|
and Venezuela--the pioneers of regional independence and integration--spread to Brazil with the close friendship and alliance between Hugo Chavez and Lula da Silva, and has now spread throughout the region, as the benefits of Chavez/da Silva policies become evident to everyone, including independence from the U.S. and its multinational corporate/war profiteer rulers.
The benefits include regional cooperation on banking and finance (evicting the U.S.-dominated IMF/World Bank and its ruinous policies from the region, and establishing a regional bank--the Bank of the South--as Venezuela did), the benefits of south-south trade (without U.S. profiteers in the middle, raking off all the profit and enslaving local workers), the benefits of barter trade (which Venezuela pioneered with Argentina and Cuba), the benefits of having each other's backs, rather than being at each other's throats (the notion of "raising all boats"--pioneered by Venezuela, with Brazil joining in; the notion of resisting "divide and conquer" by the U.S.), and the benefits of the common goal of social justice and democracy coordinated among Latin American countries, and many, many other benefits, that all started in Venezuela with the Bolivarian Revolution and the Venezuelans' successful defeat of the U.S.-supported coup d'etat in 2002.
The benefits of the Bolivarian Revolution continue with Venezuela's on-going generation of new ideas, policies and projects--such as the ALBA trade group-- that are good for Venezuela and that "RAISE ALL BOATS"--whether those of the poor within Venezuela, or those of other smaller or weaker countries, like Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua. And now the region has joined them--with Lula da Silva's visionary decision being probably the most important one.
It could be argued that Nestor Kirchner's famous reply, when the Bush Junta issued their dictate that Latin American leaders must "isolate Chavez"--Kirchner replied, 'But he's my brother!"--was the seminal moment in the leftist democracy movement that has swept Latin America, with cooperation and having each other's backs as the key to economic/political integration. Or one could point to the Argentina/Venezuela swap of beef for oil, or Venezuela helping to bail Argentina out of ruinous IMF/World bank debt.
But it was Lula da Silva's recognition of the importance and rightness of Venezuela's policies--and his bringing the gigantic Brazilian economy into the fray, on the side of independence and cooperation--rather than the cut-throat rivalry that typifies predatory capitalism--that was decisive as to the direction that Latin America would go. That is the foundation of the Pacific to Atlantic highway and many other projects and policies.
The U.S. and its corporate/war profiteer rulers are still trying to cling, by tooth and claw, to their "circle the wagons" area--Central America/the Caribbean--anchored by their blood-drenched client state, Colombia, on its south rim and angling to add Venezuela's oil to that part of the "circle" (as well as drenching Mexico in blood to retain the northern rim on the U.S. border), but that is the past. Latin America as the U.S. "backyard" is OVER. The future is Latin American independence.
-------
Some other key points and questions related to the Pacific-Atlantic highway:
BOLIVIA
Extending the highway into Bolivia, and giving land-locked Bolivia access to the Pacific, were critically important policies of the LEFTIST leaders of Brazil, Venezuela, Chile and Argentina, back in 2008, when the Bush Junta funded and organized the white separatist insurrection in Bolivia in an effort to overthrow Bolivia's leftist government.
The white separatists wanted to split up Bolivia and take Bolivia's big gas reserves (Bolivia's major resource) with them. Evo Morales, who had just been elected president of Bolivia with more than 60% of the vote--Bolivia's first Indigenous president--threw the U.S. ambassador and the DEA out of the Bolivia for their collusion with the white separatists. Chile's leftist president at the time, Michele Batchelet, first head of the new all-South America EU-prototype organization, UNASUR--which had just been formalized--called an emergency meeting and got a unanimous decision to support Morales, help stop the violence and hold Bolivia together.
Brazil and Argentina--Bolivia's chief gas customers--made it very clear that they would not trade with a separatist government. The insurrection was put down. And THEN, a) Batchelet settled a 100 year old dispute with Bolivia and gave Bolivia access to the sea, and b) Brazil, Venezuela and others put up the funds to send an extension of the new Pacific-Atlantic highway through Bolivia, giving Bolivia (which also has the biggest lithium deposit in the world--a rare component of electronics) an important position in south-south trade. (Also, Venezuela helped Bolivia re-negotiate its gas contracts, which doubled Bolivia's gas revenues and provided funds for social programs.)
"Raising all boats.' Organized resistance to typical, bloody-handed U.S. interference. Economic cooperation.
The rightwing billionaire, who recently defeated Batchelet's successor in Chile, immediately started to undermine the sea access deal with Bolivia, by scuttling the provision that Bolivia's tiny bit of land on the Pacific would be sovereign Bolivian territory. Peru (U.S. "free for the rich" client state) also began making trouble about it. If Chile/Pinera's move holds up, Bolivia's port facility and sea trade will be overseen by Chilean officials (and likely spied upon by the Pentagon as well).
THE MEANING OF THE EVENTS IN BOLIVIA IN THE BIGGER PICTURE
Trouble, vicious rivalry, predatory capitalism, thy name is the Rightwing. Peace, cooperation, a mixed capitalist/socialist economy with non-predatory trade/finance, are the characteristics of the Leftwing, which represents the interests of the majority.
In understanding elections in Latin America, we have to understand that the U.S. is pouring multi-millions of dollars into rightwing groups all over the region, currently and of course under the Bush Junta--through agencies like the USAID--and in addition Latin America has even worse corpo-fascist 'news' media than we do. So, when leftists win in Latin America--which they have been doing a lot, lately--they're winning against hugely stacked odds and their victories are actually much bigger than the numbers represent. They have overcome U.S. multi-millions (our tax dollars), the money and power of the local rich elites, U.S. and rightwing dirty tricks and other bullshit, and relentless corporate media propaganda against the Left.
The only advantages of the Left are relatively honest vote counting in many Latin American countries (which we have lost here), sheer numbers (the poor are the overwhelming majority) and good (in some cases, awesome) grass roots organization. I mention this because I think Pinera probably did win, in Chile--although I am not sure (about their vote counting system) and Batchelet left office (termed out) with an 80% approval rating (!), so how did her successor lose? If Pinera actually did win, while yet Brazil was almost simultaneously electing Lula da Silva's successor, Dilma Rousseff--a former leftist guerrilla who was tortured by the former fascist (and U.S.-supported) dictatorship--what does this portend for the future of South American peace, cooperation and social justice, and for LEFTIST-created prosperity projects like the Pacific-Atlantic highway?
The rightwing, in some instances in Latin America, has proved more savvy than our own rightwing. For instance, Paraguay's rightwing rescinded Paraguay's non-extradition law (which allowed fascist dictators to abide there) and immunity for U.S. soldiers in Paraguay, BEFORE Paraguay elected its first leftist president. Their reason? Paraguay is surrounded by countries with leftist governments, and they wanted in on the trade advantages that leftist leaders were creating. They wanted to be part of "raising all boats." (Paraguay is very poor.) Soon, Lula da Silva was pressuring Paraguay's Brazilian hydroelectric customers to re-negotiate their contracts, which were very unfair to Paraguay.
This kind of rightwing pragmatism might bode well for the general prosperity and independence of the region. It is certainly not universal, though. And, in some ways, Latin America today reminds me of the original British colonies in North America at the time of our revolution. Although united by culture and language, they were extremely fractious, onery, self-seeking and half of them were slave states. How they ever achieved unity on anything--let alone the break with England and establishment of a country--is one of the great puzzles of American history. Simon Bolivar was inspired by it, and wanted to create "the United States of South America." That dream has been reborn--famously in Venezuela but also throughout the region. And like Great Britain and its trade monopolists, back in the 18th century, the U.S. government--a wholly owned subsidiary of its multinational corporations and war profiteers, and, sadly, imitating its one-time oppressor--is INTENT on "divide and conquer." And it has much more power, wealth, military force and proximity than Great Britain did, with which to destroy unity in Latin America.
Latin American integration will not likely result in one government--not even to the extent of the EU. They are more wary of overly centralized power--given the U.S. and E.U. examples--and their nationalism and devotion to national sovereignty are much more developed than they were in the British-American colonies. Also, the strongest Leftists are devoted to de-centralized power and grass roots democracy (one of the excruciating ironies of the corpo-fascist media's lies about "Chavez, the dictator"). But they will and they are pioneering structures of political/economic integration, which are greatly aiding the fight against poverty and the goal of general prosperity.
I think Pinera and some of his compadres--for instance, Alan Garcia and the rightwing in Peru--will choose pragmatism. There is some evidence that Garcia and his corrupt crowd have done so. There is evidence that the Colorado Party in Paraguay--even worse than Garcia--did so. And there is even evidence that Colombia's new regime--THE most brutal and fascist in Latin America ($7 BILLION in U.S. military funding)--has recognized the advantage of peaceful trade with Leftist countries (notably Venezuela). The U.S. has its talons in Colombia for the very purpose of "dividing and conquering" the south--its purpose in Honduras, Mexico, Panama, Peru and other places as well, but Colombians have suffered the most from it. Trade and the unity movement might eventually restore peace within Colombia and help establish democracy there. (it is a bloody sham, at present.)
Venezuela was just designated THE most equal country in Latin America, on income distribution, by the UN Economic Commission on Latin America and the Caribbean. The Chavez government has cut poverty in half and extreme poverty by more than 70%. Colombia, on the other hand, has one of the worst rich/poor discrepancies in the western hemisphere. The Left creates prosperity and spreads the wealth. The Right creates more riches for the rich and vast poverty for everybody else. Can major projects like this Pacific-Atlantic highway--and similar initiatives (such as the newly proposed railroad between Venezuela and Colombia, or the new Bolivia sea port on Chile's coast, or the new Orinoco Bridge between Brazil and Venezuela, etc.) help pull the region together and foster democracy, social justice and prosperity for all, or will the U.S. and local rightwing forces stoke up greed and divisiveness to sabotage the goals of these projects?
THE LEFTWING GIVETH AND THE RIGHTWING LOOTETH
That's how it's been. The "New Deal" re-created a prosperous U.S. and the Bushwhacks and collusive Democrats have allowed it to be thoroughly looted and deconstructed by the rich and by multinational corporations and war profiteers. The Chavez government and Lula's government, and others--Bolivia, Ecuador, Uruguay and the other leftist governments--create prosperity, and then the Right, still controlling vast wealth and the media, and having U.S. support as well, re-group, are trained by the USAID how to lie like our politicians do, and take it all over, for another round of looting and impoverishment of the majority.
Will the "moderate rightwing"--such as Pinera and Garcia--pave the way for a fascist, Bushwhack-type rightwing? Will the far rightwing--which dominates the right in Venezuela and Bolivia, for instance--learn to disguise themselves as "moderate rightwing" and thus take over the oil revenues that Chavez worked so hard to greatly increase and direct into social programs, or the gas revenues that Morales doubled for Bolivia and also devoted to social programs? Will the far right regain ascendancy, not the quick way, by war, torture and murder, but the slow way, by gradually destroying democracy, as they have done here?
This is my worry. Short of a second U.S. oil war, this time in South America--which the Pentagon has on its Big Board but which the U.S. might not be able to afford--will the ideals of "raising all boats," sharing the wealth and real democracy, and their foundation in political/economic integration, hold up, over the long term, as the U.S. and its rightwing allies in Latin America start taking advantage of them? There are some edgy--hard to decipher--little hints that this might be a rightwing/U.S. plan (Pinera's victory in Chile; the Chavistas' losses in the recent by-elections in Venezuela--but there are counter-indications, such as the big leftist victory in Brazil).
And my other worry is the environment. Despite strong environmental movements within the Left and influencing Leftist governments, there is no question that the development necessary to eliminating poverty in Latin America has components that could degrade and destroy, not just the regional environment, but also the entire planetary environment. Democracy and empowerment of the Left seem to be the only way to avoid this. Some progress has been made--typically with the governments that are furthest to the Left--but not nearly enough. And there are already reports that the new Pacific-Atlantic highway has been tearing up the Amazon rainforest and is paving the way for further ravages.
An excruciatingly painful dilemma.
|