South America goes left? Yes, inside the Gap
Monday, January 23, 2006 at 1:54AM ARTICLE: "Peru May Join Latin America's Swing to the Left: Free-Trade Opponent's Lead In Polls Poses New Challenge To Market Reforms in Region," by David Luhnow and Robert Kozak, Wall Street Journal, 16 January 2006, p. A1.
We see countries turn to the left in Latin America (serious "caboose braking" in my the-train-can-travel-no-faster-than-the-caboose vernacular) as the rural poor vote for candidates who seem more focused on their needs/fears/dangers in a globalized world.
And it's hard not to worry about the future of free trade in the region.
But then we read the fine print: Venezuela, Bolivia, Peru--all Andean states, all members of the Gap.
When the "leftward" turn of Core states (e.g., Brazil, Chile, Uruguay) is examined, though, we see that leftists that assume power in those countries naturally "governed from the center, keeping government spending in check and continuing to integrate their economies to the outside world."
And yet the WSJ frets over the rise of what it calls the "Andean troika," using that Russian word with purpose, especially since it sees the three falling under the mentorishp of that loser Castro who's accomplished so much in the way of Cuban economic development over the decades. Thus fears are expressed about Argentina and Mexico.
But my guess is that, just like in Chile, Uruguay and Brazil, any leftward turns in those two states would be more based in appearance than reality--the essense of Clintonism as we lived it in the United States in the 1990s
Anyway, interesting how the breakdown so clearly follows the map, huh?
Reader Comments (6)
These country's left turn does beg the question of "why?" The fact that they tried more free enterprise and did not like the result should be examined.
The reasons I see emerging were a lack of institutions to support capitalism. Lack of protection of property rights, a corrupt judicial system, and a repressive bureaucracy have been cited as the main problems.
I bring this up because we are facing the same problems in our attempt to connect Iraq and Afghanistan to the core. And it is compounded there by Islam. Islam is hostile towards capitalism. Changing Islam may not be as easy as we think.
I was struck by the recent statement of the Pope on this problem. Pope Benedict XVI is said to believe that Islam is incapable of reform.
This came up during a January interview conducted by radio host Hugh Hewitt with the Rev. Joseph D. Fessio, SJ, a friend and former student of the Pope. The Rev. Fessio recounted the Pope's words on the key problem facing Islamic reform this way: "In the Islamic tradition, God has given His word to Muhammad, but it's an eternal word. It's not Muhammad's word. It's there for eternity the way it is. There's no possibility of adapting it or interpreting it." Fessio continued. This is based on the Pope's theological assessment of a historically warring religion with a billion-plus followers, some notorious number of whom are now at war with the West. According to his friend, the Pope believes there's no way to change Islam because there's no way to reinterpret the Koran -- i.e., change Koranic teachings on infidels, women, polygamy, penal codes and other markers of Islamic law -- in such a way as to propel Islam into happy coexistence with modernity.
This subject has been ignored by the MSM. The Muslim countries in the gap not only have the problems faced by our South American neighbors, but the added burden of their religion.
In addition, Bolivia's turn to the left has less to do with a rejection of Free Trade, and more to do with the internal make-up of the country and how the majority indigenous population has up until now been treated within that state as second class citizens. If you read many of the articles on Bolivia where Bolivians comment on the newly elected indigenous president, they focus on that, the fact that he is indigenous more than on his leftist leanings. They are a factor, but the fact that he is the first of their kin to achieve national power in the country is more important.
I wonder how strong the corelation is between Gap countries and "mono-crop" economies - e.g., oil, sugar cane, cocaine, etc. The countries that can "afford" to some degree to turn left seem to be those that have a single large commodity that is in high demand, and therefore produces large foreign cash inflows to prop up the otherwise disconnected economy.
I am an Argentinean citizen living in Amsterdam, but frequently travelling to Buenos Aires (and a reader of both PNM and BFA). Let me put it this way: for all its governance problems (and there are many), Argentina has never been more globalized. The level of connectivity is simply amazing. There are thousands of mini-internet cafés where small business managers connect with customers and suppliers (sometimes overseas), tourists with their loved ones, and kids play online games (mostly in English). Good IT hardware is available at reasonable prices, and well-educated IT professionals abound. Connectivity, connectivity and more connectivity. Amazing.
Agustin, I proposed-on a different thread-that it would be possible for Argentineans to sell on Ebay and get paid by Paypal to a Miami bank in dollars. This looked like a way for them to build up dollar reserves. The ramifications of this kind of business dealings for all gap country citizens could be large. Do you think they could get away with it?
Bill, why not? Already, most of my friends and relatives have dollar-denominated accounts with US banks and brokerages. (If only the Gap could manage to stabilize property rights, these funds would instantly return, unleashing untold economic growth).