South of the Border
It seems Mexico's new Presidente Calderon used his time at the Davos Economic Summit to solidify his position as US bootlicker and water boy. He has come out squarely on the ideological right, endorsing neoliberal economic policies (just as they are facing almost universal condemnation among leading mainstream economists) and taking a hard line in opposition to Chavez, Morales and Castro. Just like a Mexican politician, a day late and a dollar short. He is sucking up to the Empire just as it slips into decline and I predict a major upheaval in that society as he relies more and more on State power and brute force to protect his corporate masters.
As a symbol of this reactionary retrenchment, the new headquarters of the Christian Democratic Party opened recently in Mexico City. Allied with the Cuban Christian Democrats in Miami (which includes veterans from the Bay of Pigs invasion) and "regime change " outfits like the International Republican Institute (involved in the attempted 2002 coup in Venezuela), they have offered Cuban-American exiles a political base from which to organize a "peaceful transition" in Cuba. I guarantee you could find some US state department money involved in the effort as well.
This presents an interesting dilemna for the Mexican middle class as well as moderate forces within the Cuban American community. Can they turn their backs an these quasi-fascist elements once and for all and enter the new millenium ready to help those to whom they are linked through language and tradition? Can they lose that destructive relationship they have always had with corruption and machismo and militaristic violence and join a modern movement for regional cohesion and emancipation for the great masses of workers and peasants for whom the twentieth century was such a nightmare? Can they envision the Americas and not just America?
Labels: Latin America

6 Comments:
I can express in brevity only what would be the same offered by most Mexicans. That is to say "Ni modo". Among many possible, its usage in this context was best explained in my long comment appended to a last July 11 Further Left Forum post titled "Who Really Won?". At that time, the election's pre determined and expected outcome was still kicked around in legal proceedings, party halls, and street protest. The linked comment's bottom line still holds. It is pretty hard if not impossible to translate this "Ni modo" across an almost insurmountable cultural bridge much higher than any material ones the US can build and be easily breached, but I tried. For those who don't take the time to read, it concludes to trust, take heart, and have faith; things underneath and down the line may not be as bad as now shows on the surface.
Careful dropping the f-bomb. When Castro finally meets his maker, and the Communism is shown to have been horrific, all those interested in a peaceful transitional government will not be fascists.
The U.S. Government may be involved, and this involvement may not be entirely beneficent; but all those interested in a new regime in Cuba are not right-wing loonies.
Thanks Pocho, Ill check that out.
I agree Wiser and thats why I presented it as a dilemna for moderate forces. But many of these "transition" types are radicals and extremists, even terrorists and the ultra-right is alive and very well. We should confront it at every juncture.Cuban society is educated and can transition itself.
I agree with wiser.
"Main Entry: fas·cism
Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si-
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"
Hmmm, sounds like those in charge of The Island for the last 50 years.
"But many of these "transition" types are radicals..."
But you often refer to yourself and your perspectives as radical; so is it good or is it bad to be radical?
Mexico is having more unrest than ever before in decades. What about two, three many Oaxacas? What could stop its spread?
anon.,
It seems to me authoritarianism and totalitarianism come in several forms and degrees of severity but the right-wing form, with it's corporate/state partnership is the one that I see ascendant in Mexico and the US.The right wing form the US supported in Latin America and other places during the Cold War ia a good example.
Cuban leadership exhibits some autocratic traits and there is often a fine line between a classless ideology and a xenophobic one but the revolutionary spirit is alive throughout Cuban society and there is a sense of collective ownership.In Mexico I am not so sure.Yes I am a radical and there is nothing wrong in that per se. There is much wrong in right wing ideology, however, and it gets "wronger" the more radical it gets.
Post a Comment
<< Home