May 16th,
2013
Tentative
program
Firstly,
it should be stressed that this Discussion Document is intended as a
contribution to the preparatory process for the 19th Meeting of the São Paulo
Forum.
Thus, it
is worth recalling the tentative program of the 19th Meeting in order to assess
to what extent the Discussion Document fulfills its purpose, or otherwise still
has gaps that must be filled. In this regard, the Declaration of La Habana approved at the meeting of the Working
Group held in Cuba on April 29–30, 2013, offers substantial contributions.
The 19th
Meeting is preceded by the 2nd Political Education School of the
São Paulo Forum, which will
focus on the following themes: Integration in the history of Our America; Integration
from the point of view of the United States, Europe, and Asia; Migration and
integration processes; Analysis of the several integration mechanisms and
institutions: CELAC, UNASUR, ALBA, MERCOSUR, Andean Pact, SICA, Parliaments; The
ongoing crisis of capitalism, new integration agreements and processes in other
regions of the world, and Latin-American integration; Present and future
integration challenges.
On the day
before the 19th Meeting, by invitation of the Workers Party of Brazil, a
meeting will be held bringing together the member parties of the São Paulo
Forum either governing or in coalition with administrations governing MERCOSUR
countries, both full and associate members with the aim of discussing concrete
measures to be taken to accelerate the integration process in this sphere.
As part
of the 19th Meeting proper, five sectoral meetings are scheduled:
* 5th Meeting of the São Paulo Forum Youth,
emphasizing the following themes: Youth in defense
of government platforms of São Paulo Forum
member parties; Latin-American integration, the regional development project,
and the new generation; Youth-related public policies for the development of Latin
America and the Caribbean;
* 2nd São Paulo Forum Women’s Meeting,
emphasizing the following themes: The impact of the crisis on the life of women;
Women and the regional integration of Latin America and the Caribbean; Strengthening
social struggle from the point of view of women; Women’s political
participation – women’s underrepresentation in power;
* 1st São Paulo Forum African Descendants
Meeting, emphasizing the following
themes: The role of black men and women in the São Paulo Forum parties; Experiences
in government policies promoting racial equality in Latin America and the
Caribbean;
*Meeting of the Parliamentarians of the São
Paulo Forum Member Parties, its main aim being to coordinate our
actions in the region’s parliaments;
* Meeting of
the Local and Subnational Authorities of the São Paulo Forum Member
Parties.
Also as
part of the 19th Meeting, we will have 7 seminars: a) Africa and Latin America; b) BRICS
and Latin America; c) Middle East and
Northern Africa; d) The United
States; e) Europe; f) 3rd Assessment seminar of progressive and
leftist governments; g) The
contribution of Hugo Chávez for the process of change in Latin America and the
Caribbean.
The
program includes 21 thematic workshops: a) Mental health policies and drugs; b) Struggle for democracy on the Internet and
on the social networks; c) Struggle
for peace and against militarism; d) Social
movements and civic participation;
e) Social policies; f) Electoral processes; g) Original peoples; h) Natural resources; i) Food and agricultural security and
sovereignty; j) Art and culture
workers; k) Latin-American and
Caribbean union and integration; l) Colonialism
and self-determination; m) Defense;
n) Democratization of information and
broadcasting; o) Economic
development; p) State, democracy,
and popular participation; q) Environment
and climate change; r) Migrations;
s) LGBT movement; t) Trade union movements; u) Security and drug trafficking.
Initially
we will have the meetings of the Working
Group and of the Regional
Departments, then the meeting of the Capacity-building
Foundations and Schools or Centers, the plenary sessions of the 19th
Meeting, and the opening session.
Deepening the changes and accelerating
regional integration is a crosscutting theme for all these
activities.
Presentation
of the Discussion Document
The 19th
Meeting of the São Paulo Forum will be held from July 31st to August 4th,
2013 in the city of São Paulo.
The 19th
Meeting was called with two fundamental goals: to provide a comprehensive
diagnosis of the international situation and approve a regional plan of action driven
by the critical goals of deepening the changes and accelerating
regional integration.
The 19th
Meeting will be dedicated to Hugo Chávez. Accordingly, its activities will
include an analysis of his contribution to the process of change in Latin
America and the Caribbean, underscoring his commitments to democracy and
popular mobilization, his militant internationalism and anti-imperialism, his
vision of the history of our region and of socialism.
The
diagnosis on the international situation builds on our conclusions at the 18th Meeting
of the Forum (Caracas, 2012): we are going through an international situation
characterized by a deep crisis of capitalism, the deterioration of the United States
hegemony, and the appearance
of new centers of power.
This is
an international situation of systemic instability, marked by deep
social conflicts, acute political crises, and increasingly more dangerous
military conflicts.
Latin
America and the Caribbean make part of this world in crisis and suffer its
effects. Yet we are also a region where, since the late twentieth century,
early twenty-first century, a process of change is under way that offers hopes
and alternatives for this world in crisis.
In this
context, we, the Latin-American and Caribbean leftist forces gathered in the São
Paulo Forum, our parties, the governments we head or take part in, the social
movements in which we act, our thinkers and artists, all have before us challenges
of historic transcendence.
Challenges
that begin with a correct diagnosis of the world and regional situation, and
proceed toward deepening change and accelerating the integration of Latin
America and the Caribbean, themes that will be developed in the three chapters
of this discussion document: 1) world situation, 2) regional situation, and 3) plan
of action.
1.
Some features of the world situation
The 19th Meeting of the Forum takes
place under the triple impact of a deep crisis of capitalism, the deterioration
of the United States hegemony, and the appearance of new centers of power.
This is a situation of instability,
marked by deep social conflicts, acute political crises, and increasingly more
dangerous military conflicts.
The current crisis does not affect
the various regions, countries, productive sectors, and social sectors in the
same way. Nonetheless, it is a global crisis, urbi et orbi, with its
financial, trade, productive, energy, food, environmental, social, political,
ideological, and military expressions.
This is not, therefore, just a crisis
of neoliberal thinking, neoliberal policies, or financial speculation. Surely, it encompasses all
these points, albeit in the context of a crisis of accumulation that is similar
to the 1930 and 1970 crises. Observed as a whole, we can say that this kind of
systemic crisis takes place at ever shorter intervals of time, with ever fewer
possibilities of virtuous or long-term solutions.
Thus, no short-term solution is foreseen,
even less so a structural one, in other words, a long-term solution. Nor is the
outcome of the crisis in the medium and long term clear, as this outcome is
being built here and now, in the conflicts waged between political and social
groups, within each State; and in the struggle between States and blocs on a planetary
scale.
As at other moments in history, it
may come to pass that capitalism will survive the crisis it is facing today. Yet
it is worth considering its unacceptable costs for humanity, bearing in mind
among other things the ecological depredation intrinsic to capitalism, given
the contradiction between the unlimited nature of accumulation and the limited nature
of natural resources as sources of wealth accumulation.
Yet it may also happen that, while
capitalism may keep on existing under distinct forms in some regions of the
planet, in other regions socialist societies may keep on existing or come to
appear. And there is always the risk that the capitalist forces, in their
struggle to uphold their system of oppression and exploitation, may come to
jeopardize the very continuity of humanity.
Thus, we are living and acting at a
historical moment fraught with perils, ripe with possibilities, yet also ripe
with hope, a feeling that prevails in Our America, where, we, the leftist and
progressive forces, have governed numerous countries, broadened democracy, social
well-being, national sovereignty, and continental integration.
There is a marked contrast between
the policies implemented by these progressive governments and the policies
implemented in the United States and Europe, where the interests of the
financial and imperialist plutocracy prevail.
The United States insists on
recovering global hegemony, without which the U.S. economy cannot live.
Since the early days of his
administration in 2009 and early 2013 the president of the United States,
Barack Obama, engaged on several fronts: bailout of the financial plutocracy,
devaluation of the U.S. dollar, regional free trade agreements, search for
energy autonomy, adjustments to the security policy, destabilization of
adversarial governments.
These and other initiatives,
including the Trans-Pacific Partnership,
the U.S.-Europe Transatlantic Trade and
Investment Partnership and support for the so-called “Pacific Rim”, must be understood against the background of the
conclusions of the recent “of the National Intelligence Council’s Global Trends
Report”, signaling that by 2030 Asia’s economy will be bigger than that of the
United States and Europe combined and acknowledging that the age of pax americana is coming to an end.
It is as if the U.S. dominant class
adopted the orientation of a well-known financial newspaper to which it is better to act now while it [U.S.] still
represents half of the world’s economy and still holds power to set global
standards, since in five years’ time it might be too late.
One of the largest national banking
and private sector bailout expenditures was carried out in the first Obama government
in an effort to curb the crisis that, in conjunction with the deficit caused by
the United States security policy and the country’s invasions and occupations
of Afghanistan and Iraq, nearly drove the U.S. over the legally-mandated indebtedness
level.
At the same time it supports the
plutocracy, the Obama government seeks to spur the U.S. economy through
monetary devaluation in the form of funds controlled and injected by the United
States Federal Reserve converted into other countries’ bonds, thus
strengthening their currencies vis-à-vis the U.S. dollar and hampering these
countries’ exports as their products become more expensive “in dollars”.
At the same time it embarked on this
major dumping operation, the U.S. government has favored regional free trade
agreements. In addition to those already established with countries and regions
of Latin America, like Chile, Peru, Colombia, Central America, and even the
older NAFTA itself, the U.S. is seeking to advance the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.
Regardless of the details of each of
these agreements, it is worth noting their strategic objective: bringing
disarray to national plans and independent regional blocs, as well as
confronting the bloc made up by the BRICS.
Coupled with this the U.S. is seeking
energy autonomy, which seems to be about to be achieved due to a combination of
factors, among which are a reversal of the U.S. oil and gas import/export curve
and increased exploration of shale gas and oil.
This operation is coupled with a
reviewed military strategy whose focal point has shifted to the Asia-Pacific
region. It is worth clarifying that all these initiatives have an explicit
purpose: the recovery of the economic and political hegemony of the United States.
Considering the history of the United
States, there is no surprise in the fact that such goal should be pursued
through predominantly military means; just as there is no surprise in that the
U.S. has to solidify its internal fractures, necessarily hinged today on the
theme of migration.
While the U.S. is striving to recover
this leadership, in Europe there is a dismantling of what one day came to be
thought of as a potential competing bloc.
The dominant class in Europe is
promoting the dismantling of the “social covenant” agreed upon in the northern
hemisphere after the Second World War, a covenant based upon two cornerstones: the
Welfare State and collective bargaining between trade unions and companies.
Dismantling this “social covenant”, which
was largely funded by imperialist exploitation of other regions of the world, implies
cutting the wages of the European working classes, either to bail out the
financial capital or to increase the profitability of productive investing.
Since 2007 the script is basically
the same: expenditure of huge amounts of money to rescue the financial system; tax
breaks to supposedly stimulate productive activity; privatizations; fiscal
austerity to secure payments claimed by the financial system by re-routing resources
originally earmarked for government investing and for funding social security, public
services, and the State’s public employees’ payrolls; and reduced consumer
capacity of the masses.
The decrease in government spending
is leading to the extinction of social rights and to labor law reforms in some
countries, Spain, for one, where negotiations are being allowed between
employers and individual workers for the purpose of reducing wages.
The economic consequence of all this
is a meager average growth in the European Union, the U.S., and Japan; and in
some cases recession and deep crisis, like in Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy,
and Cyprus.
From the point of view of
capitalism, the adoption of austerity measures is not the only option. In other
regions of the world a capitalist yet altogether distinct policy has prevailed based
on productive investment and support for domestic markets. Had it not been for
this policy and the world crisis would be much deeper.
The existence of other
kinds of capitalism, distinct from the neoliberalism prevailing in the
Anglo-Saxon axis, is one of the reasons why we must not accept the idea that we
are surely before the “imminent collapse” of world capitalism. One thing is
considering the need and urgency required to overcome capitalism, in any of its
forms, all structurally opposed to our values, ideals, and needs. Something
entirely different is to overestimate the anticapitalist forces at present and
underestimate the redeployment capacity capitalism has already exhibited many
times throughout its history.
The difference in policies between
the “Anglo-Saxon” axis led by the United States, on one side, and the axis led
by the BRICS, on the other, is the expression of a competition between distinct
models of development, both surely capitalist, yet simultaneously confirming
and resulting from something long analyzed: capitalism’s unequal and
inharmonious development, which widens the gap or the relative imbalance between the central
countries and the big developing countries, the BRICS specifically.
Despite the elements of cooperation
between the two blocs and without prejudice to furthering the debate on the
role played by China, it must be clear that, in order to get out of the crisis,
the countries led by the U.S. need to impose a defeat on the BRICS and reaffirm
imperialist and neoliberal hegemony over Africa, the Middle East, and Latin
America.
This is why war is spreading, including
with nuclear threats. For the same reason, too, the exchange and trade war with
its damaging effects on the other economies; and why the structural adjustment
programs or “austerity measures” in Europe do not affect the military industry;
and the reason for the ineptitude of the United Nations to enforce its
resolutions, when they are slightly contrary to the interests of the United
States.
What is happening in the U.S., Europe
and Japan is, on one hand, an outcome of capitalism’s nature and dynamic and,
on the other, a political and ideological option determined by the hegemony of
the financial plutocracy in the imperialist countries. It is worth recalling
that all recent holders of key offices, for example the president of the
European Central Bank and the secretary of the U.S. Department of the Treasury,
among others, originally come from the private financial system and some have
even worked for banks like Lehman Brothers, one of those responsible for triggering
the financial crisis.
All that banks and investment funds
want is to get the profits forecast for their speculative operations and loans
no matter what, even if at the cost of the bankruptcy of countries facing great
hardship and of the poverty of their people. For that they rely on the pivotal
support of authorities linked to the financial system.
A somewhat overlooked piece of evidence
that another policy is possible is the case of Iceland, the first European
country to be pushed into the crisis with the insolvency of its financial
system, triggered by unfettered speculation by the country’s main banks.
Iceland did not bail out the
financial system and some of its banks went bankrupt. The population opposed
the idea of rescuing them with public money, mostly because the amount needed for
that was four times the size of Iceland’s GDP. Thus, Iceland did not submit to
the conditions imposed by the IMF in exchange for loans and now its economy is relatively
stable. There is even talk of suing the bankers.
Notwithstanding, in the countries in
southern Europe, in Ireland and in Cyprus, the prescription is privatization,
layoffs of public employees, reduced wages for those willing to keep their jobs,
smaller pensions, the undermining of social rights, unemployment insurance
included.
Even in countries not subject to the
conditions imposed by the Troika (i.e. the IMF, the European Central Bank, and
the European Commission) budgetary restrictions have dramatically reduced the
capacity of the State to drive the economy, in addition to affecting the
quality of social policies.
The fact of the matter is that it
will take the industrialized capitalist countries now in crisis several years
to return to their 2009 development levels; meanwhile, unemployment rises and
is now over 11% on average in the OECD countries, while among the young people
it is at least twice as high.
One of the few European countries
where unemployment rates are low, albeit with a rising percentage of temporary
job contracts and below-minimum wages, is Germany.
The most industrialized and
competitive country in Europe, Germany has a government pushing for austerity
policies to be imposed, through the European Commission, mainly on those
countries that are indebted to the German banks.
Chancellor Angela Merkel is bound to
win next October’s parliamentary elections, as she has so far been able to draw
the support of German public opinion for her austerity policies.
Yet Germany is also suffering from growing
deterioration of social services and from the cultural and subjective impacts
the social crisis is disseminating across Europe: frustration and anguish, weakened
social ties, widespread distrust, particularly in face of “the others”
(migrants, minorities), predisposition to authoritarian messianisms and so
forth.
The crisis has had an effect over
European policymaking that thus far has mostly favored the right, which in turn
takes advantage of the oversimplified argument that “you can’t spend more than
you earn”, by imposing austerity measures as an alternative to unpopular tax
hikes. Yet there is also growing popular dissatisfaction with the policies
implemented by right-wing governments that, as in Spain and England, are
finding it difficult to keep their majorities in parliament.
Many social democratic parties have
jumped on the austerity bandwagon and in several cases, as in Greece, Spain,
and Portugal, were among the first to implement structural adjustment measures.
They were punished by the electorate, while in several countries alternation
between parties sharing the same rhetoric has yielded two phenomena: the growth
of the far-right and a rejection by major portions of the population of
partisan and electoral political activities.
The second phenomenon is made clear by
acceptance of “technical governments”, lower turnouts, and by the share of
votes given to the “anti-politicians”, for example the party of comedian Beppe
Grillo in the recent Italian elections (whose outcomes will surely be the
subject of debate at the XIX/19th Meeting).
Also contributing to the rejection of
partisan and electoral political activities, in addition to austerity policies
and the absence of feasible alternatives from the left, are several corruption
cases, like in Spain, where just recently members of the Partido Popular, including the incumbent Prime Minister, were accused of receiving kickbacks
from contractors.
The labor and social movement, especially
in those countries most affected by the austerity measures, has reacted with massive
demonstrations and general strikes, still insufficient to change the course of
current policymaking.
The youth and various social groups
have also staged huge demonstrations, like “los
indignados”, “Occupy Wall Street”,
and others.
Yet these movements fizzle out after
some time for many reasons, including rejection of partisan and electoral
political activity and poor creativity of the leftist parties to engage them.
The challenge for the left is to
present alternative platforms, sustain social mobilization, and build electoral
alternatives. In this context, Greece portrays a situation that draws the
interest of many progressive forces: there, leftist forces have presented an
alternative based on social mobilization and electoral strength. And they are
opposing both the right and the far-right.
However, as a whole, Europe is
immersed in strategy failure and internal confrontation, thus being forced to
play a subaltern role in relation to the United States in its confrontation
with the BRICS, Our America, and the countries opposing the hegemony of the
axis led by the United States.
Africa and the Middle East are one of
these settings of open confrontation between these blocs. For this reason the
U.S. and Europe reacted promptly to the political crisis in the Arab world (a
crisis that was and is still called by many “Spring”), for example by
intervening in Libya, Mali, and Syria, and by preparing an attack against Iran.
The events in Iraq, Libya, Mali, and
Syria (and the plans against Iran) constitute an outright disrespect for
national sovereignty and, beyond the imperialist attitude, a return to the
imperial attitude of the great powers.
Likewise, this is why last
February the twentieth anniversary of the Declaration of Independence of the SADR
as a free and independent State came without Moroccan colonial domination over
the Sahrawis having ceased.
This is also why Israel continues to
be a close ally of the United States in the Middle East and the largest foreign
aid recipient. And this is also why the United States spared no effort in trying
to stop the righteous victory represented by the acknowledgment of Palestine as
a U.N. Observer State, after its status as a Member State in its Full Right was
vetoed at the Security Council.
We recognize the political importance
of the acknowledgment received by the people of Palestine in the form of United
Nations Observer State Status. This decision reinforces the claims of great
part of humanity for the definitive recognition of the inalienable right of the
Palestinian people to build their material homeland and live in respectful peace
with its neighbors and the other countries of the world.
The imperialist countries, the U.S.
and France in particular, along with Israel and Saudi Arabia, want to destroy
the axis formed by Iran, Syria, and the Hezbollah in Lebanon because it
represents the most intransigent opposition to foreign interventions in the
Middle East.
The interventions and aggressions suffered
by Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Mali by the hands of the capitalist powers
headed by the United States, and the threats facing Syria, Iran, and the
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), constitute flagrant and unacceptable
violations of the national sovereignty of these peoples. The impunity of the
actions perpetrated by the United States and its allies reveals unheard-of
contempt for what is supposed to be the existing international law in terms of
respect for the national sovereignty of the peoples. This is absolutely
regressive behavior such that unilateral action plays the incorporeal role of
planetary police, violating borders, destroying countries, and replicating
governments of its liking and convenience, without the slightest reaction at the
openly criminal acts it carries out recklessly. No one should doubt that this
sense of impunity is what the United States will leverage against the peoples
of Our America where democratic and progressive processes keep advancing.
It is the duty of the parties of the São
Paulo Forum to keep track of the positions adopted by our respective
governments in the United Nations’ system, whether in the General Assembly, at
the Security Council, at the Human Rights Council or in any other of the U.N.
bodies, regarding the situation described above.
If we share the certainty that to the
United States and its allies our democratic and progressive vision makes us a
probable target for their attacks, we must therefore be ready to stand up to,
report, and neutralize any attempt to meddle in our region.
In turn, the events on the Korean
Peninsula must be viewed both from a national perspective, that is, that of a
people divided in two countries that one day will have to reunify, yet again
against a backdrop of confrontation between blocs.
The ongoing conflict on the Peninsula
of Korea is a historical consequence of this country’s forced partition in the
aftermath of the Second World War, of the interventionist occupation by the
United States government and army of the south of Korea, and of the
never-ending hurdles set up by the enemies of peace to prevent the
reunification of the Korean Peninsula.
The right-wing forces have gained
positions both in South Korea and in Japan.
The Liberal Democratic Party (LDP),
which governed Japan from the end of World War II to its defeat by the social democrats
of the Democratic Party in 2009, returned to the government in 2012 thanks to
the lack of capacity of the social democrats in dealing with the crisis and their
failure to keep electoral pledges, like closing down the United States navy
base in Okinawa, in addition to poor management of the Fukushima nuclear plant
meltdown.
Economically and socially, this means
the return of orthodox neoliberal policies. Yet, this also means a more
bellicose tone by the Japanese government, since the LDP is claiming for the
right to reorganize its armed forces, decommissioned in the aftermath of the
Second World War. This rhetoric has gained momentum more recently with the
explosion of a third nuclear artifact by North Korea, plus the fact that this
country is on the verge of mastering the technology required to launch
long-range missiles capable of carrying atomic warheads.
Japan and China, in turn, have been accusing
each other due to a dispute over the territory of the Senkaku (in Japanese) or
Diaoyu (in Chinese) Islands, which heightens tensions in the Far East.
China, for its part, has signaled
that it will face this geopolitical dispute by strengthening the BRICS. In this
reference, it is worth examining the decisions adopted in Durban in March 2013,
as well as analyzing each one of the BRICS. Though not to be assumed as a
homogeneous bloc, there is no doubt the BRICS will play a key role in the world
setting.
Moreover, China has decided to
strengthen its domestic market to the detriment of export-driven economic
growth, prompting a slowdown and a GDP growth of about 7%, which is still one
of the world’s highest.
The international situation outlined
above, in particular the counteroffensive launched by the United States and its
allies, calls for a quick, effective, and joint reaction by the progressive and
leftist parties, social movements, and governments towards expediting the regional
integration process, neutralizing the Pacific Rim operation, supporting
the success
of the negotiation process between the FARC and the Santos government, reinforcing
the political institutionality of our governments, in addition to expressing
solidarity to the leftist forces leading social struggles and taking part in
electoral processes.
2. The situation in Latin America and
the Caribbean
Two projects are confronting each
other in Latin America and the Caribbean. One is subordinated to interests that
are foreign to the region and possesses symbols like FTAA, NAFTA, FTAs and,
now, the so-called Pacific Rim. The other is based on regional interests and
bears symbols like CELAC, UNASUR, ALBA, and MERCOSUR.
The integrationist process has a long
history in our region. In its more recent stage, it is directly related to the
cycle of progressive and leftist governments ushered in with the election of Hugo
Chávez in 1998.
The 19th Meeting reaffirms the
statements made in the previous Forum Meetings and systematized in the
progressive and leftist governments’ assessment seminars. Our plurality is
something we value positively, yet we have enemies in common, as common are the
roads we tread on.
We have fought colonial heritage, yet
it is still present in the Malvinas, Puerto Rico, in some Caribbean nations,
and in French Guyana, as well as in racism and discrimination against original
peoples and African descendants.
We have historically fought
conservative developmentalism, which provides growth yet also brings
dependence, inequality, and curtailed democracy.
We have fought against imperialism
and neoliberalism, whose influence lingers on in our region and across the
globe, threatening democracy, the people’s well-being, sovereignty, and even
the survival of humanity.
And we keep moving forward, each to
one’s pace and ways, along the road of economic growth with equality, social
justice, democracy, sovereignty, integration, and in many cases, seeking to
build a socialist society.
It is imperative to summarize the
achievements of the pro-change forces in the region: recovery of national
sovereignty and independence; emphasis on options focused on development,
growth, and redistribution; democratization of the economy; poverty and
inequality reduction; State repositioning; deepening democracy and creating new
forums for popular participation; citizen participation in public management; compliance
with the population’s basic rights; political stability; the setting in place
of efficient and innovative public management mechanisms; civic security and
the struggle against violence; solutions for urban problems.
The progressive and leftist cycle initiated
in 1998 is strong because it is neither one nor uniform, having evolved over
diverse historical and social formations, with forces guided by distinct
strategic horizons, albeit leftist, and with different levels of accumulation.
That is why we have won in countries with disparate histories, cultures, social
and political structures. Yet this plurality of national strategies must
increasingly be combined with a continental strategy based on regional
integration and with the establishment of common features for the alternative
models in progress.
Without integration, which strengthens
our common direction, a converging of national projects, our programs will not
succeed and will not resist against our internal and external enemies’
opposition, sabotage, siege, and attacks.
Thus, the 19th Meeting must make an
assessment of the current stage of the regional integration process, its
accomplishments, its difficulties, and even its missteps. Foremost, observe the
MERCOSUR, the UNASUR, ALBA, CELAC, and initiatives aimed at holding them back
or even undermine them, as in the coups in Honduras and Paraguay, the Pacific
Alliance and so on.
The Pacific Alliance was formally
established in April 2011 in Lima, allegedly for the purpose of deepening trade
integration between Peru, Chile, Colombia, and Mexico, all of which countries
have signed FTAs with the United States. The next summit of the Pacific
Alliance is due on May 24, in Cali, Colombia. The Pacific Rim is in line with Obama’s
project for the creation of an area for the reaffirmation of the U.S. power in
the Pacific.
The 19th Meeting must also analyze
the impacts of the international crisis on the region.
The European recession, feeble U.S.
growth, and the Chinese slowdown have had moderate impacts on the Latin-American
economy, perceptible mostly in the region’s trade, since, according to ECLAC, Latin-American
exports grew only by 1.6% in 2012.
Likewise, the region’s mean GDP
growth is estimated at 3.6% in 2012, down from 4.3% in 2011. Nonetheless,
unemployment has fallen, mostly among women, and wages have risen, though most
of the jobs generated are poor quality and there is uncertainty regarding the
behavior of the economy in 2013 due to the ongoing crisis and the protectionist
measures adopted by the developed countries.
Should the industrialized countries
continue to depreciate their currencies, thus further increasing pressure for
monetary appreciation in Latin America, with its harmful effects on the region’s
exports, it will be critical to adopt measures that will more effectively
protect the economy of the region, foremost the industrial base, threatened by ‘reprimarization’
trends, to a lower or higher degree, in our countries.
There are disquieting signs of
industrial denationalization and deindustrialization (or significant industrial
transformations) in countries in the region, since crisis-stricken and shrinking
consumer markets in the developed countries pose a hurdle for Latin-American
producers, compounded by the fact that corporations based on the northern
hemisphere keep coming to Latin America and are aggressively competing for
market share here.
It must be said, however, that the
growth in employment levels, mainly achieved through the strengthening of our region’s
domestic markets, the implementation of key social policies, and the
strengthening of the role of the State, has preserved a political alternative
to neoliberalism in several countries of Latin America for over a decade, and with
the support of the majority of the people.
What we know is that the electoral
victories the right-wing forces can claim, so far, were in places whose
governments have no part in the wave begun in 1998. In the cases of Paraguay and
Honduras, the right has opted for coups to return to power.
Honduras is on the brink of new elections,
with the leftist organizations better rated by the people, a situation that is
being jeopardized by threats by the right to once again resort to maneuvers
designed to avert the triumph of the democratic forces.
It is also worth pointing out that
the coming elections in El Salvador are of great importance to the Latin-American
left.
The 19th Meeting is to produce a report
on the contribution of Hugo Chávez to the region’s process of change.
This is not just a formal obligation.
The truth is that the United States, its European allies, and its allies in our
region believe that the death of Hugo Chávez will drive a wedge through which
they will be able to penetrate and destabilize the Venezuelan process and, with
that, affect the entire regional left. An example of this was the coup-inspired
and destabilization-driven tactic by the Venezuelan right in the aftermath of
the April 14th election of President Nicolás Maduro. The tactic had
the evident backing of the United States and the European Union, which
cynically refused to recognize the results of these clean and democratic
elections as attested to by hundreds of international observers.
Nonetheless and precisely because of
that, imperialism and its allies will do anything they can to undermine the
Venezuelan government and economy, to hamper the functioning of the collective
direction of the Bolivarian process and, not least, to attack the ideological,
theoretical, programmatic, and cultural heritage of Chavismo.
Bearing the aforementioned in mind,
the São Paulo Forum must take the offensive in this debate not only to defend
the social, economic, and political transformative legacy of the Chávez government
(1999-2013), but also to ensure that the Venezuelan experience may remain as a
strategy to overcome neoliberalism and a transition strategy towards socialism,
by means of winning governments through electoral processes, in the present Latin-American
and Caribbean conditions.
We must be watchful because the
imperialist forces and their regional allies, besides seeking to discredit Chavismo, also intend to revive the
misconceived “theory “of the “two lefts”, with the clear purpose of undermining
cooperation between the progressive and leftist forces acting in the region,
thus hindering the regional integration process for the benefit of, for
example, the so-called “Pacific Rim”.
Thereby, the Working Group considers
it critical to warn the parties and governments of the region about the need to
grant more concreteness and velocity to the integration process. We consider it
important that the 19th Meeting should propose concrete initiatives to be
launched in this regard.
In this context, one of
homage to Chávez and his legacy, it seems appropriate to recall his role in
favor of regional integration, his denunciation of the FTAA, and his work in
favor of other integration and solidarity mechanisms for the peoples of the
great Latin-American and Caribbean land, like the ALBA.
In Nicaragua, over the past years the
economy has gained momentum and the population is living in safer conditions.
The fact that Nicaragua has become an ALBA member has made it possible to boost
economic and social achievements and introduce an alternative integration focus.
The FSLN proves that investing in human development and organizing the people
are two extremely important elements for development and sustainability.
In El Salvador the experience with
the ALBA acquires a different connotation, as the government is a non-member,
yet the municipalities governed by the FMLN and certain business sectors participate,
through ALBA Petróleo of El Salvador, which contributes with food-production and
social programs.
In the Central-American region, the
official integration system is over sixty years old and is based on a
traditional model that has been unable to overcome inequality and poverty, a
convenient situation for the U.S. interests, whose justification for the rising
militarization and increased military funding in the region is drug trafficking,
replicating a model already implemented in Mexico.
Guatemala is stuck today between the
interests of the military and the oligarchy in power and the great
institutional voids left by unfinished peace agreements. In these hours social
struggle seems to reach a climax, eager to exercise the right to truth and
justice after decades of dictatorial regimes responsible for countless acts of
genocide and repression.
The 19th Meeting should
underscore that the integration of Latin America and the Caribbean is the strategic objective of the São Paulo Forum.
This objective is to be accomplished by advancing and supporting regional
integration mechanisms that may become weapons for our
nations to wield against foreign policies seeking to weaken the Latin-American
left. In this sense we should emphasize the pro tempore presidency of Cuba at
the head of CELAC and its significance to concrete integrationist actions.
The political parties gathered in the São Paulo Forum play,
therefore, a triple role: orienting our governments to deepen the changes and step
up integration; organizing social forces to support our governments or oppose
right-wing governments; and building mass thought that is Latin-American and
Caribbean, integrationist, democratic, people-led, and socialist.
An important part of the deepening of the changes and a
premise for the construction of a Latin-American and Caribbean thought is the
democratization of social communication and of judicial powers.
Among our tasks, it is worth
mentioning our intense 2013-2014 electoral calendar:
- October 27th, 2013: legislative elections in Argentina
(half of the Chamber of Deputies and a third of the Senate)
- November 17th, 2013: first round of the elections in Chile
(President, Deputies, Senators, and for the first time also Regional Advisors (Consejeros Regionales)
- May 2014: legislative elections in
the Dominican Republic
- June 1st, 2014: primary elections in
Uruguay
- October 5th, 2014: first electoral round in Brazil
(President, Governors, Senators, Federal and State Representatives)
- October 26th, 2014: legislative and
first round of presidential elections in Uruguay
- December 2014: general elections in
Bolivia.
Also worth highlighting is the
importance of the FARC-Santos government negotiations.
The most recent peace
processes in Colombia share a trait in common – each failed process was
followed by an escalating wave of violence. And this common trait should prevail
in the horizon of the present peace process in Colombia, since a new failure
would submerge the country in a new cycle of fratricide violence.
The failure of the Caguán dialogs
was followed by a period during which homicide increased exponentially, as was
the case with the failed dialogs of La Uribe, Caracas, and Tlaxcala.
In the 1980s, with the
failure of the peace dialogs led by Betancourt, the first Colombian president
to dare acknowledge the objective causes of the violence, paramilitarism spread
like a 1,000-head hydra.
On its way this paramilitary
army has sown terror, displaced people, murdered, abducted people, and usurped
land. A phenomenon that has mutated toponymically into the present Bandas Criminales, the notorious Bacrim,
which continue, however, in their practices, actions, and ideological
orientation to embody the paramilitary project.
At the present juncture
there is no doubt that the peace process will be followed by an escalation in
the war. Unlike the 1980s, when the Colombian people said that there were
covert peace enemies, today the enemies of negotiated peace are openly acting
to undermine the La Habana talks.
The statements by the Colombian
far-right, headed by Uribe Vélez, have stigmatized the present peace process,
charged it with death bombs, and above all have announced that should it win
the next presidential elections, the peace policy will be replaced by a war
policy.
To this common trait we
should add that, at present, if peace fails in Colombia, this will seriously
compromise the region’s stability, especially the north of South America and
the Caribbean zone.
The warpath along which Uribe
led Colombia during his two terms of office will follow a failure in the
current peace talks under the argument that more time was the only thing
required to strike a military-strategic blow against the FARC. The warpath, however,
shows ignorance of the recent ruling by The Hague, amounting in practice to a
declaration of war against Nicaragua, severed recently reestablished relations with
Venezuela, and constant showdowns with Correa’s project in Ecuador.
Today more than ever, the
Colombian war –along with the Venezuelan Bolivarian socialist project and the
dispute over the Argentine Malvinas– cannot be seen as a “mere” national issue;
rather, it must be set against the regional context.
A war in Colombia is Latin
America’s war, and peace in Colombia is peace in Latin America. Avoiding a new
spiral of violence in Colombia and a bellicose environment in the region is a
more far-reaching historical commitment for the entire Colombian, Latin-American,
and Caribbean left.
Peace in Colombia will
help us reduce the military presence of U.S. imperialism in the region. This is
also one of the reasons we will keep on fighting till there is no colony in Our
America.
In January
2013, in Santiago, Chile, the Community of Latin-American and Caribbean States
(CELAC) expressed its open support for a free, independent, and sovereign Puerto
Rico.
The
19th Meeting of the São Paulo Forum joins the struggle for the full and
sovereign independence of Puerto Rico, adopting as its own the statements made
by CELAC, along with by a significant part of the international community.
This year on March 26th, Argentina
once again submitted its historical complaint about the Malvinas to the United
Nations, a decision that received the “unanimous” support of Latin America, in
order to demand that the United Kingdom negotiate the sovereignty of the
islands. Still, the British refused the mediation of the U.N. Secretary General.
Argentina’s foreign
minister, Héctor Timerman, asked the U.N. Secretary General -again- to intercede
before the British authorities; however, Ban Ki-moon confirmed that the United
Kingdom refused the mediation offered, despite the 40-plus U.N. resolutions
establishing that the two countries should negotiate a peaceful and definitive
agreement on the sovereignty of the Malvinas. During his visit to the U.N. the
Argentine foreign minister was accompanied by Bruno Rodríguez, foreign minister
of Cuba, who attended the meeting with Ban Ki-moon in representation of the
Community of Latin-American and Caribbean States (CELAC); by his Uruguayan peer,
Luís Almagro, on behalf of the MERCOSUR; and by Peru’s Undersecretary of State,
José Beraún Aranibar, on behalf of the Union of South American Nations
(UNASUR).
To us, participants in the
19th Meeting of the São Paulo Forum, the Malvinas are Argentine. Therefore, we
will strive to make sure that the governments of the countries hereby
represented once again demand the devolution of the archipelago of the Republic
of Argentina by the United Kingdom.
The struggle in defense of
national sovereignty and independence, against colonialism and imperialism, is
most intensely expressed in the defense of Cuba.
The
United States trade, economic, and financial blockade against Cuba, imposed
in October 1960,
is condemned today by most of the countries of the globe, as made clear in the overwhelming
majority vote held in November 2012 at the United Nations General Assembly
against the blockade (188 countries condemning the blockade, 3 votes in favor, and
2 abstentions) and calling for its lifting and the cessation of any coercive
action not emanating from the United Nations Charter.
The
19th Meeting of the São Paulo Forum
expresses its complete solidarity with and support for the people and
government of the Republic of Cuba and sides with each statement by nations
expressly calling for the definitive cessation of the economic, trade,
financial blockade imposed on Cuba and demanding that the government of the
United States of America fully abide by the United Nations Resolutions thereof
and by the trade principles the United States itself subscribed to at the World
Trade Organization, providing for the free circulation of goods, financial
transfers, and people.
Moreover,
the 19th Meeting of the São Paulo Forum demands
that the United States immediately release the Cuban Heroes detained in its
territory, heroes defending their homeland against terrorist plans being plotted
in the United States since the beginning of the Cuban Revolution, which have
cost the lives of many innocent people for more than fifty years.
One of our
challenges to successfully combat imperialism is to engage in the organization
and struggle of the people of the United States.
We establish a distinction between
the United States people, who are our allies, and the United States government,
which is the main culprit for the economic, political, social, and military unrest
our planet is facing. To the people of the United States we express our
solidarity with their struggles for social justice, against oppression and in
favor of fundamental rights.
We express our solidarity to the
millions of men and women immigrants residing in the United States –many coming
from Latin America and the Caribbean– in their just struggle for human, social,
and economic rights, whom we support under the motto “All rights to all men
and women migrants and their families”.
The
political tasks outlined will only be accomplished if the leftist and
progressive forces grouped in the São Paulo Forum are fully conscious of the
importance of unity. There is no more pressing task for the Latin-American and Caribbean left
than unity and that our forces unite locally and nationally – and regionally. A
unity understanding and acknowledging of our differences yet deeply rooted in
the objectives that all our peoples share in common. Unity is the roadmap towards
our peoples’ effective integration.
7. Plan of action
The commission in charge
of drafting the discussion document is now preparing the 2013–2014 Plan of
Action of the São Paulo Forum building on the topics below.
Uphold and broaden spaces conquered,
especially national governments.
Keep fighting to defeat the right
wherever it governs.
Deepen change where we govern.
Strengthen unity and regional
integration.
Synchronize our struggle against
imperialism and the right’s counterattack.
Support and seek to broaden social
struggles.
Contribute towards a political and
peaceful solution for the situation in Colombia.
Support the efforts of the
progressive, democratic, and leftist sectors in Honduras.
Our deepest solidarity with the
struggle waged by the people, our brothers and sisters, of Haiti to overcome
ancestral poverty and marginality and in favor of the full democratization of
the Haitian society, without foreign meddling and respecting Haiti’s national
sovereignty. Endeavor to support the leftist forces in that country.
Reaffirm our commitment to the cause
of decolonization, self-determination, and independence, and of our peoples’
unity and integration, especially with regard to the cases of Puerto Rico, the Malvinas
and the other British colonies in the South Atlantic, the French Guyana,
Martinique, and Guadeloupe.
Solidarity with Cuba. Fight against
the blockade. Adopt the cause of the freedom of the Cuban Heroes as the cause
of the São Paulo Forum and demand their immediate release by the United States through
the required channels.
Strengthen the Europe Department of
the São Paulo Forum and our ties with the various sectors of the European left,
especially anti-neoliberal resistance parties and social movements.
Consolidate the U. S. Department of the
São Paulo Forum and strengthen our ties with the resistance movements in the United
States, particularly those standing up for the rights of migrants and the
“Occupy!” resistance movement against the crisis.
Broaden our dialog with the left in Africa
and the Middle East.
Reinforce our struggle for peace,
against foreign meddling, and our solidarity with the peoples who are fighting,
starting with Palestine.
Express our solidarity to countries
like Syria and Iran, violated in their sovereignty and harassed by imperialism.
Increase dialog and agreements with
the parties of China, Russia, India, and South Africa.
Increase the Latin-American and
Caribbean left’s capacity to draw up propositions in face of the most critical
and salient themes, and intensify debate on the course of the changes in the
region, their nature, and their short-, medium-, and long-term goals, on
alternatives to neoliberalism and capitalism, and on the role of the diverse
regional expressions of unity and integration.
Improve the organic functioning of
the São Paulo Forum by strengthening coordination spheres in order to drive
debate, coordinate positions, and increasingly disseminate them regionally and
globally, as well as achieving greater cooperation between the São Paulo Forum
parties in concrete actions.
Hold the 20th Meeting of the São
Paulo Forum in 2014 in Bolivia.
