During the previous three years of my Latin American travels, I've observed a Coup d'état in Peru, an attempted Coup in Bolivia (the second in five years), another in Honduras, the peculiar and unprecedented elections of a US born president in Ecuador and a hard right, self-proclaimed Anarcho-capitalist in Argentina. And just last month, the third attempt within the past couple decades (still in progress) to remove Venezuela's government post election. And in each and every case, these events were either fomented, initiated, supported and/or funded by the United States government in some form, both openly and covertly.
Of course, US meddling in the affairs of Latin American governments is nothing new but given the endless proclamations that its democratic process is continually under attack by foreign adversaries, one would think the American planners could do a better job of stage managing their hypocrisy. After all, it is 2024, a time when live streams, social media commentary and alternative voices are holding truth to power 24/7.
Obviously and predictably, these attacks on the free will of South American people are about the retention and control of valuable resources. Resources, that belong to the country of which they reside. Resources, the capitalist west covets and needs in order to maintain and sustain its debt based expansion machine. But as noted in a previous post, The Times they are A-Changin. What worked in the past, no longer holds the same level of predictability and is impossible to hide from a populous that's more organized and better informed than previous decades.
But there's an even deeper seated issue involved in the clash of these American continents. One that's rooted in culture, philosophy and ethnic proclivities. And its rarely, if ever discussed within the mainstream discourse of western media.
Lets examine.
First, from the perspective of people who are indigenous to their land. They see nature as a cohesive entity, including humans and all elements of the biosphere. To them, nature is man and man is nature, there is no separation. All life is interdependent upon one another within a collective cosmos that must be respected and nurtured for survival. Contrast this with the Modern West's anthropocentric view that man is master and possessor of nature, and his to exploit. A duality that draws a clear line between the interdependence of habitat and that which can be used for profit, drive consumerism and foment expansionist land domination.
Clearly, we have a conflict.
A collision of apposing philosophies, each, essential to the sustainability of its societal organization, livelihood and life itself. One requires the rapacious extraction of nature while the other desires to protect it. One sees nature as a means to an end while the other embraces the natural world as part of itself with a mandate to insure its health and sustainability.
On the surface, this may sound academic and not relevant to the modern world but my observations suggest otherwise. Much of the wall art down here is environmentally focused with images of Pachamama (Quechan name for World Mother) present throughout, especially in the smaller towns dominated by indigenous populations. Comparatively, consumption is minimal with many of the products derived from natural sources, often organic. And the reselling of clothes and various household items is a ubiquitous sight along many streets of the continent. Even the Coups, which almost always involve the removal of an indigenous person representing the predominant, darker skinned working class are a clear indication of the bifurcation. One dominated by European descendants of Cartesian thought, the other, native people beholden to their sacred Mother Earth.
And to make matters worse, neither side has much interest in what the other claims superior. While traveling south from Peru through northern Chile and then east across the Argentinian border I came upon a road block organized by a local native tribe of people whose land and water rights were being destroyed by mining companies extracting lithium. The tribe had no interest in the monetary riches promised by their country's government. Instead, their concerns were focused on the invaluable land they and their ancestors had nurtured for centuries. A land, rich in sustenance, history and promise. No amount of Pesos or Dollars was going to change that position.
Unfortunately, in a world dominated by paper dollars, capital accumulation, concentrated power and the proliferation of weapons - might makes right. And in this world, the OCGFC (Owners and Controllers of Global Financial Capital) does what it must to protect its interests. They are not nationally sovereign, have no alliance or allegiance to any human other than those it represents and literally scoff (or worse) at any tribe, group, community, party or country focused on protecting the natural world. A world they see as theirs to privatize, exploit and profit at the expense of the people who need it for survival.
And so-conflict is inevitable.
One a positive note, the resistance is real and increasingly effective. The Bolivarian Revolution that began in Venezuela at the turn of the century sparked a greater continental movement that continues to this day. And on the streets, activism is robust. This, in spite of a heavily funded and coordinated effort to push back by the profiteers who acknowledge its momentum and potential for holding power accountable.
The massive popularity of Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) and his newly elected successor, Claudia Sheinbaum (Mexico's first female president) is a positive sign and example of what's possible when real Democracies are allowed to flourish. Brazil's Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and Colombia's Gustavo Petro are further examples of leaders who are placing restrictions on foreign subjugation and extraction at the expense of their populations.
And then there is Nicholas Maduro, a self manufactured strong man desperately holding the line in an effort to thwart foreign capital from extracting the natural wealth of Venezuela's land (gold, silver, rare earth metals and the worlds largest oil reserves) at the expense of the native people who own it. Say what you want about the man but after ten years of crippling US economic sanctions and continual foreign attempts to remove him, he maintains popularity with his people, wins elections (the latest disputed) and furthers the movement of native solidarity initiated by Hugo Chavez in 1999. And is it unreasonable to ask - If the July elections were rigged in Maduro's favor, how is it any different than the previous quarter century of foreign interference perpetrated by those who covet the very resources he wishes to keep within country? Am I advocating for election fraud and corruption? No. But given the trillions at stake and agenda of his opposition, a strategic leveling of the playing field shouldn't surprise anyone. As the saying goes, “What is good for the goose is good for the gander.”
Latin America was also one of the first to voice its opposition to the brutal, illegal and reprehensible terror levied upon the Palestinian civilians. Obviously, the alliance holds sensitive parallels given the continents eternal history fending off foreign occupiers so this was not unexpected, albeit, somewhat unprecedented.
Finally, its important to note the significance of the BRICS alliance with regard to its influence on Latin America over the past few years. Affectively, its support and specifically, China's investments, have placed a significant check on continual influence from the predatorial north. An influence, previously driven by the Monroe Doctrine of entitlement which was written by and for those who benefited.
Unlike the past, Latin America has an option to stay the course of acquiesce to Empire, or partner with other developing nations interested in a model that's mutually beneficial, reasonable and sustainable within the limits of an already deeply fractured biosphere. I think the choice is obvious.
“In nature’s economy the currency is not money, it is life.”
Vandana Shiva
“We are the environment and how we treat each other is really how we treat the environment.”
John Francis
Comments