In my opinion, this week’s most interesting topic was undoubtedly the surprising outcome of the Synod of Bishops in Rome. The division among the members of the illustrious assembly was so pronounced that they were unable to vote on any concrete conclusion or resolution. As a thin veil over the failure, they distributed to the public a message that was somewhere between biased and bland. But it was clear that the prelates are in profound disagreement with each other regarding the incursions of the leftist episcopal wing into social issues.
As of this writing, Brazilian newspaper coverage of this issue remains incomplete. I therefore reserve judgment until next Sunday.
* * *
Today, I want to discuss the article on the communist threat in Latin America, published in the Buenos Aires daily La Nación by General López Aufranc, former Chief of Staff of the Argentine Army. I do not know exactly what his doctrinal positions are. However, the article deserves the most careful analysis by all Brazilians, especially by certain civilian sectors whose ruling circles, deeply influenced by the “toads,” are marked by a permissive indolence bordering on sympathy for the communist threat.
It can be assumed that the Argentine military officer’s statements are based not only on his observations but also on information gathered from high-level military circles, which form the environment in which he naturally moves. Above all, however, they are based on a general picture visible to everyone, yet few have the courage to describe it properly.
Such stands continue to emerge from time to time in Brazilian military circles. I am referring in particular to the courageous statements made by General Humberto de Souza Mello and others. For example, the timely and substantial comments on the subject in the speech by General Antônio Bandeira, patron of the 5th Federal Police Inspector Training Course at the National Police Academy. In civilian circles, however, voices of alarm such as these are becoming scarce, to the point of almost disappearing.
Hence, I insist on the document’s relevance from the Argentine military officer.
* * *
General Aufranc rightly observes that, with Allende’s fall, Argentina has become the communists’ favorite field of agitation, preparing, in the long or short term, for the Bolshevization not only of that nation but of all of South America.
This objective, the general emphasizes, is but one part of the Marxist-Leninist plan of doctrinal, political, and economic imperialism being implemented worldwide.
As a Brazilian, it is not my place to comment on the measures Aufranc proposes to prevent the success of this plan in his country. His warning cry must have stirred dormant energies there, as it has here. In any case, since it has been echoed in Brazil—published in Folha de S. Paulo and other media outlets—it is my duty, as far as possible, to use it to shake off the sluggish optimism in which runaway developmentalism has lulled the country to sleep. Apprehension about the economic crisis threatens to turn optimism into a gray, resigned indolence in the face of the rising tide of problems and dangers.
That is what I am doing here by reminding many careless compatriots that treating anticommunism as outdated nonsense is tantamount to opening the country’s gates to Muscovite imperialism.
* * *
However, these observations do not mean I have no reservations about certain aspects of General Aufranc’s article. I am particularly disconcerted by his silence on Cuba’s role in the execution of this vast conspiracy that he so opportunely denounces. A word on this subject would be indispensable at a time when so many foreign ministries are carrying out an all-out offensive to introduce the Fidel Castro serpent into the peaceful coexistence among the American nations.
In this regard, allow me to comment, in passing—despite my appreciation for Itamaraty and the satisfaction with which I follow some brilliant moves by Foreign Minister Azeredo da Silveira—that our country’s neutrality regarding the suspension of the blockade against Cuba seems frankly disappointing. How can we be neutral about something that is not neutral toward us and, on the contrary, is ready to carry out Moscow’s orders among us? I find this simple question sufficient to highlight the unwise nature of our neutrality.
Voting to bring into the Americas’ community those who want nothing more than to shed blood and impose a regime of misery and disorder, or remaining neutral in the face of this possibility, seems to me almost the same.
I thus hope, with all my heart, for the sake of Christian civilization, Brazil, and the preservation of the glories of Itamaraty, that our position in this case will ultimately be a lucid, clear, and courageous refusal.
