Six months back, things looked rather
grim for much of Latin America. International finance
battered the capital markets of Brazil because opinion
polls indicated that the Brazilian people were likely to
elect the leftist, former trade union leader, Lula da
Silva, as their President. The United States government
actively conspired with large capitalists in Venezuela to
overthrow the leader Hugo Chavez, who was elected with a
huge majority and the support of Venezuela's poor.
Argentina's nightmare went on unabated-the economy
continued to contract in a downward spiral as the
International Monetary Fund (IMF) tried to force the
hapless government into further deflationary measures,
poverty increased massively and unemployment rose to
historic levels.
But now, things look so much better. Not only did Brazil
survive the attempted capital flight of late last year,
but Lula was elected, with a massive share of the vote.
Chavez of Venezuela managed to survive the crippling oil
strike that had been instigated by the US, and has
re-established control over the economy and the
government.
Until recently, it looked as if Argentina's woes would,
however, continue. The economic turmoil that hit the
country at the end of 2001 has left almost 60 per cent of
the population living below the poverty line. Real
wages have fallen about 40 per cent
since the crisis.
The election itself was another sign of the turmoil the
country's institutions have been thrown into because of
the economic crisis. The run-off would have been fought
between the centre-left candidate, Nestor Kirchner (who
was supported by the outgoing President) and the
flamboyant and disgraced former President, Carlos Menem.
That Carlos Menem could even contemplate contesting the
Presidential elections in Argentina again is almost
unbelievable. He is one of the most hated men in that
country, not only for his association with public
corruption and sleaze, but because he presided over and
directed the previous round of liberalization and crisis
in the economy, and the subsequent stabilization package,
which many believe were what created the conditions for
the more recent crisis. When Menem was President in the
early/mid 1990s, his government privatized most of the
important assets and practically all the major public
utilities and services. Indeed, one complaint during the
present crisis, was that, as a result, there is nothing
left to privatize or sell off any more!
Fortunately, it became evident very soon that the people
of Argentina could not stomach having this man as their
ruler once again. Opinion polls consistently showed that
he would lose heavily. Typically of Menem, he chose to
withdraw from the contest, rather than, as one
disappointed voter put it, 'giving us the chance to defeat
him comprehensively and throw him out'.
The new President, Nestor Kirchner, has already indicated
that he will emphasize a more active role for the
government in bringing the economy out of its crisis. He
has also made it clear that the government would not pay
its external debt at the cost of increasing hunger and
poverty within Argentina.
In his inaugural speech, Kirchner said, 'We have to start
planning and carrying out public works in Argentina to
refute with facts the
neo-liberal argument that public spending is
unproductive.' The immediate plan is to revive public
infrastructure projects, such as a programme to build
50,000 new houses for the poor. The new government
correctly believes that such publicly funded
infrastructure projects will create jobs and production
which, in turn, will boost the domestic market.
Other plans of the new government include a reduction of
value added tax, currently 21 per cent, on some basic
goods to improve the purchasing power of the poorest
Argentines.
On the external debt front, Kirchner said his government
would 'stick to firm principles' when negotiating a
repayment plan with the holders of
defaulted Argentine sovereign bonds. It
would look to reduce the face value of the defaulted debt,
lower interest rates and lengthen maturities. However,
Kirchner recognized that reaching an agreement with
private creditors was a 'central issue', and the
government intended to meet its financial obligations.
One of the more interesting statements made by Kirchner
relates to Mercosur, the trading group consisting of
Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay. Mercosur is
complete anathema to the United States, which has
consistently opposed it and tried to demolish it.
Economists at the IMF and the World Bank have spent years
trying to show that Mercosur has damaged the member
economies. All this is because the US wants to establish
its control over all preferential trade agreements in the
region, and simply cannot bear the idea of some countries
setting up on their own.
Some economists from Latin America have suggested that the
only reason Mercosur's figures are not impressive is
because two of the large member countries-Argentina and
Brazil-have suffered crisis and adjustment. They argue
that in fact Mercosur ensured that trade within the region
did not fall any further, and allowed import substitution
in the region to generate employment.
Kirchner clearly supports this position. In his speech, he
reiterated his commitment to import substitution and
export policies, and said foreign policy would aim to
revive the Mercosur trade bloc as an engine for growth and
deeper regional integration. He is quoted as saying, 'our
country should be open to the world, but open in a
realistic way, ready to compete within a framework of
policies based on regional preference.'
All this augurs well for Argentina, and also for the
economy of the region. All we have to hope for now is that
the chances for concerted revival led by left-oriented
leaders in Latin America will not be destroyed by the US
government and IMF interference.
|