Greg Grandin on DemocracyNow! today talks about the summit
Latin America v. Obama: U.S. Policy on Cuba, Drug War, Economy Under Fire at Colombian Summit
Historian Greg Grandin analyzes the U.S.-Colombia "free trade" deal and the deepening split between much of Latin America and Washington following the Summit of the Americas in Colombia. The summit, which was marred by a U.S. prostitution scandal, concluded Sunday without agreement on the key questions of whether Cuba should be allowed to attend the regional meetings and on the issue of the legalization of drugs. Latin American leaders said Cuba should be invited to the next Summit in Panama in 2015, but the United States and Canada dissented. Ecuador’s President Rafael Correa boycotted this year’s meeting because of Cuba’s exclusion. On Sunday the United States announced that a free trade agreement with host country Colombia will come into effect in May, far earlier than expected. The agreement had earlier been deferred because of Colombia’s weak record on workers rights, including murders and attacks on union activists. [Transcript to come. Check back soon.]
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/4/16/latin_america_v_obama_us_policy
= new reply since forum marked as read
What Grandin said in the interview:
"And it (U.S. "free trade for the rich"
started running into problems in Quebec during a rising anti-globalization movement, and then in 2005 in Argentina, which really did kind of derail the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas." --from the DN interview
I think that mainly what he was referring to was the large anti-globalization protests...
Your item:
"2005 November - Argentina hosts the 34-nation Summit of the Americas, an event accompanied by sometimes-violent protests against free trade and US President Bush."
Argentina is a democratic country where large protests influence the government, whereas here we just get hosed with pepper spray, beaten up, arrested, strip-searched, imprisoned, spied on, put on "lists" and inflicted with legal proceedings for years--to discourage us from protesting U.S. "free trade for the rich."
Argentina is not only truly democratic (the government listens to the people) but it was, at that time, also newly democratic, with the fervor of people newly freed to speak their minds and well-organized at the grass roots level not only to make their views known but to elect officials who will DO the will of the people.
The IMF/World Bank, in the cause of "free trade for the rich," had DESTROYED Argentina's economy--literally turned it into a 'basketcase' with onerous loan conditions (loans solicited by and benefiting the rich and the corrupt) that were aimed at destroying or "privatizing" (looting) all public programs (schools, pensions, health care, public works, et al), crushing Argentina's sovereignty (democratic regulation of banking, finances, labor conditions, the environment, natural resources, et al) and enslaving Argentines to U.S./British/European banksters forevermore. First, the IMF/World Bank destroys your economy and your democracy, and rips your society to pieces, then you get a U.S. "free trade for the rich" agreement so that you can never recover because transglobal corporations OWN EVERYTHING.*
Nestor Kirchner, however, fought back, in the interest of the Argentine people. He re-wrote the terms of the loans in such a way as to rebuild Argentina's economy and society, and refused to budge. Then he PAID OFF THE GODDAMNED LOANS--with Venezuela's help (via trade agreements and human rights oriented loans). This rendered a U.S. "free trade for the rich" agreement moot. Corporate savaging of Argentina would not be allowed. And it is one of the reasons that Hugo Chavez is so hated and reviled by the Corporate Press and our transglobal corporate masters. Chavez forged the first and most important "south-south" alliance that would free South America from U.S. domination, bullying, violence and interference.
I have not heard of any specific U.S. "free trade for the rich" agreement that was proposed or discussed for Argentina circa 2005. But, of course, the Bush Junta was likely trying to create one. I think Grandin is referring to the protests and Kirchner's response to the protests and to general public opinion in Argentina (and increasingly throughout Latin America, starting with Venezuela), as well as to Kirchner's (and Chavez's) own brilliant insights and vision: that this "first world" looting of Latin America MUST BE STOPPED.
It's quite interesting that the following anecdote managed to get into the 'news' around the same time: The Bush Junta sent down the order that LatAm leaders "must isolate Chavez." Nestor Kirchner replied, "But he's my brother!"
The U.S. (Bush Junta) was trying the "divide and conquer" strategy. It failed. Kirchner stood his ground. And this amazing "south-south" cooperation revolution then spread to most of the continent (and even into Central America). It was the nexus of UNASUR (all South American countries, no U.S.) and of CELAC (all Latin American countries, no U.S.)--the new organizations that will replace the OAS and its useless "Summit."
In summary, Kirchner made a U.S. "free trade for the rich" agreement undesirable because it couldn't be a LOOTING and ENSLAVEMENT agreement. That's what our transglobal corporate masters want--the "freedom" to loot and enslave. And he was able to do this because of Venezuela's prior leftist democracy revolution and Venezuelans' election of Hugo Chavez, and due also to Kirchner's own courage and to the determination of the Argentine people.
------------
*(it worked somewhat differently in Colombia. First, the U.S. and Colombian militaries destroy your society--with outright murder of thousands of trade unionists, human rights workers, teachers, community activists and others, and the brutal displacement of FIVE MILLION peasant farmers from their lands--using $7 BILLION in U.S. taxpayer money ostensibly for the U.S. "war on drugs" (the cocaine just keeps on flowing, with the trillion-plus dollar cocaine trade now consolidated into fewer hands, benefiting...?), then you get U.S. "free trade for the rich", with a slave labor pool of millions of displaced peasants, and all of your natural resources--oil, gold, vast tracts of fertile land, etc.) sold to the highest bidder, with a small percentage of the profits passing through the hands of the rich few and the rest out of the country. The Bush Junta accomplished the first--violent decimation of the society. Obama & Co. are accomplishing the second--the looting of the country.)
(Benefiting...? My guess: Big Pharma. The legalization of herbal, recreational and addictive drugs is being pushed hardest and most publicly by rightwing presidents. Santos, Colombia. Perez, Guatemala. Who does the rightwing serve? Corporate interests. Which corporate interest would benefit from legalization? Big Pharma (and associated corporate interests like Monsanto and those who have gobbled up the fertile farm lands of 5 million peasants in Colombia). In the past, the rightwing has served war profiteer interests and, in many cases, big drug cartel interests, as well as corporate interests. But I think they see a gold-plated opportunity in legalization to vastly benefit from all that has gone before by rendering Colombia's major industry "legit." They wouldn't do this if Big Pharma didn't have its R&D done and its "ducks in a row" to move in and monopolize the drug trade.)
