Left turn ahead?
It seems very interesting that while we in the North (Canada, the US, a lot of Europe) make increasing moves towards the right, infusing (in the case of Canada) greater doses of capitalism into our psuedo-Socialist system, our cohorts to the South seem to push further and further left in their political ideals.
While our nine wise red-robed sages make the dangerous decision to strike down the ban on public healthcare and Stephan Harper practically ejaculates with glee, Latin American politics and populations appear to be realising the deadly effects privatisation can have on cities and citizens. In Bolivia (named, incidentally, after great liberation leader Simon Boilvar and location of the murder of Ernesto "Che" Guevara) president Carlos Mesa was forced to resign last week after 3 weeks of protests paralysed the capital city of La Paz and even resulted in the shut down of the cities airport.
Why all the fuss?
The protesters are demanding that the Bolivian government nationalise the energy sector, keeping the vast natural gas reserves in the hands of the people, as opposed to the clutches of the greedy multinats that already populate large parts of the country. In October if 1999 the Bolivian government passed a law allowing the privatisation of water reserves in the country, which saw prices of residential water supply rise 400%. Massive protests against the French owned company Suez Lyonnaise des Eaux and the resignation of then president Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada saw the mostly indigenous protesters in Bolivia achieve some measure of success. Now the radical indigenous residents of El Alto, a mountainous town just outside the captial city of La Paz are at it again, demanding nationalisation in another important sector.
No surprise, then, that US State department statements place the blame squarely on leftist Latino leader Hugo Chavez, climing that his involvment spells doom for Bolivia and "democracy" (read: capitalism) in the region. Reports have stated that the State department is willing to intervene should they see any attempts to dismantle "democracy" (read: free market capitalism) in Bolivia. Interesting to note on that point that as well as being Latin America;s poorest country, Bolivia is also the areas most corrupt. Governments have successively passed legislation and signed contracts (including present ones with foreign oil companies) without the support of Congress, let alone the Bolivian population. The question ought to be, how can one dismantle democracy where none exists?
While racism is rampant, to the point of many hotels and swimming pools not admitting entry to Indigenous persons, the US State department has stated that the problem in Bolivia is not a matter of foreign multinational corporations getting rich off of Bolivian natural resources, or of the massive racial divide and discrimination against the Indigenous majority in the colonised country, nor even the continued meddling of the International Monetary Fund (Bolivia was the testing ground for the IMF's new liberalisation "shock therapy" project in te mid eighties).
No.
The problem, according to US State Department reports, is a matter of poor policy surrounding private property rights.
Have you ever had one of those moments where you realise that the person you are talking to is just not on the same wavelength as you at all? Like you are both talking about two totally different things.
At any rate, this movement by Bolivias Inidgenous majority seems indicative of recent moves in Latin America - many nations in the region seem to be moving (back?) to some sort of socialist or leftist political standpoint. While we in the wealthy and consumer driven north make moves towards ever greater privatisation and erosion of the public system, Latin America drives forward into the leftist future on an almost yearly basis.
The story of the Bolivian Indigenous movement ought to be a motivating force for Canada's First Nations population as well.
In other news of interesting happenings to the South... The first Retiremoent home for elderly prostitutes is slated to open in a few short months in Mexico City.
While our nine wise red-robed sages make the dangerous decision to strike down the ban on public healthcare and Stephan Harper practically ejaculates with glee, Latin American politics and populations appear to be realising the deadly effects privatisation can have on cities and citizens. In Bolivia (named, incidentally, after great liberation leader Simon Boilvar and location of the murder of Ernesto "Che" Guevara) president Carlos Mesa was forced to resign last week after 3 weeks of protests paralysed the capital city of La Paz and even resulted in the shut down of the cities airport.
Why all the fuss?
The protesters are demanding that the Bolivian government nationalise the energy sector, keeping the vast natural gas reserves in the hands of the people, as opposed to the clutches of the greedy multinats that already populate large parts of the country. In October if 1999 the Bolivian government passed a law allowing the privatisation of water reserves in the country, which saw prices of residential water supply rise 400%. Massive protests against the French owned company Suez Lyonnaise des Eaux and the resignation of then president Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada saw the mostly indigenous protesters in Bolivia achieve some measure of success. Now the radical indigenous residents of El Alto, a mountainous town just outside the captial city of La Paz are at it again, demanding nationalisation in another important sector.
No surprise, then, that US State department statements place the blame squarely on leftist Latino leader Hugo Chavez, climing that his involvment spells doom for Bolivia and "democracy" (read: capitalism) in the region. Reports have stated that the State department is willing to intervene should they see any attempts to dismantle "democracy" (read: free market capitalism) in Bolivia. Interesting to note on that point that as well as being Latin America;s poorest country, Bolivia is also the areas most corrupt. Governments have successively passed legislation and signed contracts (including present ones with foreign oil companies) without the support of Congress, let alone the Bolivian population. The question ought to be, how can one dismantle democracy where none exists?
While racism is rampant, to the point of many hotels and swimming pools not admitting entry to Indigenous persons, the US State department has stated that the problem in Bolivia is not a matter of foreign multinational corporations getting rich off of Bolivian natural resources, or of the massive racial divide and discrimination against the Indigenous majority in the colonised country, nor even the continued meddling of the International Monetary Fund (Bolivia was the testing ground for the IMF's new liberalisation "shock therapy" project in te mid eighties).
No.
The problem, according to US State Department reports, is a matter of poor policy surrounding private property rights.
Have you ever had one of those moments where you realise that the person you are talking to is just not on the same wavelength as you at all? Like you are both talking about two totally different things.
At any rate, this movement by Bolivias Inidgenous majority seems indicative of recent moves in Latin America - many nations in the region seem to be moving (back?) to some sort of socialist or leftist political standpoint. While we in the wealthy and consumer driven north make moves towards ever greater privatisation and erosion of the public system, Latin America drives forward into the leftist future on an almost yearly basis.
The story of the Bolivian Indigenous movement ought to be a motivating force for Canada's First Nations population as well.
In other news of interesting happenings to the South... The first Retiremoent home for elderly prostitutes is slated to open in a few short months in Mexico City.
posted by elise at 4:03 PM
<< Home