|
have been real leftists, who read Noam Chomsky (Hugo Chavez/Venezuela), or campaign with a wreath of coca leaves around their neck in opposition to the US/Bush "war on drugs" (Evo Morales/Bolivia), or take off their belts and crack them like a whip on stage, as an example of what they will do to corrupt rightwingers (Rafael Correa/Ecuador)(--a pun on his name which means "belt"), and who have, collectively---along with others, such as the Kirchners in Argentina--are transforming the political landscape, with revolutionary social justice and regional independence platforms, still, the election in Guatemala is very, very important.
No Latin American country has taken such a hit of U.S.-supported violence--and that's saying something, in a region where the U.S. routinely supports and commits atrocities. The rightwing violence in Guatemala has been so widespread and heinous--200,000 Mayan villagers slaughtered in the 1980s, with Reagan's complicity--that it actually impacts the voter base. Had those men, women and children lived, and had children, they would be a significant pool of voters and activists for social justice candidates. But they're all dead, and any children they may have had do not exist. That's a Bushite dream, I guess--not just suppressing votes, not just purging leftist voters from the voting rolls, not just switching and 'disappearing' votes with their new electronic gadgetry, but 'disappearing' the voters themselves.
But I digress. Colom vs. Molina seems like Bill Clinton vs. George Jr., when it should be Bill Clinton vs., say, Hugo Chavez. The country NEEDS a Hugo Chavez, or Evo Morales, or Rafael Correa, to throw off U.S. domination, clean out the rightwing corruption, evict the World Bank and the murderous, phony U.S. "war on drugs," and force global corporate predators to pay taxes, respect workers' rights, stop destroying the environment, or get the fuck out of their country.
The whole thing is much too skewed to the right, as it is here. Colom seems to be a Clintonite "free trader." We have seen what "free trade" does to third world countries (not to mention what it's doing to this "first world" country!). It might make a few people rich for a while, but eventually it "sinks all boats." It kills local agriculture (U.S. ag dumps cheap powdered milk on the market, and soon there are no more local diary farmers); it kills local culture with corporate 'monoculture' imports; it kills local industry of every kind; small farmers, driven off their land, become urban shantytown poor, while city services, education and other helps to the poor decline, and all costs of living increase, as everything--water, electricity, transportation--is privatized; the country ends up an indentured slave to World Bank loan sharks.
I don't know much at all about Colom's platform. But the hints in this Reuters article (and other things I've read) point to Clintonism. ("Analysts say the two candidates have very similar market-friendly economic policies." --Reuters) This is not a good choice for Guatemala, which is already a basketcase of a country, due to CAFTA, the U.S./Bush "war on drugs"--vast drugs and weapons trafficking is the inevitable result of the "war on drugs"--and past mauling by the Reaganites and their criminal fascist allies. Guatemala needs radical change. Mayan activist (and Nobel Peace Prize winner) Rigoberta Menchu was a candidate for president, but didn't do very well. I think she got eliminated in the first round (which Colom won, but not by a big enough margin to prevent this runoff).
Molina certainly is a fascist, and likely has blood on his hands as well. As in Colombia, blood-soaked fascists get rehabilitated, and keep coming back, like some kind of vampire monster who refuses to die.
Colom vs. Molina seems like much too narrow a spectrum of "choice"--a choice of two U.S./global corporate predator-friendly policies, with the rules of the political game stacked in favor of those who can raise millions of dollars for campaigning--and those who can stay alive. The atmosphere created by 50 political assassinations can't be good for poor and leftist voters--and for campaign activists, poll watchers, poll workers and election officials. Colom favors expanding education and health care. Maybe that's as far as he can go, without getting killed.
And you have to wonder if Bushite black ops are involved. With virtually the entire continent of South America in leftist revolt against both Clintonism and Bushitism, Guatemala (one of the "buffer states" between the U.S. and that peaceful, democratic revolution) has to be kept in line--that is, kept in turmoil, kept in CAFTA, kept as a client state for "war on drugs" looting of U.S. taxpayers, kept poor and kept subservient, like Mexico and Honduras. We know the Bushites are drug traffickers. Are they calling the hits in Guatemala? Or have they just created such a fucking mess--as in Iraq--that they don't have to call the hits. Their thugs know what to do. Or they don't care WHO gets hit, as long as it's violent and chaotic enough for the rightwing to scaremonger the voters and/or just outright steal the election.
One other thing: Can we trust this poll at all? Is El Periodico (newspaper that did the poll) a typical corporate monopoly news rag? Is Colom just edging ahead, or is he way ahead? And what kind of field did he run in, in the first round? Why didn't he pick up more support after winning the first round? Fractured left? Or unreliable polls? (I'm finding it hard to believe that half the population of Guatemala supports the fascist Molina, when the poor vastly outnumber the rich and the middle class.)
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
