invasion of the Dominican Republic, They did it. by parading before the French embassy to demonstrate approval of de Gaullets criticism of: the U.S. occupation of the. island. Heavy contingents of military police kept a watchful eye on the students.
‘Montevideo: Demonstrations of increasing violence broke out against the U.S. On May 6 a bomb exploded in the local office of an American cable company.
Buenos Aires: Some thqusands of students began demonstrating May 5 in front of the Congress against. the landing of U.S. troops in _ Santo Domingo. They chanted anti-American slogans, broke windows, set fire to tables on terraces in the streets, and threw Molotov cocktails at the police. The demonstrations continued on following days, growing in volume and spreading to other towns.
Madrid: Franco's fascist dictatorship could not keep order in face of the anger over the U.S. troop landings in Santo Domingo. Several hundred students demonstrated. in front of the Dominican embassy shouting such slogans as "Yahkee murderers" ; “Yankees, Get Out!
The Madrid cops finally succeeded in breaking up the demonstration, making a number of arrests. The controlled Madrid press, which had hailed Johnson's moves from the very first day, began to change its tone by May 8, striking a critical note over Johnson's. unilateral action,
Vienna: Some 300 students mobilized in the Austrian capital, They demonstrated in front of the American embassy, denouncing U.S. actions in the Dominican Republic. : ~— ‘ =
‘ Berlin: Hundreds of students demonstrated at Potsdam and sent a declaration to the American military mission pratesting the U.S. aggression against the Dominican Republic. ‘
While such actions, coupled with innumerable resolutions and declarations by all kinds of organizations, indicated the feelings of the overwhelming mass of humanity about Johnson's espousal of the "Big Stick" policy of Theodore Roosevelt, American reporters found themselves with no choice but to reluctantly expose the monstrous lies which Johnson used to cover up and justify the invasion,
A typical example is provided by the dispatch sent by Barnard L. Collier May 7 to the New York Herald Tribune. -He could find no similarity between the facts in Santo Domingo and the stories issued in Washington, In his opinion this was not the fault of the local information services of the U.S. troops or State Department. "But these officers are finding themselves in an impossible position with correspondents who get around in the U.S.-controlled:-and rebel ZONES » and eyewitness events which are vigorously denied or papered over,
These local officials are told little and the little they are told is “often false or misleading in the oxtreme."
oon Dw
In Washington, for instance, on May 5, Johnson said, “Today there are between 1,000 and 1,500 dead people whose bodies are in the streets of Santo Domingo..." ; De
"That statement," said Collier, “even if it were made during ‘any time in -the whole crisis -- even in the worst and most blood-. bathed part of it -- was patently false. Reporters, including myself, who have been through the worst parts of the rebel districts, have seen no more than six to ten bodies, which is bad enough,
"The very idea of 1,000 to 1,500 corpses rotting under this tropical sun is repelling." ;
Collier offered the opinion that Johnson used that figure "in good conscience," but the reportér found this as "disturbing as the unprecedented misinformation system here,"
Some other U.S. lies exposed by Collier: On the night before the U.S. marines were sent in, the U.S. embassy told a group of correspondents "that 12 anti-rebel Dominicans were lined up against a wall and, to cries of 'Paredon,' were personally machine- ~gunned todeath by the present rebel leader, Col. Francisco Caamano,"
The truth: "Not a single reporter has found concrete evidence of the 'paredon' episode, and there are now reports that one of the key men said to have been killed: in that incident, is alive, although wounded,"
The U.S. embassy also told correspondents at the same time "that there were 53 hard-core Communists directing the rebellion, and a list of them was passed out by the embassy."
The truth: "But as of nine days later, no hard proof has been provided by any official sources here, although reporters who know the Dominican situation have personally found that, indeed, several of the listed are Reds and active here."
The U.S. military told correspondents May 4 that a "small fishing trawler-type boat had sneaked into the harbor and sailed up the Ozama River, to fire with machine guns on forces of the 82d Airborne, dug in on the eastern edge of the river.
The truth: A freighter had been in the harbor for several days. "It also turned out that the rebels were trying to start a fire aboard, but each time firemen tried to reach the ship, they came under heavy barrages from'the opposite shore."
On May 5 a military press officer told correspondents that no U.S. patrols were going into rebel territory. That same day a patrol penetrated rebel territory for ten blocks, At first the U.S. military denied the story; then they said the patrol had merely
Bre
become lost.
The truth: "After the briefing, a major admitted off the record that the U.S. troops were under orders to pursue snipers anywhere in the city -- even into the deepest part of the rebel territory -- if that would secure the area. This order, he said, was in effect, despite the cease-fire arranged by the Organization of American States."
Whatever the source of these lies and dozens like them, whether they originated in the Pentagon, the State Department, the White House or the Central Intelligence Agency, they were obviously what is known in these circles as "psychological warfare." They followed the same pattern as the flood of lies that poured out of
Washington at the time of the invasion of Cuba. The aim of this lying propaganda was quite simple. It:constituted the verbal--smoke screen required for the military and political operation ordered by Johnson, .
In Santo Domingo itself, the counterrevolutionary American forces moved according to the standard rules to be found in the Pentagon's textbooks.
The excuse for the first move was to protect American lives and property, although not a single American had been so much as touched and the aim of the revolutionists was the limited one of restoring a democratic constitutional government that had been over- - thrown by a coup d'état. This excuse, which was. advanced by Johnson himself, was sufficient to cover the first landings.
As additional thousands of troops were airlifted, the thin original excuse was dropped and a different one, again mouthed by Johnson, was offered. This was the hoary one about the "Communist danger." The real reason, of course, was to protect the holdings of two American sugar companies against the potential threat inherent in the revolution and to safeguard the Trujillo dynasty which has performed so heroically for American imperialism these many decades. ~
The build up of troops was fantastically large -- at the last count, some 30,000; and they have brought in the most modern and deadly equipment, including tanks and bombers.
This monstrous military power dug in rapidly, obviously pre- . paring to submit the population of Santo Domingo to a bloodbath such as would be recorded for all time, transmitting the name of Johnson in this way to generations yet unborn,
Against such military power, even the most heroic. revolutionists would have little chance in view of the lack of opportunity to get the people properly organized and to secure the means of defense from other countries.
~G—
The wielders of the Big Stick proceeded methodically to the next step -- to demand that civilians give up the guns that had been handed out in the first days of the revolution. The distribution “of arms was supreme evidence of the democratic character of the movement, for it placed final control of the Dominican revolution in the hands of the people.
How well this move succeeds remains to be seen, If the arms are surrendered, then the Dominican people will undergo violent suppression, perhaps lasting for many years, as happened in the case of Greece at the end of World War II.
Along with this move, the U.S. embassy is seeking to divide the leaders of the popular upsurge through apparent concessions (resignations of the worst butchers among the Trujillo forces) and efforts to lure the main figure, Caamano, into a trap or into capitulation. These maneuvers appear to be having some success, The men subjected to these blandishments are not really communists or revo= lutionary socialists. They are exactly what they said they were, followers of Juan Bosch, people who have deep illusions about the nature of bourgeois democracy. Given the opportunity, they will of course come to terms with Washington, But then this is no surprise. This was precisely the program of Juan Bosch.
What Bosch and those like him fail to appreciate is that American imperialism no longer has any confidence in their capacity to contain a revolution within the limits of bourgeois democracy. The imperialists are profoundly convinced that once begun, a popular revolution in the world today tends by its own inner logic to become converted into a socialist revolution,
And that is why, nowhere in the world today do they place much confidence in the capacities of bourgeois democratic regimes, particularly those following decades of dictatorship such as that suffered by the Dominican people.
If they have any choice at all they will inevitably take the Chiang Kai-sheks, the Syngman Rhees, the Diems, the Batistas, the Castelo Brancos, the Somosas and the Francos. In the Dominican Republic they will concentrate the same way in finding another Trujillo and they will do their utmost to keep him in power if they have to sit him on twice or four times 30,000 U.S. bayonets.
This policy, however, demonstrates not the power of American capitalism but its weakness. The trend toward revolution on a worldwide scale is becoming irrepressible. The people want democracy; they want socialism. Counterrevolutionary troops can contain them only for a brief time. American imperialism is nearing the final question «= shall it accept defeat or perish in the hell of nuclear war?