| Add Memory | Add To Friends | |
| Upchuck (profile) wrote, on 11-4-2005 at 9:12pm | |
| This is a letter that I just sent to one of my Latin American history profs. Read it and see if you agree with my assessment, or just read it and learn about something you didn't know about. Professor Aragon, I have been monitoring today's events and I cannot help but feel that this may be a watershed event for US-Latin American relations. The Summit of the Americas has stirred up so much controversy both in Latin America and here. On some of the talk shows on cable news the hosts wee asking so-called experts (which were mostly former defense department or administration officials) why the protesters were protesting. They asked if it was just because they don't like President Bush, or if they really had that big of a problem with Iraq. It seemed kind of strange because it suggested that those were the only two reasons that people would protest against the US. What really got to me was a reairing of an address that Hugo Chavez gave at the protest rally. While steeped in blatantly socialist rhetoric (the downfall of capitalism and whatnot), he might have been making sense. He talked about an alternative to the American led trade agreements (FTAA I think was what he was talking about). He wanted to form something called ALBA (the Bolivarian Alternative for the Peoples of Latin America). He said that this was losely based on the agreement that Venezuela already had with Cuba. He called it an alliance in the political, social and economic realms. His outline seemed quite convincing. He talked about Venezuela's generosity with oil. Such as new agreements that they have with Argentina and Uruguay to provide oil to them at a 40% discount, a three year grace period on payment with a 25 year payment period at 1% interest. Another thing that seemed to be a revision on American led programs was that he advocated for payment in the form of goods and services. Instead of paying with money, he said, Argentina could pay with pregnant heifers. No matter what he actually says he seems to be pushing all the right buttons. He mentioned just about everything that would seem important in Latin American politics today. He talked about religion and his strong belief in Christianity. He spoke of most of the great independence leaders of Latin America (Bolivar, San Martin, O'Higgins, de Miranda, Marti, even Eva Peron). And about native peoples (and the working class, but that is also par for the course for socialism). I know that he is trying to orchestrate a very real alternative to the US role in the region. It is also of no doubt that he sees Venezuela, and himself as the leader of that movement. It just seems like it may be very well possible. Or am I just wrong? I would appreciate your insight on this issue. Your student, Charlie Campbell |
|
| Post A Comment |
|
justplainolemica | 11-05-05 5:13pm way over my head babe. Call me after youre outta work |
spinder | 11-08-05 9:42am At first that was really confuseign the hell out of me - but then I realized I was confuseing Hugo with someone else; that guy who got killed, Ceaser Chavez? |
spinder | Re:, 11-08-05 9:44am dear lord...confuseign?!?...
|