Tale of two countries: Argentina President Cristina Fernández Kirchner
and President Barack Obama.
Washington's 'Sequester'
Makes Argentina Look Responsible (La Jornada, Mexico)
"In the end, it was Obama himself who allowed financial interests to dominate social ones. Now, the Afro-American politician has been forced to decree, against his own will, measures that will cause enormous damage to the already maimed economy of the U.S. ... while the government of a peripheral economy like Argentina's has managed to advance its agenda of social and economic transformation despite pressure, attacks and destabilizing campaigns, the president of the world's most powerful nation has been shown once again to have his hands tied by the interests of the political class and his country's powerful financial sector."
President Obama announces that the 'sequestor' - a series of cuts opposed by himself and his party - will go into effect. Is the president of the United States impotent in the face of his nation's powerful corporate and financial interests?
Argentina President Cristina Fernández
said yesterday, “We have left the hell behind us,” making a positive assessment
of the first decade of Kirchner rule in that country. She stressed the social
achievements of the South American nation since 2003, particularly in the area
of employment and alleviating poverty. These assertions are accurate, if one
takes into account of the economic and social catastrophe the country faced in
the first three years of this century.
A few hours later, in Washington, President Barack Obama
signed an executive order obliging his government to introduce budget cuts to
the tune of $85 billion, which he himself qualified as arbitrary and stupid. This
became necessary in the absence of a legislative agreement between the
representatives of his Democratic Party and the Republican opposition to avoid
the so called "fiscal cliff."
The contrast in tone and mood exhibited by the leaders of the
South American nation and the superpower are symptomatic expressions of the
success, in the first case, and failure in the second, of government intentions
to introduce in their respective economies elements of control and rationality over
the destructive potential of the so-called Washington Consensus.
[Editor's Note: The term "Washington Consensus" was
coined in 1989 by economist John Williamson to describe a set of ten relatively
specific economic policy prescriptions he considered constituted the
"standard" reform package for crisis-wracked developing countries.
The prescriptions encompass policies in areas like macroeconomic stabilization,
economic opening with respect to both trade and investment, and the expansion
of market forces within the domestic economy.]
Indeed, the 2005 decision by the Buenos Aires government to
cancel its sovereign debt with International Monetary Fund permitted the
country to remain resistant to IMF pressure applied to debtors, forcing them to
adopt or strengthen neoliberal economic strategies. Thus, Argentina avoided additional
episodes of social suffering and won considerable room for independence,
sovereignty and tranquility, which allowed it to select economic policies more
beneficial to its citizens, and not international private capital.
Additionally, the successive governments of Néstor Kirchner and Cristina Fernández
[Kirchner] have demonstrated that it is possible to stand up to the bulging and
absurd external debts that for the last three decades have burdened and bled
Latin American nations, which see much of their efforts vanish in payments of
interest to foreign creditors.
But in contrast to Nestor Kirchner, who arrived at the
presidency with his legitimacy questioned and having to rebuild it by the very
act of exercising power, Barack Obama arrived at the White House propelled by the
hope for change. Obama had the clear support of the majority of voters in his
country, and his slogan promised to rebuild an economy devastated by the
speculative frenzy, the indiscriminate privatization of public goods and
services, the concentration of wealth in the hands of a multimillionaire elite,
and by a corruption scandal.
And yet, initial efforts to contain the capital greed that
caused the 2008-2009 crisis ended up succumbing to pressure from the superpower's
actual power-wielders. And in the end, it was Obama himself who allowed corporate
and financial interests to dominate social ones. Now, the Afro-American
politician has been forced to decree, against his own will, measures that will
cause enormous damage to the already maimed economy of the United States.
Posted By Worldmeets.US
The panorama so sketched describes, in effect, a paradoxical
situation: while the government of a peripheral economy like Argentina's has
managed to advance its agenda of social and economic transformation despite pressure,
attacks and destabilizing campaigns, the president of the world's most powerful
nation has been shown once again to have his hands tied by the interests of the
political class and his country's powerful financial sector.
