Lexington Report

Commentary on issues in the community

"~

Premier Edition

The boycott of coffee imported from El Salvador

Who supports it? What are its goals?
Exclusive interview with Lise Smith-Peters, organizer, Lexington Salvadoran Coffee Boycott Committee

fter the startling rebuke dealt by Nicaragua's "Poters to their communist Sandanista goPernment, the American left h1u turned its attention to another Central American flashpoint, El Sal"Pador. In 1989, that country's "Poters turned out the U.S. -supported ruling leftist Otristian Democrats, which had instituted [and reform" and other measures demanded by the communist insurgency. Curiously, for an electorate supposedly clamoring for left-sponsored reforms, the Sal"Padoran "POters installed the right"111ing ARENA party, which the left bitterly accused of in"Pol"Pement in death squads" designed to eliminate political opponents. In Nwember 1989, after the murder of six Jesuits, a boycott was announced by the leftist American organization, Neighbor-to-Neighbor, which was formed in 1986 to promote socialist groups and policies in Central America. Neighborto-Neighbor is probably best known for producing the propaganda film, Faces of War," narrated by former MASH" star Mike Farrell, long a.ssociated with left-

wing causes. derstanding of the political dispositions of In September, a localgroup called the Committee members. Ms. Smith-Peters was an obser"Per of Lexington Sal"Padoran Coffee Boycott Committee began promoting the boycott the 1990 election in Nicaragua and a by picketing outside local groceries, and supporter of the defeated Sandanista rehanding out pledge sheets" which com- gime. She co-authored a book about that experience entitled, Democracy Watch: mit signers to the boycott. Se"Peral weeks into the local effort we Nicaragua. What follows is excerpted from a spoke to Boycott Committee, or.ganizer, Lise Smith-Peters, to get some insight into her lengthy discussion with Ms. Smith-Peters, group's objecti"Pes, and to gain some un- succeeded by an analysis of her comments.
LR: What is the goal of the boycott? Smith-Peters: We're trying to stop U.S. military aid to El Salvador. We're trying to get the government of El Salvador to recognize its crimes against the people of that country and to bring the military to justice. Over the past ten years the civil war has been raging, and 70,000 people have been killed in that country. A lot of these people are noncombatants; they're people who oppose the Salvadoran government.

that was the last straw, and the fact that ,,othing has been done to investigate the mwder, in fact it's just been covered up by the military there. There have been ties also with the U.S. military in El Salvador that are very strong, and, in fact, claims that the U.S. military knew what was happening in the Jesuits' assassination.

Did the killing of the priests instiga-te the boycott? It's been in the works, I believe, but

Who has made those daims? For instance, President Christiani actually admits that the Salvadoran military had met with the Jesuit police six hours before the incident happened. And the fact that the U.S. military advisors

are down there ...I think its very clear that there's a connection.
Why is Proctor 11nd G11mble dJe focus of dJe boycott? Neighbor-to-Neighbor has targeted P&G because they are the largest coffee company. All of the major American coffee companies are buying coffee from El Salvador. They all buy about 2 percent of the coffee, which we feel could easily be substituted with coffee from other countries, such as Nicaragua, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, wherever. Anywhere else but El Salvador. Another reason why they're actually targeting Proctor and Gamble is because they've taken a moral stand before. They boycotted Ugandan coffee in 1979 when Idi Amin was in power. And they also have divested from South Africa and Neighbor-to-Neighbor and the Lexington group are hoping that by targeting P&G that they will take a moral stand on this issue, and that the other coffee companies will then follow their lead. But, so far, P&G h11s been 11ggressi11ely resist/Int. [President Bush's Chief of Staff] John Sununu has written a letter to P&G's CEO, Mr. Artzt, asking him not to boycott Salvadoran coffee; that it will hurt the economy and the people there. Wh11t support does dJe boycott h1111e 11mong dJe people of El &il1111tlor? It's actually supported by their largest coffee growers union, SICAFE. It's also supported by various worker's federations and cooperatives there. That, to me, is a very telling f.lctor, that the Salvadoran workers arc willing to go through more hardship-to endure more hardship-in order to change the system there. Wh11t percent of dJe coffee workers 11re supporting dJe boycott? I don't know the percentage, I know

it's in he hundreds of thousands of workers. The SICAFE 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 put pressure on the military government. Part of the reason behind the boycott is to try to get the military and the

[The boycott] does in some ways hurt the workers. The. fact is, the workers are willing to endure more hardship. Their lives are so miserable... that they could care less.
government to negotiate with the opposition, which includes the guerillas as well as the political opposition.
Are you surprised th11t 11 letter from the S11l1111tlor11n bishops, including se11er11l bishops 11ligned with left-wing liber11tion 'theology, strongly expresses opposition to the boycott? There are two different churches in El Salvador, as in Central America as a whole. One's the popular church, which does espouse Liberation Theology, and then the other is the Catholic hierarchy, and they arc very much aligned with the oligarchy's interests in El Salvador, and the military.

"

I don't think they're wrong at all. I think it does in some ways hurt the workers. The &ct is, the workers are willing to endure more hardship. That's stated in the &ct that these federations and cooperatives are willing to support the boycott. Their lives are so miserable, and leaders of unions have supported my statement, that they could care less. They're willing to endure the hardship if it means change in that country. They're living under miserable conditions, and I don't think it's gonna get that much worse.
The bishops continue: we deem 'this boycott to be 11 politic11l st/I.nee, not 11n e1111ngtlicp.l one, for dJe purpose of continuing abro11d dJe Wllr on dJe economy of dJe country, whose infr11structure hm been systemimlly destroyed by dJe FMLN during 'these ten ye11rs of conflict." Are you p11rt of11n effort to continue dJe w11r? No, not at all. In f.lct, I think that what we're trying to do is get it to stop. And not only by supporting measures in our own Congress, such as what the Senate's about to pass, which would cut off 50% of military aid to El Salvador, but also pressuring the government there to negotiate with the opposition. I'm not just saying the FMLN, but the political opposition, which is the FDR

Do you 11gree widJ dJe Bishops dJ11t dJe FMLN hm destroyed the economy? Definitely. They've destroyed the economic infrastructure in order to stop the prosperity of the economy, in order to make the workers feel more miserable and have more miserable conditions in order for them to also join the struggle.

Lexington Report, 1990

All rights reserved Nicolas S. Martin, editor

(606) 275-3378

Is dJ11t good? If their lives are already miserable, I say pick up arms and fight. The military government has slaughtered people there for ten years and more. When you're not In their letter denouncing the boyallowed to work in the system, which cott, the bishops s11id, we completely reject they're not-they're killed as soon as they the boycott of &il1111tlor11n coffee bec11use it is 11 memure which injures justice since try to organize in that country-I don't it h11rms indiscrimin11tely not only the see any other way. coffee growers, but 11lso dJe people who Do you 11gree dJ11t dJe FMLN 11lso li11e from coffee lllhor, 11nd is 11 rude blow indiscrimin11tely kills people? on dJe prec11rious economy of dJe counYes, and I don't agree with that. try." In wh11t w11y 11re dJe bishops wrong The guerillas have been documented for 11bout 'this? summary executions, and especially po-

litical leaders of the right they've killed. No, I don't support that. I support change in that country, preferably through the political option, but that doesn't seem to a choice of the government, they don't allow that to happen.
Ginn die meager living standard of coffee workers, 'to destroy 'their living is 'to destroy 'their lives, isn't it? We get into a whole problem in measuring what quality oflife they have. A lot of them are willing, as I said before, to endure any kind of hardship to change the system. You are a supporter of the Sandanistas. Is 'theirs die kind of government you would like 'to see in power in El Salvador? I'd like to see a government that includes all sectors of society. I'm not sure if the Sandanistas actually did or not. What I'd like to see is a full spectrum of political players in the Salvadoran government. Right now the national assembly is completely controlled by ARENA, which is the right-wing, conservative party. But they control it because 'they were vo-ted in'to power by 'the-people who vo-ted in die election. Yea, it was a small percentage of voters. I think it was like 11 percent of the eligible voters voting. But the others weren ~ prohibi-ted from voting. They simply chose not 'to. Which says a lot. If they don't chose to vote I think that there's something wrong with the system. Of course, that takes place in our country too. We choose not to vote. What do you 'think of Castro's government in Cuba? I think it's a crime. It's very repressive. The people in that country don't have any freedom to speak out against the government. They lifestyle, their lives are completely controlled under the government.

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 think the people were forced into that election in voting for Violeta Chomorro. President Bush made it clear that if the Sandanistas were voted into power the war would continue with the U.S.-supported Contras. The economic conditions were so miserable, due to the war, the U.S. economic embargo, and mistakes made by the Sandanistas, as well,

The situations arc different in the two countries. They're not the same by any means.
Why? The people do believe that the U.S. is a major source for the wars in both of those countries that have taken place. Because the U.S. government supported the Contras in Nicaragua, who, while they did fight against the Sandanista soldiers, were also targeting civilians too. In El Salvador it's the U.S. military and U.S. government that's supporting the Salvadoran military there. That is a war against the people there. You1 believe 'that the political dissolution of die oligarchy and die introduction ofsocialism ofone sort or anodJer will improve conditions in El Salvat:Wr... Really, more democracy than socialism. Maybe democratic socialism. After 70 years of socialist governmen'tS around die world, of all different stripes, is 'there one 'that you could point 'to as an example of one 'that has worked to die benefit of die people? Maybe Sweden. That isn~ an example of a country where an oppressed population agitated and achieved socialism and 'then gained bet"ter living conditions, which is what you're looking for in 'this case. Is 'there any good example of where 'that's happened? I certainly would never state any of the Eastern European socialist countries or communist countries as being an example to follow at all. No, I don't think there's any perfect government for the

Israel is the US's whore in the Middle East

that I think the people were ready for a change. President Bush's statement just made it all that much clearer who they had to vote for.
However, you have said 'that in El Salvat: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 die opposition 'to die left wing government.

"And the harm it imposes on the poor"

Catholic groups here and there have taken a position in favor of the boycott because they think they are helping the poor people of El Salvador. We are going to publish your 'Open Letter' throughout the United States so that the people of our country will have a better and deeper understanding of the facts about the boycott and the harm it imposes on the poor."

In May of 1990, the Catholic Bishops of El Salvador issued their vehement denunciation of the boycott. Reverend Monsignor Rogelio Mahony, Archbishop of Los Angeles and President of the In more recent open elections in Commission oflnternational Justice and Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and El Salva- Peace responded in a letter which said t:Wr, Ontral Americans have consimndy in part: '7he United States Bishops have not voted for conservative, anti-socialist government. Doesn ~it suggest 'that most supported 'this boycott, but I think a few

of the reason why countries in Central American, in particular, arc the way they arc is that they arc protectors of United States' economic interests in those countries. Our policy throughout this century has been to keep a minority happy in those countries and a strong military in order to keep the situation the same, PeruPi11n economist Hern11ndo de where foreign business can operate there Sot:o 11rgues th11t IAtin Ameri&11ns h11Pe quite fruitfully. nner giPen up their hist:oric11l commitment t:o merc11ntilism 11nd t:o he11Pily But tens of thous11nds of SRIPRdorBa&k t:o the gener11l point Rbout so- regul11ted economies, 11nd th11t gwern- 11ns come to the U.S. illeglllly to work for ci11lism, 11nd whether in the c11se of these comp11nies which you think would oppressed people they benefit from it:s inm11t them btully Rt home, 11nd Amerie11ns troduction or imposition. The m11inland object to those comp11nin mwing their CJJinese h11Pe 11 per e11pit11 income ofRbout oper11tions to countries like El S11lPador. $300 per ye11r, which is probllhly pretty . . I don't think Salvadorans can come close t:o th11t of El SRIP11dor. Next here ind work for the companies. door, the Hong Kong Chinese h11Pe 11 per e11pit11 income of wer They work illegally, but they work. $8,000, 11nd they 11re well known They usually work on farms where t:o h11Pe the le11stgoPernment intruthey're not treated very well, either. As sum in the economy, the most 111issez soon as the INS finds them, they're eif11ire economy in the world for the lRst ther kicked out or go through a long snerlll declllles. Doem 't th11t show th11t series of trials in order to try to stay. Pery poor people, if left 11/one in 11 free I don't believe they're coming up here economy, e11n become Pery we11lthy. for economic prosperity, I think it's Yea, but I don't think that that exbecause they can't survive in their ample applies everywhere. Mainland country, because they're probably China is very different from El Salvador, opposing the government. Nicaragua, or Cuba, or Hong Kong, for that matter. Why don't they just stop in Mexico instelld ofcoming 11ll the w11y But other countries, such 11s Kore11 to the U.S.1 11nd T11iw11n, countries with Pery poor Mexico's a mess. Mexico's filled with Sticltcr distributed by Central American refugees. And it's repopul11tions, h11Pe, without Piolent inLexington Salvadoran ally not that much better off cconomicsurrection, 11chined prosperity 11lmost Coffee Boycott Committee e1JuiP11lent t:o Western countries. Why wise. A lot of the Central Americans aren't c11n't th11t be done in Centr11l Americ111 even stopping. They come to the United You have made an assumption that States but they're going up to Canada I want a leftist government to be put ment:s of both right 11nd left disrupt the now because we deport them so quick. into power in El Salvador and to be in economin 11nd interfere with the n11tumajor control of the economic and rlll m11rltet:s. He s11ys th11t th11t interferBut Ameri&11n industry hates impolitical sectors. That's an invalid as- ence, through the promulg11ritm of thou- migr11tion 111ws. They cost them 11 lot of sumption on your part. That's not s11nds of regul11tions 11nd the corruption money, 11nd they costs them opportunity necessarily what I want. The El Salva- th11t goes with th11t, is responsible for to hire 11 lot of people 11t lower wages or dorans know better than anyone what pwerty in IAtin Amerie11 11nd th11t the to hire people for jobs th11t Americ11ns kind of government is going to fit their poPerty h11s little to do with foreign wouldn't do. system. It's gonna take people from the powers. Do you dist1gree 1 But have you ever noticed that imleft, center, and right in that country to To some extent. I think the bureau- migration laws don't apply to Central make the government up, and right now cracy, in some ways, and the regulations Americans? I think it's our government's it's not that way. It doesn't consist of arc put in place in order the keep the recognition of the fact that things are all sectors of society because people on status quo: the wealthy owning the ma- hell down there, and that we might be the left have been annihilated. jority of the land, or in charge of busi- a cause of that. nesses, industries, or whamot. I definitely Tou mentioned democr11tic socilll- reject his theory that no responsibility South of the U.S. border, in Mexico's ism. The h11llm11rk of 11ll soci11list goP- should be given to foreign industry. Part maquiladoras region, there 11re now

people in this world. For me the most important thing to take place in El Salvador is to have a political opening, where people from all stripes, all specters, taking any stand, can participate in the electoral process. It's only really the rightwing and the center that's allowed to. And the Christian Democrats in El Salvador arc really pretty far to the right of center now. The Christian Democrats have a lot of people in the military.

ernment:s is th11t they h11Pe 11 degrllding effect on the economy. Le11Ping Rside the issues of indiPidURl liberty. Isn't the problm1 th11t people &11n't become welllthy in socilllist or gonrnment-run economin1 I don't know.

Rbout 500,000 1110f'lters employed bemuse the Mmct1n 90Pernment h for ye11rs permitted 11n open, lllmost Hona Klmalike eeonom1 in norlhern Mmco. It h1U 11ukkl1 become the m11jor souru of foreign currenc1 for Mmco, 11nd 11 hf1.8e souru ofemplo1ment. The Mexict1n 9wernment h111 just &h11n9ed i:ts constimtion UJ llllow the maquiladoras enPironment UJ mstthrou9hout Mmco, with forei9n comp11nies comin9 in UJ inPest. In the maquiladoras re9ion this policy hM cre11"ted tremendous 11.ffluenu comp11red t:o the rest of Mmco. Doem't th11t demonstr11"te th11t forei9n comp11nies brin9in9 in inPestment imprwe the life of the people who 1110t'k for them?
I think that's a different situation. Mexico's got a very different government than El Salvador docs. In El Salvador the companies that come in may be offering jobs, but they arc not offering livable wages. I don't know what the situation in Mexico is.

The FMLN9ot consitlerllhle support milimnt. They 11re wron9" Wouldn't F11ther Bll11&urlti 'tllke 11 dim Piew of the from the &intlanistlU, 111ho, in mm, 9ot boycott beina conduc"ted in his n11me when 11 lot of support from the &mets. he tlidn 't beline th11t the people were There's so much that the Sandanistas mwed to rePOlt? could support. I think that moral sup-

I don't think the boycott, in general, is trying to give support to the FMLN. There arc many of us who don't agree with their tactics. I think that the government should have to negotiate with them to some extent, because they do represent a large percentage of the population. Also, the government's repression has turned a lot of people toward the guerillas. The fact that they were able to have an insurrection in November shows that they .do have some popular support. But I don't think the boycott is trying to lend its support to the FMLN. They're just trying to get the government to negotiate with the political opposition, which includes the guerillas.

port was the majority of what they gave.

But you 111itl e11rlier th11t the h11rdAren't they offerina hi9her w119es ship pl11ted on the worlters from Rn efth11n the 11Per119e for the country, thou9h? femn boycott would driPe them UJw11rds I don't know. They probably are, inSUf'rection.
but I don't believe in a system that's set Ycs, insurrection can take various up, such as the Salvadoran government forms. I don't think it necessarily means and military that is set up purposely to joining the FMLN. It means organizing protect foreign interests at the demise of in unions, it means organizing in coopthe people. Any of the unions that try eratives where there are people who arc to form down there to increase wages, willing to demand strikes. The unions to demand better living conditions, to and cooperatives striking arc going to demand medical insurance, those people hurt the economy, but it doesn't mean arc eliminated, those people aren't heard they've joined the FMLN. ofagain. They're shot down in the streets. Just like in Guatemala. Guatemala is exactly the same situation when it comes to repressing the opposition.

But they did9iPe them 111e11pons, too. David MacMichael, whose an exCIA agent, who was actually fired because he couldn't find any major links of the Sandanistas giving aid to El Salvador, has come out and said that a lot of the White Papers [purporting to show a link] were created by our government. They may have given some economic support, but I don't think nearly as much as what we have said. The Soviet Union has come down against the Sandanistas themselves. They've said, "Hey, we can't support another Cuba." I don't fall into that belief of the Soviets supporting the Sandanistas, who support the guerillas in El Salvador. I think that's our government's ploy. But they're usina So'Piet we11pons, 11nd they must h11Pe 9onen them from somewhere.
Sure, OK the Sandanistas have given maybe a few percentage, I don't know how much. But the rebels have used a lot of weapons from the United States that the U.S. military uses down there, or the Salvadoran military.

There eertRinly is 'ti consensus, on both sides, thllt the So'Piets9iPin9 sner11l

"The wolves were here before we were"

into it. One reason I'm here is to learn more about that. 71le S.l"""'1rtln llishops h11P1 deno11nutl the /Joycolt. Doem-'l d111t 1118!JUI dl11t the boycott might be 11 misplluetl effiwt1 It may be, but I know they say the workers support the boycott, so there must be something going wrong.

But h11m't it been trwe for 11 Iona time th11t whi&hner 9wernment is in power in South And Centrlll Americ11n countries oppresses the opposition re911rdless of their politics?
I would say the degree of repression is probably a lot different. I don't think the Sandanistas have come anywhere close to repressing the people as the Guatemalan and Salvadoran governments have.

I,an11&io Bllllcurlti, one of the slllin Jesuit priests in whose n11me the boycott is bein9 conduc"tetl, s11itl, "71te FMLN thinks insurrection is possible. They think the popul11tion is r11tlic11l 11nd Pery

Boycott Committee members tlo not shy from e11lli"8 rigbt..,,,;"if S.h111tltw11ns m11rtlerers 11rul tuciui"if Proctor & G11mble offaruling tl111th SIJfllltls. It therefore seems f11ir to llSSess the tlepth of ltntn11letlge of those 111ho Mlllu Stich 1UCus11tions. The Uxington Report elicitetl the follllwing exeh11"ife 111ith 11 wtnn11n 111ho seemetl 11 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 [in El S.l111Ulor] is 11n eleaetl IJO.,,,,.,.ment th11t 11nr hotly in die eounrr, coultl UPI 11otetl 11911inst. Doem-'l thtit 1118!J6st thtit most people in die eounrr, jilUl 11llegi11nu 111ith the gnernment dl11t the U.S. s11ppor111 You're asking me something that's a little bit above, because I'm fairly new in this. nus is my second time out and I'm just getting

Wh11t other ltirul of iS111eS h1111e you felt strongly 11bout1

The deforestation of the rain forest is a major issue that I don't care for, and I know the government still buys a lot of beef down there. The reintroduction of the wolves is another issue, cause I believe they were here before we were and I'd like to sec them come back.

billion IUJllars a year t:o the Sandanistas cannot help but ha11e a salutary effect on the Sal11adoran 9uerillm, wouldn't you agree? I don't know, because the November offensive took place regardless of the changes in the Soviet Union. I honestly don't agree with that. I don't agree that the Soviet Union was sponsoring a lot of what's going on there. Maybe through Cuba. If that's what you mean is through Cuba, yes. But Cuba has been supporting guerilla efforts through Latin America since the sixties. Complet:ely at the behest of the So11iets.

Sure, why not? Just like we've been supporting movements throughout the world, too. If you're going to hold up the Soviet Union, I think you put the United States up there right along with it, I really do. Because we've supported repression throughout the world, too.
What is an example of a country that the Unit:ed Stat:es hm colonized and oppressed in the way that the So11iets ha11e Cuba. Israel is, I think, the United States' whore in the Middle East. They are willing to do anything. We've been involved in supporting wars in Angola, and we've supported Pakistan.

Analysis Coffee boycott Inflicts more misery on Salvadoran poor but makes American leftists feel compassionate
In Democr'"Y W.ritch: Niuir.rigUR, Lise SmithPeters writes: "The whole specter of U. S. sponsorship of military dictatorships and the somewhat elusive revolutionary fervor of the masses in the [Central American] region was extremely fascinating and addicting to me." This attribution of an almost aphrodisiac quality to the violent drama of the Central American people infuses much of what Ms. Smith-Peters, and many of her leftist colleagues, express. She ostensibly attributes her concern to the need of the people-who she calls "masses"-to be liberated from oppression. However, she admits, without evident contrition, that the coffee boycott "does in some ways hurt the workers," but she claims they "are willing to endure more hardship" because "their lives are so miserable ... that they couldn't care less." Oh yea? If Ms. SmithPeters is so adept at reading the thoughts of the Central American "masses," why didn't her crystal ball tell her that her beloved Sandanistas were going to be booted out at the first opportunity given to the Nicaraguan people? (This anti-Sandanista vote is probably why she says the "revolutionaty fervor of the masses" is "somewhat elusive.") Of course, she rationalizes this defeat by blaming it on Uncle Sam. The people didn't really reject the socialists, they "were forced into that election in voting for Violeta Chomorra," otherwise the U.S. would continue supporting the Contras. On the one hand, Ms. Smith-Peters argues that the hardship imposed on Nicaraguans by U.S. policy drove them to the political right. On the other hand, she wants Americans to stop drinking Salvadoran coffee to create the sort of hardship which she thinks will drive the people of El Salvador to the political left. The political formulas read: Right-wing hardship = bad, Left-wing hardship - good. While she has some tactical reservations about the FMLN, El Salvador's communist insurgency, and she agrees with the bishops that the FMLN has destroyed the country's economy, she views this as necessary to stimulate worker revolt. The FMLN have, she says, "destroyed the economic infrastructure in order to stop the prosperity of the economy, in order to make the workers feel more miserable and have more miserable conditions in order for them to also join the struggle." The inconvenient truth, though, is that, after having their economy destroyed by the communists, the Salvadoran people, voted out their U. S.-backed socialist government and installed the right-wing ARENA party which Ms. Smith-Peters detests. Probably the Salvadorans made this mistake because they weren't yet miserable enough, so the left has undertaken the coffee boycott to ensure more misery. This is known as compassion. Contrary to Ms. Smith-Peters assertions the UCRAPROBEX farm workers union~ pleading with Americans to keep buying coffee. Its president begs Americans, "Please do not use the salvadorean people's suffering for your own political advancement." The Salvadoran Catholic bishops have been even more outspoken. The bishops "completely reject the boycott on Salvadoran coffee because it is a measure which injures justice since it harms indiscriminately not only the coffee growers but also the people who live from coffee and is a rude blow upon the precarious economy of the country." It is precisely this blow, though, which Ms. Smith-

Peters hopes to inflict. While supporting the Sandanistas and the FMLN objectives, she attempts to distance herself from the now-discredited socialism of Castro and the Soviets. But Central American socialist insurgencies have been little more than surrogates for Soviet expansion. The Soviets sponsored an increase in the number of Nicaraguan soldiers from 5,000 in 1979, when the Sandanistas took control, to 119,000 a few years later. The Soviets gave billions in aid to their Cuban and Nicaraguan clients, who then funneled weapons to the FMLN. At first Ms. Smith-Peters denies the Soviet connection, but she then admits that it came "through Cuba. Ifthat's what you mean is through Cuba, yes." Then the cat's out of the bag: "Sure, why not? Just like we've been supporting movements throughout the world, too. If yo1.1;'re going to hold up the Soviet Union, I tHink you put the United States up there right along with it... " Eastern Europeans might not agree. There are several fundamental problems with Ms. Smith-Peters positions, not the least of which is their bald utopianism. She offers a prescription for destruction of EI Salvador, but she has no program for rebuilding, just a few attractive cliches, like justice, redistribution, Urness, etc. On the positive side, now that institutional socialism has been humiliated she is loath to be explicitly associated with it. But she hasn't lost her hopes, they are just repackaged for a new day. She neither knows nor cares why once impoverished places like Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore have become economic giants. Capitalism doesn't come with a ready supply of compassionate cliches, it simply works. She doesn't want to know about successful Central Americans making their way in the U.S., despite immigration laws which she f.tlsely claims do not apply to them. She doesn't want to hear about Mexico's m11quillidor.risregion with its tremendous new job opportunities. She wants revolutionary fervor and demon America. Whoever said "Revolution is the opium of the intellectuals" had Llse Smith-Peters' number.

A.&c,ording to former London KGBst1ition he.rid, Oleg Gordinsky, by 1979 the So'Piets h11d identified Centr1il Americ.ri RS ,;the most promising .rire.ri for exp11nsion ofKGB oper11tions. JI Atfirst the KGB wtis uncert.riin of the fidelity of the S.rind.rinist.ris to Swiet interests, but .riccording to Gordinsky, 'By the end of 1981, howner, Outro .rind t:he KGB reports h11d persu11ded the Kremlin t:h.rit the S11nd.rinist.ris were genuine rnolution.riries who would folUJw the Cub.rin p11th to Swiet loy.rilism. JI KGB: The Inside Story Christopher Andrew and Oleg Gordievsky