Argentine farmers call off strike, to begin talks

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Reuters

Argentine farmers call off strike, to begin talks
Fri Mar 28, 2008 4:38pm EDT
By Helen Popper

BUENOS AIRES (Reuters) - Argentine farming leaders called off a 16-day strike against higher taxes on grains exports on Friday and said they would begin talks with the government.

The farm protests in Argentina, a global agricultural powerhouse, had frozen grain exports and emptied meat and dairy shelves at stores, presenting President Cristina Fernandez with her biggest crisis since taking office in December.

"The objective is to facilitate a meeting with the national government, after which we will evaluate the results, which will be submitted to the rank and file nationwide," a commission representing the four biggest agricultural groups said in a statement.

The farm groups said they were responding to Fernandez's call for talks late on Thursday, when she said in a speech that her center-left government was open to negotiate if the farmers stopped their protest.



Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSN2843246420080328?rpc=401&feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews&rpc=401

[Peace Patriot]

1. I'm highly suspicious of these "farmers" and/or the leaders of the "four biggest

agricultural" groups, because their strike resembles the oil professionals' strike by which Exxon Mobil and the Bushites tried to bring down the Chavez government in Venezuela, because the Bushites hate Cristina Fernandez (a strong ally of the Bolivarian democracies--Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador) and have already tried dirty CIA ops against her, because the Bushites are using USAID-NED money and other U.S. tax dollars to fund rightwing groups and organize destabilization efforts in the region, because big, rich landowners are key Bushite allies in Bolivia and other countries, because Argentina just signed a big oil for food deal with Venezuela, and because Donald Rumsfeld recommends economic warfare (in particular the Colombia "free trade" deal used as warfare against Venezuela and its leftist allies--which include Argentina--in his 12/1/07 op-ed in the Washington Post "The smart way to beat tyrants like Chavez"). Rumsfeld further urges "swift action" by the U.S. in support of "friends and allies" in South America. The Bushites don't have any "friends and allies" in South America, except the fascist thugs running Colombia, and the fascist thugs planning coups within the Bolivarian alliance countries--Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Argentina. Are these ag strikers big rightwing landowners? If not--or if it's a mixed bag of big and small farmers--what of the leadership? Is it allied, overtly or covertly, with the Bush junta?

Not all strikes and discontent, and rightwing political opposition, is dishonest. But the Bushites are often stoking--funding, organizing--such things, and are doing so, as a matter of fact, right next door to Argentina, in Bolivia, where white separatists intend to split off the gas/oil-rich eastern provinces from the central government of Evo Morales--the first indigenous president of Bolivia (a largely indigenous country), and a strong ally of Argentina, Venezuela and Ecuador--in order the deny benefit of those resources to the poor majority, a circumstance made-to-order for major Rumsfeld & co. trouble-making in the region. Are the rich, white, Bolivian separatist landowners allied with similar "farmers" in Argentina?

I don't know enough about this controversy to know the answers to these questions, but the questions are relevant, considering Bushite activities and intentions in South America.

[Peace Patriot]

3. Note: These new leftist leaders in South America seem to be skilled at

de-fusing controversies and settling them peacefully--and that is likely because they are well-intended, and are running social justice governments. That the oil professionals' strike didn't bring down the Chavez government is one of the more remarkable developments of the last decade, especially as it came in a succession of Bushite-engineered destabilization efforts, including an outright violent military coup attempt. Chavez had to take strong measures against that strike (firing all the strikers), but his authority held, and the country then began its amazing recovery (to a 10% growth rate in the last several years, with the most growth in the private sector, not including oil). He didn't have to jail anyone, or shoot protesters--rightwing solutions to disorder. He just asserted his rightful role of stabilizing the country. And on every other rightwing/Bushite-funded effort to destroy his social justice government, he has responded mildly, almost to a fault. He is running a good--honest, beneficial, democratic--government. That is his strength. The same with Cristina Fernandez--and also Evo Morales in Bolivia, and Rafael Correa in Ecuador (--and to varying degrees, all the new leftist governments in South America, including Brazil, Uruguay, Chile and Nicaragua). They are doing right by the poor/middle class majority, and in the interest of the country as a whole, also the region. They are thus able to solve problems--with wisdom, with appropriate strength, democratically and fairly. They just averted a war between U.S./Colombia and a sorely provoked Ecuador, because their purpose is not belligerent, and is not greedy. It is peace and prosperity for all.

I therefore have great confidence that--if the strikers are well-intended--Cristina Fernandez will find the solution. She is a peace-maker. She looks to the good of the whole. And we shall find out if they are not well-intended, and are conspirers with the Bush junta to disrupt Argentina and the region. Do they really want a fair compromise--or do they want a fascist coup?

[npog99]

4. From and Argentine

Let's clear up a few points regarding Cristina, her husband, Nestor, and their government... I do not have a political affiliation, or any political interest in what is going on in Argentina since I have been in the USA for 28 years. But, I do have family and friends, and I read the local newspapers to remain informed. Having said that...

It is doubtful that the Kirchner administration cares much about the general population. It is all about the money (for them, that is). I know of people who are holding assets that belong to the Kirchner (testaferros) so that the K's do not have to declare them--and consequently explain where they got them from. They are on Chavez' side ONLY for the money (this is proven by events revealed to the public). They support leaders (under the table) who can mobilize masses of poor people to support their government. These are the ones that went out on the streets to beat up peaceful protesters in the recent demonstrations. The K government is not a unifying government, since this does not favor them. They were voted into power by the poor who received subsidies; the general middle-class did not vote because there was not a single candidate who was worth a vote. They are all corrupt.

The K's want to impose a tax on agricultural exports because they see the benefits of that income... To them, that is. They wish to accumulate more wealth, but not for the country, or to do good things. Otherwise, it would be somewhat reasonable to tax exports, to a point, but not the 44% they want to impose.

It is a complicated issue, and I don't pretend to explain it here in detail. It would simply be too long, since this issue goes back many decades into the Peron government. But, trust me, the Kirchner government is not looking out for the poor. They are just plain criminals, along with the supporting congress, since there is no separation of power there, including the judicial.

[Peace Patriot]

5. Welcome to DU, npog99! Now for some questions and comments....

You weren't in Argentina during the World Bank/IMF meltdown. It is my understanding that Nestor Kirchner was elected--after a quick succession of failed governments--to help Argentina recover from that devastating, World Bank/IMF-induced economic disaster, and that he did so--engineered Argentina's recovery--and that Cristina Fernandez is following up. The middle class was devastated--the poor even more so. The social fabric of the country was unraveling. The Kirchners have turned that around. What is your opinion of this? Is it not true?

You wrote: "It is doubtful that the Kirchner administration cares much about the general population. It is all about the money (for them, that is)." Well, Argentina's meltdown was all about money. A politician who didn't care about money would have failed. You are saying they are just greedy? That seems hardly sufficient to account for Argentina's overall recovery, under the Kirchner administrations, which is benefiting everyone. Please explain this more.

You wrote: "I know of people who are holding assets that belong to the Kirchner (testaferros) so that the K's do not have to declare them--and consequently explain where they got them from." This sounds a little bit like "Whitewater" to me--the kind of vague accusations that Ken Starr made headlines with against the Clintons, which turned out to have no substance. I would require more substance to believe it, and in particular to believe that it was illegal.

You wrote: "They are on Chavez' side ONLY for the money (this is proven by events revealed to the public)." This is like saying that Chavez is on the side of the poor only for the oil. It is backwards logic. He and his government have sought more Venezuelan control of the oil revenues to benefit the people, to improve the society, to build an educated, prosperous country in which everyone has a stake. What "money" are you talking about--that is the "only" interest of the Kirchners? And if you mean the CIA "suitcase full of money" caper out of Miama, don't make me laugh. Is that what you mean by "proven by events revealed to the public"? And if not, please explain.

You wrote: "They support leaders (under the table) who can mobilize masses of poor people to support their government. These are the ones that went out on the streets to beat up peaceful protesters in the recent demonstrations." Again, I need more proof than this--your word--that mass demonstrations by the poor in Argentina, of the kind that brought down the failed governments during the World Bank/IMF strangulation of the country, were merely the Kirchners "paying off" the leaders of the poor to support their government. Again, this seems like backwards logic to me--and it is rather insulting to the poor. Frankly, I have yet to see a protest demonstration by the poor, the left, anti-globalization groups and/or antiwar activists, at which serious violence broke out, where the violence was not instigated by the police, by their 'agents provocateurs' or by rightwing thugs.

You wrote: "The K government is not a unifying government, since this does not favor them." Funny how politics works that way. Neither is the Chavez government a "unifying" government. It's against the rich greedbags, who hate the Chavistas. But the Chavistas are the majority. And, luckily for the rich greedbags, the Chavistas only want a fair shake and good, representative government. The rich don't need help. The poor do. And it is because the rich have been engaged in class warfare against the poor--and have had all the power, and have used dreadful tactics to suppress the poor majority--that there is contention--in Venezuela, in Argentina, all over Latin America. FDR was contentious, too. He said: "Organized money hates me--and I welcome their hatred." You can't really have "unity" with greedbags. You have to regulate them, and support their victims.

You wrote: "They were voted into power by the poor who received subsidies...". Now that really is a class warfare remark. The poor can't think. They can't vote for their own interests. They don't vote for the good of the country. They are "bought." Well, sorry, but it is mostly characteristic of the rich and the greedy to use government to enrich themselves further, and to collude with politicians who let them suck the poor dry, to the point of economic ruination and social upheaval. The poor voting for help for the poor is...corrupt? Give me a break.

You wrote: "The general middle-class did not vote because there was not a single candidate who was worth a vote. They are all corrupt." I'll need some stats on that one. The Kirchner restoration of Argentina's economy has to have helped the middle class--small business, ordinary professionals--as well as the poor. I can't believe that it hasn't. What kind of newspapers do you read? Subsidiaries of corporate 'news' monopolies?

You wrote: "But, trust me, the Kirchner government is not looking out for the poor. They are just plain criminals, along with the supporting congress, since there is no separation of power there, including the judicial." Sorry, but I don't trust you. Not after your class warfare remark about poor voters. We are talking about an ELECTED government with broad-based support. You call them "just plain criminals," yet mention no details of their "crimes," other than that they have the support of the poor majority, which you seem to think automatically makes them criminals. Indeed, you sound kind of like Bush. That's his view--and Exxon Mobil's view, and the World Bank loan sharks' view, and all the bad guys' view--of the Kirchners and their allies in Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia. Being supported by poor voters--the majority--makes you a criminal, a terrorist, a destabilizer of the region, a dictator, a FARC-lover, a Castro-lover, a drug dealer, an egomaniac, a communist, or (as with the silly Miami caper) personally corrupt. Etc., etc. "Just plain criminals," eh? No good motives at all? Not even a little bit?

I'm not saying that it isn't true that the Kirchners are "criminals." That is always possible with politicians. I just don't know enough of the details of their personal and political affairs to make a reasonable assessment of your accusation. Please fill me in.

And, bear in mind, that you have a lot of strikes against you, in my opinion, as to the trustworthiness of your information, because of your vague, Bushite-like accusations and your comments about the poor. Also, there are significant differences as to levels of criminality. Eliot Spitzer is, technically, a criminal. He broke a law against prostitution. But how does that stack up, as a crime, next to, say, Bush's slaughter of 1.2 million innocent Iraqis to get their oil, or torturing prisoners? Taking some small bit of advantage of your status or your power, to cushion your family--as with these assets you say the Kirchners are not declaring--is nothing--absolutely nothing--compared to what prior governments have done to Argentina, or what the the Uribe government has done to Colombia, or what the Bush junta has done to us. It just doesn't register on the scale of government crime. And I am sick and tired of the real criminals making hay out of nothing--whether it's the Clintons and "Whitewater," or Eliot Spitzer, or Seigelman in Alabama, or dozens of other examples, here and in South America, of worthless, baseless charges against political opponents, or crucifixion of political opponents for petty corruption, while the entire treasury is transferred to the pockets of billionaire CEOs and war profiteers.

You're going to have document this--that the Kirchners are "criminals"--chapter and verse, not vague innuendo.

[Judi Lynn]

6. This is the 2nd attempt to character assassinate the Kirchners, only the 2nd I've EVER seen here.

I guess it was just a matter of time before someone realized they had overlooked attempting to scrawl that drool here, and it just coincides with a sustained assault on Christina Fernandez de Kirchner.

Where WERE all you Kirchner haters when her husband, the former imprisoned and tortured leftist was Argentina's President? You had all that time to start tearing him down and you missed your chance, only to go after Christina a short time after her inauguration.

Lotsa luck. You need to be reminded this is a Demcoratic message board, and the posters HERE do a lot more reading than Republicans. We know who the Kirchners are and a little about Argentina's and South America's history. It won't be easy for you to attempt the customary smear crap here and make any believers.

Provide substance for your charges.

I have to agree so completely with the points made by Peace Patriot.

Your insult to the poor of your country by implying they are without character, and selfish, and stupid is something people with a democratic spirit would dispise anywhere you spew it. The modern world has heard the lowest, and ugliest Americans using filthy insults like that since the 1930's, and FDR. We are SO completely familiar with that, and not influenced in the least.

Go get some convincing evidence to substantiate your hate spew if you want to have a prayer of a chance of credibility. You can be sure Argentina has been discussed here at length, and DU'ers have had Argentina in mind for years, with thoughtful regard and appreciation for the intelligent election of President Kirchner, then the excellent choice in President Fernandez de Kirchner.

I think I've spotted someone who would love to see the return of the good old days and the swift, vicious, and certain disappearance of ALL suspected leftists, and their children handed off like party favors to right-wing favored scum.

[bemildred]

2. Good. nt