Latin America 2008: A year of definitions?

By
Eduardo Dimas                                                                    Read Spanish Version

The
prestigious Uruguayan journalist Raúl Zibechi says 2007 was "a
hinge year," because there were many movements, reshufflings,
advances and retreats that produced no appreciable political or
economic definitions.

For
their part, my renowned colleagues Víctor Ego Ducrot and Pablo
Ramos of the APM news service (Mercosur Press Agency) view with
relative optimism the political and economic performance of the
region in the year now dawning.

Without
trying to be pessimistic, it seems to me that at least the growth in
the region’s gross domestic product (GDP) can be affected by the
situation in the rest of the world, especially if a recession of a
certain magnitude occurs in the United States, as is being announced.

As to
the political aspect, the region has accumulated a certain amount of
tension that could provoke some difficult, even grave, situations in
the almost 12 months left until 2009. I am thinking above all about
Bolivia, where the political confrontation between the oligarchy and
the government of Evo Morales could lead to the secession of the
so-called Half Moon provinces, to a civil war or coup d’état,
or at the very least to a radicalization of the process led by
Morales. That will depend on the attitude assumed by the Bolivian
people, especially the indigenous people.

One
issue at a time. During 2008, we witnessed new steps in the
integration of Latin America, with the creation of the Bank of the
South by seven governments — some of them with the largest GDPs in
the region — and the strengthening of entities such as PetroSur,
PetroCaribe and the Common Market of the South (Mercosur).

However,
Venezuela’s admission to Mercosur as a full member was not possible,
despite the pressure from the governments of Argentina and Uruguay
and Lula da Silva himself. The oligarchical right of the Brazilian
parliament has refused to approve it, even after it was approved by
the legislatures in Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay. 

It is
unquestionable that Venezuela’s admission would give Mercosur a
greater economic sheen and independence, because the bloc would be
guaranteed a supply of crude oil for decades. Political differences
and pressures from the White House have delayed approval in Brazil,
and the same could occur in Bolivia and Ecuador.

In the
economic aspect — also in the political aspect — aside from the
advances in integration, we had an opportunity to experience the
differences in viewpoints with regard to the future of Latin America.

Venezuela,
Bolivia and Ecuador are following a nationalist, almost socialist
course in their economic development. Some — like Argentina,
Uruguay, Paraguay and Brazil — maintain their principles of free
enterprise (nationalist principles, in a way) while criticizing the
neoliberal model and specific independent policies of the centers of
world economic power, especially the United States.

Others
— like Chile, Peru, Colombia and most of Central America, with the
exception of Nicaragua — chose to tighten their links with the
United States through the signing of Free Trade Agreements (FTAs).
Mexico signed an FTA many years ago. Negotiations with the European
Union advanced but not at the speed the European leaders might have
wished.

Mercosur
signed a free-trade accord with Israel, something that drew attention
to the power that transnational corporations have over the commerce
of their members (Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay), because
signing an accord for that type with Tel Aviv is the same as signing
it with the United States.

In other
words, most of the Latin American governments have a neoliberal
vision of the economic future of their countries.

Of
course, that strengthens the position of the United States and the
national oligarchies, and is contrary to regional integration.
Needless to say, it is a class-driven and ideological vision that
does not envision domestic development and prefers to keep Latin
America under the Empire’s domination. 

In
recent years, the region has seen important growth in its GDP as a
result of the high prices of the raw materials it exports. That has
allowed a certain economic improvement in the poorer sectors of the
population. The number of people living below the poverty line has
decreased, according to the Economic Commission for Latin America
(ECLA/CEPAL.)

But the
truth is that most of the wealth acquired has remained in the hands
of the transnationals and the oligarchies. Several countries have
increased their dollar reserves abroad to a spectacular degree, yet
their peoples have seen no substantial change in their standards of
living.

The
question that needs to be asked is what will happen in the event that
the predicted economic recession in the U.S. develops and the rest of
the world (China, India, Japan, the European Union) has no need for
so many commodities and the prices drop, something that is perfectly
possible.

To
depend on the price of raw materials is not exactly healthy for
underdeveloped economies, because they are exposed to the vagaries of
the markets in the great powers. Besides, most of the reserves of
Latin American countries are kept in dollars. What will happen to
those countries if the U.S. currency continues to drop, as some
economists predict?

It is
evident that the economic growth experienced by Latin America in
recent years might end soon. The attendant increase in poverty would
fuel the domestic contradictions, which have been attenuated but not
eliminated.

The
struggle for economic and social vindication is being fought today in
Peru, Chile, Brazil, Paraguay, Argentina, Colombia and most of the
Central American countries and Mexico. In other words, we cannot rule
out that 2008 will be a year of strong social conflicts, as well as
an increase in the efforts of the oligarchies and the U.S. to halt
the social movements.

At the
start of this article, I spoke of Bolivia and the possible political
scenarios there in 2008. It is not unreasonable to think that
Venezuela and Ecuador may see destabilizing actions promoted by the
forces that reject change. In fact, those actions are already
occurring. In all cases, the follow the same pattern used against the
government of Salvador Allende in Chile, with some variants and
shadings, of course.

And we
cannot forget that this is an election year in the United States and
the last year (God willing) of W. Bush’s tenure in the White House.
It is very probable that he will try to achieve some success in Latin
America to atone for the long chain of failures he has harvested in
this seven years in office.

So, if
2007 was "the hinge year," 2008 could be a year of
definitions, of "doors" that open toward the integration,
development and independence of Latin America. But also of doors that
close and keep the region from continuing on the road that is most
convenient for it.

That
will depend, as I said in the case of Bolivia, on the position
assumed by the people of Latin America who, in recent years, have
demonstrated a rise in consciousness that has led them to topple
governments, expel transnationals, prevent coups d’état and
fight for their own true interests. Time will tell.