|
Reuters has been as bad as anybody in its news reporting on Chavez and South America. So I'm surprised to see something that actually reflects reality, and makes a good effort an objectivity (good old-fashioned journalism). (--Reuters reporter Manuela Badawy).
Surprise, surprise. Hardly any rightwing/fascist pig agenda items in this article (just one that I can see--see below). I'm particularly impressed with the insight, provided by Fitch analyst Harting, and reported by Badaway, regarding "the general sense of discontent with the progress of living standards under neo-liberal policies recommended by the IMF." Where else in the war profiteering corporate news monopoly press have you heard about "discontent" with "neo-liberal" policies and with the IMF in South America? Where have you even heard/read the world "neo-liberal," except maybe in quotes of Chavez (and I can't even think of one)?
I would have put it much more strongly than "discontent." How about "fury" or "absolute determination" to throw off the global corporate predators--sweeping across the entire continent, in election after election? Still, mild though it is, REALITY makes it way onto the Reuters' ticker!
I've been saying for some time that North Americans, especially business people, NEED to know what's REALLY going on in South America, if, for no other reason, their OWN survival and well-being. Do they want to stay friends with, and trade with, the democracies to the south of us that are throwing off fascist rule (most of them)? Or do they want to side with Bushites and "neo-liberal" Democrats, and be considered "the enemy" there? And if South America forms a South American Common Market with its own currency, and goes off the dollar, the result could be--if it isn't handled right by OUR government--that WE become the "banana republic" of the western hemisphere. Evo Morales (first indigenous president of Bolivia) said: "We want partners, not masters." Are we--and is our government--willing to trade with South America on FAIR TERMS? Or are they going to take their trade--their vast natural resources, and the products of their newly prospering economies--elsewhere, and close their markets to OUR products (such as they are, these days)?
There are much more profound ethical reasons why we should be paying close attention to Latin America--our government and our corporate rulers have been such a bad actors there--and there are also excellent reasons why we should be carefully observing and analyzing how they have gone about achieving democracy and majority rule, after decades and centuries of brutal dictatorship and exploitation. We could use those lessons here! (1. TRANSPARENT elections. 2. Grass roots organization. 3. Think big.). But at the very least what is happening there is going to have profound economic impacts on the north--and they could be beneficial, or they could be difficult, depending on our government's reaction (--which so far stinks--to high heaven!).
Anyway, this article by Manuela Badawy is a fresh breeze of reality--given the fetid crap that A-P, the NYT, the WSJ and the whole lot of them have been dishing up as "news" of Latin America.
-------------------------------
Here's the rightwing/fascist pig talking point. I've heard it from Paul Wolfowitz, too.
"According to Fitch, oil-exporting Venezuela is likely to have accumulated $44.5 billion in assets in the past three years due to high oil prices which have boosted government coffers and international reserves.
"This, however, has taken away some of the pressures to enact further reforms to improve living standards in a more sustainable way.
"The oil windfall means that the Venezuelan government could easily pay all its debt obligations of $27 billion and be debt-free if it wanted."
"Instead, Venezuela is keeping some of its cash for a rainy day or to lend to some of its friends, like Ecuador, which has vowed to restructure its external debt of $10.28 billion, Harting added.
"In January, Ecuador held talks on receiving possible credits of up to $1 billion from Venezuela, which, like itself, has a leftist government."
------------------------------
"...in a more sustainable way" (improve living standards) means: for godssakes, don't spend your windfall on schools, university educations, high tech training, adult literacy classes, arts education, medical care, nutrition for children, food supplements, food self-sufficiency, low cost housing, small business loans and grants, or anything of benefit to the poor. Spend it on US--on big corporate investment--and we will "trickle down" benefits to the poor, yup, we will--forget everything that has gone before! As to "further reforms," I don't see any of these new leftist leaders holding back on REAL reforms; so what is likely meant by "further reforms" is something closer to IMF "reforms"--that is, draconian CUTS to anything that benefits the poor or keeps the country's wealth under democratic control.
Wolfwitz said much the same thing--what will Venezuela do when the oil profits sink, or the oil runs out? He meant it in a very snide way. The obvious answer is: What better thing to do with their current profits than SPEND THEM ON THE PEOPLE, to upgrade their skills, to improve the social atmosphere, and to build infrastructure and plan for the future? Give it all to fat-cat bankers and investors, and you would truly be pissing it away, with no benefit to anyone but the super-rich.
Meanwhile, with these far-thinking investments in their own people and in their neighbors' welfare, the Venezuelans are helping to build a solid foundation of grass roots democracy and leftist (majorityist) government all across the southern continent.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
