Posted March 6, 2014

     There has emerged in the first years of the twenty-first century what Luis Suárez Salazar has called “independent and multicultural integration” in Latin America (2008:104).  Suárez notes that this integration is integrally tied to the call for “Socialism for the XXI Century,” and its proponents have been influenced by the most progressive currents in the development of Latin American social thought, including Simón Bolívar, José Martí, Julio Antonio Mella, and Ernesto Che Guevara.  It is a form of integration that seeks to construct what Fidel Castro has called the “true and definitive independence” of Latin America and the Caribbean (Suárez 2008:104-8).  

       The new independent integration is different from the integration of the developmentalist project of the twentieth century, which reached its height in the 1960s and 1970s.  Led by the Latin American industrial bourgeoisie, the developmentalist project sought ascent within the structures of the world-system.  It confronted various obstacles, including the weak domestic market as a consequence of the superexploitation of labor, the resistance of the national estate bourgeoisie to necessary reforms, and the subordination of the national industrial bourgeoisie to the interests of transnational capital.  As a result, although it had some positive consequences for the people, it was unable to bring about the social transformation that the needs of the people required (Cobarrubia and Quirós 2006:50-55; Pérez 2006:256-61).

     The developmentalist project was replaced by the neoliberal project following 1980.  Neoliberal integration is an imposed integration, consistent with the interests of the United States and supported by subordinate national bourgeoisies.  Neoliberal integration strengthened the orientation of the Latin American economies toward the core and weakened commercial relations among Latin American nations.  Increasingly dependent on the core, each Latin American nation had to negotiate terms of exchange, resulting in costly concessions.  The imposition of the neoliberal model has resulted in limited economic growth, financial instability, and a deterioration of social conditions (Cobarrubia and Quirós 2006:50-55; Pérez 2006:256-61). 

      There emerged during the 1990s objective factors that favored a reorientation toward an independent Latin American integration and a retaking of the nineteenth century dream of La Patria Grande (see “The Dream of La Patria Grande” 3/4/2014).  Three factors have been identified by Julio García Oliveras.  First, there is the evident failure of the neoliberal model, occurring in the aftermath of the limitations of the developmentalist project.  Social movements emerged that focused on concrete problems caused by the neoliberal model, such as the declining value of the national currency and the increasing costs of food, utilities, transportation, and education.  

      Secondly, in spite of the constraints of neoliberal policies, there emerged during the 1980s some intra-regional commercial organizations that sought to strengthen intra-regional commerce. These include the Latin American Association of Integration (ALADI) as well as sub-regional organizations, such as the Common Market of the South (MERCOSUR), the Andean Community of Nations (CAN), and the Caribbean Community (CARICOM).  Although these associations in some cases functioned as a mechanism for U.S. directed integration, and in other cases were characterized by competition among the member nations, giving the advantage to the stronger partner; they nevertheless included the utilization of the natural comparative advantage of each country.  For example, Brazil can buy wheat and milk products from Argentina, while Argentina buys coffee and cocoa from Brazil.  In this regard, the Cuban journalist Jorge Gómez Barata has observed that Latin America has an impressive industrial capacity as well as important energy reserves that enable it to develop a variety of mutually beneficial exchange relations.  But for the potential relations based on comparative advantage to be developed effectively, there must be a strengthening of the domestic markets of all of the nations.  Thus all nations of the region have an interest in supporting a more equal and just distribution of income for the entire region, and to seek to develop a form of integration that is not merely commercial and based solely on economic competition, but also attends to the social needs of the people.

      Thirdly, to the extent that Latin American nations need products manufactured in the core, its negotiating position would be improved by developing a cooperative relation with the European Union, thus reducing its dependency on the United States.  This provides the Latin American nations with an interest in opposing the FTAA, which is in part a U.S. plan to eliminate competition from the European Union and give the U.S. greater access to the Latin American markets for its manufactured products.  The FTAA and its failure will be the subject of the next post.

     Revolutionary transformations occur when both objective and subjective factors are present.  The history of successful revolutions teaches us that the subjective factors become present when: (1) some movement intellectuals begin to discern the possible and necessary transformations established by emerging objective conditions; and (2) in the context of this dynamic situation characterized by confusion and contradictory opinions and currents of thought, there emerges a charismatic leader who is able to formulate a coherent project that unites the principal social movement leaders and organizations.  Hugo Chávez was a career military officer, reader of books, a political activist, and a man of humble social origins who was sensitive to the needs of the people.  Arriving to understand the objective possibilities for Latin American union and integration, Chávez was able to lead the region toward a retaking of the dream of “La patria grande,” as we shall see in a subsequent post.  (To read more about Hugo Chávez Frías, go to Chávez and the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela).


References

Cobarrubia Gómez, Faustino and Jonathan Quirós.  2006.  “Integración y Subdesarrollo,” in  Libre Comercio y subdesarrollo.  La Habana: Editorial de Ciencias Sociales.

Pérez García, José A.  2006.  “La economía de América Latina y el Caribe en las últimas cuatro décadas: Algunas reflexiones críticas” in Libre Comercio y subdesarrollo.  La Habana: Editorial de Ciencias Sociales.

Suárez Salazar, Luis.  2008.  “La integración independiente y multidimensional de Nuestra América” in Contexto Latinoamericano: Revista de Análisis Político, No. 7, Pp. 103-9.


Key words: Third World, revolution, colonialism, neocolonialism, imperialism, democracy, national liberation, sovereignty, self-determination, socialism, Marxism, Leninism, Cuba, Latin America, world-system, world-economy, development, underdevelopment, colonial, neocolonial, blog Third World perspective, Latin American integration

Posted March 7, 2014

     FTAA (Free Trade Area of the Americas) was launched at the First Summit of the Americas in Miami in 1994.  Proposed and pushed by the United States, it was a project that supposedly would establish all of the Americas as an area of free commerce of products, services, capital, and financial transactions.  However, the U.S. proposal excluded some products, including agricultural products and steel, inasmuch as their inclusion would have been detrimental to producers in the United States. 

     At the Third Summit of the Americas in Quebec, the United States was able to attain agreement that the FTAA would be placed in vigor in January 2005.  However, due to the resistance of some nations in the region, the implementation of the proposal was not attained.

     U.S. President George W. Bush arrived at the November 2005 Summit with the intention of resuscitating FTAA.  He had a strong ally in Mexican President Vicente Fox.  However, five presidents, together representing countries that formed a significant part of the economy of the region, were opposed to the agreement.  Venezuela had expressed its opposition at the Quebec meeting and had launched an alternative project of integration guided by the concepts and values of Simón Bolívar.  Venezuela was joined in its opposition to FTAA by the four countries of MERCOSUR: Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay. These countries formally expressed opposition to the treaty on the grounds that U.S. agricultural products were to be excluded.  They considered that the U.S. policy of subsidizing agricultural production was detrimental to agricultural producers of the countries of Latin America, establishing a barrier to the sale of their products in the United States.  They asserted that they could not continue with negotiations concerning the FTAA without revision of the U.S. policy of agricultural subsidies.

     A tone of resistance to U.S. impositions was established at the opening ceremony of the Summit, when the host country president criticized the neoliberal policies of the United States.  Argentinean President Néstor Kirchner asserted:  “The first world power . . . necessarily ought to consider that the policies that are applied not only provoked misery and poverty, but they also added regional institutional instability that provoked the fall of democratically elected governments.”  He also denounced “that archaic vision of the issue of the debt” and “the unjust system of international commerce.”

     As a result of the opposition of the governments of the five countries in conjunction with popular opposition in all of the countries of the region, FTAA could not be resuscitated.  The Final Declaration of the Summit was not emitted until the heads of state had departed.  The final text included a declaration of the governments that supported the FTAA, affirming their commitment to attain an FTAA agreement.  At the same time, it included a statement from Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Venezuela:  “The necessary conditions are not yet present for the attainment of an equitable hemispheric free-trade agreement with effective access to the market, free of subsidies and distorting commercial practices, and that takes into account the needs and sensibilities of all the partners as well as the differences in levels of development and size of the economies.”  The statement implies that a free-trade agreement could be signed, if rather than making an exception for the benefit of the wealthiest nation, it makes exceptions for the nations of the region that are least developed and that have smaller economies.

      Meanwhile, Venezuela’s project of an independent integration based on the ideas of Simón Bolívar was beginning to take off, as we will discuss in the next post.


Key words: Third World, revolution, colonialism, neocolonialism, imperialism, democracy, national liberation, sovereignty, self-determination, socialism, Marxism, Leninism, Cuba, Latin America, world-system, world-economy, development, underdevelopment, colonial, neocolonial, blog Third World perspective, FTAA

Posted March 11, 2014

     In accordance with objective conditions favorable to integration and union (see “The dream renewed” 3/6/2014), Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez proposed in December 2001 the formation of the Bolivarian Alternative for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA for its initials in Spanish), as an alternative to the U.S. proposed FTAA.  The ALBA proposal was formalized with the signing of an agreement between Hugo Chávez and Fidel Castro on December 14, 2004.  A Joint Declaration presented ALBA as an alternative to FTAA, maintaining that the US proposal no longer was viable, principally because of opposition from Venezuela, Argentina, and Brazil (see “The fall of FTAA” 3/7/2014).  The declaration maintained that integration in Latin America historically “has served as a mechanism for deepening dependency and foreign domination,” and it described FTAA as “the most recent expression of the appetite for domination of the region.”  It proposed an alternative form of integration based on cooperation and solidarity:  “Only an integration based on cooperation, solidarity, and the common will to advance together with one accord toward the highest levels of development can satisfy the needs and desires of the Latin American and Caribbean countries, and at the same preserve their independence, sovereignty, and identity.”

      The Joint Declaration proclaimed that ALBA seeks social justice and popular democracy: “ALBA has as its objective the transformation of Latin American societies, making them more just, cultured, participatory, and characterized by solidarity.  It therefore is conceived as an integral process that assures the elimination of social inequalities and promotes the quality of life and an effective participation of the peoples in the shaping of their own destiny.”

     And the declaration maintained that just and sustainable development is one of the principles of ALBA, and this implies an active role of the state:  “Commerce and investment ought not be ends in themselves, but instruments for attaining a just and sustainable development, since the true Latin American and Caribbean integration cannot be a blind product of the market, nor simply a strategy to amplify external markets or stimulate commerce.  To attain a just and sustainable development, effective participation of the State as regulator and coordinator of economic activity is required.”

     From 2001 to 2005, commercial exchange between Cuba and Venezuela grew from 973 million to 2.4 billion dollars.  Nearly 200 commercial contracts were signed, in which the principal products were constructions materials, metals, domestic hardware, and foods.  The commerce had mutually beneficial terms: the Venezuelan products were exempt from Cuban duties, and Cuba received favorable terms of credit for the purchase of petroleum and other Venezuelan products.

     On the April 29, 2006, Bolivia was incorporated into ALBA with the signing of a joint agreement involving Venezuela, Cuba, and Bolivia.  Bolivian President Evo Morales affirmed the Bolivarian concept of attaining development through the unity and cooperation of the region:  “The true integration among the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean is an indispensable condition for sustainable development, security, and food sovereignty, for the satisfactions of the needs of our peoples.  Only united action of the Latin American and Caribbean countries, based on the principals of cooperation, complementation, and mutual aid and solidarity, will permit us to preserve independence, sovereignty, and identity.”

     The agreements with Bolivia included the elimination of customs duties by Cuba and Venezuela for imports from Bolivia, the payment for Cuban goods and services with Bolivian products and the national currency of Bolivia, and Venezuelan support for energy production in Bolivia.  The agreements also included the formation of seven Venezuelan-Cuban joint ventures in petroleum, naval construction, banking, sea transport, railroads, postal services, and insurance.  The agreement also approved 199 joint venture projects in: information and communication; science, technology, and environment; the sugar industry; housing; tourism; energy; transportation; construction; hydraulic resources; agriculture; fishing; light industry; and food.

     The ALBA cooperation includes Cuban medical missions in Venezuela and Bolivia.  By 2006, more than 23,000 Cuban health workers had lent services in Venezuela, while more than 16,000 Venezuelan students were studying medicine in Cuba.  As of 2006, 113 Diagnostic Centers, 171 Rehabilitation Centers, and five High-Technology Diagnostic Centers had been constructed in Venezuela, with another 300 such units under construction.  In the case of Bolivia, 7000 Bolivians had recovered their sight has a result of services lent by Cuban doctors with specialization in ophthalmology.  Agreements were made for the construction of 6 ophthalmologic centers in Bolivia, and 5000 scholarships were made available for Bolivians to study in medical science programs in Cuba. 

     ALBA also has included literacy campaigns in Venezuela and Bolivia.  The program in Venezuela began with Cuban support on July 1, 2003.  On October 28, 2006, Venezuela was declared by UNESCO to be an illiteracy-free territory.  The program in Bolivia, with Cuban and Venezuelan collaborators, was announced on March 20, 2006. 

     On May 21, the First Fair of Commerce was held, in which the three ALBA members plus Brazil and Argentina participated.  Brazil and Argentina, although not members of ALBA, have been increasing commercial relations with the countries of ALBA.  Brazil, Argentina, and Venezuela have the three largest economies of South America.

     In 2007, Nicaragua entered ALBA, and Ecuador announced its intention to do so.  In 2008, Dominica and Honduras entered ALBA, but Honduras suspended its participation following the 2009 coup d’état.  In 2009, Antigua and Barbuda, Ecuador, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines became members. 

     The Ecuadorian economist René Baéz observes: “A fundamental premise of ALBA is its understanding of integration as a process for improving the conditions of life of the peoples.  It has a focus diametrically opposed to that of conventional agreements—like the Association of Free Commerce of Latin America and the Caribbean, the Central American Common Market, the North American Free Trade Agreement, the Central American Free Trade Agreement, or Andean Community of Nations at present—that are designed with a cost-benefit logic and, taken by themselves, function in the interests of regional and extra-regional monopoly capital.  Among the characteristics of ALBA worth emphasizing are: compensatory commerce, a form of exchange that does not require the expenditure of currency; a setting of the price of goods distinct from the prices determined by the world market; advice and aid in regard to energy; and the providing of services of health and education to the impoverished strata, including third countries (poor strata in the United States are benefiting from these programs)” (Báez 2006:184-85).


References

Báez, René.  2006.  “Monroísmo y bolivarianismo confrontan en los Andes” in Contexto Latinoamericano: Revista de Análisis Político, No. 1 (Sept.-Dec.), Pp. 180-90.


Key words: Third World, revolution, colonialism, neocolonialism, imperialism, democracy, national liberation, sovereignty, self-determination, socialism, Marxism, Leninism, Cuba, Latin America, world-system, world-economy, development, underdevelopment, colonial, neocolonial, blog Third World perspective, ALBA

Posted March 13, 2014

     In addition to ALBA (see “The rise of ALBA” 3/11/2014), another manifestation of the process of Latin American union and integration is the transformation of the Common Market of the South (MERCOSUR), which occurred in 2005 and 2006.  MERCOSUR was founded in 1991, and it was originally a commercial bloc that included Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay.  Established at the height of the neoliberal project, it had made little progress in increasing commerce among its members, being principally a mechanism that facilitated the penetration of transnational capital.  However, by 2006 the orientation of the association had changed.  Venezuela had entered the association, and Chile and Bolivia had become associated states.  There occurred an expansion of focus beyond commercial accords to the addressing of social, political, and military questions.  During its meeting of 2006, Mexico and Cuba were present as invited countries, and MERCOSUR signed an Agreement of Economic Complementation with Cuba.

     MERCOSUR now has compensatory policies that take into account the particular needs of the members with smaller economies.  It seeks to follow the logic of complementary integration, developing mutually beneficial relations based on the petroleum of Venezuela, the natural gas of Bolivia, the industrial capacity and large markets of Brazil and Argentina, and the advanced knowledge of Cuba in education and health.  And it seeks to develop relations that address the social needs of the peoples.  Thus MERCOSUR, like ALBA, is a project of integration that is fundamentally different from the previous regional associations of integration and from the integration intended by the FTAA proposal of the United States. 

       A MERCOSUR project of important implications is the formation of the Bank of the South.  The project was proposed by Chávez in September 2006 and was formed a little more than a year later.  Seven countries participated in the constitution of the financial entity: Venezuela, Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay.  The Bank is able to supply credit to the countries of the regions without the conditions imposed by the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the Inter-American Bank for Development.  It seeks the repatriation of reserves of capital that the governments of the region have deposited in the banks and government treasury bonds of the United States and Europe.  And it endeavors to promote the autonomous development of the nations of South America. The bank began with initial capital of seven billion dollars.

    MERCOSUR also has undertaken the construction of two gas pipelines connecting the countries of the region.  The Gas Pipeline of the South began with a connection of Venezuelan natural gas reserves to Río de la Plata, crossing Brazilian territory.  Eventually the pipeline will connect Venezuela, Brazil, Bolivia, and Argentina.  A second trans-Caribbean gas pipeline will connect Venezuela, Colombia, Panama, and possibly Nicaragua.  The objective is to establish an infrastructure to support the energy sovereignty of the region and to facilitate that the region’s natural gas reserves will be utilized to supply the energy needs of the region, preventing the region’s natural resources from being exhausted in order to supply the consumerist demands of the industrialized countries. The gas pipeline project is being financed by the Bank of the South.

     Alongside ALBA and MERCOSUR, an integration project that provides energy assistance to Caribbean countries was formed in 2005 through the initiative of Venezuela.  PETROCARIBE is an association of 15 countries of the Caribbean:: Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Belize, Cuba, Dominica, Granada, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic, Saint Kitts and Neves, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Surinam, and Venezuela.  The countries of PETROCARIBE are small countries that are highly vulnerable to the fluctuations of petroleum prices and to the high costs of petroleum.  As a result of the supplying of fuel without intermediaries, it is estimated the countries of PETROCARIBE saved 455 million dollars in the first two years of the association. 

     PETROCARIBE is an agreement of energy cooperation that seeks to reduce the inequalities in access to energy resources by means of an alternative structure of exchange that is more favorable and equitable for the countries of the Caribbean.  PETROCARIBE coordinates the energy policies of its members, including policies related to petroleum and its derivatives, natural gas, and electricity.  It also is developing an infrastructure tied to the refining and storage of fuel that permits the countries to better manage their energy resources.  PETROCARIBE seeks the efficient use of energy and the development of an energy infrastructure as well as the development of alternative sources of energy, such as wind energy, solar energy, and others.

     PETROCARIBE includes mechanisms for the financing of petroleum purchases from Venezuela.   The member states can buy Venezuelan petroleum with a payment of 60% of the price, with the remaining 40% financed at a rate of interest of 1% and a period of payment of 17 to 25 years.  And there is the possibility of making payments in the form of goods and services.

     PETROCARIBE not only seeks energy integration, but also social integration, and accordingly it is developing projects in education, health, and transportation. 

     At the First South American Energy Summit, held on April 16-17, 2007 in Isla Margarita, Venezuela, 11 South American heads of state agreed to form the South American Union of Nations (UNASUR).  This agreement was formalized by the Constituent Treaty of UNASUR, signed by 12 Latin American heads of state on May 23, 2008 in Brasilia.  The member states are Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Paraguay, Peru, Surinam, Uruguay and Venezuela.  The Constituent Treaty permits the admission of other states of Latin America and the Caribbean as Associated States of UNASUR, and it established the possibility that Associate States can be admitted as new members after five years.

     The Constituent Treaty of UNASUR proclaims that “South American integration and union are necessary in order to advance sustainable development and the welfare of our peoples as well as to contribute to the resolution of the problems that still affect the region, such as persistent poverty, exclusion, and social inequality.”

     The Constituent Treaty affirms that the principal objective of UNASUR is a comprehensive integration:  “The Union of South American Nations has as an objective the construction, in a participatory and consensual manner, of space for the cultural, social, economic, and political integration and union among its peoples, granting priority to political dialogue, social policies, education, energy, infrastructure, financing, and the environment, among others, with a view to eliminating socioeconomic inequality, attaining social inclusion and citizen participation, strengthening democracy, and reducing asymmetries in the framework of the strengthening of the sovereignty and the independence of the States.”

     The Constituent Treaty established the following objectives:  Social and human development with equity and inclusion in order to eradicate poverty and to overcome inequalities in the region; the eradication of illiteracy; universal access to quality education; energy integration in order to utilize in solidarity the resources of the region; the development of an infrastructure for the interconnection of the region; the protection of biodiversity, water resources, and ecosystems; cooperation in the prevention of catastrophes and in the struggle against the causes and the effects of climate change; the development of concrete mechanisms for the overcoming of asymmetries, thereby attaining an equitable integration; universal access to social security and to services of health; and citizen participation through mechanisms of dialogue between UNASUR and diverse social actors.

    In addition to the formation of the above-mentioned associations, the process of Latin American integration has moved forwarded through the signing of many bilateral agreements by nations in the region. 

     The formation of various associations dedicated to mutually beneficial commercial and social exchanges provided the background for the establishment of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, which we will discuss in the next post.


Key words: Third World, revolution, colonialism, neocolonialism, imperialism, democracy, national liberation, sovereignty, self-determination, socialism, Marxism, Leninism, Cuba, Latin America, world-system, world-economy, development, underdevelopment, colonial, neocolonial, blog Third World perspective, Latin American unity, Latin American integration, MERCOSUR, Bank of the South, PETROCARIBE, UNASUR, Chávez

Posted March 14, 2014

     The process of Latin American unity and integration (see “The rise of ALBA” 3/11/2014 and “Latin American unity and integration” 3/12/2014) culminated in the formation of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC for its initials in Spanish) in 2010, consisting of the governments of the 33 nations of Latin America and the Caribbean.  On January 29, 2014, at its Second Summit held in Havana, CELAC issued a declaration, affirming its fundamental goals, concepts, and values.  (The Summit in Cuba is actually the third, taking into account the “Founding Summit’ in Venezuela in 2011 and the “First Summit” in Chile in January, 2013).  

     The Declaration of Havana affirms the commitment of the 33 governments to continue the process of Latin American integration, to expand intraregional commerce, and to develop the infrastructure necessary for expanding integration.  It affirms a form of integration based on complementariness, solidarity, and cooperation.  It promotes “a vision of integral and inclusive development that ensures sustainable and productive development, in harmony with nature.”

     The Declaration endorses the protection of the social and economic rights of all.  It affirms food and nutritional security, literacy, free universal education, universal public health, and the right to adequate housing.  It advocates giving priority to “persons living in extreme poverty and vulnerable sectors such as the indigenous peoples, Afro-descendants, women, children, the disabled, the elderly, youth, and migrants.”  It calls upon the nations of the world to seek to overcome inequality and to establish a more equitable distribution of wealth.  It calls for the eradication of poverty and hunger.

     The Declaration affirms the principle of the right of nations to control their natural resources:  We “reiterate our commitment with the principle of the sovereign right of States to make best use of their natural resources, and manage and regulate them. Likewise, [we] express the right of our peoples to exploit, in a sustainable manner, their natural resources which can be used as an important source to finance economic development, social justice, and the welfare of our peoples.”

     The Declaration affirms “a more ethical relation between Humanity and Earth,” giving special attention to the issue of climate change.  “Convinced that climate change is one of the most serious problems of our times, [we] express our deep concern about its increasing adverse impact on small island countries in particular, and on developing countries as a whole, hindering their efforts to eradicate poverty and achieve sustainable development. In this regard, and in the context of the principle of shared but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, we recognize that the global nature of climate change requires the cooperation of all countries and their involvement in an effective and adequate global response, in accordance with the historical responsibility of each country, to accelerate the reduction of world emissions of greenhouse gases and the implementation of adaptation measures pursuant to the provisions and principles of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change”

     With respect to indigenous rights, the Declaration recognizes that “indigenous peoples and local communities play a significant role in economic, social and environmental development.”  It affirms “the importance of traditional sustainable agricultural practices, associated with biodiversity and the exploitation of their resources,” and “their traditional systems of land tenure, seed supply systems and access to financing and markets.”  It recognizes “the essential role of the collective action of indigenous peoples and local populations in the preservation and sustainable use of biological diversity as a significant contribution to the planet.”  It reiterates “the need to take steps to protect the patents on traditional and ancestral knowledge of indigenous and tribal peoples and local communities to prevent violation by third parties by registrations that ignore their ownership, and to promote their fair and equitable share of the benefits derived from their use.”

    The Declaration recognizes the urgent need for a “new Development Agenda” that “should reinforce the commitment of the international community to place people at the center of its concerns, promote sustainable and inclusive economic growth, social participative development, and protection of the environment.”

     It proclaims that foreign investment should promote the development of the region, and it rejects the establishment of conditions for investment that violate the sovereignty of nations.  We “express our conviction regarding the relevance of direct foreign investment flows in our region and the need for them to contribute in an effective manner to the development of our countries and translate into greater wellbeing for our societies, without conditionalities being imposed and with respect for their sovereignty, in keeping with their national development plans and programs.”

     The Declaration calls for the nuclear disarmament and the movement toward the elimination of nuclear weapons.  At the same time, it affirms the right of all nations, without exception, to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

    The Declaration’s only direct references to the United States were condemnations of its policy toward Cuba.  We “reiterate our rejection of unilateral lists and certifications by some developed countries affecting Latin American and Caribbean countries, in particular those referring to terrorism, drug trafficking, trafficking in person and others of a similar nature, and [we] ratify the Special Communiqué adopted by CELAC on June 5, 2013 that rejects the inclusion of Cuba in the so-called List of States promoting international terrorism of the United States’ State Department.”  We “reiterate our strongest rejection of the implementation of unilateral coercive measures and once again reiterate our solidarity with the Republic of Cuba, while reaffirming our call upon the Government of the United States of America to put an end to the economic, commercial and financial blockade imposed on this sisterly nation for more than five decades.” 

     On the other hand, the Declaration welcomes the continuation of the development of relations between CELAC and China, Russia, and the European Union.

     In short, the Declaration of Havana demonstrates the commitment of the new Latin America to universal human values: respect for the sovereignty of all nations, protection of the social and economic rights of all persons, the protection of the environment, and special measures for vulnerable sectors.  It stands in sharp contrast to the policies of the governments of the North and the transnational agencies controlled by them.  In addition, the Declaration of Havana symbolizes a complete collapse of the Pan-American project of the United States, as we will discuss in the next post.


Key words: Third World, revolution, colonialism, neocolonialism, imperialism, democracy, national liberation, sovereignty, self-determination, socialism, Marxism, Leninism, Cuba, Latin America, world-system, world-economy, development, underdevelopment, colonial, neocolonial, blog Third World perspective, Latin American unity, Latin American integration, CELAC

Posted March 17, 2014

​     We have seen that during the course of the twentieth century, the United States utilized imperialist strategies to impose economic policies that facilitated US economic, commercial, and financial penetration of Latin America and the Caribbean, thus contributing to the establishment of a neocolonial world-system.  And we have seen that the United States developed the Pan-American project, with the intention of obtaining the participation and cooperation of the governments of Latin America and the Caribbean in an inter-American system characterized by U.S. domination (see various posts on U.S. imperialism and Pan-Americanism as well as “US policy in Latin America and Venezuela” 2/28/2014).

      The Declaration of Havana, issued by the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) on January 29, 2014 is the most recent expression of the advancing process of Latin American union and integration, initiated by Hugo Chávez in 2001.  The Declaration demonstrates the total collapse of the Pan-American project, a rejection by the 33 governments of Latin America and the Caribbean of US-directed integration of the region and of the objectives and strategies that defined US-directed integration.  As we have seen, the Declaration mentions directly the United States only to condemn its policies in relation to Cuba.  It obliquely criticizes the United States when it invokes the principle of differentiated responsibility and calls upon the nations most responsible for the emission of greenhouse gases to accelerate efforts to control them.  And it adopts positions that are in opposition to U.S. policies: in calling for respect for the patents and knowledge of indigenous peoples; in taking a perspective on development that places the human needs at the center; in insisting that investments be free of conditions; and in affirming the right of all nations to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes (see “The Declaration of Havana 2014” 3/14/2014).

     The evident loss of political influence by the hegemonic nation over its neocolonies is an indication of the erosion of the neocolonial world-system.  Taking into account the various dimensions of neocolonialism (see “The Characteristics of Neocolonialism” 9/16/2013), we can see that some of these characteristics continue to define the US relation with Latin America.  The most important of them, core-peripheral trade on a base of super-exploited peripheral and semi-peripheral labor, remains for the most part intact.  The transformation of the core-peripheral commercial relation is a difficult process, inasmuch as it has been developed on a colonial foundation during the course of 500 years, and existing systems of production, commerce and labor are rooted in it.  And another continuing characteristic of neocolonialism is the fact that the United States has unchallenged military dominance. 

     Nevertheless, there has been erosion with respect to some of the characteristics of neocolonialism.  In the first place, the national bourgeoisies of the neocolonies no longer function as figurehead bourgeoisies in accordance with the requirements of the neocolonial world-system.  Neocolonialism requires that the national bourgeoisie insert itself into the structures of the core-peripheral relation, thus making itself subordinate to transnational capital, and undermining the potential for a bourgeois nationalist project.  But this subordination of the figurehead bourgeoisie must to some extent allow for attention to the economic interests and the political agenda of the figurehead bourgeoisie, for this class plays an important role in maintaining political stability through the channeling of the political objectives of the popular sectors.  This lesson was learned in Cuba in the 1920s, when the interests of Cuban sugar producers and banks were ignored, and high levels of unemployment generated widespread popular unrest, undermining the stability of the neocolonial system.  Adjustments subsequently were made in Cuba in the 1930s, with appropriate attention to the interests of the figurehead bourgeoisie.  But the lesson was forgotten in the 1980s by the core bourgeoisie, which adopted desperate measures in response to the structural crisis of the world-system.  The aggressive imposition by the core bourgeoisie of the neoliberal project in defense of its short-term interests; favoring those sectors of the national bourgeoisies in peripheral and semi-peripheral zones most integrated with international capital, without regard for the interests of the sector of the national bourgeoisie most tied to the national economy, and without concern for the delicate political role of the national bourgeoisie in maintaining social control; has resulted thirty years later in the breakdown of the neocolonial system.  The negative consequences of the neoliberal project with respect to the popular sectors has given rise to popular movements led by charismatic leaders with radical and revolutionary discourses, leading to the political weakening of the national bourgeoisie, which thus could no longer function as a figurehead bourgeoisie, able to manage and control popular demands.

       As a result of the undermining of the role of the national bourgeoisie as a figurehead bourgeoisie, there has been an erosion of the ideological penetration by the neocolonial power, one of the necessary characteristics of neocolonialism.  To be sure, the seductive power of the culture of consumerism and the “American way of life” remains strong, as a consequence of the growing power of the mass media.  But the traditional political parties that represented the interests of the national bourgeoisie have become discredited, such that in many nations even the Right has formed non-traditional parties and has adopted rhetoric similar to the parties of the Left, pretending to be a part of the process of change.  In many nations, representative democracy itself has become discredited, as the people begin to development alternative structures of popular democracy.

     Moreover, in many nations in Latin America today, the military could not possibly play the role assigned to it by the neocolonial system, which is the repression of popular movements when their demands go beyond the accepted limits of the neocolonial system.   Popular rejection of military dictatorships and years of popular mobilizations against the neoliberal project have eliminated repression as a viable option in most of the nations of the region, at least in the present political climate. 

      Thus the neoliberal project has undermined the stability of the neocolonial world-system and has given rise to challenges from below.  But this does not mean that a more enlightened approach by the global elite could have secured the stability of the world-system.  The world-system is based on the superexploitation of vast regions (see “Unequal exchange” 8/5/2013), and thus it necessarily generates opposition from below.  Moreover, it historically has expanded by incorporating more lands and peoples through domination, and this has reached its ecological and geographical limits, inasmuch as there are no more lands and peoples to conquer.  As the result, the world-system has entered a fundamental structural crisis that has given rise to various financial, ecological, social and political crises, revealing its unsustainability.

     Thus, the neoliberal project can be seen as an aggressive attempt by the global elite to sustain an unsustainable neocolonial world-system.  By aggressively seeking short-term profits without regard for the consequences for the world-system, the neoliberal project has deepened the crisis and has increased the probability of (1) a transition to an alternative global neo-fascist and militarist world-system, characterized by forced access to global raw materials and by repressive control of populations in the peripheral and semi-peripheral regions; or (2) the disintegration and regional fragmentation of the world-system, including the emergence of chaos in some areas.

      But while the global elite has acted irresponsibly and has increased the possibility for negative outcomes of the crisis of the world-system, a more positive possibility is emerging from below: the step-by-step construction of a more just and democratic world-system.  The Declaration of Havana and the process of Latin American union and integration are part of this more positive possibility.  We will discuss this theme is subsequent posts.


Key words: Third World, revolution, colonialism, neocolonialism, imperialism, democracy, national liberation, sovereignty, self-determination, socialism, Marxism, Leninism, Cuba, Latin America, world-system, world-economy, development, underdevelopment, colonial, neocolonial, blog Third World perspective, Latin American unity, Latin American integration, CELAC, Chávez

Posted March 18, 2014

     We have seen in various posts since March 4 that a new political reality has emerged in Latin America and the Caribbean, defined by rejection of US-directed integration and by the formulation of an alternative integration from below, with its most recent expression being the Declaration of Havana emitted by the 33 governments of CELAC on January 29, 2014.  The process of Latin American union and integration can be seen as an effort by the neocolonized peoples and nations to by-pass existing exploitative structures of the core-peripheral relation and to gradually replace them, step-by-step, with alternative structures for relations among nations, shaped by complementary and mutually beneficial intraregional commercial and social accords.  The formation of the Bank of the South seeks to provide a financial foundation for this alternative project, undermining financial penetration of the region and the control of the region by transnational banks and international financial institutions. 

      In conjunction with this step-by-step process of establishing alternative commercial and social relations among nations and alternative financial institutions, the new Latin American political process is proclaiming the fundamental principles and values for an alternative world-system: the protection of the social and economic rights of all persons, including the rights to a decent standard of living, housing, nutrition, education, and health; respect for the sovereignty of all nations, even those that are not wealthy or powerful; and the development of forms of production and distribution that are ecologically sustainable.  Thus there exist in embryo the commercial, social, financial and ideological components of an alternative more just and democratic world-system.

      Do these developments mean that we are in a change of epoch, involving a transition from a world-system with a logic of domination and superexploitation to a world-system with a logic of equality, solidarity, and sustainability?  It has been so named by Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa, when he observed that we are not in an epoch of change, but in a change of epoch.  In the same vein, Hugo Chávez proclaimed that the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela is constructing “Socialism for the XXI Century,” a socialism different from the socialisms of the twentieth century, “a socialism renewed for the new era, for the XXI century” (Chávez 2006:193).  And this notion of socialism for our era has been invoked as well by Correa and Bolivian President Evo Morales. 

     As early as 1982, Immanuel Wallerstein maintained that the world-system has entered a structural and fundamental crisis and was in transition to something else, possibly, on the one hand, a world-system with a new logic of domination, or on the other hand, a socialist world order and/or a new civilizational project (Wallerstein 1982:11, 51-53).  Can we interpret the process of change in Latin America as the emergence of an alternative civilizational and socialist project that Wallerstein imagined more than thirty years ago as a possibility? 

      I believe that indeed we can, and the principal reason is that the process of Latin American and Caribbean unity integrates values formed by the movements of the peoples of the world during the last two and one-half centuries: the bourgeois democratic revolutions that proclaimed the rights and the equality of all; the socialist and communist movements that expanded these rights to include the rights of workers and peasants to elect delegates who would govern in accordance with their interests and their social and economic rights and needs; the Third World national liberation movements that proclaimed that rights pertain to nations and peoples as well as persons, and that such rights include self-determination and true sovereignty; movements formed by women that proclaimed the right of women to full and equal participation in the construction of the society; and the movements formed by those who have sought to defend nature and the ecological balance of the earth.  These movements have formulated what I call “universal human values,” values concerning which there is consensus in all regions of the world, and which have been affirmed by various international organization and commissions, including those of the United Nations.  Based in these universal human values, the process of Latin American and Caribbean unity is developing in practice an alternative civilizational project, one that draws from various political and cultural horizons and that has faith in the future of humanity.  It presents itself as an alternative to the established neocolonial world-system that places markets above people, seeks military solutions to social conflicts, pays insufficient attention to the ecological needs of the earth, and induces consumerism and cynicism among the people.

    To be sure, CELAC is not in itself a revolutionary organization that seeks to establish an alternative socialist civilizational project: it includes nations where traditional political parties still govern, and it has not arrived to a concept of popular power or popular democracy.  But CELAC does represent progressive reform of the world-system from below, in which alternative practices, incompatible with the structures of the neocolonial world-system, are being developed cooperatively by governments that pertain to the semi-peripheral and peripheral regions of the world-economy (see “The Modern World Economy” 8/2/2013).  Furthermore, CELAC is part of a process of change in Latin America and the Caribbean, in which several progressive/Leftist governments have come to power, adopting reforms from below in defense of the rights and needs of the people, in accordance with universal human values.  In some nations of the region, this process of change indeed is revolutionary, involving the displacement from power of the political representatives of international corporations and national bourgeoisies, replacing them with delegates of the people, who are beginning to adopt policies that defend and protect the rights and needs of the people, to the extent that limited resources permit.  This revolutionary process is being led by Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia and Ecuador, and by charismatic leaders in these nations.  We will be discussing the revolutionary processes in each of these nations in future posts.

      Both of the possibilities envisioned by Wallerstein are simultaneously emerging from the conflicts and contradictions of the world-system.  Alongside the emergence of Latin American union and integration and the proclamation of “Socialism for the XXI Century,” there also has occurred a turn to the Right by the global powers since 1980.  Confronting a situation in the 1970s in which the modern world-system had reached the ecological limits of the earth; at a time in which the movements of the people, in all zones of the system, had arrived to define the right of all persons and nations to benefit from the blessings the earth; the global elite found itself in a situation in which it could no longer make concessions to the working and middle classes of the core or to the national bourgeoisies (and indirectly to the people) in the semi-peripheral and peripheral zones.  The global elite thus turned to the aggressive pursuit of its interests: the imposition of the neoliberal project on the Third World, in violation of the principle of sovereignty and without regard for the social and economic needs of the people; new strategies of interventionism in those Third World nations that seek true independence, making a mockery of established norms of international diplomacy; an attack on the protection of social and economic rights enshrined in Keynesian economic policies in the nations of the North, a process that has accelerated since 2007; the use of the media to distract the people and to generate distorted understandings of social conflicts; and unilateral military action by the United States, setting itself above international regulation and prompting Fidel Castro to refer to a “global military dictatorship.”  In short, the global elite has adopted aggressive measures to preserve its privileges and the structures of the neocolonial world-system on which such privileges depend. 

     But the aggressive policies of the global elite defy the logic of the neocolonial world-system, which requires the protection to some degree of the social and economic rights of the working and middles classes in the core as well as the interests of the national bourgeoisie in the periphery and semi-periphery.  Thus the aggressive measures have undermined the stability of the neocolonial world-system, deepening and accelerating the crisis of the system.  The aggressive measures cannot sustain the unsustainable neocolonial world-system, but they may turn out to be the first steps in the transition to an alternative neo-fascist and militarist world-system, characterized by: forced access to global raw materials; by repressive control of populations, particularly in the peripheral and semi-peripheral regions; and by the manipulative use of the media to distract and confuse the people (see “The erosion of neocolonialism” 3/17/2014).

      In this historic moment in which two practical possibilities for the future exist side by side, we intellectuals of the North who are committed to universal human values must escape the traps of the logic of domination of the established world-system: the fragmentation of knowledge into disciplines, leaving us with partial understandings of what is occurring; and a distorted concept of scientific knowledge, which compels us to demonstrate our “objectivity” by offering criticisms of the movements from below, criticisms that undermine their legitimate claims and political strategies and that confuse our people.  We have the duty to seek to understand the movements from below, to delegitimate the ideological distortions of the system, and to affirm the possibility that humanity can be saved by virtue of a political process formed by the neocolonized, even when this political process does not have the characteristics that we would have anticipated or would have thought desirable.   I will discuss these unanticipated characteristics in the next post.


References

Chávez Frías, Hugo. 2006.  La Unidad Latinoamericana.  Melbourne:  Ocean Sur.

Wallerstein, Immanuel.  1982.  “Crisis as Transition” in Samir Amin, Giovanni Arrighi, Andre Gunder Frank, and Immanuel Wallerstein, Dynamics of Global Crisis.  New York and London: Monthly Review Press.


Key words: Third World, revolution, colonialism, neocolonialism, imperialism, democracy, national liberation, sovereignty, self-determination, socialism, Marxism, Leninism, Cuba, Latin America, world-system, world-economy, development, underdevelopment, colonial, neocolonial, blog Third World perspective, Latin American unity, Latin American integration, CELAC, Rafael Correa, Chávez, Wallerstein

Posted March 20, 2014

      Encountering the proletarian movement in Paris in 1843-44, while simultaneously studying British political economy, Marx formulated a penetrating and moving understanding of human history.  He interpreted the social action of workers, artisans and intellectuals connected to the working class movement as the first steps in a revolutionary process that would forge a transition from capitalism to socialism.  The future socialist society, Marx believed, would be built on a foundation of automated industry, and it would be characterized by the abolition of class divisions, inequality and exploitation, because there would not be a functional need for them.  Marx thus envisioned the creation of what we would today call a just and democratic world-system, established by the political action of the exploited class.  (See various posts on Marx in January 2014, particularly “Marx and the working class” 1/6/2014; “Marx illustrate cross-horizon encounter” 1/7/2014; “Marx on the revolutionary proletariat” 1/14/2014; and “The social and historical context of Marx” 1/15/2014).

       We have seen that the process of change occurring today in Latin America and the Caribbean can be interpreted as the beginning of the emergence a post-capitalist/socialist/civilizational project that seeks the establishment of an alternative more just and democratic world-system (see “A change of epoch?” 3/18/2014).  Thus we are able to see in our time the possible fulfillment, at long last, of the transition envisioned by Marx from capitalism to socialism. 

     But the possible transition to socialism of our time has characteristics that Marx did not, and given the time in which he wrote, could not fully anticipate.  The social movements that are its foundation are not the working-class movements of the core but movements of multiple popular classes and sectors of neocolonized regions of the world, which have included students, peasants, women, workers, and indigenous peoples, and movements in which the principal leaders have come for the most part from the petit bourgeoisie.  (I have discussed this phenomenon and its implications in different contexts; see: “The social and historical context of Marx” 1/15/2014 “The proletarian vanguard” 1/24/2014; and “The proletariat and the Mexican Revolution” 2/14/2014).

      Another dimension, not anticipated by Marx, has been the role of charismatic leaders, and this also is a phenomenon that I have discussed previously (see “Toussaint L’Ouverture” 12/10/2013; “Reflections on the Russian Revolution” 1/29/2014; “Lessons of the Mexican Revolution” 2/19/2014; “The dream renewed” 3/6/2014).  In the case of the process of Latin American unity and integration, Hugo Chávez has assumed this indispensable function of charismatic leadership.  Discerning that the objective conditions for integration were present, and possessing faith in the Bolivarian vision of sovereign Latin American nations united in La Patria Grande; Chávez was constantly present, proposing and exhorting.  (To read more about Hugo Chávez Frías, see “Chávez and the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela”).  It is a question of objective and subjective factors being present, from which emerges a charismatic leader who is able to discern what is possible and to lead the people toward its fulfillment.  As we continue in the development of this blog to review various revolutionary processes in various nations, we will see that this combination of objective and subjective factors and charismatic leadership is a recurring phenomenon.

      In addition to the important role of charismatic figures with exceptional gifts of understanding and leadership, another characteristic of the new Latin American and Caribbean political phenomenon, also a characteristic not anticipated by Marx, is the central role of patriotism.  Not the distorted form of patriotism that has a tragic history in Europe and the United States, in which elites manipulate popular sentiments in order to enlist the people in wars against other nations, for the disguised purpose of protecting elite interests.  But a form of patriotism that values the protection of the sovereignty and the dignity of the nation, and that proclaims one’s own nation’s right to sovereignty on the basis of the principle of the sovereign rights of all nations.  In this new form of patriotism, the enemies of the nation are not the peoples of other nations, but the national elite who have dishonorably betrayed the nation in the pursuit of particular interests.  It is a kind of patriotism that would propel Hugo Chávez to proclaim, with reference to the traditional political parties in Venezuela: “They were on their knees, there is no other way to say it, they were on their knees before the imperial power.” 

     The new form of patriotism, which I call “revolutionary patriotism,” is intertwined with a spirit of internationalism and international solidarity (see “Revolutionary patriotism” 8/15/2013).  The new patriotism proclaims the right of all nations to true independence and sovereignty, and it condemns the imperialist policies of powerful nations that seek to maintain the neocolonial world-system.  It expresses solidarity with all nations and peoples that seek true sovereignty and independence.  In his 1982 essay, in which he was contemplating the possible transition to an alternative world-system, Wallerstein wondered, “What kind of ‘nationalism’ is compatible with the creation of a socialist world order” (1982:52)?  The revolutionary patriotic discourses that at the same time are expressions of international solidarity, formulated by Chávez, Morales and Correa, are responses to Wallerstein’s question.

     Revolutionary patriotism is not new.  It has been an integral component of anti-colonial and anti-neocolonial revolutions of the twentieth century.  Patriotism would compel a young Vietnamese socialist in Paris in the 1920s, who later would become known to the world as Ho Chi Minh, to take the name of Nguyen Ai Quoc, which means “Nguyen the Patriot.”  Although clearly a committed communist who believed in a global revolution, Ho was above all a patriotic nationalist.  And patriotism would prompt a young Fidel Castro in the 1950s to conclude a public statement with a phrase from the Cuban national anthem: “To die for the nation is to live.”  When the triumphant revolutionary army entered Havana on January 8, 1959, the comandantes at the front were bearing huge Cuban flags. Subsequently, the revolutionary government did not change either the national anthem or the flag, a decision that was explained by Fidel, in response to a question from a foreign journalist, by saying, “There is a lot of glory under that flag.”  The Cuban Revolution took power in 1959 in the name of popular aspirations for a truly sovereign nation, accusing the established political elite of having violated the dignity of the nation.

      Thus the socialist revolution of our time is developing in a way that Marx did not fully anticipate.  It is a popular revolution formed by various popular classes and sectors, with a principal social base in the neocolonized regions of the world, led by charismatic leaders with exceptional gifts who for the most part have social origins in the petit bourgeoisie, although the leaders have included workers (Nicolás Maduro) and peasants (Evo Morales).  These charismatic leaders have aroused and channeled the anger and the hopes of the people, in part by sound analysis of global dynamics, but also in part by touching the patriotic sentiments of the people, and by naming the treasonous conduct of the national bourgeoisie, for its collaboration with the interests of international capital at the expense of the people, many of whom were already impoverished and ignored by centuries of colonial and neocolonial domination.  Driven by faith in the future of humanity, the charismatic leaders have proclaimed that a better world is possible, and they have found the audacity to lead the people in its quest for a more just and democratic world, in which all persons are treated with dignity, and the sovereignty of all nations is respected. 

     Although the socialist revolution of our time does not have the characteristics that Marx fully anticipated, it is in a broad sense the realization of the socialist revolution that Marx foresaw.  Marx envisioned a socialist revolution on the basis of observing the contradictions of the capitalist system from the vantage point of the exploited class, and from this vantage point, he recognized that the contradictions cannot be resolved without structural transformations that imply the end of the system itself and its transition to something else.  From this vantage point from below, Marx also could discern that one possible outcome was the transformation of the system in a form that would protect the rights of all, and that such a resolution would be consistent with human progress and with advances in natural and social scientific knowledge, thus making such a resolution all the more likely.  In our time, we can see such a possibility unfolding:  A resolution of the contradictions of the capitalist world-economy, which can be discerned from the vantage point from below, through the decisive and informed political action of the exploited and neocolonized, who seek a more just and democratic world-system.

       The post-1995 resurgence of revolution by the neocolonized peoples of the earth provides a clear choice for humanity: a choice between, on the one hand, a neocolonial world-system that places markets above people and the privileges of the powerful above the rights of the humble; and on the other hand, a dignified alternative being led by charismatic leaders whose gifts of discernment, commitment to social justice, and denunciations of the powerful  remind us of the prophet Amos, who condemned the structures of domination and privilege of the ancient Kingdom of Israel as violations of the Mosaic covenant, a covenant that was a sacred agreement between a homeless and marginalized people and a God who acts in history in defense of the poor.

     We intellectuals of the North have the duty to observe and discern what is happening, and to explain it to our people, so that the people, freed from the distortions of the media, can decide what they ought to do.  I believe that, if the people were to know, a consensus would emerge to do what is right.  But the people need the help of intellectuals.  In no national revolutionary context have the people figured things out by themselves.  The role of intellectuals, who created a subjective context from which emerged charismatic leaders, was essential, and charismatic leadership was decisive.


References

Wallerstein, Immanuel.  1982.  “Crisis as Transition” in Samir Amin, Giovanni Arrighi, Andre Gunder Frank, and Immanuel Wallerstein, Dynamics of Global Crisis.  New York and London: Monthly Review Press.


Key words: Third World, revolution, colonialism, neocolonialism, imperialism, democracy, national liberation, sovereignty, self-determination, socialism, Marxism, Leninism, Cuba, Latin America, world-system, world-economy, development, underdevelopment, colonial, neocolonial, blog Third World perspective, Latin American unity, Latin American integration, CELAC, Chávez

Posted June 10, 2014

     The new political reality that has emerged in Latin America since 1995 was evident at the forty-fourth General Assembly of the Organization of America States, held in Asunción, Paraguay from June 3 to June 5, 1914. 

     The Organization of American States (OAS) was created in 1948 as the culmination of the US effort to institutionalize the cooperation of the governments of Latin America and the Caribbean  in the neocolonial world-system (“Pan-Americanism and OAS” 10/2/2013).  At the time, the United States was entering the phase of the height of its economic, financial, military, and international political power.  Accordingly, it was able to overcome Latin American resistance to the US-directed Pan American project that it had encountered from 1889 to 1942.  In 1954, the United States was able to include an anti-communist clause: “OAS declared that communist activity constitutes an intervention in the internal affairs of the Americas and affirmed that the installation of a communist regime in any state in the Western Hemisphere would imply a threat to the system, which would require an advisory meeting to adopt measures” (Regalado 2007:127).  The United States invoked this clause to expel socialist Cuba in 1961.  As we have seen, anti-communism was an ideology that distorted reality and that sought to legitimate attacks on nations that sought an autonomous road to development (see “The ideology of anti-communism” 5/27/2014).  In 1991, when the United States was in the waning moments of its hegemony, but appeared to be at the height of its power following the collapse of the Soviet Union, it was able to reinforce the exclusion of Cuba from OAS, by establishing representative democracy as the only legitimate form of government, thus denying the legitimacy of Cuban popular democracy.

     For the most part, however, OAS has not functioned as an instrument of US domination.  The United States has tended to ignore the organization and to impose its imperialist policies unilaterally.  But neither did the Latin American and Caribbean nations use OAS as a forum to criticize US policy.  When the Latin American and Caribbean challenge to US neocolonial domination emerged following 1995, nations leading the process of change tended to develop their own regional organizations, such as ALBA, UNASUR, and CELAC (see “Latin American union and integration” 3/13/2014; “The Declaration of Havana 2014” 3/14/2014). Now, however, the alternative world-system emerging through the leadership of Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Cuba, with the participation of Argentina, Brazil, Nicaragua, Uruguay and others, has penetrated the world of OAS.

      It is a reversal of its intended function.  The United States intended for it to legitimate its neocolonial control, but OAS now has emerged to provide diplomatic space to the neocolonized nations that seek to break the neocolonial relation.  This transformation of functions was first visible in 2009, when OAS rescinded the expulsion of Cuba from the organization. 

     The clearest sign of the transformation of OAS at its Forty-fourth General Assembly was the repeated interventions by representatives concerning an item that was not on the agenda: the exclusion of Cuba from the Summit of the Americas.  The first Summit of the Americas was held in 1994, and it was intended as the launching pad of the US proposal for a Free Trade Area of the Americas (see “The fall of FTAA” 3/7/2014).  By 2005, it had become clear that FTAA could not be implemented, as a result of opposition from Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Venezuela.  At the Fifth Summit of the Americas in 2009, opposition to the exclusion of Cuba from the summits began to be expressed.  Such opposition was expressed with increasing firmness at the Sixth Summit of the Americas in 2012, the Eighth Political Council of ALBA in 2012, the Fourth Ministerial Meeting of CARICOM-CUBA of 2013, and the Council of Ministers of Foreign Relations of UNASUR in 2014.  The rejection of the exclusion of Cuba from the Summit of the Americas was unanimously declared at the Second Summit of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) in January 2014.  At the Forty-fourth General Assembly of  OAS, many delegations rejected the inclusion of Cuba from the summits.  Five nations (Ecuador, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Bolivia, and Argentina), stated that they would not attend the next Summit of the Americas, if Cuba remains excluded.

     Besides rejection of US policy with respect to Cuba, the Forty-fourth assembly passed other declarations that indicate that OAS is beginning to function as a diplomatic voice for the governments of Latin America and the Caribbean.  It supported Argentina in its conflict with Britain over the status of the Malvinas Islands.  It called upon the international community to not engage in pressure or sanctions with respect to Venezuela, thus criticizing US support of the Venezuelan Right and an anti-government media campaign.  It supported the peace talks between FARC and the government of Venezuela, presently taking place in Cuba.  It declared America as a Zone of Peace, Cooperation, and the Peaceful Solution of Conflicts.  It condemned the use of torture in secret prisons in the name of national security and the struggle against terrorism, thus indirectly condemning the US base at Guantanamo.

       The United States is no longer the economic and financial power that it was in the 1950s.  It is a hegemonic nation in decline.  It can no longer impose its political agenda on Latin America.  An alternative to the neocolonial world-system is emerging from below.   


References

Gómez, Sergio Alejandro.  2014.  “44 Asamlea General de la OEA:  EE.UU. cada vez más solo en su intento de aislar a Cuba” Granma (9 de junio de 2014), Pág. 5.

Regalado, Roberto.  2007.  Latin America at the Crossroads: Domination, Crisis, Popular Movements, and Political Alternatives.  New York: Ocean Press.


Key words:  Third World, revolution, colonialism, neocolonialism, imperialism, democracy, national liberation, sovereignty, self-determination, socialism, Marxism, Leninism, Cuba, Latin America, world-system, world-economy, development, underdevelopment, colonial, neocolonial, blog Third World perspective, Pan-American, Organization of American States, OAS

Haz clic aquí para modificar.