Magnus Linton | Monroe dead or alive

I The New Republic skriver Jorge Castañeda, författaren till den lysande Utopia Unarmed - The Latin American Left After the Cold War, en intressant artikel om effekterna av att USA nu helt slutat att intressera sig för den kontinentala grannen i syd: "It has grown increasingly difficult for certain regimes to blame Washington for their failures. From Venezuela to Argentina to Bolivia, populist governments have pursued economic and social policies, as well as geopolitical alliances, that can scarcely help their people. When these policies inevitably fail, these governments won’t be able to replicate the rhetorical trickery of the Cubans or the Sandinistas. They cannot hold Washington responsible for their setbacks. At best, they can argue that the peasants in the Andes are still hungry because of the presence of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, but that is not an easy sell."

Castañeda har klivit rätt långt högerut på sistone o hans tonart börjar kännas igen, så den som vill ha lite bra motvikt i ett besläktat men annat ärende kan läsa Greg Grandins essä Muscling Latin America i The Nation: "The anchor of this condensed Monroe Doctrine is Plan Colombia. Heading into the eleventh year of what was planned to phase out after five, Washington's multibillion-dollar military aid package has failed to stem the flow of illegal narcotics into the United States. More Andean coca was synthesized into cocaine in 2008 than in 1998, and the drug's retail price is significantly lower today, adjusted for inflation, than it was a decade ago. But Plan Colombia is not really about drugs; it is the Latin American edition of GCOIN, or Global Counterinsurgency, the current term used by strategists to downplay the religious and ideological associations of George W. Bush's bungled 'global war on terror' and focus on a more modest program of extending state rule over 'lawless' or 'ungoverned spaces,' in GCOIN parlance."

Permalänk:

Läs kommentarer

Kommentera

Kommentarer

Skrivet av Dan 2010-03-05 17:26

Zapata, Kuba, Lula

På omvägar - nämligen genom en sammanfattning på engelska av den gångna veckans tyska kultursidor och diverse bloggar (tydligen också vissa franska sådana) - läste jag det här:

"We let Zapata die," writes Renaud Revel in his media blog Express. The case of the Cuban dissident Orlando Zapata, who died after 85 days of hunger strike, interested no one in Germany. He belonged to a large group of dissidents, who were thrown into prison by the caudillo of the tropical dictatorship. In prison Zapato's term was extended to 36 years without trial. "Zapata's hunger strike attracted almost no attention. Of course we knew not to expect anything from Chavez. But other Latin American leaders, who are familiar with the insdide of a prison cell, could have intervened. But no. The popular Lula refused to meet political prisoners on his visit to Cuba. Shame on him."

Den engelska sammanfattningen av tyska tidningar finner man här: http://www.signandsight.com/intodaysfeuilletons/2000.html

Skrivet av Atw 2010-03-10 00:59

dsdd

''From Venezuela to Argentina to Bolivia, populist governments have pursued economic and social policies, as well as geopolitical alliances, that can scarcely help their people.''

Alltså, man kan ju absolut diskutera både Argentina och Venezuela (särskilt då Venezuela). Men det ekonomiska läget i Bolivia är väl ganska stabilt i jämförelse med de flesta andra Sydamerikanska länder? När jag var i Peru för några månader sedan så kunde jag läsa rätt ofta i landets högerpress motvilliga erkännanden att Morales för en ''ansvarig budgetpolitik'' osv. Landet fick ju även beröm av IMF för sin krispolitik osv. Korruptionen har minskat i landet (enligt Transparency International), de sociala programmen verkar vara ganska framgångsrika, infrastruktur byggs ut etc. Och ingen vet ju vad som kommer hända i framtiden, med litium i salar de Uyuni osv. Än så länge verkar väl Evo klara sig bra? Vad baserar han sin negativa tankar kring Bolivia på?