|
of Chavez, on the Venezuelan left. And the grass roots social movements who support Morales in Bolivia are not exactly worshipful.
I am speaking more to the general tenor of things in South America--the common premises and goals, including the common premise that the U.S.-Bush is the chief and really the only enemy of this democracy movement, and the common goal of throwing off U.S. dominance. In this overall context--and in view of how things have gone over the last half decade (particular events and statements, as well as the general trend) it is simply not believable to me that Chavez would invite the Russian navy for maneuvers without consultation with the other leaders of South America.
Also, to say that Correa has "distanced himself from Chavez" is absurd. Chavez only six months ago came to Ecuador's defense--literally, by sending battalions to the Venezuela/Colombia border--when the U.S./Colombia bombed Ecuador. They are close allies.
I understand that there are differences in the way that these leftist leaders are aiming at social justice and sovereignty. Correa, for instance, has not nationalized telecommunications, but he has pledged to throw the U.S. military out of Ecuador--a critically important assertion of sovereignty, also important to the security of the entire region, not just Ecuador. Chavez proposed equal rights for women and gays, but the measure (included in 69 amendments to the Consititution on widely varying issues) failed, in a close vote. Correa has proposed and won equal rights for gays and women in Ecuador, as well as the world first of rights for Nature itself--in this overwhelming 65% vote. Each of these countries is different--different needs, different problems, different cultures, different components to the population (Bolivia and Ecuador with very large indigenous populations, for instance--while Venezuela is more mixed and Uruguay is mostly white). They present a fascinating set of examples of how social justice and democracy can be accomplished, and certainly each advance deserves study and comparison to the others. (For instance, did lifting term limits for president in Venezuela kill the other proposals--in an up or down vote--or did equal rights for women and gays kill lifting the term limit, given the particularly rightwing Catholic clergy in Venezuela? And how/why did both succeed in Ecuador?)
But to compare them as more radical or less radical is not really a good criterion. The core Bolivarians (Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia) are all radical, compared, say, to both Republican and Democratic Party policy in the U.S.--that is, they are much more democratic, and also they combine economic fairness with political/legal fairness. Civil rights are difficult to exercise if you are starving. Basic needs must be met for democracy to prosper. But this is radical only to Corpo/fascists, who really don't approve of democracy at all. Brazil's and Argentina's governments have the same goals--social justice, sovereignty--but Brazil in particular is trying to achieve them with an economy more tilted toward capitalist enterprise and less toward socialism. If you're going to compare these leaders, governments and policies, on the basis of "radicalism," you really need to spend some time defining radicalism. Is everybody having a decent income, access to education and an equal right to government services "radical"? Then virtually all of the governments of South America (excepting Colombia and Peru) are radical--in their goals anyway? Is the state owning the oil resource radical? Then Norway is radical--and also the rightwing governments prior to Chavez who nationalized the oil. Is Chavez taking it further, and requiring majority state ownership in oil projects, and a 60/40 split of profits in favor of Venezuela, radical? Or is it simply fair?
Does radical mean doing things that big businesses and Corpo/fascists don't like--such as Chavez nationalizing Venezuela's major steel company to settle the long-running labor dispute (and creating a partly worker-run company) radical? Or it just wise and protective of Venezuelan development?
These are not easy questions to answer--and simple comparisons (Chavez nationalizes telecommunications; Correa doesn't--or doesn't yet) don't really dig deep enough. Chavez's increased socialization of the oil industry, for instance, was in response to a particular problem in Venezuela--the Bush-Exxon Mobil supported oil professionals' strike, which crippled the country and nearly toppled its democratic government (in a series of other hostile Bush-backed moves). Chavez has been compelled, in many instances, to take strong state action, to preserve Venezuelan democracy and its economic/social integrity. And, naturally, Exxon Mobil considers him a "tyrant." (The rich and the rightwing also called FDR a "tyrant.") Is "radical" the right word for Chavez's actions? Neither Brazil nor Ecuador has faced such an internal assault (yet). Bolivia is facing one, though--as the Bush-supported white separatists in the eastern provinces try to split off from Bolivia, and take Bolivia's gas reserves with them. Was Morales' nationalization of the gas reserves "radical"--or was it wise and protective of Bolivian democracy and economic/social integrity? (The nationalization and Morales' re-negotiation of the gas contracts has DOUBLED Bolivia's gas profits--from one billion a year to TWO billion--one of the reasons that the gas fascists are so greedy--ironical as it is.)
The thing that strikes me about the South American left is that they have thrown out the "rule book." They are improvising, finding out what works, what doesn't, taking pieces of this system and that system--Cuba's health care system; U.S. small business models (small business is the biggest employer in the U.S.--Chavez is encouraging it, in Venezuela, with grants and loans--with one result being strong growth in the private sector); Brazil's Lulu protecting a big swath of the Amazon (and the last uncontacted indigenous tribes) with a presidential "rule by decree," etc., etc. Is Lulu "radical" for exercising presidential power that way? Is he non-radical and Corpo/fascist for his biofuels deal with Bush?
It's important to discuss these things, but calling them radical or non-radical is not sufficient. What we are seeing is great change, ferment, and experiment, with some very strong common goals, and unprecedented levels of accord, cooperation and friendship among South American leaders. Overall, it is a democracy movement, with many variations. But those variations are not causing discord among the main leftist allies (Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay). The Bushwhacks have had a bit more success with Chile and Peru, as to "divide and conquer," but Chile at least has been very helpful to the Morales government, in the current Bush-instigated crisis--both by granting Bolivia its long-sought access to the sea, and by heading up the meeting of UNASUR at which unanimity was achieved in backing the Morales government. Brazil's Lulu may disagree with Venezuela's Chavez on a lot of particular issues, but Lulu has backed Chavez 100% when it comes to crunch time (U.S. meddling and slander), and has joined with him on numerous projects, including, recently, putting up the money for a new major road from the Atlantic to the Pacific, through Bolivia (which will make Bolivia a major thoroughfare for trade, between Africa/Europe, and Asia).
We really should beware of underestimating this accord among South American leaders. The Bushwhacks have done so, and have "lost" South America (as the Corpo/fascists would put it) as a result. An attack on Chavez is an attack on Lulu, and Correa, and Morales, and the Kirchners, and others. That is how they have reacted consistently over the last half decade. They each have their own problems, agendas, policies and personal careers--but they all just formed UNASUR, the South American "Common Market," without the U.S.--and took their first big crisis, the Bushwhack meddling in Bolivia, to UNASUR, and not to the OAS, because the U.S. is not a member. They are pulling together. That is the most important reality that we must acknowledge--and that our Democratic leaders (including Obama) apparently have yet to learn. If Obama thinks he can get away with "isolating" Chavez, he is dead wrong. If the "Washington Consensus" crowd thinks they can pick "good leftists" vs. "bad leftists" in South America, and do more "divide and conquer," they are dead wrong. I have no doubt that's what they're up to, despite the Bushwhacks' colossal failure at it. And I think the result is going to be yet more alienation between the northern and southern halves of our hemisphere, and a great opportunity missed to heal wounds, and to proceed together, to create a powerful social justice economy. It makes me very sad to hear Obama demonize Chavez as "authoritarian." It is Bush and the Corpo/fascists behind him who are the authoritarians and tyrants, not Chavez. They use state power to torture and kill and benefit themselves. He uses state power to throw them off the backs of the poor. I know why Obama repeats their lies. But it is saddening, nevertheless, to realize what a human being with good instincts and intelligence has to say, if he's running for emperor, to please the emperor-makers and breakers.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
