i A hg re

' Critical strategic and military importance of being able to

Revolution U.S. style -

_ After the American military intervention in its war of independence, Cuba had for all practical purposes be- come a U.S. possession. But the Spanish-American War taught the U.S. a lesson: it made Washington realize the

Move its Pacific Fleet to the Caribbean and the Atlantic,

and vice versa, on short notice, without having to sail >

ot Cape Horn in a journey that took weeks to com- plete.

If American domination of the continent was to be 3 complete, military forces would have to be deployed u

much faster. The U.S. began then to plan for the of commencement of construction of a canal in Central <§

America, In fact, several American administrations long Pondered the idea, and at that early point there was ready in existence a treaty between the U.S. and Nicaragua calling for the construction of such a canal through Lake Managua.

_ However, it came to the attention of the United States that a canal through Panamanian territory would un- doubtedly be easier and shorter. It was agreed to pro- ceed with plans for this undertaking. There was, how- ever, one small obstacle to be solved before construction Could get started: the Central American country known today as Panama simply did not exist; it was a province of Colombia.

The U.S. attempted at first to negotiate a treaty with the Colombian Government. Talks began and a tentative treaty was initialled, but thé Colombian parliament re- fused to ratify it and the deal fell through. The American government decided then to play a different card.

Ever since independence, the province of Panama had caused headaches for the Colombian central government due to an ever-present sentiment toward home rule and eventual secession. The U.S. then offered arms and Political support to the would-be separatists in exchange for the Panama Canal Zone after independence.

Shortly after, things escalated into open subversion and U.S.-sponsored rebellion against Colombia’s cent- Tal government. Once Bogota realized the extent and implications of the rebellion, it moved troops into Panama province to check the uprising. True to his ““Big Stick" policy, president Roosevelt ordered American warships to the area, which kept the Colombian forces at

bay, and proceeded to issue formal recognition to the new country.

Shortly afterward, a new treaty was signed with Panama’s ruling bourgeoisie, which granted the U.S. control in perpetuity over a strip of land 16 kilometres wide on both sides of the canal, which was to become American territory.

Backgrounder

ES aE ES

At the same time, the United States demanded and obtained the right to intervene militarily and otherwise in any part of the territory of the republic, should ‘“‘peace and order’ be threatened.

American expansionism in Latin America was now in high gear. In a no-holds-barred policy of blatant im- perialism, the United States took it upon itself to act, in Roosevelt’s words, as ‘‘an international police force’’ in the continent. The U.S. entered fully into fierce competi- tion with European powers for the lion’s share of the Latin American pie, seeking to reassert once and for all the ‘‘America for the Americans’’ philosophy vis-a-vis these European powers.

In 1902 Venezuela’s economy was in a slump and the country was forced to default on its foreign debt. A naval

THE PANAMA CANAL ... a small token of appreciation from the Panamanian bourgeoisie to their U.S. friends.

expeditionary force made up of British, Italian and Ger- man warships, sent at the request of bankers from these three countries, blockaded Venezuela’s coastline until such time as full payment was made. :

The conflict was eventually solved through American mediation, which served the purpose of establishing once and for all the tenets of the Monroe Doctrine. The United States now reigned triumphantly over Latin America. 2

In 1910 the Mexican Revolution broke out, providing another opportunity for American hegemony to be exer- cised. Of the several provisional governments that suc- ceeded one another until the end of the Revolution, that of General Huerta proved particularly distasteful for president Woodrow Wilson. In 1914, an American expeditionary force landed on Mexico’s east coast, oc- cupied the port city of Veracruz and began marching on Mexico City, eventually ending in failure.

In 1917, American troops drove into Mexico in hot pursuit of Pancho Villa, the peasant revolutionary leader. All of this, naturally enough, was done with the aim of ensuring that the Revolution would have an out- come favorable to the U.S., since as early as 1910 over 75% of the Mexican mining industry, for example, was in the hands of American concerns.

This backgrounder on Latin America is third in a seven- part series by José Amor de la Patria.

_ Who wants a lame duck leader? —

On Friday night (Feb. 27) we watched Progressive Conservatives go through a a rather dreary, somewhat underhanded exercise of putting the skids under Joe Clark, Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition in Parliament. The gimmick used was simple but effective. Just a “‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’ vote for a leadership re-

view convention. : * * *

Alfred Dewhurst

Marxism-Leninism Today |

Department and media but cooled considerably our relations with Iran. The eagerness of the Tories to curry favor with the U.S. was vulgarly displayed by Clark’s declaration that he favored mov- ing Canada’s embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. This pleased Israeli au- thorities and their U.S. patrons, as well as right-wing Zionist circles in Canada, but it did nothing to win friends for

One-third of the 2,000-odd delegates voted for a review. Two-thirds voted against. This was a disaster for Joe Clark. ‘It means that his days as leader of the federal Conservatives are . probably numbered. Such an outcome clearly in- dicates the Official Parliamentary Opposition (hence our interest) and the Conservative Party are saddled with a lame duck leader. é True to Tory practice, the stated roo of the Conservatives’ leadership crisis is that Joe Clark isn’t a ‘‘winner’’. Delegate after delegate interviewed on TV took up this refrain, while adding in sickening re- petition, that Joe is a ‘“‘hard-working”’ man of ‘‘integrity’’, ‘honesty’? and ‘courage’. All of these are admirable qualities (if such be the case). But obvi- ously, not enough for the power brokers of the Conservative Party. For to them, power is the name of the game. * * *

Joe Clark couldn’t hang onto power for the Conservatives when he had the chance. So, throw him to the wolves as the scapegoat for the anti-people policies the Tories pursued while in office for a few short months in 1979. But, rather

than examine their reactionary policies,

‘the Tory power brokers chose to cover -up by turning the spotlight of party criti-

cism on Glark’s demonstrated ineptness as prime minister, and his public image of a bungling, presumptuous, second-rate politician.

In order to refresh our memory of Joe Clark’s days as Canada’s prime minister, we briefly review some of those policies he tried to put into practice on behalf of the Conservative Party which, in the main, accounts for Clark’s unpopularity among the electorate.

* * *

In essence the policies pursued by the short-lived Clark government were takeaways from the working people and giveaways to the giant corporations, as well as economic and political sell-outs to U.S. imperialism. In particular, they in- cluded massive grants and tax write-offs to the corporations, guaranteed high prices to the oil multi-nationals — all at the expense of the working people -through higher taxes, interest rates and higher living costs.

These policies included also, an orien-

tation on selling natural resources at the expense of building industry and provid- ing jobs for Canadians; granting offshore rights to the provinces and the decen- tralization of the federal structure of the country, at the expense of universal so- cial standards such as medicare, health and. welfare, education and vocational training. ok * *

Above all else, they included a U.S. oriented, right-wing Conservative Party policy in the sphere of foreign affairs, of

all-out support of the Carter Doctrine. _

That Doctrine proclaims the right of the United States to defend U.S. imperialist interests anywhere in the world, in what- ever way the U.S. administration deems necessary. In other words, a blank cheque for U.S. imperialism to interfere into the internal affairs of any country where it desires to do so.

Support for U.S. interference in the affairs of other countries, found expres- sion in the adventuristic caper in effect- ing the escape of U.S. Embassy officials from Iran through the Canadian Em- bassy in that country. This caper won fulsome plaudits from the U.S. State

Canada among the Arab countries. * ok *

But most damaging to Canadian in- terests, was the unseemly haste of the Clark government to follow the lead of the U.S. administration in imposing sanctions against the Soviet Union in re- taliation against that country’s honoring its treaty obligation with Afghanistan to render it military assistance, on the law- ful request of the Afghan Government.

The Tories joined Canada to the U.S. grain embargo against the Soviet Union at the expense of Canadian grain growers. The Tory federal government drasti- cally cut back its scientific and cultural exchanges with the Soviet Union at the expense of Canadian science and culture. And, most stupidly, it boycotted the

- Moscow Olympics, depriving Canadian

athletes of the opportunity to compete with their peers on a world scale, and Canadians the opportunity to view this outstanding world event.

: eee Get :

Truly, the Progressive Conservative Party is the most pro-imperialist U.S. party in Canada. That is why Joe Clark isn’t a ‘‘winner’’.

PACIFIC TRIBUNE— MARCH 13, 1981— Page 5