Antiwar groups debate negotiations demand

Scan page 6

U.S. adviser instructs government soldiers in El Salvador. Antiwar movement must demand a halt to J.S. intervention.

The Central American revolution is at the center of political debate in the United States. At stake is whether the people of this region-in particular of El Salvador and Nicaragua-have the right to determine their own destiny free from the machinations of the U.S. government.

In the huge demonstrations that took place in several U.S. cities on April 20 the antiwar movement united around "no U.S. intervention!" as one of the central demands. Yet, despite agreement that the United States has no right to interfere in the affairs of other countries, sections of the U.S. anti-intervention movement have backtracked from this stance.

In a June 27, 1985, statement to the Bay Area Spring Mobilization Steering Committee, for example, Byron Ackerman of the Nicaraguan Information Center proposes that the movement call on the U.S. government to "support efforts for a negotiated settlement" in El Salvador and endorse the Contadora process for a negotiated settlement in Nicaragua.

To this end, the Nicaraguan Information Center suggests that the movement adopt the positions taken in a document entitled "Changing Course," published last year by Policy Alternatives for the Caribbean and Central America (PACCA), an association of liberal scholars and political leaders.

The document, which attempts to offer "an opportunity to avoid regional war and restore respect for U.S. policy,' was endorsed by hundreds of legislators, union officials, and peace activists including Jesse Jackson, George McGovern, Gloria Steinem, and William Winpisinger.

Self-determination left behind

The PACCA document tries to show how "reasonable" a negotiated settlement would be for all concerned. Negotiations are seemingly a more "realistic" goal than total U.S. non-intervention.

But although the document advocates "non-intervention and respect for self-determination, its call for negotiations leaves the principle of self-determination in the lurch.

Self-determination means that the people of an oppressed nation should have the right to decide their own future. Simply put, the United Stateswhich historically has subjected Central America to economic exploitation and political and military oppression —has no business helping decide the fate of these nations.

Nor can the United States claim the privilege of negotiating the terms under which it pledges to loosen its hold on the region. It follows, then, that for the movement in this country to call on the U.S. government to negotiate would, by conceding the "right" of the United States or its de facto representative to sit at bargaining table, seriously undermine the principle of self-determination.

In an "In Brief" version of their document, 6 SOCIALIST ACTION AUGUST 1985 PACCA recognizes that "the upheaval in Central America is caused by popular revolt against unbearable living conditions."

The synopsis continues, "The United Sti ates has too often stood with the wealthy few and th eir military guardians."

"Misjudgment" by the U.S.?

PACCA concludes that "present U.S. policy toward Central America is built on a history of misjudgment and intervention."

The implication is that if the policymakers in Washington were more farsighted the United States and Central America could live in peace. But the "unbearable living conditions" under which the people of Central America suffer are largely the byproduct of U.S. economic penetration.

Central America was forceably incorporated into the capitalist division of labor as a producer of agricultural products for a world market dominated by the United States, Western Europe, and Japan. The "wealthy few" that PACCA refers to are the comprador middlemen in this imperial system, a system necessarily protected by U.S.-trained military guardians of the region.

Support to the call for negotiations gives credence to the idea that the U.S. has a right to negotiate to protect its "legitimate interests" in Central America.

But these interests—in Asia and Africa as well as in Latin America-are (1) economic profits flowing from this system of exploitation; (2) the political need for "stability" in order to maintain this relationship; and (3) the need for bases and client armies to maintain the military capability to restore order when "stability" is threatened.

Understandably, the "legitimate interests" of the workers, peasants, and oppressed middle classes of Central America require escaping the U.S. yoke.

"Progressive" policy-makers

The PACCA document is presented as an alternative foreign policy. It charges that the present administration "refuses to understand the events in the region" and suggests that more-understanding policy-makers (presumably Democrats) could negotiate a compromise in Central America that would be "fair" to every side in the conflict.

If this is true, the fundamental aim of the movement should be to put a new set of politicians into office. After all, the argument goes, it isn't the system that is necessarily at fault, but rather the caliber of the leaders occupying the presidency, the cabinet, and the Congress.

It is this logic-toward subordinating the independent anti-intervention movement to the two-party shellgame-which makes the negotiations slogan so dangerous to the movement. Need we recall that Walter Mondale, the "progressive" candidate in the 1984 elections, recommended a blockade of Nicaragua?

Despite its recognition that the Central American revolution pits the oppressed against their national and international exploiters, PACCA refuses to side "efforts for a negotiated settlement involving powersharing among the contending forces."

PACCA believes that a civil war can be resolved if both sides simply agree to a division of the spoils. But where the social tensions have erupted in civil war, only the decisive victory of one side over the other can restore peace.

Will "power-sharing" work?

"Power-sharing" is a utopia which can only provide a temporary lull before the inevitable resurgence of the struggle.

PACCA forgets that such "power-sharing" was already tried in the Salvadoran junta of 1979. The junta fell apart not only because the "wealthy few" refused to give up their privileges, but also because the revolutionaries who later formed the bulk of the FMLN recognized that such a course could not solve the fundamental problems of the country such as land reform, political democracy, and true national independence.

The premise of PACCA's solution is that the system of imperialist domination can be reformed sufficiently to mollify the workers and peasants while preserving the capitalist system.

PACCA urges a policy of "restraint" on the United States, pointing to the example of President Roosevelt in 1938 who, faced with Mexico's expropriation of the oil industry, offered that country a long-term, low-interest loan in order to repay the U.S. corporations.

"A potential enemy became a staunch ally,' PACCA states, in giving approval to the fact that compensation was paid to corporations that had robbed Mexico blind for decades.

But Mexico's subsequent history has confirmed that the country's fundamental problems were not solved by Roosevelt's "farsightedness."

Instead, Mexico became ripe for future invasions of U.S. capital and the resulting further impoverishment of its people. The Nicaraguan, Salvadoran, and Guatemalan revolutions broke out in an attempt to avoid that kind of future.

The FMLN-FDR's call for negotiations The liberation forces in El Salvador have called for negotiations and a coalition government to end the civil war. Shouldn't that wing of the anti-intervention movement that identifies with the aspirations of the Salvadoran people likewise demand negotiations? Wouldn't this express our solidarity with the revolution?

Posing the question in this way confuses the tasks of the FMLN-FDR-including, as they see it, taking advantage of rifts in the enemy camp-with the tasks of the movement here in the United States. The latter consists simply of putting maximum pressure on the U.S. government to get out of Central America.

But the fact that the revolutionaries see fit to offer compromises—in short, that their struggle continues-confirms that the oppressed and exploited majority of El Salvador continue to be denied the right of self-determination.

Though the revolutionaries in Central America deem it expedient at this time to seek negotiations, we should have no illusions that talks will end the fighting.

During the Vietnam War, Washington agreed to negotiate to deflect public criticism and to demobilize a wing of the antiwar movement that had campaigned for negotiations. Yet for the next five years, Nixon simultaneously bargained and continued the war. He spread the war to Cambodia, in fact, in a vain search for "peace with honor."

The best way to aid the fighting people of El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Guatemala is to unequivocably demand that the U.S. get out of Central America with no strings attached. The withdrawal of U.S. aid will mean the death knell for the counterrevolutionary regimes and armies of the region.

panorama de centroamenica y el canite Panorama is a monthly magazine produced in Mexico. Each issue provides in-depth analysis of political developments in Central America and the Caribbean. Subscriptions can be obtained by sending a check or money order for $40 (12 issues per year) made payable to Priscila Pacheco Castillo to: Panorama, Apartado Postal 20-119, 01000, Mexico, D.F.

Scan page 7

Extreme military, political, and economic pressures continue to be applied by Washington against the people of Central America.

140x**$ NV*** _ CARIBBERIE .SiANTIWAR CHALLENGE aragua has now been Keagan.

In this instance, the attempt to reform the Democratic Party accounted for the paralysis of the anti-intervention movement during the presidential elec-