Freedom and democracy or hunger and terror: neoliberalism and militarization in Latin America.

• Date: 22 June 2005
• Author: Hristov, Jasmin
• Published date: 22 June 2005
• Author: Hristov, Jasmin

Introduction

IN LATIN AMERICA, THE PROCESS OF CONCENTRATING WEALTH WITH WEALTH AND poverty with poverty began 500 years ago, but it has dramatically accelerated in the last 25 years under neoliberal policies. Latin American countries that followed the free-market prescription and inserted themselves fully into the global economy in the expectation that freedom and democracy would ensue found such promises to be chimera fabricated by the preachers of market liberalization. Real freedom under neoliberalism is enjoyed only by capital. Large sectors of society are denied basic human rights and dignity, while local elites allied with transnational companies have grown stronger, as has the determination to eliminate all remaining barriers to capital's search for resources, cheap labor, and markets. As millions are born, live, and die in the wreckage left by neoliberalism's plunder, the elite version of democracy counsels the hungry to patiently wait for wealth to trickle-down to them. Such democracy offers citizens the freedom to choose whether to spend their income on clean water, medicine, or food, to sell their dignity, or to become an "internal enemy." The promise of democracy by those seeking to maintain their unchallenged privileges translates into increased repression and violence against those who stand up for social justice and the protection of life.

The neoliberal model is based on the assertion that poverty is best alleviated by opening societies to market-based competition, since an unregulated free market promotes economic growth and a democratic and just development process. Most Latin American countries have adopted this model and have experienced it for over two decades. Much evidence now suggests that this economic system produces poverty, aggravates existing poverty and inequality, impedes social development by turning human rights into commodities, and destroys sustainable livelihoods by granting corporations unprecedented rights and freedoms (Hristov, 2004). Fantu Cheru, an independent expert on the effects of structural adjustment policies (SAPs) on human rights, concluded that SAPs--a primary component of the neoliberal agenda--represent a political project of social transformation at the global level that aims to make the world safe for multinational corporations (MNCs). These policies reduce the role of the state in national development, erode the social welfare of the poor, and deny their economic, social, and cultural rights (Singh, 1999). Since it is unresponsive to the needs of the majority, the continued existence of neoliberalism requires a political counterpart capable of suppressing opposition to it. "The modern army of financial capital and corrupt governments advances in the only way it is capable of: destroying" (EZLN, 1998a: 12). This explains the emergence of war not between countries, but within them, waged by states against the poor (the majority of their populations). The weapons in such wars go beyond hunger to include military dimensions.

This article illustrates the coexistence of neoliberalism, militarization, violence, and repression in Colombia, Ecuador, and Mexico since 1990. To a large extent, these three countries represent the relationship between economic, political, and military trends in the rest of Latin America. Their common characteristics are governments that are "economic vassals of the U.S." (Petras et al., 2004), "empire-centered" (neoliberal) policies that have greatly impoverished the working majority in each country, and a rich natural resource base (particularly oil). They also have social movements that have demonstrated long-term viability, increasing repression and violence directed by those with economic and political power and sanctioned by the state, and an increasing U.S. military presence. The following analysis is not a series of case studies, but illustrates local expressions of global processes that conceal class struggle and the pursuit of imperial interests.

Below I briefly describe the origin and characteristics of the neoliberal economic model, and provide an overview of the neoliberal policies and their socioeconomic impact in Colombia, Ecuador, and Mexico. I discuss the major social movements in each country as an inevitable response to structural inequalities that have been aggravated by the current economic model. This includes coverage of each movement's base, strategies, visions, and accomplishments. I next challenge the view that democracy is becoming a dominant feature of Latin America's political landscape by exposing the false notion of political representation and choice, the lack of state autonomy, the presence of authoritarian features in state structures and the repression and violence stemming from them, as well as the role of militarization in ensuring the stability of the neoliberal model. Then I examine the role of the U.S. military presence in securing control over natural resources, reinforcing the neoliberal agenda, and crushing social movements in Colombia, Ecuador, and Mexico. Finally, I present evidence from these three countries that reveals the human costs--various forms of human rights violations and politically motivated murders--that are an expression of the trends described earlier.

Neoliberalism: Origin and Definition

Neoliberalism is a system of policies that promotes the market and cuts back on state activities that do not immediately favor business (Holloway and Pelaez, 1998). Its essential components are trade liberalization, privatization, and deregulation. Trade liberalization refers to free trade or the removal of trade barriers, such as tariffs and quotas. Privatization requires the sale of public enterprises and assets to private owners. Deregulation constitutes the removal of government restrictions and interventions on capital to allow market forces to act as a self-regulating mechanism. This process can take the form of labor or financial deregulation (Weaver, 2000).

Halebsky and Harris (1995) argue that the shift to neoliberal policies was due to the pressure on Latin American governments in the late 1970s to service their external debts. To receive loans from the World Bank (WB) or the International Monetary Fund (IMF), governments had to agree to a program of structural adjustment that included drastically reducing public spending in the areas of health, education, and welfare (austerity); cutting wages or severely constraining their rise; liberalizing trade and promoting export-oriented growth; removing restrictions on foreign investment; devaluating the local currency; privatizing state enterprises; and embarking on radical deregulation (Bello et al., 1994).

The core of the neoliberal program implemented by Latin American governments-austerity, trade liberalization, and deregulation--was advocated by the Institute for International Economics (IIE) in the U.S. in its publication Toward Renewed Economic Growth in Latin America (1986). In 1989, the Institute convened a conference to explore the extent to which these reforms were pursued in the region. The participants, including representatives from international financial institutions (IFIs), economic agencies of the U.S. government, and the U.S. Federal Reserve Board, concluded the conference with ideas for reforms that were still needed in Latin America. John Williamson, a senior official at the IIE, listed 10 such reforms. Known as the Washington Consensus, the list included fiscal restraint, public expenditures in fields with high economic returns, tax reform, financial liberalization, competitive exchange rates, trade liberalization, removal of barriers to foreign investment, privatization of state-owned enterprises, deregulation, and security for property rights (Williamson and Kuczynski, 2003). The Washington Consensus now symbolizes the neoliberal agenda, which continues to be implemented in many Third World countries.

Economic Liberalization and Human Enslavement

Neoliberalism intensified the process through which economic and decision-making power become concentrated in a few hands, as well as the transfer of resources from the public to the private sphere. Thus, the expanding freedom of the market guarantees access to profits and highly profitable income-earning opportunities to already economically powerful groups, such as MNCs, local elites, and financial operators, while excluding the participation of the working classes and low-income population (Lefeber, 2003). The neoliberalization of nation-states is evident in their lack of interference in profit-making processes to redistribute surpluses and in the failure to regulate transnational capital in their territories. Consequently, nation-states have become less responsible or responsive to the interests of broad majorities and less accountable to society (Robinson, 1996).

Economic liberalization influences Latin American nations through external forces (advanced countries and international institutions) in the form of foreign investment, imports, international trade laws, and debt-servicing pressures and through internal ones (which are conditioned by foreign influences despite Latin American origins) in the form of macroeconomic policies. This section focuses on external pressures--trade laws and the external debt--that affect the position of Latin American countries in the global economy, and on the effects of foreign investments and imports on the poorer classes within nations. I then cover how macroeconomic policies contribute to the marginalization of the low-income population and specifically look at Colombia, Ecuador, and Mexico, since they represent the detrimental impact neoliberal restructuring (through various internal and external forces) has had on the economic and social development of the region.

International trade laws and the external debt reinforce the subordinate position of most Latin American countries within the global hierarchy of power...