Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Illicit Election $ or FBI Plot?
As usual, the NYT does it's best to dirty Cristina Kirchner's image. While the version of the story included in the article may be true, there's another (and perhaps equally convincing) theory that holds that the whole thing is an FBI attempt to dirty the images of both Venezuela and Argentina by setting up the cash "transfer" and "accidentally" (with lots of media coverage) having it discovered. The truth is that we'll probably never find out what really happened.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Back to School!
Haven't had much time to write lately and this blog's been suffering from abandon. Reading the news, however, some things are too much not to share. I'll try to at least post brief mentions of some of them in the coming month and links to the articles (in Spanish).
So for today:
The city government (headed up by conservative businessman Mauricio Macri), is putting the city on a diet, squeezing money out of schools and hospitals, social programs and public spending. (Although recently they did announce new public funding for private schools, the majority of which are religious.) The latest? Canceling a program that distributed school supplies (pencils, notebooks, etc) to 30,000 low income school children. How much does the city save? 280,000 pesos (approx. $93,000).
They've also cut out minimal scholarships for students, turned a blind eye to the absence of heating in many schools, and cheapened cafeteria food, replacing the minimal amount of cold cuts with some sort of (apparently inedible) soy mixture. Teachers are on strike for what I think is the fifth time (since the school year began in March) but the government says it won't talk to them until 2009.
So for today:
The city government (headed up by conservative businessman Mauricio Macri), is putting the city on a diet, squeezing money out of schools and hospitals, social programs and public spending. (Although recently they did announce new public funding for private schools, the majority of which are religious.) The latest? Canceling a program that distributed school supplies (pencils, notebooks, etc) to 30,000 low income school children. How much does the city save? 280,000 pesos (approx. $93,000).
They've also cut out minimal scholarships for students, turned a blind eye to the absence of heating in many schools, and cheapened cafeteria food, replacing the minimal amount of cold cuts with some sort of (apparently inedible) soy mixture. Teachers are on strike for what I think is the fifth time (since the school year began in March) but the government says it won't talk to them until 2009.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Religion in Argentina
Last Wednesday, the national paper Página 12, published the results of the first national survey on religious beliefs carried out by the organization CONICET along with five universities. They surveyed 2403 adults across the country. Some of the results are surprising. Apparently 9 out of 10 Argentines believe in God. Approximately 76% identify as Catholics, 11% as atheist, agnostic or of no religion, 9% as Evangelists, 1% Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1% Mormons and the remaining 1% are divided among other religions. At the same time, ¾ “rarely or never” attend church or other places of worship and many differ in opinion with the Vatican on important issues:
6 out of 10 support the decriminalization of abortion in special circumstances (in cases of rape, danger to the health or life of the mother, etc)
9 out of 10 want the government to promote the use of prophylactics to prevent the spread of HIV
9 out of 10 support sex education in schools and 8 out of 10 believe that “all” methods of contraception should be discussed
8 out of 10 also believe that a person can use contraception and still be a “faithful believer” and more than half consider premarital sexual relations “a positive experience”.
Logically, the highest proportion of “non-believers” is concentrated in the capital city with approximately 20% declaring their “indifference” to religion.
6 out of 10 support the decriminalization of abortion in special circumstances (in cases of rape, danger to the health or life of the mother, etc)
9 out of 10 want the government to promote the use of prophylactics to prevent the spread of HIV
9 out of 10 support sex education in schools and 8 out of 10 believe that “all” methods of contraception should be discussed
8 out of 10 also believe that a person can use contraception and still be a “faithful believer” and more than half consider premarital sexual relations “a positive experience”.
Logically, the highest proportion of “non-believers” is concentrated in the capital city with approximately 20% declaring their “indifference” to religion.
Monday, August 25, 2008
The Latest
Due to problems with my internet connection, I haven't been able to update for the last several weeks. However, I'm back now so here's a brief summary of some of the most interesting things that have been going on:
And after the vote...?
Despite the fact that they essentially “won” the vote in Congress last month, leaders of the various agricultural organizations are giving the government a kind of ultimatum (along the lines of “time is running out”) for their demands to be met. They’re threatening to begin a new lockout among other types of protest –similar to what we saw last March when dairy products, meat and some vegetables were suddenly absent from local stores. The tone of their demands and their relations with the current government are beginning to look like the emergence of an organized and coherent opposition (party?). They appear, for instance, to be much more interested in political opposition to the government, in making their demands public and in relations with the media then in actual negotiations. On the one hand, a coherent opposition is a sign of a healthy democracy and, in forcing the government to be clearer about its agenda and attentive to all sectors of society, could also have beneficial effects on the current government. However, it must also be noted that many of the key figures emerging politically in the agricultural sector, have not been historically “democratic” players (directly or indirectly associated with past military dictatorships and/or their objectives). Furthermore, they have some very powerful financial interests on their side as well as most national media.
Cobos for President?
Meanwhile, following the vote last month of vice president Cobos (now popularly referred to as “Cleto” his unusual middle name), against his own government’s bill in Congress, it looks increasingly like he’s positioning himself to campaign for president in 2011. It’s a long way off, but the Legislature will have elections next year and candidates are already being debated. Following the vote, there has been a divide within the government between the Cobos-loyal Radicals (Cobos was originally from the UCR –the Radical Civic Union; his party threw him out when he ran on the ballot with Cristina last December) and the “K” Radicals, those loyal to the current government. Last month many of the Cobos loyal Radicals resigned from their positions within the government and Cobos is increasingly seen with figures associated with the agricultural sector, appearing at rural expos and events from which the government has otherwise been deliberately absent. The UCR recently hinted that it will consider welcoming back those thrown out of the party for their relationship with the FPV (Cristina’s party). It also appears that the government is considering its own candidates for the upcoming 2009 elections in places where Cobos would have loyal candidates. In other words, the current government is something like a beast with two heads. For the moment, one is largely neutralized.
Taking Flight
Since the vote on export tariffs, the government has been dealing with another important bill in Congress: the re-nationalization of Argentine Airlines (Aerolíneas Argentinas) from a Spanish company that is essentially bankrupt. The company originally belonged to the State and was privatized in the “neoliberal” 90s (by then president Carlos Menem). In order to make sure that this time their project gained approval (they couldn’t afford another loss in Congress), the government made multiple concessions to other political parties and the opposition. The bill passed with two thirds of the votes. The debate was notably less fierce, the issues (and interests) at stake much less contentious.
Those Poor Farmers
Lastly, the government recently changed their Secretary of Agriculture. Carlos Cheppi this weekend gave his first public interview to the press (newspaper Página 12) in which he comments on, among others, the issue of defining so-called “small” and “medium” producers. Cheppi says: “We’re talking about producers who are dealing with one million or 500,000 dollars and who are also owners of the land, of significant capital. [...] They are people who are dealing with a lot of money, who earn a lot of money, [and are by no means] poor. And I’m not saying this as if it were something negative. On the contrary, they are a sector that dynamizes the economy, that reinvests, that have sent their sons to study and whose sons have today put the sector at the leading edge of competitivity in agriculture on an international scale. The problem is that perhaps they can no longer be considered small producers”. (The entire interview, in Spanish, is here.)
And after the vote...?
Despite the fact that they essentially “won” the vote in Congress last month, leaders of the various agricultural organizations are giving the government a kind of ultimatum (along the lines of “time is running out”) for their demands to be met. They’re threatening to begin a new lockout among other types of protest –similar to what we saw last March when dairy products, meat and some vegetables were suddenly absent from local stores. The tone of their demands and their relations with the current government are beginning to look like the emergence of an organized and coherent opposition (party?). They appear, for instance, to be much more interested in political opposition to the government, in making their demands public and in relations with the media then in actual negotiations. On the one hand, a coherent opposition is a sign of a healthy democracy and, in forcing the government to be clearer about its agenda and attentive to all sectors of society, could also have beneficial effects on the current government. However, it must also be noted that many of the key figures emerging politically in the agricultural sector, have not been historically “democratic” players (directly or indirectly associated with past military dictatorships and/or their objectives). Furthermore, they have some very powerful financial interests on their side as well as most national media.
Cobos for President?
Meanwhile, following the vote last month of vice president Cobos (now popularly referred to as “Cleto” his unusual middle name), against his own government’s bill in Congress, it looks increasingly like he’s positioning himself to campaign for president in 2011. It’s a long way off, but the Legislature will have elections next year and candidates are already being debated. Following the vote, there has been a divide within the government between the Cobos-loyal Radicals (Cobos was originally from the UCR –the Radical Civic Union; his party threw him out when he ran on the ballot with Cristina last December) and the “K” Radicals, those loyal to the current government. Last month many of the Cobos loyal Radicals resigned from their positions within the government and Cobos is increasingly seen with figures associated with the agricultural sector, appearing at rural expos and events from which the government has otherwise been deliberately absent. The UCR recently hinted that it will consider welcoming back those thrown out of the party for their relationship with the FPV (Cristina’s party). It also appears that the government is considering its own candidates for the upcoming 2009 elections in places where Cobos would have loyal candidates. In other words, the current government is something like a beast with two heads. For the moment, one is largely neutralized.
Taking Flight
Since the vote on export tariffs, the government has been dealing with another important bill in Congress: the re-nationalization of Argentine Airlines (Aerolíneas Argentinas) from a Spanish company that is essentially bankrupt. The company originally belonged to the State and was privatized in the “neoliberal” 90s (by then president Carlos Menem). In order to make sure that this time their project gained approval (they couldn’t afford another loss in Congress), the government made multiple concessions to other political parties and the opposition. The bill passed with two thirds of the votes. The debate was notably less fierce, the issues (and interests) at stake much less contentious.
Those Poor Farmers
Lastly, the government recently changed their Secretary of Agriculture. Carlos Cheppi this weekend gave his first public interview to the press (newspaper Página 12) in which he comments on, among others, the issue of defining so-called “small” and “medium” producers. Cheppi says: “We’re talking about producers who are dealing with one million or 500,000 dollars and who are also owners of the land, of significant capital. [...] They are people who are dealing with a lot of money, who earn a lot of money, [and are by no means] poor. And I’m not saying this as if it were something negative. On the contrary, they are a sector that dynamizes the economy, that reinvests, that have sent their sons to study and whose sons have today put the sector at the leading edge of competitivity in agriculture on an international scale. The problem is that perhaps they can no longer be considered small producers”. (The entire interview, in Spanish, is here.)
Sunday, August 3, 2008
History: The Conquest of the Desert (Chapter 2, Part I)
“Today, January 18, 1826, in order to save on bullets, we slit the throats of 27 Ranqueles.” –Federico RauchAround 30 thousand years ago, tribes from Asia and Oceania began to spread through the American continent from the Bering Strait to Tierra del Fuego. It’s estimated that they numbered close to two million by the time the Spaniards arrived: Tehuelches, Pampas, Wichis, Araucanos, Incas. Diverse groups with diverse languages, cultures and ways of life. They were mostly hunters, fishers and gatherers. The Incas constructed an empire with great cities, a territory which extended throughout the Andes.
Across the ocean, Spain was structured into a rigid feudal society; one, in which, if you had the misfortune to be born at the bottom, you likely stayed at the bottom. There was little room for changing one’s status. America, however, offered this opportunity; the possibility for peasants, workers, down-and-out nobles to change their luck, obtain land, riches, titles and fame.
From the beginning, the Spaniards treated the native peoples with hostility, taking land as they wished, and using religion and force to dominate them. When the Viceroyalty of Río de la Plata was formed, its limits delineated the borders between “civilization” and “barbarity”. Beyond its territory lay the “desert”, unconquered –though not as the term would suggest, uninhabited-- territory. The “Indians”, it was thought, needed to either be “domesticated” or “exterminated”.
In October of 1810, several months after the Revolución de Mayo, an expedition was sent out under the control of Colonel Pedro García, to venture into the interior of the country. García reported that the Indian “despite his barbarity” could be dominated and assimilated into civilization. He recommended reinforcing borders.
Meanwhile, in Buenos Aires, the salting industry which produced dried meat preserved in salt, was growing quickly and making the “salters” wealthy and powerful men. The only catch was that both the major sources of salt and the wild cattle were located in territory controlled by various native tribes. The solution? An expansion into and takeover of this territory from the natives. The priority quickly shifted from assimilating the “Indian” to exterminating him.
When Bernardino Rivadavia assumed the presidency in 1826, all of the provinces’ public land holdings were put up as the guarantee for a loan taken with the Baring Brothers Bank of London. Rivadavia applied a system of “emphyteusis” to these holdings by which agricultural producers could farm public land, though as tenants rather than owners. Rather than dividing up the land into lots and leasing it out to small and medium sized producers, Rivadavia handed out thousands and thousands of hectares to those who were already major landowners. Since the law didn’t establish limits or require grazing or occupation of the land, it permitted subleasing and the transference of rights which opened up possibilities for all kind of speculation with public lands.
8 million, 6 hundred thousand (8,600,000) hectares (more than 212 million acres) fell into the hands of only 538 private landowners.
In order to control the borders and guarantee protection for these landowners (from the natives), Rivadavia contracted the Prussian mercenary Federico Rauch who received the ranking of Colonel in the national Army. His strategy consisted of surprise attacks and indiscriminate assassinations of men, women and children. March 28, 1829, in the battle of Las Vizcacheras, Rauch was defeated and his throat slit by Arbolito, a Ranquel.
By the time Rauch died, the 30,000 km2 of pampas that formed part of Buenos Aires had been transformed –by the advanced of the army—into more than 100,000.
A city in Buenos Aires province remains named in his honour.
Translated and adapted from the series Historia de un país Argentina siglo XX.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
If you've ever wondered...
When we're talking middle class and working class in Argentina, how much are these people actually making? And what does it cost to live here?
This week, the government announced a raise in the legal minimum wage to 1200 pesos per month (around $400usd) starting in August and 1240 pesos per month as of December. Prior to this, minimum wage had been 980 pesos/month (around $325usd). The new wages come out to about 6 pesos (or $2) an hour. In a meeting earlier this week, workers unions defended the raise and vied for more while representatives of business attempted to dissuade the hike. At least 2 million workers earn less than this and are working in "black" or off the books, unlikely to be affected by the new minimum wage.
According to conservative think-tank Equis, the basic necessities for an average family cost 1435 pesos ($480)/month. Inflation is a reality and though it appears to have slowed down in the past few weeks, things aren't getting any cheaper. Furthermore, with a rise in tourism and city-wide construction of condominiums and high cost apartments, rents within the city have soared. Just to give you an idea from personal, anecdotal experience, it's difficult to find a basic apartment for any less than 600 pesos/month and even that is a precious find.
It's almost impossible to get reliable statistics for these things at the moment though. The INDEC, the national entity in charge of keeping track of things like inflation, has lost all credibility this year (consistently announcing zero or minimum inflation when it was obvious to the average consumer that prices were going up). The government, along with several well-respected economists, is in the process of devising a new system.
This week, the government announced a raise in the legal minimum wage to 1200 pesos per month (around $400usd) starting in August and 1240 pesos per month as of December. Prior to this, minimum wage had been 980 pesos/month (around $325usd). The new wages come out to about 6 pesos (or $2) an hour. In a meeting earlier this week, workers unions defended the raise and vied for more while representatives of business attempted to dissuade the hike. At least 2 million workers earn less than this and are working in "black" or off the books, unlikely to be affected by the new minimum wage.
According to conservative think-tank Equis, the basic necessities for an average family cost 1435 pesos ($480)/month. Inflation is a reality and though it appears to have slowed down in the past few weeks, things aren't getting any cheaper. Furthermore, with a rise in tourism and city-wide construction of condominiums and high cost apartments, rents within the city have soared. Just to give you an idea from personal, anecdotal experience, it's difficult to find a basic apartment for any less than 600 pesos/month and even that is a precious find.
It's almost impossible to get reliable statistics for these things at the moment though. The INDEC, the national entity in charge of keeping track of things like inflation, has lost all credibility this year (consistently announcing zero or minimum inflation when it was obvious to the average consumer that prices were going up). The government, along with several well-respected economists, is in the process of devising a new system.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Feedback
If you visit, please leave me a comment, question, constructive criticism! If you like what you see, pass on the address to someone else!
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Argentina from the Outside
The worst possible scenario for the government has become reality. The Senate finished their vote this morning sometime around 4am. (It was around that hour that I finally gave up listening to speeches for both sides and fell asleep!) The vote divided the Senate down the middle. 36 senators supported each side of the tariff issue. In cases like this, the vice president is the one to decide, leaving Argentines last night with a white knuckle finish. The Argentine vice, someone we haven't heard much about over the last few months, is Julio Cobos. And while Cristina Kirchner is from the Front for Victory (FPV), Cobos is originally from the UCR (the Radical Party, which despite its name is conservative). In fact, Cobos' party kicked him out for running on the ballot with Cristina. And she was making a gamble to ensure more votes and a broader appeal (they won the national elections with 45% of the vote), a strategy which at this point, perhaps the Kirchners are regretting. Cobos was left with the very difficult decision of voting against the government he forms part of and putting the presidency in a very weak position or, voting true to his conservative background (and undoubtedly beliefs). Cobos chose to vote against the proposed tariffs. "History will judge me," he apparently said, when casting his vote.
Curious to see how this was playing out beyond Argentina's borders, I hunted down the report on last night's events on the New York Times website. As expected, it has a definite slant to the right (something I was only able to see clearly in the Times after having lived here for a good period of time). I thought it might be interesting to post some reflections on the "other side" of the slant so you can compare "both sides" of the story. You may need to go through a free sign up process to access this link to the article. (Please let me know if it doesn't work and I can paste the entire text here.)
Writing from Rio de Janeiro (in Brazil, by the way), the Times predictably portrays the president and her party in domineering, authoritarian terms, something they've been doing since Néstor Kirchner was elected (in 2003). It seems that when American interests don't like a foreign power, the default is to portray them with hints of despotism. Here, the Times sets up the opposition between, on the one had, the government (associated with words like "imposed", "angered" and "control") and, on the other "rebellious farmers" who would be "forced to give up more of their profits". The two sides, clearly delineated, there is little room in international media for subtleties or complexities.
Another important detail is the "farmers". An interesting (albeit not surprising) choice of words to describe the agricultural sector opposing these reforms. The situation in Argentina these days has little to do with small family farms. In fact, close to 70% of these "farmers" live off of rents they're paid for their land which is leased out to those who farm it using the latest technology in what are more like large corporate farming operations than anything else. The small independent farmer trying to make a living off of his land is a disappearing breed here. The "farmers" protesting are, for the most part, making windfall profits off of rising international soy and grain prices; the wealthy getting wealthier. Therefore, though it may sound totally out of place to call a mere "farmer" "greedy", the adjective is not entirely unfounded in this case. Add to that the right wing political orientation of many and not entirely implausible connections to the last dictatorship (not to mention the history of this country) and "coup plotters" suddenly doesn't sound so extreme.
Further Reading: If you can read Spanish, here's an excellent article by Alfredo Zaiat explaining how the farming of land has been highly specialized and technological. "Farmers" have long been replaced with something that more closely resembles corporate "food producers".
Curious to see how this was playing out beyond Argentina's borders, I hunted down the report on last night's events on the New York Times website. As expected, it has a definite slant to the right (something I was only able to see clearly in the Times after having lived here for a good period of time). I thought it might be interesting to post some reflections on the "other side" of the slant so you can compare "both sides" of the story. You may need to go through a free sign up process to access this link to the article. (Please let me know if it doesn't work and I can paste the entire text here.)
Writing from Rio de Janeiro (in Brazil, by the way), the Times predictably portrays the president and her party in domineering, authoritarian terms, something they've been doing since Néstor Kirchner was elected (in 2003). It seems that when American interests don't like a foreign power, the default is to portray them with hints of despotism. Here, the Times sets up the opposition between, on the one had, the government (associated with words like "imposed", "angered" and "control") and, on the other "rebellious farmers" who would be "forced to give up more of their profits". The two sides, clearly delineated, there is little room in international media for subtleties or complexities.
"Mrs. Kirchner and her husband, former President Néstor Kirchner, who leads the Peronist bloc, have justified the higher taxes as important to redistribute the country’s wealth and hold down Argentine food prices. But the Kirchners have widened divisions in the country by portraying the farmers’ strikes as a political threat, calling farm leaders 'greedy' and 'coup plotters.'"This paragraph is interesting as it sets up a false opposition. The first sentence is, in my opinion, quite accurate. This is what the entire conflict has been about from the government's point of view. However, one reading the Times would be lead to believe that in fact, the goals of more equitable wealth distribution and regulation of food prices are negative precisely because they increase divisions in the country. In fact, these divisions (in blunt terms, between those who have and those who don't) have been present in greater or lesser degree since practically the creation of Argentina as a country. These are the similar divisions exploited by politicians associated with the right wing dictatorship of the 1970s to justify the disappearance of thousands of dissidents. And the fact that the right may oppose more equitable wealth distribution and regulation of food prices is natural (since it's their pocketbooks being threatened). But the latter does not lessen the value of the former.
Another important detail is the "farmers". An interesting (albeit not surprising) choice of words to describe the agricultural sector opposing these reforms. The situation in Argentina these days has little to do with small family farms. In fact, close to 70% of these "farmers" live off of rents they're paid for their land which is leased out to those who farm it using the latest technology in what are more like large corporate farming operations than anything else. The small independent farmer trying to make a living off of his land is a disappearing breed here. The "farmers" protesting are, for the most part, making windfall profits off of rising international soy and grain prices; the wealthy getting wealthier. Therefore, though it may sound totally out of place to call a mere "farmer" "greedy", the adjective is not entirely unfounded in this case. Add to that the right wing political orientation of many and not entirely implausible connections to the last dictatorship (not to mention the history of this country) and "coup plotters" suddenly doesn't sound so extreme.
Further Reading: If you can read Spanish, here's an excellent article by Alfredo Zaiat explaining how the farming of land has been highly specialized and technological. "Farmers" have long been replaced with something that more closely resembles corporate "food producers".
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Senate Debate: Government vs "Campo"
The Senate is currently debating the export tariffs. What's in play here is more than simply how much to charge in tariffs. What's in play is the proposed economic and political model of the current and previous government (the two Kirchner mandates). Yesterday there were two huge marches in the city representing the two sides in the debate. One took place in front of the Congress building in the center of the city. An estimated 95,000 people attended, the large majority of whom were there as part of workers unions (which here are much more politicized than in North America). They mostly arrived by bus or public transportation. Meanwhile, across town, a vast proportion of the comfortable middle and upper classes showed up in unprecedented numbers. An estimated 225,000 people. Impressive for a sector quite unused to demonstrating their convictions in street demonstrations. Instructions for how and where to park were passed on through the mainstream media by concerned politicians wanting to make sure there would be room for everyone's cars. The demonstration, tellingly took place in Palermo, a hip middle class neighbourhood, at a monument donated to the country by Spain.
If anything can be read into these numbers (and believe me, journalists and politicians have been doing plenty of that for the last 24 hours) it's that right-wing opposition to the government and the model it proposes is getting stronger and more unified. The word "coup" -mostly to deny that the protests have any threatening element- has been circulating over the last several days. Don't get me wrong -I think that democracy is currently comfortably installed in this country. (One could read these protests and the massive numbers as precisely an expression of the fact that democracy is quite healthy here at the moment!) But in a country that has seen 6 coups in less than 50 years (1930-1976), this word has a certain threatening edge and carries echoes of a not-to-distant past.
If the Senate does pass the law on tariffs, the government will have a small triumph, confirmation that the country may be ready for the changes it proposes. There is no guarantee, however, that the agricultural sector (producers, exporters, landowners, etc) will not return to roadblocks and other means, protesting (after the fact) that the bill was unconstitutional. On the other hand, if the Senate produces a no vote, the outcome will be very bad news for the government. It will mean a strengthened opposition and one that knows it has the support it needs to continue pressuring a weakened government, one that since its third month, has had this as its one major issue.
The session in Senate began around 10am this morning. It continues as I write and will probably go on until past midnight tonight when the final vote will take place. 72 senators will vote and currently they are tied at 35, 35 with 2 undecided. Whatever it is, the only thing guaranteed about the final outcome is that it will be close.
I leave you with photos from the march that took place in front of the Congress building yesterday afternoon:
If anything can be read into these numbers (and believe me, journalists and politicians have been doing plenty of that for the last 24 hours) it's that right-wing opposition to the government and the model it proposes is getting stronger and more unified. The word "coup" -mostly to deny that the protests have any threatening element- has been circulating over the last several days. Don't get me wrong -I think that democracy is currently comfortably installed in this country. (One could read these protests and the massive numbers as precisely an expression of the fact that democracy is quite healthy here at the moment!) But in a country that has seen 6 coups in less than 50 years (1930-1976), this word has a certain threatening edge and carries echoes of a not-to-distant past.
If the Senate does pass the law on tariffs, the government will have a small triumph, confirmation that the country may be ready for the changes it proposes. There is no guarantee, however, that the agricultural sector (producers, exporters, landowners, etc) will not return to roadblocks and other means, protesting (after the fact) that the bill was unconstitutional. On the other hand, if the Senate produces a no vote, the outcome will be very bad news for the government. It will mean a strengthened opposition and one that knows it has the support it needs to continue pressuring a weakened government, one that since its third month, has had this as its one major issue.
The session in Senate began around 10am this morning. It continues as I write and will probably go on until past midnight tonight when the final vote will take place. 72 senators will vote and currently they are tied at 35, 35 with 2 undecided. Whatever it is, the only thing guaranteed about the final outcome is that it will be close.
I leave you with photos from the march that took place in front of the Congress building yesterday afternoon:
Monday, July 14, 2008
The Economics of it All (Part 1)
The following is a translated excerpt of a presentation made by Aldo Ferrer, Professor of Economics at the University of Buenos Aires before the House of Representatives in Congress on June 25, 2008 regarding the conflict between the agricultural sector and the government. Ferrer is one of the country’s leading economists and is part of the Fénix Group which was formed in the year 2000 by Argentine economists seeking to design an economic model for the country which could offer an alternative to the neoliberal policies promoted by the Washington Consensus. His presentation before Congress offers an interesting summary of and take on the conflict and he’s able to see the situation from a much broader perspective than that reflected in the daily papers. He also touches (in the second half... to be posted soon) on some similarities that Argentina shares with Canada and other countries which you might find interesting.
I hope you’ll forgive any errors and awkward phrasing. My knowledge of economics is somewhat limited and I did this translation quickly. The original (in Spanish) can be found here.
I’m posting the (unrevised version) of the first half of his presentation tonight. The translation still needs some correcting (which I hope to get to as soon as possible) but if you don’t mind braving the rough wording, feel free to have a go at it now. Tomorrow there are two important protests planned –one for each side of the issue (or rather a rally and a counter-rally). The bill was passed from Congress to Senate and is being debated in Senate tomorrow afternoon. At this point, it is very close and no one is able to tell what the results will be. In addition to this, representatives and others associated with the producers have made public statements to the effect that even if it’s passed, they are not willing to comply and claim the unconstitutionality of the proposed export tariffs. The rallies tomorrow are planned to coincide with the announcement on the results of the debate.
Mr. President, Representatives of the House, Ladies and Gentlemen, the topic we are here to discuss, that of the tariffs, in my opinion, has up until now been discussed from only one perspective, that of the redistribution of earnings, the distribution of an income that is coming not only from individual production but also from a situation of high prices on the world market, and the increase in earnings from exports.
The debate has been whether or not it is fair to distribute this income in order to defend food prices on the domestic market and have a more equitable distribution of wealth or, if this income belongs wholly to those who produce the export goods.
In my opinion, this approach is insufficient because implicit in the topic of the tariffs is the prior and very important problem of the productive structure of the country. Development in today’s world is a process based essentially on the use of science and technology, in the management of knowledge and with the goal of augmenting worker productivity throughout the social and economic fabric of a modern nation. Several conditions are necessary in order for the incorporation of science and technology to produce development in modern constructions. One of them is to count on an integrated and diversified structure that is able to incorporate diverse sectors of modern production from the conversion of natural resources to leading edge technologies connected to biotechnology, information technology and the production of capital goods.
If this does not take place, if a system does not have a sufficient level of diversification or ability to incorporate and produce knowledge, it is unable to develop under modern conditions. This is also closely linked to the development of national systems of science and technology. Only countries with integrated, diversified and complete structures that cover a variety of productive sectors, have systems that are strong in science and technology. There are no exceptions in this sense. There is no scientifically and technologically advanced country without a productive structure with those characteristics.
Therefore, the development of the country requires –as stated—a structure with these characteristics, one that cannot be sustained in one sector alone. For instance, it cannot rely solely on the production of primary goods. Nor is there any developed country in the world which relies solely on the transformation and income from primary goods. Countries rich in oil, copper, minerals or tropical resources are not able to leave an underdeveloped state unless they manage to develop a complex and diversified structure. In our particular case, the agro-industrial chain, with all the direct and indirect employment it generates, represents around a third of the employed workforce. If we are unable to rely at the same time on industry as a base, we will be unable to provide work and social welfare for a population of 40 million. In other words, unless we can rely on an integrated structure we will never be able to reach fully employment, we will only be able to take care of less than half our population.
We must face the fact that, as the great economist (as well as engineer and businessman) Marcelo Diamand has said, the Argentine economy is structurally unbalanced. By virtue of a great wealth of natural resources in the country and high efficiency shown by many producers that are using the latest technology, we have an agricultural sector that, as some like to say, is a “precision agriculture” in many areas. The fact that many rural producers are employing cutting edge technology is revealing. Today, in contrast to some time ago, agriculture is no longer an activity of low “knowledge employment”. Rather, agriculture is on the technological frontier which has allowed, on the other hand, the extremely important development that this sector has carried out on the natural resources which this country counts on.
However, it so happens that the Argentine economy is part of the world market and the relative prices on the world market are not the same as our domestic prices. If we were to transfer the prices of the world market to our domestic market, we would be determining our productive structure with respect to price indications on the world market.
One can also take the opposite example, of relatively different prices in a highly industrial region such as the European Union. Precisely because the European Union wants to have an integrated structure and advanced agricultural industry, it applies a common agriculture policy to which it devotes much of the resources in the region. If it weren’t to do this, there would be no European farming. It has rightly decided to defend its primary production with a common agricultural policy in order to assure its food supply and social integration.
Given our relative underdevelopment, we are in the opposite situation. Therefore, because a modern State has the obligation and right to administer international prices within its own borders with the objective of national development, which consists in maintaining a diversified and complete structure, from the production of natural resources to a diversified service industry and the aim to manage development, incorporate knowledge and technology and, as a consequence, to grow. This forces us to confront our unbalanced structure, one in which...
[Here, Professor Ferrer was interrupted by proponents of the agricultural producers and other opposition obligating the House to take a recess and resume later in the afternoon.]
I hope you’ll forgive any errors and awkward phrasing. My knowledge of economics is somewhat limited and I did this translation quickly. The original (in Spanish) can be found here.
I’m posting the (unrevised version) of the first half of his presentation tonight. The translation still needs some correcting (which I hope to get to as soon as possible) but if you don’t mind braving the rough wording, feel free to have a go at it now. Tomorrow there are two important protests planned –one for each side of the issue (or rather a rally and a counter-rally). The bill was passed from Congress to Senate and is being debated in Senate tomorrow afternoon. At this point, it is very close and no one is able to tell what the results will be. In addition to this, representatives and others associated with the producers have made public statements to the effect that even if it’s passed, they are not willing to comply and claim the unconstitutionality of the proposed export tariffs. The rallies tomorrow are planned to coincide with the announcement on the results of the debate.
* * *
Mr. President, Representatives of the House, Ladies and Gentlemen, the topic we are here to discuss, that of the tariffs, in my opinion, has up until now been discussed from only one perspective, that of the redistribution of earnings, the distribution of an income that is coming not only from individual production but also from a situation of high prices on the world market, and the increase in earnings from exports.
The debate has been whether or not it is fair to distribute this income in order to defend food prices on the domestic market and have a more equitable distribution of wealth or, if this income belongs wholly to those who produce the export goods.
In my opinion, this approach is insufficient because implicit in the topic of the tariffs is the prior and very important problem of the productive structure of the country. Development in today’s world is a process based essentially on the use of science and technology, in the management of knowledge and with the goal of augmenting worker productivity throughout the social and economic fabric of a modern nation. Several conditions are necessary in order for the incorporation of science and technology to produce development in modern constructions. One of them is to count on an integrated and diversified structure that is able to incorporate diverse sectors of modern production from the conversion of natural resources to leading edge technologies connected to biotechnology, information technology and the production of capital goods.
If this does not take place, if a system does not have a sufficient level of diversification or ability to incorporate and produce knowledge, it is unable to develop under modern conditions. This is also closely linked to the development of national systems of science and technology. Only countries with integrated, diversified and complete structures that cover a variety of productive sectors, have systems that are strong in science and technology. There are no exceptions in this sense. There is no scientifically and technologically advanced country without a productive structure with those characteristics.
Therefore, the development of the country requires –as stated—a structure with these characteristics, one that cannot be sustained in one sector alone. For instance, it cannot rely solely on the production of primary goods. Nor is there any developed country in the world which relies solely on the transformation and income from primary goods. Countries rich in oil, copper, minerals or tropical resources are not able to leave an underdeveloped state unless they manage to develop a complex and diversified structure. In our particular case, the agro-industrial chain, with all the direct and indirect employment it generates, represents around a third of the employed workforce. If we are unable to rely at the same time on industry as a base, we will be unable to provide work and social welfare for a population of 40 million. In other words, unless we can rely on an integrated structure we will never be able to reach fully employment, we will only be able to take care of less than half our population.
We must face the fact that, as the great economist (as well as engineer and businessman) Marcelo Diamand has said, the Argentine economy is structurally unbalanced. By virtue of a great wealth of natural resources in the country and high efficiency shown by many producers that are using the latest technology, we have an agricultural sector that, as some like to say, is a “precision agriculture” in many areas. The fact that many rural producers are employing cutting edge technology is revealing. Today, in contrast to some time ago, agriculture is no longer an activity of low “knowledge employment”. Rather, agriculture is on the technological frontier which has allowed, on the other hand, the extremely important development that this sector has carried out on the natural resources which this country counts on.
However, it so happens that the Argentine economy is part of the world market and the relative prices on the world market are not the same as our domestic prices. If we were to transfer the prices of the world market to our domestic market, we would be determining our productive structure with respect to price indications on the world market.
One can also take the opposite example, of relatively different prices in a highly industrial region such as the European Union. Precisely because the European Union wants to have an integrated structure and advanced agricultural industry, it applies a common agriculture policy to which it devotes much of the resources in the region. If it weren’t to do this, there would be no European farming. It has rightly decided to defend its primary production with a common agricultural policy in order to assure its food supply and social integration.
Given our relative underdevelopment, we are in the opposite situation. Therefore, because a modern State has the obligation and right to administer international prices within its own borders with the objective of national development, which consists in maintaining a diversified and complete structure, from the production of natural resources to a diversified service industry and the aim to manage development, incorporate knowledge and technology and, as a consequence, to grow. This forces us to confront our unbalanced structure, one in which...
[Here, Professor Ferrer was interrupted by proponents of the agricultural producers and other opposition obligating the House to take a recess and resume later in the afternoon.]
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
9 de Julio -Día de la Independencia
On this day in 1816, 6 years after the Revolución de Mayo, delegates from various provinces and regions throughout the area met in the city of Tucumán to sign the Declaration of Independence of the United Provinces of South America, the former Viceroyalty of Río de la Plata. Most delegates were priests and lawyers from Jujuy, Salta, Tucumán, La Rioja, Catamarca, Santiago del Estero, Mendoza, San Juan, San Luis, Buenos Aires, Córdoba, Charcas, Cochabamba, Tupiza y Mizque. (The last two are regions in Upper Perú.) To get to Tucumán they had to make the journey by horse-drawn carriage. From Buenos Aires to Tucumán, this journey would have taken roughly a month. They met in the house of Francisca Bazán de Laguna which was declared a national monument in 1941.
Two years prior, in 1814, King Fernando VII, had returned to the Spanish throne following Napoleon’s invasion. This generated an odd situation for those who had supported the Revolución de Mayo in 1810 as many had vyed for independence in the name of the King of Spain (who had been temporarily removed by Napoleon). With Fernando back, they could no longer fight for independence in the name of the King since Spain wanted to regain control over its colonies. Those who were truly loyal to the crown (and who had opposed the Revolución, supporting Spain’s colonial hold on South America) were making gains and planned to attack the army general José de San Martín, interrumpting his monumental campaign to liberate South America, invade Argentine territory and take the city of Buenos Aires.
In April of 1815, an uprising brought down the government of Carlos María de Alvear, the second Supreme Director of the United Provinces of Río de la Plata and a staunch Unitarian. His (dictatorial) rule had lasted only three months. Those who ousted him, demanded a meeting of Congress, of all the delegates representing the United Provinces. The session began in March of 1816 with 33 delegates present. Some regions were unable to send representatives because they were intercepted by loyalists to the crown or were involved in a war on the Brazilian border. Most Federalist regions that sent delegates were emprisoned by Unitarian agents.
The declaration they wrote declared their unanimous desire to break the “violent relations that tied them to the King of Spain, regain the rights that they had lost and declare themselves a nation, free and independent of Fernando VII and his successors” in the name of “the authority of the people we represent”, the “Heavens, the nations and men throughout the globe”.
One week later, in a secret session, the oath was modified to read: “...independent of Fernando VII and his sucessors and any other foreign domination”.
The declaration was also translated into Quichua, one of the many indigenous languages spoken in the region.
Two years prior, in 1814, King Fernando VII, had returned to the Spanish throne following Napoleon’s invasion. This generated an odd situation for those who had supported the Revolución de Mayo in 1810 as many had vyed for independence in the name of the King of Spain (who had been temporarily removed by Napoleon). With Fernando back, they could no longer fight for independence in the name of the King since Spain wanted to regain control over its colonies. Those who were truly loyal to the crown (and who had opposed the Revolución, supporting Spain’s colonial hold on South America) were making gains and planned to attack the army general José de San Martín, interrumpting his monumental campaign to liberate South America, invade Argentine territory and take the city of Buenos Aires.
In April of 1815, an uprising brought down the government of Carlos María de Alvear, the second Supreme Director of the United Provinces of Río de la Plata and a staunch Unitarian. His (dictatorial) rule had lasted only three months. Those who ousted him, demanded a meeting of Congress, of all the delegates representing the United Provinces. The session began in March of 1816 with 33 delegates present. Some regions were unable to send representatives because they were intercepted by loyalists to the crown or were involved in a war on the Brazilian border. Most Federalist regions that sent delegates were emprisoned by Unitarian agents.
The declaration they wrote declared their unanimous desire to break the “violent relations that tied them to the King of Spain, regain the rights that they had lost and declare themselves a nation, free and independent of Fernando VII and his successors” in the name of “the authority of the people we represent”, the “Heavens, the nations and men throughout the globe”.
One week later, in a secret session, the oath was modified to read: “...independent of Fernando VII and his sucessors and any other foreign domination”.
The declaration was also translated into Quichua, one of the many indigenous languages spoken in the region.
Friday, July 4, 2008
Current Events: Government vs Producers Continued
At this very moment, proposals on what to do about the export tariffs as well as a couple of additional laws are being presented before Congress in a special session which began yesterday afternoon after negotiations with the main organizations representing the producers failed to produce consensus. The presentation in Congress continued on this morning and will end in a vote. Although the producers, with the support of some opposition parties (the UCR –the radicals-, the CC –the Civic Coalition-, PRO –the party backing Buenos Aires’ conservative mayor-- and some members of the socialist party), had requested a 150 day delay on the proceedings, the debate still went ahead. At the moment, it is only speculation whether the government will have enough votes to get the resolution passed. Special exceptions for small and medium producers have been added to the text of the original proposal and some minor concessions have been made. In total, something like seven alternative proposals were presented by different parties and interest groups. But the government is hoping for enough support to get it’s own proposal passed.
Mario Llambías, the president of one of the four organizations that represent the producers, the CRA (Confederación Rural Argentina), although he had originally supported taking the debate to Congress, has recently declared that if the proposal is passes, he will consider it unconstitutional. Meanwhile, among the other three organizations, the once united front is showing internal divisions.
What remains to be seen is how the vote goes, whether the resolution is passed and, if so, whether the producers will respect the decision of Congress.
Update: After a session that lasted 19 hours, the government's proposal was passed. The vote was close as expected. 129 in favour, 122 votes against and 2 abstained from voting altogether. The proposal has to go before the Senate now. Producers still oppose the bill despite the fact that the government has made several concessions in their favour.
Mario Llambías, the president of one of the four organizations that represent the producers, the CRA (Confederación Rural Argentina), although he had originally supported taking the debate to Congress, has recently declared that if the proposal is passes, he will consider it unconstitutional. Meanwhile, among the other three organizations, the once united front is showing internal divisions.
What remains to be seen is how the vote goes, whether the resolution is passed and, if so, whether the producers will respect the decision of Congress.
Update: After a session that lasted 19 hours, the government's proposal was passed. The vote was close as expected. 129 in favour, 122 votes against and 2 abstained from voting altogether. The proposal has to go before the Senate now. Producers still oppose the bill despite the fact that the government has made several concessions in their favour.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
History: A Country's Beginnings (Chapter 1, Part II)
The struggle between Federalists and Unitarians divides the new country. The eastern provinces of Buenos Aires, Santa Fe, Entre Ríos and Corrientes are dominated by the Federalists while the rest, the “interior” of the country, is Unitarian. Eventually, by the early 1830s, the Federalists win out and all (now) fourteen provinces sign the “Federalist Agreement”. In theory, all provinces share equal power. However, by the mid 1830s, the governer of Buenos Aires, Juan Manuel de Rosas, begins to dominate the governments of the other provinces. Through diplomacy, or where this fails, sheer and sometimes brutal force, he manages to get sympathetic governors in strategic positions throughout the country. By 1851, he’s the “Supreme Chief of the Argentine Confederation” and quite a dictatorial one. While his power grows, his opposition grows as well. In 1852, he’s overthrown by an anti-Rosist alliance and is forced to seek exile in England where he remains until his death.
With the end of Rosism (as it was called), the majority of provinces agree to compromise their sovereignty in favour of becoming a Nation. The anti-Rosists come together to form the Partido Liberal (or Liberal Party) which takes power. The main opposition, however, is a man named Justo José de Urquiza and his followers. Urquiza, once the governor of Entre Ríos province and a supporter of Rosas, had taken up the opposition and helped to overthrow him when Rosas made policies that were harmful to his province. Now, though he had helped overthrow Rosas, his bid for power was still seen as similar to his predecessor. Urquiza is chosen as president of the Confederation. Over the conflict, however, Buenos Aires separates from Confederation and the new capital of the country becomes Paraná.
A year later, in Santa Fe, the country finally gets a national Constitution, although without Buenos Aires. In the following years, Buenos Aires does quite well economically, thanks to a thriving export business in wool and leather. The Confederation, on the other hand, doesn’t do so well without its former capital.
Tension grows. There’s war in 1859. Urquiza and his troops win and Buenos Aires is reincorporated. But there’s war again in 1861. Buenos Aires wins under the leadership of a man named Bartolomé Mitre, who then becomes president. Buenos Aires, under Mitre’s leadership, dominates the country, once again.
In 1865, Mitre signs an important agreement called the Triple Alliance Treaty, with the neighbouring countries of Brazil and Uruguay which leads the three into a long and unpopular war against Paraguay. The latter is unable to resist against the three more powerful countries and loses much of its territory and most of its male population, as well as the war. For Argentina, however, this war marks an important step in its consolidation as a nation: for the first time, its troops from all provinces fight together as a national force, rather than distinct and divided provincial powers.
Under the later presidencies of Sarmiento and Avellaneda (more about them in future posts), the country becomes more united through the construction of a national railroad system, economic development and the arrival of more immigrants from Europe.
By 1880, the country looks pretty similar to the way it does today. Buenos Aires (city) becomes the “Federal Capital of the Republic of Argentina” and a couple of years later, La Plata, a small nearby city becomes the capital of Buenos Aires province. It has both a national currency and a national army. One could say that by 1880, the complex process of the founding and consolidation of the country has come to a close. However, much lies in store for this new nation...
Based on the series Historia de un país Argentina siglo XX.
With the end of Rosism (as it was called), the majority of provinces agree to compromise their sovereignty in favour of becoming a Nation. The anti-Rosists come together to form the Partido Liberal (or Liberal Party) which takes power. The main opposition, however, is a man named Justo José de Urquiza and his followers. Urquiza, once the governor of Entre Ríos province and a supporter of Rosas, had taken up the opposition and helped to overthrow him when Rosas made policies that were harmful to his province. Now, though he had helped overthrow Rosas, his bid for power was still seen as similar to his predecessor. Urquiza is chosen as president of the Confederation. Over the conflict, however, Buenos Aires separates from Confederation and the new capital of the country becomes Paraná.
A year later, in Santa Fe, the country finally gets a national Constitution, although without Buenos Aires. In the following years, Buenos Aires does quite well economically, thanks to a thriving export business in wool and leather. The Confederation, on the other hand, doesn’t do so well without its former capital.
Tension grows. There’s war in 1859. Urquiza and his troops win and Buenos Aires is reincorporated. But there’s war again in 1861. Buenos Aires wins under the leadership of a man named Bartolomé Mitre, who then becomes president. Buenos Aires, under Mitre’s leadership, dominates the country, once again.
In 1865, Mitre signs an important agreement called the Triple Alliance Treaty, with the neighbouring countries of Brazil and Uruguay which leads the three into a long and unpopular war against Paraguay. The latter is unable to resist against the three more powerful countries and loses much of its territory and most of its male population, as well as the war. For Argentina, however, this war marks an important step in its consolidation as a nation: for the first time, its troops from all provinces fight together as a national force, rather than distinct and divided provincial powers.
Under the later presidencies of Sarmiento and Avellaneda (more about them in future posts), the country becomes more united through the construction of a national railroad system, economic development and the arrival of more immigrants from Europe.
By 1880, the country looks pretty similar to the way it does today. Buenos Aires (city) becomes the “Federal Capital of the Republic of Argentina” and a couple of years later, La Plata, a small nearby city becomes the capital of Buenos Aires province. It has both a national currency and a national army. One could say that by 1880, the complex process of the founding and consolidation of the country has come to a close. However, much lies in store for this new nation...
Based on the series Historia de un país Argentina siglo XX.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Current Events: Government vs Producers
What’s happening in Argentina these days? Well, since December 10 of last year, we have a new president, Cristina Kirchner, wife of the last president, Néstor Kirchner. The first few months of her government haven’t been easy. Some say that this government is actually (and rather unusually) slightly to the left of the majority of the population. In particular, with regards to human rights issues and, arguably, social welfare. What’s clear is that the Kirchners have their enemies. They also (up to this point) have widespread popular support. (Although this is noticeably less so among the somewhat conservative voter population in the capital city and the media, both national and international.)
About three months into her presidency, the government decided to raise export tariffs on soy, sunflower and other grains that are increasingly profitable on the world market and are an extremely important aspect of the national economy. According to the government, the increased revenues would be used for social programs and other measures that promote an increased distribution of wealth. It was met with surprising opposition. In part, due to some blunders by the government in presenting the new reforms (grouping, for instance, all producers together rather than giving small producers special conditions and exceptions) but also due to political maneuvers on the part of fairly powerful interests represented by several agricultural organizations. In very simple terms, this country –from its very beginnings- has seen a great division between “haves” and “have-nots”. Land was not divided into small stakings as in most of the US and Canada, but rather huge tracts of land were given to (or purchased or consolidated by) a powerful, wealthy elite. As Argentina developed into a major agricultural producer, these few landowners grew more wealthy and more powerful and this historic inequality has essentially been maintained. Today... although this is a simplification, the structure essentially remains the same. (To give you an idea: half of the country's arable land, 84 million hectares or roughly 207 million acres, is owned by just 4,000 people.) There are also, obviously, other, more complex, factors at play as well. But basically, the agricultural sector, producers and exporters, are fairly powerful economic players here. Not surprisingly then, when the government proposes raising export tariffs, the response of the “countryside” (el “campo”) is staunch resistance. In their view, the profits earned have been earned by them and are theirs to keep. In response, the agricultural sector goes into lockdown. In March we saw empty shelves, no rice, no flour, no meat, no milk because producers were on protest and decided not to ship key products to market. This lasted a few weeks and my impression is that it was pretty unpopular. However, it also looked bad for the government who seemed unable to resolve the conflict.
There’s another element at play here as well. And that is that there is a sector of the middle and upper middle class that opposes the government for various reasons. (Although often these reasons are not expressed in very clear terms. Accusations that the government is dictatorial ring patently false, for instance. But the opinions of this sector are largely formed by and reflected in the major media outlets –two major newspapers and several television channels- of the country, owned, not surprisingly, by interests that oppose the government’s agenda. In some senses, the opposition of much of this sector is ironic since they would be/are also benefited by many of the government’s policies and proposed reforms.) When the conflict between the government and the agricultural sector broke out, key opposition figures jumped at the chance and used the conflict as a rallying call to generate a more widespread opposition to the government in general. Basically, an attempt to destabilize the current government.
We’ve recently passed one hundred days of continued conflict. Lockouts, negotiations, protests in the streets (both supporting and opposing government and the producers). The conflict doesn’t seem to be nearing an end. The producers, despite everything, have had a record year (because of world food prices) and can afford to sit back and wait this out. The government, on the other hand, has much more at stake. Although it’s entirely debatable (and as the cliché goes, only the future will tell), the government ostensibly wants to make deeper changes than those the country has seen for decades in terms of a shift towards economic distribution on a national level, combating the chronic inequality. In truth if the idea is to work towards greater equality in wealth, much, much, much more is needed. This is a scratch on the surface. But this scratch (although fraught with clumsy moves by the government) has provoked a massive protest and served to unite the fairly fractured (mostly center right and right-wing) opposition to the government. Some argue that moves towards greater change could be political suicide. So while the government defends its moves and the agricultural sector defends its profits, the country sits and waits. Perhaps, again this week, with empty shelves.
Update: Just when the protest seemed to elude any resolution, the government proposed last week to take the debate to Congress. This move was supported by the producers and now we are waiting to see what the result of the debate will be. Most likely the proposal will be passed although it may have to undergo changes and concessions in the process.
About three months into her presidency, the government decided to raise export tariffs on soy, sunflower and other grains that are increasingly profitable on the world market and are an extremely important aspect of the national economy. According to the government, the increased revenues would be used for social programs and other measures that promote an increased distribution of wealth. It was met with surprising opposition. In part, due to some blunders by the government in presenting the new reforms (grouping, for instance, all producers together rather than giving small producers special conditions and exceptions) but also due to political maneuvers on the part of fairly powerful interests represented by several agricultural organizations. In very simple terms, this country –from its very beginnings- has seen a great division between “haves” and “have-nots”. Land was not divided into small stakings as in most of the US and Canada, but rather huge tracts of land were given to (or purchased or consolidated by) a powerful, wealthy elite. As Argentina developed into a major agricultural producer, these few landowners grew more wealthy and more powerful and this historic inequality has essentially been maintained. Today... although this is a simplification, the structure essentially remains the same. (To give you an idea: half of the country's arable land, 84 million hectares or roughly 207 million acres, is owned by just 4,000 people.) There are also, obviously, other, more complex, factors at play as well. But basically, the agricultural sector, producers and exporters, are fairly powerful economic players here. Not surprisingly then, when the government proposes raising export tariffs, the response of the “countryside” (el “campo”) is staunch resistance. In their view, the profits earned have been earned by them and are theirs to keep. In response, the agricultural sector goes into lockdown. In March we saw empty shelves, no rice, no flour, no meat, no milk because producers were on protest and decided not to ship key products to market. This lasted a few weeks and my impression is that it was pretty unpopular. However, it also looked bad for the government who seemed unable to resolve the conflict.
There’s another element at play here as well. And that is that there is a sector of the middle and upper middle class that opposes the government for various reasons. (Although often these reasons are not expressed in very clear terms. Accusations that the government is dictatorial ring patently false, for instance. But the opinions of this sector are largely formed by and reflected in the major media outlets –two major newspapers and several television channels- of the country, owned, not surprisingly, by interests that oppose the government’s agenda. In some senses, the opposition of much of this sector is ironic since they would be/are also benefited by many of the government’s policies and proposed reforms.) When the conflict between the government and the agricultural sector broke out, key opposition figures jumped at the chance and used the conflict as a rallying call to generate a more widespread opposition to the government in general. Basically, an attempt to destabilize the current government.
We’ve recently passed one hundred days of continued conflict. Lockouts, negotiations, protests in the streets (both supporting and opposing government and the producers). The conflict doesn’t seem to be nearing an end. The producers, despite everything, have had a record year (because of world food prices) and can afford to sit back and wait this out. The government, on the other hand, has much more at stake. Although it’s entirely debatable (and as the cliché goes, only the future will tell), the government ostensibly wants to make deeper changes than those the country has seen for decades in terms of a shift towards economic distribution on a national level, combating the chronic inequality. In truth if the idea is to work towards greater equality in wealth, much, much, much more is needed. This is a scratch on the surface. But this scratch (although fraught with clumsy moves by the government) has provoked a massive protest and served to unite the fairly fractured (mostly center right and right-wing) opposition to the government. Some argue that moves towards greater change could be political suicide. So while the government defends its moves and the agricultural sector defends its profits, the country sits and waits. Perhaps, again this week, with empty shelves.
Update: Just when the protest seemed to elude any resolution, the government proposed last week to take the debate to Congress. This move was supported by the producers and now we are waiting to see what the result of the debate will be. Most likely the proposal will be passed although it may have to undergo changes and concessions in the process.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
History: A Country's Beginnings (Chapter 1)
Way back in 1776, after the “Conquest” of America, the kingdom of Spain staked off a portion of land, a large triangle in the south of the continent, and organized it into the Viceroyalty of Río de la Plata. The Viceroyalty was an immense territory controlled by a representative to the Spanish crown and contained what are today: Argentina, Uruguay, Bolivia and Paraguay. The economy was fueled by silver mined in Potosí (in today's Bolivia), carried over land to the port of Buenos Aires and, from there, exported to Spain. Legend has it that so much silver was mined that it would have been enough to build a bridge between America and Europe. Buenos Aires, due to its strategic location, became the capital of this new viceroyalty.
Although no one yet knows it, the days of the great Spanish Empire are numbered and interesting days lay ahead for the Viceroyalty. In 1808, the Spanish king, Fernando VII, is captured by the French emperor, Napoleon who gives the crown to his brother, José Bonaparte. Although Spanish subjects naturally resist the destitution of their king and French rule (and fight to maintain their control over America), it's a losing battle. Two years later, they admit defeat and Napoleon takes charge.
Meanwhile, the news reaches America and in cities from the north to the south of the continent, juntas form to essentially kick out the viceroys in various regions and take control. (The essential power structure, however, is in many ways maintained since it’s not native, indigenous people taking power but rather –in most cases- a white, American-born or Creole elite.) In Río de la Plata, the revolution to bring about liberation from Spanish control, takes place on May 25, 1810, suitably dubbed “la Revolución de Mayo”. (Now a national holiday in Argentina.) However, not all regions of the huge Viceroyalty are in agreement. Several regions including Paraguay, Montevideo and Alto Perú resist, remaining loyal to the Spanish crown, and the once vast region is divided for years by conflict.
Finally, in 1816, despite continued fighting, representatives of many areas meet and declare official independence. July 9 is observed in today’s Argentina as National Independence Day. The new country faces two great challenges: ongoing struggle with the loyalists and a civil war in the western part of its territory. The new leader, Juan Martín de Pueyrredón, supports an army general and future hero, José de San Martín, who goes on a liberation campaign, heading up into the Andes. San Martín liberates the territories of Chile and Perú, contributing to the definitive end of Spanish power in the Americas.
All of this war, however, weakens the control of a struggling government and the region ends up divided in three in 1820. Each of these regions or provinces has its own government, leaders which will eventually turn into caudillos, or local strong-men. One of the three regions, Buenos Aires, is the least affected by all the conflict and actually grows stronger by healthy exportation and trade with Europe. Strong enough that it is soon able to exert power over the other regions and extend its territory south. (Territory which had, until then, been controlled by indigenous peoples and which Buenos Aires “conquers”.)
(During a major conflict and with British intervention, the small country of Uruguay is formed.)
Argentina is divided by the struggle between two main groups, in a conflict over territory: Federalists and Unitarians. The Unitarians want a central government while the Federalists (remember the caudillos?) defend the sovereignty of each province. Though mixed throughout the territory, Buenos Aires is (logically) mostly Unitarian while the west, the “inside” of the country, is mostly Federalist.
In an 1826 Constitution –one that never became official—the name Argentina is used for the first time. It comes from the Latin word for silver, argentum. But though the new country now has a name, the often bloody struggle between Unitarians and Federalists continues on...
Based on the series Historia de un país Argentina siglo XX.
Although no one yet knows it, the days of the great Spanish Empire are numbered and interesting days lay ahead for the Viceroyalty. In 1808, the Spanish king, Fernando VII, is captured by the French emperor, Napoleon who gives the crown to his brother, José Bonaparte. Although Spanish subjects naturally resist the destitution of their king and French rule (and fight to maintain their control over America), it's a losing battle. Two years later, they admit defeat and Napoleon takes charge.
Meanwhile, the news reaches America and in cities from the north to the south of the continent, juntas form to essentially kick out the viceroys in various regions and take control. (The essential power structure, however, is in many ways maintained since it’s not native, indigenous people taking power but rather –in most cases- a white, American-born or Creole elite.) In Río de la Plata, the revolution to bring about liberation from Spanish control, takes place on May 25, 1810, suitably dubbed “la Revolución de Mayo”. (Now a national holiday in Argentina.) However, not all regions of the huge Viceroyalty are in agreement. Several regions including Paraguay, Montevideo and Alto Perú resist, remaining loyal to the Spanish crown, and the once vast region is divided for years by conflict.
Finally, in 1816, despite continued fighting, representatives of many areas meet and declare official independence. July 9 is observed in today’s Argentina as National Independence Day. The new country faces two great challenges: ongoing struggle with the loyalists and a civil war in the western part of its territory. The new leader, Juan Martín de Pueyrredón, supports an army general and future hero, José de San Martín, who goes on a liberation campaign, heading up into the Andes. San Martín liberates the territories of Chile and Perú, contributing to the definitive end of Spanish power in the Americas.
All of this war, however, weakens the control of a struggling government and the region ends up divided in three in 1820. Each of these regions or provinces has its own government, leaders which will eventually turn into caudillos, or local strong-men. One of the three regions, Buenos Aires, is the least affected by all the conflict and actually grows stronger by healthy exportation and trade with Europe. Strong enough that it is soon able to exert power over the other regions and extend its territory south. (Territory which had, until then, been controlled by indigenous peoples and which Buenos Aires “conquers”.)
(During a major conflict and with British intervention, the small country of Uruguay is formed.)
Argentina is divided by the struggle between two main groups, in a conflict over territory: Federalists and Unitarians. The Unitarians want a central government while the Federalists (remember the caudillos?) defend the sovereignty of each province. Though mixed throughout the territory, Buenos Aires is (logically) mostly Unitarian while the west, the “inside” of the country, is mostly Federalist.
In an 1826 Constitution –one that never became official—the name Argentina is used for the first time. It comes from the Latin word for silver, argentum. But though the new country now has a name, the often bloody struggle between Unitarians and Federalists continues on...
Based on the series Historia de un país Argentina siglo XX.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Lost in Translation
For quite a while now, I’ve been irked by the lack of English language histories and media sources to which to refer friends and family when they wish to know more about the political, historical and social contexts of Argentina. On the one hand, it’s natural that, with all the countries in the world, there’s a lack of an English language market for histories and news sources of foreign countries. Most North Americans and Europeans are naturally concerned with news from their respective countries and foreign (and especially little known) places only appear when something of note –a natural disaster or major political upheaval, for instance—calls particular attention to said place.
Living here has prompted many friends and family to ask me about different aspects of this country. It’s also a moment of increased and ever increasing tourism for Argentina. With this in mind, I propose this blog as an experiment, a tentative translation across linguistic, geographical and political barriers of what Argentina looks like from within and how the rest of the world looks from here. As a foreigner myself, there are obviously aspects and subtleties that elude me. However, a great deal of time spent here, work on my thesis (tied to the country’s political past and present) and a thorough knowledge of the language means that I’ll be able to at least begin to communicate some of the richness and complexity of this place.
One of my concerns in seeing English speaking foreigners coming here are the invisible social, political and class implications of the language barrier. Argentina, as many Latin American countries, has a strong political division along class and economic lines; much more tangible here than in Canada or the United States. (In the latter, I’d say that the division is much more visible along racial lines –which isn’t to say that that doesn’t have its own implications in terms of social class—but my sense is that much is done to make class invisible or at least not a topic of discussion. Race seems to trump economic class in terms of discussions about how the US is divided.) In Argentina, especially in Buenos Aires, home to roughly a third of the country’s population, a surprising number of people speak a minimum of English. Those who have solid, conversational English, however, tend to belong to the upper or upper middle class; those who have been priviledged enough to attend schools with good English instruction (in many cases private schools), who have business contact with foreigners or who perhaps have had the means to spend time abroad. It is not surprising, then, that they also tend to be politically conservative and economically better off than the majority of their compatriots. English speaking foreigners who visit, therefore, often get a historical grounding or political explanations from friendly, English-speaking Argentines with a pronounced political bias.
Given that Argentina has had an incredibly divisive and politically polarized past, this can lead to some interesting situations. The most dramatic instance I saw of this was the case of a visiting high school teacher from Canada who related a conversation he’d had with a “respected” retired army general. He repeated for me (it seems almost verbatim) a strongly right-wing short history of what had happened here in the 1960s and 70s. (I’ll surely explain more about this period at some later point.) The high school teacher, knowing little else of Argentina’s past, and feeling that, as in Canada, an army general must be a reliable, respected source, was oblivious to the strong political bias of what he had learned. I can only imagine (and here, I’m entirely hypothesizing) that it might be similar to a white person traveling to apartheid South Africa, woefully unaware of race issues, being given a “history lesson” by a pro-apartheid South African. Or a rather clueless tourist in post-Holocaust Germany, getting a history lesson from a Nazi. Perhaps the examples are a little exaggerated or unrealistic, but I think on some level there are important similarities. And it’s this that prompts me to attempt to offer an alternative perspective to the few English language sources that currently offer political and historical information on Argentina. If nothing else, it may be a useful tool for my own articulation of these aspects of this country.
Living here has prompted many friends and family to ask me about different aspects of this country. It’s also a moment of increased and ever increasing tourism for Argentina. With this in mind, I propose this blog as an experiment, a tentative translation across linguistic, geographical and political barriers of what Argentina looks like from within and how the rest of the world looks from here. As a foreigner myself, there are obviously aspects and subtleties that elude me. However, a great deal of time spent here, work on my thesis (tied to the country’s political past and present) and a thorough knowledge of the language means that I’ll be able to at least begin to communicate some of the richness and complexity of this place.
One of my concerns in seeing English speaking foreigners coming here are the invisible social, political and class implications of the language barrier. Argentina, as many Latin American countries, has a strong political division along class and economic lines; much more tangible here than in Canada or the United States. (In the latter, I’d say that the division is much more visible along racial lines –which isn’t to say that that doesn’t have its own implications in terms of social class—but my sense is that much is done to make class invisible or at least not a topic of discussion. Race seems to trump economic class in terms of discussions about how the US is divided.) In Argentina, especially in Buenos Aires, home to roughly a third of the country’s population, a surprising number of people speak a minimum of English. Those who have solid, conversational English, however, tend to belong to the upper or upper middle class; those who have been priviledged enough to attend schools with good English instruction (in many cases private schools), who have business contact with foreigners or who perhaps have had the means to spend time abroad. It is not surprising, then, that they also tend to be politically conservative and economically better off than the majority of their compatriots. English speaking foreigners who visit, therefore, often get a historical grounding or political explanations from friendly, English-speaking Argentines with a pronounced political bias.
Given that Argentina has had an incredibly divisive and politically polarized past, this can lead to some interesting situations. The most dramatic instance I saw of this was the case of a visiting high school teacher from Canada who related a conversation he’d had with a “respected” retired army general. He repeated for me (it seems almost verbatim) a strongly right-wing short history of what had happened here in the 1960s and 70s. (I’ll surely explain more about this period at some later point.) The high school teacher, knowing little else of Argentina’s past, and feeling that, as in Canada, an army general must be a reliable, respected source, was oblivious to the strong political bias of what he had learned. I can only imagine (and here, I’m entirely hypothesizing) that it might be similar to a white person traveling to apartheid South Africa, woefully unaware of race issues, being given a “history lesson” by a pro-apartheid South African. Or a rather clueless tourist in post-Holocaust Germany, getting a history lesson from a Nazi. Perhaps the examples are a little exaggerated or unrealistic, but I think on some level there are important similarities. And it’s this that prompts me to attempt to offer an alternative perspective to the few English language sources that currently offer political and historical information on Argentina. If nothing else, it may be a useful tool for my own articulation of these aspects of this country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)