The triumph of Hugo Chávez and Latin America

[Say_What]

<clips>

As I write this article, the media announce the resounding victory by President Hugo Chávez over his opponent, Manuel Rosales, who acknowledged his defeat.

The victory is unquestionable, because Chávez surpassed Rosales by 23 percentage points. Despite the millions of dollars spent by the U.S. government, delivered to the opposition through NED {the National Endowment for Democracy} and USAID {United States Agency for International Development}. Despite the media campaigns against Chávez and the plans to accuse the government of fraud and stage a "Ukrainian coup," as magnate Rafael Poleo told the media, the opposition had no recourse other than recognizing that the elections had been fair.

It is easy to understand, I think, that what was at stake in these elections was not only a change of government but also a confrontation between two diametrically opposed political concepts. On one hand, a peaceful revolutionary process whose objective it is to create a new, fairer and more equitable society by means of a campaign of social benefit that encompasses health care, education and the improvement of Venezuelans' living conditions. In addition, the continuity of an independent and sovereign foreign policy that is linked to the fairest causes, worldwide.

Also at stake was the continuity of the progress of integration in Latin America, of which Chávez is the principal promoter, not only with his regional energy plans, like PetroSur and PetroCaribe, but also as the main engine for the consolidation of the Southern Common Market (Mercosur) and the incorporation of new members, and the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA). Cuba and Bolivia already participate in ALBA and other countries will join it soon.

For the United States, Chávez's triumph means a strategic defeat that makes it more difficult for Washington to control the natural resources of Latin America and impose the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), even though the U.S. continues to sign separate free-trade accords with other countries in the region, such as Colombia.

This is the third consecutive political defeat in Latin America suffered by the White House in less than one month. First was the triumph in Nicaragua, on Nov. 5, of Daniel Ortega and the Sandinista Front of National Liberation, against the U.S.-backed candidate, neoliberal Eduardo Montealegre. Ortega won despite threats from the American ambassador and the financial support given to his right-wing opponent.

http://www.progresoweekly.com/index.php?progreso=eduardo_dimas&otherweek=1165989600

[Vincardog]

1. South America has become the home of the American Dream. n/t

[bobbie]

4. Nicely said Vincardog

Six more years!

[Vexatious Ape]

2. This is a good thing.

I know the Bushies have their hands full (of blood) with Iraq, and can't do all that much about Latin America tilting Left. It has to be killing them--it's tickling the hell out of me.

[madfloridian]

3. And don't forget who else is messing around there...Penn and pollsters

who are Clinton advisors.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/779

"Penn, Schoen and Berland (PSB) has played a pioneering role in the use of polling operations, especially "exit polls," in facilitating coups. Its primary mission is to shape the perception that the group installed into power in a targeted country has broad popular support...the deployment of polling agencies' "exit polls" broadcast on international television...give the false impression of massive vote-fraud by the ruling party, to put targeted states on the defensive."(4)

A lot more at the link.

[Judi Lynn]

5. ".......cannot be solved by force." Shocking words for some to contemplate!

Hugo Chávez, Evo Morales, Néstor Kirshner, Lula, Tabaré Vázquez, Rafael Correa, Daniel Ortega, all of whom came to power in clean and democratic electoral processes -- each from his own political stance, whether leftist, centrist or simply nationalist -- are the result not of a coincidence but of a change, of the end of a scheme of economic domination that has exhausted itself and needs to be replaced. They are, therefore, the product of a historical necessity that cannot be solved by force. The only solution is to put an end to the causes that originated it.
(snip/)

Thanks for posting this Progreso info. It's a tremendous publication, with courageous contributors.

[izzie]

6. Odd we were so off on land reforms when we did it in Japan.

I guess big business is winning with us over the 'we the people'

[Peace Patriot]

7. It's not about the leaders. It's about the PEOPLE. This is what our war

profiteering corporate news monopolies cannot understand, or, rather, what they understand only too well and are suppressing. (They don't want us to get any ideas.) The grass roots. The community organizers. The workers on transparent elections. Decades of work, to bring the majority to power at last, after centuries of brutal oppression, often inflicted by US-backed dictators.

This great sea change in Latin America cannot be decapitated. Oh, they have tried, in many ways--especially in regard to Chavez, because he is such a great spokesman for Latin American self-determination. But what they didn't count on there was the Chavistas! Ordinary people. Millions of ordinary people. As well as thousands of leaders--some of them highly educated and experienced in government, and many of them not, a few even illiterate, never had a school in their neighborhood, never had a chance, but who nevertheless could help organize their community. What they didn't count on was passion for democracy in Venezuela--and indeed throughout South America.

I'm always tempted to call it a miracle--because it is so mind-bogglingly amazing to me, that countries that always seemed to be run by "banana republic" rules, and that have suffered so much violence and interference, could recover so fast, and turn so abruptly toward democracy and humanitarian values. But it hasn't really been all that abrupt. We here in the north are just now seeing the RESULTS of decades of grass roots work, of people who never gave up hope--seemingly powerless people, working at every level of society to achieve this profound change. And we're just learning of the once-future leaders of this revolution who never gave up hope as well, people like Michele Batchelet, now the first woman president of Chile, whose father was tortured to death by Pinochet, and who herself suffered torture and exile; people like Evo Morales, now the first indigenous president of Bolivia, who was raised in the mountains on a cocoa farm; people like Hugo Chavez, whose family was so poor they couldn't afford a baseball and a baseball bat, who was tempted by violent revolution as a young officer, seeing the injustice, fascism and brutality of the Venezuelan elite of that time, spending time in jail for his rebellion, thinking it all through, and abandoning the past of South America--fascism and bloody revolt--for the future of South America: constitutional government, democracy, majority rule.

What kept all these leaders' hopes alive? What prevented despair? Tortured, exiled, poor, in jail. Well, I know that, with Chavez, his popularity really began when he was in jail. He was considered a hero! So, partly, it was the people who buoyed him up. But also it was his own soul, in response to theirs, telling him to look to the future, not the past. The future of empowerment of the majority. The future of a progressive society in which everyone has a chance, in which all are cared for. Violence will not get you there. Democracy will.

I don't know what moved Morales, but Bolivia was in turmoil prior to his election. The focus of the leftist revolution there was Bechtel Corp.'s privatization of the water in one Bolivian city. As no sooner had they taken over the water supply, then they started jacking up the price of water to the poorest of the poor--even charging poor peasants for collecting rainwater! Big demonstrations followed--an uprising--and the Bolivians basically threw Bechtel out of their country, and elected Morales, who campaigned with a wreath of coca leaves around his neck--symbol and sacred plant of the Andes Indians, and symbolic of Morales' opposition to the murderous US "war on drugs" (war on poor peasants and leftists). Morales is a 100% Andes Indian. Just prior to his inauguration, ten thousand Andes Indians came down out of the mountains to invest him as their leader in a special ceremony.

"Something is happening here, and you don't know what it is..."--as Bob Dylan sang. Chavez is part indigenous, as is the new president of Ecuador, Rafael Correa--who speaks the local indigenous language, and spent time in the mountains as a teacher. There are indigenous uprisings occurring all over Latin America--and very often the focus is the ENVIRONMENT. People who are living the old lifestyle--living off the land, following indigenous customs and teachings--perceive environmental pollution and destruction before anyone else does. They feel it keenly. They see it. They live it. They suffer from it directly. They are our "canaries in the coal mine." And they are on the move--mobilizing, doing amazing things--in many places, in the Amazon, in Peru, in Ecuador, in Venezuela, in Brazil.

Part of what is happening is coming from them--from a deep spiritual connection to the land. And the leaders we are seeing, who get press here, are the RESULT. The leaders are not the instigators of reform so much as they are the agents of reform. To stop environmental devastation you have first to get control of the reigns of government. You have to have a government that has not sold out to global corporate predators, a government that is LOCALLY controlled, and responsive to the needs and will of the people.

I first began to notice this political transformation back in 2003, when I helped organize the protests in Cancun against the WTO. I had been involved in globalisation issues before that, in the Seattle 1999 protests. But at Cancun, what happened is that the third world countries came forward, led by Brazil, in a 20-country revolt against WTO policy, secretiveness, lack of democracy and domination by the northern and western powers. I was rather amazed by this. ("Something is happening here, and you don't know what it is..."). But then I began to be more aware of the worldwide campesina movement--small farmers--hundreds of thousands of them, organized on a worldwide basis, from many countries. The small farmers, like the indigenous (and, also, often one and the same), are directly feeling the impacts of pesticide use, of genetically modified seeds and crops, of deforestation, of bad minerals mining, of polluted water or lack of water, and of the dumping of US and other Ag products on their markets, to drive them out of business. In South Korea. In Jamaica. (--two stunning examples of dumping.) In Peru (bad mining). In Brazil (deforestation). In Mexico (loss of farm land). And in ALL third world countries.

But what I didn't begin to grok until Cancun 2003 is that THEY were undergoing a very profound POLITICAL change, from the bottom up--which is reflective of devastation that global corporate predators have inflicted, first of all on the indigenous, and second, on everyone else, with the proliferation of sweatshops, and with the ruination of third world economies by World Bank/IMF policy (the World Bank loans money to the rich elite who are running the country, on onerous terms, the rich rip it off the money and leave the poor to pay the debt; the IMF demands cuts to social programs, and to labor and environmental protections, as terms of repayment, and the country can then never recover--schools, medical care, everything suffers, wages fall, and the country's natural resources are stolen.)

The third world has had it with these policies. They are in revolt. And they are electing governments that REFLECT that grass roots, indigenous revolt. So, Hugo Chavez may be an ikon to the Bush/US State Department, and a target of US-taxpayer funded coups and other plots. But there is absolutely nothing that the US State Department can do to stop tens of thousands of Venezuelans from pouring into the streets, and peacefully stopping the goddamned coup, with sheer numbers, and with sheer determination to have lawful, constitutional, democratic government. Like "V," you know.

And, for all its brutality and evil plots, the US State Department (now completely controlled by global corporate predators) cannot stop indigenous people from loving Mother Earth, and acting to defend her. And these people have a lo-o-o-o-o-ong view of things. They've been in one place for ten thousand years. They know the earth in ways that we urban dwellers can never know it. They have somehow survived every effort to exterminate them, to re-enter the consciousness of western civilization as our teachers, our saviors and our leaders. It is THEY who are transforming Latin America.

---------------------------

"The time of the people has come." --Evo Morales

[Peace Patriot]

8. Well, I guess Eduardo Dimas agrees with me! I hadn't finished reading his

article, before I was moved to write the above. I just jumped in. It's a topic I love and that moves me deeply. But guess what he says, lower down in the article? He's talking about the recent political developments, then he says...

"In my opinion, however, the most important facet of this process is the people's awakening. It can best be expressed as the politicization of broad segments of Latin America's population caused by their poverty, alienation and hopelessness. It's as if this were the awakening of the American Indian, which Martí envisioned, and of the poor people of all races, who begin to defend their right to a better, fairer life." --Dimas

I agree! That Andean investiture of Morales got me to thinking. Also, hearing bits and pieces of the various virtually anonymous indigenous protests "off in the hills." Local farmers. Local indigenous tribes. Local communities--suddenly arising and blocking a mining or logging road--and causing so much trouble that, say, Occidental Petroleum withdraws. Or, in a bigger protest about water, bringing down Bechtel! ("Something is happening, and you don't know what it is...do you, Mr. Jones?")

Another thought: The corporate news monopoly spin on the recent Peruvian election got it all wrong. I was thinking about it one day, and I burst out laughing. Here's what they said. They said that real leftist Ollanta Humala (100% indigenous) lost the presidential election to fake leftist ("free trader") Alan Garcia because Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Evo Morales of Bolivia endorsed Humala and the voters resented this interference by their neighbors.

Here's what really happened (what suddenly dawned on me): Humala came out of nowhere, with no experience and no money, and knocked the rightwing candidate out of the race, by winning 30% of the vote in the preliminary election. This left the Bushites and "free trade" fascists with no candidate, so they had to go with a very corrupt leftist, Garcia. In the final election, Chavez and Morales publicly endorsed Humala. And Humala INCREASED his support by 15%! He came out of nowhere and almost won the presidency, with 45% of the vote in the final round. Where did those additional Humala votes come from? From the right--who had no candidate? Not likely. Where they probably came from was the mountains! From the indigenous! BECAUSE of Chavez's--and, especially, because of Morales' endorsement. (Both Morales and Humala are 100% indigenous Andes Indian.) So, in a first-time, novice effort, the indigenous ALMOST elected ANOTHER indigenous as president of Peru (in addition to Bolivia). They live in remote areas. They don't get polled. It's an effort for them to vote. But they got organized--AFTER these endorsements--and got their candidate 15% more of the votes, nearly half the electorate.*

Our corporate news monopolies treated it as a "business as usual' story--with their tired meme that voters would "resent" the endorsement of leaders of neighboring states. But what they MISSED is that Andes Indians don't care that much about COLONIAL borders. They are the native population, living there for ten thousand years, long before the Spanish and the North Americans carved the place up. Their loyalty is to the land, not to colonial borders. They came out in big numbers to vote for THE LAND, THE EARTH. (And I think that's probably what that indigenous ceremony for Morales was all about).

Dimas also states that the Garcia government in Peru is in deep trouble--already. This does not surprise me at all. I speculated at the time of Humala's loss that this would occur, because Garcia so violates the trend in South America. The trend has been that the World Bank/IMF and "free trade" destroys Latin countries, then the leftists (majorityists) have to pick up the pieces--by evicting or curtailing the predators and rebuilding a self-determined economy. Garcia is headed in the wrong direction--depending on Bush & Co. for cheap deals that favor global corporate predators and disfavor the poor and the overall good of the country. Humala would have headed that off. Garcia is plunging right into it--into ruin. And his supporters are fools. They'll end up like the middle class in Argentina--joining with the poor in smashing all the bank ATM display windows in the country, in protest, and bringing down the government.

I expect that Humala, or someone aligned with him, will be back in the next election cycle, Garcia will be ousted, and Peru will begin the recovery process--and will join in regional economic and political solidarity with Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil, Chile and Nicaragua. They are now talking about a common currency and an EU-type economic trade block. I also expect that Mexico--now in turmoil--will eventually join them. (--again, led by the indigenous! The huge protest movement in Oaxaca is largely an indigenous movement.)

On the outs: Colombia (huge Bush investment of our tax dollars in military aid--$600 million this year alone). Paraguay (weak government, where the Bushites apparently intend to hole up--or launch a corporate resource war from?). Guatemala and Honduras (basketcase economies, fascists in charge.) El Salvador (fascist trend--not good). (Is that where Ollie North flew to, after Nicaragua's voters told him what they thought of him?) Costa Rica (the poor limping along in a rich peoples' economy).

Interesting case: Cuba. Cuba now has the opportunity to join with a very powerful, self-determined Latin American trade group. Will they liberalize their economy and join the future? I heard some talk on BBC radio that that's what Raul Castro has in mind--first of all, loosening up on the centralized economy. They can afford to do it now--without sacrificing social/economic equity--because they don't have to have the big drag of US corporate domination. They can "liberalize" toward South America, where education, health care, fair wages, and other equitable and progressive policies now have top priority. THIS is the basis of the friendships among Cuban, Venezuelan, Bolivian and Ecuadoran leaders and peoples--common humanitarian principles, not communism. All but Cuba are pursuing mixed capitalist/socialist economies, that respect private property rights, individual freedom, and democracy, and that make deals with big corporations but on their own terms. The common ground is help for the poor (for instance, Cuba trading doctors for cheap oil, with Venezuela). Another instance of our corporate news monopolies misinterpreting everything (no doubt on purpose).

--------

*(Humala would probably have won, if he hadn't had the handicap of a brother who was accused of violent protest--killing a policeman. Humala, like Chavez, is former military. And, like Chavez, he no doubt was tempted at one time toward violent revolution. I picked up somewhere that the Garciaites have dragged Humala into his brother's case, and I don't know, from this vantage point (--can't read Spanish), whether it is a "swift-boating" or what. I think he was charged with "conspiracy" or something like that is pending. But that could mean anything. And the bad guys certainly have reason to want to smear him. Humala nevertheless won 45% of the vote, despite all this (which I attribute to Morales' and Chavez's endorsements). Remember that Chavez's popularity BEGAN when he was in jail for participating in a violent coup attempt. This does not necessarily lose you votes in a country with a history of fascist rule and brutal oppression--as long as you change to a more enlightened path. In any case, it's not about the leaders--it's about the people. And if Humala gets eliminated as a future candidate, someone else will arise to represent the majority, to oust Garcia, and to join with the rest of South America in a prosperous and self-determined future.)

[Vidar]

9. Wonderful editorial on the progressive leaders of Latin America.

[eridani]

10. Also, the failed attempt at conquest of Middle Eastern oil producers--

--led the Eye of Sauron away from the hobbits just doing their thing.

[Judi Lynn]

11. Well-chosen imagery, and undoubtedly true!

_Bush's people may have believed that enough Latin American leaders were enough afraid of them, and that the rest were already puppets and could never present any problems. After all, Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and _{Bush #41} certainly had taken great pains to destroy all resistance to U.S. control of Central and South America, and the Caribbean long, long ago, and hundreds of thousands of lost citizens' lives ago.