BY JUAN VíCTOR FAJARDO

In print | Published October 23, 2008

This week I have chosen to write about a topic related to Freddy Caicedo’s visit to Swarthmore on Monday (10/20). Caicedo is a Colombian human rights organizer that works closely with Witness for Peace (www.witnessforpeace.org) as well as grassroots organizations in rural communities in his home country. He came to campus to give a talk on the (soon to be voted on) US-Colombia Free Trade Agreement (FTA). The primary goal of his lecture was to raise awareness of what this NAFTA-style trade pact would mean for farm-communities in Colombia, and what US citizens can do to prevent the FTA from being approved by the US Senate.

Although the FTA fact sheet published by The White House in March claims that the trade agreement will “bring economic gains for both countries,” Caicedo disagrees. He argues that NAFTA-style agreements, like the FTA, have historically deepened the socio-economic problems they aim to resolve. These agreements consist largely of neo-liberal policies focused on the privatization of natural resources and other economic sectors.

Far from benefiting developing nations, Caicedo argues that these policies ultimately pose a threat to the livelihoods of subsistence farmers, jeopardize the cultural autonomy of indigenous communities and have lasting negative effects on the environment.

Freddy Caicedo is not the only Latin-American critic of this trade agreement. In fact, the neo-liberal ideal of trade agreements that yield economic gains for both sides has faced stern opposition from many governments in the region. Perhaps the most prominent advocate against US trade agreements in Latin America is the President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez. In response to these trade initiatives, Chavez has proposed an innovative alternative for trade in Latin America called The Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA).

ALBA was created on Dec. 14, 2004 in Cuba, and at the time there were only two member countries: Cuba and Venezuela. Since then, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Honduras and the island nation of Dominica have joined. Contrary to US trade agreements — which ostensibly exploit the economic disparities between strong economic powers and developing nations — advocates of ALBA claim that they will create more “egalitarian” trade agreements between Latin American countries. In order to do this, ALBA is proposing the creation of a compensatory fund known as the Banco del Sur, or Bank of the South.

Through this fund, the members of ALBA hope to reduce Latin America’s reliance on funds like the IMF. The Bank of the South, if created, will be a collective fund comprised of financial contributions from member countries that will be used to finance development projects in the region. The goal is to create a “socially responsible” fund that will challenge US financial influence in Latin America. Although formal aspects surrounding the creation of the Bank of the South (lending policies, criteria for accepting members, etc.) remain unsettled, the initiative seems promising on paper. It is appealing in that it strikes a regionalist chord. The main question that remains unanswered, however, is whether the rhetoric surrounding ALBA will actually reflect the reality.

The connections between ALBA and Chavez’s anti-American project for Latin America are fairly evident. In that sense, there are strong reasons to be skeptical about this initiative. Chavez’s goal to expand Venezuela’s political influence in the region is no secret. A recent publication in a Venezuelan newspaper claims that ALBA offices in several countries are being used as a way of “exporting” the Bolivarian Revolution. According to the article, these offices are centers for covert political proselytism.

Publications of this sort seem to confirm the hypothesis that ALBA is just a façade for the advancement of Chavez’s overarching project for Latin American geopolitics. They also help to put Chavez’s seductive rhetoric into the context of his personal agenda. For those of us who have seen the disparity between theory and practice of the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela, it is hard to take anything Chavez says at face value.

What is true is that Latin America is currently changing and searching for new horizons. Although past neo-liberal trade agreements and development packets have largely failed in bringing about economic development in Latin America, does it necessarily follow that rejecting them entirely and alienating the US from the region is the best solution? Where will projects like ALBA leave the region after leaders like Chavez are out of office? How much power are we willing to give to a man with autocratic tendencies? These are the questions that we need to answer.

Juan Victor is a senior. He can be reached at jfajard1@swarthmore.edu.

« RETURN TO OPINIONS

« PREV ARTICLE | NEXT ARTICLE »