elissasmith.ca

Tim Anderson, a young Canadian, writes about his experience and perceptions at the World Social Forum:

“Here are some more observations from Venezuela and the 2006 World Social Forum (WSF), held in Caracas. I went to Caracas in December, during the National Assembly elections (en route to Cuba, where I was studying the health system and the HIV program) and again in late January, for the WSF. I went to a lot of WSF sessions, but really I was just as interested in what was going on in Venezuela, and in the growing links between it and the other left governments of Latin America.

There was indeed a lot of blurring of lines between the ‘project’ of the WSF (‘another world is possible’) and the project of the Chavez-led, socialist MVR (Movement of the Fifth Republic). This was the criticism of both the bourgeois opposition and the anarchists. For myself, I found the blurring rather natural, for a WSF held in Venezuela. If we are looking at ‘other’ worlds, ie. other than imperialism and neoliberalism, Venezuela represents the most interesting alternative in recent decades. Here is a popular socialist party which has come to government and has maintained power through elections, has wrested control of the country’s natural resources from the oligarchy and the MNCs, confronted the empire, given a major priority to education, health and housing programs for poor people, increased levels of participation, resisted a US backed coup and is still faced by an aggressive Bush regime. It also faces an hostile domestic and international corporate media, which accuses it of every crime under the sun.

But the results are on the board, in terms of substantial improvements in education and poverty. State subsidies are now going to cooperatives and new public institutions. The economy is very strong (13% growth p.a. over 2004-05) due to public investment, general growth and higher oil prices (these contributed 25% of the growth, in 2005). Internationally, Venezuela has pioneered new relations with Latin America by aid, barter, shared institutional development and various forms of cooperation. This ‘Bolivarian Alternative’ (ALBA) is a major challenge to the neoliberal trade regimes. Venezuela and its southern partners have now killed the US plan for a Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA/ALCA).

How could the WSF not be fascinated and enthused by what is going on in Venezuela? Caracas is a big crowded city, with a lot of crime, and high levels of corruption. Life is hard for many. More than 60% of the houses in Caracas, for example, are at risk of collapse, as the city has expanded up steep valley hills. Many live from tiny businesses on the streets. Other suburbs like Altamira are very well to do. The old trade union federation (the CTV) is hated and rejected by Chavistas, as they (and the Catholic Church hierarchy, and the corporate media) supported the US backed coup. A new trade union body has been created. From the rallies, the Chavistas (yes, Chavez is a huge hero, and personality politics is big) are very visibly working class and young, while the opposition supporters are middle class and older. One opposition paper noted that the opposition’s January rally had people who were “mostly over 40″. It seems to me, though, that the participation of professional classes with the Chavez movement is growing.

But the country remains very divided, with totally different media claims over what is going on in the country. Capitalism still rules, and the country’s richest man (Cisneros) continues to increase his fortune, and to fund the opposition. Most newspapers and TV stations portray the government as a dangerous Cuban ally, restricting liberties and moving towards a ‘communist’ totalitarian state. Lies and distortions abound. Chavez has been accused of drug trafficking and giving arms to the Colombian guerilla (both false). One opposition commissioned survey asked people “how much do you agree with the announcement that private property will be eliminated and changed for common or collective property?” — 22% agreed, and 75% were against. The opposition headline was then “75% support private property”. In fact, the Chavistas have not made any ‘announcement’ about property in those terms. There is speculation that proposals to change the constitution in 2007 (amongst other things, to allow Chavez to run for more than two terms) will include amending the current right to property. The opposition talks of political prisoners, and there are several oppositionists in jail – one for sabotage during the oil lock-out, and one journalist for criminal defamation. However, individual rights are more strongly protected in the Bolivarian constitution, created in 1999. The major implicit complaint, however, is that the state no longer privileges investors and private corporations.

There is now zero government advertising going to the opposition media – previously this was 60% of their revenue. The result is that some papers have collapsed, while others are maintained as loss making voices of the opposition. A couple more ‘even handed’ private papers (eg. Ultimas Noticias) have picked up the government advertising. On the other hand, the one public TV channel is now strongly pro government, but also creative and young. This has been joined by Telesur (a joint Latin American anti-imperialist TV channel), community TV and the channel of the National Assembly — which is now dominated by MVR candidates and their allies, after the opposition surprisingly (and at the last moment) boycotted the December 2005 elections. Abstentionism (hoping for another coup?) now threatens to split the opposition parties. Some left papers (eg Diario Vea) now have government support and have increased their circulation. Most national and international newsagencies are strongly anti-Chavez, but a public agency (ABN) has also been set up. So there is a media war going on, in which the government is gaining ground — but still most media is corporate and very anti-government.

Despite this, Chavez remains hugely popular and seems certain to win the Presidential elections in December 2006. It would be naive to ignore the threats, and their effects. Although Chavez had army support back in the 1990s, over 100 generals participated in the 2002 coup attempt against him. Presumably they have now been purged, though most were not prosecuted. Many industrialists, journalists and others who supported the coup remain active. The coup leaders presented an agenda almost entirely scripted by Washington, and many were indeed paid by Washington. A prominent public prosecutor was murdered last year, in a case which seems to have political overtones. The US would seize on any opportunity for another coup, and an Iraqi type invasion has been planned; though this seems less likely in current circumstances. In face of this there is military preparedeness, with heavily armed soldiers in the streets, and resentment at those who try to undermine Chavez, and the MVR project. The US is now trying to block Venezuela maintaining or acquiring military hardware and planes. That great humanitarian Bono supported Bush in this move, in the name of (selective) disarmament. In response, Venezuela is shifting across to Russian and Chinese technology.

At the WSF, there was a strong indigenous presence. The December 2005 election of Evo Morales as President of Bolivia was widely seen as a victory of the social movements, as well as of the majority indigenous people (note: Ecuador and Guatemala also have majority indigenous peoples). Evo immediately got strong Cuban and Venezuelan support, for the program of his Movement Towards Socialism (MAS). The big issues are: nationalisation of Bolivia’s gas resources, and a new constitution. Evo opposes the Cocaine trade but supports the right of Bolivian farmers to grow coca leaf. The MAS also wants supports the broader agenda to get US forces and bases out of Latin America. Cuba increased its already existing scholarship program for young Bolivians (training to be doctors, in Cuba – there are 2,000 there now, and this will double) and Chavez signed eight agreements, including one on fuel supply (Bolivia has and exports crude oil and gas but – like East Timor – has had to buy refined fuels, up till now). Chavez says that Bolivia can repay the fuel in agricultural products, when they are able (the Venezuelan Opposition complained that Chavez is giving away their resources, and cried ‘Evo is going to pay in chickens!’). Indigenous pride seems to be rising, but it is also clear that the US will try to derail the Bolivian experiment.

Practical solidarity in the face of the imperialist threat is important, and is probably the most notable feature of Latin American politics today. The building of south-south links (under the ALBA banner) is impressive. Cuba now supplies Venezuela with 17,000 health professionals as well as health and literacy education, in exchange for oil. The two countries now also share such things as ship and plane repair facilities, have abolished all trade barriers and are privileging state and joint venture investment in each others’ country. Cuba is investing heavily in a totally renovated power grid, which includes local oil and alternatives such as wind. Its economy grew by almost 12% in 2005, helped by its strong investment and trade links with China, Venezuela and Spain, as well as its tourism. It recognises that its strength is human capital, developed through its long term commitment to education.

Venezuela now has very large joint ventures planned with Brazil and Argentina, notably a proposed continental gas pipeline. There is also a planned joint public refinery in NE Brazil. Argentina supplies ship building services to Venezuela, for oil. The Bolivian ALBA agreements are in similar terms — providing resources, barter, cooperation, joint public institutions. At the same time, corporate Spain has raised its stakes in Latin America. It is LatAm’s strongest European capitalist ally.

The WSF had to pay a lot of attention to the ALBA developments, and this looked like it was ‘getting into bed’ with Chavez, especially in the panel sessions with the Prez. This will change, as the WSF moves to Pakistan next month, and to Kenya next year. It is important that the WSF maintains its independence, but the Venezuelan link also remains important. Criticism of the Venezuelan and Cuban systems is fine, and healthy. But the anarchist views of these projects, accustomed as they are to oppositionism, seem not to recognise that projects that are worth building are also worth defending. These socialist projects are all processes, not end points. They can all advance, stall and fail. But if the Cubans had not defended their revolution, their health, education and social security would have been swallowed up in the corporate onslaught long ago. Next, watch the Mexican elections, coming up soon …”