American intention to split Brazil?

Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky gorojovsky at SPAMinea.com.ar
Sun May 14 21:43:10 MDT 2000


En relación a Re: American intention to split Brazil?,
el 14 May 00, a las 23:35, crebello dijo:

>
> (1) The only reason for Argentina not joining outrightly the FTAA,
> after dollarising its economy, is exactly the existence of the
> Mercosur and the fact that the such dollarisation would be entirely
> harmful to Brazilian economic interests;

Yes. In fact, those who are proposing dollarization here are
outspoken enemies (or at least outspoken dismissers) of Mercosur.
Dollarization is in itself backstabbing the Mercosur.

This does not mean that things in Mercosur are easy. There is an
actual risk that the Mercosur transforms Argentina into a kind of
agrarian appendix to an industrial Brazil (this is something our
ruling classes tend to carry, so to say, "in their genes"), which
would be a disaster and which has been averted, up to now, due to the
admirable flexibility of the Brazilian diplomats. But as Shakespeare
said, the road of true love never runs smooth.

>
> (2) Now, the existence of increasing economic exchanges between Brazil
> and both Bolivia and Venezuela - centered above all on pipeline
> connections (a natural gas pipeline between Bolivia and Brazil being
> scheduled to enter in operation this year) - will give room to
> increased talk about the creation of a Merconorte, as the northern
> counterpart of the Mercosur - that is, a custons union that would tie
> the economies of the N. South American countries to Brazil - therefore
> precluding further dollarisation and the inclusion of said countries
> in the FTAA. Also, Venezuela has a kind of common market with various
> Caribbean and Central American countries, that would gravitate around
> any future Merconorte. Add to this the increasing level of political
> strife - in very different proportions, of course - in Ecuador, Peru
> and Colombia, and we get all kinds of thereats to the prospects of a
> direct American economic hegemony through FTAA.

You should add to all the above the fact that Argentina can attempt
to reconstruct influence on the Andean area (particularly Bolivia and
Venezuela, and -more difficult because of the Pinochetian heritage-
attempt a reheating with Chile). Thus, as the great revolutionary
geopolitician from Uruguay Methol Ferré stated thirty years ago, the
confluence of Argentinian and Brazilian nationalism may open up a
road to revolutionary changes in Latin America. By the way, I am
intentionally writing "nationalism", because in my opinion, these
developments are intrinsically progressive (if not revolutionary) in
the sense that no matter who carries them to reality they run fully
in the direction we are also trying to run. This is certainly what
underlies the following by Carlos:

>
> (3) Also, we have a more intersting problem...Until now, Latin
> American nationalism, from a leftist viewpoint, seemed to be a dead
> end, since it seemed to direct contradict working class
> internationalism.

...

 The emergence of the Mercosur, however, creates the
> possibility of a ... supranational
> nationalism based on the idea of the regional supranational interest,
> opening thus the possibility of somekind of a confederacy of Lat-Am.
> republics - eventually, a confederacy of Socialist LA republics, who
> knows?

Well, this is what I stated above, but quite clearer. Nationalism
cannot be understood nor explained by nationalists like Barbosa Lima
Sobrinho, or any counterpart (there are many) he may find in, for
example, Argentina.

There is not "nationalism", by the way, but national questions. And
the only rational theory on the national question has been advanced
by --Marxists! This is not surprising, since only from OUTSIDE the
ideology of nationalism you can link it to material phenomena such as
political economy, etc. What these Brazilian, Argentinian, Chilean,
Bolivian, Equatorian, Peruvian, even Venezuelan "nationalists" fail
to see is that their projects, even those in relatively large
countries such as Brazil, Argentina or Mexico, are doomed from the
very beginning by the fact that our capitalisms were born senile.

The great potential of the Mercosur lies, as Carlos has so clearly
stated above, in that it conveys the seeds of the reunification of
Latin America in a confederacy. The slogan "a confederacy of LA
socialist republics" was first established, as Carlos certainly
knows, by Old Lev Davidovich when he began to learn on things Latin
American in Mexico.

>
> (4) Of course, that does not means that Brazilian landowners should be
> allowed to burn the rainforest to their hearts' content. But any
> international action for the protection of the rainforest should have
> in mind the fact that such protection depends upon progressive
> developments in the internal political lives of Brazil and her
> neighboring countries, and not upon some "humanitarian" international
> intervention.

Just a question: would the USA have accepted an international
intervention to save the original peoples from the fate that expected
them? Would Western Europe have accepted an "international
intervention" to save the woodlands that once covered the whole
continent? No. They did not. We Latin Americans, we who know the
value of Nature and the value of every human life (at the very least
because our most progressive thinkers and politicians are not dumb
and have profitted by the dire experiences of other peoples), should
accept it, we are said. When this happens, guess whose fangs I begin
to see in the horizon?





Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
gorojovsky at inea.com.ar





More information about the Marxism mailing list