Latin America celebrated the collapse of neo-liberalism

Latin American Presidents with a left-wing signature participating in the World Social Forum 2009 in Belém, celebrated the collapse of neo-liberalism.

Characterized as the block of the real left-wing Latin American social movements, Presidents Hugo Chávez (Venezuela), Evo Morales (Bolivia), Rafael Correa (Ecuador) and Fernando Lugo (Paraguay) celebrated the collapse of neo-liberalism in ‘Davos’, a reference to the meeting running at the same time as the Social Forum, and collecting the crème de la crème of capitalism in the Swiss Alps. The assembled Latin American presidents gave a clear message to the participants of the World Social Forum (WSF), that was held in Belém from January 27 to Feb. 1: "We need to unite Latin America to cope with the economic crisis", they claimed, while they also called on the ‘left’ world to support their governments.

The Presidents took part in a debate organized by the Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra (MST = Movement of landless farmers) and the umbrella organization of small farmers, Via Campesina. President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil was not invited to this meeting.

In the debate with the MST, Rafael Correa set the tone at an early stage, when he said that "neo-liberalism is a perverse system that now crumbles." The Ecuadorian president also said that the Social Forum is part of the solution the world needs and proposed enthusiastically: "The WSF is part of the solution to the crisis. Hopefully, the alternative emerges now from this Forum in Latin America.”

Hugo Chavez argued that the Forum has to leave the trenches of the fight and launch the attack. "The WSF must change its strategy because we are in the phase of attacks and no longer in the period of trench warfare."

During the debate, called "Prospects for the Integration of Latin America”, the Presidents launched numerous attacks on the "North American imperialism.” Chavez proposed an international trial of the former U.S. president George W. Bush for his alleged crimes against humanity. In the same debate, the freedom fighter Che Guevara was honoured. His daughter was present during the session.

With the new American president Chavez was cautious: "We are still waiting for the performance of the new American government, which faces itself a very serious problem within its borders: the economic crisis." But he stated that he was not blinded by the promised changes: "The empire is still intact and the president [Obama] has said that Chavez is an obstacle."

Fernando Lugo, Paraguay’s last year elected President, new in this ‘left’ presidential bloc, welcomed the participation of farmers and indigenous movements as agents of change in the WSF: "Thanks to the social movements in Latin America, we experience a time of change."

Evo Morales expressed his solidarity with the landless and indigenous people and admitted that he can make mistakes, but promised never to abandon “the struggle against North American imperialism."

The Brazilian Minister of Agrarian Development, Guilherme Cassel, said that the MST made a serious “political mistake” by refusing, Lula to taking part in the debate with the Latin American presidents. And concluded with the words: "He, who takes part in a WSF debate is open to dialogue and criticism."
It is clear that the MST is very dissatisfied with the agrarian reforms (or lack there of) during the reign of the Lula administration. And it is also clear that what Cassel said is a farce, because Lula has never been able to handle criticism in a positive way.

Lula will participate in some activities during the last days of the WSF, but none of the MST and Via Campesina, the international organization to which the MST is connected.

90136

The World Social Forum 2009

Tuesday, January 27, an estimated 60 thousand people from around the country and 30 thousand foreigners started their participation in the 9th edition of the World Social Forum, held in Belém, the capital of Pará.

While the entire capitalistic controlled western world looked to Davos, on the other side of the world, the World Social Forum was held totally ignored by the world press. Well, what should the third world do with a Social Forum, in this time of international financial crisis. As if we don’t have other problems on our minds, then whining Indians, racial inequality, poverty, cutting some trees, etc. The Western world can’t give a damn about it at this moment. And although Lula, presumably, preferred to be in Davos pushing up Brazil in front of all the great leaders of this planet, he was forced to be in Belém, where this social event took place. You can’t let them, your ‘red rascal’ colleagues, President Evo Morales of Bolivia, Hugo Chaves of Venezuela, Fernando Lugo of Paraguai and Rafael Correa of Ecuador, come to Belém and find the event so important yourself that you travel to Davos.

Beyond some local and Latin American political leaders, a handful of national and international intellectuals, especially American university professors, droves of activists and a massive turnout of hopeful youth participated.

90118

Why are the Russians present in Latin American waters?

In one of my previous diaries I wrote about the Bolivian crisis and Bolivia and Venezuela booting out the respective US ambassadors. This post is about what happened in the previous months, leading to the hateful relationship with the USA en the subsequent presence of the Russian fleet in the Latin American waters.

Having the US administration of Busch and Cheney in mind, the Latin American countries see in them the embodiment of the famous words of Frederick Douglas (1818 - 1895):
“There is not a nation of the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of these United States at this very hour.”

US decision to reactivate the 4th Fleet is a matter of concern
The decision of the United States Navy ‘out of the blue’ to re-establish the 4th Fleet in order to have a higher profile in Latin American and the Caribbean waters raised concern in the hemisphere. The 4th Fleet emerged in 1943 during World War II, with the aim of protecting navigation and fighting Nazi submarines. It was deactivated in 1950, after being considered unnecessary by the US military sector.

The Venezuelan and Bolivian governments condemned the US announcement that warships will set sail on Latin American and Caribbean waters as of July 1 and termed it an insult to regional sovereignty. In their opinion, the reactivation of the 4th Fleet may provoke chaos, disorder and violence, and divide nations.

And they were not the only ones, who saw the dangers. Among others President of the NGO France-Libertés Danielle Mitterrand warned against US coup plans. In a letter published by local media, the former first lady, widow of late French President Francois Mitterrand, demanded the current US government to adopt a clear position regarding the Latin American countries.

But spokespersons for the US Navy insisted on saying that the move "is administrative in nature" and does not imply a bigger military presence. While Washington claims that this new navy component will not have "a military purpose, but one of cooperation."

As from July 1, the 4th Fleet will be based in Mayport, Fla., while it will be responsible for more than 30 countries, covering 15.6 million square miles, focusing on the waters adjacent to Central and South America, the Caribbean Sea, its islands, the Gulf of Mexico and an area of the Atlantic Ocean.

Rumours claim that the 4th Fleet has appointed the new George H. W. Bush aircraft carrier and several submarines. The chief of the Southern Command, Adm. James Stavridis, reasserted that the unit "will have never an offensive possibility. It is a promise." (But we all know the value of a Busch/Cheney or for that matter a McCain/Palin promise)

According to the Southern Command, the 4th Fleet renewed operations accomplish five specific missions: responsiveness in the event of natural disasters, humanitarian operations, medical aid, antinarcotics efforts, and cooperation in environmental and technology matters.

However, Venezuelan authorities have doubts about the underlying intention of the move. They think that the United States government seeks to "scare" Latin American countries, as they move to the left, particularly Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Paraguay and Cuba, and more cautiously Brazil and Chile.

In Latin American view, the revival of the navy component is a threat, because the administration of President Bush uses humanitarian tasks to get valuable information in the theatre of operations, such as recognition, communications testing, and salinity testing.

Such assumptions have been dismissed by Adm. James Stavridis, who feels that "hardcore populism" does not endanger his country. "I think that in this region there are different ideas in terms of politics and economy. For the United States, they are democracy, free market, freedom, and human rights. There are other ideas in the region that compete with those, but they are not threats," he said in a recent interview with the Argentinean daily La Nación.

But the treats are there, fresh in everybody’s memory.
The by the USA in conjunction with Spain orchestrated coup d’état in 2002 against the democratic elected president Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and the recent (diplomatic) intervention in the election of Fernando Lugo as president of Paraguay and the “physical” intervention in the crisis in Bolivia, are sufficient reasons for the Latin American countries to look for some ‘heavy’ friend. You can’t blame them that they turn to Russia (and China) at a moment they obviously can’t trust their neighbour any more. Latin America might be seen in the USA as its back-yard, but as the US doesn’t take care of it properly and with honour, the owners of that ‘back-yard’ have to call upon a faraway ‘barrel-chested friend’.

And here we sit with the consequences of the reactivating of the 4th Fleet.

A new Cold War in Latin American waters?
Two Russian strategic bombers, Tupolev TU-160, landed a week ago 60 kilometres outside the Venezuelan capital Caracas, at the Libertador Air Base, to "carry out training flights" in the region, according to the Russian Ministry of Defence.
A few days before the arrival of the bombers Russia announced that it will dispatch a naval squadron to the Caribbean Sea and a spokesman for its navy, Igor Digalo, said that the vessels "will make a series of exercises, including joint manoeuvres, search and rescue operations, as well as telecommunication tests ", with its Venezuelan ally. The vessels would be the nuclear-powered cruiser "Piotr Veliki" (Peter the Great) and the anti-submarine frigate Admiral Chabanenko and probably anti-submarine aircraft."
"We want to calibrate our defence capacity with our strategic allies, and Russia is such an ally," Chavez said when the TU-160 arrived. Venezuelan Rear Admiral Salbatore Cammarata Bastidas said Venezuelan aircraft and submarines would be involved in manoeuvres with the Russians. "This is of great importance because it is the first time it is being done [in the Americas]," he said in a statement quoted by the AFP news agency and local media

Confirming the plans, Russian foreign ministry spokesman Andrei Nesterenko said it was not aimed against any third country.
(A same statement as the Americans have made. Who can we trust Bush/Cheney, McCain/Palin or Medvedev/Putin? Let's hope there is an Obama/Biden alternative, so the choice is hopefully more obvious).

Although Argentine and Brazil expressed their concern, Brazil downplayed the announcement, but denoted later that:
The Brazilian Navy will practise a fictitious war to protect the "Blue Amazon"
After discovering huge reserves of fossil oil before the Brazilian east coast, which might make Brazil the number one oil-country in the world, out manoeuvring Saudi Arabia, the Brazilian government, without doubt the reactivating of the US 4th Fleet in mind, launched vast military operations in the so-called "Blue Amazon", the 4.5 million square kilometres of Brazilian sea.

The combined navy and army manoeuvres simulate a war for control of the oil fields, pipelines and refineries on the coast of São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro and Espirito Santo.
With more than 10 thousand operational armed forces and 17 vessels, 40 aircraft and just over 300 military vehicles, the officers expect that the exercises guarantee the security of the riches of the Brazilian sea.
"The 'Blue Amazon’ is as important as the ‘Green Amazon’. No more important, but as important," said Admiral Edlander Santos, commander of the manoeuvres.

During the manoeuvres, the "green country" - composed of Rio de Janeiro, north of Sao Paulo and parts of Minas Gerais and Goiás - will attack the "yellow country" - Bahia and Espirito Santo - to get control over the mega-rich oil fields of Petrover, a fictitious state-owned company of the "green country". The location of the manoeuvres is not random.

According to Admiral Edlander Santos, the manoeuvres also bring answers to any questions involving the defence of the area.
"Will we have the vessels and means to protect the 4.5 million square kilometres?" He asked. "Well let's find out."

The initiative to the presence of Russia in the Latin American waters is as a matter of fact the consequence of a US ‘invitation’.
For Thomas Gomart, analyst with the French Institute of International Relations, the sending of Russian military units "is a double investment for Moscow: increasingly questioning the hegemony of the United States and support for nationalization in the areas of energy”.

What were Busch and Cheney thinking when they ordered ‘out of the blue’ the reactivation of the 4th Fleet, without giving any information to its neighbours, not even its most solid ally, Brazil? What did they expect? Any reasonable thinking person could prophesise the reaction!

80930
**

Bolivia in crisis. Booting out the US Ambassador

Recently some conflicts between Latin American countries and the USA have been escalating due to the (omnipresent) fear for US intervention in the Latin America area, the ‘back yard of the USA’. As you certainly know, the USA has always seen Latin America as its ‘back yard’. And it is the people in this back yard that is very scared at this moment, but also expectant in regard to the US presidential elections.

Without doubt you can say that Latin America in the recent years moved to the left. Socialism, if you like to call it that. But socialism is still a dirty word in de US and obviously little is known about its definition. But don't forget that socialism in Latin America is not more than something between the centre and the left-wing of the democrats in the US. It has nothing to do with communism, it is just a movement centring on the wellbeing of ordinary people. Giving the people, after so many years of corruption and exploitation a piece of the cake.

I will not talk about historical US (bloody) interventions in Latin America, such as Chile, Panama, Columbia, Grenada and many others. No, I just want to stipulate the (recent) interventions during the reign of the Busch/Cheney administration.

Let’s start with Bolivia, at this moment the centre of the conflict.
Bolivia, South America’s poorest country, is basically divided between the western highlands, home to the impoverished indigenous majority, and the rich eastern lowlands, where much of the population is made up of people of predominantly European (primarily Spanish) descent and where all the international corporations are sitting.

The support base of President Evo Morales, the country’s first-ever indigenous president, is largely found in the western altiplano. Meanwhile, several eastern provinces have been demanding autonomy and greater control over the rich farmland and natural gas reserves concentrated in that part of the country, and are staunchly opposed to any agrarian reform.
In the east, 90% of all land is owned by 10% of the large landowners, while in the western highlands, 90% of the indigenous campesinos (peasant farmers) own just 10% of the arable land.

The president wants to give more power to indigenous and poor communities, by carrying out land reform and redistributing gas revenues. That’s painful for the rich landowners and (mainly) Corporate America, which are bleeding the country. The answer to the intention of President Evo Morales is a movement (supported by the landowners and Big Oil) to declare the eastern states autonomous.
The opposition bloc tries to force the government to agree to the restitution to the provinces of a portion of the natural gas tax - 49 million USD - that the Morales administration has diverted to the payment of a universal pension of 26 USD a month to people over 60.

The governors of the lowlands provinces of Santa Cruz in the east, Beni in the northeast, Pando in the north, and Tarija and Chuquisaca to the south have made this one of the key demands in their opposition to Morales.
In response, the government argues that the funds diverted from the provinces for the universal pension are insignificant compared to the more than two billion USD that will be transferred to the provincial governments this year, a sum that is double the 952 million USD transferred in 2005.

The president of Bolivia’s Private Business Confederation, Gabriel Dabdoub, argues that a lack of government policies to foment private sector activity and attract investment has kept away 400 million USD a year in private (foreign) investment.
However, exporters are counting on a new record in sales of industrialised products and commodities, which according to the government will amount to more than 6 billion USD this year, compared to 4.78 billion USD in 2007.

A climate favourable to trade, with heavy foreign demand for commodities like natural gas - of which Bolivia has South America’s second-largest reserves, after Venezuela - oil, minerals and agri products accompanied by high international prices, has led to an increase in foreign exchange earnings in a country whose gross domestic product (GDP) stands at 14.7 billion USD. (Note: ExxonMobil’s annual revenue (similar to the GDP of a country) was USD 405 billion in 2007)

Gas revenues soared from 188 million USD in late 2001 to 1.57 billion USD in 2007, after the Morales administration, which took office in January 2006, forced foreign oil companies to renegotiate the terms of their contracts, thus increasing the royalties and taxes paid by the companies.

Over the past year, the leftwing Morales administration has accused the US embassy in Bolivia of offering its backing to provincial governments in Santa Cruz, Beni, Pando, Tarija and Chuquisaca in their crusade for radical autonomy.
The decision to expel US ambassador Philip Goldberg came after major confrontations, such as the Bolivian Foreign Ministry's report that the US ambassador had held a private meeting on Aug. 25 with the rightwing governor of Santa Cruz, President Morales' main political opponent.
The following day, Ambassador Goldberg was summoned to the Foreign Ministry and asked for an explanation. Foreign Minister David Choquehuanca also asked Goldberg to be cautious in his contacts with opposition governors. Nevertheless Goldberg later paid a visit to the opposition governor of Chuquisaca, Savina Cuellar, on Sept. 4, further fuelling the government's annoyance.

So it is no surprise, that Bolivian President Evo Morales has declared the US Ambassador Philip Goldberg "persona non grata", after accusing him of aiding and abetting pro-autonomy opposition groups that are blocking highways and occupying government buildings, reducing the supply of natural gas to Brazil.
"I am not afraid of anyone, not even the empire (the United States)," Morales said when he instructed his Foreign Minister to inform the US ambassador in writing that he was no longer welcome in the country.

But indeed Latin America has all reasons to fear an intervention and even an aggressive active role plaid by the US to create a crisis. May I remind the reader the interference of US diplomats in the coup d’état in 2002 against Hugo Chavez and the attempts to frustrate the last presidential election in Argentina.

According to the 1980 Nobel Peace Prize winner Argentinean Adolfo Perez Esquivel the autonomy movement is just the landowners and corporations pretext to try to stop a far reaching revolutionary process in this Andean nation. The same is true for Venezuela with Hugo Chavez, Ecuador with Rafael Correa and more recently Paraguay with Fernando Lugo, where US attacks are growing, but fortunately "Latin American people have begun to speak with their own voices," he added.

Latin America has been expecting an American military intervention for some time during this presidential election. At the end it was Georgia, where Busch/Cheney found their confederate, stupid enough to provoke Russia in an attempt to help the GOP to reign another 4 years. But, as said, Latin America, and particularly Venezuela, Bolivia and Paraguay, were and still are expecting American aggression to be in their area to steamroll the Dems, as all the signs are there.

This is in a nutshell the recent crisis and the reason to ‘boot out’ the US ambassadors of Bolivia as well as Venezuela.
But there is more. The recent presence of Russia in the Latin America area is due to the Busch/Cheney foreign policy of the last few months and the scary (for Latin America) sudden re-installment (after 60 years) of the 4th US Navy Fleet in this area.
Let me talk about this in my next post.

Facts in this post are based upon articles on the websites: WorldPress (a very reliable source regarding the relations between the US and Latin America) as well as Prensa Latina
80510

The “red rascals” of Latin America

As Europe is moving to the right and the USA have had an atrocious conservative government over the last 7 years, Latin America after years of conservative and military regimes is moving in the opposite, between left wing democracies and leftist totalitarian regimes.

After the disorderly, but still not accomplished farewell of the socialist and communist regimes in Europe at the end of the 20^th century, we see a rebirth of leftists with an identical philosophy but a more professional agenda concentrating upon the salvation of the society and an honest distribution of wealth. The phenomenon of populism: “the saviours of the nation” have risen, but they don’t show the typical features of the left wing regimes, crumbled in Europe and China, but instead are giving hope to the Latin American.
In the US an even moderate socialist is often referred to as a communist. In Europe with its century long labour movements even the most leftist socialist is not seen as a rascal. In general, with a few exceptions, even the extreme socialist in Latin American is equal to a moderate democrat in the US and a left wing centrist in Europe.

Let’s, before we evaluate the “red rascals” of Latin America and the policies they stand for, have a close look at them. Here they come: Chile, Brazil, Venezuela, Paraguay, Bolivia, Ecuador, Uruguay and Argentina.

Chile - Verónica Michelle Bachelet Jeria (29 Sept, 1951) is a central-left politician and the first female president of Chile. With 53,5% of the popular vote she defeated her contender the central-right billionaire Sebastián Piñera. She is a surgeon and, being the daughter of an, by Pinochet murdered air force general, who in the Allende-administration was responsible for food distribution, studied military strategy. She is a polyglot, speaking Spanish, English, French, German and Portuguese. A moderate socialist. Her administration consists of 10 males and 10 females.

Brazil - Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (27 Oct 1945) has been elected in 2002 with 61% of the popular vote in the second round. Regarding his roots his policy should have been leftist even touching communistic behaviour. Elected as the most left winged Brazilian president since João Goulart, his policy, however, is soft social-democratic. Lula received little or no education. He left school as a four-grader and started his professional life as shoeshine boy and street vendor. When he was 14 years old he entered his first official job in the copper industry. Finally Lula went back to school and graduated college. For years he was one of the most militant labour union leaders.

Venezuela - Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías (28 July 954) is president since 1999. Known for his socialistic policy, his opposition to neo-liberalism and his hostility to president George W. Bush of the USA. The changes he implemented in his country are called the Bolívarian Revolution. He was educated at the military academy and graduated in applied military sciences. He finished his studies at the Simón Bolívar University. In 1998 with 56% of the popular vote he was elected president. Never before had so many people cast their vote. Chávez is very popular and how he yet lost his last referendum is another and different story. He is number five on a list of the most sexy men of Venezuela.

Paraguay - Óscar Nicanor Duarte Frutos (11 Oct 1956) is president since 2003, the first non-catholic president. Son of a police officer and a seamstress, he is since his 14^th member of the same political party as his father, the Asociación Nacional Republicana (Partido Colorado), the most important and powerful in the country. Duarte Frutos is a lawyer, philosopher, journalist and professor in sociology. He studied at the Universidad Nacional de Asunción and at Universidad Católica de Asunción. Minister of Education from 1993 to 2003. Although he is member of a conservative political party, he adheres a left wing policy, in stark contrast to his predecessors.

Bolivia - Juan Evo Morales Ayma (26 Oct. 1959) is a Bolivian peasant leader, politician and since 2006 president of Bolivia, one of the poorest countries of Latin America. Morales is the leader of the progressive Bolivian “cocalero”-movement, a loose federation of coca planters scraping a living off a small plot of land in the province Chapare in south-east Bolivia. He is also a leader of the political party Movimiento al Socialismo (MAS). He is the first native president in the Bolivian history.
Morales was lamaherd, musician and worked as coca planter, became labour activist and was with 70% of the votes elected in congress in 1997. Evo Morales is famous for the simple clothes he is always wearing.

Ecuador - Rafael Correa (6 April 1963) is a politician of left signature. Jan. 15, 2007 he was sworn in as the new president after defeating his contender, the banana billionaire Álvaro Noboa.
Correa studied economy at the University of Guayaquil (Ecuador), the Université Catholique de Louvain (Belgium) and the University of Illinois (USA). In April 2005 he became minister of finance and economy in the government of Alfredo Palacio but left office after 4 months realising he could not implement his economic plans. Correa’s economic reforms centre on the combat on poverty and the promotion of more national economic independence.

Uruguay - Tabaré Ramón Vázquez Rosas (17 Jan 1940) is a Uruguayan politician and president since 2005. He is the first socialistic president of Uruguay and is member of the Frente Amplio (Wide Left Front), the most important leftist coalition of the country. He won the elections with 50,45% of the popular votes in the first round.
Born in the neighbourhood of the capital Montevideo Vásquez studied medicines at the Universidad de la República. He specialised in oncology.

Argentina - Cristina Elisabet Fernández Wilhelm de Kirchner (19 Febr.1953). She won the presidential elections with 45,29% of the popular votes and with a 22% margin on her rival, securing the nomination without the need for a second round. Cristina Fernández studied law at the National University of La Plata. She is, as is her husband the former Argentinean president, member of the peronistic political party Partido Justicialista (the largest within the peronistic movement). She started as member of the Young Peronistas, whose left radicalism was suppressed vigorously by the military junta. Before elected to president she was a senator for the province of Buenos Aires. Cristina promoted strongly the woman rights and the persecution of persons who misbehaved during the military junta from 1976 till 1983.

All presidents oppose fiercely any interference of the USA in domestic affairs, which all countries in one way or another, have faced in the past, as the USA always have been regarding Latin America as their backyard. They regard the US proposals for a free trade zone with scepticism and criticise the meddlesomeness of the Worldbank and the IMF. The most moderate is Verónica Bachelet of Chile and the fiercest is Hugo Chavez of Venezuela.

Please note, the high percentages with which they won the elections and almost always in the first round. Note also the qualifications of the opponents.

In spite of all these democratically elected left wing presidents the conservative movement and power have not been eliminated. Let’s listen to Manoel Horacio Franscisco da Silva - President of Banco Fator – in his opinion populist governments tend to perpetrate seven social sins: policy without principles, wealth without work, well-being without conscience, education without character, business without ethics, science without humanity and religion without sacrifice.
As you see the conservatives have a lot to learn.

What ever the case, never forget that the progress started by these left wing governments is in no way synonym for red rascals, communists, socialists, terrorists, or what ever name the conservative right wing likes to call them. Never forget that a Latin American leftist government never even approaches the basics of the original and faded governments of Eastern Europe. They are not more to the left (sometimes even more moderate) than the conventional central-left political parties in Europe, Labour in the UK and the Democrats or Independents in the US. They are certainly not red rascals and certainly not a danger to the western economic powers.

It is obvious that the Latin American people are following the progress in the American elections with great interest. The future of the inter-American relations will be defined by how the changes in Cuba will be handled by the new US president.