A Turning Point in Latin-American Politics?
2006 is a year of crucial elections in Latin America. Two new colourful presidents have already been elected for office this year: Evo Morales in Bolivia and Michelle Bachelet in Chile. Their victories are especially significant for a number of reasons. Morales is the first indigenous president in a country where native communities constitute the majority of the population and have been traditionally excluded from the spheres of power. Bachelet is an agnostic, socialist and divorced mother in the most catholic of Latin American countries. Their victories are signs of change in the composition of political power. Are others to follow?
Undoubtedly, politics is now changing in Latin America faster than during the period immediately after the dissolution of the major military regimes. Much has been said and written about many countries turning leftwards, choosing progressive governments. However, as José Miguel Vivanco, director of the Americas division of Human Rights Watch puts it: there are two different streams within the modern Latin-American left. One is represented by the moderate, centre-left governments of Lula in Brazil, Lagos in Chile, Kirchner in Argentina and Tabaré Vásquez in Uruguay. They have not changed much in macroeconomic terms. The other is the more militant left embodied by Castro in Cuba, Chávez in Venezuela and now Morales in Bolivia as well.
Chávez, Morales, candidate Humala in Perú (leading the opinion polls), and previously Gutierrez in Ecuador, reached the top office representing social groups traditionally marginalized. While it is true that the latter governments use an anti-globalization, anti-Bush rhetoric and are strengthening the alliances among them and with African and Asian countries, it is equally evident that they remain a minority and are – still – far from representing a real threat to the interests of the USA in the region.
A recent example can unravel the limits of freedom of action of the militant left in the face of USA might. When opinion polls in Bolivia showed that Morales’ victory was almost certain, the USA ambassador in La Paz asked top military officials to obliterate 28 NH5 surface-to-air missiles that were promptly sent to the US and destroyed. The commander in chief of the Bolivian armed forces, general Antezana, declared that the destruction had been ordered by the United States for they were worried that a leftist government would be in possession of such missiles – a danger, according to them, for “global security” and the “fight against terrorism”. General Antezana was dismissed by the president this last 18th of January.
On the other hand, George W. Bush’s closest ally in the region is President Alvaro Uribe from Colombia. With Mr. Fox from Mexico close behind. Bush has some other friendly, smaller countries as allies. Uribe looks certain to win a second term in office on 28 May. But, if there are no surprises, a month later even Mexico will turn redder, leaving Uribe alone as the single big-country leader who so wholeheartedly dances to the rhythm of the White House. At present, the loudest political debate in Colombia is almost monopolized by right-wing parties, all supporting Uribe. Nevertheless, some of these parties might face problems due to raising scandals of paramilitary intervention in electoral lists and political campaign finances.
Classical division between right and left in Latin America is still relevant. No signs exist that a third way, Blair style, could appear in the political landscape. This is mainly due to the fact that economical gaps remain gigantic in every American country except, perhaps, Canada. The continent is more open to the world than ever, and traditional political parties have collapsed almost everywhere, but new party structures still align along economic left and right blocs. Lula’s party is the ‘Worker’s Party’, Morales’ party is called ‘Movement to Socialism’ and Uribe is supported by ‘Radical Change’ party and the ‘Unity’ party. All these are new parties to the exercise of power, and their primary slogans have to do with social justice and alternative ways of running the economy.
At any rate, since customarily USA influence is particularly heavy in Latin America, both politically and economically, it is important to note that not every strategy adopted by Bush for its “backyard” is going smoothly or successfully. First and foremost, ‘Plan Colombia’, the $2 billion-U.S. assistance package allegedly intended to fight the production of coca and cocaine in Colombia has controversially achieved little. The plan has 80% of its aid going to the Colombian police and military for weapons, training, helicopters and Dow Chemical’s sprayed pesticides that not only kill the coca plants but also almost every other species and pollutes the water. In addition, after 20 years of the war on drugs, cocaine and heroin are today much more available and much cheaper in the streets of New York, L.A., London, Paris and Berlin than back then. Drug trafficking is the main source of income of the guerrillas, the paramilitaries and private drug dealers, and the war on drugs causes death, destruction, corruption and political violence. Ironically enough, the same countries who have proclaimed to fight the drugs industry (the U.S., Europe, China, and Russia, for example) supply the weapons used by the drugs barons' forces, bought with money earned in the drugs trade.
These results have caused many analysts to believe that the real intention of Plan Colombia is to defend president Uribe, Bush’s best ally, from the guerrilla threat and to foster USA’s economic interests in the region. Nothing short of full legalization of drugs in Europe and the USA will put an end to the 40-year old Colombian conflict.
The second major failure of Washington down here is the difficulty of convincing the other 33 members of the Organization of American States (OAS) of the benefits of an all-encompassing free-trade agreement called the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). During the last Summit of the Americas in Mar del Plata, large protests against the FTAA and other neo-liberal policies took place. Contrary to what some media channels reported, that was not an “Anti-American” protest: first, because all Latin Americans are Americans, in the broadest and truest sense. Second, and moreover, most of the individuals and organizations protesting there were opposing certain economic and social systems and frames that they believe push more and more people into poverty, and they were not opposing other sets of values that most Latin Americans share with their northern neighbors such as democracy and Christian morals. The USA negotiators did not accomplish what they intended to. 67% of the Argentinean population opposed the Summit of the Americas and supported the People’s Summit, the alternative meeting that hosted a large number of celebrities such as Maradona, Pérez Esquivel (Peace Nobel Prize winner), and president Chávez. That is the reason why the US administration is now pursuing bilateral free-trade agreements with individual countries (one with Perú was recently signed), where their objectives can be more easily imposed.
To conclude, the political discourse of the militant Latin American left takes new elements of racial and ethnic struggles that could not happen in the past. The social groups that support the new presidents have started to organize themselves only recently. In Perú, for example, the illiterate have the right to vote only since the 1980s. Ballot boxes became more easily accessible, and this is perhaps the only real turning point happening now in Latin America. However, access to power is not enough. The new leaders will have to build a coherent program to govern, will need to define what exactly social justice is and how best to achieve it. Lula spoke about eliminating hunger in Brazil. Chávez has brought 30,000 Cuban doctors to the most remote areas of Venezuela in exchange for oil. Morales intends to nationalize the gas resources and has cut his own salary by 57%. Yet they will need a middle-term program that goes beyond a mere “NO” to neo-liberal policies if they wish their parties to remain in power and be truly successful.
Latin America will have to work harder and with more unity, decisiveness and clarity if it wishes to thwart the heavy North American involvement in local politics and decisions – and, as a consequence, have a single, authentic and more powerful voice at international arenas.
Undoubtedly, politics is now changing in Latin America faster than during the period immediately after the dissolution of the major military regimes. Much has been said and written about many countries turning leftwards, choosing progressive governments. However, as José Miguel Vivanco, director of the Americas division of Human Rights Watch puts it: there are two different streams within the modern Latin-American left. One is represented by the moderate, centre-left governments of Lula in Brazil, Lagos in Chile, Kirchner in Argentina and Tabaré Vásquez in Uruguay. They have not changed much in macroeconomic terms. The other is the more militant left embodied by Castro in Cuba, Chávez in Venezuela and now Morales in Bolivia as well.
Chávez, Morales, candidate Humala in Perú (leading the opinion polls), and previously Gutierrez in Ecuador, reached the top office representing social groups traditionally marginalized. While it is true that the latter governments use an anti-globalization, anti-Bush rhetoric and are strengthening the alliances among them and with African and Asian countries, it is equally evident that they remain a minority and are – still – far from representing a real threat to the interests of the USA in the region.
A recent example can unravel the limits of freedom of action of the militant left in the face of USA might. When opinion polls in Bolivia showed that Morales’ victory was almost certain, the USA ambassador in La Paz asked top military officials to obliterate 28 NH5 surface-to-air missiles that were promptly sent to the US and destroyed. The commander in chief of the Bolivian armed forces, general Antezana, declared that the destruction had been ordered by the United States for they were worried that a leftist government would be in possession of such missiles – a danger, according to them, for “global security” and the “fight against terrorism”. General Antezana was dismissed by the president this last 18th of January.
On the other hand, George W. Bush’s closest ally in the region is President Alvaro Uribe from Colombia. With Mr. Fox from Mexico close behind. Bush has some other friendly, smaller countries as allies. Uribe looks certain to win a second term in office on 28 May. But, if there are no surprises, a month later even Mexico will turn redder, leaving Uribe alone as the single big-country leader who so wholeheartedly dances to the rhythm of the White House. At present, the loudest political debate in Colombia is almost monopolized by right-wing parties, all supporting Uribe. Nevertheless, some of these parties might face problems due to raising scandals of paramilitary intervention in electoral lists and political campaign finances.
Classical division between right and left in Latin America is still relevant. No signs exist that a third way, Blair style, could appear in the political landscape. This is mainly due to the fact that economical gaps remain gigantic in every American country except, perhaps, Canada. The continent is more open to the world than ever, and traditional political parties have collapsed almost everywhere, but new party structures still align along economic left and right blocs. Lula’s party is the ‘Worker’s Party’, Morales’ party is called ‘Movement to Socialism’ and Uribe is supported by ‘Radical Change’ party and the ‘Unity’ party. All these are new parties to the exercise of power, and their primary slogans have to do with social justice and alternative ways of running the economy.
At any rate, since customarily USA influence is particularly heavy in Latin America, both politically and economically, it is important to note that not every strategy adopted by Bush for its “backyard” is going smoothly or successfully. First and foremost, ‘Plan Colombia’, the $2 billion-U.S. assistance package allegedly intended to fight the production of coca and cocaine in Colombia has controversially achieved little. The plan has 80% of its aid going to the Colombian police and military for weapons, training, helicopters and Dow Chemical’s sprayed pesticides that not only kill the coca plants but also almost every other species and pollutes the water. In addition, after 20 years of the war on drugs, cocaine and heroin are today much more available and much cheaper in the streets of New York, L.A., London, Paris and Berlin than back then. Drug trafficking is the main source of income of the guerrillas, the paramilitaries and private drug dealers, and the war on drugs causes death, destruction, corruption and political violence. Ironically enough, the same countries who have proclaimed to fight the drugs industry (the U.S., Europe, China, and Russia, for example) supply the weapons used by the drugs barons' forces, bought with money earned in the drugs trade.
These results have caused many analysts to believe that the real intention of Plan Colombia is to defend president Uribe, Bush’s best ally, from the guerrilla threat and to foster USA’s economic interests in the region. Nothing short of full legalization of drugs in Europe and the USA will put an end to the 40-year old Colombian conflict.
The second major failure of Washington down here is the difficulty of convincing the other 33 members of the Organization of American States (OAS) of the benefits of an all-encompassing free-trade agreement called the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). During the last Summit of the Americas in Mar del Plata, large protests against the FTAA and other neo-liberal policies took place. Contrary to what some media channels reported, that was not an “Anti-American” protest: first, because all Latin Americans are Americans, in the broadest and truest sense. Second, and moreover, most of the individuals and organizations protesting there were opposing certain economic and social systems and frames that they believe push more and more people into poverty, and they were not opposing other sets of values that most Latin Americans share with their northern neighbors such as democracy and Christian morals. The USA negotiators did not accomplish what they intended to. 67% of the Argentinean population opposed the Summit of the Americas and supported the People’s Summit, the alternative meeting that hosted a large number of celebrities such as Maradona, Pérez Esquivel (Peace Nobel Prize winner), and president Chávez. That is the reason why the US administration is now pursuing bilateral free-trade agreements with individual countries (one with Perú was recently signed), where their objectives can be more easily imposed.
To conclude, the political discourse of the militant Latin American left takes new elements of racial and ethnic struggles that could not happen in the past. The social groups that support the new presidents have started to organize themselves only recently. In Perú, for example, the illiterate have the right to vote only since the 1980s. Ballot boxes became more easily accessible, and this is perhaps the only real turning point happening now in Latin America. However, access to power is not enough. The new leaders will have to build a coherent program to govern, will need to define what exactly social justice is and how best to achieve it. Lula spoke about eliminating hunger in Brazil. Chávez has brought 30,000 Cuban doctors to the most remote areas of Venezuela in exchange for oil. Morales intends to nationalize the gas resources and has cut his own salary by 57%. Yet they will need a middle-term program that goes beyond a mere “NO” to neo-liberal policies if they wish their parties to remain in power and be truly successful.
Latin America will have to work harder and with more unity, decisiveness and clarity if it wishes to thwart the heavy North American involvement in local politics and decisions – and, as a consequence, have a single, authentic and more powerful voice at international arenas.
posted by Mauriciopaz at 9:04 am
0 comments
