Dateline

MEXICO ASSAULT ON LABOR MEXICO CITY – 12,000 police, armed with high-powered rifles, machine guns and grenade launchers, occupied the Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) in the early dawn of July 7, arresting more than 530 striking workers and professors. The principal strike leaders were kidnapped the previous day by plainclothes police agents, during a militant march of more than 100,000 strike supporters in downtown Mexico City. While most of the prisoners were released in the days following the occupation, a member of the striking union called the event a “profound defeat” and “a clear indication of what the government’s action will be vis-a-vis the working class.” It is also a clear indication that Mexican President Jose Lopez Portillo intends to keep his promises to international capital to keep labor under control. The STUNAM – Workers’ Union of the UNAM, which represents the majority of the University’s tens of thousands of workers and professors – called the strike on June 20. Their demands were recognition of their leftist union, a single contract for all administrative, maintenance and academic personnel, the reinstallation of workers fired for strike activities, and a wage hike of 20 percent. The strike followed three months of unsuccessful attempts to force the university to the negotiating table. University officials refused to consider negotiation of a single contract, hoping to keep the administrative and maintenance workers divided from professors and researchers. After the occupation of the University and the jailing of the union leaders, University officials approached the union with an offer: recognition of the STUNAM as the sole bargaining agent for both academic and administrative personnel but separately negotiated agreements with different legal statutes governing the academic and administrative employees. Unionization of the nation’s universities’ employees has proceeded quickly over the past several years, with strong influence from the Mexican Communist Party (PCM) and other left forces. The STUNAM, along with the militant Democratic Tendency of the Electrical Workers Union, has become a key force in organizing a mass movement for union democracy, wage increases and general political reforms over the past years. In recent months, however, the Mexican government has been under strong pressure from the local bourgeoisie and from representatives of U.S. capital like the International Monetary Fund to keep wages down and the workers’ movement in line. Consequently, the government has moved fiercely against the growing independent trade union movement, using police and army troops to break numerous strikes, most important of which have been the national strike of electrical workers in July 1976, and now the STUNAM strike. While repressing the trade union movement, the new Lopez Portillo government has made simultaneous overtures towards the left by offering to legalize the PCM and other left parties. In fear of undermining that process of legalization, however, the PCM has been cautious to avoid open criticism of the government. This was particularly evident in the recent STUNAM strike in which all attacks were directed at the University rector rather than at the government’s complicity. It remains to be seen whether the government’s occupation of the UNAM will now force the PCM and other left parties to reconsider the political reforms they can expect from a government hemmed in by the needs of international capital. A recent letter to NACLA from a STUNAM striker starkly summarizes the lessons of STUNAM’s defeat as well as of recent setbacks for workers across the nation: Little by little life returns to normal. We have gathered the debris left by police who were set loose to sack the UNAM, and have begun the task of explaining what happened and proceeding to reorganize and strengthen the union – this time with a less spectacular, more profound style of work. The most important lesson of the strike is the clear warning: there cannot be one policy of economic austerity and another policy of reform vis a o ‘C 0 25DATELINE * DATELINE vis the exploited classes. The rest of the important union struggles have also been “resolved,” in a way which has left a great silence over the country: Fundidora Monterrey [steel mill] – workers signed an agreement which was proposed by the bosses at the start of the 49-day strike; INFONAVIT [government low-cost housing agency – police broke the strike within three minutes after it began; the League of Welders – two strikes broken by the army in Chiapas; medical interns at ANAMERE – removed from coverage by the labor laws, etc. etc. Panorama rather bleak – but the working class can lose all of the battles except the last one, which it has already won. So, the tactical retreat in order to return to the offensive, organized and conscious. By the NACLA-West Mexico Project The U.S. is finally getting its hands on Mexico’s coveted oil reserves, as the result of mounting economic and diplomatic pressures on that country. The Mexican government has made the controversial decision to promote massive oil and gas exports as a way out of the country’s current economic difficulties, and especially to offset continuing trade and budget deficits and help meet payments on the $28 billion foreign debt. The decision to become a major exporter runs counter to policies followed for nearly 40 years, and it has generated intense controversity within Mexico. U.S. oil executives and government energy planners are openly pleased with the prospect of importing more oil from Mexico and less from the Middle East, because, as an EXXON vice-president for international operations recently told a Senate Committee, “the U.S. could break the back of OPEC” by tapping new oil sources like Mexico’s. The U.S. has already begun to tap that source, as Mexico increases production and channels ever larger flows of crude and refined oil and natural gas to the United States. Mexico’s oil CENCOS RAID On June 7, in the wake of the crackdown on STUNAM, the Mexican authorities also raided the offices of CENCOS (National Center for Social Communications) and four other church-funded organizations. CENCOS gathered documentation on Mexican social issues and served as a media outlet for popular struggles by issuing news bulletins and organizing press conferences. The raid took place at the time CENCOS had scheduled a press conference for STUNAM strike leaders. Following a bomb threat, nearly 100 uniformed police forced their way in and carried off over 70 file drawers full of documents, as well as valuable office equipment – none of which have been returned. exports will double from 105,000 barrels per day (bpd) in 1976 to 200,000 bpd in 1977. By 1982, Pemex expects to be exporting 1 million bpd out of the 2 million produced. Most of this oil will go to the United States (Israel is the only other market of any significance). Although Mexico has OPEC prices and expects to earn around $20 billion in foreign exchange from its oil exports over the next six years. This amount will cut the trade deficit and reduce the foreign debt, but at the cost of an even greater dependence upon U.S. financing for Mexico’s development. To develop the oil reserves, and to meet other current obligations, for example, Mexico needs large amounts of capital – which the government is now seeking from private U.S. and European banks. According to the Wall Street Journal, Mexican officials are offering up the oil as “collateral” for loans, based on estimates of the reserves that range from 11 to 100 billion barrels. (By comparison, Saudi Arabia’s reserves are estimated at around 170 billion barrels and Iran’s at 64 billion.) In addition, Pemex recently announced that it is going ahead with plans to build a $1.5 billion 750-mile natural gas pipeline to the U.S. border, financed by a consortium of 6 UI.S. gas producers and distributors, who have signed a “letter of intent” with the Mexican government in exchange for purchase rights to the gas. The distributors are among the largest in the U.S.: Florida Gas, Southern Natural Resources, Tenneco, Texas Eastern, El Paso, and Transcontinental. The construction project will be headed by Bechtel Corporation of San Francisco. “ENTREGUISMO” Critics of Lopez Portillo’s oil policies accuse him of “entreguismo.” surrendering too easily a resource which has formed the basis of Mexico’s economic development program ever since President Lazaro Cardenas nationalized the oil industry in 1938. Until recently, Pemex made a point of limiting the exploitation of crude oil in order to have more funds available for refineries and petrochemical plants. More nationalistic Pemex executives – like former Director General Antonio J. Bermudez also argue that Mexico should not become a big oil exporter but should conserve the oil for future generations. “The development of Mexico in the near future demands that oil be used to satisfy Mexico’s demands,” he has said. “We should not destine our reserves for the progress of other countries, sacrificing the progress of Mexico.” Critics also point out that Pemex plans to borrow between $8 and $9 billion in the next 6 years to develop the newly found reserves in the Tabasco-Chiapas region. This is two- thirds of Mexico’s total investment program for that period. Already, Pemex’s massive needs have led to sharp cutbacks in other investment areas, including steel, leading to rising unemployment (estimated at 40 percent). Herbert Castillo, of the PMT (Mexican Worker’s Party), and other left leaders charge that this is open collaboration with international capital and a short-sighted bartering of a crucial national resource for dubious short-term advantages. These concerns used to be part of official government rhetoric. Confirming the news of Mexico’s huge oil discoveries – first leaked to the press in October of 1974 and later documented by a special CIA study – then President Luis Echeverria insisted that the oil would be exploited “in a “profoundly nationalist and anti- imperialist manner.” Mexico’s Minister of National Resources affirmed this and said, “Mexico will never be the Trojan Horse of the multinational corporations.” Echeverria also said that whatever oil was exported from the new fields should go to diversified markets to reduce dependency on the United States, which already accounted for 62 percent of Mexico’s trade. But 1976 brought severe economic difficulties – a high trade deficit, inflation, huge foreign debt payments – and finally, in August, the devaluation of the long-stable peso. To cover its immediate needs and to raise money for longer-term projects, Mexico needed loans. In February 1977, when newly inaugurated President Lopez Portillo visited Washington, oil – and loans – were the main topic of discussion. During that visit Lopez Portillo declared his intention to “help out” the U.S. in its energy crisis, and last month in Mexico City told reporters that the U.S. is the “logical client” for Mexico’s oil, given U.S. demand and geographical proximity. The “logic” of the new administration’s oil policy is a far cry from the nationalistic rhetoric of the previous president, and a worrisome indication of what is to come for Mexico’s working poor and unemployed. By Elizabeth Farnsworth, an editorial staff member of INTERNEWS, with the cooperation of the NACLA-West Mexico Project. ON REVOLUTIONARY MUSIC Politics, art and revolution come together in Cuba’s popular culture. And for countless people, not only in Cuba but throughout the Americas and Europe, the man who best represents this revolutionary culture today is Carlos Puebla. Twenty years before the Revolution he was singing “subversive music” and today he continues to document the advances of the Revolution in his singing and compositions. In well over a hundred songs he has blended forceful but poetic lyrics with traditional Cuban folkmusic to immortalize the heroes of the Cuban Revolution, of Vietnam, and Angola, as well as the daily struggle of the Cuban people to improve their lives and defend theil Revolution. The following interview ‘a o -k 0 ‘a with Carlos Puebla was conducted earlier this year in Havana by Peter Baird. What was it like to be a musician in the old C(‘uba before the Revolution, and what kind of songs did you sing them ? PUEBLA: I always sang protest music. Back then it wasn’t exactly known as protest music, but as subversive music. There were songs against the [Batista] tyranny, against the whole system. You had to see who you were with before you sang, because to sing those kind of songs was running a risk, the same risk as those who passed out anti-Batista leaflets, or placed a bomb. It was the same thing, but we did it anyway. For example, I was singing for 10 years in a little Havana restaurant called la Bodeguita del Medio. At 2 or 3 in the morning when La Bodeguita closed, those of us left inside would begin to sing the “International” and our own songs of struggle. I’ve always sung in Cuban. I use the rhythms of my country – the bolero, the guaracha, the son, everything that is Cuban music. Of course for the old Batista bourgeoisie, the only kind of Cuban folkmusic was the over-romanticized songs of the Cuban peasants. The cancion campesina is very beautiful musically, but it talked only of the beauty of the landscapes, the greenness of the countryside, the rustle of the palm trees … all very beautiful things, but none of these songs talked of the hunger of the campesino. They didn’t say that the campesinos lived on land that didn’t belong to them. Nor that their children had no schools, nor doctors nor anything. But I sang about what others didn’t dare to, about the true life of our campesinos. Then, of course, the bourgeoisie said that this wasn’t folklore, this was political. And I would tell them, well, the other kind is political too. I’ve always tried to sing as the people talk, because I have two great teachers. One is Jose Marti. When you read Marti you don’t have to be looking in a dictionary to figure out what he is saying. And the other is Fidel. When Fidel speaks no one has to ask, “Hey, what did Fidel mean by that?” And that is the line I want to follow. When I sing I want everyone to understand me. What recollections do you have of the period when Fidel and the companeros of the July 26th Movement were fighting in the mountains, supported by the movement in the cities and provinces? PUEBLA: Well, chico, during those years we listened every night as the bombs went off all over Havana, all over Cuba because it wasn’t just Havana. Wherever you went you heard the bombs exploding, you saw people painting revolutionary slogans on the walls, attempting attacks on the secret police of the regime, and gathering money, medicine, clothing, food and whatever could be found to send to the Sierra. And then afterwards, when our movement triumphed, then it was a different story. It was like being reborn. When people ask me how old I am, I tell them, ‘the same age as the Revolution.’ Because, I don’t know, I think you should only count the good part of life. Before the triumph, that was not life. That was misery. Life began for the Cuban people on the Ist of January, 1959; that was the day of our birth. What are some of the changes you have seen in the cultural life of Cuba since the Revolution? PUEBLA: We are seeing changes in every area of life, how everything is continuously transformed. In relation to art, there are new avenues, new mediums. Now one can create, create without economic worries. Since a true artist in the capitalist countries has to suffer hunger for his art, some people think it should always be this way. This is absolutely false. What artists need is economic security based on their contribution to the Revolution. At the beginning of the Revolution there were artists who said, ‘I don’t want to involve myself politically. I am an artist.’ But for me everything is political. There is art which serves the needs of people, and art which goes against their interests. But there is no such thing as art for art’s sake. Art has a function, good or bad, but it has one. It can rob your time, distract and confuse you like it often does in the capitalist countries. But it can also move you to become a revolutionary. How is your work organized? Do you belong to a union? PUEBLA: I am an active member of the National Union of Art and Presentations one of the twenty-three national unions that form the Cuban Workers Confederation (CTC). Everyone involved in art belongs to this union. In fact, tomorrow morning sections of my union are meet ing with the new Minister of Culture, Armando Hart. You see, here in Cuba we are changing the concept of what an artist is. I say that we are cultural workers, or art workers. But we are workers because we work. We have discipline and direction like other workers, and if I arrive late for an appointment, I have to explain why. And my work tool is my guitar. It is not a hoe or hammer, but it is a tool of the Revolution. Your music is known today all over the world as the voice of the Cuban revolution. Why do you think it is so popular? PUEBLA: I always tell people that my success around the world is because people everywhere are in love with the Cuban revolution. So they are anxious to hear how we are doing, how we triumph and fail, of our fights with Imperialism, all these things. And in reality, that is my function, to tell this story. So that is the secret — another success of the Revolution. PUEBLA RECORD The only Carlos Puebla record available in the United States has recently been released by Paredon Records, Cuba: Songs for Our America, available for $5.00 plus 50 cents postage from PO. Box 889, Brooklyn, NY 11202. THEBLACKSCHOLAR THE BLACK SCHOLAR P.O. Box 908 Sausalito, CA 94965 BIOLIVIA TRANSPLANTING APARTHEID If present government plans carry through, Bolivia will soon start receiving the first of some 30,000 white families fleeing the prospect of black majority rule in southern Africa. While a Foreign Office spokesman claims the immigration is aimed at increasing agricultural output, a leftist nationalist group labels the project an “importation of apartheid” and calls on Bolivia’s overwhelming majority of Indians and mestizos to oppose it. The first public acknowledgment of the immigration occurred in January this year when the Bolivian Under- Secretary for Migration, Dr. Guido Strauss, casually mentioned that the National Immigration Council and the National Institute of Colonization “would promote the immigration of large and important contingents of white colonists of German and Dutch extraction from Namibia, Rhodesia and South Africa.” Strauss justified the plan on the grounds that immigrants would “colonize extensive underpopulated areas of the Beni and other Departments” and help Bolivia “reach self-sufficiency in basic agricultural production with supplies sufficient for export as well.” He also claimed the country would “benefit from the technological know- how, experience and capital which the immigrants will bring with them.” The underground Bolivian Revolutionary Left Movement (MIR), in the Feb. 12, 1977, issue of its bulletin Bolivia Libre, claims that negotiations began in April 1975 when the Minister of Planning and Coordinatidn, General Juan Lechin Suarez, held conversations with the Inter-Governmental Committee for European Migration (CIME) and the Inter-American Development Bank looking toward white immigration to Bolivia from southern Africa. Some months later General Lechin met with CIME officials in Geneva and agreed to receive a limited number of Portuguese colonists who were fleeing Angola. Although representatives of Angola’s white population visited Bolivia for talks, nothing came of the proposal. By the end of 1976, according to Bolivia Libre, the growing armed struggle in Rhodesia and Namibia and the hardening sentiment of blacks in South Africa made European governments look seriously at the problem of absorbing white colonists whose departure from southern Africa was a growing possibility. West Germany, and to a lesser degree, Holland and Great Britain, in an effort to avoid the social and economic problems which the reintegration of the colonists to their countries would produce, turned toward Latin America. To explore the possibilities the West German government held a low- profile meeting in Costa Rica with representatives of Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Uruguay and Venezuela. The Bonn representatives proposed a settlement of 30,000 white families (some 150,000 people) from the three African countries and offered a credit through CIME of $150 million to finance the operation. Brazil and Venezuela, the MIR says, agreed to receive only professionals and highly specialized technicians who would be rigorously selected. Uruguay and Argentina rejected the proposal at the time in view of the critical political situations through which they were passing. Only Bolivia accepted the proposition as presented. Bolivia Libre claims that the future immigrants are to be settled in San Borja and Secure (Beni Department) and in the Abapo-Isozog Reservation (Santa Cruz), all three being primr agricultural zones. The Government has already made a considerable infrastructure investment in the selected areas for highways, irrigation facilities and other services. These investments were originally destined to favor internal resettlement of thousands of campesinos who were to have been brought from the poorest and most populated areas of Bolivia’s valleys and altiplano. The Bolivian MIR condemns the immigration on the following grounds: * “The entrance of German and Dutch colonists, with colonial and racist attitudes, who have supported the white supremacy regimes of southern Africa is a new and dangerous threat to Bolivia’s national sovereignty and territorial integrity.” * The plan is a give-away program against the national interest. “By granting good lands such as those of San Borja, Secure and Abapo-Izozog to the new colonists, the Government will be handing over all the facilities and advantages of a large infrastructure investment of the Bolivian people – in the order of $10 to $15 million – thus denying to the Bolivian campesino the benefits of public works which have been made possible by the sacrifice of the working class, the campesinos and the Bolivian people in general.” * The resettlement project will mean a windfall to intermediaries and middlemen through large “commissions.” “The future of the country will be mortgaged, since most of the German financing will come in the form of loans which must be repaid.” * The project is “a new evidence of the pro-imperialist servility” of the regime headed by General Hugo Banzer which, at the cost of Bolivian national interests, is helping European governments “solve the problems arising from the liberation of the African peoples.” A white immigration of the size being planned by the government will significantly alter Bolivia’s racial composition. Approximately 15 percent of the country’s 5,900,000 inhabitants (i.e., 885,000 people) are of European origin and largely control the country’s government and economy. The addition of 150,000 whites of German and Dutch extraction will mean a 17 percent increase in the European sector of the population. By James Goff, an editor of Latin- america Press (Lima, Peru), from whose April 14, 1977, edition this article is reprinted. For more background in the export of apartheid see: “Documents on Colonialist Export from South Africa to Latin America,” a 61-page dossier compiled by the Group for Dependency Research and the Southern Africa Research Group, and published by the Department of Peace and Conflict Research, Uppsala University, Box 278, 751 05 Uppsala, Sweden. DEL MONTE THE RADICALS ARE COMING Business circles are becoming increasingly alarmed over the growth of the U.S. anti-corporate movement. Del Monte, which has been exposed for its political payoffs abroad and criticized for its exploitation of cannery and field workers in South Africa, the Philippines, and California, feels especially vulnerable. In San Francisco, where Del Monte is based, a number of church, community, worker, research, and solidarity organizations have formed the Del Monte Working Group to challenge the company and to analyze the role agribusiness plays in world food production. This group’s activities have aggravated Del Monte executives and helped motivate the company’s public relations manager, William Braznell, Jr., to develop a strategy for dealing with corporate critics. Excerpted below are portions of his article, “The Radicals Are Coming, Are You Ready?” which appeared in the December 1976 issue of a business publication called the Public Relations Journal. By NACLA-West Agribusiness Project For an analysis of Del Monte’s global operations, see the NACLA Report “Del Monte: Bitter Fruits,” Sept. 1976, $1.25. 29 The Radicals Are Coming A public forum on Del Monte will be held in San Francisco September 24. For information call (415) 397-0833. For information on the demonstration scheduled for the company’s annual meeting in San Francisco September 27, call 835-2511. DEL MONTE DOCUMENT There are two fallacious beliefs widely held by public relations professionals. The first: “Anyone who disagrees with our views of the free enterprise system is an economic illiterate who simply needs to be educated through a meaningful dialog.” The second: “My company needn’t worry about being attacked by radicals because we’re doing such a great public relations job.” Actually, the radical movement with its recent revelations of corporate “hit” lists and sabotage plans, is a fairly recent development. Most people say it began with the Civil Rights movement of the early 1960s. Focusing originally on institutionalized injustices toward black people, it branched out into a wide range of protests, picking up converts and gathering momentum through the anti-war demonstrations of the mid- 1960s, and eventually blooming in the late 1960s and early 1970s as a full-fledged revolutionary movement dedicated to the overthrow of capitalist imperialism. (If my comments seem to acquire a slightly purplish cast from time to time, you’ll have to blame it on the radicals – I’m essentially borrowing their words.) The main thing to remember about these hard core revolutionary groups is their total lack of interest in reform – or working for government and business reform “through the system.” Their explicit purpose is to destroy the “system” and build a better one. Let them speak for themselves. The following quote from page 83, the Corporate Action Guide. “The struggle with corporate power will itself produce the forces and movement which will create alternatives to the present system . . Significant alternatives must be characterized by equality: equality in sharing the material benefits of society; equality rather than hierarchy in making social decisions; and equality in the ability of individuals to develop their full potential as human beings. Work must cease to be a means of ‘making a living’ and become a part of one’s living [sounds pretty good so far — but to continue] and the irrationality of production for profit must be replaced by rational production of goods and services to meet people’s needs. ” [italics added] There’s the clinker. In order to deliver all these goodies, we need a little spare cash. And we all know where it’s stashed. Robin Hood rides again. But the new radical ideologist wouldn’t do anything as crass as holding up the Sheriff of Nottingham with a bow and arrow. His basic weapon is propaganda, backed by research, organization, and a thorough understanding of mass psychology and the mass communications media. He uses this propaganda weapon to spread dissension, to probe and attack the weaknesses of the system, and to proselytize. His strategy is to gradually build a broad constituency of dissidents and malcontents and unify them into a formidable political and economic force. It’s a slow, painstaking, patient campaign designed to wear down the system rather than to topple it in a single master stroke. Dealing with the typical range of radical confrontation tactics is very much the business of the public relations professional. And the first rule of our business is “Do your homework.” What could be more obvious than the need to know our antagonists – their personal backgrounds, philosophies, tactics, and objectives? Yet, here I am, a veteran of three years of intermittent clashes with various radical organizations and I’ll frankly admit I didn’t know the first thing about the background and aims of the radical movement until I began researching this article. The second rule is, “Don’t over- react. ” That’s what the radicals want you to do. In order to escalate their attack, they must depend on you to bluster, to make arrogant gestures that turn the public against you, or, worst of all, to engage in personal retaliation (Segretti versus Ellsberg; General Motors versus Nader). Once you blow your cool, you’ve blown it all. The corollary to this rule, obviously, is, “Don’t UNDER-react.” The immediate and natural response of any company facing its first radical confrontation is, “Maybe if we ignore them they’ll go away.” This strategy, also known as “keeping a low profile,” may very well be successful, particularly if the confrontation is poorly organized and under-capitalized, as initial organizing efforts frequently are. Let’s say you decide you simply can’t ignore the challenge. What’s 30 next? Here are a few suggestions: Don’t take them on in their own territory. Above all, avoid a confrontation in front of a hostile crowd when the television crews are on hand. I don’t care how good you are, they’ll murder you. Use your “third-party experts. ” One company I know organized a “truth squad” of eminent scientists to travel around the country, appearing on talk shows and seminars opposite an author publicizing a book critical of the company’s products. “Third-party endorsement” is an old public relations technique, and it works. Don’t make it easy for them. Screen your press releases, speeches, house organs, and annual reports for provocative material – anything that can be used against you. This should be obvious to anyone in our business. But unfortunately, the record doesn’t justify this confidence. For example, at a time when the food industry is under constant attack for “obscene profits.” monopoly concentration and vertical integration, I recently picked up a food company’s annual report which, you guessed it, highlighted its record earnings, enormous share of market, and the efficiency of its vertical integration. Take the offensive. I guess this sounds like another standard public relations bromide, but we’re not going to win the public’s support and confidence simply by “responding” to criticism. If “obscene profits” are the issue, let’s not try to justify our God given right to obscene profits! Let’s tell the American people why we need profits, what they do for the people, how profits relate to.jobs, better living conditions, and so on. And then let’s tell them why we need more profits – to do a better job and to build an even better standard of living for all Americans. Finally, a word about long-term strategy. The radical – whether terrorist or revolutionary or reformist – is constantly probing for weaknesses in our business system that he can turn to his own advantage or exploit for the benefit of his cause. As public relations professionals, we have to anticipate this probing action and counsel our management and clients to do the same. Our job is simply this: to prove the system works.