Latin America: A quest for independence or dependence?
Apropos Chávez’s and Lula’s tours of Latin America
By Eduardo Dimas Read Spanish Version
President Hugo Chávez (whom I deeply respect) says that the differences between himself and his Brazilian counterpart, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (whom I also respect) are not over the leadership of Latin America, to which Chávez does not aspire, but over several points of view regarding the region’s energy development. Chávez views it in terms of Venezuela’s oil resources; Lula, in terms of biofuels.
I am not sure that is so. It is very possible that Chávez (Bolivarian as he is) reluctantly had to assume the leadership of Latin American integration, whose starting point is energy. No other political leader has the charisma and resources he has to carry out that task, which is most necessary for the independence and sovereignty of Latin America.
In Lula’s case, I have my doubts, because the Brazilian oligarchy (given its economic power) always has aspired to control the rest of the region, to play the role of regional subimperialism (as Argentine sociologist Atilio Borón puts it), dependent on the government of the United States. And Lula has followed the line of the oligarchy and bourgeoisie of São Paulo, the most powerful of all.
The fact is that, during the tours of several Latin American countries by Lula and Chávez, the differences between their objectives were more than just evident. For that reason, Uruguayan journalist and politologist Raúl Zibechi called Lula’s trip "the second ethanol tour" — an allusion to President George W. Bush’s tour in March of this year — while he described Chávez’s trip as a tour to promote "accords that promote integration."
Lula visited Mexico, Nicaragua, Honduras, Panama and Jamaica for the purpose of promoting biofuels, especially those made from sugar cane and corn, and to establish accords to permit Brazilian companies to distill the alcohol thus produced. In Mexico, he signed major accords on oil prospecting and exploitation with President Felipe Calderón.
The transnational Petrobras will drill in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico in exchange for part of the hydrocarbons that may be obtained.
The Mexican opposition, particularly the segment that opposes the privatization of PEMEX (Petróleos Mexicanos), denounced — rightfully, I think — that this is just another step to deliver Mexican oil into the hands of transnational oil corporations. "Others will come" behind Petrobras (Petróleos Brasileiros), warned Andrés Manuel López Obrador, leader of the Revolutionary Democratic Party, or PRD.
As Raúl Zibechi points out in his article "Two tours, two roads," Lula said that he has Mexico’s support "in the campaign to establish a world market of clean, cheap and renewable fuels." Lula also told the Mexican president that "together we can form a world economic power." This may best express the thinking of the Brazilian president. And what about the rest of the countries?
Apparently, Lula does not take into account the increase in the prices of corn, wheat, soy and other grains as a consequence of their use in the production of biofuels. That means fewer possibilities for feeding the poorest people on the planet, about 3 billion individuals. It’s no coincidence that, in his second term in office, Lula forgot to restate his promise to guarantee three meals a day to all Brazilians.
Lula also disregarded the answer by Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega when Lula offered him support to turn Nicaragua into the pioneer of biofuels in Central America. Ortega replied: "Producing ethanol from corn is completely inadmissible and a crime." In effect, it is true genocide, because it can cause the death by malnutrition of millions of people.
In Jamaica, Lula inaugurated a plant to dehydrate ethanol (absolute alcohol) built with Jamaican and Brazilian capital. In Honduras and Panama, he signed accords to produce ethanol from sugar cane.
In his article, Zibechi points out that Brazil’s motive to expand ethanol production in the region "is to use Central America as a platform for the exportation of ethanol to the United States. Those countries have free-trade accords with the Americans and place no limitations on the exportation of ethanol."
Brazil is limited in its exportation of ethanol to the United States, which is the main producer, and has to pay a tariff of 50 cents of a dollar for each gallon. Will the Brazilian government sign a free-trade accord with the United States after being limited for such a long time? They way things are moving, it’s possible.
The ethanol "carrot" worked, despite all the warnings about the consequences that may befall the Brazilian people.
As Borón and Zibechi point out, Chávez’s tour was different. He reached accords for the supply of natural gas with Argentina, Uruguay, Bolivia and Ecuador, and signed protocols for the construction of regassification plants. One will be in Bahía Blanca, Argentina; another in Uruguay, which will double the current refining capacities.
Chávez also signed a Treaty of Energy Security with Uruguay, creating a joint project to extract crude oil from the Orinoco strip. Thus, Uruguay is assured of an energy supply for a long time.
In Argentina, Chávez signed an accord for the purchase of $500 million in bonds and promised to buy a like amount in a few months. As is known, Argentina has had no access to international credits since the 2001 crisis.
In his visit to Ecuador, Chávez signed an accord with President Rafael Correa to invest $5 billion in a refinery in Manabí Province that will be able to process 300,000 barrels of oil per day.
A measure of the underdevelopment there is that Ecuador, a country that produces crude oil, does not have refineries capable of handling the domestic demand for gasoline, so it has to export the crude oil and import gasoline.
In Bolivia, Chávez and Evo Morales signed an accord to create a joint oil company called PetroAndina. Its first project is to invest $600 million in the exploration and exploitation in the northern sector of the department of La Paz, and in the department of Tarija.
Later, Chávez, Morales and Argentine President Néstor Kirchner met in Tarija to further propel the process of integration.
One of the accords was to improve the plant that separates gas liquids, which is now being built in Tarija with a $450 million credit from Argentina. According to Kirchner, that plant will be decisive for the construction of Argentina’s northeast pipeline.
That conduit will be vital for the future Southern Gas Pipeline, built with the participation of Brazil, Uruguay and Paraguay, Kirchner said. He invited all governments of the region, including Mexico, to joint that project and others, like the Bank of the South, which — after an early push — have become tied up in the bureaucratic red tape laid out by people who don’t want the idea to prosper.
For his part, Chávez insisted on the need to create in today’s and future generations a consciousness of belonging to a single nation formed by many republics, as Simón Bolívar described it.
"Only after we have built that great Motherland, can we say that we are truly free and independent, within the world’s multipolar vision," Chávez stressed.
Finally, on Aug. 10-11, at the PetroCaribe Summit in Caracas, attended by 14 Caribbean nations and new members Nicaragua and Haiti, Chávez proposed a Treaty for the Energy Sovereignty of the Caribbean. The proposal was accepted and signed. Chávez gave his word that those poor nations will not lack energy for the next 100 years.
The enormous difference between the two tours — Lula’s and Chávez’s — is obvious and presages many problems for the process of Latin American integration.
Chávez talks about integration, complementation, mutual aid, the creation of the Grand Motherland. Lula talks about trade and ethanol, knowing that biofuels will create more dependence, misery and underdevelopment, even though they represent big business for the Brazilian oligarchy and its U.S. allies, among them Jeb Bush, the president’s brother.
During the Sixth Social Summit, held in Caracas, Chávez conceded that the construction of the Gas Pipeline of the South was in limbo, due to the bureaucratic red tape in Brazil and the media’s warnings that Brazil would become too dependent on Venezuelan natural gas.
The same happens with the Bank of the South and for the same reasons. The bank, which would facilitate credits for the development of member countries, should have opened in August. Now, its launching has been rescheduled for November. According to Kirchner, November is the final deadline and, as he invited all governments to participate, said the bank will begin operations no matter what.
Atilio Borón, in an article titled "Chávez: Yes but no," recalls the words of Simón Bolívar — "I have plowed the seas" — to point out that Chávez may have a similar experience.
In effect, what we are witnessing is the manifestation of two political currents in Latin America. One aspires to true and definitive economic and political independence in the region; the other attempts to remain under the neoliberal wing and protection of the United States.
"Chávez plowing the seas?" asked the prestigious sociologist. "Maybe yes, if his reference points are the governments in the region. But not if one takes into account the growing projection of his example, his initiatives and projects among the social movements and popular forces in the region. And, sooner rather than later, those movements and forces will have the final word."
I hope Borón is right (as he has often been in the past) because the worst that could happen to the people of the region is that this opportunity for liberation is lost due to laziness, accomodation and the force of the dependent oligarchies and bourgeoisies in Latin America. And that the chance to forge a fair and equitable Grand Motherland is also lost. Time will tell. Meanwhile, we must fight to keep Chávez from "plowing the seas."
