United States and Latin America

Pfaff, while attempting to define the “real problems” in Latin America not only skirts the real issue but also dismisses the only real efforts made to attack the “absolutist, intolerable and unpragmatic” intellectual and religious traditions that have led to the problems in the first place.

The current economic crises in Latin America, in large part brought on by “unrepayable” debt, are (specifically in Central America) extensions of the historical efforts of the United States to maintain complete control over an area considered within our “sphere of influence.” In the past, it was certainly easier to actually own the companies and resources (and ensure cooperation through military intervention) than it is today, but with today’s stunning indebtedness establishing an economic stranglehold, the end result is the same.

In the meantime, when one country tries to break from the fold and confront the “unresolvable” cultural issues and the inherent political consequences, Pfaff toes the U.S. establishment line and labels the effort ‘Marxist’ and an “ideological dead end.”

By taking elements of socialism, capitalism, humanitarianism and, yes, elements of Marxism, the Nicaraguan government has been trying for 10 years to deal with Latin American problems--hunger, lack of education, feudalism, slavery, war and development--”on realistic terms.” And, against barriers that may yet prove to be insurmountable, Nicaragua has come closer than any other country in Latin America to transcending the “imperialism that shaped (that) society,” an imperialism by no means limited to Spain and Portugal.

The real problem in Latin America is U.S. insistence on economic hegemony. Until that is understood to be the problem rather than the preferred relationship, poor hungry people will continue to remind us by knocking at our door.

WILL J. HERON

Los Angeles