Alliance for Progress was widely interpreted as marking the end of the program and policy in Latin America most closely associated with the: Kennedy administration,
This view was voiced, for example, by the Paris daily Le Monde [May 6] ina front-page article entitled "an Acknowledgment o Defeat," The opinion of this important bourgeois paper on the mean ing of Moscosota resignation | is. worth quoting. — .
Noting that Moscoso, a faithful follower of John Kenedy, “known for his liberal views in relation to the South American continent," had already been replaced by Thomas Mann, a “partisan of the tough approach, " Le Monde observes that the resignation isa "confirmation of differences of opinion among the Democrats, which appeared after the assassination of president Kennedy, on the policy that should be adopted with regard to the Latin-American republics,"
Uthis resignation likewise confirms the abandonment of the official American policy, which consisted since 1961 in supporting reformist and demooratic regimes in Latin America as against juntas set up by military coups d'état," Le Monde continues.
“Washington will now support any regime unconditionally. opposed to Castroism, making what it does or does not do in favor of economic development, structural reforms, the consolidation of democracy, a. secondary matter.
"The attitude of the United States during the recent coup d'état in Brazil illustrated this new policy: without losing a minute, President Johnson sent his congratulations to the conservative putschists of April 1, although the legal framework had been violated, In John Kennedy's time, the custom in such a case would have been to wait at least a couple of weeks,"
Citing the New York Times, Le Monde points out that Latin-
Qe
American partisans of Washington now feel a certain disillusionment. The opinion among South American reformists is that the Alliance for Progress, as conceived by Kennedy, no longer exists, "Tt will be used only as a political weapon against Castroism without sesok-~ ing to remove its profound causes:. dictatorships for the benefit of a small minority of privileged persons, rejection of any reforms: of the structure, misery for the major part of the population... .
"The opening for a peaceful social revolution is becoming narrower and narrower:in Latin America, The leaders in Washington no longer appear to bélieve that between the most absolute loyalty to the business concerns of big American capitalism and violence there can be a third road," .
END OF THE "ALLIANCE FOR PROGRESS"?
By Joseph Hansen
-. The observations made by Le Monde on the resignation of Teodoro Mos¢oso as head of the "Alliance for Progress" organization [see preceding article] are: quité. perspicacious, Voicing informed bourgeois opinion, Le Monde is quite clear on what has happened to the "Alliance for Progress” since Johnson succeeded Kennedy.in the White House,*. However, Le Monde, as is to be expected, didnot state the whole truth. In addition, it gives Kennedy perhaps too much credit, Lo. i .
The “Alliance for Progress" program was really developed ‘under the Eisenhower administration and the key figure in hatching it was C. Douglas Dillon, one of the direct links between the White: House and Manhattan financial circles, and the only major personality in. the Eisenhower team to be held over for inclusion in the Kennedy crew. (Kennedy made him Secretary of the Treasury, )
The "Alliance for Progress" which was heavily publicized as the capitalist answer of the U.S. to the socialist perspective for Latin America opened by the Cuban Revolution, was completed in all essential respects before Kennedy took office, All Kennedy added to it was the name "Alliance for Progress," a label in keeping with his "New Frontier" campaign propaganda,
Perhaps the most significant thing about the “Alliance for Progress" was its timing. It was given great public fanfare while the plans for a military invasion of Cuba were being prepared in secret by the Central Intelligence Agency and the Pentagon under
For an analysis of this shift, see the statement by the Fourth iInter= national, "Counterrevolutionary Coup d!Etat in Brazil," published in World Outlook April 10.
=LO- |
direct master-minding by the White House. Execution of both the. counterrevolutionary invasion and the liberalistic reform program fell to the incoming president.
Even the launching. of the "Al 4ance for Progress" was carefully timed to coincide closely with the expedition that ended in disaster at Playa Girén, -
The "Alliance for Progress" was obviously a great propaganda effort designed by the plotters of the counterrevolutionary » invasion of Cuba to offset the bad effect which the aggression would. inevi-~ tably have on the public image of the United States throughout Latin America and elsewhere, Thus considerable expenditure of funds was envisaged, including expenditures for worthy projects. However, nothing like the amounts in the Marshall Plan for Europe were involved although the problem to be solved in Latin America is much bigger than was the problem of safeguarding, shoring up and giving capitalism a fresh start in Europe following the devastation of World War II and the revolutionary rise that came with the end of the conflict,
Since the primary purpose of the “Alliance for Progress" was not to present. a positive alternative to the Cuban Revolution, it is } easy to understand what. ‘happened - ‘to. it subsequently.
’ Pirst. of all, at never. seemed to get: “Ort” the. ‘ground. - Complaints about its. "slowness" provided a standing theme for journalists and governnent officials throughout Latin America within nionths after the program was put into motion.