What was the Progressive Summit all about?

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By
Jesús Arboleya Cervera                                                  Read Spanish Version

The
so-called Progressive Governance Summit has just been held in Chile,
and the first thing that draws our attention is its name and its
participants. Why are people as different as Lula and Gordon Brown
(moreover, Joseph Biden) gathered under this denomination? How were
they selected, and why are other people known worldwide as
"progressives" not included? What was the objective? The
truth is that nobody took the trouble to explain that to us.

It
seems to me that it was an attempt, particularly on Britain’s part,
to revitalize a social-democratic movement that has been quite
battered in Europe and to establish a common front with some Latin
American countries to articulate a joint response to the current
crisis of capitalism. What’s unusual is that the United States joined
the group, although Biden (with great "humility") said that
Washington’s solutions are the same as theirs and hopefully will
help the rest of the world.

Ideology
aside, as a political program, social-democracy has been
"progressive" at times and very reactionary at others.
While the "welfare state" was a proposal that attempted to
humanize the system and achieved important success in some European
countries, we mustn’t forget the responsibility of social-democratic
governments for the generalization of the neoliberal system in that
continent, even to suicidal extents. In that sense, Felipe González
preceded Aznar in Spain, and Tony Blair succeeded Thatcher in
England, establishing a paradigmatic alliance with U.S.
neoconservatives that made us forget the "third rail" that
Brown is again proposing.

In
the case of Latin America, where partisan denominations have been
more utilitarian than ideological, it is harder to establish
patterns. Nevertheless, it can be said that there’s been a little bit
of everything. Suffice it to remember Carlos Andrés Pérez in
Venezuela, which explains the rejection of this theory by most of the
Venezuelan people and perhaps the fact that Chávez was not invited
to the meeting.

With
respect to the United States, there have been no changes. The
Americans never swallowed the social-democratic pill and it doesn’t
seem that Obama’s program — as "progressive" as it is
presented or might like to be — leans in that direction. Biden made
it clear; it isn’t a question of ideology but of practical sense. In
sum, there is no alternative other than to join the reformist
current, even at the risk of being accused of socialism, as has
happened.

The
reality is that we’re witnessing a deterioration of the United
States’ hegemony. And the U.S. is pondering the possible
alternatives to preserve, even at the risk of concessions, the bases
of an international system that grants it preference and that is now
in crisis.

To
save the international financial system, with whatever rules and
regulations that need to be imposed, constitutes the top priority,
because what has happened in the United States and the main European
countries is that finances displaced production as the fundamental
source of wealth, making their economies dependent on the recycling
of international capital.

Otherwise,
where will the capital come from, to rescue the banks in countries
with huge financial deficits? It is said that the strength of some
Latin American countries when confronting the crisis lies in their
capital reserves. Where are the United States’ capital reserves? The
truth is that the rest of the world is bankrolling the salvation of
the bankrupt U.S. bankers and we’re sliding down that chute without
any reserves, turning our people into the major victims of this
crisis. That is why Russia’s and China’s proposals about a review of
the dollar standard, or the creation of the Bank of the South by some
Latin American countries sound subversive.

Lula
is correct when he says the time is right for the development of the
progressive forces, that is why it’s worthwhile to keep the mixture.
The interests of the U.S., Britain and Spain have little to do with
those of Latin America. Cristina Fernández made that difference
clear when she said that the crisis not only affected institutions
but also reflected the "failure of a world system"
established on the basis of relations of strength. It is necessary to
change not only the mechanisms but also their guiding philosophy, she
said, giving the state a more active role as the source of direct
credit for industry and social projects. With this, she questioned
the very nature of the existing financial institutions, the purported
provider of the capital needed to solve the crisis, which served as
the basis for Biden to explain his government’s program.

So
far, the progressive, more-or-less social-democratic trends
represented by the Latin American governments attending this meeting
are part of a whole that has tried to conciliate its positions with
other, more radical positions to establish a Latin American common
front. In fact, with greater or lesser vehemence, the speeches of the
Latin American presidents at the summit do not indicate any
intentions that differ from the common-front concept. On the
contrary, the leaders criticized the existing world order, emphasized
the importance of social policies, and referred to the most general
problems in Latin America, underscoring the relative similitude of
approaches that dominate the region.

In
any case, it is not a good sign when a Latin American dialogue with
the U.S. and Europe is established through ideological exclusions
that revitalize patterns contrary to the integrationist desire
proclaimed by those countries.

It
remains to be seen what will happen in the next meeting of the G-20
in England, and the Summit of the Americas in Trinidad & Tobago,
where the proposals of European progressives will be targeted from
the left and the right.

Right
now, Biden is about to travel to Costa Rica to meet with the members
of the Central American Integration System (SICA), where presumably
they will try to coordinate their positions for the Summit of the
Americas.

It
is already known that Nicaragua and Guatemala declined to participate
and that the government of the United States vetoed the participation
of Dominican President Leonel Fernández, claiming that, although a
member of SICA, the Dominican Republic is not part of the region.
However, some say, the true reason is that, although Fernández might
legitimately be labeled a social-democratic president, his evaluation
of the crisis and the measures he proposes to deal with it, as
expressed recently in a widely publicized meeting with Fidel Castro,
are not to the liking of U.S. "progressives."

Jesús
Arboleya, a Cuban writer and professor of history at the University
of Havana, is currently teaching at Arts and Social Sciences
University (UARCIS) in Santiago, Chile.