Argentina

Previously published 20/5/16 on PravdaReport.

Dilma Roussef, President of Brazil – #dilmaRoussefAbstained">abstained on UN vote against legitimacy of Crimea's secession from Ukraine, then asks Vladimir Putin for help against CIA-orchestrated coup.

A serious political crisis has paralyzed Brazil. Argentina has changed its president. Venezuela is standing on the brink of violent clashes and a military coup. In Peru, Alberto Fujimori's heiress is coming to power. Why do progressive left-wing parties lose ground in Latin America rapidly?

Of course, Nicolas Maduro's remarks about the external factor - the support of the opposition for the United States - are partially true. No external factor can shake up an economically stable and prosperous country. You may say, dear reader, that there is no such country in the world at the moment, as we all still feel the effects of the global financial crisis. This is true, too. However, there are countries in Latin America that have been developing steadily, even if they change governments. It goes about such countries as Chile, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Uruguay. What is the matter then? The matter is about the very basis of everything - economy.

Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, President of Argentina (2007-2015)

In Brazil, Dilma Rousseff (Workers' Party, PT) has not done anything that her predecessors have not done. She has manipulated the budget, borrowed money from private banks to pay social benefits, etc. Yet, the economy of Brazil has been experiencing an unprecedented economic downturn. The opposition of Brazil used the discontent of the middle classes, whose real salaries have been declining from year to year. Therefore, a major corruption scandal that has been raging since 2014 has led to the impeachment procedure and temporary removal of President Rousseff from power. As we all know, the more things change, the more they stay the same. It is hard to believe that Dilma Rousseff will return to her office.

In Argentina, it was a strong economic crisis that contributed to the defeat of Kirchnerism (Peronism). In November 2015, pro-American liberal politician Mauricio Macri took office as Argentina's new president. Macri has conducted radical economic reforms, agreed with vulture funds and started borrowing on the international market. At the same time, though, he canceled social benefits, export duties and cut the education system.

#leftWingForces" id="leftWingForces">Left-wing forces lost their wings for being thoughtless

In Venezuela, President Nicolas Maduro is still clinging to power. He became the leader of Venezuela in 2013, after the death of his predecessor Hugo Chavez. His party lost last year's parliamentary elections, and it is his opponents, the liberals, who hold power in their hands now. Nicolas Maduro also remains under the pressure of the economic factor - low oil prices.

A few weeks ago, the first round of the presidential election in Peru ended with the victory of the right-wing candidate Keiko Fujimori, a daughter of dictator Alberto Fujimori. The neoliberal politician may thus replace left-wing forces in Peru as well.

The state of affairs was absolutely different ten years ago. Leftist forces were on the rise after Hugo Chavez won the 1998 presidential vote in Venezuela, Lula da Silva - in Brazil in 2002, Nestor Kirchner - in Argentina in 2003, Tabaré Vázquez - in Uruguay in 2004 and Evo Morales - in Bolivia in 2005. During the period from 2006 to 2011, the left won the elections in Nicaragua, Ecuador, Paraguay and Peru. Those victories became possible because of catastrophic consequences of the neoliberal economy in the late 1990s: the deregulation of the economy and the opening of the privatized market to foreign companies. The events resulted in considerable wealth disparity that the local elites paid no attention to at first.

The left took advantage of social movements of landless peasants in Brazil, Indians in Bolivia, the urban poor in Argentina, etc. PT or the Bolivian Movement to Socialism (MAS) arose directly from those protests. In 2003, those progressive governments saw high demands for natural resources. Bolivia increased its budget six times from 2005 to 2013. Investments from the dynamically developing Chinese economy flowed to Latin America. Those revenues allowed to establish a system of social support for the poorest layers of the population.

The results were overwhelming: the eradication of poverty, the rise of education and the formation of the middle class everywhere. However, after the crisis of 2008-2009, global economy has not recovered. In developed countries, including the USA, real wages have not increased over the past eight years. China, the main driving force, stopped buying raw materials from Latin America. GDP in Latin America dropped by 0.1 percent in 2015 for the first time since 2009. Noteworthy, China is the second largest trading partner in the region after the United States, but the main partner for Brazil, Chile and Peru and the second one for Mexico, Venezuela and Argentina. To crown it all, prices on raw materials, especially oil, have declined everywhere.

It was then revealed that during the well-to-do years, the left-wing governments have not created a base to switch to nationally-oriented economy. They have turned into the countries of one export culture. For example, 2/3 of 33 million hectares of arable land in the Argentine pampas that have been cultivated over the past 15 years, were attributed for sowing Monsanto's genetically modified soybeans._{#fnSubj1" id="txtSubj1"> 1} This soy goes to China as fodder for beef cattle. In Brazil, GM crops produced modified mosquitoes that carry Zika virus. Venezuela became a hostage to oil supplies. The changes were accompanied with the aging of the population, rapid urbanization and the growth of street crime. Corruption has skyrocketed everywhere as a consequence of both local mentality and oligarchic structure of the state.

#transnationalCorporations" id="transnationalCorporations">Transnational corporations modify Latin America

Against this background, the personal enrichment of politicians (the Kirchners have increased their assets seven times) started annoying people. The result of the story is sad. State coffers are empty, the society is divided: the middle classes are dissatisfied and the poor threaten to take to the streets for protests should austerity measures are enacted.

Mauricio Macri's first six months in the office show that there is no light at the end of the tunnel. Steel production and construction sector collapsed by 16-20 percent, the public debt associated with the release of short government bonds grows, inflation is rising. Retail prices and the growth of utility bills have tripped the inflation rate from January to April of the current year.

In addition, the questionable legitimacy of the change of power in Brazil has politically split the continent. Argentina has recognized the new government of Michel Temer, but Uruguay, Venezuela and El Salvador have not. Who benefits from the turn to liberalism? Transnational companies will improve their businesses with the help of new privatizations of de-privatized assets. The neoliberal offensive may bring fascist regimes to power, such as in Ukraine. In Latin America, this is a tradition. Wolfgang Schäuble, German Finance Minister and Chief Treasurer of the EU, said once: "Elections change nothing. There are rules." This phrase was the motto for the operation conducted by the European Commission to sober up the Greek SYRIZA government in the first half of 2015.

Many in Brazil pin hopes to the reaction from BRICS for the non-recognition of the new government of Michel Temer, especially on the part of Russia and China. However, where was Dilma Rousseff during the UN vote on the legitimacy of the Russian reunification with Crimea? #dilmaRoussefAbstained" id="dilmaRoussefAbstained">She abstained.

Lyuba Lulko
Pravda.Ru

Read article on the Russian version of Pravda.Ru

Footnote[s]

#fnSubj1" id="fnSubj1">1. #txtSubj1">⇑ One of a number of articles about GMO, and the fight against GMO, is: The March Against Monsanto is On: The Non-GMO Revolution and the Battle against the "Big 6" GMO Corporations (20/5/16) by Timothy Alexander Guzman | Global Research.

5 Oct 2014, by Colin Todhunter. Republished from Global Research.

See also on Global Research: US Vice-President Joe Biden Blames Washington's Middle East Allies for Financing ISIS (5/10/14) by Patrick Hennigsen, Obama's Plan For a 'No-Fly Zone' Over Northeastern Syria – ISIS Was a Window-Dressing for the Real War Against the (3/10/14) by 21st Century Wire, The Islamic State Opens Its First Consulate in Turkey's Capital. Issuing Visas to Foreign Fighters (2/10/14) by PressTV, War on ISIS and Media Lies: The Comic Book Simplicity Of Propaganda (1/10/14) by Media Lens.

"... those who form the ISIS ... were previously regarded as freedom fighters who fought in Syria against the Government of Al Assad ... the great powers change too easily the concept of friend-enemy or of terrorist-non-terrorist." – President of Argentina Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner in her recent speech to the UN General Assembly.

Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner's recent speech at the UN was a breath of fresh air. She spoke about economic terrorism and the reasons why some people turn to violence and told the audience how a bankrupt Argentina managed to turn away from hard-line economic neoliberal orthodoxy and stimulate growth. She also discussed the need for multilateral approaches to solving the world's problems as well as the need to regulate 'vulture funds' that cripple sovereign states' ability to function.

While the President of Argentina offered some alternatives to US unilateralism and institutionalised economic injustices, British PM David Cameron promoted the usual tired rhetoric. In an attempt to justify attacking Iraq and Syria, he spoke of the supposed virtues of Western-style freedom, democracy and economic neoliberalism, while denouncing the Islamic State (IS), extremism and terrorism.

Cameron also stated that anyone who questions the official stories concerning 9/11 in the US or 7/7 in Britain or who criticises British foreign policy is a 'non-violent extremist'. While pointing the finger at radical Muslims clerics and their followers, Cameron was regarded by many as sending out a warning to anyone, Muslim or otherwise, who questions such things or criticizes certain policies.

After all, who could possibly protest against illegally bombing or invading sovereign nation states to eradicate head-chopping extremists or tyrants or evil-doers that would otherwise attack Britain and carry out butchery and terror?

Defeating terrorism as cover for wars of imperialism

Such made-for-TV narratives are repeated time and again and are so effective because they are so simplistic. Create a threat, demonise it, invoke fear and get the population on board to deal with it militarily. Who could question 'honest Dave' with his 'we are all in this together' platitudes.

Prior to Cameron's speech, British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond told the British press that IS militants are turning large swathes of Iraq and Syria into launch pads to stage terror attacks on Western nations. He said that with the "barbaric ideology" of the Sunni insurgents, "sooner or later they will seek to strike us on British soil."

Not long after, Home Secretary Theresa May announced she was preparing new laws to tackle Islamist militants at home and to stop them going abroad to fight. May said that that Britain faced a long struggle against a deadly extremist ideology that could take even decades.

To the uniformed, Cameron, Hammond and May's narratives can be very convincing – as convincing as Blair's lies were back in 2003 regarding those non-existent Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

Leading politicians act as the PR arm of the military-financial industrial complex: the big oil companies, the Wall Street/City of London financial institutions, the weapons manufacturers and huge corporations. All of these own strategic sectors of the economy and determine the nature of politics via their think tanks, foundations, funding and wealth, high-level contacts, revolving doors into the high echelons of power and compliant politicians. From BAe, Lockheed Martin and Boeing to Barclays, Goldman Sachs, BP, Chevron and Occidental Petroleum, these and dozens of other similar entities constitute the backbone of what is a structurally overlapping Anglo-US led Western establishment. Like Tony Blair, Cameron's media-friendly bonhomie is slicker than the most experienced used car salesman and is key to selling the establishment's endless wars to the public.

Of course, you will never hear Cameron bring up the extremism of the Project for a New American Century or discuss the Wolfowitz doctrine, the neo-con blueprints for the West's ongoing wars of terror, destabilisations, covert operations, killings and torture that have nothing to do with humanitarianism or 'fighting evil' and everything to do with securing world domination, pipeline routes and resources, while denying the same to others. Such things are not to be discussed in public. Defeating terrorism serves as rhetorical cover for imperialist wars.

We must keep to the 'facts'; the facts as designated by Cameron and those who wish to bury the real facts. We must listen to rhetoric about the wonders of economic liberalism and a thriving democracy, while populations live under the yoke of banker-imposed austerity and mass state surveillance. We must stick to the story that the proper and effective way of preventing terror involves stopping the brain washing of young Muslims at home and that preventing terror abroad is all about rooting out extremists (in resource-rich or resource-transit countries).

Do not associate the 'Muslim problem' with wars of intervention and occupation and the machinations of Empire in Muslim countries. Out of sight, out of mind, thanks partly to the media, including the BBC – a taxpayer-funded 'public service' broadcaster whose selective reporting and willingness to tow the official line does anything but serve the public.

Economic terror of 'globalisation': democracy under threat

According to economics professor John Foster, the aggregate wealth of Britain's richest 1,000 people was in 2010 some 333 billion pounds. In 2010, Britain's aggregate national debt was half that amount. In 2009, at the height of the economic crisis, the top 1,000 increased their wealth by a third, meaning that the amount they actually increased their wealth by in just one year was half of the national debt. Yet public sector jobs are being slashed and the welfare state dismantled, while money is always readily available for the next war. Is this not extremism?

How easy it is to conveniently ignore state-corporate extremism under the guise of 'globalisation' across the world that has resulted in central states abdicating their responsibilities by submitting to the tenets of the Wall Street/City of London-backed pro-privatisation policies, free capital flows, commodity market rigging, debt speculation, massive profits and unaccountable cartels, which aim to maximise profit by beating down labour costs and grabbing resources. Is that not extremism?

While Cameron stood at the UN eulogising about neoliberalism and Western democracy, powerful financial institutions attempt to impoverish and destabilise states like Argentina and render the concepts of national sovereignty and democracy utterly meaningless. To rake in even further unimaginable profits, 'vulture funds' have no compulsion in wrecking the lives of millions of ordinary people by bankrupting national economies, seizing their assets and crippling sovereign states' ability to properly function by extorting money and chaining them to debt.

Argentina's President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner said in her speech to the UN General Assembly:

"... terrorists are not only those who go planting bombs, there are economic terrorists who destabilise the economy of a country and produce poverty, hunger and misery from the sin of speculation. It is something we should say very clearly."

She also asked who gave the 'terrorists' in the Middle East their weapons in the first place, subtly pointing to the West's complicity in arming 'freedom fighters' who, according to how the geo-political game is going, are suddenly labelled 'terrorists' (and vice versa). From Kosovo to Syria and Libya, the US and its allies have excelled in this.

How easy it is for officials to bypass democratic processes, sideline the public and negotiate secretive 'free trade' deals on behalf of powerful private corporations. The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (and similar agreements around the world) could undo decades of hard work that resulted in laws protecting consumers, workers and their families and the environment. Regulations are to be dismantled, laws to be written, investors' rights to be prioritised and democratic processes disregarded for the benefit of wealthy private corporations under the pretence of 'free' trade. Is this type of bare-faced corporate plunder and duplicity not extremism? Is this the type of economic freedom Cameron means?

How easy it is to destroy any notion of freedom via the illegal mass surveillance of the state that pries into habits, beliefs, motivations, conversations, allegiances of every ordinary citizen. Is that not extremism?

As democracy is hollowed out and corrupt global cartels record massive profits and institute their plunder, all of this is portrayed by the mainstream media and political leaders as 'normality' as the way things are and have to be, based on the lie that 'there is no alternative'.

Does the type of democracy that Cameron has in mind involve record levels of inequalities, an unhindered revolving door between government and big business, food safety/regulation authorities being hijacked by corporate interests and police and intelligence agencies infiltrating, harassing or subverting legitimate groups?

From India to South America, the destruction of food sovereignty and traditional agriculture and indigenous people's being driven from their lands by big agritech concerns, resource extraction industries and land grabbing speculators is commonplace and facilitated by the process of 'globalisation'.

The current economic system facilitates plunder and is presided over by well-funded and influential foundations and powerful financial-corporate entities and their stooges in the IMF, World Bank and WTO.The result is the deception that imperialist wars are fought in the name of fighting terror, austerity is imposed in the name of prosperity and mass surveillance is carried out under the banner of protecting freedom.

In finishing, it should be acknowledged that there are extremist violent thugs who carry out barbarity under the banner of Islam and who should never be funded or armed in order to do the bidding of what Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner called the 'great powers' (or their allies) as has been the case. Sovereign states should receive genuine assistance to tackle such groups on their own soil.

Nevertheless, David Cameron, Theresa May and Philip Hammond would do well to ponder on Cristina de Kirchner's speech and just where the heart of extremism really lies in today's world.

The world’s reliance on soy to feed factory farmed animals is having a devastating impact in Argentina.
RAW: Raw Truth of Factory farming and the destruction of lands and lives in Argentina

Factory farming is one of the biggest causes of animal cruelty on the planet. But it’s arguably one of the biggest causes of harm to us and the natural world too.

It’s why Compassion in World Farming created the Raw campaign – to expose this raw truth.

Their investigation tracks this harm from the factory farm to the soy fields of Argentina.

‘Big Soy’ production in Argentina is dirty and dangerous.

At the root of it is not the soy itself the problem but explosive human numbers all still demanding livestock products, such as eggs and meat.

This protein-rich bean – grown in fields as far as the eye can see – is destroying the health of Argentineans and their communities. All so that the beans can be shipped out to fatten up cows, pigs and chickens, mostly in factory farms.

Argentinean soy fields are in a toxic tale. Lands are being grabbed, people getting sick or dying, and there's intimidation and violence.

Around 10-12% of the original forests remain. It's been evastating. Some locals say they don't want the money, just healthy lives for their children.

Everywhere you go you see the shadow of the soy industry. The soy isn't being eaten by the people but being shipped thousands of miles around the world to fill the bellies of animals such as cows, pigs and chickens, mostly in factory farms. In this green gold rush, lands are being grabbed, people thrown off their land and displaced, and lives are being destroyed. There's little space left for locals' own animals.

Traditions of land care and heritage are being destroyed. Communal lands were shared for generations, thousands of hectares, are being swallowed up. Protesters are being rounded up and imprisoned. They are resisting the bulldozers razing the land and trees that provide oxygen and food.

Residues are in above the ground, and in the ground. The only thing that grows is soy beans, and then what's left is desserts. The catastrophic effect has been the clearing of land and mono-cultures. A large proportion of native forests have gone. It's gone on for 30 years now, and Argentina has one of the highest rates of deforestation in the world.

These massive fields of mono-cultures use pesticides on and in the ground, killing everything except the soy beans. Most of the soy is sprayed with a cocktail of chemicals. The real cost is borne by the communities and those who live near the crops.

Initially the green crops look deceptively assuring, but they started to see medical problems emerge: Cancer, leukaemia, lupus, rashes and birth deformities.

International researchers have shown that people get sick and suffer diseases when exposed to pesticides.

In 2010 doctors from the University of Cordoba came to see what was happening to respond to peoples' complaints. They agreed that exposure causes birth defects and illnesses. Intensive care units are full of people with deformities.

There are massive environmental, and social costs. People are afraid. It's all about big businesses and profits.

Factory farming isn't just an animal welfare issue. Intensive farming means intensive environmental destruction. We must end our addiction to soy, and meat that's not produced naturally. Exports from developing countries don't lift them from poverty. It just fills the pockets of the businesses and corporations. Large land owners are collaborating with corporations to feed the factory farms, and we need to reverse that trend.

Food production needs to be supported locally, by local governments and peasants. The land belongs to the people, not governments. 97% of soy is fed to animals, most of them factory farmed.

“Challenge” of population growth

Feeding the growing global population is a huge challenge and we can't rely on tackling this problem alone. We currently give a third of the world's cereal harvest to our livestock, and the animals use up much of the energy from the feed. If more plant crops were eaten directly by people, rather than feeding them to our farm animals, many more people could be fed.

Livestock's Long Shadow - FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS Rome, 2006 PDF file

Our planet holds 7 billion people, but nearly one billion people are currently hungry. Factory farming is not the answer to feeding the world; in fact the grain feeding of confined animals uses more food than it produces. (UNFAO, 2010, World Livestock 2011: Livestock in Food Security - ( See more )

Several kilograms of feed crops are needed for every kilogram of meat. (UNEP, 2011, World Food Supply: read more )

A much more sustainable, common-sense approach is for a higher proportion of plant crops to be eaten directly by people and for animals to be put back on the land.

ABS: Rising “challenge” of population growth

Australia’s resident population is estimated to increase to 35.5 million by the year 2056, based on current trends in fertility, life expectancy at birth and net overseas migration (Population Projections, Australia, 2006 to 2101, 3222.0).

The world’s population continues to grow at a rapid rate and in late 2011 was estimated at just under 7 billion. By 2050, it is projected that there will be 9.3 billion people on our planet, with nearly all of the population growth occurring in developing countries, including sub-Saharan Africa and India (United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2011). With a third more mouths to feed than there are today, FAO has estimated that by 2050, food production worldwide will need to increase by 70% (FAO, 2009b).

Australian Bureau of Statistics

It's considered a fait accompli that world populations will continue to soar in ecological overshoot, and that the our planet Earth has an obligation to lift it's game and increase food outputs by 70% to meet human demands. Native animals die off, become extinct and are “culled” due to starvation, but even intelligent economists and governments seem to think in terms of an anthropocentric, benevolent Mother Nature, or excessive human powers of manipulation, to overcome any mere natural limits and “challenges” of human overpopulation. We can't possibly cross the social, religious and political limits of suggestion a global plan to stabilise, and then reduce, human numbers through family planning!

Factory farms are the mass exploitation of sentient creatures, who must endure drastically cut life-spans, and perpetual deprivation, to feed masses of peoples in global markets. The costs of mono-cultures, pesticides, diseases, reproductive deformities, land grabs, deaths, land clearing, loss of biodiversity and sustainable farming are all part of the mere “challenges” of feeding swelling and uncontrolled human populations.

Hullo Argentina. Look at yourself in this mirror and weep.

Are vets in Parana Argentina making money out of unspeakably cruel animal 'shelters'?

Paraná is the Capital City of the Province of Entre Ríos, located in the North East of Argentina. Canadian Voice for Animals write that, "It has been a No-Kill city for more than 10 years but has a non-existent policy for the neutering of strays."

Because of these policies the number of unwanted animals has got out of control. Canadian Voice for Animals-Argentina say that they had foreseen this situation and had tirelessly tried to focus the attention of local authorities on this problem, with no success whatsoever.

Canadian Voice for Animals reports that the Paraná authorities are now planning to open a super-shelter in Paraná in order to clean the city for tourism.

"In this dark hole hundreds of poor souls will be cramped and starved to death."

Sign petition to stop this project

They say that this will only be a magnification of shelter policies and practice in many other localities in Argentina.

"How do we know this?" they write, "Because it is already happening in every single municipal super-shelter all across this country. These living hells are located all over the country; all of them run by veterinarians and where no animal advocate can get access."

They ask us to "See for yourselves".

See for yourselves

"Animals piled up and exposed to a sure death due to fights for food which is always scarce and illnesses. All this happens in municipal shelters run by veterinarians and sponsored by municipalities in Argentina."

Canadian Voice for Animals wrote on 25 August 2009 that they heard about this project three weeks ago. They say that they have been fighting to halt the building of the proposed super-'shelter' since then. They call the shelters 'death camps'.

Three people featured in the Spanish version of this item are Gabriela Garayalde, who is described as the designer of the project and accused of being without experience in running refuges, and Rosario Romero, from the School of Veterinarians and Dr. Izza, Secretary of Municipal Health.

The report from Canadian Voice for Animals describes concerns that public funds are being used for a less than transparent process which is itself unspeakably cruel.

They relate that the mainstream media is steering clear of the affair and that doors have been closed against Canadian Voice for Animals - Argentina's sincere enquries.

For this reason the group has started a campaign in the streets to warn residents of what is afoot. They say that the project is running under the flag of "A Roof for Four Legged Homeless Foundation." They describe this foundation as "a so-called group that was created overnight and run by people who have no idea about animals and whose sole idea is to keep the streets cleared of strays".

They add that,

"The Secretary of Cabinet has [told] the press that the project does not exist, but we have a copy of the project plans which were presented to her and the mayor at that meeting. She has gone even further; she has stated that the project was not feasible because this so called foundation has not got a charity number but the sad truth is that the very same day she was saying that we received a legal document coming from this foundation threatening us to shut up otherwise we would face charges in court. The courts of course is exactly where we want to dismantle this monstrosity."

"The Mayor and his wife, the secretary of the cabinet, received these people and listened to their proposal,despite the fact that we have requested hearings for more than 2 years and they have never answered any of our requests. We have learned that the city hall has decided to give them a piece of land to build this despicable place that would be sponsored by city hall and companies associated with tourism."

Easier, kinder, cheaper solution would end the problem in 4 years

What Canadian Voice for Animals - Argentina and the ArgentineNetwork of No-Kill Associations have proposed is massive spay/neuter programmes based on the TNR (TRAP-NEUTER-RELEASE) technique which they say has been proved effective everywhere.

"We need municipal veterinarians operate on 70 pets five days a week and we have estimated that the problem will be solved within four years."

They say that this failure to look at a sane and humane solution is the basis of their protest. They think that one of the reasons these shelters 'flourish' is that they offer mean people a chance to get money from the government to 'manage' them. They ask people all round the world to look at the pictures and sign the petition. In this petition they ask the council to stop the Mayor and this Foundation from starting their project.