevertheless, this
fearless knight of the Thomson media
empire urges us bravely onward toward a
Possible nuclear war with these con-
cluding words: ‘The first requirement of
an age of realism is a solid grasp of
reality.”’

Pee oe

The ‘‘realism’’, endowed upon the
Reagan administration by the Globe, 1s

evidenced by that administration’s
eagerness to reactivate the threat of the
neutron weapon that kills people but
leaves property intact; i.e., the ultimate
weapon of the giant capitalist mono-
polies that, along with the bellicose mili-
tarists and the huge banking concerns,
call the shots in our capitalistic societies.
This was done through the office of U.S.
Secretary of Defence Weinberger on
February 3, who stated that he ‘leaned
toward the deployment of the neutron
mb.”’
ewig reaction, including U.S. NATO
allies with the exception of Canada, to
Weinberger’s statement was an 1m-
mediate ‘“‘no’’. The Canadian Govern-
ment, taking advantage of the presence
of its ministers of external affairs and of
defence in Washington, was able to
avoid any public statement on this deadly
threat posed by the Reagan administra-
tion. Canadians have yet to learn of their
government’s attitude to ‘the U.S.
government's intention to deploy the

neutron weapon. :
*

All that we know is that the two Cana-

-dian ministers, Minister of External Af-

fairs MacGuigan and Minister of De-
fence Lamontagne, were assured by

their U.S. counterparts that the U.S. has
not yet taken a decision on deploying the
neutron warhead. They also received as-
surances that the United States ‘‘will
consult Canada and other allies before
taking any step toward adding the neu-
tron bomb to its European arsenal.”’

However, despite such assurances
given by U.S. Secretary of State General
Haig (former NATO chief) and Secretary
of Defence Weinberger (read Pentagon),
experience over the years has shown that .
such assurances from those hawkish of-
fices hold little substance. As evidence of
this assertion consider the position taken
by U.S. Defence Department (Pentagon)
officials, who believe that with
‘*moderates or conservatives’’ in control
in most ‘“‘major west European capi-
tals’’, deployment *‘should eventually be
approved’’. And we would add, that this
could well be the case, unless we, the
ordinary people take a hand in such
decision-making.

* * *

Such mass action is necessary because
the ruling circles of monopoly capitalism
on a world scale have reacted to the
deep-rooted social and political changes
in the world with an increasingly bel-
ligerent posture. This is chiefly charac-

administration and seconded by the
Globe, imperialism hopes to impede the
struggle for peace, disarmament, inde-
pendence and social progress, contain
socialism, and prevent further countries
from breaking out of the imperialist sys-
tem. For the monopolies, particularly the
arms monopolies, this aggressive course
by imperialism is a direct source of
maximum profits. This incessant drive
for ever-greater profits by the mono-
polies creates a persistent danger to
peace and international security.

* * *

The thirst for maximum profit by the
giant monopolies finds expression in the
drive of the system of monopoly for con-
trol of all available resources, markets
and spheres of influence. It is controlled
and directed by an undeclared syndicate
of the main forces of world imperialism.
Its headquarters are in the USA. Its
power resides in an amalgam of arma-
ments manufacturers, bank monopolies,
institutions of military leadership, the
state bodies responsible for military mat-
ters, and the political and militarist ex-
perts of monopoly capital. The name of
this undeclared syndicate is the military-
industrial complex.

Diduentdanaseesanenand ———-

—

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—FEB. 20, 1981— Page 5