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.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
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)