Ecuador votes to lock in its shift to the left

[Judi Lynn]

Ecuador votes to lock in its shift to the left
Ecuadoreans easily approved a new socialist-leaning charter Sunday.
By Sibylla Brodzinsky | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
from the September 30, 2008 edition



My vote: A supporter of President Rafael Correa
showed a new Ecuadorean Constitution autographed
by Mr. Correa on Sunday after the country voted
in the new charter.
Patricio Realpe/Ap

Bogotá, Colombia - The overwhelming approval by Ecuadoreans of a new Constitution that gives leftist President Rafael Correa a tighter grip on the economy puts the country firmly on a socialist track similar to Hugo Chávez's Venezuela.

"Today Ecuador decided to found a new country," Mr. Correa said Sunday after nearly 70 percent of Ecuadoreans voted for the new charter. "The old power structures have been defeated."

With the passage of the new Constitution, Ecuador became the first country after Venezuela in the region to institutionalize its leftward shift, says Larry Birns, director of the Council of Hemispheric Affairs in Washington.

"This is a lurch to the left on the part of Correa," he says.

But Mr. Birns warns that Ecuador's move does not make it a lackey of Venezuela, which under Mr. Chávez has tried to take leadership of Latin America's leftward shift. "Ecuador is marching in a similar direction as Venezuela, but to a different beat," Birns says.

"Correa is doing it his way."

The Constitution passed by Ecuadoreans, however, is very similar to the Venezuelan charter passed in 1999, one year after Chávez took office, launching his self-styled Bolivarian Revolution.

More:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0930/p01s08-woam.html

[Peace Patriot]

1. Nearly 70%! That's news! Wow!

But I sure get tired of CSM and its more polite jabs at Chavez (--as opposed to the outright lies, disinformation and slander of the Corpo/fascist 'news' monopolies). Chavez is the electrical spark of the amazing democracy revolution in South America! Why deny it? Why make apologies for it? Why keep implying that somehow other leaders don't like him. They are all close friends.

"Mr. Birns warns that Ecuador's move does not make it a lackey of Venezuela...". Good Christ!

"...Venezuela, which under Mr. Chávez has tried to take leadership of Latin America's leftward shift."

Venezuela IS the leader of Latin America's "leftward shift." They are not "trying to take leadership." They ARE the leaders--in every way you can name, from having been the first to re-write their Constitution, and initiating the Bank of the South (one of Chavez's best ideas, which has driven the World Bank/IMF from the region), and having strongly promoted economic and political integration, which has borne fruit in the creation of the South American "Common Market" this year, to having been the first to fend off Bushwhack coup plots, and assassination plots and every kind of destabilization effort and dirty trick. Now the others are facing the same things--in Bolivia this last month, in a similar Bush-backed, secessionist scheme in Ecuador, and with a U.S./Colombia BOMBING AND RAID on Ecuadoran territory, earlier this year--an event that almost started a war between Colombia and Ecuador, and which Chavez has been credited with preventing, after rushing military battalions to his own border, in defense of Ecuador.

This is just bullshit and sniping, and yet more Bushwhack "divide and conquer"--to create the impression that Rafael Correa would ever be anybody's "lackey," and then to say that, well, he isn't. It's a false opposition. Chavez is clearly the leader of this movement, in time as well as in ideas. And Rafael Correa is a strong-minded, firm, fast friend and close ally of Chavez. Why does a word like "lackey" even come into it? Does one leader agreeing with another mean somebody has to be a "lackey"? That is ridiculous.

And look at this devious writing. Do you see any quotation marks around a Rafael Correa quote in these paragraphs--the writer is paraphrasing Correa!:

"...Correa often makes it a point to distinguish himself from Chávez and says his own 'Citizens' Revolution' responds to the demands of his countrymen, not Venezuela's regional agenda."

And, after NOT quoting Correa, it goes on...

"The passage of Ecuador's socialist Constitution 'is helpful to Chávez's regional project but it is not caused by it,' says Ted Piccone, deputy director for foreign policy at the Brookings Institution in Washington. 'Both Chávez and Correa are responding to long pent-up demands for change in their own countries.'"

A quote from the fucking Brookings Institution (Corpo/fascists) does NOT substitute for a quote by Correa "distancing himself" from Chavez. This is a "divide and conquer" LIE that keeps being perpetrated by the Corpo-fascists, in the face of what is obvious, demonstrable, provable accord and friendship between Chavez and Correa.

The article goes on to deliberately misrepresent events around the U.S./Colombia bombing/raid on Ecuador earlier this year. Chavez rushed military battalions to his own border with Colombia in defense of, and in solidarity with, Correa. This article then--without describing these circumstances--uses Correa's subsequent refusal to re-open diplomatic relations with Colombia as a major foreign policy difference between Ecuador and Venezuela. That is just so off-base--such a screwy interpretation--as to be almost unbelievable.

The article then goes on to misrepresent events in Bolivia...

"Ecuador's approval of the Constitution was watched closely from neighboring Bolivia, whose own efforts to establish a socialist charter so far have been thwarted by staunch opposition and by bouts of unrest."

"Bouts of unrest"? 15 to 30 unarmed peasants machine-gunned by the Bush-backed white separatists is a "bout of unrest"?!

"Staunch opposition"? What is happening in Bolivia is a Bush-funded ($80 million of our taxpayer dollars!), and Bush-organized attempted coup d'etat. Morales evicted the U.S. ambassador from Bolivia because of this. Electoral staticians have shown that this is a minority group of racist, rich landowners, in cahoots with the Bushwhacks, in defiance of the opinion of as much as half the people in their provinces. "Staunch opposition," my ass. These are a bunch of violent, loudmouth, crazy Freepers, insanely trying to rip Bolivia to pieces, in the face of 67% approval of the Morales government in Bolivia as a whole. I say "insanely" because Bolivia is landlocked, and Brazil and Argentina have made it very clear that they will not trade with secessionist provinces. So where are these fascists going to sell the gas reserves that they are trying to steal from Bolivia's poor majority?

The CSM article seems to make sense. Yes, Morales is having trouble getting the new Constitution passed, but not because it lacks popular support--it has GREAT popular support--but because the Bushwhacks have poured $80 million into the rich minority to cause trouble! A true statement would be that Bolivia was more vulnerable to Bushwhack assault because of its particular racial composition and history. The article gives these fascist rioters and murderers the dignity of being called the "opposition," when in truth they are a violent insurrection, which would have no false hopes of success without Bush funding and backing. The article doesn't say anything about UNASUR and its actions regarding Bolivia (100% backing of the Morales government), nor about Brazil's and Argentina's economic interest, and staunch opposition to the white separatists. Nor does the CSM article identify the virulent racism of these separatists.

The new Bolivian Constitution will be voted on Dec 7. We will see then if it was "thwarted."

Incredibly, the article then asserts that Correa may turn out to be "more radical" than Chavez, because Correa is just too goll-darn popular:

"For a country that has seen eight presidents inaugurated in the past 10 years, that possibility of political stability was tempting for voters, analysts say.

"Ms. Calderón says that Ecuador's opposition fears that – with this weekend's resounding victory in the constitutional referendum and Correa's near-certain reelection in February – he may become more radical in his move toward "21st-century socialism" than Chávez, who in his nearly 10 years in power has nationalized companies in the telecommunications, cement, and banking sectors.

"Correa on Monday specifically ruled out nationalizing oil companies but said he will 'not allow' them to reduce investment levels."

-----

Yes, and Rafael Correa hasn't faced a Bush-Exxon Mobil backed oil professionals' strike that crippled his economy and nearly toppled his government--as Chavez has. He may well change his mind after Chevron-Texaco reacts to the $30 billion environmental damages judgment that will be coming, shortly, for a toxic spill in the Ecuadoran rainforest worse than the Exxon Valdez. (In any case, Chavez didn't nationalize Venezuela's oil; the previous government did. He merely re-negotiated the oil contracts in Venezuela's favor. And he didn't nationalize the Bank of Venezuela; he re-nationalized it, after it had been privatized and was recently put on the market.)

-----

Guess we have a new "dictator" in the making, eh? Oh, wait! He doesn't want to nationalize the oil, so he's NOT a "dictator"!

-----

From not being Chavez's "lackey" to maybe becoming "more radical" than Chavez, Rafael Correa seems to present a considerable intellectual challenge to this writer: how to seem to say something meaningful, on the basis of superficial knowledge, and not sound like windbag.

I am grateful to CSM for bringing me the news that nearly 70% of voters endorsed the new Constitution--an amazing victory--and I'm certainly grateful to you, Judi, for posting this news--but the rest of the article has given me heartburn, I'm afraid. It is indigestible. And it leaves out the most important provision of Ecuador's new Constitution--a first in the world: it provides legal standing to Nature itself. But that apparently is of no interest, while Correa not being Chavez's "lackey" is mentioned twice. TWICE!