|
|
home / subscribe / donate / tower / books / archives / search / links / feedback / events
|
THE INSIDE HISTORY OF THE ISRAEL LOBBY Former top CIA analysts Kathleen and Bill Christison give CounterPunchers the real scoop on the Israel lobby and precisely how powerful it is. Read how US presidents from Wilson, through FDR to Truman were manipulated by the Zionist lobby; how Israel bent LBJ, Reagan and Clinton to its purpose; how Bush's White House has been the West Wing of the Israeli government; how Washington's revolving doors send full-time Israel lobbyists from think-tanks to the National Security Council and the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans. For all who want a true measure of the Lobby's power, the Christisons' 8-page dossier, exclusive to CounterPunch newsletter subscribers, is a MUST read. CounterPunch Online is read by millions of viewers each month! But remember, we are funded solely by the subscribers to the print edition of CounterPunch. Please support this website by buying a subscription to our newsletter, which contains fresh material you won't find anywhere else, or by making a donation for the online edition. Remember contributions are tax-deductible. Click here to make a donation. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe Now! |
|
Today's Stories June 3, 2006 James Petras June 2, 2006 Kathy Kelly Alan Maass Mickey Z. Dave Lindorff Chris Kutalik Sunsara Taylor Sam Husseini Mike Ferner Website of the
Day
June 1, 2006 Brian Cloughley David Peterson Lee Ballinger Jonathan Cook Mike Whitney Paul Rockwell Clifton Ross Kevin Zeese Website of the
Day
May 31, 2006 Dave Lindorff Joshua Frank Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz P. Sainath Ramzy Baroud Seth Sandronsky Mickey Z. Ralph Nader Jeffrey St. Clair Website of the Day
May 30, 2006 Lee Ballinger Jonathan Cook Gary Leupp John Ross Robert Jensen Michael Dickinson Michael Carmichael Tim Wise Harry Browne Website of the
Day
May 27 / 29,
2006 Paul Craig Roberts Kathleen Christison Kathy Kelly Christopher
Reed Lawrence R. Velvel Tom Barry Gary Leupp Col. Dan Smith Ron Jacobs Don Fitz Fred Gardner Peter Montague Raymond Garcia John Farley Seth Sandronsky Tia Steele Lenni Brenner Dr. Susan Block Scott Michael Perey Jeffrey St. Clair Poets' Basement Recipe of the
Weekend Website of the Weekend
May 26, 2006 Col. Douglas
MacGregor Brian J. Foley Michael Dickinson Missy Comley Beattie Pierre Tristam Joe Allen Kona Lowell Roger Burbach Website of the
Day
May 25, 2006 Les AuCoin Jeff Halper Dave Lindorff Ron Jacobs Bob Wing Elise Gould Robert Bryce Website of the Day
May 24, 2006 Michael Donnelly Patrick Cockburn Lucinda Marshall Dave Lindorff Shmuel Rosner Moshe Adler Heather Gray Pratyush Chandra Paul Craig Roberts Floyd Rudmin Website of the Day
May 23, 2006 Paul Craig Roberts Sharon Smith Sunsara Taylor Joel Whitney Alice Cherbonnier Ron Jacobs Kristen Ess Patrick Cockburn Website of the
Day
May 22, 2006 Alan Maass William Blum Elaine C. Hagopian Stan Cox Chris Floyd Alexander Cockburn Website of the Day
May 20 / 21, 2006 Patrick Cockburn Kathy Kelly Ralph Nader Hugh O'Shaughnessy Greg Grandin P. Sainath Greg Moses Stephen Philion Landau / Hassen Fred Gardner Missy Comley
Beattie Michael Dickinson Seth Sandronsky Luke Young John Zavesky Ben Tripp Jeffrey St. Clair Poets' Basement
May 19, 2006 Winslow T. Wheeler José Pertierra John Ross Dave Lindorff Jeff Juel Alan Farago Eric Johnson-DeBaufre José Martî Jonathan Cook Website of the
Day
May 18, 2006 Bill Simpich Patrick Cockburn Christopher Brauchli Nora Barrows-Friedman Victoria Buch Eric Ruder George Wuerthner Juan Santos Website of the Day
May 17, 2006 Lenni Brenner Carlos Villarreal Larry Everest CounterPunch News Service Lee Sustar Anthony Papa William S. Lind Bruce K. Gagnon JoAnn Wypijewski Website of the Day
May 16, 2006 Ward Churchill Ted Honderich Paul Craig Roberts Annie Nocenti Charles V. Peña Ron Jacobs Norman Solomon Harvey Wasserman Michael George
Smith Harry Browne Website of the
Day
May 15, 2006 Alexander Cockburn William Blum Tanya Golash-Boza
and Douglas A. Parker Dave Lindorff Debra Schaffer
Hubert Patrick Cockburn Tom Turnipseed Ken Livingstone Gideon Levy Mickey Z. Jeff Faux Website of the Day
May 13 / 14, 2006 Vijay Prashad Joan Roelofs Kathy Kelly Michael Neumann Dr. Susan Block Daniel Cassidy Christopher Reed Mike Roselle Saul Landau Robert Fisk Ralph Nader Evelyn Pringle Fred Gardner Stanley Heller Conn Hallinan Valentina Palma Novoa David Krieger Col. Dan Smith Christopher Brauchli Jeffrey St. Clair Poets' Basement Website of the Weekend
May 12, 2006 Michael Snedeker Dave Lindorff Leah Fishbein
/ RJ Schinner Brian Kwoba Chris Kromm Kai Diekmann David Swanson Virginia Tilley Website of the
Day
May 11, 2006 Sunsara Taylor Jonathan Cook Tariq Ali Wayne S. Smith Mike Whitney Pratyush Chandra Joshua Frank Mickey Z. Francis Boyle Edward S. Herman
/ David Peterson Website of the
Day
May 10, 2006 Werther Larry Birns / Michael Lettieri Ramzy Baroud Kevin Zeese Evelyn Pringle Amira Hass Michael Donnelly Ron Jacobs Sharon Smith Website of the Day
May 9, 2006 Ray McGovern M. Shahid Alam Moshe Adler Walter MIgnolo Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor William S. Lind Todd Chretien Dave Lindorff Ishmael Reed Website of the
Day
May 8, 2006 Kate McCabe Paul Craig Roberts Col. Dan Smith Norman Solomon Ingmar Lee Robert Jensen Ricardo Alarcon Will Youmans / M. Kay Siblani Alexander Cockburn Website of the
Day
May 6 / 7, 2006 Jeffrey St. Clair Ariel Dorfman Joe Allen Fred Gardner Jeff Taylor Saul Landau Stephen Philion Trish Schuh Ralph Nader Robert Fisk Paul Cantor John Holt James Ryan Lawrence R. Velvel Greg Moses Laray Polk Ron Jacobs Ben Tripp Mickey Z. Jeffrey St. Clair Poets' Basement Website of the Week
May 5, 2006 Vijay Prashad Robert Fisk David Swanson Mearsheimer / Walt Dave Lindorff Sarah Ferguson CounterPunch
News Service Corporate Crime Reporter Website of the
Day
May 4, 2006 John F. Sugg Jonathan Cook Roger Burbach Chris Dols Christopher Brauchli Tony Swindell Website of the Day
May 3, 2006 Robert Bryce Paul Craig Roberts James Petras Lee Sustar David Bolton Joshua Frank Jeffery R. Webber Website of the
Day
May 2, 2006 Evelyn Pringle Tariq Ali Saul Landau Paul Craig Roberts Gary Leupp Ron Jacobs Sen. Russell
Feingold Anthony Papa Website of the
Day
May Day, 2006 Norman Finkelstein Christopher Reed Michael Donnelly Dave Zirin Mike Whitney Gilad Atzmon Missy Comley Beattie Alexander Cockburn Website of the
Day
April 29 / 30, 2006 Peter Linebaugh Ralph Nader Robert Bryce Rev. William
Alberts Lee Sustar John Chuckman Eric Ruder Seth Sandronsky Ron Jacobs Ben Tripp Fred Gardner Don Monkerud Tommy Stevenson Lettrist International Contratiempo St. Clair, Vest
and D'Antoni Poets' Basement Website of the
Weekend
April 28, 2006 James Ridgeway Ramzy Baroud Sarah Knopp William S. Lind Werther April 27, 2006 Winslow T. Wheeler Robert Fisk Juan Santos Robert Jensen Dave Lindorff Jose Pertierra
April 26,2006 Robin Philpot Sherry Wolf Pratyush Chandra Joshua Frank Gary
Leupp Bill
Quigley
April 25, 2006 Gary
Leupp Paul
Craig Roberts Linda
S. Heard Ralph
Nader Mike
Whitney Michael
Donnelly Sharon
Smith Website
of the Day
April 24, 2006 Tim
Wise John
Stanton Dave
Lindorff Steve
Shore Amadou
Deme Mickey
Z. Ralph Nader Alexander
Cockburn Website
of the Day
Subscribe Online
|
Weekend
Edition Myths and RealitiesIs Latin America Really Turning Left?By JAMES PETRAS A new series of social and national polarities in the Western Hemisphere has dominated political life over the past few years. At the beginning of the new millennium the national confrontation was between Cuba and the US/EU, and the social confrontations between the rural/indian and urban/unemployed movements and a continent-wide collection of neo-liberal regimes. This polarization resulted from the previous 25 years (between 1975-2000), the "Golden Age" of imperial pillage. Immense legal and illegal transfersof property, wealth, profits, interest and royalty payments flowed from Latin America to the US and the EU. The most lucrative public enterprises, valued at more than $350 billion dollars, were privatized without any of the constitutional niceties and eventually ended up in the hands of US, Spanish and other European multi-national corporations and banks. Presidential decrees by-passed congress and the electorate and dictated privileged place for foreign capital. Protests by Congress, the electorate, and national auditors were ignored. The "Golden Age"
of multinational capital coincided with the reign of kleptocratic
electoral regimes hailed in European and North American political
circles and echoed in the mass media as the era of "Democracy
and Free Markets". The US/EU MNCs and Banks' plunder between
1975 and 2005 was worth over $950 billion dollars. Plunder without
development inevitably led to a general socio-economic crisis
and near collapse of the imperial-centered model of capitalist
accumulation in Argentina (1998-2002), Ecuador (1996-2006) Bolivia
(2002-2005), and Brazil (1998-2005). Beginning in the early
1990's extra-parliamentary socio-political movements emerged
throughout most of Latin America and were accompanied by large-scale
popular uprisings, deposing ten incumbent neo-liberal client
"Presidents" installed under the patronage of the US/EU:
Three in Ecuador and Argentina, two in Bolivia, one each in Venezuela
and Brazil. But the mass movements faltered,
their leaders stopped at the gates of the Executive palace.
Instead they looked upward toward new and recycled "center-left"
electoral politicians to replace the old, discredited parties
and leaders of the neo-liberal right. By 2003, the social
movements began to ebb, as many leaders were co-opted by the
new wave of self-described "center-left" politicians.
The promises of "social transformations" were reduced
to patronage, subsidies and orthodox macro-economic policies
following the same neo-liberal dogma. Yet, in some countries,
the mass struggles of the 1990's/2002 led to new political regimes,
which were neither US clients nor free of neo-liberal influence,namely,Venezuela
and By 2006 a new configuration emerged in which national polarizations to a significant extent overshadowed social class divisions. The new international divide found the EU and the US on one side and Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia on the other. This primary polarization finds expression in Latin America between, on the one hand, a "New Right" neo-liberal pole of ex-leftists and pseudo-populist Central and South American clients, and, on the other hand, of national-populists in Bolivia-Venezuela. In between are a large group of countries, which can move in either direction. The "New Right-Free Market" advocates include the Lula regime in Brazil, the outgoing President Fox in Mexico, five Central American regimes, the Vazquez government in Uruguay, the Uribe "State Terrorist" regime in Colombia, the Bachelet and soon-to-depart Toledo governments in Chile and Peru. "In between" is the Kirchner government in Argentina reflecting a desire to deepen commercial ties with Venezuela, neutralize internal nationalist-populist pressures and promote a mixed national-foreign capitalist alliance with the US, EU and China. Ecuador, the Caribbean countries, Nicaragua and possibly Peru are sites of competition. Because of petroleum subsidies, the entire Caribbean (with the exception of the Dominican Republic) has refused to politically support the EU/US against Venezuela/Bolivia, even as they seek to promote market access to northern markets. Outside of Europe and North America, in the non-aligned movement, China, Russia, Iran and some of the Arab oil producing states have taken overtly or discretely the side of the Cuban-Venezuelan-Bolivian nationalist alliance. Intersecting with the nationalist
divisions are class polarizations, The strongest points of
inflexion are found in Ecuador, Venezuela, Colombia, Costa Rico,
Mexico, Bolivian Paraguay and more recently Brazil. In Ecuador,
CONAIE has rebuilt its mass base (after the debacle of supporting
pseudo-populist Gutierrez for president in 2002) and in alliance
with mass urban trade unions has been effective in defeating
the US-backed free trade agreement (ALCA) and canceling oil contracts
with Occidental Petroleum, a US oil company. In Venezuela, there
is a dual polarization: on the one hand between the working class
and urban poor against the pro-US local landowners, business
and media elite, and, on the other hand, within the broad spectrum
of Chavez supporters, between wealthy state directors, elite
bureaucrats, "national" business people and National
Guard Generals and trade unions, landless farmers, urban slum-dwellers
and underemployed "informal workers". In Bolivia,
the class contradictions remain mostly latent because of the
'national polarization", but find expression in the conflict
between orthodox macro-economic policies of the Morales regime
and the paltry pay increases given to low-paid educational, health
and other public sector workers. In Brazil, class conflict has declined as a result of the subordination of the traditional trade union confederation (CUT) and to a certain extent, the MST (Rural Landless Workers Movement), to the neo-liberal Lula regime. Nevertheless, because of Lula's savage reduction of public employees' pensions and opposition to substantial wage and minimum wage increases, the trade unions representing public employees, metal workers and civil construction workers founded a new dynamic labor confederation CONLUTA in May (5-7) 2006. With over 2700 delegates from 22 states representing nearly 1.8 million workers, CONLUTA represents an alternative social pole for the tens of millions of Brazilian workers and poor abandoned by Lula's embrace of bankers, agro-business and foreign MNCs. CONLUTA has adopted a social-movement type of organization including employed and unemployed workers organizations, neighborhood and rural workers movements, students, women, ecology and landless workers organizations within its operating structure. Representation at the Congress was based on direct elections from democratic assemblies. The emergence of a new mass-based labor confederation represents the first major break within the neo-liberal "center-left" Lula regime. As such it portends a revitalization of working class politics and poses a real alternative to the receding power of the pro-regime confederation . Realities and Myths of International Tensions There are great many misunderstandings and confusion both on the Right and Left regarding the nature of the conflicts between Latin American nationalists and US/EU states and multi-national corporations. The first point of clarification is over the nature of the nationalist measures adopted by President Chavez of Venezuela and President Morales of Bolivia. Both regimes have not abolished most of the essential elements of capitalist production, namely private profits, foreign ownership, profit repatriation, market access or supply of gas, energy or other primary goods, nor have they outlawed future foreign investments. In fact Venezuela's huge Orinoco
heavy oil fields, the richest reserves of oil in the world, are
still owned by foreign capital. The controversy over President
Chavez' radical economic measures revolves around a tax and royalty
increase from less than 15% to 33% - a rate which is still below
what is paid by oil companies in Canada, the Middle East and
Africa. What produced the stream of vitriolic froth from the
US and British media (Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, etc)
was not a comparative analysis of contemporary tax and royalty
rates, but a retrospective comparison to the virtually tax-free
past. In fact Chavez and Morales are merely modernizing and
updating petrol-nation state relations to present world standards;
in a sense they are normalizing regulatory relations in the face
of exceptional or windfall profits, resulting from corrupt agreements
with complicit state executive officials. The harsh reaction
of the US and EU governments and their energy MNCs is a result
of having become habituated to thinking that exceptional privileges
were the norm of 'capitalist development' rather than the result
of venal officials. As a result they resisted the normalization
of capitalist relations in Venezuela and Bolivia in which state-private
joint ventures and profit sharing , common to most other countries.
It is not surprising that the president of Royal Dutch Shell,
Jeroen van der Veer, advised his oil colleagues that the nationalist
position of oil rich countries and their redrawing of contracts
is a "new reality" that international energy companies
have to accept. Van der Veer, the realist, puts the nationalist
reforms in perspective: "In Venezuela we were one of the
first to renegotiate. Under the circumstances we are quite satisfied
we can work our future there. We have harmony with the government,
which is very important. In Bolivia, I assume we will come to
a solution" (Financial Times, May 13, 2006 page 9). Likewise
Pan Andean Resources (PAR), an Irish gas and energy company stated
it could successfully operate in Bolivia following Morales "nationalization"
declaration. David Horgan, President of PAR, in justifying a
joint venture in gas with the Bolivians, stated, "We don't
really care what precedents it (PAR's gas agreement with the
Bolivian state) sets. What the majors (big oil companies) see
as a problem, we see as an opportunity" (Financial Times,
May 13, 2006). The major points of conflict are not capitalism's aversion to socialism, nor even private ownership versus nationalization of property, let alone social revolution leading to an egalitarian society. The major conflicts are over: 1) Increases in taxation, prices and royalty payments, 2) the conversion of firms to joint ventures, 3) representation on corporate boards of directors, 4) distribution of shareholdings between foreign appointed and state-appointed executives, 5) the legal right to revise contracts, 6) compensation payments for presumed assets and 7) management of distribution and export sales. These proposed regulations and reforms may increase state reserves and influence but none of these points of conflict involve a revolutionary transformation of property or social relations of production. The proposed changes are reforms, which resonate with the policies undertaken by European social democratic parties between 1946 and the 1960s and by most of the world's oil producing countries in the 1970's, including Arab monarchies and Islamic and secular republics. In fact earlier political regimes in both Venezuela (1976) and Bolivia (1952 and 1968) took far more radical measures in nationalizing petroleum and other mining sectors. Venezuela has increased royalty and tax payments of international petroleum companies because they were far below global levels. Except for a few smaller operations which refused the new rules of the game and were expropriated, none of the biggest firms were seized, nor were worker-employer relations altered in the (PVDSA) state firm or in any of the foreign companies. Their conventional vertical structures remain intact as many rank and file trade unionists complain. Over the past three years all the major US/EU petrol firms operating in Venezuela have been earning record profits exceeding their historical highs by several billion (Euros or dollars). Bolivarian revolutionary discourses notwithstanding, none of the oil majors has indicated any intention of abandoning lucrative arrangements with the Venezuelan state, despite the heated rhetorical ejaculations from Washington or Brussels. The US and EU conflict with Venezuela is over politics and ideology as much as it is over the power and profits of their oil companies. They object that Venezuela's mixed economy, higher tax model will replace the de-regulated, low tax, privatization and denationalization model prevalent in Latin America since the 1970's and currently being promoted elsewhere (Libya, Iraq, Indonesia, Brazil and Mexico). The key problem is that President Chavez, operating from a strong national economic and political base, resulting from the added oil resources, has argued for greater regional integration - free of US/EU domination. This has angered Washington and Brussels, as they fear that greater Latin American integration may limit future market and investment penetration. In world politics Chavez' embrace and defense of self-determination of all nations, has put him in opposition to the US military intervention in Iraq, US/EU occupation of Afghanistan and their joint war threats against Iran. Chavez' position is in part due to US involvement in a failed military coup in his country in 2002. In summary, the conflict is between democratically elected nationalist leaders supporting a mixed economy to finance social welfare against the US and EU empire building, interventionist policies intent on preserving the "Golden Age" of pillage of unregulated privatized economies and their privileged excessively low tax payments in exploiting energy resources. The burgeoning international conflict between Bolivia-Brazil, Spain/Argentina and their backers in the US/EU follows a similar pattern to Venezuela's conflict with the US. First the attempt by the propagandists of the foreign oil corporations to picture President Morales as a "disciple" or "follower" of Chavez, and his nationalist policies as merely a genuflection to Chavez's projections of power. There is no basis for claims of external machinations. Opposition and general strikes occurred throughout Bolivia during the very privatization process in 1996, two years before Chavez was elected. Opposition to the private gas agreements intensified in 2003 via a popular uprising that overthrew the President (Sanchez de Losada) calling for the nationalization of gas and oil. In 2004 a referendum was approved by 80% of the electorate, which called for an increase in tax and royalty payments and state control. Unlike Venezuela, Morales faces intense pressure internally from all the trade unions and mass organizations to follow up his electoral promises. President Morales' entire socio-economic reform programs and the political stability and legitimacy of his regime depends on securing additional tax revenues from the MNCs. Given the fact that he inherited a very large budget deficit and a substantial foreign debt (which he feels obligated to pay) and is committed to an IMF style austerity program, his only solution is more oil and gas revenue. Most important of all, given that Morales was elected on the basis of "bringing dignity to the Indian people" he can not ignore the arrogance with which the petrol and gas companies defiantly shunted aside his initial proposals to negotiate new tax rates and joint ventures. With the financial and political backing of oil rich Venezuela, Morales declared the "nationalization" as a pressure tactic to force the companies to negotiate. Just as President Chavez' socio-economic policies were radicalized by the US supported military coup and executive elites oil lockout, Morales radicalized his tactics to secure economic concessions and serious negotiations from the gas and oil MNCs. The goal of Morales is to negotiate in good faith and to secure some type of profit sharing and tax increases. Continued intransigence from oil and gas companies, an "all or nothing" policy could radicalize the electoral base of his regime. "Those who make reforms impossible, make revolution inevitable". Of course, Bolivia under Morales is very far from adopting a revolutionary anti-capitalist program. Even the increase in tax revenue to 82% is a "transitory" measure to be negotiated. Yet he has demonstrated a willingness to mobilize the state and extend its influence over the operations of the corporations. He has clearly established that the existing oil contracts are unconsititutional. By the second week of May, the major gas and oil companies still failed to recognize that they have more to gain from negotiating with Morales than heating up the social movements. At most negotiations will likely result in an increase of tax and royalty revenues - probably to 50%. The purchase price of gas would rise modestly, and some sort of joint state-private management accords would be signed. The Brazilian and EU political leaders and energy executives could move from "confrontation" to "negotiations" and co-optation.Instead Morales' proposed joint ventures and mixed economy faces pressures from the IMF, Solbes, Spanish Finance Minister and Amorin, Brazil's Foreign Minister, to pay market value for any shares potentially bankrupting the state. Threats of judicial and diplomatic ruptures continue to be used to limit any effective state control over the gas enterprises. Meanwhile, Zapatero, Spanish Prime Minister and President Da Silva of Brazil, relying on negotiations, 'insider' pressure and state aid play the role of "good cop" in watering down even further Morales' reforms. Whatever the overall settlement,
the key will be in the details: More specifically in the specific
operational procedures, control over information, production
and commercialization processes, where it can be expected that
the incumbents executives will do every thing possible to undermine
effective state control. While political and economic polarizations
at the international level intensifies, an internal crisis is
building up within the US. The military debacle in Iraq has
led to two-options: a withdrawal to rebuild imperial power and
plans for a new aerial war against Iran, to reclaim imperial
power. A coalition led by the major pro-Israel organizations,
the civilian Pentagon militarists, the majority of the mass media
and a minority of the general public support a military attack.
In opposition stand a large proportion of retired military officials,
leaders of the oil industry, the majority of Christin and Muslim
organizations and a majority of the US public. Contrary to the euphoria of the US and Western European left, the new nationalist governments and Cuba face serious internal challenges from their very own supporters. While successfully countering imperialist pressures and increasing their tax revenues from foreign capital, they have neglected to implement social reforms of the utmost urgency to their supporters. Both Venezuela and Cuba, despite government promises, lag far behind in meeting the huge housing and transport deficit, and the efforts to diversify their economies lag far behind goals particularly in agro-industries (sugar to ethanol and local food production in Cuba; meat, poultry, fish and grains in Venezuela), manufacturing (especially arms, durables, IT and electronics) and processing of minerals. Moreover in Venezuela there are large sectors, perhaps 50%, of the labor force with improved access to free social services but which are employed in the low-paid "informal sector". In Bolivia, Morales has announced a land reform program, which will be based on expropriating underutilized land, excluding the large profitable productive agro-business estates in Santa Cruz's fertile plains. Instead he emphasizes distributing less fertile state lands far from markets and roads. The key to the success of agrarian reform will depend on the procedure of implementation and adjudication and the availability of credit and technical assistance. Moreover Morales's salary and incomes policy is only marginally better than his liberal predecessors: wage and salary increases for teachers and other public sector workers are less than 5% over the rate of inflation. His promise to double the minimum wage from $50 to $100 dollars a month has been repudiated in favor of a $6 dollar raise. In other words, if the international polarization is not backed by internal redistributive policies affecting wealth and assets of the very rich, both in Venezuela and Bolivia, strategically important popular sectors necessary for support in any serious international confrontations could be alienated. Grandiose international gestures, humanitarian solidarity and anti-imperialist policies are no substitute for deepening internal structural changes and meeting essential domestic demands for housing, jobs and higher salaries. Class and Regional Polarization and Crisis in Bolivia If, as we have argued, the emerging polarization in Latin America is between imperial-centered neo-liberal regimes and reformist nationalist populists, it follows that the successful resolution of this conflict depends in part on the premises of the reformist strategists their belief that socio-economic reforms are compatible with national capitalist development. In the case of President Morales, I would argue that his electoral-programmatic political strategy dictated his political and socio-economic analysis. The premises of Morales reform policies were dictated by several dubious premises: 1) the belief that "productive" capital can be separated from "unproductive" capital, and hence that a land reform confined to and affecting only "unexploited land" or "land without a socio-economic function" would not generate elite opposition and would be compatible with a multi-class electoral coalition. This has proven incorrect: the large "productive" landowners vehemently oppose the land reform and are supported by business and banking elites, especially in Santa Cruz, because they have diverse investment holdings which cross sectoral boundaries (including banks, industry, productive land for exports and unproductive lands held for speculation). The second false premise of President Morales' reform strategy is based on a mistaken diagnosis of the "dichotomy" between foreign and national capital. President Morales believes that by "nationalizing" or more precisely converting foreign-owned petrol and gas companies into joint state-private enterprises, he could finance national capitalist development thus securing their support. This "analysis" totally underestimated the economic and political links between large and medium-sized enterprises and foreign-owned enterprises. Many Bolivian firms are suppliers, subcontractors and importers dependent on foreign markets, credit and financing from foreign MNCs and regimes. It is not surprising that both the political opposition in Congress and the major Bolivian business groups have opposed Morales national reforms despite the fact that they are the promised beneficiaries. The third false premise of
President Morales reformist-nationalist strategy is the idea
that the so-called "center-left" regimes in Brazil,
Argentina and Spain would be willing to negotiate and accept
modifications in the exploitation contracts of their multi-nationals
and accept modest increases in the prices of gas purchases.
Morales overestimated the effectiveness of his "personal
diplomacy" and ideological affinity with Lula in Brazil,
Kirchner in Argentina and Zapatero in Spain and completely underestimated
their powerful and durable ties to their MNCs. As a result,
Lula's regime has rejected all of Morales' proposals, including
his offer to negotiate a two-dollar increase in gas prices, let
alone his proposal of a joint venture with Petrobras. Likewise
Kirchner's regime in Argentina has postponed several meetings
to discuss a similar price increase in gas, and his representative
has set no new date to even discuss the proposal. Zapatero,
backed by the IMF, has insisted that any Spanish holdings (REPSOL
oil and gas, BBV) be fully and promptly compensated, an impossible
task given Bolivia's budgetary constraints. In summary, all of Morales
political assumptions were based on "imagined facts"
which do not correspond to the economic and political realities
in which they are projected. The absence of a serious empirical
analysis of structural realities has resulted in imposing an
electoral strategy based on a multi-class political alliance
onto a class/imperial polarized world. Morales' reformist ideology
"created" a illusory vision of the political world
in which he would unite "productive capitalists", friendly
center-left regimes, workers and peasants against "unproductive
landowners" and corrupt MNCs, in pursuit of a mixed economy,
a balanced budget and incremental social reforms. James Petras, a former Professor of Sociology at
Binghamton University, New York, owns a 50 year membership in
the class struggle, is an adviser to the landless and jobless
in brazil and argentina and is co-author of Globalization
Unmasked (Zed). His new book with Henry Veltmeyer, Social
Movements and the State: Brazil, Ecuador, Bolivia and Argentina,
will be published in October 2005. He can be reached at: jpetras@binghamton.edu
|
from CounterPunch Books! The Case Against Israel By Michael Neumann Grand Theft Pentagon: Tales of Greed and Profiteering in the War on Terror by Jeffrey St. Clair Sick of sit-on-the-Fence speakers, tongue-tied and timid? CounterPunch Editors Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St Clair are available to speak forcefully on ALL the burning issues, as are other CounterPunchers seasoned in stump oratory. Call CounterPunch Speakers Bureau, 1-800-840-3683. Or email beckyg@counterpunch.org. |