Clinton apologizes to Guatemala but what does it mean?

By Lorenzo Torrez

Since President Clinton made his apology to Guatemala, I've been following the op-ed articles in the U.S. media. None have placed the critical questions before the American public.

For example, what does the apology mean? Or does it have any meaning? What is an apology worth after some 30 years of denial?

Does it hint a change in U.S. foreign policy? If so, how deep and how drastic? Does it include all the countries in the region? Is it serious or is it updated rhetoric?

My sense is that it is the latter for we knew all along how the destruction of the popularly elected Arbenz government had come about. In fact, many of the left and progressive papers of the time tried their best to expose our State Department's role, but to no avail.

Thus, the public denial continued and was supported by both Republican and Democratic administrations. And, yes, our supposedly truthful U.S. media were part of the denial game.

Thanks to the help of the Guatemala Truth Commission, the U.S. involvement has been exposed and the State Department could not hide their actions any longer. Thus, a half-hearted apology as a measure of damage control was the least Clinton could do.

However, as I scrutinize the op ed articles I cannot detect any serious proposals that would indicate a meaningful change in foreign policy. But I do see a possible suggestion to make to the president.

For openers, two possible proposals come to mind, not because they are the most advanced ideas but because there is certain mass support for them already.

One is the closing of the military training center for the Americas, the School of the Americas at Fort Benning, Georgia. Another is to end the trade embargo against Cuba.

Of course, much more is needed in the way of long range economic assistance to many of the Central American countries, if not the whole hemisphere, but these proposals, symbolic as they may seem, might send a signal toward a U.S. policy that is more in line with what is required.

Furthermore, I believe these two steps could be taken immediately without too much hassle.

A more serious economic assistance program, other than North American Free Trade Agreement, International Monetary Fund loans, etc., may help stem the tide of immigration moving from south to north. By now it should be obvious that the Immigration and Nationalization Service (INS) program of stopping them at the border is not working and will probably never work.

As long as there is mass hunger and mass unemployment and underemployment, workers will continue to migrate north and nothing that the INS, Clinton or the attorney general throw at them is going to hold them back. The solution is a radical change in U.S. foreign policy.

Lorenzo Torrez is the head of the Arizona district of the Communist Party USA.