|
Edited on Fri May-04-07 08:32 PM by Peace Patriot
to relate--no travel experience, but I belong to an organization that sent a delegate to the World Social Forum in Venezuela last year, and I've been following political/economic developments in Latin America very closely, as well as one can through the very distorted filter of US war profiteering corporate news monopolies, supplemented by alternative news and views (such as www.venezuela.com). What I see is this. Tell me what you think of it:
1. The vilification of Chavez in our corporate media, in lockstep with the Bush State Dept., is an insult to the Venezuelan people, who have repeatedly elected him in highly monitored elections (by the OAS, the Carter Center and EU election monitoring groups); and it is also coming from naked corporate fear of the Bolivarian notions of Latin American sovereignty, self-determination and social justice.
2. Chavez's high-profile criticism of Bush and US policy, and his and the Chavistas' active and impatient socialist goals have empowered EVERYBODY. The new politics in South America (and growing in Central America) is to take no more shit from the US--either of the fascist death squad variety that the US is still sponsoring (and funding with our tax dollars) in Colombia (and has been guilty of in the past) or the Clintonesque World Bank/IMF-global predator "free trade" variety. Country after country has found themselves in a better bargaining position with the US and its corporate rulers than they ever before had. They are actively opposing the murderous US "war on drugs," and asserting their sovereignty over their countries' resources, with fair taxation for the benefit of the people who live there. As Evo Morales has said, "We want partners, not overlords." Evo Morales is a good example of how the democracy/social justice movement in Venezuela has heartened and empowered the one in Bolivia. Rafael Correa is another good example. But more than this, Venezuela's example has given Argentina's people new power, and Brazil's, and Nicaragua's, and Chile's, and Uruguay's. (Uruguay recently rejected Bush's "free tade" offers, and stuck with Mercour. Could they have done that without Venezuela's uppitiness? I don't think so.)
3. The Chavez/Venezuela influence does not stop at example or rhetoric. They have moved on the practical front to help bail Argentina (which was a basketcase of World Bank/IMF interference and profiteering) out of World Bank debt. Argentina is now well on the way to recovery. Venezuela thus creates a healthy trading partner for itself, as well as Brazil and other countries. Venezuela then set up the Bank of the South, to help Bolivia and Ecuador get out from under onerous World Bank debt. And Paraguay has now joined. Further, Venezuela has been active in Mercosur--the So. American trade group--to strengthen regional trade and South Americans' control of their own fate. (There has been discussion, also, of a South American "Common Market" and common currency--to get off the US dollar.)
You are suspicious of Venezuelans--and Chavez--and no doubt Venezuela's own interests and shrewdness comes into it. But if what is in their interest is strong, independent allies in their region, and compatible social programs and other ideas, that benefit everyone, and that help these very poor populations recover from decades of crude exploitation, what is the harm? This is called cooperation. It's what nation states do, each acting in their own interest, and converging on common goods when things are working as they should be working, among democratic countries. I could see potential Venezuelan bullying, way, way down the line, if they become too powerful--although there is not much reason to think that that would happen. Venezuela has two assets right now: oil, and visionary political ideas that are catching fire throughout the continent (a rebirth of Simon Bolivar's great vision of a "United States of South America"). It is using its main natural asset, oil, to help surrounding countries, in a material way. That is both self-interested--and also generous and visionary. It COULD lead to Venezuela, the bully--like the US hegemony after WW II has eventually led to the US bully (after a period of generosity--especially the Marshall Plan in Europe--and visionary internationalism, the UN, etc.) But that is highly speculative. Venezuela is not a bully now, and shows no sign of becoming one. In fact, aside from its oil and its very popular political ideas, Venezuela is quite vulnerable, in some ways, and needs the protection of other South American countries to prevent violent Bushite/rightwing interference (which has been in the planning stages in Colombia, but is being exposed and headed off, I believe, by a new consensus among Latin American countries against such interference).
So, what is the basis of your suspiciousness about Venezuelans? Is it Cuba? But why shouldn't that 40+ year revolution now be integrated into Latin America's economy and society--much the same way that the US revolution was eventually integrated with England the Europe? It was a violent revolution (a quite justified one)--like our own--and very unlike the peaceful, democratic revolutions that are occurring now, but that was long ago. Cuba has been providing doctors (and they have many well-trained doctors due to their free education and medical care system) to South American countries, like Venezuela, where the rich have grossly neglected the needs of the poor. What is wrong with that? What is wrong with Cuba gaining some prestige for good acts? No one is into following the Cuban communist model--but that doesn't mean that some lessons cannot be learned from how Cuba has done things. (They have been much, much better at protecting the environment and managing farm lands in a sensible way than most other countries, anywhere, for instance.)
I am puzzled by your statement about Kissinger Associates. I don't understand it. Kissinger Assoc.'s is advising Ecuador on its dealings with the US? Really, I don't understand it. I'm not sure what you meant. Please explain. I am very interested in the various good and bad forces at work in Ecuador and in South America in general.
Also, do you have contact with the poor and the indigenous--the biggest backers of leaders like Correa, Morales and Chavez? Or is your experience more with the middle class (educated people, people with jobs)? It may be--and it seems to be--that the bulk of society DOES consider these men (and maybe Castro, too) as heroes--heroes of the vast poor majority. But I tend to think that what is really going on is a vast grass roots awakening, that is PRODUCING the leaders that it needs--to achieve democracy and social justice--rather than people being led by "heroes." And I know that, in turn, Chavez in particular has actively sought more citizen participation in politics and government. He knows who saved his presidency and Venezuela's Constitution. It was ordinary people who surrounded Miraflores Palace and demanded the restoration of their legitimate government. Without them--the citizens of Venezuela--the 2002 violent military coup would have succeeded. He is beholden to grass roots groups in the shantytowns and other poor areas who braved tanks and troops and rightwing paramilitary thugs to support him.
So it is more a matter of the people leading (and producing) the leaders, than the leaders leading the people, in my view. As it should be in healthy democracies. And indeed I envy these countries for the convergence that has occurred, between basic political development (such as transparent vote counting), and strong resilient political organization at the very bottom (workers, union and community organizers, peasants, the indigenous--sometimes in alliance with middle class, as in Argentina), and the emergence of leaders of such high caliber--intelligent, well-read, savvy leaders in tune with their people.
Granted, these countries have been decimated by "free trade" and by past fascist corruption on a huge scale, resulting in "it's always just for now." They have to put together social justice systems and sustainable economies almost from scratch, there has been so much looting and repression. This is one reason that I don't have a kneejerk reaction, say, to Lulu's awful corn/soy fuel production scheme, that he recently discussed with Bush. South American leaders sometimes have no options, or only very poor options--and they sometimes have to hedge their bets, when dealing with the powerful North and its corporate predators. But what I see in these OTHER developments--largely inspired by Venezuela--is a serious attempt to get beyond "it's always just for now." To develop education, medical care, social support systems, and thus to develop future innovators, products, businesses, creative thinkers, and prosperity, out of the clay of poverty and misery. Venezuela DOES seem to be thinking big, and long term--and is inspiring others to do so. To get past "it's always just for now," you have to spend some money NOW, and do some strong and creative thinking about the future. Venezuela is six years into the Chavez government. Correa was elected only last year, and doesn't have a good handle on power as yet. It's a great sign that he won the recent Constitutional referendum by some whopping amount of votes (75%?). He is clearly responding to the will of the people, and acting in the interests of the majority, but has a long way to go to implement his program. This may be why the Ecuadorans you spoke to feel so tentative. They have yet to see an improvement, which is understandable. (Correa was elected only about five months ago.) What do you think?
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
