It's not news if it's good, the Western news

The success story of regional integration in Latin America today is seldom heard elsewhere in the world, even as people there experience it daily.

LATIN America has been experiencing a progressive, historic but silent revolution for 10 years now. However, few people in the rest of the world seem aware of it.

The silence is not because these countries had sought to avoid world attention. Rather, the international media dominated by Western news agencies seem to have other priorities.

Often enough significant events and key issues are neglected, bypassed by the saucy, the sensational and the scandalous – all that glitters is not gold, much that matters may never be told.

Without exception, Western news agencies have doggedly promoted the so-called Arab Spring to the point of tedium.

The standard bogeymen of Western storytelling – Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Bashar Assad – are going or gone, so jubilation in Occidental newsrooms may be expected. But there should be limits and other (news) priorities too.

Elsewhere, countries that succeed outside Western norms, dictates and development models may seem unimportant or “politically incorrect”. So they are routinely ignored or underrated.

Worse, the changes said to be wrought by “Arab Spring” uprisings are said to be positive when the exact opposite is happening.

In virtually all these countries, living conditions have deteriorated rather than improved.

But the nine countries of Latin America and the Caribbean that came together in 2004 as the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (Alba) have been making great strides in every critical area of national development.

Antigua and Barbuda, Bolivia, Cuba, Dominica, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Venezuela have raised standards of living for their people in social, economic and political terms.

Standards in housing, health care, education and employment have risen. These countries have also scored a high 0.721 in the UN Human Development Index, which measures national achievements beyond economic growth and material development.

On Dec 14, 2004, Venezuela and Cuba signed the joint declaration for the establishment of Alba. The alliance is based on humanist principles that place the citizen rather than the state or the corporation at the centre of national policymaking.

This people-centred alliance soon attracted the interest of other countries. Next to join were Bolivia, then Nicaragua, and Dominica, with Ecuador, Antigua and Barbuda as well as St Vincent and the Grenadines joining together – followed by St Lucia.

Grenada and St Kitts and Nevis will be the next members. Other countries attending Alba summits as Participants are Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Paraguay, St Kitts and Nevis, and Uruguay.

With a proud record of a decade’s achievements under its belt, Alba marked the passage of its first decade at a forum in Kuala Lumpur on Thursday.

Ambassador Lourdes Puma Puma of Ecuador explained Alba’s background and objectives, including the use of the Sucre (Unified System for Regional Compensation) as a virtual currency in trade among member nations.

There is also a Bank of Alba with regional integration as its core purpose. The bank encourages and offers financial support for projects that promote the social development of all the peoples of the continent regardless of race, religion, politics or other background.

The areas that Alba covers in promoting regional integration are comprehensive and ambitious. There are medical schools and a health sciences university with scholarships, and a pharmaceutical company and a drugs regulatory centre with free access to medication.

There are plans for a new financial architecture and an emphasis on science and technology, without neglecting the arts.

There are also awards and scholarships for literature, culture, research and cinematography.

Alba is also working with the People’s Trade Agreement that lobbies for the social, cultural and environmental rights of the region’s peoples. It also works with Petrocaribe, an alliance of nations over oil purchases, as well as Mercosur, a regional customs union for advancing free trade and the movement of goods, people and currency.

The guest speaker at the Kuala Lumpur forum was Dr Chandra Muzaffar, president of the Interna­tional Movement for a Just World.

Dr Chandra identified the significant distinction between Alba and other regional organisations in the way it places priority on the human being, the individual person, in public policymaking.

This humanist aspect of a caring regional society that Alba seeks to build is widely cherished by the national leaders of its member countries. And despite a priority on economic development, Alba is also conscious of environmental needs and emphasises sustainable development.

In pursuing technology, Alba also seeks independence of telecommunications content in programming. Telecoms and broadcasting community services will also be provided to rural and other marginal areas.

Despite their achievements, Alba countries are still developing nations with much to do to achieve full development status. In the meantime basic needs have not been forgotten, with a food fund that has cut malnourishment to under 5% in four Alba countries and eliminated illiteracy in five countries.

More broadly, Alba seeks a more multipolar world that avoids war as a matter of policy. It much prefers human development that addresses the real needs of real people, particularly the most disadvantaged members of society.

Alba is named after the great 18th-19th century Venezuelan leader and liberator Simon Bolivar, hailed as a Latin American independence hero and a regional beacon of progress and development.

Bolivar is the only person in history to have two countries named after him: Bolivia, and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

Bolivar’s goals for Venezuela and its neighbouring countries labouring under the Spanish colonial yoke may be summed up in four basic priorities: a popular and participatory democracy for the people, economic independence for real development, fairer wealth distribution and elimination of corruption.

In the Latin America of his time, Bolivar led territories that included Bolivia, Colombia (then including Panama), Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela. As a political and military leader he fought many private and public battles against slavery and for the liberation of his people.

Bolivar died in 1830 at the age of 47. He had paved the way for democracy in many countries in Latin America, but much else remains to be done.

After an era of cruel dictatorships, Latin America is again ready to embrace its history of decency and human achievement. But obstacles remain in the way of Alba countries, particularly when they seek their own way to development.

They prefer a more direct way that impacts positively on the people, particularly the most vulnerable in society such as the poor and the weak. Thus they avoid the customary assistance from powerful transnational institutions that comes with strings, cables and levers attached.

And yet when the UN established the Bretton Woods aid organisations the World Bank and the IMF, they were also supposed to help the poorest without encumbering them. But a problem with institutions is that their practices become institutionalised and worse.

Alba has been established with much goodwill and its achievements have been impressive.

Alba countries deserve support and admiration for their record so far, and encouragement on their promise.

Alba emerged from Venezuela’s rejection of the proposed Free Trade Area for the Americas, which would heighten inequality by enhancing the power of transnational corporations at the expense of the poor.

Neither the World Bank nor the IMF may want to call Alba’s achievements a “miracle”, but they are miraculous nonetheless.

Related article:

Sound policies require maturity - The Star Online

Oct 26, 2014 - When major international policies are based on short-sighted self-interests and emotive impulses, problems are never far away.

Behind The Headlines By Bunn Narara

Bunn Nagara is a Senior Fellow at the Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS) Malaysia. The views expressed are entirely the writer’s own.

Related posts:

Big boost for Asia with the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) launch, a positive step!

Financing required as Asia remains with looming infrastructure needs Chinese President Xi Jinping's (C-R) meeting with the members of ...

Western Imperial powers overreach, yet again!

From Egypt to Russia, the Western urge to meddle in other countries continues to be troublesome.

Behind The Headlines By Bunn Nagara

THE so-called Arab Spring continues to spring surprises, most of all on its Western backers. With double standards in international politics, just about anything goes.

US, Israeli and European cheerleaders of Arab “regime change” through street politics have realised by now that the naive notion of ousting dictators does not travel in a straight line. Among other things, the new regimes that emerge have tended to be more independent and less Western-friendly.

In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood’s Islamist Freedom and Justice Party has taken the pivotal role in post-Mubarak political life, including the upper house of Parliament. In Tunisia much the same has been happening with the Islamist Ennahda party.

Shifting the goalposts: When allegations of voter fraud bore no fruit, Moscow’s street protesters switched to accusing Putin of using rough tactics on them as police made arrests. — AFP

 

An element of that plays in the opposition Syrian National Council’s multiple splits. The more cautious Western officials are currently hesitant to provide “hard power” to the rebels battling Damascus, since rebel ranks include al-Qaeda.

Right-wing US lawmakers like John McCain are chiding President Obama for not arming Syrian rebels. It is telling that McCain’s best claim to fame is as a veteran of the Vietnam War, that classic icon of a failed and futile US armed intervention.

Even so, the temptation for a hyperpower to intervene can be irresistible, so Washington covertly dispatches regime-change NGO activists as catalysts instead of the Marines. It is what Secretary of State Hillary Clinton calls “smart power.”

However, the double standards when compared to similar situations elsewhere then become glaring. After Western-allied Saudi Arabia sent troops into Bahrain to suppress protesters there one year ago, Western-compliant Qatar has called for supplying troops and weapons to Syrian rebels fighting President Assad.

To an incumbent government in Iran that is also being targeted by Western and Israeli policymakers, all of that is enough to invoke Islamism in defiant response. Although President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad remains the convenient bogeyman for the West, his political rivals at home are even more conservative and Islamist as shown in parliamentary elections early this month.

Nonetheless, neither religion nor showy forms of piety is the issue: it is a country’s unwillingness to comply with Western requests and demands that is. The stakes are raised when such a country is oil-rich and occasionally snubs Western concerns as well.

Currently the most conspicuous example of this is Russia, or rather president-elect Vladimir Putin’s Russia. This is a country that happens to channel the West’s worst “fears” today: being big, rich in oil and gas, independent-minded, “uncooperative” with the West over Libya, Syria and Iran, and even opposed to Nato’s eastwards expansion right up to Moscow’s doorstep.

Thus US and some European leaders are as keen for a “Russian spring” as they have been about a political spring-cleaning in Arab and Muslim countries they do not yet control. How the West would respond to anti-Putin street protests was therefore a foregone conclusion.

Russia’s recent presidential election provided the moment for a convergence of anti-Putin posturing. Russian street protesters, then Western media, and then Western governments formed a chorus to denounce Putin’s victory and the electoral process that led to it.

This happened both from a distance, such as the State Department or the Oval Office, as well as from within Russia by a visiting team of OSCE (Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe) election observers. It also occurred from the editorial offices of supposedly liberal Western media.

But what is the substance of complaints, apart from the usual geopolitical power plays?

If indeed the election had been a sham as the protesters and critics have been claiming, the evidence for it would have been presented, analysed, commented on and displayed. The Putin electoral bandwagon would and should have been stigmatised, although the appropriateness of any foreign political action would still be in question.

Russian protesters at least would have been justified in their street demonstrations, and assured of the justice of their cause. Instead, the protesters were already out in the streets denouncing Putin months before the election, which gives some indication about the content of their complaint.

Now weeks later, opposition claims of vote fraud favouring Putin is still without substance. Opinion polls before the election indicated a two-thirds majority support for Putin, and the results have since shown 64%.

Even Putin’s opponents had agreed that he had no problem securing enough votes to win the election. Until now his opponents and critics have not explained why he needed to cheat to win, and furthermore they failed to show that he had cheated.

No evidence 

Interestingly, the OSCE observers indirectly rebuffed opposition claims of multiple voting by Putin supporters, and instead reported on the negative perceptions that attended the voting. The Europeans had no evidence of vote fraud and declared that there were no significant violations, but they still hankered after attaching a negative spin to the election and its result.

They cited no improper motives by Putin’s United Russia party, yet they were not above tainting the election result through implication or by default. Perhaps that was an attempt at smart power too.

If anyone had any “actionable” evidence of fraud it would have been the OSCE observers, yet they served up nothing. Their position would in effect have been a workable endorsement of the election’s credibility.

United Russia had failed to secure a two-thirds majority, yet the CIA-linked Voice of America reported that Putin had won “by a landslide.” Meanwhile, the opposition claim of voter fraud persisted all-round in the face of the absence of any evidence to substantiate it.

That much might have been expected of Putin’s opponents at home and even Western governments averse to his independent ways. But for Western media to chime along without questioning the basis of their presumptions, and even failing to report dispassionately, shows a decline in professional ethics.

At the heart of such reporting and editing is a tendency to approach opposition claims with less scepticism than government ones, although both sides are equally interested parties in an electoral contest. It is an approach typical of the Western media in the Third World.

As for Moscow’s street protesters, they have lately taken to shifting the goalposts. After their allegations of vote fraud bore no fruit, they switched to accusing Putin of using rough tactics on them as police made arrests.

At the same time, protesters say they want neither violence nor a revolution, just more transparency and the rule of law. They have no alternative candidate they prefer to Putin, just an alternative mode of the government’s handling of the election for a better sense of confidence in the process.

Essentially, the protesters did not endorse any particular candidate but were instead just being anti-Putin. The very fact that they have been doing so openly without being packed off to a gulag in Siberia for life shows the distance Russia has travelled since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

For now, Putin’s main rival candidates – a communist, a crypto-fascist and a controversial oligarch – seem to leave little to be desired between them. If the unspoken objective of Russian voters is getting a president who can act competently and confidently to safeguard Russia’s interests, the election might already have been purposeful enough.

The protesters and their Western backers might then just need a little time to reconcile themselves to it. That could be their best option in smart politics yet.