More on the new regional institution
As I've noted, the Rio Group's expansion into a formal organization is a very interesting development, but we have to think about what the potential practical implications will actually be. Along those lines, it is important not to confuse analysis with what you want. This is what Mark Weisbrot does. With no evidence whatsoever, he proclaims:
Latin America, once under the control of the United States, is increasingly emerging as a power bloc with its own interests and agenda.
Latin America is not a "power bloc" to the extent that such a phrase even has any real meaning. Plus, Latin America is not an "it" with a unified stance on much of anything.
Can this new organization have significant regional and global influence? Maybe so, but many factors weigh against it. Seeking to forge unity in a formal manner on critical issues without U.S. meddling is a positive step for the region, but it will be a tough row to hoe. Then moving from unity on an issue to actual use of power will be yet more problematic:
An organisation without the US and Canada will be more capable of defending democracy, as well as economic and social progress in the region when it is under attack.
Again, maybe, and it would be nice. But evidence is sorely lacking. We should not confuse "absence of U.S." with "unified action."
9 comments:
Why would anyone read Weisbrot? He's a terrible economist, and that's supposed to be his specialty.
"capable of defending democracy."
With Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua and Bolivia as charter members we can already see how high a value the new organization places on democracy. LOL
The idea of operating w/o the US is an old one and has never come to fruition in a meaningful way. The idea of unity is silly. A region as diverse as Latin America requires pluralistic notions.
Along those lines, it is important not to confuse analysis with what you want.
Funny. That is the exact same point I made to Greg when he implied that Chavismo was likely to lose a referendum to end term limits. I wrote:
Normally, political scientists don't explicitly predicate their predictions upon their normative preferences. Greg operates on the highly dubious assumption that, if he deems something unpalatable, the Venezuelan electorate is likely to deem it unpalatable as well. Greg ought to come to terms with the fact that he will see such an issue through a different lens than most Venezuelans.
With regard to the new regional grouping, Greg does much of what he accuses Weisbrot of doing. Greg has never been comfortable with the idea that Latin America should establish greater independence from the United States, so now he employs diversionary tactics. The fact that not all Latin American states are united on all the issues is irrelevant. The reality that Greg chooses to ignore is that a majority of Latin American states do sometimes take positions that are distinct from the U.S. and Canadian positions. This was the case with regard to Colombia's bombing of Ecuadorian territory, for example. It was also the case in how UNASUR dealt with violent opposition tactics in Bolivia.
I suspect the real issue here is that Greg doesn't usually like it when most of Latin America takes positions distinct from those of the United States and Canada.
I think its a bit premature, until we see the charter and the official creation next year at the summit in Caracas, to make pronouncements about the viability or non-viability of this group.
Is there a possibility it will become an ineffectual international organization? Sure. But if you look at this proliferation of interstate organizations you mentioned....it underlines a real desire to form a regional bloc.
I think its a bit premature, until we see the charter and the official creation next year at the summit in Caracas, to make pronouncements about the viability or non-viability of this group.
I agree with that point. My point is that, just as Weisbrot's optimism is bound up with his desires, so too is Greg's pessimism bound up with his own ideological predispositions.
just as Weisbrot's optimism is bound up with his desires, so too is Greg's pessimism bound up with his own ideological predispositions.
and just as predictable is Delacour's ideologically predisposed outbursts vis. Greg and anyone not buying into Marx Brainrot's scribblings.
Ah, yes. According to Boli-Nica, any logically coherent point made by someone on the Left is an "outburst." Funny how he never applies the same pejorative description to whatever his ideological brethren write.
Weisbrot writes that the organization is "sorely needed".
The Honduran coup was a threat to democracy in the entire region, as it encouraged other rightwing militaries and their allies to think that they might drag Latin America back to the days when the local elite, with Washington's help, could overturn the will of the electorate
we have crocodile tears for the OAS failure to stem the Hondruan coup due to US inaction, and for the "will of the electorate".
In another part he approvingly mentions that the Rio Group condemned the "Cuban embargo".
Its not about democracy, and it never has been. Weisbrot simply likes the alignment of power within the Rio Group. They will placate the oldest dictatorship in Latin America.
Funny democratic standard isn't it. Honduras has held more open and fair elections in the last 5 months than Cuba has in 50 years. Nevertheless, if you hold Fidel to his promises of elections and paying for seized property, you're violating international law.
Post a Comment