Five ideas and five presidents: ten reasons why groenlinks should give (more) attention to Latin America

“Twenty years is nothing” (from the lyrics of a known tango)

For a dutch progressive person twenty years ago, it was easy to think about latin america . At that time dutchies coexisted with quite some political exiles, living in Europe after flying from the torture and poverty ridden continent. Many southamericans were politically active in the discussions of the first years of groenlinks. The Nicaragua revolution was still a promise. To learn spanish then was more a political statement than the fashion of our days. Now things look different. In despite of the well known tango lirics that claim that “twenty years is nothing”. Today the Latinamerican discussion landscape is very different. Here are no more (political) exiles, and the ones that lived here then, are mostly back. The south american continent profited from a democratization wave. The political meltdown of The Balkans first, and the African tragedies later, become more urgent issues to think about. Latin american migration became economical, rather than political. In short, Latin America is not so much of an issue for Groenlinks today. Never mind twenty years when already a week is already long time in poolitics. I’m convinced that the time is ripe to think again down to the south and across the ocean.

I recognize, though, that to talk about countries other that the one in which one lives might easily become an exercise in cliche naming. As an argentinian-venezuelan arrived to the shores of NL six years ago (perhaps a short enough time) I hope that still I can offer to the Groenlinks debate a reasonably accurate description of a moving reality. The political and economical dynamics of latinamerica are unbelievable fast. Lets try then to speak briefly. Here I'll present five ideas and five presidents, that together I consider good ten reasons to rethink about Latinamerica. Read on, and hopefully, we will have a debate in hands.

First -pragmatic- idea: markets and cultural affinity

Let's start saying it one time more. We live in global times. And that brings Latinamerica close to europe again, even if only due to economic reasons. True, there are plenty of chinese and asia is an emergent economy. But growth rates of venezuela, or argentina, are higher or comparable. Culturally and economically, we are closer to latinamerica than to asia. The exchange of university researchers is one among many other examples. And look at the initiatives of Mercosur and ALBA. Several latinamerican countries struggle to abate their economical borders, just as Europe some fifty odds years ago. Traditionally the latinamerican markets are dominated by northamerican economics, but politically speaking this trend is being reviewed right now. Europe, as spanish companies learned, has a big role to play there. Dutch economical interests, and knowledge, has a even bigger potentiality to fulfill. Think simply in Shell as an oil exploiting company and the reserves of venezuelan oil and bolivian gas. Or think in water management technologies, and the big waterways that the Amazonas, La Plata and Orinoco rivers are.

On top of that, consider the traditional role that Dutch traders have played in the Caribbean. It is not only that we have dependencies such as The Antillen there, forcing a personal link between caribbeans and dutch population. Curazao refineries process a relevant percentage of venezuelan crude. And antillianen and surinamers are a lively part of the dutch population today. Both by economics and cultural reasons, The Netherlands is close to latinamerica that groenlinks is aware.

Second -also pragmatic- idea, migration

Migration is the one hot issue in european politics likely to remain a hot issue in the years to come. Some people will go on saying that we need migrants, some others will go on saying that we need to reduce their inflow. The fact is that latinamerican migration to europe is growing, and it will remain growing. Differently than twenty years ago, and differently than the migration coming from Africa, we do not have an inflow of refugees from Latinamerica. What we do have is an influx of economical migrants, people that is or willing to work in what they can, or people that has studied and desires to settle for high jobs in europe. Truly, a big majority of latinamerican migrants prefer Spain, due to language reasons. But even if Spain would not be in europe, and the movement inside europe would not be free as it is now, this inflow “spills” to the rest of Europe. Latinamerican migration offer to countries like The Netherlands an interesting situation. Groenlinks strives for the idea of controlled migration, to flows of people that have a job to fulfill here. It is known from latinamerican migrants that they retain structural ties to their countries of origin, both in the form of remittances and in the creation of professional links in R&D sector. That reality diminishes the risk of brain and economical drain. Flows of latinamerican people are a relevant experience in the much needed freshening debate on european migration.

Third -ideological- reason: Latinamerica grows both in macroeconomics and in poverty.

The growth of macroeconomics and the growth of migration are reasons that more or less force europeans to think in Latinamerican. We can't help thinking about economics and about migration, we have to. That is why I think on them as pragmatic reasons to tackle the issue. Now, there are other kind of reasons. Reasons that stem out from the ideology of Groenlinks. Consider then that parallel to the fast growth of the emergent economies
of Latinamerican, the inequality of the region also grows. The more rich some of the countries grow, the more poor population have. This contradiction with the very basic tenets of liberal ideology might inspire us to focus on the challenges of the region. If groenlinks have something new to offer in the ideological arena, is an answer to this conundrum. The ideas expressed as liberal left wing, debated right now in our party, aim to offer an alternative to the conviction that increasing of macroeconomical richness has to end up in increasing of the richness of rich people and increasing in the numbers of the poor. So what happened in Latinamerica? Are they not liberal lefties enough? They do count with extended system of redistribution, but the labor market remain stagnant. Perhaps the changes proposed in the discussion note Vrijheid Eerlijk Delen are a blueprint for latinamerican agenda of socioeconomic change? or does the latinamerican experience tell us that these reforms are doomed to fail? I am aware of the risks of importing economic “models” to other countries... but that is what we are talking when we inspire ourselves in the “scandinavian” model. The Latinamerican experience give us a sobering external comparison, and as well these ideas are exciting enough to debate with our latinamerican ideological allies.

Fourth -ideological- reason: Latinamerica has turned links.

This statement is almost self-evident. In one election after another, the recently elected governments of Latinamerican countries flaunt Groenlinks colors. Beyond the natural sympathy that this development give us, there are deep ideological reasons as well. In the late eighties and the nineties, Latinamerica policy makers followed what can be loosely described as soft-neo-liberal policy. Venezuela opened their oil fields to transnationals, Argentina pegged her currency with the dollar, the Free Trade Area, an initiative driven by northamerica, gained space. But this political choice failed to deliver. The big masses of latinamericans remained poor even when their countries economies boomed. The situation backlashed. Nobel prices as Stiglitz lashed against the “washington consensus”. The political leadership of the region meltdown fast, in spirals of corruption scandals and lack of accountability. A new breed of political leadership did arise, not surprisingly focused in the dispossessed. The result is very mixed and very interesting. Current latinamerican governments do not have a lot on common. Their rhetoric and policies varies. But they do share one thing. They all claim to be leftwingers. If their diversity of views on what being left wing means is not interesting for groenlinks, I don't know what else could be.


Fifth and last -ideological- reason: Latinamerica is still green

Groenlinks is indeed more than red. Our priorities lie in the preserving of nature, faced with a future of global warming and diminishing biodiversity. A simple look to the map makes obvious that the biggest biodiversity hotspots on earth lie in latinamerica. And they are endangered. Corals in the caribbean threatened by big hotels, or deep rain forests in the amazon basin threaten with hungered populations. Differently than other world hotspots, they are in a region with government that has payed frequent lip service to the biodiversity causes. We are not talking of civil war ridden areas here, or islands isolated in the middle of the pacific. It is not hard to imagine european and dutch resources invested in creating real sustainable development on the area. And there is tradition. Uncountable graduates from programs offered a.o. in Wageningen university, have long careers in the area. It is no coincidence that the term “sustainable development” was launched in Rio, back in 1992. Groenlinks has potential to develop in the region, attending to one of our fundamental raisons d' etre.

Five democratic presidents

Lets attempt now a who-is-who of latinamerican politics. A simple look at the press today tells us that this exercise is relevant. Lots of noise have been produced around chavez, or Evo. But who are they? Carriers of the progressive torch, or simple banana republic caudillos re-branded? In my eyes the question goes beyond the academic or politicological interest. The five presidents that I choose to mention illustrate that the linkse kerk knows a huge diversity of strategies and ideologies. Surely in Latinamerica links is far from leeg. Let's see how other people have fill in our common political grounds


Chavez: a former militar and a left winger; demagogue and a powerful centralist. He is a product of the crashing of traditional western democracy. After 40 years of alternating social and christian democrat governments, their credibility spiraled down, and Chavez took power. In NL we got Fortuin and later LPF, who build their political capital criticizing the puin van Pars. In venezuela we got Chavez, grown of criticism to the same political group. His eight years in power show as product huge investments in social issues, mostly uncoordinated and corrupt, but effective all the same. It also show a concentration of power in the executive without precedents in a democratic elected government, and exclusion of opposed voters from the labor market. His growing international figuring makes him relevant.

Lula: Vaaksbonder turned liberal. The president that has more time doing politics in the regio. Before being elected, Lula was candidate many times. If somebody understand the globalized, liberal, economicist contemporaneous world in the LA presidents, that is Lula. And if somebody deserves credibility as a coherent and constant fighter for the rights of the poor and dispossessed, that is Lula. His government shows a difficult mix of liberal policy and left wing goals, such as their “no hunger” program. Lula might be an example of what Groenlinks would do in a cabinet.

Evo: Being the second self-made indigenous person that get's to the government in the region (after the peruvian ...), Evo represent grievances of four hundred years beginning to be addressed. It is too early to evaluate his policies, but soon enough he fulfill his promise of nationalize natural resources. In any case Evo Morales puts in the international scene the fact that many southamerican countries live in a de facto apartheid, where big sector of the population, being indigenous are fully segregated from the rest of society.

Kirchner: After the darker years of thousands of tortured and assassinated, Kirchner is the first president in the region that strongly addressed the massacres done in the militar period. Further, is the only president alive that uses organized masses as policy enforcing tools. Think in the boycott that he organized against Shell, or the people mobilizations against polluting companies in the neighboring country Uruguay.

Bachelet: Being a returned political exile and medical doctor, she was the first woman to be minister of defence and command the same persons that being colleagues of her father (a general loyal to the government of Allende) , tortured and killed him. In the strongly patriarchal and conservative society of chile, (where Pinochet retains even today relevant public support) Bachelet represent the raise of women in a continent that still today in the eyes of europe is considered macho driven. Her policies are expected to be a continuation of her moderated left wing predecessor.

Rejoinder: five plus five is more than ten.

In the previous lines I attempt to explore a landscape of pragmatism, ideology and policy. It should go without saying, I expect that the visions of groenlinksers in the issue varies broadly. With a bit of luck, we might find ourselves soon debating these interesting developments on a big chunk of the world. Before that, I would like to remember that the ideas and personalities here presented are intertwined. As much as europe is a diverse continent, latinamerica is a fascinating collage of situations. Attempts to reduce this reality to scarcely ten points are doom to fail. More lines connect and complicate the vision here presented. But my aim is to offer grounds of debate. Groenlinks is a cosmopolitan party, interested since her origins in the world beyond the dikes. And we have a long tradition of political analysis. I hope that the reader will forgive my simplifications, and recognize that five plus five is not only more than ten, but it is a passionate reality that deserve further thinking. And further acting. Looking forward...