IMPERIALISM'S GAME: Who's Right? Evo Morales or James Petras?

[magbana]

Imperialism's game
September 24, 2008 · No Comments

Who's Wrong, Evo Morales or James Petras?

Jorge Eduardo Aldao - Tlaxcala

September 15, 2008

Some days ago in an interview with Radio Centenario in Uruguay, James Petras made some remarks that deserve consideration.

In that radio interview, Petras, analyzing Bolivia's critical situation, said:

"…This civil war has resulted in already almost half the country being in the hands of the fascists, and I say fascists, because they operate by the use of force, violence, with non-parliamentary groups typical of fascists, with the backing of the middle class, by taking public buildings of all kinds, paralyzing gas pipelines, even blowing up pipelines, taking control of police stations, customs, etc. It's already a coup. Therefore, to say that it's nearing a civil war or a coup is false, because there's already a civil war, there's a taking of power in the provinces called the "Half-Moon" (Santa Cruz, Tarija, Pando, Beni) where the fascist rightwing is in control, despite the internal opposition of the peasants, etc.

What remains is in the Altiplano, where Evo Morales is located, boxed in, impotent, incapable of maintaining the country's constitutional order and integrity. While the popular masses begin to take their own action, independent of this president who until now continues to call for dialogue, while the fascists have murdered scores of peasants in cold blood and have disappeared dozens more, adding to the more than two hundred gunshot victims to be found in the hospitals.

This is the president's cretinism in the face of an open U.S. intervention, the coup d'etat is already underway, the taking of power by the ultra-rightwing…"

MORE: http://machetera.wordpress.com/2008/09/24/imperialisms-game/#more-924

[EFerrari]

1. Petras is very hard on Morales but it's not clear to me that he is wrong

in general. I wish I understood a little better what strategy Morales is pursuing.

[bemildred]

2. IMHO, Mr Morales, like Mr Chavez is being careful to avoid any pretext for outside intervention.

The goal of agent provocateurs is to create violence as a pretext for intervention, civil war, and "regime change". So the obvious counter-strategy is to be firm but restrained. I cannot say how this will come out, and I would agree that steps ought to be taken to ensure that the peasants are well-armed, if it does come to open civil war, but I am not ready to criticize Mr Morales for being patient, for not wanting to be rash. He has the government, the army, and all historical legitimacy on his side, and that is a great advantage not to be given up lightly.

[Peace Patriot]

3. I agree with you, Bemildred. And I think it's the wisest strategy, along with going public

on the fascist civil war and assassination plots, and U.S. involvement--which four different presidents have done over the last month or so (Bolivia, Venezuela, Paraguay and Ecuador). I watched the almost-war unfold in March, when the U.S./Colombia did their bombing/raid on Ecuador, and I think it was VERY WISE how Chavez de-fused that situation. (Lula called him "the great peacemaker.") There is nothing in this world that the Bushwhacks wanted more, at that point, than a shooting war with Ecuador and Venezuela. Rafael Correa was furious, but he's a younger leader, only in office a short time--with an 80% approval rating! Wow!--but still, the crap that the Bushwhacks and the Colombian fascists were pulling was DESIGNED to draw him in, and Chavez saw it before Correa did. It was the "wrong war," over the wrong issue, at the wrong time, and they were not prepared for it.

I think they left the Bushwhacks flat-footed--and resorting to stunts like the "miracle laptop" and the Betancourt charade. They could not get Ecuador and Venezuela to react the way they wanted them to. Yeah, they sent battalions to their borders, but there they stopped. And then Correa purged the Bushwhack agents in Ecuador's military and intelligence services--something that would likely have meant losing any hot conflict with the U.S./Colombia. Further, the U.S. base is still in Manta, Ecuador. He's throwing them out next year, when their lease comes up. They likely used that base for the bombing raid. It needs to be gone, before Ecuador can begin to feel secure.

And then Lugo discovered the plot against him, among the fascists in Paraguay (no doubt also with Bushwhacks involved). And then Chavez discovered the plot in Zulia.

All this had to be shaken out. If they had gotten enticed into a shooting war with the U.S./Colombia, with these plots simmering and ready to strike, we would have seen the chaos throughout the region that the Bushwhacks were trying to create. We see it in a smaller version in Bolivia. And that, too, was simmering and about to burst forth in fascist rioting and murder. It would have been the coup de grace, and Venezuela and Ecuador, if they had gotten into a hot war with the U.S./Colombia in March, would have been distracted and far less able to assist the unity that emerged at UNSASUR, as to having Morales' back and preventing the split up of Bolivia.

I found Chavez's meeting with Uribe--after all that crap that Uribe did--fascinating--that "bury the hatchet meeting," where they announced joint Venezuela/Colombian projects (a railroad among them), with Colombian Defense Minister Santos sniping at it from the sidelines. That event revealed a problem in Colombia, with the military probably wanting to take over, and--no doubt in my mind (and there is evidence for it)--colluding with the fascists in adjacent Zulia, Venezuela. They are probably hot to invade Zulia and set up a fascist mini-state in control of the oil, and, with the U.S. 4th Fleet, in control of the Caribbean. In any case, that extraordinary Chavez-Uribe meeting is one of the reasons Lulu called the Chavez "the great peacemaker." It takes wisdom and intelligence to be a peacemaker. It takes understanding "the art of war" very well, indeed.

So, now, Correa's government in Ecuador is stronger than ever, and about to win their constitutional referendum. Chavez is off making oil deals with China, and has brought the Russian navy to the Caribbean for maneuvers, as a warning off to the Bushwhacks. The Venezuelan assassination/coup plot has been exposed and is being investigated. Argentina and Brazil have made it very clear to the fascist secessionists in Bolivia, that they won't trade with them (and so where are these landlocked gas thieves going to sell the gas?). The concerted action of all of these leaders to support Morales has likely been decisive in heading off Bushwhack coup plans in that country. And that helps Lugo's fledgling government in adjacent Paraguay.

Peace and cooperation, democracy, and united economic strength can win this battle. The key is not to permit or invite intervention--to give the Bushwhacks no excuses. Brazil has proposed a common defense, in the context of their newly created South American "Common Market," but the common defense is not in place yet. Thus, Chavez's invitation to the Russians--Chavez has to keep the northern flank of their "Common Market" defended, while they try to integrate their militaries (and also deal with Colombia, which is a member of UNASUR--with Santos sneering at that as well). With Bushwhacks gunning for these countries, and no doubt thinking of them as undefended oil reserves, there for the taking, demonstrations of military strength are needed. But it is the POLITICAL UNITY of these countries--and their commitment to democracy and the vast support they have among the people--that is their real strength.

[EFerrari]

4. BushCo seems determined to create as much havoc as possible

before they leave office -- in the way anti-social teenagers trash hotel rooms after Prom night. I'm actually quite frightened for the people right now. :(

[Peace Patriot]

5. Oh, I think the Bushwhacks have met their match in the combined democratic power

of the peoples and leaders of South America. The main danger right now is in the Caribbean/Central America, which is just starting to go leftist, and where the Corpo/fascists running things here must make a "last stand" for Corpo/fascist "free trade" and domination--to try to create a leftist-free zone in that region. I actually think the people are in less danger in Bolivia than in Zulia, Venezuela (on the Caribbean coast, adjacent to Colombia), and the Caribbean/Central America region in general. The fascist minority in Bolivia is in an impossible position, strategically and economically. And, from a Bushwhack point of view, Zulia is the better prize. I think it is no accident that the recently exposed assassination plot against Chavez was located in Zulia.

This is not to say that the white separatists in Bolivia won't riot again, and kill more unarmed peasant farmers (among the first group they massacred, a key voter activist). But they are landlocked, and Brazil and Argentina--and UNASUR-- have made it very clear that they aren't going to get their way--i.e., creation of a fascist mini-state in control of the gas and oil. It can't be done without the cooperation of at least one major gas customer. And virtually all of the leaders of the continent oppose any split up of Bolivia.

I think that Morales--with a 67% approval rating, and the backing of the entire South American leadership--is going to calm things down, and also is going to be firmer in the suppression of violence--the fascists only resort. It's interesting that one of the key white separatist leaders in Bolivia--Branko Marinkovic--took a sideswipe at UNASUR, in today's Romero/NYT anti-Morales propaganda piece:

"But as to the possibility of renewed violence on the streets of Santa Cruz and other Bolivian cities, Mr. Marinkovic is clear. 'If there is no legitimate international mediation in our crisis, there is going to be confrontation,' he said. 'And unfortunately, it is going to be bloody and painful for all Bolivians.'”

"No legitimate international mediation"?! He's talking about the recently created UNASUR--which all South American countries belong to, but which does not include the U.S.

Marinkovic seems to be chafing under the unanimous position of UNASUR in support of Morales, and is looking for a mediation entity (the OAS? the UN?) that could include the Bush junta. He's feeling outnumbered, and he very much is. He is leading a movement that could destroy the sovereignty of all Latin American countries, not to mention start the crumbling of their hard-won democracies, and cut off their economic and social justice progress. But while the "Balkanization" of South America cannot work--they are unified against it--a "circling of the wagons" by the Bushwhacks and our Corpo/fascists, in the Caribbean/Central America, is still possible. That's why I think the people of El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Mexico and other Carribbean/Central American countries, are actually in more peril than the Bolivians. And also, the people of Zulia, Venezuela--an oil prize, right on the Caribbean, that I think is the Bushwhacks' main target. That strategic location and its oil could secure the Caribbean for Corpo/fascist dominance.

Nicaragua has elected a strong leftist government. El Salvador will likely elect a strong leftist in March. Honduras' president is in rebellion against the Bushwhack Corpo/fascist "free trade" regime, and just joined ALBA (and refused to accept the U.S. ambassador's credentials--in solidarity with Morales). Guatemala just elected its first progressive government, ever, with social justice goals similar to the Bolivarians. And we know that Mexico could easily tilt way left in the next presidential election.

South America has been "lost," as the Corpo/fascists would put it. (Triumph of democracy, in truth.) But the Caribbean/Central America is still teetering, and I think that's where the most serious danger of violent repression lay (outside of Colombia, of course).

[EFerrari]

6. I don't think our "owners" as Gore Vidal call thems ever will accept

that they have "lost" the plantation. But, I agree about Central America and the Carribean. This is going to be another period of the checking the news frequently and reading in the interstices. One of my uncles is a big ARENA guy. I haven't been able to speak to him for more than five minutes for the last twenty years because I don't trust myself. His mother would have slapped the stupid out of him were she still alive. As it is, that whole generation in my family is in their 70s to slapping isn't really an option for me.

[Peace Patriot]

7. Well, I think we've all got "uncles" like that. You have my sympathy!

It's best to be gentle with family members, I've found. Sometimes it's just their own powerlessness that makes them such stupidos politically. I'm trying to think of the title of the Argentine movie I saw recently, about an upper class woman--very pampered and privileged, and oblivious to politics--who found out that the adopted baby that her husband had obtained for her was the child of a 'disappeared' woman who had been killed by the junta. Her husband was doing what he thought he had to do--to keep her in style, and to give her a child. That was how he saw his "duty." He blinded himself to the circumstances, and of course kept her entirely in the dark. There are family political arguments in the film, too--some of them are anti-junta and they are poor. He went along with the junta in order to make a good living. The junta corrupted him, destroyed many people--tortured and killed, or impoverished--and shattered her life, years later, when she finds out the truth.

It is a hopeful film, in the sense that she pursues the truth, meets the grandmother, finally sees pictures of the murdered mother and father, and confronts her husband. Your mention of your uncle brought this film to mind, because it is not an easy thing having such a fundamental political/ethical difference between family members, especially where fascism is involved, and it's not just matter of politics; it's a matter of life and death, and fundamental decency and humanity. We just have to understand that some people--most often men--split their family lives and their business or political lives into two separate, sealed off compartments, and will not--and maybe cannot--connect the two, or can only do so when forced to, by sudden trauma, or a long series of inner contradictions that finally gets to them. How can anyone go whack someone's head off, or torture someone, and tolerate others doing so, for personal gain, then go home and be a decent father or husband? It's because they identify with their family and can't extend that identification to others. They see the world as a war zone, where they have to fight for the survival, protection and comfort of the limited few with whom they do identify.

It is wrenching watching this woman seek and realize the awful truth about someone she loves. There are no easy answers to her dilemma, but at least she faces her situation bravely, and handles it with love and compassion. Those of us who have lived this transition, for women, from the expectation that we shouldn't "worry our pretty little heads" about the big bad world, to the realization that we are equally responsible for the world and fully competent to act within it--those of us old enough to remember how it was before--will identify with this movie. I imagine that many young women may find it unfathomable how this woman accepted a baby and never asked questions about it. It was the same paradigm that produces men who can tolerate or even commit brutality in business, politics and war, and yet are genuinely kind and loving at home. We are certainly not rid of this divided psyche. But it's not quite so much of a man/woman thing any more. To heal it, we need to create a society in which everyone feels cared for--a world that is not a war zone.

[EFerrari]

10. My grandparents embodied that kind of division in their marriage.

It was odd. My grandma was a daughter of the oligarchy who as an adult was a staunch socialist. She married the illegitimate, unrecognized son of an intellectual who grew up to be a career officer and a rightwing moderate politician. She wrote tracts under a pen name. God only knows how that marriage worked. lol

[Peace Patriot]

8. Oh my goodness! Take a look at BoRev.net RIGHT NOW! It is BoRev's greatest! nt

[Judi Lynn]

9. I can see the logic in not giving these mad dog monster racists any excuse to call in reinforcements

from a fascist _Bush administration which has already been counseling with them, bankrolling their violent youth groups, no doubt whatsoever. As articles indicate, _Bush also flies them into Washington for special instructions, counseling. They're all waiting to pounce, and eager to spill rivers of indigenous blood in order to reseize control of what is not theirs.

Could be the strength which has been forged over the centuries of dealing with bullies will be the element which will finally assist the good citizens to reclaim their own country, a bit at a time. I've read quotes from male AND female Bolivian citizens stressing their consciousness of the need for time, above all else, to see the changes they've been waiting for realized.

They have learned to be patient, while weaker, egocentric parasites like the scum who have slimed their way into ownership of someone else's country will not be able to meet the demands of inner strength needed to match their prey over time, and will eventually lose. Quick fixes, immediate gratification is good for assholes, but endurance will bring the good people what they need, seek, deserve.