Some geopolitical tthinking [RE: [Marxism] The Latin American-USRealignment ]
gojack10 at hotmail.com
Sat May 8 14:45:16 MDT 2004
Nestor is absolutely right about the situation in Mexico. The dominant
region of the country is the North, and this is a region that has now been
thoroughly integrated into supporting US foreign policy, and in seeing the
US is the most positive light as being much better than Mexico itself. The
US is seen in this region as some sort of national savior for Mexico, one
that can help lead the country away from caciques and dictatorship, and into
consumerist heaven. The US is seena s savior, for helping keeping the
North from sliding into the South.
Just like in the US, regional divisions has an uneven character. There are
horrible pockets of the South in the North itself, and there are, as Nestor
pointed out, many pockets of the North inside the southern regions.
Mexico is the prize in the Anglo/ Latin American standoff. And the US has
thoroughly pounced into control of the North of Mexico. This is what NAFTA
was supposed to accomplish, and it has. That, and the billions of dollars
of US 'bailout' money for when the Mexican economy almost defalted on its
national debt in 1995, have led to the integration of Mexican politics into
total US control.
>Inside México and throughout the region, everyone --left, right and
>center-- is scratching their heads wondering just what in the world Fox
>thinks he is doing with his "realignment." Mexico isn't "isolating" a few
>left-leaning states, it is isolating itself from Latin America. The last
>few days Fox's mouthpieces have been on TV explaining how Cuba's
>deportation of a man Mexico claimed it wanted amounted to gross
>interference in Mexico's internal affairs.
Maybe we could find an answer by reading the figures of economic
realities. Isn't Mexico today a split country, where the North (and
Fox comes from the North) has become a giant maquila, a giant
American sweatshop, while the South has been given the order to
recede into barbarism and get lost (save for some touristic enclaves,
which range from the Zapatista guerrilla sites to Cancún)?
It is my impression that, for a period longer than we would wish,
Mexico is somehow or other lost, so to say, for Latin America (which
means "for revolution"). Some say (among them, some Brazilian
strategists such as Hélio Jaguaribe and Darc Costa) that only if we
can strengthen a new pole of attraction by unifying South America
shall we be able to gain Mexico (and all of Central America the
willing Caribbean peoples included) to the cause of revolution.
In a sense, the Caribbean region (which extends from Puerto Rico to
Acapulco, and from the sources of the Bravo river to the Orinoco
delta) is still an "Imperial frontier". It has been historically such
a frontier, ever since the newly spawned bourgeois nations in
Northern Europe contested the right of Spain and Portugal to own it
Thus, in a not so far away future we may be witnessing new wars in
that Paradise. And if we don't our children will. These will be the
wars between a revolutionary Latin America and the counter-
revolutionary imperialist bourgeoisie. What we see in Cuba is a
sample of what is to come.
Mexico will be the prize in this war. And, since capitalism has
become a global system, maybe the subsistence of our species.
Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
Check out the coupons and bargains on MSN Offers! http://youroffers.msn.com
More information about the Marxism