|
...and, if Lula da Silva had not backed Humala, I would be very concerned about a U.S. "divide and conquer" plot--i.e., diluting Bolivia's powerful democracy revolution with Peru's U.S.-dominated "free trade for the rich," by combining the two. The poor majority has a lot more power in Bolivia, where profits from the country's natural resources--such as gas--are being used for social programs; whereas, in Peru, the poor majority is still subjugated, and Peru's natural resources are being plundered by the U.S.-based and other transglobal corporations,. In addition, Bolivia threw the DEA out of the country and legalized the coca leaf (not cocaine), while Peru's military and police forces have been undermined, infiltrated and militarized by the corrupt, murderous, failed U.S. "war on drugs." How could these countries be unified without serious detriment to Bolivia?
My suspicion of a U.S. plot is heightened by Toledo's anti-Chavez remarks in the second half of the article. This article, however, is not very well written--it verges on incoherence. A guess at what is going on--with events vs the article--is that Humala is moving swiftly to ally with the other leftist leaders in the region and the article writers and Toledo want to put the brakes on it. (Mercopress is something of a corpo-fascist news source.) I base this guess almost wholly on Lula da Silva's backing of Humala. Lula da Silva, former president of Brazil, above all else opposes U.S. and rightwing "divide and conquer" tactics. He would not be party to a slimy plot to use Indigenous affinities between Peru and Bolivia, to undermine Bolivia's leftist government or the rights of the poor majority. So, though the U.S., or rather, its transglobal corporate rulers and war profiteers, have a foothold in Peru--via the Bushwhack written U.S/Peru 'free trade for the rich" agreement--and while it's possible that they have some hold over Humala--Lula da Silva's backing argues against it.
Thus, I think that Humala's unity proposal is probably genuine--though a bit startling (if his remarks have been properly translated)--and it is in line with other efforts that South American leaders have taken toward regional unity, most notably the efforts of strong allies Chavez and da Silva. (And I suspect but don't know for sure that da Silva's successor, Dilma Rousseff, feels the same way about the alliance with Venezuela and the critical need for unity in dealing with U.S. aggression and promoting Latin American independence and "raise all boats" prosperity.)
-----------------
Here is Toledo in the bottom half of the article:
--
In Lima former president Alejandro Toledo and a political ally of Humala said he would not allow “Peru to become another Venezuela or Nicaragua” and if that was the case he would “stand against” the president-elect.
“Let me be clear: I am against the politics and style of Hugo Chavez, and I will not allow Peru to become another Venezuela or Nicaragua”, underlined Toledo who added that president elect Humala has moved ‘well into the centre’ and has “made his many of our policies”.
Toledo’s “Peru Possible” was the fourth strongest political force in the last election and holds the sufficient votes to ensure a congressional majority, for the government and if not for the opposition. (My note: ?? what does this mean? can't parse it.)
However Toledo insisted there will be no co-government, no ministers from his political group. “I know it’s a complicated and delicate” relation because of the president-elect alleged close relations with the administrations of Hugo Chavez (Venezuela), Daniel Ortega (Nicaragua), Rafael Correa (Ecuador) and Evo Morales (Bolivia)”.
--from the OP (my emphasis)
--
One puzzlement is why the article writers include Toledo's remarks at all. He lost the election, big time. He didn't even make it to the runoff. They give him four paragraphs. The focus should be on Humala, the new president of Peru, and his meet and greet tour of Latin America and, in this case, with his neighbor Evo Morales. The article gives all this space to Toledo while failing to further illuminate Humala's unity proposal.
And what Toledo says is contradictory--that, on the one hand, Humala "has moved to the center" and has adopted many of Toledo's policies, and, on the other, that he (the big loser) will "not allow" Humala to do otherwise--to "become Venezuela." To "become Venezuela" apparently means 'too much' political power and 'too much' benefit to the poor majority (ahem, real democracy) which might cost the "neo-liberal" nouveau riche that second Gucci bag or, say, having to negotiate wages and benefits with their maids and gardeners. That is who Toledo represents--the tiny rich minority which is benefiting from transglobal corporate rape of Peru's resources.
Why does the loser get this much ink to try to undermine Humala's relations with the other leaders of the region, with whom he has a lot of affinity, in his first official visit?
Imagine John McCain getting this much space in a news article about Obama's first trip abroad as president? It would be considered inappropriate and unfair--and possibly even a threat to national security. (Transitions of power are dicey moments in any country.) And Toledo wasn't even a major candidate. This wrongful emphasis on Toledo--who merited, at the most, a short mention--may be why the article is so garbled (for instance, I really don't understand what it says about the congress), and, why it so uninformative on Humala's unity proposal.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
