Rafael Correa: "There are millions of Chavezes"

[Catherina]

Rafael Correa: "There are millions of Chavezes"



25/05/13.- "We know it was Commandante Hugo Chavez, who opened this change of times in our continent. When alone against the world in 1998 he democratically defeated the bourgeoisie who had looted their country. He gave his life leading his beloved homeland Venezuela and the Patria Grande. He may be gone physically, but there are millions of Chavezes, Kirchners to continue the dream of our nations united, just, free and dignified ".

...

Correa stated that the international right "is powerless against our integrity. They failed against Nestor Kirchner, they couldn't against Hugo Chavez, they can't against the Cristina Fernández "

...

ECUADOR BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE

Moreover, President Correa said that his country no longer belongs to powerful financial capital, but to the people. Correa said the country belongs to the people and not to small groups of elites. "The country belongs to everyone, from the poorest on. We will make many mistakes, but now it's the Ecuadorian people in charge, not the elites. "

...

He recalled that when assuming the Presidency in 2007, he inherited a shattered, hopeless, demoralized and bewildered country. "None of the three governments prior to us finished their terms. They all said that Ecuador was ungovernable". "The Citizen Revolution has proven otherwise, it's not that we're ungovernable, it's that we won't tolerate a treasonous government, selling-out, cheating, fleeing at the first attempt," the Ecuadorian president to a crowd.

...


...

http://www.ciudadccs.info/?p=427480

At the end of the article, he talks about attacks from transnational corporations, in collusion with some international organizations, and how the Latin American countries need to strengthen their unity. He says the whole idea of "Patria Grande isn't just an ideal, a dream of Simon Bolivar's, but "is an ideal of survival, a shield against exploitation, against neocolonialism"

Correa proposed creating their "own bodies to resolve investment disputes: the new regional financial architecture, our own bank, the Bank of the South, and a trade and compensation system." All of this is so that "together, we will impose conditions on transnational capital, according to the will of the people."

[Catherina]

1. Correa: Latin America is no longer anyone's backyard

Correa: Latin America is no longer anyone's backyard

24/05/13.- The Ecuadorian president said Thursday during his inauguration that the times Latin American countries are now living is thanks to the election of progressive governments by their people, who have affirmed that "Latin America is not the backyard of any government."

...

The president called for Latin American unity and stated that there are regional causes, such as Las Malvinas and Cuba, for which they must continue the fight. (...) The Malvinas are Argentine, they are are Latin American (...) the blockade of Cuba by the United States blatantly violates the charter of the Organization of American States (OAS)," added the Ecuadorian president.

Correa stated that, unlike the United States, Ecuador "has signed all human rights conventions. Here torture is not allowed, there is no death penalty, we have not invaded anyone, we have no drones killing people. They chase crimes, not people. "

He again reiterated his rejection that headquarters of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) are located "in a country (USA) that is not part of the Inter-American System of Human Rights (ISHR). That has to change."

...

http://www.ciudadccs.info/?p=427249

[SamKnause]

2. President Correa

President Correa is correct.

There are millions of us across the globe !!!!!!!!!!!!

[Judi Lynn]

3. It's so right! This was wonderful. Great spirit at the inauguration, hard to miss it!

These people are far more decent, more civilized.

Only an a$$hole would deny it.

[Socialistlemur]

4. The countries siding with Correa lack financial muscle for a bank

Correa is an economist, so I assume he realizes the Bank of the South will remain a figment because countries willing to get in bed to form a bank are likely to be (I suppose) Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba Argentina and Bolivia. But these countries are in debt, therefore they lack the financial muscle to create a bank with sufficient funds to make a difference.

[Peace Patriot]

5. Try reviewing some basic facts before you comment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_the_South

For instance, the member states of the Bank of the South are BRAZIL, URUGUAY, Paraguay, Argentina, Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia, and Colombia has requested to become a member. Neither Nicaragua nor Cuba are members of the bank, and never have been.

You are also way wrong about the economic conditions in member countries. Venezuela, for instance, has the normal debt of a booming economy--economic growth of 5+%, post-Bush Junta worldwide depression, and it got up to a sizzling 10% in the 2003 to 2008 period. Most of the growth is in the private sector (not including oil), with high employment, good wages and benefits, great advances in educational opportunity and health care, and with Venezuelans rating their own country FIFTH IN THE WORLD on their own sense of well-being and future prospects (in the recent Gallup Well-being poll).

You said that you "suppose" that Ecuador's partner's in a bank will be "Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba Argentina and Bolivia." You omit Brazil (one of the three key founders in 2007) and Uruguay (two powerhouse economies) and Paraguay (rightwing coup d'etat, thus still poor), and you include Cuba and Nicaragua which are not members. You also don't seem to know that the Bank of the South has already been founded. It was not Ecuador's idea. It was Venezuela's ('06), quickly joined by Brazil and Argentina ('07).

Debt can be a spur to growth and economic and social health IF the debt is used for social programs--to provide upward mobility for the poor--and IF the government strongly regulates and taxes the rich, and supports small business, labor unions, "the Commons" (public infrastructure), high public participation and other elements of a good society. Debt is deadly when distant banksters such as the IMF get involved, with onerous "austerity" loan conditions that destroy social programs, loot resources and exploit workers. THAT kind of debt results in economic ruin (for instance, what the IMF did to Argentina--where the subsequent leftist government restored the economy.) All of the member countries of the Bank of the South use debt in a positive way, as we should be doing here in the U.S.

Your misconceptions about debt, about the membership of the Bank of the South and about the economic condition of several members make your comment utterly meaningless.

[Socialistlemur]

6. The bank of the South is a cardboard cutout

The bank of the south doesn't exist as such. If you could link its web page, name the officers, and address or email I'd like to see it, I'm a financial advisor and I like to keep up with the news. I omitted Brazil because they have their own bank to support Brazilian multinational business ventures abroad -BNDES. I don't see Brazil putting up capital to fund a bank based in Caracas. Regarding Venezuela's debt, it's quite anomalous. Not only does Venezuela carry a high debt load in bonds both domestic and foreign, it also has the PDVSA debt, the Fondo Chino debt, and the debt it owes to suppliers which exceeds $10 billion USD. Venezuela also faces very large ICSID claims, and has a deep underlying problem with high inflation, and overvalued currency, problems developing its oilfields, and a large sector of the population which probably exceeds 50 %, very dissatisfied and holding protests because they see food shortages and other problems. Uruguay is meaningless, it's a tiny country. So is Paraguay.

A banks' members are not necessarily its loan recipients. For example BNDES loans to Cuba, provided Cuba uses Brazilian goods, services and labour. And Cuba isn't about to put money in a bank. It's a very poor country.

Finally I understand the need to financing and why it should be socially conscious, but that point is irrelevant. The Bank of the South can only work if the members deposit the money so it can be loaned. Or if it has the credit rating to borrow from other institutions (which I doubt it will have). So if the member countries are all running around asking for loans and issuing debt....this bank is a ghost bank.

Chavez used to like all sorts of organizations which seem to go nowhere. He was a very eclectic man with many ideas, but he was a poor manager and didn't seem to finish most of what he started. Having a lot of ideas is nice, but eventually somebody has to make sure they get carried out. I think he was surrounded by yes men and incompetents, and things just got stuck. Did you ever hear of his original Siembra Petrolera plan? It went nowhere. It's a good example if you can find the slides in the PDVSA website they are an eye opener.

[ocpagu]

7. The Bank of the South...

... needs legislative approval of the countries to start operating. The Brazilian congress is expected to vote it this semester, it's likely to pass. Brazil is actually interested in it, it would also be a complement to BNDES.

[Peace Patriot]

8. I see you make no apology for misinforming people about Bank membership,

and the status of the Bank. Why should anyone credit anything you say? You don't know what you're talking about.

"I don't see Brazil putting up capital to fund a bank based in Caracas." --Socialistlemur

That is exactly what Brazil pledged to do!

"In March 2009 a number of Latin American nations agreed to contribute US$7 billion towards the bank's start-up capital. Venezuela, Argentina, and Brazil are to contribute $2 billion each, and Ecuador, Bolivia, Paraguay, and Uruguay agreed to contribute varying amounts to provide the remaining US$1 billion.[14]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_the_South

These were, of course, executive decisions that will need to be ratified by the countries' legislatures, but the policy has been set, and in none of these countries is it likely to change. Brazil, for instance, elected the very popular Dilma Rousseff, former president Lula da Silva's chief of staff. She and da Silva are very strong on Latin American cooperation and Latin American resistance to outside interference, especially by the U.S. and its banksters and "the blue-eyed wonders of Wall Street" (as Lula da Silva put it).

You are greatly underestimating the determination of these countries to free themselves from the U.S. 1%'s "Shock Doctrine" and "austerity" economics and to become an independent block of allied countries committed to social justice, in a MULTI-LATERAL world, which they are helping to create.

Your opinion of Chavez is neither here nor there. You are poorly informed and I'm afraid thus subject to U.S./corporate propaganda, which fails to acknowledge the long, horrendous history of U.S. looting and violent domination of Latin America, and the progress away from that history that has been made over the last decade in the many Latin American countries that have elected and reelected leftist governments.

In Argentina, a complete turnaround from a 'basket case' country in chaos, to a stable government, a workable debt solution and economic and social progress.

In Bolivia, defeat of apartheid, and the beginning of fairness for the Indigenous majority at long last, with the election and reelection of Evo Morales, and defeat of the U.S.-backed white separatist coup attempt in 2008. I

n Ecuador, also a compete turnaround from ungovernability to a stable government and economic and social progress.

In Venezuela, expulsion of the highly irresponsible (and excessively greedy) rich oil elite, which had taken to shooting hundreds of poor protesters, and election and reelection of a government "of, by and for" the people, which, among other things, got a better deal for Venezuela in its oil contracts and has committed those profits to benefiting the people who live there; and another case of defeat of a U.S.-backed coup d'etat.

In Brazil, which, like most of South America, was taken over by a U.S.-backed brutal dictatorship, which tortured and murdered Brazilian leftists--among those tortured, the current president, Dilma Rousseff--has had a spectacular turnaround toward democracy and prosperity.

You need to understand this history--including the more recent manifestations of U.S. attempts to bully and dominate these countries--to make prognostications about the Bank of the South, or ANY Latin American initiative, and to analyze leaders like Hugo Chavez. You seem to have no idea the respect, admiration and friendship that he inspired among the leaders of these countries. You don't grasp how important he was to pulling them together, nor how important the Venezuelan people have been in producing and supporting such leadership.

You expect great leaders to succeed with every idea they generate? That is absurd. Look at our own FDR for many ideas some of which failed and many of which succeeded. But you are in no position to evaluate Chavez's influence because you don't have the facts--and when a fact is inconvenient to you, such as Brazil's commitment to the Bank of the South, you simply obliterate the fact. That is a propagandistic attitude and I'm afraid that it has come to characterize the U.S. investment class, which seeks to impose its 1%-er view of the world on everybody else, through corporate news brainwashing, through criminal practices and by war.

The U.S. doesn't have a "free market"--it has a propagandistic, monopolistic and highly manipulated market which CANNOT produce general prosperity, and is so deregulated and out of control that it helped catapult us into a second Great Depression. The leftist democracy movement in South America is seeking to create a HEALTHY market--one that serves society instead of looting and lying to society. You need to see this from THEIR perspective--social, political, economic, moral--in order to prognosticate about the Bank of the South, Unasur, CELAC and other new institutions. You are ignoring the HUMAN factor--their determination, based on their history, to change the fundamental relationship between Latin America and the rest of the world, especially the U.S., England and Europe. Region-controlled financing is essential to that goal. They have already virtually evicted the IMF/World Bank from the region. There are many bilateral financing arrangements--often richer countries helping poor countries. They all know that the Bank of the South MUST work if they are to achieve full independence as a region and it will therefore very likely be MADE to work.