LONDON – George W.Bush, the world now realizes, was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. World events, everything from the political composition of the U.S. Supreme Court, from terrorism to the American economy seem to have a preordained way of working in his electoral favour. Again it is happening with Latin America.
By rights the chickens should be coming home to roost as Bush girds up for his end of week visit to Mexico, Peru and Central America but, in fact, Argentina apart, the tides, both political and economic, appear to be working in his favour. Just the other day the International Monetary Fund issued a report saying that Latin America was “set for recovery”, likely to benefit from lower financing costs, higher commodities and an expected rebound in the U.S. economy, with a projected growth by the end of the year of 4% (excluding Argentina).
For the last five years the region has taken something of a battering: commodity prices fell by a quarter and access to external financing was sharply restricted, portfolio flows dried up and capital inflows slowed down. On the political front there has been severe turbulence in many of the countries that most matter. Argentina entered an almost insuperable crisis of both economics and governance. Peru went through the destabilising business of driving into exile Alberto Fujimori who had turned an elected victory into a quasi dictatorship. Venezuela voted into power Hugo Chavez who immediately set about policies that have curtailed democratic rights whilst frightening away investors. And Colombia has appeared to enter a new phase of self-destructiveness to add to a past that is the most violent of any country on the southern continent.
But despite this, from Bush’s perspective, it must seem that on balance rather nice progress is being made. Peru now has a democratically elected president and one set on combating the country’s endemic and corroding corruption. In Colombia it looks increasingly likely that a rightist candidate will win the forthcoming election and gear up the army’s war against the leftist guerrillas and the drug traffickers in the all out way Washington wants. Even in Venezuela it appear as if Chavez is no longer quite so firmly in the saddle and this vigorous critic of America may find he is out on his ear at the next election. Moreover, despite recurrent crises, Latin America’s turn to democracy in the late 1970s has managed for the most part to sustain itself. Before 1975 military dictatorships ran every country apart from Mexico, Venezuela and Colombia.
Today, when there has been no successful military coup since the early 1980s, when the ex-president of Chile Augusta Pinochet spends most of his time housebound and disgraced, when Argentina and Uruguay have imprisoned their old military dictators and Mexico has finally overthrown the straitjacket of its corrupted one party rule, the political atmosphere could not be more different than twenty years ago. To add to the positive list there are the accomplishments, limited and insufficient but still very important, for following the “Washington consensus” during the 1990s, the rulebook of the then orthodoxy of the IMF, the World Bank and the U.S. Treasury that argued that these economies would never progress unless they liberalised and opened themselves up to the forces of globalisation.
The inflation prevalent in the late 1980s and early 90s when prices were increasing at several thousand percent a year has now been squashed, an outcome which benefits poorer people more than any other group. Privatisation has also got rid of some of the price gouging of the old monopolies, bringing in better service in areas such as power delivery and telecommunications. Not least, some countries, Mexico and Chile in particular, have at last made real progress in developing an alert manufacturing export sector. Radical leftism that at one time swept the continent with its struggle for revolutionary change is contained. The nearest it comes to being in power is in the persona of Venezuela’s Chavez. But he has sidelined the trade unions and been cautious in economic management.
In Brazil, the Workers’ Party candidate, Inacio Luiz da Silva, is in with a chance at the forthcoming presidential election, but the record of the party’s achievement in local government where it controls seven of the largest cities has been imaginative but certainly not destabilising. Yet, if surveying the scene Bush is complacent he may well be president for long enough for it to come back and haunt him. 200 million Latin Americans have an income inadequate to meet basic human needs and 70 million have insufficient food. Little progress has been made since 1980. Latin America, always the most unequal of the world’s continents, is more unequal today than it was fifteen years ago. And despite the promises of the Washington consensus none of the Latin American countries, with the exception of Chile and Mexico, have found a way at attaining regular annual growth rates of 5%, the minimum necessary to make a significant dent in reducing unemployment and poverty. (And even Chile does so no longer.)
The trouble with the Washington consensus is that it didn’t deliver liberalising in the three areas that really matter- with immigration into the U.S., with trade where the barriers against a range of exports from poultry to grains to manufactures are formidable and, not least, with drugs. Only the legalisation of drugs in the U.S. would pull the carpet from under the criminal gangs and guerrillas that are tearing at the political and social fabric of Peru, Bolivia and Colombia. Until the U.S. soberly confronts its hypocrisy on these three counts the progress seemingly made in Latin America will all too quickly disappear.
I can be reached by phone +44 7785 351172 and e-mail: JonatPower@aol.com
Copyright © 2002 By JONATHAN POWERFollow this link to read about – and order – Jonathan Power’s book written for the
40th Anniversary of Amnesty International
“Like Water on Stone – The Story of Amnesty International”
