The Lexington Report. 1990

7/27/2019 The Lexington Report. 1990

1/6

Lexington ReportCommentary on issues in the community

Premier Edition

T h e b o y c o t t o f coffeei m p o r t e d f r om E l Sa lvador

Who supports it? What are its goals?

Exclusive interview with Lise Smith-Peters, organizer,Lexington Salvadoran Coffee Boycott Committee

A fter the startling rebuke dealt byNicaragua's "Poters to their com

unist Sandanista goPernment, the

merican left h1u turned its attention toother Central American flashpoint, El"Pador.

In 1989, that country's "Poters turnedt the U.S. -supported ruling leftistristian Democrats, whichhad institutedand reform" and other measures dended by the communist insurgency.riously, for an electorate supposedlymoring for left-sponsored reforms, the"Padoran "POters installed the right"111ing

RENA party, which the left bitterlycused of n"Pol"Pement in death squads"signed to eliminate political opponents.

In Nwember 1989, after the murdersix Jesuits, a boycott was announced bye leftist American organization,ighbor-to-Neighbor, which wasformed1986 to promote socialistgroups andicies in Central America. NeighborNeighbor is probably best known forducing the propaganda film, Faces of

ar," narrated byformer MASH" starke Farrell, long a.ssociated with left-

wing causes.In September, a localgroup called the

Lexington Sal"Padoran Coffee BoycottCommittee began promoting the boycottby picketing outside local groceries, andhanding out pledge sheets" which commit signers to the boycott.

Se"Peral weeks into the local effort wespoke to BoycottCommittee,or.ganizer, LiseSmith-Peters, to get some insight into hergroup's objecti"Pes, and to gain some un-

LR : What is the goal of he boycott?Smith-Peters: We're trying to stop

U.S. military aid to El Salvador. We'retrying to get the government of ElSalvador to recognize its crimes againstthe people of that country and to bringthe military to justice. Over the past tenyears the civil war has been raging, and70,000 people have been killed in thatcountry. A lot of these people are noncombatants; they're people who opposethe Salvadoran government.

Di d the killing of the priests instiga-te the boycott?

It 's been in the works, I believe, but

derstanding of the political dispositioCommittee members.

Ms. Smith-Peters was an obser"Pethe 1990 election in Nicaragua and supporter of the defeated Sandanistagime. She co-authored a book about experience entitled, Democracy WNicaragua.

What follows is excerpted fromlengthy discussion with Ms. Smith-Psucceeded by an analysis of her comm

that was the last straw, and the fact,,othing has been done to investigate thmwder, in fact it's just been covered upby the military there. There haveties also with the U.S. military iSalvador that are very strong, and, ifact, claims that the U.S. military knewwhat was happening in the Jesuits'sassination.

Who has made those daims?For instance, President Christian

actually admits that the Salvadoran military had met with the Jesuit police sixhours before the incident happened. Andthe fact that the U.S. military advisor


2/6

e down there ... I think its very clearat there's a connection.

Why is Proctor 11nd G11mble dJe focusdJe boycott?

Neighbor-to-Neighbor has targeted&G because they are the largest coffeempany. All of he major American cof-

companies are buying coffee from El

vador. They all buy about 2 percentthe coffee, which we feel could easilysubstituted with coffee from other

untries, such as Nicaragua, Hawaii,erto Rico, wherever. Anywhere elset El Salvador.

Another reason why they're actuallyrgeting Proctor and Gamble is becauseey've taken a moral stand before. Theyycotted Ugandan coffee in 1979 whenAmin was in power. And they also

ve divested from South Africa andighbor-to-Neighbor and the Lexingn group are hoping that by targeting&G that they will take a moral stand

this issue, and that the other coffeempanies will then follow their lead.

But, so far, P&G h11s been 11ggres-1ely resist/Int.

[President Bush's Chief of Staff]hn Sununu has written a letter to

&G's CEO, Mr. Artzt, asking him notboycott Salvadoran coffee; that it willrt the economy and the people there.

Wh11t support does dJe boycott h1111emong dJe people of El &il1111tlor?

It 's actually supported by their largcoffee growers union, SICAFE. It's

supported by various worker's fed-tions and cooperatives there. That, to, is a very telling f.lctor, that the Sal-

doran workers arc willing to go through

ore hardship-to endure more hardp-in order to change the systemre.

Wh11t percent o f dJe coffee workerse supporting dJe boycott?

I don't know the percentage, I know

Lexington Report, 1990All rights reserved

Nicolas S. Martin, editor(606) 275-3378

it's in he hundreds of thousands ofworkers. The SI CAFE is 500,000 people.

Does the FMLN support dJe boycott?I would assume so. I'm sure that

they support any kind of effort to putpressure on the military government.

Part of the reason behind the boy-cott is to try to get the military and the

"

The boycott] does insome ways hurt theworkers. The. fact is,

the workers are willingto endure more hard-

ship. Their lives are somiserable... that they

could care less.

government to negotiate with the opposition, which includes the guerillas aswell as the political opposition.

Are you surprised th11t 11 letter fromthe S11l1111tlor11n bishops, including se11-er11l bishops 11ligned with left-wing liber11tion 'theology, strongly expresses oppo-sition to the boycott?There are two different churches in ElSalvador, as in Central America as a whole.One's the popular church, which doesespouse Liberation Theology, and thenthe other is the Catholic hierarchy, andthey arc very much aligned with the

oligarchy's interests in El Salvador, andthe military.

In their letter denouncing the boy-cott, the bishopss11id, we completely rejectthe boycott of &il1111tlor11n coffee bec11usei t s 11 memure which injures ustice sincei t h11rms indiscrimin11tely no t only thecoffee growers, but 11lso dJe people wholi11e from coffee lllhor, 11nd is 11 rude blowon dJe prec11rious economy of dJe country." In wh11t w11y 11re dJe bishops wrong11bout 'this?

I don't think they're wrong atI think it does in some ways hurtworkers. The &ct is, the workers areing to endure more hardship. Thastated in the &ct that these federationand cooperatives are willing to suppothe boycott. Their lives are so miseraand leaders of unions have supportedstatement, that they could care lesThey're willing to endure the hardshiif it means change in that countrThey're living under miserable condtions, and I don't think it's gonna that much worse.

The bishops continue: we deemboycott to be 11 politic11l st/I.nee, noe1111ngtlicp.l one, fo r dJe purpose oftinuing abro11d dJe Wllr on dJe econof dJe country, whose infr11structurebeen systemimlly destroyed by dJe FMduring 'these ten ye11rs of conflict."you p11rt of 11n effort to continue dJe

No, no t at all. In f.lct, I think what we're trying to do is get it to sAnd not only by supporting measuresou r own Congress, such as whatSenate's about to pass, which wouldoff 50% of military aid to El Salvadbut also pressuring the government theto negotiate with the opposition.not just saying the FMLN, but the political opposition, which is the FD

Do you 11gree widJ dJe BishopsdJe FMLN hm destroyed the econ

Definitely. They've destroyed theconomic infrastructure in order to the prosperity of the economy, in orto make the workers feel more miserand have more miserable conditionsorder for them to also join the struggl

Is dJ11t good?I f their lives are already misera

I say pick up arms and fight. The militagovernment has slaughtered people thefor ten years and more. When you're nallowed to work in the system, whicthey're not-they're killed as soon astry to organize in that country-Isee any other way.

Do you 11gree dJ11t dJe FMLNindiscrimin11tely kills people?

Yes, and I don't agree with

The guerillas have been documented fsummary executions, and especially p


3/6

ical leaders of the right they've killed.o, I don't support that. I support

hange in that country, preferablyrough the political option, bu t that

oesn't seem to a choice of the governent, they don't allow that to happen.

Ginn die meager living standardcoffee workers, 'to destroy 'their living'to destroy 'their lives, isn't it?

We get into a whole problem ineasuring what quality oflife they have.lot of hem are willing, as I said before,endure any kind of hardship to changee system.

Yo u ar e a supporter o f theandanistas. Is 'theirs die kind of govnment you would like 'to see in power

El Salvador?I 'd like to see a government that

cludes all sectors of society. I' m no t

re if the Sandanistas actually did orot. What I 'd like to see is a full specum of political players in the Salvadoranovernment. Right now the national as-mbly is completely controlled byRENA, which is the right-wing, conrvative party.

But they control i t because 'they were-ted in'to power by 'the-people who vo-ted

die election.Yea, it was a small percentage of

ters. I think it was like 11 percent ofe eligible voters voting.

But the others weren prohibi-tedom voting. They simply chose no t 'to.

Which says a lot. I f hey don't chosevote I think that there's something

ong with the system. Of course, thatkes place in ou r country too. We chooset to vote.

What do you 'think of Castro's govnment in Cuba?

I think it's a crime. It's very represve. The people in that country don'tve any freedom to speak ou t againste government. They lifestyle, their livese completely controlled under the govnment.

In more recent open elections inosta Rica, Nicaragua, and El Salva

Wr, Ontra l Americans have consimndyted fo r conservative, anti-socialistvernment. Doesn i t suggest 'that most

Central Americans repudia"te the left?I don' t know that much about Costa

Rica, so I don't feel comfortable discussing that. In Nicaragua, I honestly thinkthe people were forced into that electionin voting for Violeta Chomorro. President Bush made it clear that if theSandanistas were voted into power thewar would continue with the U.S.-supported Contras. The economic condi

tions were so miserable, due to the war,the U.S. economic embargo, and mistakes made by the Sandanistas, as well,

Israel is the

US's whore

in the

Middle East

that I think the people were ready fora change. President Bush's statement justmade it all that much clearer who they

had to vote for.

However, you have said 'that in ElSalvat:Wr die level of hardship is likely'to drive diem in'to die hands of the left,or 'to participa-te in left-wing anti-government activities. But you're saying in'this case that 'those same kinds of hardships drove diem in'to die hands of dieopposition 'to die left wing government.

The situations arc different in ttwo countries. They're no t the samany means.

Why?The people do believe that the U

is a major source for the wars inof those countries that have taken placBecause the U.S. government supportethe Contras in Nicaragua, who, whithey did fight against the Sandanista sodiers, were also targeting civilians toIn El Salvador it's the U.S. military aU.S. government that's supporting thSalvadoran military there. That isagainst the people there.

Yo u 1 believe 'that the political dsolution of die oligarchy an d die iduction of ocialism of one sort or anodwill improve conditions in El Salvat

Really, more democracy than scialism. Maybe democratic socialism.

After 70 years of socialist govmen'tS around die world, of all diffestripes, is 'there one 'that you could'to as an example of one 'that has worto die benefit of die people?

Maybe Sweden.

That s n ~an example of a couwhere an oppressed population agitaan d achieved socialism an d then gabet"ter living conditions, which is wyou're looking fo r in 'this case. Isany good example of where 'that's hpened?

I certainly would never state anythe Eastern European socialist countrior communist countries as being anample to follow at all. No, I don'tthere's any perfect government for th

"And the harm i t imposes on the poor"In May of 1990, the Catholic Bishopsof El Salvador issued their vehementdenunciation of the boycott. ReverendMonsignor Rogelio Mahony, Archbishopof Los Angeles and President of theCommission oflnternational Justice andPeace responded in a letter which saidin part:

'7he United States Bishops have notsupported 'this boycott, bu t I think a few

Catholic groups here an d there have ta position in favor of the boycott bthey think they are helping the poorof El Salvador.

We are going to publish your 'OLetter' throughout the United States sthe people of our country will have a betan d deeper understanding of theabout the boycott an d the harm it imon the poor."


4/6

eople in this world. For me the mostmportant thing to take place in El Sal-ador is to have a political opening, whereeople from all stripes, all specters, tak-g any stand, can participate in theectoral process. It 's only really the right-ing and the center that's allowed to.nd the Christian Democrats in Elalvador arc really pretty far to the right

center now. The Christian Democrats

ave a lot of people in the military.

Ba&k t:o the gener11lpoint Rbout so11lism, 11nd whether in the c11se of

ppressedpeople they benefit from it:s inoduction or imposition. The m11inlandJJineseh11Pe11per e11pit11income of Rbout300 per ye11r, which is probllhly prettyose t:o th11t of El SRIP11dor. Nextoor, the Hong Kong Chinese1Pe11per e11pit11income of wer

8,000, 11nd they 11re well knownh11Pethe le11stgoPernment intrum in the economy,the most 111issez1ire economyin the world for the lRsterlll declllles. Doem t th11tshow th11t

ery poor people, i f left 11/one in 11 freeonomy, e11n become Pery we11lthy.

Yea, but I don't think that that ex-mple applies everywhere. Mainlandhina is very different from El Salvador,icaragua, or Cuba, or Hong Kong, forat matter.

But other countries, such 11s Kore11nd T11iw11n,countries with Pery poor

opul11tions, h11Pe, without Piolent inrrection, 11chined prosperity 11lmostJuiP11lent t:o Western countries. Why1n't th11t be done in Centr11l Americ111

You have made an assumption thatwant a leftist government to be pu tto power in El Salvador and to be inajor control of the economic an dlitical sectors. That's an invalid as-

mption on your part. That's no tcessarily what I want. The El Salva-rans know better than anyone whatnd of government is going to fit theirstem. It's gonna take people from theft, center, and right in that country toake the government up, and right nows not that way. It doesn't consist ofl sectors of society because people one left have been annihilated.

Tou mentioned democr11ticsocilll-m. The h11llm11rk of 11ll soci11listgoP-

ernment:s isth11t they h11Pe11 degrlldingeffect on the economy.Le11PingRside theissues of indiPidURl liberty. Isn't theproblm1 th11tpeople&11n' t becomewelllthyin socilllist or gonrnment-run economin1

I don't know.

PeruPi11n economist Hern11ndo deSot:o 11rgues th11t IAtin Ameri&11nsh11Pe

nner giPen up their hist:oric11lcommit-ment t:o merc11ntilism 11nd t:o he11Pilyregul11ted economies,11nd th11tgwern-

Sticltcrdistributed by

Lexington SalvadoranCoffee Boycott Committee

ment:s of both right 11nd left disrupt theeconomin 11nd interfere with the n11turlll m11rltet:s. He s11ysth11t th11t interfer-ence, through the promulg11ritmof thou-s11nds of regul11tions11nd the corruptionth11t goes with th11t, is responsible forpwerty in IAtin Amerie1111nd th11tthepoPerty h11s little to do with foreignpowers. Do you dist1gree1

To some extent. I think the bureau-cracy, in some ways, and the regulationsarc pu t in place in order the keep thestatus quo: the wealthy owning the ma-jority of the land, or in charge of busi-nesses, industries, or whamot. I definitelyreject his theory that no responsibilityshould be given to foreign industry. Part

of the reason why countries in CAmerican, in particular, arc the waarc is that they arc protectors of UStates' economic interests in those ctries. Ou r policy throughout this centhas been to keep a minority happthose countries and a strong militaryorder to keep the situation the samwhere foreign business can operate quite fruitfully.

But tens of thous11ndsof SRI11nscome to the U.S. illeglllly to wothese comp11nieswhich you think wm11t them btully Rt home,11ndAmeobject to those comp11nin mwingoper11tionsto countries like El S11

... I don't think Salvadorans can chere in d work for the companies.

They work illegally, bu t theyThey usually work on farms

they're no t treated very well, eithersoon as the INS finds them, they'rether kicked ou t or go through a series of trials in order to try to

I don't believe they're coming up hfor economic prosperity, I think

because they can't survive incountry, because they're proba

opposing the government.

Why don't they just st

Mexicoinstelldof

coming11ll

tto the U.S.1Mexico's a mess. Mexico's fille

Central American refugees. And it'sally no t that much better off cconomwise. A lot of he Central Americans areven stopping. They come to the UStates but they're going up to Cananow because we deport them so qu

But Ameri&11n industry hatmigr11tion 111ws. They cost them 1

money, 11nd they costs them opportto hire 11 lot of people 11t lower wato hire people fo r jobs th11t Amewouldn't do.

But have you ever noticed thatmigration laws don't apply to CeAmericans? I think it's our governmenrecognition of the fact that thingshell down there, and that we miga cause of that.

South of he U.S. border, in Mmaquiladoras region, there 11r


5/6

bout500,000 1110f'ltersemployedbemusee Mmct1n 90Pernment h for ye11rsrmitted 11n open, lllmost Hona Klma-

ke eeonom1 in norlhern Mmco. I t h1Uukkl1 become the m11jor souru of or

gn currenc1 for Mmco, 11nd 11 hf1.8euru of emplo1ment. The Mexict1n9wnment h111 just &h11n9ed i:ts constim-on UJ llllow the maquiladoras enPi-nment UJmstthrou9hout Mmco, with

rei9n comp11nies comin9 in UJ inPest.the maquiladoras re9ion this policy

M cre11"tedtremendous 11.ffluenu com-1red t:o the rest of Mmco. Doem't th11tmonstr11"te th11t forei9n comp11niesin9in9 in inPestment imprwe the lifethe people who 1110t'kfor them?

I think that's a different situation.exico's go t a very different governmentan El Salvador docs. In El Salvador th empanies that come in may be offeringbs, bu t they arc no t offering livableages. I don't know what the situation

Mexico is.

Aren't they offerina hi9her w119es11n the 11Per119efor the country, thou9h?

I don't know. They probably are,t I don't believe in a system that's set, such as the Salvadoran governmentd military that is set up purposely tootect foreign interests at th e demise ofe people. Any o f th e unions that t ry

form down there to increase wages,demand better living conditions, to

man d medical insurance, those peoplec eliminated, those people aren't heardagain. They're shot down in the streets.st like in Guatemala. Guatemala is ex-tly the same situation when it comes

repressing the opposition.

But h11m't i t been trwe for 11 Ioname th11t whi&hner 9wernment is inwer in South And Centrlll Americ11n

untries oppresses the opposition re911rd-s of their politics?I wo uld say the degree of repression

probably a lo t different. I don't thinke Sandanistas have come anywhere close

repressing th e people as the Guate-alan and Salvadoran governments have.

I,an11&ioBllllcurlti, one of he slllinsuit priests in whose n11me the boycottbein9 conduc"tetl, s11itl, "71te FMLNnks insurrection is possible. They think

e popul11tion is r11tlic11l 11nd Pery

milimnt. They 11re wron9" Wouldn'tF11ther Bll11&urlti 'tllke 11 dim Piew of heboycottbeina conduc"tedin his n11mewhenhe tlidn t beline th11t the people weremwed to rePOlt?

I don't think th e boycott, in gen-eral, is trying to give support to th eFMLN. There arc many of us who don'tagree with their tactics. I think that thegovernment should have to negotiate

with them to some extent, because theydo represent a large percentage o f th epopulation. Also, th e government's re-pression has turned a lo t o f people to -ward th e guerillas. Th e fact that theywere able to have an insurrection in No -vember shows that they . do have somepopular support. Bu t I don't think th eboycott is trying to lend its support tothe FMLN. They're just trying to ge tthe government to negotiate with th epolitical opposition, which includes th eguerillas.

Bu t you 111itl e11rlier th11t the h11rd-ship pl11ted on the worlters from Rn ef-femn boycottwould driPe them UJw11rdsinSUf'rection.

Ycs, insurrection can take variousforms. I don't think it necessarily meansjoining th e FMLN. I t means organizingin unions, it means organizing in coop-eratives where there are people who arcwilling to demand strikes. Th e unionsand cooperatives striking arc going tohurt th e economy, bu t it doesn't meanthey've joined the FMLN.

The FMLN 9o t consitlerllhle suppfrom the &intlanistlU, 111ho,in m m11 lot of support from the &mets.

There's so much that th e Sandancould support. I think that moral port was th e majority o f what they g

But they did 9iPe them 111e11poDavid MacMichael, whose an e

CIA agent, wh o was actually fired

cause he couldn't find any major lio f th e Sandanistas giving aid tSalvador, has come out an d said thlo t o f th e White Papers [purportingshow a link] were created bygovernment. They may have given soeconomic support, but I don ' t tnearly as much as what we have said.Soviet Union has come down againsSandanistas themselves. They've said"Hey, we can't support another Cuba."I don't fall into that belief of the Sosupporting the Sandanistas, who supthe guerillas in El Salvador. I thin k tou r government's ploy.

But they're usina So'Piet we111nd they must h11Pe9onen them frsomewhere.

Sure, OK the Sandanistas have givmaybe a few percentage, I don't kho w much. But the rebels have uslo t of weapons from th e United Sthat the U.S. military uses down theror th e Salvadoran military.

There eertRinly is 'ti consensuboth sides, thllt the So'Piets9iPin9 sn

"The wolves were here before we were"Boycott Committee members tlo not shy frome11lli"8 rigbt..,,,;"if S.h111tltw11nsm11rtlerers 11rultuciui"if Proctor & G11mble of aruling tl111thSIJfllltls. I t therefore seemsf11ir to llSSess the tlepthof tntn11letlge of those 111ho Mlllu Stich 1UCus11-tions. The Uxington Report elicitetl the fol-lllwing exeh11"ife 111ith 11 wtnn11n 111ho seemetl11 bit 11ncert11in llbOflt her r111Sons for p.rticip11ti"if in the picltet line, bflt exhibited. 11n lltlmir11ble 11.ffection for C.nis l11pus.

The IJOPernment in powr [i n El S. l -111Ulor] is 11n eleaetl IJO.,,,,.,.ment th11t 11nrhotly in die eounrr, coultl UP I 11otetl 11911inst.Doem-'l thtit 1118!J6st thtit most people in dieeounrr, jilUl 11llegi11nu111ith the gnernmentdl11t the U.S. s11ppor111

You're asking me something that's a little

bi t above, because I' m fairly new in this.nus

is my second time ou t and I' m just getting

into it . On e reason I 'm here is to learn mabout that.

71le S.l"""'1rtln llishops h11P1deno1the /Joycolt. Doem-'l d111t1118!JUIdl11t the bmight be 11 misplluetl effiwt1

I t may be, bu t I know they sayworkers support the boycott, so there mbe something going wrong.

Wh11t other ltirul of S111eSh1111eyostrongly 11bout1

The deforestation of th e rain fora major issue that I don't care for, aknow the government still buys a lo t ofdown there. Th e reintroduction of he wis another issue, cause I believe they w

here before we were and I' d like to seccome back.


6/6

llion IUJllars a year t:o the Sandanis tasnnot help but ha11e a salutary effect

n the Sal11adoran 9uerillm, wouldn'tou agree?

I don't know, because the Novemer offensive took place regardless of thehanges in the Soviet Union. I honestlyon't agree with that. I don't agree thate Soviet Union was sponsoring a lotwhat's going on there. Maybe through

uba. I f hat 's what you mean is throughuba, yes. But Cuba has been supportg guerilla efforts through Latin Americance the sixties.

Complet:ely a t the behest o f the So-iets.

nalysis

Sure, why not? Just like we've beensupporting movements throughout theworld, too. I f you're going to hold upthe Soviet Union, I think you pu t theUnited States up there right along withit, I really do. Because we've supportedrepression throughout the world, too.

What is an example of a countrythat the Unit:ed Stat:es hm colonized and

oppressed in the way that the So11iets ha11eCuba.

Israel is, I think, the Uni ted States'whore in the Middle East. They are willing to do anything. We've been involvedin supporting wars in Angola, and we'vesupported Pakistan.

offee boycott Inflicts more misery on Salvadoran

oor but makes American leftistsfeel

compassionateDemocr'"Y W.ritch: Niuir.rigUR, Lise Smith

ters writes: "The whole specter of U. S.onsorship of military dictatorships and th emewhat elusive revolutionary fervor of theasses in the [Central American] region wastremely fascinating and addicting to me."his attribution of an almost aphrodisiacuality to the violent drama of the Centralmerican people infuses much of what Ms.mith-Peters, and many of her leftist colagues, express.

She ostensibly attributes her concern toe need o f th e people-who she calls

masses"-to be liberated from oppression.owever, she admits, without evident contion, that the coffee boycott "does in someys hurt t he workers," bu t she claims they

re willing to endure more hardship" beuse "their lives are so miserable .. that theyuldn't care less." Oh yea? I f Ms. Smithters is so adept at reading the thoughts of

Central American "masses," why didn'tr crystal ball tell he r that her belovedndanistas were going to be booted out ate first opportunity given to th e Nicaraguanople? (This anti-Sandanista vote is proby why she says the "revolutionaty fervorthe masses" is "somewhat elusive.")

Of course, she rationalizes this defeat byaming it on Uncle Sam. The people didn'tlly reject th e socialists, they "were forcedo that election in voting for Violetaomorra," otherwise th e U.S. would conue supporting the Contras.

On the one hand, Ms. Smith-Peters ares that the hardship imposed on Nicaraans by U.S. policy drove them to th elitical right. On the other hand, she wants

mericans to stop drinking Salvadoran coffeecreate the sort of hardship which she

thinks will drive the people of El Salvador tothe political left. The political formulas read:Right-wing hardship = bad, Left-winghardship - good.

While she has some tactical reservationsabout the FMLN, El Salvador's communistinsurgency, and she agrees with the bishopsthat the FMLN has destroyed th e country'seconomy, she views this as necessary tostimulate worker revolt. The FMLN have,she says, "destroyed th e economic infrastructure in order to stop the prosperity of

the economy, in order to make th e workersfeel more miserable and have more miserableconditions in order for them to also join thestruggle." The inconvenient truth, though, isthat , after having their economy destroyed bythe communists, th e Salvadoran people, votedout their U. S.-backed socialist governmentand installed the right-wing ARENA partywhich Ms. Smith-Peters detests. Probably theSalvadorans made this mistake because theyweren' t yet miserable enough, so the left hasundertaken the coffee boycott to ensure moremisery. This is known as compassion.

Contrary to Ms. Smith-Peters assertionsthe UCRAPROBEX farm workers u n i o n ~pleading with Americans to keep buyingcoffee. Its president begs Americans, "Pleasedo no t use the salvadorean people's sufferingfor your own political advancement."

The Salvadoran Catholic bishops havebeen even more outspoken. The bishops"completely reject the boycott on Salvadorancoffee because it is a measure which injuresjustice since i t harms indiscriminately not onlythe coffee growers bu t also the people wholive from coffee and is a rude blow upon the

precarious economy of th e country." It isprecisely this blow, though, which Ms. Smith-

Peters hopes to inflict.While supporting th e Sandanistas and

FMLN objectives, she attempts to disherself from th e now-discredited socialismCastro and th e Soviets. Bu t Central Amersocialist insurgencies have been little morthan surrogates for Soviet expansion. ThSoviets sponsored an increase in the nuof Nicaraguan soldiers from 5,000 inwhen the Sandanistas took control, to 119a few years later. Th e Soviets gave billion

aid to their Cuban and Nicaraguan clienwho then funneled weapons to the FMAt first Ms. Smith-Peters denies the S

viet connection, bu t she then admits thcame "through Cuba. I f hat's what you mis through Cuba, yes." Then the cat's oth e bag: "Sure, why not? Just like we'vesupporting movements throughout the worldtoo. I f yo1.1;'re going to hold up the SUnion, I tHink you pu t th e United Statethere r ight along with it . . " Eastern Europeanmight no t agree.

There are several fundamental problem

with Ms. Smith-Peters positions, no t theof which is their bald utopianism. She offa prescription for destruction of EI Salvbu t she has no program for rebuilding, ja few attractive cliches, like justice, redistrbution, Urness, etc. On the positive no w that institutional socialism has behumiliated she is loath to be explicitlysociated with it. But she hasn' t lost he r hthey are just repackaged for a new da

She neither knows nor cares why impoverished places like Hong Kong, JaKorea, Taiwan, and Singapore have becom

economic giants. Capitalism doesn'twith a ready supply of compassionate clicit simply works.

She doesn't want to know aboutcessful Central Americans making theirin the U.S., despite immigration laws whishe f.tlsely claims do not apply to themdoesn' t want to hear about Mexm11quillidor.risregion with its tremendous njob opportunities. She wants revolutionafervor and demon America. Whoever "Revolution is the opium of he intellecthad Llse Smith-Peters' number.

A.&c,ordingto former London KGBst1itionOleg Gordinsky, by 1979 the So'Piets h11dtified Centr1il Americ.ri RS ,;the mostprom.rire.ri for exp11nsion of KGB oper11tions.JI Athe KGB wtis uncert.riin of the fidelityS.rind.rinist.ris to Swiet interests, bu t .riccto Gordinsky, 'By the end of 1981, hoOutro .rind t:he KGB reports h11d persu11dKremlin t:h.rit the S11nd.rinist.ris were gernolution.riries who would folUJw the Cp11th to Swiet loy.rilism. JI

KGB:The Inside

Christopher Andrew and Oleg Gordievsk

The Lexington Report. 1990

Documents