July 14, 1971
Page 25035
THE ADMINISTRATION'S NONPOLICY IN LATIN AMERICA
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, Mr. Sol Linowitz, Chairman of the National Urban Coalition, has recently published a very telling – and timely – criticism of what he calls the administration's nonpolicy in Latin America. Mr. Linowitz, who was Ambassador to the Organization of American States from 1966 to 1969, is an extremely well-qualified observer of this part of the world.
I ask unanimous consent that his article, recently published in Life magazine, be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
OUR NONPOLICY TOWARD LATIN AMERICA
(By Sol Linowitz)
After more than two years of watching. listening and waiting for a meaningful Latin American policy to emerge from the Nixon administration, even the most patient and optimistic of Latin American observers are fast becoming convinced that it simply will not happen.
Some Latin Americans are openly expressing their disappointment that so few specific actions have accrued from the administration's promise of "more action and less rhetoric." Many others are rather more cynical and resentful of the administration's clear indication that it regards Latin America as relatively insignificant in our order of priorities. And even those who are reserving judgment confess themselves still baffled by such actions as the administration's refusal to authorize a visit to Chile by the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Enterprise after President Allende had publicly invited the warship's stopover in Valparaiso.
When President Allende was inaugurated last November, the United States was conspicuous in its failure to send even the normal congratulatory telegram. Since that time the administration has continued to make clear its displeasure at the appearance of a "socialist" regime in Chile. This persists despite the fact that Allende's government is obviously seeking to avoid a confrontation with the United States and has thus far behaved with commendable restraint in the international arena.
Thus, at the same time he has been developing closer relations with the Communist world, Allende has in a number of ways given signs that he wants Chile to remain a responsible member of the inter-American community. This was underscored by the visit of Economy Minister Vuskovic to Washington and his economic presentation of Chile's plans to the Inter-American Committee of the Alliance for Progress. Later the Chilean foreign minister told the OAS General Assembly in Costa Rica that Chile would participate actively in the CAS and in Latin American efforts to achieve a common market.
Chile could, therefore, represent for the United States an opportunity as well as a challenge. Yet the administration apparently continues to regard it only as a challenge.
All of this is particularly distressing because our actions toward Chile have deep international implications. Sooner or later we will have to recognize that our words in Vietnam are being tested by the way we act in Chile. For the stated administration purpose of our involvement in Southeast Asia is to assure that the people of South Vietnam will have the freedom to choose their own government. And, we have been told, when that choice has been freely made, we will respect it. Yet that is exactly what has occurred in Chile: the people of Chile have made their choice through the democratic process and have freely selected their government. That choice deserves to be accepted and respected by the United States – at least with as much cordiality as we display toward governments in other Latin American countries which come into power by overthrow of existing governments.
The case of Chile is in many respects a microcosm of the problems of our relationships in the hemisphere today. From the outset, this administration has spoken of a need for a "mature partnership" with Latin America and of the importance of maintaining a "low profile." But the kind of partnership the administration apparently has in mind avoids any responsibilities, undertakes no commitments, rejects any involvements.
Why, then, should we be surprised at the increasing manifestations of virulent nationalism and anti-Americanism running up and down the continent? Why should we be offended when Latin Americans throw back at us our empty phrases and pious preachments?
Admittedly, the administration has undertaken some helpful steps in connection with our economic relations with Latin America. Thus it has relaxed some of the restrictions on the use of our AID funds and has offered trade concessions for several hundred Latin American products.
But these steps are not offered in the context of an overall coordinated program – and are generally in response to Latin American pressure.
Earlier this year a brilliant young Colombian economist and friend of the United States wrote: "It is doubtful that any new inter-American initiative can be undertaken until after the Vietnam tragedy has come to an end." But I'm afraid we don't have time. Latin America's problems won't wait and its people won't wait. In one way or another – with or without the United States – Latin Americans will have to come to grips with the problems of hunger, illiteracy, poor health, injustice and social turmoil which grow greater each year. This is going to require change, and some of it – perhaps much of it – we will not like but will have to learn to accept.
The 270 million people of Latin America today are at a critical point of decision. They intend to try to fulfill the expectations which we helped raise in the hemisphere, and they're going to do it either peacefully or through violent revolution. We in the United States can play a decisive role in urging the peaceful path with the assurance of our cooperation, understanding and support. If we fail to do this – if we continue to focus on the Far East, the Middle East and Europe, while ignoring these festering problems here in our own hemisphere – then we may well find future explosions on our own doorstep.