 |
 |
|
|
| DEPARTMENTS | |||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
| YOU CAN!... | |||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
| MORE ABOUT HUNGER NOTES |
|||
 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Washington still has problems with democracy in Latin America
Mark Weisbrot
(July 15, 2010) Imagine that Barack Obama, upon taking
office in January 2009, had decided to deliver on his
campaign promise to "to end business-as-usual in
Washington so we can bring about real change." Imagine
that he rejected the architects of the pro-Wall Street
policies that had led to economic collapse, such as
Larry Summers, Tim Geithner, and the stable of former
Goldman Sachs employees that runs the U.S Treasury
Department, and instead appointed Nobel laureate
economists Paul Krugman and Joe Stiglitz to key
positions including the chair of the Federal Reserve.
Instead of Hillary Clinton, who lost the Democratic
presidential primary because of her unrelenting support
for the Iraq war, imagine that he chose Senator Russ
Feingold for Secretary of State, or someone interested
in delivering on the popular desire to get out of
Afghanistan. Imagine a real health care reform bill,
instead of health insurance reform, that didn't give the
powerful pharmaceutical and insurance lobbies a veto.
It goes without saying that President Obama would be
vilified in the major media outlets. The seething
hostility from right-wing blowhards such as Glenn Beck
and Rush Limbaugh would be matched by more mainstream
media outlets, who would accuse the president of
polarizing the nation and "dangerous demagoguery." With
almost all of the establishment media and institutions
against him, Obama would likely face a constant battle
for political survival - although he might well triumph
with direct, populist appeals to the majority.
This is what has happened to a number of the
left-of-center governments in Latin America. In Ecuador,
President Rafael Correa was re-elected by a large margin
in 2009, despite strong opposition from the country's
media. In Bolivia, Evo Morales has brought stability and
record growth to a country that had a tradition of
governments that didn't last more than a year - despite
the most hostile media in the hemisphere and
unrelenting, sometimes violent opposition from Bolivia's
traditional elite. And President Hugo Chavez survived a
U.S. backed military coup-attempt and other efforts to
topple his government, winning three presidential
elections, each time by a larger margin.
All of these presidents took on entrenched oligarchies
and fought hard to deliver on their promises. Morales,
Bolivia's first indigenous president in a country with
an indigenous majority, re-nationalized the hydrocarbons
(mostly natural gas) industry and created jobs through
public investment, as well as getting a new, more
democratic constitution approved. Correa doubled
spending on health care and cancelled $3.2 billion of
foreign debt found to be illegitimate. Chavez cut
poverty in half and extreme poverty by more than 70
percent after getting control over the country's oil
industry.
These presidents faced another obstacle that Obama
wouldn't have - they had to fight with the most powerful
country in the world in order to deliver on their
promises. This was also true of President Nestor
Kirchner in Argentina (2003-2007), who had to battle the
Washington-dominated International Monetary Fund in
order to implement the economic policies that made
Argentina the fastest growing economy in the hemisphere
for six years.
Of course, Hugo Chavez has been the most demonized in
the U.S. media - but that is not because of what he has
said or done but because he is sitting on 500 billion
barrels of oil. Washington has a particular problem with
oil-producing states that don't follow orders - whether
they are a dictatorship like Iraq, a theocracy like
Iran, or a democracy like Venezuela.
All of these leaders - including President Lula da Silva
of Brazil - had hoped that President Obama would pursue
a more enlightened policy toward Latin America, but it
hasn't happened. It seems that Washington, which was
comfortable with dictators and oligarchs who ran the
show for decades, still has problems with democracy in
its former "back yard."
Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in Washington, D.C. and is president of Just Foreign Policy. He is also co-writer of Oliver Stone's current documentary, "South of the Border," now playing in theaters. This op-ed was distributed by McClatchy Tribune Information Services on July 7, 2010 and published by the Sacramento Bee (CA) and other newspapers.