DBMA Espanol > Espanol Discussion

Politica-Economia en Latino America

<< < (2/20) > >>

Crafty_Dog:
Geopolitical Diary: Bolivia and Leftward Movement in Latin America

Bolivian President Evo Morales followed through on a campaign promise on Monday by nationalizing the country's oil and natural gas industries. The move, which Morales discussed frequently during his first 100 days in power, should not have come as a surprise, but the way in which it was done caught many off-guard. Rather than sending a bill to the legislature, Morales enacted the law by decree, announced it on the national May Day holiday --  to the surprise of Bolivia's own media -- and immediately sent the armed forces to secure oil facilities, seeking to prevent any disruptions in operations. In other words, everything was done in the style of the old Latin American populist governments, with a flair that portends a penchant for theatricality and unwillingness to compromise.

Monday's development raises two questions. First, given Bolivia's poverty
and dependence on other countries as shipping routes for its gas exports,
will the nationalization policy be sustainable over the long run? And
second, is this part of a leftist trend that Venezuelan President Hugo
Chavez has been encouraging in the region, or will Bolivia's lurch to the
left with the hydrocarbons policy be an isolated case?

Whatever the answer to the first question, Bolivia is hardly an isolated
case. Venezuela has set certain precedents by incrementally changing the
playing rules for foreign companies: Taxes have been increased, and
foreign-owned firms have been forced to enter into joint ventures with the
state-owned oil company. Ecuador is now moving down the same path. Quito recently approved a law that allows the government to renegotiate contracts with oil companies, giving the government more than half of the revenues from oil sold above a certain price level. And in Peru, presidential candidate Ollanta Humala has promised to nationalize gas reserves and production if he wins the runoff election. There is indeed a pattern here.

Another pattern appears to have developed on trade issues as well. During the Summit of the Americas (hosted by Argentina in November 2005), a bloc of countries -- vocally led by Venezuela, with backing from Argentina, Brazil and Bolivia -- expressed strong opposition to calls to move forward with the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). Instead, Bolivia, Venezuela and Cuba during the past weekend signed the Peoples' Trade Agreement -- note the absence of the word "free" -- as a way to promote unity in the Americas and as their response to the FTAA.

That said, not all the countries in Latin America are treading the same
course. In fact, there may be more differences than similarities in the
policies emerging from the region. Although most of the recently elected
governments have been labeled "leftist" and supposedly have common agendas, Latin America is beginning to show signs of deep divisions rather than growing unity. Only the most radical governments have nationalized their energy industries or attempted to change the rules of engagement for foreign-owned companies. Countries like Brazil, Uruguay and Chile -- all of which have elected leaders belonging to old leftist movements -- have not pursued nationalization policies, and in fact the investment environment in these countries has remained at least level (or improved, in comparison to the more radical countries in the region.)

On trade, the countries that favored the FTAA did not sit back and wait for
Chavez or Argentine President Nestor Kirchner to take the lead or declare it a good idea -- they moved ahead to negotiate bilateral agreements with the United States themselves. Colombia and Peru already have signed their respective agreements, although they still await ratification. Ecuador also has engaged in negotiations with the United States, although the approval of Quito's version of the hydrocarbons law has stalled talks. As a result of all of this, Chavez decided last week to pull Venezuela out of the Andean Community of Nations -- a group that includes Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia -- saying (with Bolivia's agreement) that it is incompatible to seek trade agreements with the United States and fellow Latin American states at the same time. Colombia and Peru, defying Chavez's strange economic logic, have decided to move ahead with their U.S. trade deals.

Deeper south, integration has suffered as well. Uruguay and Paraguay have questioned Mercosur's current structure, claiming that Brazil and Argentina run rough-shod over the small members of the trade bloc. Uruguayan President Tabare Vazquez has labeled the organization -- which comprises Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay -- "useless" and called for reform. At the same time, Vazquez has been looking to launch free-trade talks -- or at lest an investment agreement -- with the United States, and he is scheduled to meet this week with U.S. President George W. Bush.

All in all, Venezuela's Chavez appears to have been sowing division among his neighbors rather than uniting Latin America behind the project he envisions for Venezuela. He has engaged in bitter verbal spats with
President Vicente Fox of Mexico, with President Alejandro Toledo Manrique of Peru and with Peruvian presidential contender Alan Garcia. It is true that Peru, Mexico and Nicaragua still might elect leaders who would be closer to Chavez ideologically than to the United States or other moderate Latin American leaders. But despite that, it is not entirely clear that all of them would follow the same policy path. It is considerably more likely that divisions will persist among Latin American states. Economic realities place clear constraints on the policies that the governments of the region can follow.

Thus, with economic and geographic realities in mind, we return to Bolivia
and our first question: Are the nationalization policies sought by Morales
sustainable?

Though Bolivia has South America's second-largest reserves of natural gas, its hydrocarbons industry remains quite underdeveloped. The country currently exports most of its gas to and through Brazil (whose state-owned Petrobras is one of the main foreign companies in Bolivia's hydrocarbons industry). By expropriating the hydrocarbons -- or, to be even more to the point, by reducing the status of foreign companies to mere operators of oil and gas fields -- Bolivia will obstruct flows of new investment and strain its relationship with Brazil. Considering that Morales came into office strongly opposed to a plan that would build a gas export line through Chile, he basically would have only one other route to get the gas to market if Brazil was alienated: through Paraguay, Argentina and Uruguay. But such a pipeline would take years to construct. And though Chavez has pledged support to his friend in Bolivia, it is not clear whether he can do much to help out, especially since the two countries do not share a border.

Morales has made good on one of his chief campaign promises, but doing so might hurt the indigenous population he wants to lift out of poverty more than it helps. The gas deposits are now theirs, but without assistance, the Bolivians will find it difficult to develop or export the gas. The alternative, in the less-than-diplomatic words of Mexico's President Fox: They might have to eat it instead

LazMartinez:
Crafty,
   Como Ud. sabe, este movimiento a la izquierda no es algo nuevo.  Se ve en todas partes del mundo que el que ofrece una vida mejor, posible o imposible, va a ganar el apoyo de la clase baja solamente por la esperanza que da.  Me gustaria oir lo que nuestros amigos en America Latina tienen que decir por esto.  

Lazaro

Crafty_Dog:
Mientras esperamos comentarios de nuestros amigos latinos, permitame ofrecer un pequeno resume de la teoria que se me ensenaba cuando, hace muchos anos (30!) cuando yo estudiaba en la universidad.

Se decia:

El analisis de derecha-izquierda no explica mucho.  El mundo tiene mas que dos dimensiones.  Hay mercado libre, hay socialismo, y hay fascismo.  Se trata de este tercero cuando el titulo al capital (the means of production) queda en manos privados, pero esta' dirigida por el gobierno-- como se ve en mucho de latinoamerica.  El individuo no se ve como tal, sino como miembro de un grupo (campesino, obrero, empresario, indio, iglesia, etc).  Modelos perfectos serian Italia de Musolini, Espana de Franco, Agentina de Peron, etc.  Parece que Chavez de Venezuela va por este rumbo-- no obtante las palabras de izquierda que diga.

Disculpa por favor las limitaciones de mi castellano.  Ya se hace tarde y voy a dormir.

Les despido de Uds con lo siguiente del WSJ de hoy.  No usa mi terminologia, pero si' ofrece un punto de vista.

CD
=====================


Latin Energy Fad
May 3, 2006; Page A14
Latin culture is all the rage these days, from Botero sculptures and Shakira's "Hips Don't Lie," to burritos and margaritas. So maybe we shouldn't be surprised that Bolivia is getting in on another Latin craze: the abrogation of contracts.

We refer to President Evo Morales's pronouncement on May 1 -- not a coincidental date -- to tear up Bolivia's agreements with foreign investors in the natural gas industry and take, in his words, "absolute control" of Bolivia's natural resources. Kicking out foreign investors by executive decree sounds a lot like the same authoritarian nationalist populismo that has earned Bolivia the only prominence it has ever enjoyed: South America's poorest nation.

The Morales move shocked markets but not for its originality. The newly inaugurated president is following the lead of Venezuelan President Hugo Ch?vez, who is a knock-off of Argentine strongman Juan Peron. Peron is long since dead but his spirit lives on in his party, which has been the 21st century's trend setter in the assault on property rights. In 2001 and 2002, Argentina's Peronistas reneged on their commitments not only with foreigners but with their own people, declaring a debt moratorium, tearing up utility contracts, confiscating dollar bank accounts and devaluing the peso.

Se?or Ch?vez followed suit after a fashion. He canceled contracts with foreign oil companies last month, demanding that the government oil company be given majority ownership and operational charge of oil fields. New terms offered to investors are also far less profitable. Some have agreed to stick it out, but Exxon Mobil sold its operations and when France's Total and Italy's ENI SpA refused to give in, Mr. Ch?vez responded by seizing their operations.

Like all fads, this one has its surface appeal. Argentina cleared its balance sheets by sticking it to its creditors and tearing up contracts. Its economy is still growing four years after its theft of private-sector assets, and it may even believe it's gotten something for nothing.
Yet the real predictor of a country's economic future lies in its investment rate. Economists estimate that to achieve steady long-term growth of 3.5% to 4%, Argentina needs an investment-to-GDP rate of at least 23%. To reach 5%, a more reasonable target for a quasi-developed country, it needs 25% investment to GDP. Yet last year's investment rate was a measly 19.8% and today's rate is only 22%. In other words, there are lots of places to put capital these days and few are rushing into Buenos Aires.

It may be that Mr. Morales has been emboldened by the petro wealth of Venezuela. But that country, too, is having trouble sustaining investment in energy production. Thanks to rampant corruption and the government's use of energy profits for buying support for socialism at home and around the region, Venezuela's oil fields are suffering from under-investment. Given an annual depletion rate of 25%, the only thing not clear is how long it will take to run the sector completely dry.

Bolivia to date has had only about $3.5 billion in foreign investment in natural gas, not nearly enough to exploit its vast reserves in the future. Even if Brazil's Petrobras and Spain's Repsol YPF decide to stay and accept the operating terms laid down by President Morales -- including a tax of 82% on natural gas extracted from country's two biggest fields -- new investment is unlikely to be nearly so brave.

Which means Bolivia would become either less productive or highly dependent on state-owned foreign companies from Venezuela or perhaps Russia. Neither option bodes well for the country's sovereignty, much less its prosperity.




URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114661950510242198.html

captainccs:
America latina no es un bloque monol?tico. Somos mas de 20 paises con mucho en com?n y con muchas diferencias. Me limitar? a hablar sobre Venezuela.

Somos un pa?s mesi?nico, populista, presidencialista y caudillista y no terminamos de entender como deber funcionar una democracia. Los 40 a?os de la cuarta rep?blica tuvieron un ligro barniz de democracia sobre lo que realmente fu? una dictadura de partidos. El hecho que uno pueda ir a votar no es suficiente para definir una democracia. Hace falta la libertad de comercio y la representaci?n del ciudadano en el gobierno. Cuando uno solo puede elegir por lista, el electo no es leal al elector sino al elaborador de la lista. En el voto lista estuvo el sustento de la dictadura de partidos de la cuarta republica.

Para muestra un bot?n, en el segundo gobierno de Carlos Andr?s Perez el parlamento le di? poderes dictatoriales al presidente para que mandara por decreto. ?Cuando se ha visto en una democracia funcional que el poder legislativo auto abroge sus poderes? El caso es que el tiro le sali? por la culata al partido de gobierno cuando CAP trat? de normalizar el precio de la gasolina. El pueblo protest? de forma tal que CAP fu? removido de su cargo en base a acusaciones falsas y para el colmo, su partido se volte? contra ?l creyendo que as? iban a salvar la imagen del partido.

El despelote de la cuarta rep?blica fu? tal que algunos pedian un golpe militar (caudillismo), mientras que uno de nuestros mas renombrdos intelectuales pedia la interrupci?n de la democracia para establer un gobierno de "Notables." El resultado final fu? la eleccci?n de Hugo Chavez y hago constar que no fueron solo los de clase baja los que votaron por ?l, tambien lo hicieros muchos de clase media que se comieron el cuento del "redentor" mesi?nico.

En Venezuela cuando hemos tenido un gobierno civil ha sido con la anuencia de los militares. En abril del 2001 fueron los militares quienes quitaron y luego volvieron a poner a Ch?vez. En una democr?cia funcional el ministro de la defensa es un civil. En Venezuela siempre es alg?n generalote. Muy a menudo los cuerpos policiales tambi?n est?n comandados por alg?n militar.

Lo que tenemos en Venezuela ahora es mas caudillismo (fachismo) que socialismo o comunismo. Hay una fachada comunista por los partidos que us? Chavez para hacerse elegir y por el apoyo que compra en La Habana. ?Como se explica que no hace mucho se abrio con bombas y platillos una casa de bolsa con el slog?n: "Ahora todos los venezolanos tiene acceso a la bolsa de valores?" Que idea tan disparatada. ?Como va a tener acceso a la bolsa de valores un pobre que no es due?o legal de nada? Pero en un comunismo la bolsa de valores no puede tener existencia. Hoy d?a los grandes comerciantes son todos amigotes de Ch?vez.

La diferencia real entre este gobierno y los anteriores es el nivel de represi?n y de exclusi?n.

LazMartinez:
Primero a Marc,
   Se me parece muy interesante que el WSJ estar? hablando de Caudillos y de dictaduras sin mencionar a Castro.  Fue ?l que empeso esta pr?ctica de "robar" las intereses de otros pa?ses, en America Latina.  Y si Ch?vez es un modelo de alguien, es un modelo de Castro.  

Captainccs,
    La democracia no es una sistema perfecta, pero ense?ame otra sistema mejor.  Lo que se les olvida a muchos es que no importa la manera en que se gobierna, siempre vamos a tener clases sociales que contralan a los de m?s.  La democracia por lo menos les da al "hombre en la calle" un poco m?s control que, por ejemplo, una dictadura, y no al punto de un rifle.  Como dijiste, en America Latina hay muchos pa?ses, pero son pa?ses peque?os, doden el ej?rcito tiene m?s control sobre la poblaci?n.  En pa?ses como M?xico y Brasil, eso no se ve, porque tienen una poblaci?n grande.  Lo mismo se ve en muchos pa?ses en Africa.  No se puede saber si esto es un problema sociol?gica o matem?tica, pero no es algo "Latino".  

L?zaro

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page