Latin America's Turn To The Left
The Dawn
May 10, 2006
By Mahir Ali
TOWARDS the end of last month, Fidel Castro played host to a pair of neighbours, Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales, with whom he signed a pact titled the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas.
The Cuban president referred implicitly to the decades when hardly any government in Latin America dared to be too effusive in its relations with his
country (and the notable exceptions, such as Chile under Salvador Allende and Nicaragua under the Sandinistas, were unnaturally short-lived) when he pointed out: “Now, for the first time, there are three of us; I believe that one day all (Latin American) countries can be here.”
Castro’s dream may never completely be fulfilled, but nor is it entirely based on fantasy. Latin America is indeed a hotbed of change, and the progressive social movements at the forefront of this trend are notching up more meaningful achievements than the guerilla movements of yore. Morales described the get-together in Cuba as a “historic gathering of three generations and three revolutions”. Two days later he was back home in Bolivia to announce that the state was taking control of the nation’s energy industry.
It’s slightly disingenuous of Morales to pretend that he and Chavez — who is only five years older — belong to different generations. Although their backgrounds differ (Chavez is a former paratrooper who served a prison term for his role in a coup attempt before making a political splash through democratic means; Morales earned his political spurs as a spokesman for coca farmers), there are similarities between the conditions that propelled them into power. And the breakdown in the so-called Washington Consensus that for so long determined economic and political conditions in what the United States has for two centuries regarded as its backyard isn’t restricted to Venezuela and Bolivia.
For some years now, a “pink tide” has been sweeping across the continent, chiefly as a response to decades of neo-liberal degradation under military dictatorships and corrupt right-wing regimes. Increasingly mired in debt, lagging in growth and beholden to transnational corporations, countries from Argentina to Mexico indulged in an orgy of privatisation under the guidance of the International Monetary Fund. Inflation went haywire in some cases, and disparities of wealth increased exponentially.
A backlash was inevitable, and on the political plane it was facilitated by two factors: the US has been paying less attention to Latin America since the end of the Cold War, which has made it easier for radical movements to articulate their ideas through conventional democratic means; and while Yankee imperialism has for ages been looked upon as a bete noire by most Central and South Americans, the exploits of the Bush administration have inevitably reinforced the impression of a predatory Uncle Sam.
The Chavez and Morales experiments are still exceptions: more common is an embrace of social democracy, resulting in governments that are content to function within the capitalist framework while launching initiatives aimed at mitigating the worst excesses of neo-liberalism.
The results have been mixed, although there can be little question that Nestor Kirchner’s administration in Argentina is a vast improvement on its predecessors, whose policies brought the country to its knees five years ago. Michelle Bachelet, who was sworn in earlier this year as the president of Chile, is a former victim of the Pinochet junta.
There are some doubts as to whether Brazil’s Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, a former trade union leader, will win re-election this year after having presided over an administration characterised by caution and damaged by allegations of corruption. But, for all its shortcomings, his government has nonetheless served a significant purpose in demonstrating popular disenchantment with the old elites.
And although Chavez has been instrumental in drumming up opposition to the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas, an attempt by the US at institutionalising economic neo-colonialism in the region, the paler sections of the pink tide have helped to make it clear that resistance to the agreement is not restricted to the overt radicals.
There are indications that the rosy-hued area may continue to spread. In the second round of Peru’s presidential election on June 4, the Chavez-backed former army commander Ollanta Humala stands an even chance of defeating former president Alan Garcia. Humala, who led in last month’s first round with about 30 per cent of the vote, has promised to redistribute wealth and to renegotiate contracts with mining companies — the sort of actions that would place him in the Chavez-Morales camp. An interesting factor is that there will be no right-wing candidate in the second round, after Garcia, generally described as centre-left, edged out conservative businesswoman Lourdes Flores.
Like Chavez, Humala once led a failed coup in his country, and there are concerns that his past includes a brutal military campaign against Maoist guerillas. He has, not surprisingly, denied all autocratic intent, and probably deserves the benefit of the doubt.
Humala’s victory would be a significant blow against what remains of the Washington Consensus, but it would probably perish completely were Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador to succeed Vicente Fox as the president of Mexico — a country that has been turned into a virtual American sweatshop under the terms of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Lopez Obrador, the mayor of Mexico City, has pledged to block attempts to privatise the oil and gas industry.
Another possibility is the return of the Sandinistas to power in Nicaragua. Although Daniel Ortega has been sullied by charges of corruption and sleaze since he was last president, the Sandinista coalition includes progressive social movements. The reinstatement of the Sandinistas in Managua would be a huge psychological blow to Washington, given that the appalling Reagan administration (at which the neo-cons gaze back with feelings bordering on erotomania) devoted so much time, energy and resources to undermining the Nicaraguan revolution of 1979, notably by illegally funding (with the assistance of Israel, Iran and Saudi Arabia) and training a mercenary terrorist force known as the Contras.
The Mexican election is scheduled for July 2. Bolivians will vote on the same day to elect a constituent assembly that is expected to rewrite the nation’s basic laws, shifting the balance of power towards the indigenous majority that Morales belongs to.
Morales’s popularity had gradually been declining since he assumed power, not least because his government lacked a clear-cut direction; the social movements that propelled him into the presidential palace were beginning to wonder whether he intended to keep his major campaign promises. Through his May Day announcement, the president has reclaimed the loyalty of his sceptical constituents — but at the same time he has been careful not to completely alienate the oil and gas companies.
The nationalisation was followed within days by talks with Lula da Silva and Kirchner, who apparently feared that their reliance on Bolivia as an energy supplier could be compromised by shortages or higher prices. They seem to have been reassured on both counts by Morales and Chavez. The Bolivian government has also made clear that its move is not an expropriation, nor is it intended to drive out foreign investors. It does involve a cut in their massive profits: in the case of the biggest companies, a little more than 80 per cent of the value of their production will go into Bolivia’s coffers; for the smaller firms, the margin will remain at 50 per cent. Furthermore, the state will insist on controlling shares — at least 51 per cent — in the ventures.
The companies — primarily Petrobras of Brazil and Spain’s Repsol YPF — were miffed, but are unlikely to run away. Bolivia has the continent’s second largest gas reserves, after Venezuela; the latter also boasts the region’s biggest oil reserves. Furthermore, Venezuela has the world’s largest reserves of heavy crude, but these can economically be exploited only if the price of oil stays above $40 a barrel. Hence Chavez’s attempt to have it pegged at $50 (well below the current world price).
His Bolivarian revolution’s endeavours at home as well as its unprecedented brand of benevolent internationalism — including subsidised petroleum for cash-strapped Caribbean countries, free or heavily subsidised fuel for poor families in the US, and debt relief assistance for countries such as Argentina — have been made possible by the going rate for oil. The important point, of course, is that never before in living memory have the profits from this particular commodity been put to such good use.
Small wonder, then, that Donald Rumsfeld has compared Chavez to Hitler and Condoleezza Rice has been frothing at the mouth. Even Tony Blair butted in by warning Chavez against getting too close to Cuba. Chavez never hesitates to retaliate in kind. He may not run into Blair during a private visit to Britain next week, but he will be feted in style by Ken Livingstone, the maverick mayor of London.
Bolivia’s journey towards a more equitable future has only just begun. Venezuela has taken significant strides in poverty alleviation, education and health care, but still has a long way to go. The pact signed in Cuba by the three amigos — or the Axis of Good, as they’ve been known to describe themselves — doesn’t only eliminate tariffs, but is also geared towards the eradication of illiteracy and the expansion of employment opportunities.
“History will absolve me,” Castro had confidently proclaimed more than 50 years ago. That process may be unfolding before our eyes. The pink glow emanating from Latin America is a reminder that a different world is possible. The developments in those distant lands are worth our attention. The movements for social change deserve our solidarity.
E-mail: mahirali1@gmail.com
TOWARDS the end of last month, Fidel Castro played host to a pair of neighbours, Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales, with whom he signed a pact titled the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas.
The Cuban president referred implicitly to the decades when hardly any government in Latin America dared to be too effusive in its relations with his
country (and the notable exceptions, such as Chile under Salvador Allende and Nicaragua under the Sandinistas, were unnaturally short-lived) when he pointed out: “Now, for the first time, there are three of us; I believe that one day all (Latin American) countries can be here.”Castro’s dream may never completely be fulfilled, but nor is it entirely based on fantasy. Latin America is indeed a hotbed of change, and the progressive social movements at the forefront of this trend are notching up more meaningful achievements than the guerilla movements of yore. Morales described the get-together in Cuba as a “historic gathering of three generations and three revolutions”. Two days later he was back home in Bolivia to announce that the state was taking control of the nation’s energy industry.
It’s slightly disingenuous of Morales to pretend that he and Chavez — who is only five years older — belong to different generations. Although their backgrounds differ (Chavez is a former paratrooper who served a prison term for his role in a coup attempt before making a political splash through democratic means; Morales earned his political spurs as a spokesman for coca farmers), there are similarities between the conditions that propelled them into power. And the breakdown in the so-called Washington Consensus that for so long determined economic and political conditions in what the United States has for two centuries regarded as its backyard isn’t restricted to Venezuela and Bolivia.
For some years now, a “pink tide” has been sweeping across the continent, chiefly as a response to decades of neo-liberal degradation under military dictatorships and corrupt right-wing regimes. Increasingly mired in debt, lagging in growth and beholden to transnational corporations, countries from Argentina to Mexico indulged in an orgy of privatisation under the guidance of the International Monetary Fund. Inflation went haywire in some cases, and disparities of wealth increased exponentially.
A backlash was inevitable, and on the political plane it was facilitated by two factors: the US has been paying less attention to Latin America since the end of the Cold War, which has made it easier for radical movements to articulate their ideas through conventional democratic means; and while Yankee imperialism has for ages been looked upon as a bete noire by most Central and South Americans, the exploits of the Bush administration have inevitably reinforced the impression of a predatory Uncle Sam.
The Chavez and Morales experiments are still exceptions: more common is an embrace of social democracy, resulting in governments that are content to function within the capitalist framework while launching initiatives aimed at mitigating the worst excesses of neo-liberalism.
The results have been mixed, although there can be little question that Nestor Kirchner’s administration in Argentina is a vast improvement on its predecessors, whose policies brought the country to its knees five years ago. Michelle Bachelet, who was sworn in earlier this year as the president of Chile, is a former victim of the Pinochet junta.
There are some doubts as to whether Brazil’s Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, a former trade union leader, will win re-election this year after having presided over an administration characterised by caution and damaged by allegations of corruption. But, for all its shortcomings, his government has nonetheless served a significant purpose in demonstrating popular disenchantment with the old elites.
And although Chavez has been instrumental in drumming up opposition to the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas, an attempt by the US at institutionalising economic neo-colonialism in the region, the paler sections of the pink tide have helped to make it clear that resistance to the agreement is not restricted to the overt radicals.
There are indications that the rosy-hued area may continue to spread. In the second round of Peru’s presidential election on June 4, the Chavez-backed former army commander Ollanta Humala stands an even chance of defeating former president Alan Garcia. Humala, who led in last month’s first round with about 30 per cent of the vote, has promised to redistribute wealth and to renegotiate contracts with mining companies — the sort of actions that would place him in the Chavez-Morales camp. An interesting factor is that there will be no right-wing candidate in the second round, after Garcia, generally described as centre-left, edged out conservative businesswoman Lourdes Flores.
Like Chavez, Humala once led a failed coup in his country, and there are concerns that his past includes a brutal military campaign against Maoist guerillas. He has, not surprisingly, denied all autocratic intent, and probably deserves the benefit of the doubt.
Humala’s victory would be a significant blow against what remains of the Washington Consensus, but it would probably perish completely were Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador to succeed Vicente Fox as the president of Mexico — a country that has been turned into a virtual American sweatshop under the terms of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Lopez Obrador, the mayor of Mexico City, has pledged to block attempts to privatise the oil and gas industry.
Another possibility is the return of the Sandinistas to power in Nicaragua. Although Daniel Ortega has been sullied by charges of corruption and sleaze since he was last president, the Sandinista coalition includes progressive social movements. The reinstatement of the Sandinistas in Managua would be a huge psychological blow to Washington, given that the appalling Reagan administration (at which the neo-cons gaze back with feelings bordering on erotomania) devoted so much time, energy and resources to undermining the Nicaraguan revolution of 1979, notably by illegally funding (with the assistance of Israel, Iran and Saudi Arabia) and training a mercenary terrorist force known as the Contras.
The Mexican election is scheduled for July 2. Bolivians will vote on the same day to elect a constituent assembly that is expected to rewrite the nation’s basic laws, shifting the balance of power towards the indigenous majority that Morales belongs to.
Morales’s popularity had gradually been declining since he assumed power, not least because his government lacked a clear-cut direction; the social movements that propelled him into the presidential palace were beginning to wonder whether he intended to keep his major campaign promises. Through his May Day announcement, the president has reclaimed the loyalty of his sceptical constituents — but at the same time he has been careful not to completely alienate the oil and gas companies.
The nationalisation was followed within days by talks with Lula da Silva and Kirchner, who apparently feared that their reliance on Bolivia as an energy supplier could be compromised by shortages or higher prices. They seem to have been reassured on both counts by Morales and Chavez. The Bolivian government has also made clear that its move is not an expropriation, nor is it intended to drive out foreign investors. It does involve a cut in their massive profits: in the case of the biggest companies, a little more than 80 per cent of the value of their production will go into Bolivia’s coffers; for the smaller firms, the margin will remain at 50 per cent. Furthermore, the state will insist on controlling shares — at least 51 per cent — in the ventures.
The companies — primarily Petrobras of Brazil and Spain’s Repsol YPF — were miffed, but are unlikely to run away. Bolivia has the continent’s second largest gas reserves, after Venezuela; the latter also boasts the region’s biggest oil reserves. Furthermore, Venezuela has the world’s largest reserves of heavy crude, but these can economically be exploited only if the price of oil stays above $40 a barrel. Hence Chavez’s attempt to have it pegged at $50 (well below the current world price).
His Bolivarian revolution’s endeavours at home as well as its unprecedented brand of benevolent internationalism — including subsidised petroleum for cash-strapped Caribbean countries, free or heavily subsidised fuel for poor families in the US, and debt relief assistance for countries such as Argentina — have been made possible by the going rate for oil. The important point, of course, is that never before in living memory have the profits from this particular commodity been put to such good use.
Small wonder, then, that Donald Rumsfeld has compared Chavez to Hitler and Condoleezza Rice has been frothing at the mouth. Even Tony Blair butted in by warning Chavez against getting too close to Cuba. Chavez never hesitates to retaliate in kind. He may not run into Blair during a private visit to Britain next week, but he will be feted in style by Ken Livingstone, the maverick mayor of London.
Bolivia’s journey towards a more equitable future has only just begun. Venezuela has taken significant strides in poverty alleviation, education and health care, but still has a long way to go. The pact signed in Cuba by the three amigos — or the Axis of Good, as they’ve been known to describe themselves — doesn’t only eliminate tariffs, but is also geared towards the eradication of illiteracy and the expansion of employment opportunities.
“History will absolve me,” Castro had confidently proclaimed more than 50 years ago. That process may be unfolding before our eyes. The pink glow emanating from Latin America is a reminder that a different world is possible. The developments in those distant lands are worth our attention. The movements for social change deserve our solidarity.
E-mail: mahirali1@gmail.com
posted by Unknown | 7:19 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home