|
Anyone want to give a break down on Marci's mention in the Panama papers? My gf is Argentinian and is currently crowing about the evil just wing corrupt people being dealt with by an honest above board politician. I'm sure Marci is an improvement but I'd like to get her to admit that it's a difference of degree rather than him being purity and light while the previous government did nothing but gently caress the country for personal benefit.
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2016 14:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 01:54 |
|
|
Hong Kong is another interesting example, although there you had a clear outside force helping drive things, but the change in Hong Kong government and policing culture between 1970 and the 1980s was immense. Interestingly it was basically the result of setting up an independent body within the police that was genuinely empowered to fight corruption and staffed with motivated individuals. Doing something like that within a sovereign nation is pretty loving tricky though since, as we've seen in Brazil, that independent body ends up needing to investigate the people that ultimately have the power to quash the investigations.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2016 09:17
|
|
|
SexyBlindfold posted:As a Chilean I only keep updated on Argentina issues by osmosis but the gist of it is that Macri was elected in hopes he'd fix the economic clusterfuck, there are no signs of recovery yet (and arguably things are quite a bit worse due to inflation, stagnating wages, unemployment), and patience is starting to wear thin. There was the usual sacking of public employees with the change of administration and some specific benefits and subsidies were withdrawn early on (I think an energy subsidy was the biggest one? I remember it causing a fuzz earlier this year) but iono if the there's been major cuts after that. This is based entirely on talking to people here in Argentina and very much in the wealthier bubble so take it for what it's worth. Macri has been pretty universally welcomed as an end to insane crony capitalism (mostly referred to as socialism, some of them see the distinction but quite a few just take it that socialists in South America=Sell out the country, enrich yourself) and an honest, technocratic government interested in actually fixing problems. Those in power now are generally wealthy, educated abroad, professionals. Many have had quite a bit of personal success in the private or professional sphere and are seen as immune from gross corruption because they're already well-off. As for the government itself, some consensus and some split opinions. Everyone thinks it's an improvement, they believe they're genuinely working towards improving the economy and creating a successful country that's better for everyone. Ending currency controls and welcoming in foreign investment is high point, bringing Argentina back into the world economy. Likewise prosecuting corruption and actually getting the country's finances straight is seen as a crucial first step. The split opinions come down more on the messaging/spin, ending subsidies is one of those 'people needed to realise we weren't living in the real world', the government can't afford to pay for people's housing and power, etc. This is either good, tough medicine politics or an out-of touch technocratic move that will fix the problem but is too much, too fast. Personally it sounds way too much like some of the austerity bullshit Europe deals with and I'm inclined to say cutting people's subsidies on necessities is a dick move and false economy for government. On the other hand I'm told that most of those subsidies were going to lower and upper-middle class families while the poorer areas were pretty shafted. Most of the aid for the rural poor and areas outside the major cities was being funnelled through cronies and maybe half was getting to those it was meant for. Of course those cronies were also the only source of revenue for many of these communities and so are immensely popular there. The anti-corruption investigations have run into an issue where they are seen as partisan attacks on community leaders regadless of the veracity of those accusations. Two main takes I've gotten come from my girlfriend a cousin of hers. Girlfriend is worryingly right wing (like, someone in their neighbourhood association was recently outed as a torturer for the Junta and her reaction was to be outraged that people are calling for him to give up his position because 'it was 40 years ago and those socialist Peronist animals were even worse. They should just let people get on with their lives'). She loves Macri but basically thinks the government's messaging and spin is a disaster, being honest about inflation and suddenly cutting subsidies is turning people against the government. Basically they're well intentioned but it's too much pain too fast and she's worried they won't be in government long enough to actually get the fruit of economic reforms. She also thinks the Pope is an rear end in a top hat who should either refrain from any involvement with Argentina or should stick to being civil and supporting the democratically elected government. Her cousin has never lived in Argentina but after some issues with spousal visa status after moving to his wife's country has moved there for a while. As essentially an outsider he's a huge fan, thinks the government is competent, is amazed at the difference. He's super supportive and thinks people should wise up to the fact that the previous government basically just made up stuff like official inflation rates. From the description, some people here who weren't earning a huge amount would plan to spend all their earnings because if you had 500-1000 pesos left at the end of the month, by the end of the year they'd be worth about 15% less and have lost maybe 30% vs. the dollar. There was no point trying to save. Which was probably good for the domestic economy short term but seriously fucks any ability to grow.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
Markovnikov posted:Good to see the thread getting some posts. Too bad about all the pinochetos coming out of the woodwork. I'm from the UK, my experience of Latin America is basically nil and I met her while in Asia. I will say her thing on it is much more along the lines of 'it was 40 years ago, get over it!' rather than specifically pardoning one side. I think it's much more millennial type angst and growing up with Christina as basically the avatar of left wing thought. Her parents are way more chill about things like that. That said it's also weird, she's like the only one in her family who takes public transport or went to a public university. Her parents are both second generation immigrants but I've quickly learned that's not an indication of being worse off or greatly outside social circles here, which is kind of cool compared to Europe. Also my ability to meet non yuppies is severely limited by current non existent Spanish.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2016 02:56
|
|
. May I ask were you are from? You really need to make some non yuppie friends.
|
Mr. Nemo posted:Reading that was trippy as gently caress. Non directly quoted references in this thread are about to become confusing as gently caress...
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
Non Serviam posted:People who are not ok with giving parliamentary seats to a terrorist organization that has committed war crimes for decades Yup, because the Northern Ireland peace process has shown us that allowing terrorists to become politicians inevitably leads to bloodshed, suffering and justice never being found. This kind of moral hazard would no doubt lead to more bloodshed down the road as it would encourage others to lead decade long civil wars plunging more than half the country into strife. Possibly every other week.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2016 12:39
|
|
|
Non Serviam posted:Like the communists have done everywhere they've taken power. I agree. Ah ok, you're one of these "The US should have let McArthur start dropping H-bombs in Korea" types.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
Non Serviam posted:Their constant condemnation of both Israel and the United States definitely confirms their status as US shills Your point in arguing against the peace deal seems to be rooted in desiring Justice, which is coming off as punishment for crimes committed. The status quo is that one side (the FARC) is being threatened with this, the worst perpetrators are already escaping, and the only way the FARC currently have to escape their punishment is to continue the war and not submit to the government forces. This perpetuates misery, suffering and death. Would you disagree? I don't think the status quo is a net positive for the people of Columbia generally and especially for those in the conflict zone (unsurprisingly they voted largely for peace). You don't seem big on pragmatism as a moral compass so let's go with the ideal of justice for all criminals. The only route I can see to that would be a new power (maybe a newly elected party) that rose to power on the promise of finding and prosecuting those on both sides. Basically apprehending the leaders on both sides responsible for these crimes. Realistically no group in Columbia is going to have this level of power, as a threat to entrenched power they'd be crushed/assassinated at best. At worst they would be hugely successful and plunge the country into a newly energised civil war with 3 factions as the old guard military and right wing militias sought to prevent their own capture and punishment. So realistically you're looking for foreign intervention that can impose the needed punishment on those responsible, right and left wing alike. If you oppose the peace process because it means bad people will escape punishment and the continuation of strife and misery (and continuing cycle of violence leading to more crimes) isn't a reason to change your mind, I don't see how you could argue against a full US intervention aimed at capturing and punishing government, military and FARC leaders who have engaged in these crimes. I mean it would be a shitshow and probably increase casualties and the damage to Columbia by an order of magnitude but we're already coming from a position where peace and prosperity shouldn't outweigh punishment.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
Also the attempt at political involvement by the left (UP) was largely met with assassination and murder. Actors on both sides have never wanted a peaceful resolution because peace requires sacrificing power or making oneself vulnerable. Apartheid would never have ended if criminal trials for the ANC had been a requirement, likewise Northern Ireland would still probably see bombings and killings if all Republican leaders had been required to stand trial rather than being involved. Non Serviam is arguing from the view that one side is illegitimate (while not really questioning the legitimacy of the other side's power) and goes from there. Justice, peace, etc. I don't believe are going to sway him because he's starting from the position that the FARC are bloodthirsty authoritarians and thus those they are fighting against are in the right. Take that view and compromise can't happen, more peasants must be sacrificed on the altar of punishing those perfidious leftists.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2016 15:56
|
|
|
R. Mute posted:That small subset of bad guys will still be serving time, though, right? For war crimes they will. For political crimes they will be allowed to have a role in politics, clear land mines or do other charitable acts as reparations for those crimes, providing they admit to them and there's a general 'clearing of the air' with the guilty on both sides taking responsibility for the crime. Obviously this is a travesty that must not stand, the Columbian rural population must continue to sacrifice their livelihoods and lives until the
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2016 08:51
|
|
|
Because you are currently arguing that the realistic peace deal that was offered was unacceptable since it meant that FARC members would go unpunished. At best you are arguing against a real and concrete chance at an end to the conflict in favour of an impossible alternative deal that would see all guilty parties justly punished. In practical terms that is arguing for the status quo to continue and that status quo involves right wing militias and pro-government criminals (political and war criminals) escaping punishment. People in this thread aren't arguing the peace deal was a good thing because it meant the FARC escaped jail sentences for political crimes, it was because it represented a real chance for the conflict to end and the worst of the crimes committed against civilians to end. Serious question: Can you see or imagine a realistic scenario that would produce better results than this for the majority of the Columbian population?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2016 13:50
|
|
|
I stand corrected, didn't realise there were no jail sentences for war crimes. I still stick by that deal being better than the status quo.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2016 14:09
|
|
|
nerdz posted:Liberal as in opposite to conservative, not economically liberal Technically the opposite of a conservative is a progressive. Those labels tend to refer to one's position within a certain political context while liberal or socialist implies attachment to some basic political values favouring individual rights, collective responsibilities or what have you. Which was basically the original joke. Of course you're not into socialism, you're a liberal.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
I had the impression that one of the other major differences between the US and Latin America was a the difference between the foundation/set up of the various colonies. The English northern colonies were granted charters and brought in line with royal governors but were set up by the founders while the Latin American colonies were more centrally organised and administered. Perhaps ironically there was a far less central force in the push for independence as well, the US saw the 13 colonies band together to declare independence with a final unified vision of what they wanted. In Latin America you saw instead a more opportunistic push for independence resulting from Napoleon's seizing of the Spanish crown, which weakened the sense of ownership by Spain, and individual actors (primarily Bolivar and San Martin) who had very different visions of what they were trying to achieve without going through the process of coming to an agreement. San Martin specifically thought that the various colonies should maintain independence from each other and without going through the process of hammering out a compromised vision as happened in the US Continental Congress. This was compounded by the geographic spread with the 13 colonies all being relatively close to each other. The expansion to the rest of the continent happened as a project of the newly United States rather than as new colonial efforts driven by the motherland. There was probably an initial similarity but the future USA was united by a single 'enemy' and had a (relatively) smaller and more compact geography. Latin American countries lacked that fundamental bonding of fighting for independence as part of a single group from what I can tell. The fact most countries were 'liberated' at different times and set up their own constitutions really did lay the ground work for staying separate.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2020 16:47
|
|
|
Geography as destiny as well plays in when you consider that British colonies in the Caribbean didn't group together despite being pretty equivalent to the 13 colonies (or at least some of the southern ones such as Virginia or South Carolina). I guess in terms of connection to the colonial centre and indigenous populations, Latin America was probably closer to Africa for European powers engaged there with a couple of centuries head-start for the colonisers. And actually things shook out in a somewhat similar manner to colonial independence there, bearing in mind the relative population differences.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2020 17:44
|
|
|
100YrsofAttitude posted:It's a mixed bag, yes there was less interventionism (Yay!) and on the other hand he wholly emboldened other fascists much like the ones in Bolivia (Boo!). I mean, the US actually sponsored an incredibly incompetent coup in Venezuela, gave moral support to a coup in Bolivia and huge moral support to a fascist like Bolsonaro. If you really think the Trump admin was better than normal I can only assume that you think doing some incompetent, mask off, support for fascists in Latin America on top of the normal US policies is better? Because generally Trump didn't stop normal US foreign policy actions, he just made a lot of public declarations that meant they stopped doing all the publicised humanitarian/aid type stuff and kept doing all the hard imperialism without oversight. So really, it's saying you think US imperialism is better if it's ignorable and they stop pretending to make any effort to improve the lives of people around the world.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2021 19:33
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:This is less Latin America-specific, but Trump was also even more gung-ho about unaccountable drone strikes than Obama was, and relaxed restrictions on who could be bombed and when, which led to significant increases in civilian casualties in places like Afghanistan. The image of "Donald the Dove" doesn't actually represent what Trump did or tried to do, it's based far more in him being incompetent than in him being benign, since attempted interventions like Guaido or Anez didn't stick. Not to mention the successful criminal stuff like blanket sanctions that starve Venezuelans to death or piracy to seize shipments of legally-traded goods heading to Venezuela just because. Trump got rid of requirements to report on military strikes or possible civilian casualties. Since they no longer had easy access to the information, US media largely stopped reporting any strikes or resulting casualties. This, combined with Trump announcing he was pulling out of Syria (meaning keeping the troops here but limiting them to protecting US oil interests and not civilians) has produced regressive leftists talking points about Trump being far less damaging than Obama and much more peaceful in his outlook. In other words, people who are happy with the US being imperialist as long as the government isn't telling anyone about it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2021 21:50
|
|
|
I will concede there is an argument to be made that the results on incompetent fascism could be less bad, in the immediate, than competent status quo interventionism. I'd argue when it comes to Trump though he was happy to permit much of that status quo interventionism to continue without oversight. I guess you could say the left response to this (in areas) is a case of wishful thinking and, basically, falling for the same kind of con Trump always pulls. Make a big show of saying he's solved a problem, tell people not to report anything about it and declare victory. In this case also to prevent the 'wasteful' side of interventionism, which is the attempt at any kind of hearts and minds work, humanitarian stuff or measures to protect allies or perceived civilian/neutral elements from conflicts. I guess some elements would be fine with this, if you view the 'hearts and minds' or humanitarian work carried out by military units as an entirely cynical effort at propaganda and thus every life saved or improved by them being at the cost of dozens more in a prolonged conflict. But at base, Trump cut out anything that could be perceived as 'positive' elements of these engagements loudly and publicly and then permitted the bits that involved direct financial interests or killing people to done without oversight. I'd also argue that we as a globe were, at least partially, lucky that Trump's incompetent warhawkishness didn't result in any conflicts. If his assassination of an Iranian general had actually sparked off a new multi-state war and a few dozen thousand more US troops in the middle east people would probably be not be arguing that point. And unless you want to say there was never any real chance of that (or any of the other confrontational poo poo Trump pulled) leading to a hot war then going for the incompetent warhawk seems to be an argument that you're happy rolling the dice on another Gulf War II rather than deliberate interventions like Libya. I'll note, I'm not making an argument here that Obama was a good man or that the US improved the situations in Syria or Libya, both those countries are utterly hosed and millions of people have had their lives torn apart. Likewise the US under Obama continued to be a destructive force in Latin America. I just think that it did so in a way that was predictable and limited, I don't think Trump was peaceful and I think it's quite possible that despite his incompetence he could have kicked off a conflict somewhere in the globe by forcing some act of idiocy on the military brass or even some more aggressive than usual strike doing that due to the lack of oversight under Trump.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2021 23:04
|
|
|
Spice World War II posted:We have on this very page a tweet by the Biden administration, literally lending moral support for the perpetrators of a fascist coup in Bolivia. I can't speak for anyone else but the post I was responding to was: punk rebel ecks posted:I legitimately miss Trump in terms of foreign policy. Like I said, there seems to be a strain of thinking on the left that Trump was somehow a 'dove', less interventionist, etc. and that Democrats returning to the standard State Dept. thinking is a regression that ignores the dangerous aspects of Trump's bellicosity and incompetence. People don't need to be claiming poo poo like Trump being morally superior on foreign policy to criticise Democrats. The US is super lovely on Latin America policy, Biden should not pushing domestic policy responses in places like Bolivia where the side currently on the receiving end of legally questionable treatment (and I mean legally, not morally) had launched a coup against a legitimate government. I would say I think that's preferable to relaunching full sanctions on Cuba and informally trying to drum support for a boots on the ground invasion of Venezuela as well as probably giving tacit backing to an incompetently attempted foreign coup. Again - this particular debate wasn't spurred by people defending the Biden administration, it was spurred by someone seeing Biden doing something bad and taking the first opportunity to start whitewashing Trump's foreign policy.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2021 14:35
|
|
|
Mr. Nemo posted:So Cristina is going to jail for 6 years? She's still protected from this while she's VP, supposedly Argentina is also pretty lenient on the elderly being in actual prisons and she'll be over 70 by the time all her offices have expired so will likely be able to appeal for house arrest.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2022 10:05
|
|
|
I've got in laws strongly in on Milei. The Argentinian upper middle class, who are smart, see an opportunity to speed run Menem. Get their assets dolarised and out of the country over the next few years while the government sells off everything not nailed down. I'm assuming a lot of people voted for the possibility of change rather than more of the same when more of the same was already a total disaster. The people who think he will actually benefit the country are generally people who associate the Peronists with the left wing, so think everything right wing is going to be an improvement and also assume he's going to be moderated by whoever gets into the legislature. The hope would be that this results in a force for change/reform from the executive that gets compromised into practical and effective laws. So never going to happen. I'm expecting to hear YPF has been sold to a Russian oligarch, the minister that negotiated it shortly retires with mysterious wealth, Argentina gets sanctioned and the whole thing is renationalised again in 5 years. I also am avoiding family chats.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2023 22:28
|
|
|
You guys just don't see! These union thugs were preventing good honest Argentinians from exercising their freedom to go to work or use services so because they have some sort of grievance they should individually make an informed economic choice about. Instead they engage in collective action, which is essentially terrorism as it prevents capital from being exploited. Really, democratic collective action is a small step away from the gulags. Less sarcastically, a number of protests in Argentina take the form of blockading part of the city. Effectively the goal is to not just deny services to the sector, industry or company in dispute but to shut down activity in the city as much as possible. Often these are done without prior notice, I'm assuming a tactic to maximise their impact. The result is a lot of the middle class are really loving sick of them and this kind of far reaching and liable to be abused legislation will probably be well received initially.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2023 17:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 01:54 |
|
|
My in laws are still broadly on board with Milei as 'the last chance to break the country from the horrors of Peronism'. These are people who are not on fixed income and have access to dollarised investments/income and so are somewhat insulated from the effects of massive inflation. Their attitude is very reminiscent of the 'your deaths are a price I'm willing to pay' meme. They're also fully of the opinion that the crazy ideologue image is an invention by the left and Milei being bad at framing his policies or using technical language that creates bad sound bites. My Spanish isn't good enough and my interests isn't strong enough to read through all of his speeches to see if some of the wilder stuff is explained more clearly in context but based on hearing those same agreements about right wing populists in my own neck of the woods I'm inclined to believe it's a way of ignoring the unpalatable parts.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2024 10:24
|
|