James Petras says:

"The current impasse facing Morales,imposed by his unwilling “partners”, poses a serious dilemma for his regime and his international allies (Venezuela and Cuba): If the reformist program is not viable, should he further dilute his “nationalist” agenda and retain the semblance of a “progressive regime” or should he radicalize his program, drawing on the support of his international allies in a deeper continental confrontation?"

I think he should hold his ground, re-consider his goals in terms of the current lay of the land, and play his cards real slow. Rely on the Venezuelan axis beneath the table as much as possible, and go into debt if necessary to help the long suffering campesinos, and continue to stress the moderate and reasonable nature of his economic reforms. If I was him, I'd hire the best PR firm on Madison avenue.

If the quiet co-operation shown to Venezuela by China and Iran and others includes such considerations as Silkworm missiles, America may have other reasons than an overstretched military to reconsider invasion plans in the southern hemisphere.

The whole article starts with the assumption that the status of Latin America can be adequately described as "polarities" with Cuba/Venezuela/Bolivia on one side, and everyone else on the other, the latter being the "New Right-Free Market" side.

I think that is a device to difive the world into good guys and bad guys. For example, calling Lula and the Chilean Socialist government of Bachelet "new right" obscures the fact that they are attempting a middle way, and simply don't agree with the polarization model which Petras is trying to use.

Bachelet, for example, was the "left" candidate in Chile, at least of those with the slightest possibility of governing. Similarly, placing Vicente Fox, ex president of Coca Cola Mexico, in the same basket as Lula, is an oversimplification.

quote:

---

The “New Right-Free Market” advocates include the Lula regime in Brazil, the outgoing President Fox in Mexico, five Central American regimes, the Vazquez government in Uruguay, the Uribe “State Terrorist” regime in Colombia, the Bachelet and soon-to-depart Toledo governments in Chile and Peru.

---

I agree with almost everything you say, but I was personally surprised by the Petras essay. It seemed to me to be rather more nuanced than usual, and I found myself in agreement with a lot of it.

I would say that it is more an attempt to divide Latin America into "bad guys" and "kinda ok guys". The division he makes is certainly arbitrary (I agree that it is inaccurate to lump Lula, Bachelet and Fox together). But he falls quite short of defining the Venezuela-Bolivia-Cuba axis as "good guys":

quote:

---

The first point of clarification is over the nature of the nationalist measures adopted by President Chavez of Venezuela and President Morales of Bolivia. Both regimes have not abolished most of the essential elements of capitalist production, namely private profits, foreign ownership, profit repatriation, market access or supply of gas, energy or other primary goods, nor have they outlawed future foreign investments.

---

And

quote:

---

In other words, if the international polarization is not backed by internal redistributive policies affecting wealth and assets of the very rich, both in Venezuela and Bolivia, strategically important popular sectors necessary for support in any serious international confrontations could be alienated. Grandiose international gestures, humanitarian solidarity and anti-imperialist policies are no substitute for deepening internal structural changes and meeting essential domestic demands for housing, jobs and higher salaries.

---

Disappointing though it may be, the fact is that inter-governmental relations in Latin America are mostly driven by "national interests", defined in rather conventional terms.

Perhaps the clearest indication of this is the difference between Chávez's reaction to the re-election of Álvaro Uribe ("Tenemos diferencias que algunas veces han sido hasta públicas, pero siempre, por teléfono y reuniones (directas), vamos trabajando juntos") and his reaction to the election of Alan García ("Que fue electo (García) lo reconocemos, no lo aplaudimos, por supuesto, nosotros sí tenemos vergüenza ...").

Evo Morales, who did congratulate García for winning, went rather further in congratulating Uribe, who he described as being "associated with democracy": perhaps, he suggested, "neoliberalism is a solution for Colombia". (Citation here in Spanish)

Meanwhile, Chile has been positively fawning over García, while Lula sent his presidential plane to fly García to Brasilia for a chat.

You would never tell from all of this that Uribe is generally considered Bush's staunchest Latin American ally while García is, at best, ambiguous. But looked at through the lens of the various national economies, it makes perfect sense. (Of course, there is also a personal element to the mutual dislike of Chávez and García.)

I don't think he is used to the new ways of doing revolutions, whereas constitutional means coupled with bold use of the state are used to overturn the social order.

For what it's worth, I think his analysis of Venezuela is pretty good. Indeed Venezuela's relationship with Colombia is at least interesting. Peruvians have also not forgotten the curious incidents surrounding Vladimiro Montesinos' stay in Venezuela. But there is a great deal of pragmatic thinking about the former, and the latter is probably more a reflection of the historical links between the Venezuelan and Peruvian secret services.

For another view on politica change in Latin America, and specifically the "good left / bad left" meme that is floating around, see Max Cameron's article in the Guardian's blog, Comment Is Free.

ETA: last sentence of first paragraph
And again: to fix the URL.

[ 21 June 2006: Message edited by: rici ]