​     The member countries of the Bolivarian Alliance for the peoples of Our America-Treaty of Commerce of the Peoples (ALBA-TCP for its initials in Spanish), meeting in Havana on May 21 for the organization’s Eighteenth Political Council, have issued a declaration that rejects recent U.S. efforts to reestablish hegemony over Latin America and the Caribbean, and that affirms support for Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua.

  The preamble to the Declaration affirms that the member countries are:

​     The Declaration expresses support for the government of Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela, as it confronts the hostile and interventionist policies of the United States.

​     Similarly, the Declaration expresses its support for the sovereignty of Nicaragua and the negotiations undertaken by the government with opposition parties.  “We ratify our support for the process of dialogue and negotiation of the Government of Reconciliation and National Unity of Nicaragua in its decision to continue defending its sovereignty, peace, and the notable advances that it has attained in the social and economic sphere as well as with respect to security and national unity.”

         The Declaration also rejects the longstanding U.S. economic war against Cuba.

​     The Declaration rejects U.S. efforts to reestablish its hegemony over Latin America and the Caribbean.  “We repudiate the Monroe Doctrine, an old reflection of the hegemonic and imperialist ambitions of the United States with respect to the lands and peoples of America, today resurrected.”  And it condemns the U.S. use of the Organization of American States to attain its imperialist goas.  “We reject the interventionist conduct of the government of the United States, which once again is utilizing OAS and its Secretary General in its interventionist policy in opposition to the sovereignty, the self-determination, and the constitutional order of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, the Republic of Nicaragua, and the Republic of Cuba.”
 
     Since the 1960s, Third World governments have denounced the imperialist and interventionist policies of the United States and the Western European powers, doing so in the name of the principles that the global powers have themselves proclaimed.  Such denunciation of imperialism on the basis of international principles and international law is evident in the declarations of the Non-Aligned Movement, which has arrived to include 120 member governments (see posts in the category Third World).  In accordance with this global political tendency, the ALBA-TCP Declaration demands adherence to international principles and international law.  “We demand strict observance of the Purposes and Principles of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, the peaceful settlement of disputes, the prohibition of the use of force or the threat of the use of force, and respect for self-determination, for sovereignty, for the integrity of territories, and for non-interference in the domestic affairs of states.”
 
     The socialist and progressive governments of Latin America and the Caribbean have a tendency to condemn U.S. policy as “unilateral” and “coercive.”  With this designation, they are opposing not only the unjust and unscientific character of the measures, but also the fact that they are imposed by a single power, in defense of its particular interests, ignoring the consequences for other nations.  From their perspective, policies with international consequences should be formulated and implemented on a basis of multilateralism.  The participation of various nations in the joint formulation of policies helps to ensure that they are not arbitrary or ill-informed, and that they emerge from agreement rather than being imposed by a more powerful nation that is single-mindedly pursuing its interests.  Accordingly, the Declaration states, “We insist that the application of unilateral coercive measures, rejected by numerous resolutions of the General Assembly of the United Nations, is contrary to the purposes and principles consecrated in the UN Charter and International Law.”  Universal coercive measures “restrict the enjoyment of human rights of the populations of the states against which they are applied.”
 
      The Declaration calls for the strengthening of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), which has been weakened in the last couple of years as a result of the fall of progressive governments in Brazil and Argentina and the socialist government of Rafael Correa in Ecuador, although it likely will be aided by the recent election of a progressive government in Mexico.  “We reaffirm the necessity of strengthening the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) as a mechanism for regional political coordination based on the strict observance and defense of the principles of International Law.”
 
     At the opening of the Political Council, Cuban foreign minister Bruno Rodríguez called upon social movement organizations to influence their governments in opposition to another imperialist military adventure in the region; and in opposition to the unilateral coercive measures imposed by Washington on Venezuela, which have had serious consequences and have done humanitarian damage to the people of Venezuela.  Rodríguez further asserted that the power of articulation of our peoples and the role of the truth should not be underestimated.  He declared that “ALBA-TCP is and will be a nucleus of resistance that always will back the peoples of the region,” finding inspiration in the teachings and thought of Fidel and Chávez.
 
     During his intervention in the Political Council, Venezuelan foreign minister Jorge Arreaza observed that when the U.S. government invokes the anachronistic Monroe Doctrine, proclaimed in the second decade of the nineteenth century, it gives cause for alarm to the peoples and governments.  He asserted that, for the dominant elite, a process of liberation in the continent is unacceptable.  Diego Pary, foreign minister of the Plurinational Republic of Bolivia, affirmed that the people of Venezuela have consciousness and commitment to principles, and they therefore recognize and defend the constitutional government of President Nicolas Maduro; all of the peoples of the region, he declared, will know how to respond to the complex situation that the region confronts, characterized by threats to multilateralism and international law.
 
     Carlos Castaneda, foreign minister of El Salvador, stated that the unity of the progressive forces of the region will be an important element in confronting threats and aggressions against the development of the peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean.  Paul Osquit, representing Nicaragua, observed that Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua, in spite of having different political processes, are united in historic defense of the sovereignty and self-determination of the peoples, and in defense of their right to construct their political projects in accordance with their own decisions.  
 
     At the conclusion of the meeting, David Choquehanca, Executive Secretary of ALBA-TCP, observed that ALBA-TCP has to lift up its own identity on the basis of a decolonizing thought that permits a culture of life and of peace to prevail.  He asserted that one must assert and defend the noble road of integration, a road that seeks justice and truth and that values the “we” more than the “I.”  A road that struggles against neoliberalism, war, and the sacking of natural resources; and that defends the sovereignty of the nations against domination.
 
     ALBA was founded on December 14, 2004 by Cuba and Venezuela as the Bolivarian Alternative for the peoples of Our America.  Bolivia was incorporated into ALBA in 2009, at which time the name of the organization was changed to the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America-Commercial Treaty for the Peoples (ALBA-TCP).  ALBA-TCP now has eleven members.  In addition to Cuba, Venezuela, and Bolivia, they are Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Granada, Haiti, Nicaragua, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, St. Kitts and Nevis, and Surinam.  El Salvador also attended the Political Council as an invited country.
 
     ALBA seeks real integration, based in complementarity and solidarity above merely commercial interests.  In addition to coordinating political responses in defense of the principles of international law, ALBA has developed cooperative programs in health and education.  Millions of persons have received free medical services, with priority given to persons of limited resources, some of whom had never before received medical attention.  A cooperative literacy program has resulted in three members nations being declared free of illiteracy, namely, Venezuela (2005), Bolivia (2008), and Nicaragua (2009).  The Latin American School of Medicine, with branches in Cuba and Venezuela, has educated youth from many countries of Latin America, the Caribbean, and Africa, producing community doctors who not only have scientific and technical preparation but also humanitarian and ethical formation.  ALBA-TCP is working on a proposed Space of Interdependence, Sovereignty, and Economic Solidarity, through the resources of the Trade Agreement of the People, the Sucre (a regional currency for commercial exchanges between members of ALBA), and the Bank of ALBA.
 
     ALBA-TCP is an important dimension of the efforts of the last two decades to put into practice the historic Latin American vision of La Patria Grande and the classic Third World vision of South-South Cooperation.  See posts on these themes in the category Latin American Unity and the category Third World.  For the full text of the May 21 Declaration, go to Declaration of the XVIII Political Council of ALBA-TCP, May 21, 2019.

​Sources
 
Concepción Pérez, Elson.  2019.  “El ALBA, tan esperanzadora como necesaria,” Granma (May 22), P. 5.
 
Menéndez Quintero, Marina.  2019.  “ALBA-TCP reitera necesidad de defender la paz,” Juventud Rebelde (May 22), Pp. 4-5.
 
Mojena Milian, Bertha.  2019.  “América Latina y el Caribe en la hora del recuento y de la marcha unida contra las amenazas imperiales,” Granma (May 22), P. 4.
 
__________.  2019.  “El ALBA-TCP renueve el compromiso con la cooperación, la integración, y la defense de la unidad frente a la injerencia,” Granma (May 22), P. 1.

     In 1994, the economic war against the poor, known to economists as neoliberalism, had reached its most devastating consequences.  The world’s poor, robbed of the modest protections in their defense put in place by Third World national liberation governments, experienced new levels of lack and desperation; and the Left, the historic defender of the rights of the people, was confused and divided.
 
      However, two events during that year heralded a revival of a spirit of struggle among the peoples.  The renewal would change the political landscape over the next twenty years, bringing socialist and progressive movements to political power in Latin America, and changing the discourse of the international organizations of Third World governments, such as the Non-Aligned Movement and the G-77.  The first event was the Zapatista uprising in Mexico.  And the second was the emergence from prison of Hugo Chávez, released by the demand of the people, who admired his courage and commitment to principles, evident in his leadership of a failed coup d’état that sought to establish a new Constitution in Venezuela. 
                                                                                                                                       
     In December of that year, Chávez undertook his first trip to Cuba.  He had been a great admirer of the Cuban Revolution, but he had not previously met Fidel.  When he arrived in Cuba, he was surprised to find the leader of the Cuban Revolution waiting for him at the foot of the steps of the airplane.  Nicolás Maduro years later would describe their embrace as the encounter of two revolutions. 
 
      Ten years later, when the renewed social movements had established more favorable political conditions for the process of Latin American unity and integration, Fidel and Chávez founded the Bolivarian Alternative for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA for its initials in Spanish).  It was conceived as an alternative to the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA; in Spanish, ALCA), which was a U.S. proposal for a U.S.-directed integration that encompassed Latin America, the Caribbean, the USA, and Canada.  ALCA was never implemented, as it was blocked by the renewed popular movements and the emerging progressive governments of America, buried at the 2005 Summit of the Americas in Mar del Plata, Argentina (see “The fall of the FTAA” 3/7/2014 in the category Latin American Unity).
 
       Chávez previously, in 2001, had conceived of a Bolivarian alternative to the U.S. controlled project of integration, and he announced the idea at a meeting of the Association of Caribbean States in Margarita Island, Venezuela in December of that year.  Fidel enthusiastically supported the idea, and the two communicated in writing concerning the details.  They signed the joint declaration establishing ALBA on December 14, 2004 (see “The rise of ALBA” 3/11/2014 in the Category Latin American Unity).
 
      Bolivia was incorporated into ALBA in 2009.  The word “Alternative” became “Alliance,” and the name of the organization was changed to the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America-Commercial Treaty for the Peoples (ALBA-TCP). 
 
     ALBA-TCP now has eleven members.  In addition to the two founding nations and Bolivia, they are Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Ecuador, Nicaragua, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, St. Kitts and Nevis, and Grenada.
 
     ALBA celebrated its fourteenth anniversary with its Sixteenth Summit, held in Havana on December 14, 2108, issuing a Declaration entitled, “In Defense of Latin America and the Caribbean as a Zone of Peace.”  It declared the need for a new, more just world-system, in which the sovereignty of nations and the right of self-determination of peoples are respected.  “We reiterate our will to continue to promote the construction of a new democratic, just, inclusive, and equitable international order, in which there is genuine sovereign equality among states and respect for the self-determination of peoples; an order that promotes cooperation and multilateralism.”
 
      The Declaration rejects “interventionism” in the internal affairs of states.  And it rejects “unilateral coercive actions,” by which it means actions undertaken by a single powerful state against governments of which it does not approve, without consultation or dialogue with other states, and with the intention of creating such economic hardship and political instability that the targeted state would be forced to abandon its political-economic project.  Examples of such unilateral coercive actions include the long-standing U.S. economic, commercial, and financial blockade of Cuba.  And they include the economic war against Venezuela and the destabilization campaign against Nicaragua, both unleashed by the U.S. government with the cooperation of local actors with particular economic interests.  The Declaration insists that such unilateral coercive actions violate the United Nations Charter and International Law. 
 
      The Declaration calls for the unity of the Latin American and Caribbean nations.  It maintains that unity and cooperation will enhance their capacity to resist such unilateral coercive measures and “to confront the interference and domination historically imposed by the hegemonic global powers.”
 
      The Declaration specifically rejects the coercive measures taken against Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Cuba.  It especially expresses concern with the threats of the use of force against Venezuela, in opposition to the Proclamation of Latin America and the Caribbean as a Zone of Peace, emitted by the Summit of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States celebrated in Havana on January 28-29, 2014.  It rejects the interventionist policy of the Organization of American States (OAS) with respect to Venezuela, Nicaragua, and other countries.  It expresses solidarity with Lula Da Silva, a political prisoner in Brazil.  It supports the just and historic right of Bolivia to sovereign access to the sea, and it calls upon Chile and Bolivia to reinitiate dialogue, within the framework of the judgment of the International Court.  It supports the Caribbean countries in their demand for compensation for the genocide of the native population and the horrors of slavery and the slave trade.  It reaffirms commitment to confront climate change, which is a consequence of the irrational and unsustainable models of production and consumption of the capitalist system.
 
     In his address at the inauguration of the Sixteenth Summit, Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel reviewed the history ALBA, and he summarized its works during the past fourteen years.  Namely, more than eleven thousand doctors in the countries of ALBA have been educated in Cuba and Venezuela; more than two million persons have had eye surgeries; and more than four million have been taught to read. Moreover, through just payments for petroleum, income was made available for investments in social development, agriculture, fishing, industry, and infrastructure.  Furthermore, following the January 12, 2010 earthquake in Haiti, the countries of ALBA approved a plan of action to contribute to reconstruction.  In addition, ALBA has developed concrete projects to increase the potential of member countries with respect to food, the environment, science and technology, just commerce, culture, education, energy, industry, mining, health, telecommunications, transportation, and tourism.
 
     Díaz-Canel also maintained that ALBA has become a moral and political power in the region, standing in support of countries under attack by the global powers, and condemning interventionist measures.  ALBA played an important role, for example, in the 2008 reversal by the Organization of American States of its infamous 1962 suspension of Cuba.  In a similar vein, Ralph Gonsalvez, Prime Minister of St. Vincent and the Grenadines, pointed out that the weight attained by the positions of ALBA in the international political context has impeded, up to now, military intervention in Venezuela by the United States.
 
     We live in an epoch of a sustained structural crisis of the world-system (see “The terminal crisis of the world-system” 3/28/2014).  The global elite first discerned the signs of the global crisis during the 1970s, and in subsequent decades, it acted decisively in defense of its interests, imposing the neoliberal project on the peoples of the world (see “What are the origins of neoliberalism?” 6/17/2016) and launching wars of aggression in the Middle East.  In resistance, humanity has lifted up social movements in defense of itself, stimulating the renewal of the Third World project of national and social liberation and the coming to political power of progressive and socialist movements in Latin America (see various posts in the category Third World).  In reaction to the revitalized cry of the peoples, the U.S. power elite and the Latin American Right have adopted new strategies (see various posts in the category Latin American Right), which have led to a turn to the Right by the governments of Argentina and Brazil and the fall of the Citizen Revolution in Ecuador.  Now, the U.S. government in cooperation with the Latin American Right undertakes new efforts at destabilization in Venezuela and Nicaragua.  In this context, the principles and good works of ALBA constitute an important declaration, in theory and practice, of the necessary road for humanity. 
 
     Fidel taught that “no one has the right to lose faith in the future of humanity.” If we are to follow this teaching, we must believe that a more just, democratic, and sustainable world-system is possible.  From a framework grounded in this faith, we can see the significance of ALBA.  ALBA is not, after all, merely a protest of concerned or enraged citizens, organized by popular leaders who have been called by a commitment to social justice.  More than this, ALBA is a protest made by governments, and it is a protest informed by historical consciousness and theoretical analysis, and accompanied by practical steps toward implementation of its vision.  Moreover, ALBA is part of an international effort to construct an alternative, more just, and sustainable world order, undertaken by the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), the Non-Aligned Movement, the G-77 plus China, and key nations, including China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia, and Nicaragua (see various posts in the category Third World).  This international movement is empirically evident, and all who are capable of setting aside a framework grounded in cynicism can see it.  Furthermore, this global movement from below is emerging during a time in which the capitalist world-economy is increasingly making evident its economic, financial, and ecological unsustainability; its inherent political instability; and its underlying barbarity.

Posted March 4, 2014

     The Second Summit of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC for its initials in Spanish) was held on January 28-29, 2014, in Havana, Cuba, marking the conclusion of Cuba’s presidency of the organization.  CELAC consists of the governments of the 33 nations of Latin America and the Caribbean.  The presidency rotates annually, with the first three held by Venezuela, Chile, and Cuba, and the next two to be held by Costa Rica and Ecuador.  

      CELAC 2014 represents a further development of the renewal of the nineteenth century Latin American concept of the federation of the Latin American republics or their union into a single nation, “La Patria Grande.”  It was an idea that was central to the process of Latin American independence from Spanish colonial rule, which occurred from 1810 to 1824. 

     The Latin American revolution of 1810-24 sought not only independence from Spain but also envisioned a republican society characterized by equality, in which the democratic rights and human needs of humble people of modest resources, including indigenous peoples and persons of African descent, would be addressed.  The revolution envisioned a profound social transformation, including the abolition of slavery, the elimination of large plantations and the distribution of land through agrarian reform, the development of national industry, and the protection of indigenous communal lands (López 2009:25, 38-39).

     The Latin American revolution sought a true sovereignty for the new republics, and it believed that true independence would be best protected through their union in the form of a federation of Latin American republics or the formation of a single nation.  In 1824, Simón Bolívar emitted a call for a Congress that would establish an assembly that: would be formed exclusively by republics that had been Spanish colonies; would be a permanent association of a supranational character with permanent institutions; would recognize the borders formed during the colonial process as establishing the frontiers of the independent republics; and would be a commercial and military confederation.  The conference was held in Panama in 1826, with representatives from Colombia (which then included Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, and Panama), Peru (then Peru and Bolivia), Central America (then Guatemala, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Honduras) and Mexico.   The delegations met for three weeks and produced a treaty with 32 articles, providing a foundation for Latin American confederation.  However, the governments of Peru, Central America, and Mexico did not ratify the treaty.  It was undermined by the lack of support by the Latin American estate bourgeoisie and by the open opposition of England and the United States, which will be discussed further in the next post (López 2009:51-55, 121; Guerra 2006:149-59).


References

Guerra Vilaboy, Sergio.  2006.  “Antecedentes históricos de la Alternativa Bolivariana para la América” in Contexto Latinoamericano: Revista de Análisis Político, No. 1 (Sept.-Dec.), Pp. 149-62.

López, Horacio A.  2009.  Anfictionía en América: La lucha por la Patria Grande en el siglo XIX.  Habana: Ediciones CEA.


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, Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, CELAC

Posted March 5, 2014

     The political independence of the Latin American republics was attained definitively in 1824 with a decisive military defeat of the Spanish army in Ayacucho.  However, after 1824 the newly independent republics were not able to unify, integrate or federate, nor were they able to carry out the profound social transformation that revolutionary leaders had envisioned.  The agreements attained at the Panama Congress of 1826 (see “The Dream of La Patria Grande” 3/4/2014) were never ratified by the respective governments. 

      The failure of union and integration was a consequence of the pursuit of particular interests by powerful actors.  Throughout the region, revolutionary leaders encountered opposition from the local estate bourgeoisie, owners of large tracts of land who utilized systems of forced and super-exploited labor to export raw materials to the core nations.  The local estate bourgeoisie not only was able to prevent federation and unity; it was able to facilitate disintegration and fragmentation of the colonial provinces, leaving a greater number of smaller and therefore weaker states.  Political fragmentation was in the interest of local elites, inasmuch as it facilitated greater local control.  Local elites were supported in this by the United States, since smaller and weaker states were more beneficial for U.S. designs to economically penetrated the region, the possibilities for which were greatly enhanced with the collapse of Spanish colonialism (López 2009:52, 55-59, 83-84; Guerra 2006:149-59).

     For the Cuban scholar Roberto Regalado, there was not an adequate economic basis for the implementation of the revolutionary ideal of integration and union (2007:108).  The principal economic activity was raw materials exportation to the core, with land concentrated in the hands of a small but powerful estate bourgeoisie, which had an interest in the preservation of the core-peripheral relation (see “The modern world-economy” 8/2/2013).  Urban manufacturing was limited, and the domestic market was weak.  There was limited commerce within the region, and a limited transportation infrastructure to facilitate this commerce.  Therefore, the economic conditions to sustain the ideal of integration were not present.  Neither did the political conditions for union exist:  once the war against Spain was won, the landed estate bourgeoisie was no longer constrained by the need to enlist popular support for the independence struggle, and it could act decisively to protect its interests in opposition to the interests of the popular classes and sectors. 

     Although deferred, the dream did not die.  The concept of Latin American union and integration as a strategy for social transformation and true independence was taken up by a number of Latin American political leaders and intellectuals during the second half of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth, most notably the Cuban revolutionary José Martí (López 2009:81-116).  But the economic and political conditions that would make possible the implementation of such a vision were not present. 

    Pan-Americanism emerged in the 1880s, and it represented a contrasting concept of American union under U.S. direction.  A Pan-American system was first proposed by James Blaine, Secretary of State during the presidency of Benjamin Harrison (1889-93).  “It was the start of a long-term strategy to convert the Latin American governments and peoples into co-participants in the domination exercised over them” (Regalado 2007:123).  Twelve Inter-American conferences were convened from 1889 to 1942, but there was considerable resistance by Latin American governments to the Pan-American project.  However, following World War II, with the attainment of hegemonic maturity, the United States was able obtain the cooperation of Latin American governments in forming in 1948 the Organization of American States (OAS).  On the basis of a 1954 anti-communist declaration of the OAS, socialist Cuba was expelled from the organization in 1961 (Regalado 2007:123-27; see “Pan-Americanism and OAS” 10/2/2013).

    For the most part, however, OAS was not highly effective as an instrument of neocolonial domination, which was imposed unilaterally by the United States on the region, country by country.  On the other hand, the Organization of American States never functioned as a forum for a challenge by the governments of Latin America and the Caribbean to U.S. imperialism and neocolonial domination.  And it served a legitimating function in relation to U.S. unilateral imposition of neocolonial rule.

     Following 1980, under the impact of the emerging dynamics of the relative decline of the United States and the structural crisis of the world-system, the United States began to act aggressively in pursuit of its short-term interests, imposing the neoliberal project on Latin America.  This would deepen the poverty of the popular sectors and would undermine the position of the national bourgeoisie, giving rise to a retaking of the idea of Latin American unity and integration, as we will discuss in subsequent posts.


References

Guerra Vilaboy, Sergio.  2006.  “Antecedentes históricos de la Alternativa Bolivariana para la América” in Contexto Latinoamericano: Revista de Análisis Político, No. 1 (Sept.-Dec.), Pp. 149-62.

López, Horacio A.  2009.  Anfictionía en América: La lucha por la Patria Grande en el siglo XIX.  Habana: Ediciones CEA.

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

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, Organization of American States, OAS, Pan-Americanism

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