Subscribe to this feed.
The Noose Tightens
Leftists leaders reject U.S. trade plans.
Bolivia’s Evo Morales has joined Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez in signing the Bolivian Alternative for the Americas, i.e., the People’s Trade Agreement:
The question is: Has the noose fallen over the heads of these three nations, or has it fallen over the head of the U.S.?THE PEOPLE’S TRADE AGREEMENT proposed by President Evo Morales is a response to the collapse of the neo-liberal model which is based on the core principles of deregulation, privatization and the indiscriminate opening of markets.
It is no longer acceptable for a small group of powerful countries to deny poor nations the right to design their own development models based on internal necessities and to dictate ‘global’ economic models which don’t provide adequate solutions to our development problems, as even the World Bank admits in its documents.
During the decade of the 90s, we were told that the ‘Washington Consensus’ policies would help the poor countries ‘catch up’ to the rich countries. Today we recognize that the exact opposite has happened. The rich countries are richer and the poor ones are poorer. For this reason, in Latin America the people have started to act as architects of their own destiny, and are punishing in the voting booths the policy makers who have been handing over our destinies to the rich countries for the last 20 years….
Comments
Wasn't there some guy saying something about selling ropes to capitalists? Reckon this is the market that will do that?
Posted by: Scott Chaffin | April 30, 2006 9:21 AM
Scott, I think things in Latin America are a bit too difficult to call right now (particularly when you throw China into the equation.) I do suspect that the U.S. will begin to realize the "shrinking world" phenomenon in ways it will not like, however. As 3rd world nations become more connected because of profit motives, and as their economies improve, they will begin to feel their oats. (Is that the right phrase.) China's already stretching its muscles.
But in general, there are good reasons to believe that the attempts by these three Latin American leaders to fend off globalism can only lead to failure for them or their nations.
Posted by: Curtis Gale Weeks![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.phaticcommunion.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
April 30, 2006 7:44 PM
After I posted that, I (finally) got around to reading this month's Atlantic, which has a good article on Hugo Chavez and his Bolivar complex. If you haven't seen it, I'd be happy to send it on (drop me an email). He's a very weird dude, and his ascension and acceptance in the region leads me to believe that South America is still a VERY effed-up place.
As far as China goes, I'm looking for a minor to mid-level Russia-type implosion there soon. The center cannot hold. The future hinges on which way they jump when it doesn't. Using South America's jump as a guide, I expect more authorianism since that's what they know best. Just a gut feel, no evidence.
Posted by: Scott Chaffin | May 1, 2006 11:35 AM
Chavez and Morales may have an Evita complex. But I think we cannot dismiss whatever ground realities help to support that complex.
In truth, the U.S. attitude that 3rd-world countries should be lifted up -- though admirable and quite true -- will come back to bite the U.S., since, in a way, we are encouraging the development of dissent. However, I do not think these countries have developed a better understanding of their new position on the world stage than our understanding of the world stage. It's this disjunct that will cause most of the problems in the foreseeable future. I wonder if we ought to view the rise of Latin America (and China, and others) as parents who suddenly have teenagers demanding more freedoms: they need the freedoms in order to learn from their mistakes, but they can still do many things that will hurt themselves and, quite possibly, us.
Posted by: Curtis Gale Weeks![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.phaticcommunion.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
May 2, 2006 8:20 AM