Another Chavez in Mexico?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

The mayor of Mexico City is running first in the polls to be president of Mexico in 2006. Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador is likely to be the candidate of the PRD (Party of the Democratic Revolution) and is very popular with the poor. The PAN and PRI are currently trying to derail his candidacy by accusing him of failing to stop construction of a road leading to a hospital because of a land dispute. This has led to an increase in his popularity.

Vicente Fox has to leave the presidency in 2006 and the PAN (National Action Party) is almost certain to be defeated because of the disappointment in Fox and his center-right party. The PRI (Institutional Revolutionary Party) is in disarray.

Hugo Chavez has threatened to cut off oil exports to the United States. Venezuela is the 4th largest exporter to the U.S. Mexico is the 3rd largest and Lopez Obrador has said that he will use oil money to finance his leftist social programs.

If he is denied the opportunity to run for the presidency because of the obvious manipulations of the courts by Fox, there is a very good chance that the left could go to the mountains and resume the revolution with much more support than previously.

The question is, what happens if Lopez-Obrador is elected and hikes oil prices. Or, what happens if he is denied the presidency because of manipulation by the Fox regime and civil war erupts in Mexico?

The congressional panel has voted to proceed with criminal proceedings against Lopez-Obrador which will now go to the full congress.

Trouble is brewing on our doorstep.

My belief is that we are seeing the awakening of the sleeping giant of Latin America and the US is facing either crippling oil prices or endless war against the people of the south.

Any thoughts?

[not systems]

1. The threat to cut off oil was only if the US continued to destabilize ...

his country by propping up the anti-democratic oligarchs
and fomenting overthrow attempts.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. Not that we lovers of democracy would do something like that.

Would we? We should ask Salvador Allende about our love and support of democracy, or the Sandanistas, or Patrice Lamumba.

[ladjf]

3. The oil prices from Latin America would remain relatively

stable if the U.S. would stop trying to overthrow every Government they don't like.

[bvar22]

4. OUTRAGE !!!!!

Using oil profits to fund schools and healthcare!!!
The man should be sent to Guantanamo for torture! :sarcasm:

[K-W]

8. Why do all these people live over our oil dangit!

We shoulda killed them off when we had the chance and before all these damn communists took over and decided it was wrong to kill the brown people living on our resources.

[K-W]

5. I think its impossible to tell, things have changed since the 80's

I assume the administration will follow form and attempt to do the same thing they did in the 70's and 80's and terrorize the people's of these countries until stable right wing regimes can be implanted... but with thier resources committed to the middle east, and increased international and domestic scrutiny, im not sure what he can do.

Then again, south and central america are still filled with soldiers trained by us. If we can exercise that power as we have in the past, its hard to see any hope for anyone defying us.

Im just happy there are people out there trying, because one of these days it will work.

[Frederik]

7. Venezuela is

and quite brazenly at that. They have set an example for others to follow.

[K-W]

9. And the important subtext to all of this

is that the workers and peasants are standing up and fighting. And after what we have put those groups through for standing up and fighting that is quite amazing. The big question is, has the world progressed enough to stop the US from once again terrorizing these people until they submit again.

[Frederik]

15. Us don't have the means

I'm sure Shrub and Rummy would like nothing more than to invade Venezuela, napalm the peasants, beat the shit out of Chavez than ship him to Guantanamo. But I just don't see any military intervention happening in that hemisphere until they're done in the ME - that is, never, for this admin. There's always the Contras option, but that really only works in very small and unstable countries. That leaves the traditional CIA-supported military coups, which they tried in Venezuela. Plenty of SOA-trained officers around still, I'm sure. Personally, I don't think they are going to stop this, they're basically powerless. At least, that's what I hope.

[K-W]

19. I think the US is more resourceful than you give it credit for.

What you are saying is the situation right now at this very moment, but I dont see a government with our resources not finding some way to project force if it were to be determined neccessary.

So then its a matter of figuring out where the line is drawn for the government, and when will someone like Chavez cross it.

[Selatius]

6. If Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador stands for the poor and the workers,

he's got my support.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. A few of links about Lopez Obrador

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=610759
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/mexico/comment/prd_success_oct97.html
http://aol.countrywatch.com/aol_wire.asp?vCOUNTRY=114&UID=1454644

[rman]

11. Well, they do have reason not to like neo-liberalism, globalization

and the likes...


NAFTA's chapter 11

"...gives corporations rights to sue governments in special tribunals, for unlimited compensation for profits lost due to normal governments activities."

"...there have been cases, like "Metalclad".
An American company called "Metalclad" went down to Mexico to build a toxic waste dump on an aquafer; the local supply of water. The government said "no, this goes against our environmental laws".
The people are getting poisoned from the water - what corporation has a right to poison our water? The government passed a law that said "no, you can't operate this thing".
They said "that's to bad, we have rights as a corporation that outweigh your human rights". They sued them for 17.5 million dollars saying it was a barrier to fee trade.
This US corporation takes the Mexican government to a NAFTA court, sues under this chapter eleven, and the ruling is - the Mexican government has to pay millions of dollars in "penalties", for "lost profits" of this corporation."

from te documentary "Trading Freedom" (Indymedia)
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/01/284511.html

also documented at

Berkeley University
http://are.berkeley.edu/courses/EEP131/classpresentations/Metalclad.pdf (PDF)
(turns out the amount in penalties to be payed by the Mexican government was reduced, but "...the judge agreed with the NAFTA panel on the merits that the actions of the Governor constituted expropriation".

New York Law Journal
http://www.clm.com/pubs/pub-990359_1.html

Stop FTAA
http://www.stopftaa.org/article.php?id=37

"NAFTA Chapter 11 Investor-to-State Cases: Bankrupting Democracy"
http://are.berkeley.edu/courses/EEP131/Nafta_Chapter11.pdf (PDF)

[KlatooBNikto]

12. After over one hundred years of the Monroe Doctrine and an endless

series of interferences in Latin America including subversion, assassinations,that continent is finally shaking off Uncle Sam's crippling embrace. A Wind of Change is blowing through that continent that bodes ill for our imperialist war mongers.With Chavez,Lula and Kirchner in place in three of that continent's most important countries and the American puppet Vicente Fox on the run, Mexico will join the new Latin America and there is very little the US can do about it.

One word of advice.Please do not use the word Leftist to describe Lopez-Obrador's assertion that he will use oil revenues to improve the lot of his people like Chavez has done. This is what our MSM would like us to think. Those terms should be rejected becuase Mexico is not a leftist economy. It is as capitalist as any country that I know of. The difference is that the political structure does not want to grant special privileges for the oligarchy as in the old days.

[K-W]

13. Not to rain on your parade.

Because I love the confidence.

But winds of change have blown through the region before, only to run upaganst a large wall called the US.

And on your word of advice, you misunderstand what the term leftist means. It does not, as the right would have you believe, mean communist. You are the one spreading the right wing association here.

Leftist means, essentially democrat/populist, and certainly does apply.

[KlatooBNikto]

14. I have two reasons for my confidence.

The movement for Democracy now has a critical mass and the leaders of the three countries I mentioned are not American puppets. They have genuine populist appeal and that makes US's job of destabilization that much harder. The other factor is that Latin America as a whole is now reaching out to the rest of the world on its own with Brazil and Venezuela forming strong economic ties with India and China.The US is now reduced to the role of a bystander in all these developments with no say in any thing.


As for the word Leftist, even though you and I may use it in the sense that you imply, my experience with the NYT and WaPo is that they use the term to smear people who want to put the resources of the country for the benefit of the people, not just the chosen few.We need to shy away from those terms that have been co-opted by our Ivy League Imperialists, in a negative sense.Words like Leftist, Terrorists all give these power mad imperialists an excuse to intervene and wreak havoc on the countries that would no longer obey their dictates ( Please read "The Confessions of an Economic Hit man" to see how these phrases are used to develop a consensus on who is acceptable and who is not).

[K-W]

18. You are the one aruing that we go along with the corpratocracy.

You are arguing that we use thier terminology and language instead of ours, which is fairly rediculous when you consider that thiers is specifically designed to marginalize, obstruct, and villianize our ideas.

We will never be able to succeed if we accept a language specifically designed to defeat us.

Edit: You also do a crime against history because you accept the context of the claim which is that leftist traditionally are nuts and criminals.

[morgan2]

16. the reason the us would interfere

is not if the oil prices rose. The US would interfere if the US cut of the oil prices dropped.

[missouri dem 2]

17. Quote from Mexican President Porfirio Diaz:

"Poor Mexico! So far from God and so close to the United States."