es WORLD

| By A. ALARD : x 1986 is a decisive year in the : sie struggle of the Chilean people against the Pinochet dictatorship. So say the political parties which make up the Popular Democratic Movement (MDP) and the Demo- cratic Alliance, and so say the Na- { tional Workers’ Command, a. women’s organizations, univer- ae sities and high school students, a} community groups, trade unions, > the copper workers; coal miners, Ci eee) oil drillers, professional school 3 workers, truckers, peasants and cultural workers. In other words, the great majority of Chileans ; want, ask for and demand that 4 ey Pinochet must go and must go at | now! All political and_ social i Gewa organizations including the mE Catholic Church demand this and it is this huge mass which has cal-

’ mt wees

i led this new year ‘‘the decisive 7 year’. : The Pinochet regime is

exhausted. Its base of support is feeble, precarious. It has lost al- most all civil support and every day there is an increase in dissent among members of the Armed Forces who favor the transfer of power to civilian hands. Every new situation aggravates the crisis and reveals significant changes in the balance of forces. This past January the public was given the chance to read “The Manifesto of the Commu- nist Party to the Chilean People” ee in some of the opposition publica- tions. Communist members of the MDP urged, ‘‘Chile says enough! Re. Forward for the people’s rebel- % lion!”

“The Communist Party resol- utely has adopted the proposal to end the dictatorship in 1986 and undertakes a pledge for the suc- cess of this objective. It is not cor- rect that our Party draw a rosy picture of the prospects for this. Therefore it tries not to use disillusioning words. It is not merely a matter of sounding an alarm for the dictatorship to end. We reaffirm the principle that freedom will win but that it is not going to be gotten like a gift. In order to put an end to this tyranny in 1986, we have to face with courage the necessity.of using all forms of struggle which will lead to such an objective. Revolu- tionary strength and action will elevate the morale of the masses, and bring doubt, confusion and panic to the enemy camp and that will bring us closer to the over- throw of the dictatorship and the attainment of democracy,”’ the manifesto said.

‘‘We always tell the people the truth. The last phases of the struggle against fascism will be hard and perhaps even more dif- ficult than you can imagine. This typranny is prepared to do any- thing. It could apply state terror- ism in a form even more bestial than what we have known al- ready. It could resort to plesbis- cites or rigged elections or to a Parliament with specially chosen people or any other manoeuvre which allows it to keep power in its hands.”

Regarding the United States, the Communist Party of Chile document adds: ‘On the other

1986 —a decisive year in struggle for free Chile

hand, the intervention of Yankee imperialism is absolutely clear. It continues to support Pinochet ina time of great pressure. U.S. am- bassador Harry Barnes is work- ing night and day for a behind- the-back agreement with the re- gime and part of the opposition which will keep the dictatorship in power until 1989, look after American interests and, if abso- lutely necesary, move toa limited democracy.

But the people can and must overcome the manoeuvres of im- perialism. With such a goal in mind, we are attempting to move into action all people’s abilities, their well-known strengths and reserves, to resolutely develop social action and civil dis- obedience, to create a state of un- governability in the country and to organize the uprising of the en- tire nation in the struggle for free- dom and democracy.

As Communists we do not hide_ our final objectives nor our more immediate goals. We are strug- gling because we want this tyranny to be succeeded by an advanced democratic govern- ment which will be a transition to socialism. But if it is only possible to have a democratic system with a bourgeois orientation, we would at least have an opening without having to give up the defense of people’s rights in the struggle for full democracy.”

‘*But first and foremost, it is necessary to put an end to this tyranny. Pinochet is a dead weight which must be removed in order to make way for democra-

November.

cy. He must be tried and punished, and his fascist constitu- tion must be thrown into the gar- bage. We permanently reject all forms of negotiations with this dictatorship. Nevertheless, we are not opposed to working out an agreement with military institu- tions if they are agreeable to get- ting rid of the dictatorship and re- placing it with a democratic form of government. The Armed Forces have a great responsibili- ty. The form in which the inevita- ble transition to democracy will develop depends in no small way on their behaviour.”

‘‘This dictatorship can be

brought down as a result of the concludes.

On March 8, 200 Chilean women’s organizations kicked off a natio mobilization against the Pinochet regime and were met with tear and arrests. Photo: half-a-million demonstrate in Santiago

constant growing struggle of masses. The key to victory i the united action of the peopl all regions of the country, in development of self-defense 0 the masses, in the common at tions of Marxists and Christi and in the cooperation in th struggle of all opposing forces, b they of the left, centre or right.” ‘‘We are marching decisi with a myriad of mass activi towards the upcoming Nati Strike which will go on for as as necessary and we are con ing courageously the dictators Pinochet Out! Democracy now 1986 and no later!’’, the Mani ’

Democracy if necessary, but not...

is set when the people are permitted, even under ¢ trolled circumstances, to depose sucht

‘“‘pro-American’”’ tyrant. ‘

Bill Buckley is particularly blunt about this. There only two things in this world that matter, he says, one of them is not democracy.

The first is keeping countries like the Philipp firmly in the U.S. sphere of influence: ‘‘We hope ordered self-government will come to the Philippi but whether or not it does, we have imperial responsi ties in the Western Pacific that have nothing to do \ itl civic progress in that country.”

The second is what is euphemistically ce ‘economic freedom’’. So, says Buckley, *‘ Ask not many people voted for the incumbent governor; what kind of life the people are permitted to live. they free? Are they protected from arbitrary rule? their holdings safe from inflation and theft? Can t | leave the country with their savings?”

Wealth and power, that’s the bottom line. The difference between Buckley and Reagan is that Bue prefers not only to speak the ugly truth, but to emb it. The Reagan administration has. followed the duplicitous path of manipulation, treachery and pious hypocritical propaganda. %

Many years ago, the premier poet of the 20th Centur Bertolt Brecht, nailed down these people with a uncompromising verse which I hope to see one chiseled on Ronald Reagan’s tombstone: Those who take the most from the table Preach contentment Those for whom the taxes are destined Demand sacrifice Those who eat their fill speak to the hungry Of wonderful times to come Those who lead the country into the abyss Call ruling difficult.

For ordinary folk.

The aftermath of cosmetic power-shifts in Haiti and the Philippines have brought some curious reverbera- tions in the North American. Right. Neo-conservatives are restless and upset. Despite the apparent success that Washington has enjoyed in re-filling the wine. bottles, there is the nagging fear that a political pandora’s box has been pried open, and that genuine changes may result.

Events in the Philippines have been particularly hard on neo-conservative grand-daddy William F. Buckley, a

- long-time Marcos friend and Aelonsts who writes that if this is democracy, “It is time ... to say some unkind things about democracy.”

**The first of these,’ he writes, “‘is that democracy does not necessarily usher in virtuous governments or tolerable human conditions. The second is that democ- racy, particularly in its currently accepted, fanatical ap- plication (one-man, one- -vote) is nothing more than a Western superstition” .

Now this is a remarkable thing for a true defender of

‘*American values”’ to say, but the point is, he is very agitated. Peoples of the Third World, Buckley argues — in profoundly racist terms — are simply not capable of comprehending politics or acting democratically, so why do bleeding-heart liberals insist upon putting them through it? These poor folk have their own traditions, which they are content to live by, such as *‘‘a blind allegiance to authority”

The Reagan administration has divded the Third World up into two types of regimes: there are the

‘‘authoritarian’’ states, sometimes referred to as ‘*flawed democracies’ ’, who are our friends, and whose repression of their people is -understandable oy

‘benign’. Then there are the nasty * ‘totalitarians’’; socialists, ex-proprietors of private property, whose every word and deed is to be reviled.

It is a propaganda system worthy of Goebbels. Bill Buckley and others, such as his Canadian clone, Barbara Amiel, have labored long and hard to sell it to the public.

News Analysis

Fred Weir

But events, aggravated by ‘‘the tendency of the West- ern press to over-romanticize those opposing despots,” are conspiring against this neat, pro-fascist view of the world. This is the heart of the neo-conservative consternation with recent developments. It is not that Buckley or Amiel refuse to endorse a charade of democ- racy if it works to Western advantage, it is that they fear giving the people of these countries even the faintest whiff of freedom which is apt to set them into motion.

‘Anyone with an understanding of history,” writes Amiel, apparently without irony, ““knows that by sup- porting Aquino, misguided and most likely ineffectual against totalitarians of the left, we will allow her country to end up in the hands of Communists—a worse tyranny than that of Marcos and one that would be hostile to the West’.

So there it is. The neo-conservatives are furious with those ‘‘foolish” liberals who, in the native belief that America should stand for some modicum of democracy and human rights, are opening the door to popular rev- olution in the Third World.

That also explains why President Reagan, no liberal himself, hesitated so long and painfully before taking the simple and practical step of disposing with Marcos. It is the primary dilemma of U.S. imperialism that it steals the resources, independence and lifeblood of the Third World, and offers only empty rhetoric and the occasional sham election in return. It requires authoritarian strong- men to enforce that system, and a very uneasy precedent

8 e PACIFIC TRIBUNE, MARCH 19, 1986