In what is for the most part a column that offers nothing at all of substance, in today's Miami Herald Michael Shifter, the vice-president for policy at the Inter-American Dialogue, demonstrates the superficiality and obtuseness of today's political commentators. When discussing Alan Garcia's one year anniversary as president of Peru, Shifter states the following.
García is aware of the positive side of the globalization equation and is drawn to open markets. Peru is among the Latin American countries that has most benefited from the seemingly insatiable Chinese appetite for commodities, particularly in the mining sector. Peru's free-trade agreement with the United States has already been approved by the Peruvian congress, and in his first year García has been almost single-mindedly focused on getting it passed by the U.S. Congress.
Earlier Shifter noted that the Peruvian economy is growing at 8% (less than Venezuela's recent double digit growth but maybe the American media avoid discussing the growth in Venezuela because Chavez's popularity is only a little above 60% while Garcia's is soaring at 32% ... wait, I guess that can't be it either). But the point here I want to make is that the so-called globalization (I assume he means trade) can come in a wide variety of forms, as can market economies and neither are, as Shifter tries to portray, synonymous with "free-trade" deals with the U.S.
To be fair Shifter does note what the negative effects of "globalization" (his words)/ Washington consensus(my words) have been in Latin America in terms "huge disparities in wealth." However he fails to cite, or really even mention, the widespread poverty (an issue I highlighted when discussing last year's election ... though it appears my optimism was misplaced).
So what does the vice-president of policy for the "the premier center for policy analysis, exchange, and communication on issues in Western Hemisphere affairs" advocate for Peru (in the only part of the column that could be really considered policy related)?
Such policy options are understandable for a government intent on maintaining order, but they [Garcia's response of ignoring or threatening to use "la mano duro" in combatting the increasing protest movements] are no substitute for pursuing the urgent social and political reforms -- in justice and security institutions, for example -- that García has so far resisted. Although the unrest has temporarily subsided, it is bound to resurface, which would make García's remaining four years shaky indeed. Moderation is welcome, but it may not be enough.
I have no idea how reforming the judicial and security institutions can possibly alleviate the widespread poverty and inequality. In fact Shifter seems to be both rejecting and advocating the "mano dura" in the very same paragraph. Frankly for a supposed policy expert to simple make some vague reference to "justice and security institutions" as a cure for the Peruvian society's ills is to say the least wanting.
Nevertheless this is very typical of the type of analysis offered by those who have great difficulty in understanding that it is precisely the policies of the previous decade (obsessive deregulation of the economy and capital controls, the wholesale selling off of the state's resources, the failure to properly tax multinational and national corporations, the lack of social investment, etc) - and the failure to make a clean break with them that has led to a situation where the poorest of Latinos have simply run out of patience.
Yeah I know. I believe it is Robert McClelland who has said it best:
But hey, Chavez…blah, blah, blah.
Recent Comments