Looming Large
In Latin America, Left-wing and anti-American leader Evo Morales was elected President of Bolivia by a substantial margin. According to the International Herald Tribune:
Morales, 46, an Aymara Indian and former coca farmer who also promises to roll back American-prescribed economic changes, had garnered up to 51 percent of the vote, according to televised quick-count polls, which tally a sample of votes at polling places and are considered highly accurate.
Publius Pundit, a blog that closely watches developments in Latin America says it wasn't even close. "There was nothing fraudulent about it, and voter turnout was an amazing 80%. Bolivians who are celebrating this are happy because Morales is the first-ever indigenous Aymara president the nation has ever had. For people who have been shut out from the existing system, for whatever reason, it’s a great step forward to see one of their own in the highest office in the land." In These Times has an interview with Evo Morales in which he claims that he is 'like Che' except that he doesn't believe in the armed struggle. Marc Cooper argues that Morales, as well as the ascent of left wing leaders in Brazil and Venezuela, portend the end of the Washington Consensus' in Latin America characterized by "free enterprise, free trade, a rollback of the state and social services, a sort of trickle-down economics for export". Cooper asks whether this is cause for jubilation -- or alarm. Indeed, Morales is likely to go down the same road as Hugo Chavez, who is rapidly ruining the very Venezuelan economy he promised to rescue from the oligarchs.
Commentary
Politics in the Third World has long been principally a synonym for plunder. The sole variation from this boring theme lay in finding new and innovative alibis under which to commit the intended looting. Throughout the 1990s traditional elites operated under the banner of the free trade, economic liberalization and privatization -- while doing nothing like that. Each time, the local elites were at pains to emphasize their theft was at the behest; indeed the compulsion of international lending institutions. Though economics in the Third World very often consisted of banditry planned locally; it was always attributed internationally, preferably to Washington; and for decades no one was overly concerned at this sickening charade because these dens of corruption were distant from the centers of world power. Until September 11.
While radical Islam is the best known form of chaos from the Third World it was merely the worst -- but not the only -- form of dysfunction. There were many other countries where things simply didn't work, and where their overlords made a career of covering their crimes by claiming subservience to an 'international' program, as simple misdirection. The post-colonial world fell to pieces in a million ways; united only in a single, agreed-upon scapegoat: the USA. Chavez can be depended on to destroy his own country; as did Castro and as probably, will Evo Morales. Yet in the end, they too, will attribute their failings to America. What's needed is some way to make each nation consciously responsible for its own destiny. Whether in Iraq or elsewhere, that's the only way to go.
posted by wretchardthecat at 12/19/2005 05:10:00 AM
64 Comments:
What's needed is some way to make each nation consciously responsible for its own destiny. Whether in Iraq or elsewhere, that's the only way to go.
start with palestine...
"Responsible"?
What type of strange delusion is this? Why would any third world leader even deign to attempt to be responsible?
Nothing could be further away from their individual goals. Plunder and steal, that's the way to personal success - and the rest of the country can just 'lump it'.
Great read, W.
I fear that Chavez, Morales and their ilk are merely emulating their models in the West. The Western variant of such thievery thrives because it preys on basically healthy, robust, productive, and primarily capitalistic societies. A Jesse Jackson can promote all sorts of transfer-of-payments schemes because also he can use his influence to secure sweetheart deals for himself and his friends in the real economy. When there is no robust economy and strong nation to prop up absurd ideas, the result is disaster.
Parasites don’t do well without a host.
In one sense it is “our” fault that the Chavez’s and Morales of the world come to power; when we allow their counterparts to thrive here, we are providing bad examples.
And please note. The persons of the year according to Time magazine are those who have become best at giving away Capitalist money to prop up Third World failures.
The politics of victimhood (always blame others to deflect the reality of your own self inflicted failings) is almost as destructive as islam and communism.
I think part of the problem has always been that we assumed other people could as easily get rid of their deadwood leaders as we are able to shuffle off our own. It's that respect thing, where we would never presume to tell someone else how to live their lives, as long as they are not infringing upon us.
As we've seen repeatedly, however, with Iraq a sterling example, these people are *not* able to do it on their own. For whatever reason, a country of millions can be terrorized by a strongman and 20 murderers.
I'm not terribly interested in educating, civilizing, introducing the concepts of democracy and capitalism, and physically over-throwing every tinpot dictator in the world. It's expensive and it really stretches the definition of being a Good World Citizen.
In Zimbabwe right now, we have a country that has been so raped by its leader, its citizens are eating grass ... and they *still* seem unable to do anything about getting rid of him.
I don't want the U.S. to become responsible for these countries. It's simply not within our purview. If the UN were even partially functional, defining and intereceding would be a good role for that organization. But I think to (once again) nominate "Washington, DC" as the end-all, be-all Cop of the World is a mistake.
The world wants us to be more multi-lateral? Well, wouldn't this be a good place to start?
Here are a couple of good papers on Bolivia that provide some background. This one from the International Crisis Group, and this one (PDF) from the CSIS.
About 35 years ago, I spent close to two years backpacking through Latin America including Bolivia and Peru. This election brings forth a number of issues (some touched upon by other commenters) including race, class distinction, politics, economics. The indigenous people of Latin America have traditionally been screwed over by their Ladino ‘elite’ who, by and large, have failed their countries miserably. This is a general truism over most of Latin America with the possible exceptions of Chile and Costa Rica. The term Ladino is used most often in Central America but the term applies to the south as well.
I don’t know much about Morales but he strikes me as more naïve than malicious (as compared to Chavez) but this still doesn’t bode well for Bolivia. For what it’s worth, Bolivia has always been an economic and political basket case, even by Latin American standards. I traveled through Bolivia shortly after a 1971 coup – even Peruvians (hardly a politically mature country) used to joke about Bolivia. One editorial cartoon noted the new Bolivian record (to those old enough to remember vinyl) that played at 33 1/3 revolutions per second.
It’s somewhat ironic that Morales election comes just as I’m reading the Guide to the Perfect Latin American Idiot (see Amazon link below). The authors must be rolling their eyes and thinking “here we go again”. It’s all so sad, the Aymara Indian population deserves better and Bolivians at large deserve better.
BTW – although I haven’t yet finished the Guide to the Perfect Latin American Idiot, I highly recommend it. This election and its aftermath will likely deserve an addendum to the book.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/156833236X/qid=1135003974/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-1022074-9776837?n=507846&s=books&v=glance
There is nothing we first-worlders can do about the problems of Latin America because the problems are rooted in the basic character of these latin societies. The corruption of the latest wave of leaders is just another version of the corruption of earlier leaders. This is nothing new.
We heirs of anglo-saxon tradition and culture have a strong aversion to tyranny and a tradition of individualism that spurs us to demand that our leaders not be corrupt and is basically incompatible with collectivism. We won't stand for public officials that demand bribes or for government infringements on property rights. This is not the case in the latin world. And there is nothing we can do to change that. Nothing.
And, what do we care if they want to blame things on us? They will do it whether we like it or not because it assuages their sense of inferiority. That is none of our concern, however. We cant', and don't need to, "make each nation consciously responsible for its own destiny." We have not been appointed keepers of the global conscience, you know. These other countries are as responsible for their own destinies as we are for ours. They were backward, corrupt societies in the past and they will be in the future. It's the nature of their national characters and their economic situations will not change until their character changes.
Past US of A hegemony in the Banana Republics pales in comparison to the likes of Hugo Chavez who is busy radicalizing the region of South America. One can draw an arc from Havana to Caracas only to see where this vector of nihilism will tally its’ dues. His art is easily seen in its’ elegance and its’ innate utility. One is reminded of the colonialism of the Republic of Iran and their regional hegemony. Oil in both cases will ensure that the new crypto-fascist insurrection will leave many a pregnant widows.
What can the followers of Che’ expect to learn if not the necessity of craven murder when it strengthens the social state against the chaos of capitalistic individualism?
I can hardly wait for the T-shirts.
"Though economics in the Third World very often consisted of banditry planned locally; it was always attributed internationally, preferably to Washington..."
Many people will assume that the Westerners who collaborated damagingly in this, to the extent there were any, were working for private corporations. My own experience however was that the ones who did so most cynically in furtherance of their own careers were in fact the people from the World Bank and the IFC. The ones who flew in briefly to the developing country where I was working as an economist quickly proved that they had zero concern for the impact on the country or its citizens. They had quotas to meet and all they wanted was to get back on the plane with signed documents.
The people who worked for Western corporations were in contrast much more concerned about the long term or at least medium term impact of what they were doing. Not hard to understand why - at least it was their corporation's own money they were committing, often for periods of many years. I never saw World bank or other aid agency personnel treat the money they were spending 'as if it was their own' (except when it came to their expense account practices).
I realize your main point is that politicians in these countries routinely invent the US bogeyman where he doesn't exist, as do US and EU academics, which is true enough. I feel I should point out though that the reality is even worse, in that they have been actively assisted by ghastly transnational bureaucracies of our own making and which we still pay to support.
The counter-example that should be recognized is the success of the Asian economies. Note: All the successful economies did not elect socialists or marxists. All the successful asian nations are almost wholly commited to the free market(well, more or less), and understand the advantages of capitalism, state or otherwise.
With all that evidence, why do people still think otherwise? There are none so blind as those who would not see.
Mark and Sirius Sir: Aside from the apparantly to-be-eternal problem of failed states and all that implies, in the case of Bolivia, the proposal to make Coca growing legal has serious implications - and not just for the U.S.
Given the problem that unrestricted Coca production will present to the U.S, and other countries, Morales essentially proporses to ally himself with crimminals.
Currently U.S. and Bolivian Coca eradication efforts are cooperative. A few miles from where I sit is the HQ of the Department of State Air Wing (did you know that DOS had an Air Force?) that supports this effort. But eradication efforts do not have to be cooperative. Napalm will work at least as well as herbicides - and DoD has a much more effective and vastly larger "Air Wing." The potential consquences for Bolivia will be, shall we say, rather serious.
excellent post and comments all. picking up on wildmonk's points and mark's view that nothing can be done, evenif that were true i would settle for those in the first world achieving that understanding. a wildnmonk suggests, the contrary opinion serves as a serious drag on our own economies in many ways.
the world bank has just released a highly revealing report on development as reported here: http://www.reason.com/rb/rb121605.shtml.
rwe
The US cannot come to terms with the situation in Syria and Iran. The idea that we would be about to stage airstrikes in Bolivia is funny. Do we strike at the cocca fields before or after the Iranian centrifuges.
How large a Global War do you envision?
The US has but shut down the MONEY that supports the Bolivian Army, presto chango there will be a new Government in La Paz.
The country in the tri borders region, well that could be up for grabs. Chavez did not buy those 100,000 AK's to collect dust and rust in an arms room.
Funding for Revolution comes via oil & cocaine purchases in the US.
Gear up for the
"new & improved" War on Drugs.
The major economic challenge in the undeveloped world is
PROPERTY RIGHTS
Title to their property is not available to the majority of the disenfranchised. Squatters rights are all they have or are permitted to have, in most locales. Even after decades of residency. Property Rights would be foremost on the list of ways to improve the "lot" of many.
Foxenburg:
"Bolivia, named after independence fighter Simon BOLIVAR, broke away from Spanish rule in 1825; much of its subsequent history has consisted of a series of nearly 200 coups and counter-coups"
Perhaps not quite 33 1/3 RPM but not too far off.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/bl.html
Desert Rat:
Re: Property rights - you are bang on the money. Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto has written extensively on this topic. Here is an article on de Soto but I expect you are already familiar with him.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/grewell200310091025.asp
I wonder if it is time to legalize drugs? I have always been an opponent of that, but from a practical aspect, it would do away with a lot of the problems, both domestically and internationally. How profitable would cocaine be if it was sold at a price reflective of its production costs? Just a fraction of what it is now. That would instantly take away a huge source of revenue for our internal and external enemies.
exhelo
There are many in the Public that agree with that idea. WFBuckley is the most well read.
But I think we have nothing but a "Complete Victory" in the War on Drugs to look forward to.
When annoy mouse's arc is drawn, forget not southern Columbia, home of the FARC, eastern Eucuador, El Salvador home of MS-13, on up to LA in California and Nuevo Laradeo just south of Texas.
Just google 'mexico drug shooting'
Hope the War on Terror goes better then the Federals War on Frugs has.
It has been what, forty years of defeat?
exhelo: Do you know that cochaine is a legal drug - if you have a prescription for it. And it is legal for a Dr to issue a prescription.
Cost of the legal, prescribed drug is a bit lower than it is on the street -
AROUND $20 A POUND.
When booze was illegal in the US it gave rise to criminal dynasties of power and influence well beyond those of normal criminal enterprises.
The Kennedy family comes 1st to mind.
What perverse family of trafficers are we empowering today, with the Drug Prohibition?
I think I heard Steve Harrigan of FOX News say Coke costs $15,000 USD per lb in the US.
Quite a spread from $20.
Will Pepsi be able to compete?
Living hand to mouth, and all that entails, does not lead one to an innate belief in the power of the individual. Historically, men in such condition blamed their ills on the Gods, and credited any good fortune they received on their successful appeasement.
Well, we're all dialed in now, and everybody who wants one has a hotline to Mount Olympus.
When the dirty poor of the world turn on the tube and watch scenes from America's newly minted space-tourism industry, or scenes from one of our many Bacchanalia, we will be blamed for their misfortune.
Our power--and their impotence--demands it. They are, after all, only human.
RWE and Desert:
Here is your answer to what to do with the cocaine:
" A group of Indians in southern Colombia have created a new soft drink made from coca leaf extract and plan to market their product as an alternative to Coca-Cola."
"Coca Sek, a golden, carbonated drink, will go on sale this week in parts of Colombia. But its makers expect they won't be able to export to the United States due to rules blocking the entry of coca, the main ingredient in cocaine."
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/5519970/detail.html
fernand
People more often get the Government that is imposed upon them by force of arms.
Whether they are deserving to be victims of genocide in Darfur, or not, the genocide is the result of their Government policy.
Same holds true for the Indians of South America. They are the victims of poor colonial and post colonial Governments over which they had no say.
While the Nationalization of Industry and the industrialization of cocca production may be counter to US interests, those policies will not damage Mr Morales's constituents, in the least. The Wahington Consensus policies have kept them improverished.
They have been down so long, it looks like up from there.
The real challenge occurs when the Army steps in. Civil War could easily be the result, with non-Venezualean SA oil production in the cross hairs.
Makes Mr Chavez's position all the stronger.
It would seem with the political problems of South America, Brazils’ socialist de Silva, Argentina’s perennial economic woes, Columbia’s narco-war, Bolivia’s socialist back-slide, and if I am missing some shining democracy like Chile, sorry, that the Marxist interests of Chavez, Castro, et. al, will be neatly accommodated by the empowerment of the people like it has worked so nicely in Venezuela. Chavez’s new found power is aligning itself with the very anchor to the axis of evil in Iran.
““Khatami said both Iran and Venezuela will stand firm against any aggression and lamented "the injustice of the great powers that try to control the world".
…
"Iran and Venezuela, these two brothers, are and will be together forever," Chavez said. "Iran, confronted by the United States, has our solidarity."
"Like you, we are willing to be free from imperialism," he added.”
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/
C9DFE280-E615-4FEB-ADE5-6708D459E9B8.htm
The West may not be serious about the global consequences of South Americas slide into a financed insurrection against Western policies but al Jazeera has no such reservations… alas, it is part of the plan.
whit
That is not worse case at all.
That is the sitrep for today.
It would take days of searching to find all the links, but they are not hard to find.
to wit,
I can’t begin to imagine what a worst case scenario is other than the fact that we seem to be moving towards one.
Consider this. Iran passes on refined uranium, enough to make thousands of dirty bombs, they give ample portions to Hezbollah who in turn uses their world wide network to smuggle such to their counter parts controlled by Chavez and backed by Castro.
It is more likely that this is happening as we speak. Prepare to live off the un-irradiated land. Better yet prepare to live off of the wealth of those who have not armed themselves.
Well Presidente Chavez must be quite relieved to know that there is another country in the running for the decade's US Navy-Marine Joint Landing Exercises (Western Hemisphere).
It shouldn't be any surprise that these old Governates of Spain, which was not the biggest fan of rule-of-law and education for all (or at least, low financial barriers to basic ed), suffer from the symptoms of Third-Worldism.
Now, if Presidente Morales was pushing for school teachers in every remote mountain village and satellite internet connections for same, I'd sell out the drug war in a second. Allowing an unrepentant coca farmer to head a country whose hinterlands have played host to FARC, IRA, and possible PLO/Al-Qaeda/Hamas seems like a bad idea.
My only hope is that the POTUS in '09 is as committed to nation-building as the current one. Because, much as the Marines seem to get out of the 'South and Central American Catch-and-Release Exercises', I'd just as soon stop this almost 150 year-old tradition. Bolivia or Venezuela would be fine places to start.
Hard to land an amphipious force in a land locked country.
Want to stop the drug war, and get serious about it? Install the death penalty for it. Or don't have any drug ban at all if people aren't serious about it.
Poof, no more catch-and-release operations. Drug dealers who get caught die. Remarkably effective way to implement a policy. However, for political reasons, the US was never about to fight the drug war effectively.
I'm not really against or for drugs personally, but I do believe in only having laws that are effective. Laws which would be lax, or worse, ignored, do not need to be laws at all.
Meme Chose,
My own experience with international lending institutions is that they are next to useless. Nearly all the projects they fund are ultimately adjusted to the political realities on the ground, which often means diverted to local corruption, and they are too afraid of the rocking the boat to ever stop a loan's tranches in its tracks unless a stink is generated from an external source. The atmosphere among international aid and financial institutions, I have found, is very close to one of Somerset Maugham's descriptions of a "whites only" club in the 1920s, except it is "internationals only". As I'm sure you know, they cast eyes enviously on each other and make invidious comparisons on the basis of per diems, salary rates, quasi-diplomatic status, etc. There is no smaller mind than that of a successful international bureaucrat.
These are the institutions the world relies on to manage problems in the post colonial world and it is a broken sword. Sometimes their policies are theoretically correct but they are almost always so mangled by the incompetence and corruption of their execution that they prove the opposite of their intent.
" ... Meanwhile, the excellent Knight Ridder reports that industrious Santa Cruz province is more defiant than ever about seceding, and taking its natural gas with it, setting a stage for potential civil war. Green flags of independence are being noted amid victory speeches in Santa Cruz. This is getting scary. The story is here.
"...One of Morales' biggest challenges may be addressing the increasingly vocal demands for greater independence in eastern provinces such as Santa Cruz and Tarija, where Bolivia's gas reserves are centered.
Ruben Costas, the leading candidate for the governor of Santa Cruz, offered an impromptu victory speech Sunday night putting the central government in La Paz on notice that provincial governments would be going their own way.
"Today begins a new Bolivia!" he said to a crowd waving green flags - the symbol of Santa Cruz's independence movement.
Costas immediately called for a summit of all the governors to chart out the future of regional governments in Bolivia. ..."
Another Insurgency the US Army is not ready for.
Venezuala supplys how much of US oil imports?
When compared to Iraq?
A War for Oil?
The first quote was from Publius Pundit which can be linked to
here, same link as in our host's post.
What's needed is some way to make each nation consciously responsible for its own destiny. Whether in Iraq or elsewhere, that's the only way to go.
start with palestine...
Small problem:mechanism for realization of it.
Wretchard,
Thanks for the kind words. I see we appear to have run into some of the same sorts of people around the world.
There is a further irony in your words: "Chavez can be depended on to destroy his own country; as did Castro and as probably, will Evo Morales. Yet in the end, they too, will attribute their failings to America. What's needed is some way to make each nation consciously responsible for its own destiny."
This is the central problem in dealing with very poor countries. Either you get heavily involved trying to determine what is going on there, in which case you soon become directly responsible for a lot of bad stuff, or you stay well away in an effort to get them to take responsibility, in which case you become responsible for the awful things which happen when you don't intervene. Or you muddle down the middle, in which case you end up with some of both kinds of responsibilities.
Academics and other leftists enjoy the responsibility-free firing zone they think this gives them, carping away endlessly at anything Western governments either do now or did during the colonial period. What they don't bother to take on board however is that these issues were often quite well understood during the colonial period by many of those who wrestled with colonial policy. Imperial policymakers during the colonial era, sad to say, in many instances had a better grasp of both the practical and the ethical dilemmas they faced (and we face) than our 'intellectuals' do today.
So what is the best way to proceed? A certain amount of 'muddling through' is I think imposed on us by the 'back and forth' nature of our democratic politics. Personally I think the key lies in recognizing that a single one of our generations cannot take on, seriously enough to really make a difference, the problems of the whole world. We ought therefore to pick our shots carefully, and on that basis GWB seems to me to be doing a pretty good job.
One could argue that the totalitarian rule of the Mexican PRI, founded in the blood of the 1910 revolution, was a reactionary response to US of A meddling, and all around hubris, at least that argument has merit in Mexico who has fostered the air of hyper-nationalism that exists in Mexico (and especially in the US) to this day. Whether the PRI could have ever stopped General John Pershing from encircling Mexico City in 1916 and 1917 is besides the point… like a victorious Saddam after Gulf War I, their stock rose and so did their stake of national power.
No body ever had their pride hurt by denouncing the US and circling the wagons to gain popular support.
Apparently, Mexico’s Fox has successfully black mailed the US into going along to get along, less the Mexican government fall into the hands of Marxist revolutionaries and the US assume the ensuing debt.
Why has the US Border Patrol been ordered to hide when the Mexican Army invades the US of A?
It's possible that the only way to develop the Third World is to let it fail; thereby burning out its own cancers and allowing it to create its own functional institutions. In a word, to let Darwin take care of it. That would entail cutting the Third World off from trade, preventing their elites from visiting the First World, seeking medical treatment or depositing their money there; letting millions die from the loss of access to the "oppressors" of the First World, allowing man-made starvation to reign unchecked, quarantining warfare. In a word, it would take too much. No one would actually stand for watching the Third World take the consequences of its own mistakes. That's why billions of dollars in aid is sent to North Korea, far more than is sent to Costa Rica.
The motto of international aid is 'reinforce failure and never reward success'. Why? Because failure creates trouble and headlines, and that's where the money will go. It was said long ago that arms merchants were the Masters of War. Someone, I forget who, wrote a book two decades ago describing aid agencies as the Lords of Poverty.
optho,
You are right. I linked the wrong article to the reference, linking Marc Cooper's article twice. The link has been corrected. It now points to a fairly even handed assessment of Venezuela's economy by the Center for Economic Policy and Research, which consciously does not try to blame Chavez. However, I invite you to examine a table contained in it provided by the Venezuelan Bureau of statistics. Recall that Chavez has been in power since early 1999, so they are his statistics.
Year % households in poverty
1999 42.80
2000 41.60
2001 39.10
2002 41.50
2003 54.00
2004 53.10
CERP has suggested out that this increase in poverty may be due to local unrest, presumably fueled by the US. What's really interesting is that Venezuelan oil revenues have spiked upward by almost 40% due to price increases, and that should, via the multiplier, pushed the rest of the economy up with it. Look at this historical graph of world oil prices from 1947-2004. Chavez came to power when Venezuelan oil revenues were at their nadir, in 1999. Since then, the Venezuelan petroleum engine has accelerated rapidly, and yet the poverty rates have been going in the opposite direction. Yeah, give Chavez a little more time and the poverty rate should be getting up into the 60 and 70 percent areas, whatever oil does.
WRETCHARD -- I am sure you are merely being rhetorical in saying, that perhaps we should let the Third World fail, to let Darwin take care of things. My take on evolution is that no one has a choice in the matter. It just happens by a process of natural selection in the spectrum of possible leaders and policies adopted by any nation. How can anyone obviate centuries of slavery and racism in America as part of its evolution to what it happily is today, a model for the future? Evolution is a punctuated process, not gradual. At unpredictable times and places, in the right conditions, revolutionary mutations occur. For example 1776, 1898, 1945 and 2002. It is the promotion of those conditions in every country that will lead to self-reliance. Then we can all luxuriate in mutual apathy, because mutual prosperity will take up all our time. It's One World. I think, we have to live with that, in whatever artificial conceptual fraction of it we happen to be.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
re:
Wretchard's 3:13 PM comment:
I guess a leftists ability to deflect blame must be the prime requirement for office.
The corruption that persists in the Latin New World has its roots in China. There, the tradition of Red Day has been going on for centuries. On red day, businessmen wrap money in red paper to give to their preferred customers as a symbolic reinforcement of their trading relationship. Although Mao's revolution mostly made the tradition disappear on the mainland, it is still in evidence on Formosa where capitalism survives.
Mexico was the overland portage on Spain's ancient trade route to the Orient for the centuries when Spain ruled the seas. The Spanish Main (trade route) included the Phillipines and the West Indies which were also influenced. Many traditions we see as Mexican - think spicy foods and sombreros - had their origins in China as well.
The soft bribery of Chinese Red Day (nothing to do with communism) was literally corrupted in the new world and has its lingering effect on the Spanish speaking colonies.
You want my attencion? Show me the danero!
The forgiveness of debt by first world lending agencies in the Latin emerging markets magnifies corruption there.
Christian Adams: Look at it this way. The United States and the rest of the West are part of the real world, just as much so as are earthquakes, droughts, and hurricanes. Dealing with such powerful nations is all part of the environment. The West has had to deal with a variety of threats, in addition to the traditional Human problems: Nazism and Communism, both of which were to some extent products of its own culture.
The power of the U.S. and the success of our culture are one of the factors the South American nations have to deal with. We did not get rid of the Nazis and Commies by whining about it, and except for providing a very small amount of help, South America virtually sat out those wars but nonetheless reaped the benefits. Both the "Anglo" culture of the north and the Hispanic culture of the south started at the same time and at the same level of technology. I think that we did more with what we had. But in any case, whether any of their problems are our fault or not, it is all part of the world they have to deal with. If we were able to oppress them because they were not very good at the world power stuff, thn that is just too bad. The Nazis and Commies tried to oppress us and we dealt with them, quite effectively.
Aside from that, I think the direction of the immigration flow between the south and the north says it all. Do people flee toward their oppressors? I think not.
The American ideals of limited governance and individual liberty were birthed in England. The English Civil War, fought for religious freedom as much as anything, established a truly unique mindset amongst Britons who brought it with them to the Colonies - America.
Latin America was totally separated from these events due to Spanish domination. We share little more than geography and a semblance of historical timeline with our neighbors to the south.
enscout, 6:04 PM,
Great point:
Much though we might wish it were not so.
That is one of the fallacies of the unlimited immigration gang's arguments.
Esp given today's Anti American Educational Establishment, new arrivals have little opportunity, much less incentive, to begin to understand what being an American has meant in the past.
doug:
The Hispanics coming here seeking the opportunities our Anglo culture affords must be amazed at the amount of trust that is manifest within our system. Trust in our way of life, our system of merit rather than priviledge has to be an invigorating experiance to thaose who see it on such a massive scale.
Our ability to trust our leaders -and hold them accountable through the ballot box - has shown itself to be pretty reliable throughout our nation's history.
Unfortunately we have reached a near tipping point where trust in that system is declining. The systems of the old world order are rearing their ugly selves simply due to ignorance on the part of a populace.
tb68
the land bridge south of Panama City, through the Darien is a tough piece of country.
Not a road, barely a trail from Columbia north.
But you are right, they are coming from WAY south, Guats and Hondos both. Those Mayan looking guys, shorter and rounder. The Guats we trained in Panama were red haired and white skinned, not at all Mayan looking. More like Brits, actually. Desendents of English Pirates, or so the tale was told, in spanish.
I have some business associates in southern Brazil, those fellows are quite German, not at all your stereotype of a South American.
There is a large ethnic English population in Argentina, left over from the pre Peron days, when the country was vibrant.
Rizalist,
It's One World but some people get to choose what parts they live in. This reduces to incentive to keep their home grounds clean. I recall from my brief time in Africa how the wives and mistresses of the Government Ministers were always in Paris. And the first thing crooked Filipino politicians do with their boodle is buy real estate in the Bay Area. Now if every person seeking the post of deputy minister and up had to renounce the possibility of living abroad after leaving office, the Third World would be run a lot differently. Let me put it this way, if Kofi Annan knew he had to spend the rest of his days in Ghana it would change his attitude completely.
If anything good came out of September 11 it was the message that the First World no longer provided complete protection from the demons raging in the Third. That in turn required military action against the very worst elements of dysfunction. But unless America plans on invading every country on earth, a more general method is required. That means I think, making the Third World elite existentially more accountable to their constituents, which is another way of saying that real, and not simply formal democracy, is necessary to keep the world spinning on its axis.
I was being only partially facetious when I said the Third World had face the consequences of its misjudgements. What I should have said is that their leaders should be made to live with the consequences of their ways. For example, do you think that Hugo Chavez would agree never to leave Venezuela?
Great, great thread. Hi, opotho--long time no see!
Wretchard, you continue to come up with unexpected combinations. How simple. The physical self stays in town. What a success that would be, to have the competing candidates race each other to the top of THAT issue!
But unless America plans on invading every country on earth, a more general method is required. That means I think, making the Third World elite existentially more accountable to their constituents, which is another way of saying that real, and not simply formal democracy, is necessary to keep the world spinning on its axis.
////////////
Hernando de Soto's ILD is doing the work around the world to put into place real property law.
http://www.ild.org.pe/home.htm
I believe Wretchard has actually worked with HdSoto, back a ways, in the Philippines.
...U.S. unease over Morales remains strong, as he has spoken most harshly against the coca eradication aspect of its anti-narcotic drugs policy (proposing lifting all constraints on coca leaf production) and is close to Chávez.
See: The December Elections
RWE Gets to the heart of the problem - narcotics production:
...the case of Bolivia, the proposal to make Coca growing legal has serious implications - and not just for the U.S.
Given the problem that unrestricted Coca production will present to the U.S, and other countries, Morales essentially proporses to ally himself with crimminals.
Currently U.S. and Bolivian Coca eradication efforts are cooperative.
[and]
Do you know that cochaine is a legal drug - if you have a prescription for it. And it is legal for a Dr to issue a prescription. Cost of the legal, prescribed drug is a bit lower than it is on the street -
AROUND $20 A POUND.
Desert Rate states:
Funding for Revolution comes via oil & cocaine purchases in the US.
Gear up for the
"new & improved" War on Drugs.
The narcotics tends to bring out the worst behavior in people. Either the amount of street cocaine will increase or Bolivia will be force to reduce its out put (possibly by air attacks).
A few years back I performed audits of pharmacies and pharmaceutical distributors and yes, cocaine is a schedule 2 substance which can be used by doctors (mostly in oral surgery). The cocaine in a pharmacy is usually mixed with an agent to bind it to the immediate site of injection (Street cocaine without the binding agent 'cocaine hydrochloride' spreads very rapidly through out the bloodstream when injected - producing a rush or a high addiction profile). All other form of cocaine, such free base cocaine, is a schedule 1 drug and is prohibited for distribution (except for experimental purprises).
Cocaine is very addictive. I read that cocaine, when given to a group of monkeys on demand via a button, will cause the monkeys self administer until death (basically, the cocaine was inject each time the monkey hit a button in the cage - and he just kept hitting the button till death). The average street user can use up to 2 grams per day. So, it's the street cocaine that is the real problem.
Further, cocaine has a unique economic supply demand characteristics where the as the supply to a group of users increase so does the demand (as they become more addicted and need to use ever increasing dosages). The greater the supply the higher the demand is called inverse price elasticity or others call it market imperfection). None the less, legalizing drugs or flooding the system with drugs may not solve the social problems of drug abuse. Hence, I am against that idea.
But, if some of you believe that legalizing drugs would help then I suggest an incremental tactic (I do not see the authorities legalizing crack cocaine or LSD). This tactic would involve changing the DEA Schedule of certain drugs. Such, as lowering cocaine from a schedule 2 to a schedule 3. In the case of pot, the active ingredient (THC) is legally dispensed as a Schedule 2 drug. One should then try to influence lawmakers to lower it to a Schedule 3 drug. In the case of codeine which in America is generally a schedule 3 or 4 depending on the mixture - influence legislators to lower it to a Schedule 5 or an over-the- counter medication (as it is in Canada). The idea is to lower threshold to make the drug(s) more readily available. I would think that this would be the least of two evils (total legalization of all drugs vs. incremental legalization). Otherwise it's back to bombing the coca fields.
Buddy,
I never worked or even met Mr. de Soto. I hope some day our paths cross.
Sorry, Wretchard--I thought I'd read that somewhere. Maybe because it's an association that 'fits' philosophically, I just went ahead and imagined it.
Another bloody communist. Great. Watch the purges, watch the blood run in the streets yet again.
The average age in the third world is near twenty years old. The people know nothing. Even if their IQ was higher than 80, they would not have enough experience to learn to rule themselves.
Good neighbors need good fences.
That gets into some heavy stuff, Opotho. Caracas is a stunning visual example of why the Venezuelan upper classes had to eventually create a Chavez. Built high up the mountain spine (to avoid the mosquito coast--malaria), the fine haciendas run right up to the sunward ridge line, where a wall separates them from the worst cardboard-hut shanty squatterville you can imagine. Flying over this huge anomaly--as an American oil-field consultant to CorpoVen--always made me feel a little ill--a little guilty.
Compound that with the fact that the poor are the Indians, and the rich are the Spanish (the physical differences are striking), throw in the OPEC distortions, and you have a polity so complex that it matches the whole raw thrown-together appearance of the nation itself. It's a mean, exploitation-based place.
The only way a free-marketer can square it is that, if there ever is a solution to the distortion, it will certainly come in as sunlight-disinfected transparancy.
Chavez had a choice, even after Carter thumbed his nose at the election results to install him, to be the beginning of a solution.
But, responding to who knows what (Castro--but WHY?), he's now making a huge mess of the needed process of lifting the poor via market forces.
or at least, he seems to be, from here.
It would be helpful to know if the constitution he is destroying was a good document in the first place.
Opotho, thanks for a valuable meditation. Can't help but recall Wretchard's gut-wrenching nowhere-to-go posts about the morally similar politics facing any Filipino reformer. Nowhere to go, nothing to do but try to elect people who most seem to give a fig.
There is somewhere--I'll try to find it--a well-reasoned current report on the apparant Latin/South American slide leftward, that posits the slide as mere froth atop a fundamental move toward fair markets and clean politics. If I can find the link, I'll come back and put it here.
Optho,
What makes these "group ownership" schemes that are tacked on to land reform different is that they create second-rate and non-negotiable titles to property. You can frame title, but you can't use it as collateral. I don't know the specifics of Sanchez's program, but I suspect it's one of those, though I hope someone will prove me wrong.
The usual justification for limiting the negotiability of title is that the "poor will just waste it" or "they'll sell it back to the hacenderos". So in the end these schemes basically issue nominal certificates and life goes on as before.
No matter where the game starts, no matter what the system, smarter and/or harder-workers will get more out of it, won't they? And if the system is jiggered to avoid that, then there goes the needed incentive to make the thing work. If a Martian dropped in to help, whatever design flowed forth would probably look a lot like constitutional democracy and open markets, tho. Erk, sorry for the thundering obviousness--here ya go, Opotho.
Post a Comment
<< Home