최근 글 목록
-
- 오랜만에 들렀다, 간다.
- 모험가
- 2023
-
- 한미경제관계와 한미자유무...
- 모험가
- 2017
-
- 신자유주의와 사회주의의 실...
- 모험가
- 2011
-
- 노동자 민중적 입장에서의 ...(2)
- 모험가
- 2010
-
- [자동 저장 문서](3)
- 모험가
- 2010
164개의 게시물을 찾았습니다.
호주 민주사회당과 관계있는 신문이지요? --------------------------------------- Ecuadorian Protests |
|||
......... | by Duroyan Fertl | April 19, 2005 | |
Green Left Weekly | Printer Friendly Version EMail Article to a Friend |
||
On April 13, thousands of Ecuadorians protesting in the capital Quito were violently attacked by riot police with tear gas. The protesters, led by unionists and students, blocked roads with burning tyres and shut down the centre of the city, demanding the resignation of President Lucio Gutierrez and the reinstatement of the Supreme Court judges sacked by the president last December. Quito Mayor Paco Moncayo, leader of the opposition Democratic Left Party (ID) and an organiser of the protest, ordered the closure of public transport, municipal offices and schools, as protesters shouted “Lucio out! Democracy, yes! Dictatorship, no!” About 800 fully armed police and soldiers occupied the two blocks around the presidential palace, erecting metal barriers and barbed wire fencing across roadways. This is just the latest in a wave of protests. On April 11, a group of about 100 protesters from various social movements occupied the nearby Metropolitan Cathedral. Despite being denied food and water, they are refusing to leave until the former Supreme Court is reinstated. The prefect for Pichincha province, which covers Quito, ID member Ramiro Gonzalez, declared an indefinite strike from April 12, closing roads — including the Pan-American Highway — businesses and the local airport. Roads were also blocked by demonstrations in the regions of Imbabura, Cotopaxi, Tungurahua, Loja, Azuay and Canar, and the Confederation of Indigenous Nations of Ecuador (CONAIE) occupied the education ministry building in Quito. Several union leaders were arrested in the demonstrations in Quito and dozens were injured by police and asphyxiating tear gas in this latest episode of Ecuador's rapidly deepening political crisis. Misuse of power In the aftermath of two enormous protests earlier this year, Ecuador's volatile political landscape took an explosive turn on April 2, with the return of “flamboyant” ex-president Abdala Bucaram from an eight-year exile in Panama. Bucaram, known as “El Loco” (“the crazy one”), fled Ecuador in 1997 — after only seven months in office — amidst accusations of corruption, after the National Congress had deposed him on the grounds of “mental incapacity”. Bucaram's return has been long expected. Gutierrez, who was military attache during Bucaram's presidency, visited him in Panama in September. Then late last year, Bucaram's Roldosista Party of Ecuador (PRE) helped block an impeachment attempt against Gutierrez led by the ID and the right-wing Social Christian Party (PSC). In December, Gutierrez used a temporary majority in the Congress to fire the Supreme Court and appoint new judges affiliated to parties supportive of the president — mostly PRE and PRIAN, the party of Alvaro Noboa, Ecuador's richest man and previous presidential candidate. The majority of the sacked judges were associated with the PSC. Gutierrez appointed Guillermo Castro, a long-time associate of Bucaram, as president of the Supreme Court. Finally, on March 31, Castro cleared Bucaram, as well as former vice-president Alberto Dahik, and ex-President Gustavo Noboa, of corruption charges, paving the way for their safe return to the country and to politics. The changes to the Supreme Court are widely believed to be unconstitutional, a view supported by the United Nations in an April 4 United Nations Human Rights Commission report. The report also suggested that the appointments to the Supreme Electoral Tribunal and the Constitutional Court “show signs of illegality”, and urges a restructure of the legal system. Gutierrez's attempts at legal reform have all failed to pass Congress. The parliamentary opposition is instead calling for the reinstatement of the previous judges and Gutierrez's resignation. On April 5, several thousand people demonstrated outside the National Congress against Bucaram's return and the abuse of the legal system, but were dispersed with tear gas and police violence. A revolution of the poor? Bucaram's return has already had a resounding impact on Ecuadorian politics. PRIAN, worried that a resurgent PRE would cut into its base, declared it would no longer support Gutierrez in the National Congress. PRIAN and PRE are both based in the coastal city of Guayaquil, making them direct competitors. Despite PRE's support, however, the government recently suffered an overwhelming defeat in the vote on an economic reform bill supported by the International Monetary Fund. Sixty-eight of the seventy-one members of congress present voted against the bill, which advocated the privatising of oil, water and the pensions sector. Upon his return to Ecuador, Bucaram addressed a 20,000-strong rally of supporters in Guayaquil. He highlighted the level of corruption and poverty in Ecuador, declaring; “I come to Ecuador to copy Chavez's style with a great Bolivarian revolution”, referring to the leftist Venezuelan president's movement, whose reforms include using some of that country's oil wealth to fund massive social reforms, such as literacy and health. Ecuador, like Venezuela, has large oil reserves, but government revenue is lost in the endemic corruption that plagues the country, making such a policy a likely vote winner at the elections due for late next year. The economy has long been a basket case, despite it's oil resources and tourism industry. Approximately 50% of the annual GDP goes towards repaying foreign loans. Unemployment is officially at 10%, but close to 50% of the population lives in poverty. Bucaram also voiced his opposition to a free trade agreement with the US, and decried “the imposition of military bases” on Ecuador, a reference to the illegal use by the US Air Force of the air base at Manta (the only official US military base in South America) for surveillance and spraying of lethal herbicides over southern Colombia. However fine sounding, this rhetoric is not new to Ecuador. Gutierrez came to power styling himself as an “Ecuadorian Chavez”, and immediately set about breaking all his left-wing promises. He allowed the creation of US military camps in the border region with Colombia as part of Plan Patriota (the extension of Plan Colombia — the US-backed war against Colombia's Marxist guerrillas), signed a new IMF loan, and began negotiating a free trade agreement with the US. Subsequently, Gutierrez has lost most of his support. Only five representatives of his Patriotic Society Party are now in Congress. A poll cited in the April 12 Mercopress showed his credibility at only 7%, with 58% of respondents saying his immediate resignation was the way to resolve the crisis. He has been linked with drug-money, and accused of misuse of public funds and of using violence to intimidate political opponents. While he is still making political alliances, Gutierrez's key support comes from the military. A former colonel, Gutierrez has recently reconsolidated his base in the army. When Moncayo, who was head of the armed forces before he was Quito mayor, called upon the military not to recognise Gutierrez's “corrupt and unconstitutional” government, the armed forces responded with a warning that they would not tolerate “anarchy” in the country and that “calls to rebellion are illegal”. Despite Gutierrez's unpopularity, the opposition groups have been unable to offer a well-supported alternative. Moncayo has tried unsuccessfully to play this role, but his party's support is limited to the highland regions — although there are indications that the PSC, based in Guayaquil on the coast, may be lending Moncayo, a celebrated war hero, it's support for the next elections. An alternative to neoliberalism In contrast, CONAIE and other social movements appear to be moving further away from an electoral focus, instead rebuilding the mass movements. Much to investors’ dismay, the current crisis has awakened memories of unrest that led to the ousting of elected presidents in 1997 and 2000, when workers and indigenous people overthrew the government by force, and a similar perspective is returning. CONAIE president Luis Macas has called for the Ecuadorian people to come out and fight every day until “a true democracy” has been obtained, and has started organising strikes, blockades and other protests against the Gutierrez regime. Macas makes it clear, however, that CONAIE will not associate with any of the mainstream political parties, but intends to build a civic alternative to the corruption of Ecuador's politics and it's neoliberal agenda. On April 4, CONAIE convened an assembly of delegates from more than 60 groups, including Pachakutik, the Popular Front and the Ecuadorian Revolutionary Youth. This assembly resolved to create an “Autonomous Pole”, an alliance of non-party political groups, to overthrow the corrupt oligarchy and to construct a “true democratic government that will represent all Ecuadorians”. The popular movement in Ecuador has taken up the slogan used by the piquetero unemployed workers' movement in Argentina, “They all must go!”, but it is also looking to the Bolivarian revolution in Venezuela for inspiration, and as a warning of the struggles ahead. |
“Que se vayan todos!” was the cry of thousands who filled the streets of Quito this week—“Throw them all out!” By day’s end April 20, Congress had thrown President Lucio Gutierrez out, but Vice President Alberto Palacio was sworn in, and it was not at all clear that the nation’s seventh president in nine years would do any better than his predecessors.
Gutierrez came to power on a left-wing political platform, with the support of the nation’s four-million-strong indigenous population, promising help for the poor. Instead, Gutierrez cut subsidies on food and cooking oil, and used the country’s oil export revenues to pay international debts rather than for relief for the country’s desperately poor population. The indigenous coalition that had supported him in 2002 denounced his betrayal and moved into opposition. Leftists generally abandoned the president.When he was charged with nepotism and corruption, Gutierrez had little support from those who elected him.
Last November, Gutierrez made enough deals with opposition members of Congress to narrowly escape impeachment on the corruption charges. In an apparent pay-back, Gutierrez fired 27 of the Supreme Court’s 31 justices in December, as well as members of the national electoral council, replacing them with his own choices. His transparently unconstitutional power grab angered the country, sending demonstrators into the streets to denounce this violationof the separation of powers.
The new, Gutierrez-appointed Supreme Court ruled March 31 that pending charges against ex-presidents Abdalá Bucaram and Gustavo Noboa must be terminated, thereby clearing the way for them to return from exile without fear of jail.
As Quito’s streets filled with angry protesters, Gutierrez called out the police, who fired smoke bombs and tear gas into the crowds, resulting in many injuries and at least one death on April 19. The Commander General of the Ecuador Police force, Jorge Poveda, resigned on April 20, saying he would not take part in further confrontation with the Ecuadoran people.
As Gutierrez fled into exile in the Brazilian Embassy, the new President Alberto Palacio proclaimed that, “the dictatorship, the immorality, the egotism and the fear have ended.” Palacio, a medical doctor, had earlier said that Ecuador was in a coma, and promised to cure the illness of the poor (but oil-exporting) nation of 13 million people.
Palacio acted immediately to suspend participation in the free trade talks now underway in Peru, but it was not clear that this was anything but a temporary measure to allow him to pick his own representative to the talks. Widespread popular opposition to a free trade agreement with the United States is just one of many issues facing the country, including:
1. Foreign debt, dollarization of the Ecuadoran economy in 2000,
2. Pressure from the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador (CONAIE), the country’s biggest indigenous organization, along with other indigenous and campesino (farm workers) groups, to better support agriculture and services for the poor majority;
3. Opposition to U.S. militarization in the region, including the U.S. air base in the northern Ecuador city of Manta (a “forward operating location” for U.S. troops in South America) and U.S. participation in the war in Colombia and fumigation of coca crops;
4. Pending lawsuits against Texaco by Secoya Indians, who point to oily pits and sludge draining into the nation’s rivers as a result of earlier oil operations, and continuing opposition by indigenous nations to foreign oil company operations that pay off the central government while leaving Amazon peoples in poverty.
5. Banana workers who suffer serious human rights abuses, including union-busting, exposure to dangerous chemicals and widespread child labor.
The popular opposition to Gutierrez does not translate into popular support for his successor, Alberto Palacio. To gain that support, and to maintain a constitutional government, Palacio and Congress will have to move quickly to respond to the needs of the people.
Presidential timeline:
1996: Abdalá Bucaram elected
1997: Bucaram deposed by congress on grounds of mental incapacity; replaced by Fabian Alarcon
1998: Jamil Mahuad elected.
2000: Mahuad forced out of office by indigenous protestors after economic collapse; three-person junta is installed. Later, after U.S. pressure, Vice President Gustavo Noboa becomes president.
2002: Lucio Gutierrez elected.
2005: Gutierrez deposed by congress; Vice President Alberto Palacio becomes president.
Ecuador snapshot:
Population: 13 million
Languages: Spanish, indigenous languages
Gross domestic product: $1790 per capita
Currency: U.S. dollar
Main exports: oil and bananas
For further information and analysis, see:
La rebelión de Quito, publicado por Adital, 19 abril 2005
New President Says He Will Serve Out Term, published by Inter Press Service, 4/20/05
Ex-Ecuador Leader Granted Asylum, published by BBC, 4/21/05
President Thrown Out of Office, published by the Guardian, 4/21/05
Ecuador's President Ousted Amid Unrest, published by the Miami Herald, 4/21/05
Nuevo presidente de Ecuador anuncia que gobernará con el pueblo, publicado por La Hora, 21 abril 2005
Una jornada de celebraciones, protestas y saqueos en Quito, publicado por La Hora, 21 abril 2005
Ecuador suspende las negociaciones del TLC, publicado por La Hora, 21 abril 2005
Cronología de la crisis en Ecuador, publicado por La Jornada, 21 abril 2005
Alfredo Palacio, el nuevo presidente de Ecuador, habla en exclusiva con Correo, Publicado por Correo (Peru), 21 abril 2005
Ecuadorian Protests, published by Green Left Weekly, 4/19/05
Battle Rages With Ecuador Indians Over Oil, published by Reuters, 12/19/04
Widespread Labor Abuse on Banana Plantations, published by Human Rights Watch, 4/25/02
Political Turmoil in Ecuador (Connection to the Americas, February 2005)
Indigenous Groups Demand Presidential Resignation (Connection to the Americas, July 2004)
기사 내용은 97년 이후 쫒겨난 대통령이 3명이 될 정도로 정정 불안...
부패, 아이엠에프가 요구한 긴축정책 등이 원인...
이번 대통령은 민중들의 지지로 자리에 올랐는데 신자유주의자로 변신했구요,
탄핵당하지 않기 위해 과거 쫒겨난 대통령의 정당과의 연합, 이를 위한 대법원 재구성, 대법원을 자기 사람들로 채울려는 의회와 대통령의 계속된 싸움(다른 곳에서 본 내용), 그리고 대법원의 재 해산 등의 사건이 있었답니다.
부통령이 승계했는데 민중들이 이를 지지할 지 안할지는 모른다네요.
군 경이 돌아섰구요, 그 촉매는 의회의 탄핵과 민중들의 시위 및 2사람의 사망 등이었던 것 같습니다.
저번 사회포럼때 만난 프랑스 철학자 라비카는 챠베스의 예를 들면서 남미는 군인들 일부가 신자주의에 반대하는 민중들과 함께 하고 있다는 이야기를 하던데 에콰도르에도 그런 군인들이 있는지 모르겠네요.
저번 사회포럼 때 에콰도르 농민운동가들(유명한 원주민농민 조직인 코나이와는 다른 농민조직 출신) 3사람을 만났는데 이들도 이번 싸움에 가담을 했을 것이라 생각하니 기분이 묘하네요. 당시 이들은 자국내 운동에 대해 매우 자신감이 있어 보였습니다.
암튼 이번 투쟁은 민중들이 확실히 사태를 장악했으면 합니다.
아 참 이 사람이 브라질 대사관으로 피신해 있다네요. 브라질은 망명을 받아들일 것이라네요. 군대에 데모진압을 명령했다고 해서 체포영장이 발부된 사람인데 룰라정부 참 거시기하네요.
OGOTÁ, Colombia, April 20 - President Lucio Gutiérrez of Ecuador fled his presidential palace on Wednesday after the Congress, meeting in special session, voted to remove him. The Congress then swore in Vice President Alfredo Palacio, a 66-year-old cardiologist, to replace Mr. Gutiérrez, 48, a former army colonel who had faced mounting street protests against what critics called an illegal overhaul of the Supreme Court.
Advertisement | |
Mr. Gutiérrez, who took office in January 2003, became the third president since 1997 to be ousted from power in the small but oil-rich Andean country, which has close economic ties to the United States. In 1997, Abdalá Bucaram was declared mentally unfit to govern and fled into exile. In 2000, President Jamil Mahuad was ousted in a coup supported by Mr. Gutiérrez, then an army colonel.
Ecuadorean protesters accused all three of corruption, mismanagement and a strong-arm governing style.
"Today, the dictatorship, the immorality, the arrogance and the fear have ended," Dr. Palacio said in a speech broadcast on Colombia's Caracol radio network. "From today, we will restore a republic with a government of the people."
Dr. Palacio did not say whether he would call new elections. It was also not clear if the majority of Congress and the Ecuadorean public would support him as he tries to steer the country out of paralysis. Ecuador does not have a Supreme Court - the Congress disbanded it on Sunday - and its myriad political parties are bitterly divided.
"Logic would have it that Palacio would stay the year and a half that remains, organize elections and construct the judicial system," said Adrián Bonilla, a political analyst in Quito, the capital.
Mr. Gutiérrez fled the presidential palace in a military helicopter, infuriating protesters who assumed he would flee the country, as have other former leaders. Demonstrators then closed down Quito's international airport to prevent his escape, while the attorney general's office announced that a warrant had been issued for his arrest for having ordered troops to use violence to put down anti-government demonstrations.
But Wednesday evening, Brazil issued a statement saying that Mr. Gutiérrez was in that country's embassy in Quito and that the Foreign Ministry was making the necessary arrangements to grant him asylum.
Mr. Gutiérrez, who had run for president as a populist friend of the poor, lost much of his public support almost as soon as he took office. Ecuadoreans were increasingly dissatisfied with his austere economic policies, which had produced a 6 percent growth rate in 2004 but also hardships for ordinary citizens.
But it was Mr. Gutiérrez's role in twice dismissing the Supreme Court, most recently last Friday, that helped create a firestorm he could not survive. An interim court installed by Mr. Gutiérrez's allies had cleared former President Bucaram of corruption charges, permitting his return to Quito earlier this month.
Protests picked up momentum on April 13, with demonstrators accusing Mr. Gutiérrez of a power grab. In Quito, where the protests began, a small FM radio station, La Luna, marshaled people for daily anti-government rallies. "I feel like we lit a fuse and that there was so much repressed anger that it just kept burning," said Ramiro Pozo, the news director at La Luna.
On Wednesday, anti-government lawmakers voted to end Mr. Gutiérrez's term based on a vague article in the Constitution that permits a president's removal for "abandonment of the post." The congressmen said that by disbanding the Supreme Court and calling for a state of emergency on Friday the president had violated the Constitution.
The president had insisted to reporters that he would not resign, but on Wednesday his political situation became untenable after the military withdrew its support. At a news conference, Gen. Víctor Hugo Rosero, head of the armed forces, said the military could not "remain indifferent before the pronouncements of the Ecuadorean people." Then the head of the national police force, Gen. Jorge Poveda, also resigned, saying, "I cannot continue to be a witness to the confrontation with the Ecuadorean people."
The police chief was referring to protests that turned violent Tuesday night as tens of thousands of protesters clashed with security forces, who used tear gas and high-pressure water hoses to disperse them. International radio reports said that two people had been killed, including a foreign news photographer.
Opposition members of Congress had been trying to oust Mr. Gutiérrez since late last year, accusing him of corruption and nepotism. In November, they failed to muster enough votes to impeach him. Mr. Gutiérrez had bested his opponents with the support of the Roldosista party, led by Mr. Bucaram, who had been in exile avoiding corruption charges since his ouster.
In return for Roldosista support, government opponents said, Mr. Gutiérrez's allies in Congress disbanded the Supreme Court and named a new one that, in March, cleared Mr. Bucaram. Mr. Bucaram was also being sought Wednesday night.
Carla D'Nan Bass in Quito and Mónica Trujillo in Bogotá contributed reporting for this article.
국민일보(3월 24일) 청탁으로 썼습니다. 민주노총 이상학 정책연구원장과 찬반토론 형식의 기고였습니다. 그런데 신문에서는 제목이 달라졌더라구요. 물론 기자로부터 양해바란다는 이야기는 없었지요. 그럼...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
신자유주의 아래서 사회적 합의주의는 불가능하다
민주노총은 사회적 교섭 안건을 두고 두 차례 커다란 홍역을 치른 바 있다. 현재 민주노총은 위원장 직권으로 작년 말 이후 계속 불참해 온 노사정 대화를 제의해 놓고 있다. 민주노총의 언명과는 달리 민주노총은 일정한 사회적 합의주의를 추구하고 있는 것으로 보인다.
나는 어떤 노조 중앙조직이 사회적 합의주의를 통해 조합원 전체의, 더 나아간다면 비조합원까지 포함하는 전 노동자의 정치경제적 사회문화적 지위를 개선시킬 수만 있다면 그 길을 선택할 수도 있을 것이라고 생각한다. 그러나 이것은 현재 불가능한 프로젝트라고 본다. 사실 사회적 합의주의를 통해 조합원의 지위를 개선시킨 사례는 그리 흔하지 않다. 5-60년대 자본주의 황금기 시기 서유럽 정도에서 그런 사례가 발견되지 않나 싶다. 그리고 이것도 높은 경제성장률 등의 조건 때문에 가능했던 것이지 사회적 교섭 틀 구성이 주 원인은 아니었던 것으로 파악한다. 그 이외의 시기 혹은 지역에서도 지속적으로 사회적 합의주의는 노조에 의해서 추구되었는데 이는 거의 실패했다. 교섭테이블이 노조간부들의 입신양명의 수단이 되었는지는 모르겠으나, 조합원들의 이익을 침해하는 양보교섭 또는 노동자들에게 그 이익이 전혀 돌아오지 않는 생산성협약이 있었을 뿐이다. 그리고 이를 받아들이지 않고 뒤늦게 투쟁을 조직하려다 실패하여 조직이 분열에 휩싸이거나 약화된 경우도 비일비재하다. 비단 이는 다른 나라 이야기가 아니다. 김영삼 정권 이래 추구된 민주노총의 사회적 합의주의 추구의 실상은 정확히 이를 증언해 주고 있다.
사실 이렇게 진정한 사회적 합의주의가 불가능하게 된 이유는 70년대 이래 지속되고 있는 세계경제의 구조적 위기(과잉축적과 이윤율 저하) 그리고 이를 극복하겠다고 나선 신자유주의 정책 때문이라 하겠다. 신자유주의는 이윤율 회복을 위해, 이윤추구에 방해가 되는 노동의 권리, 환경에 대한 권리, 여성의 권리, 개도국의 발전에 대한 권리를 철저히 공격한다. 여기서 노조는 노동시장을 왜곡하는 제도이고, 노동의 신축화는 지상명제가 된다. 노동자는 적자 때문이 아니라 더 많은 흑자를 위해 언제든지 해고가 가능해야 한다는 것이다. 이는 아이엠에프 위기 이후, 노무현 정부에 들어서서는 더욱 강화된 정부와 자본의 논리이다. 특별히 대사업장 정규직에 대한 공격은 역대 어느 정부보다 심한데, 노무현 대통령은 당선되자마자 정규직 해고가 더 자유로워져야 한다, 그것이 경제를 살리는 길이라고 했다.
이런 신자유주의적 처방이 경제를 되살려 일시적으로 해고된 노동자들을 더 튼튼한 일자리에 다시 복귀시키고 임금도 더 많이 지불하고 있는가? 전혀 그렇지 않다. ‘유일사상’으로 떠받들어진 신자유주의는 경제위기를 극복하기는커녕 세계를 금융자본의 투기판으로 만들어버린 지 오래다. 구조조정은 일상화되었지만 투자는 억제되고 있고, 거대한 투기거품이 만들어졌다가 붕괴하기도 하고, 일국 안에서나 세계적으로 부익부 빈익빈 현상만 심화되고 있다.
민주노총은 신자유주의자들로 변모한 우리사회의 소위 ‘개혁’세력들의 거짓 처방에 기대지 말고, 힘들지만 여성, 이주노동자 등 다양한 비정규직과의 아래로부터의 연대를 통해 자본에 대한 통제와 모든 노동자의 노동권 확보라는 전혀 새로운 길을 개척해 나가야 할 것이다. 민주노총에겐 사회적 합의주의 때문에 멈칫거릴 여유가 없다.
our years ago, Alan Greenspan urged Congress to cut taxes, asserting that the federal government was in imminent danger of paying off too much debt.
On Wednesday the Fed chairman warned Congress of the opposite fiscal danger: he asserted that there would be large budget deficits for the foreseeable future, leading to an unsustainable rise in federal debt. But he counseled against reversing the tax cuts, calling instead for cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
Does anyone still take Mr. Greenspan's pose as a nonpartisan font of wisdom seriously?
When Mr. Greenspan made his contorted argument for tax cuts back in 2001, his reputation made it hard for many observers to admit the obvious: he was mainly looking for some way to do the Bush administration a political favor. But there's no reason to be taken in by his equally weak, contorted argument against reversing those cuts today.
To put Mr. Greenspan's game of fiscal three-card monte in perspective, remember that the push for Social Security privatization is only part of the right's strategy for dismantling the New Deal and the Great Society. The other big piece of that strategy is the use of tax cuts to "starve the beast."
Until the 1970's conservatives tended to be open about their disdain for Social Security and Medicare. But honesty was bad politics, because voters value those programs.
So conservative intellectuals proposed a bait-and-switch strategy: First, advocate tax cuts, using whatever tactics you think may work - supply-side economics, inflated budget projections, whatever. Then use the resulting deficits to argue for slashing government spending.
And that's the story of the last four years. In 2001, President Bush and Mr. Greenspan justified tax cuts with sunny predictions that the budget would remain comfortably in surplus. But Mr. Bush's advisers knew that the tax cuts would probably cause budget problems, and welcomed the prospect.
In fact, Mr. Bush celebrated the budget's initial slide into deficit. In the summer of 2001 he called plunging federal revenue "incredibly positive news" because it would "put a straitjacket" on federal spending.
To keep that straitjacket on, however, those who sold tax cuts with the assurance that they were easily affordable must convince the public that the cuts can't be reversed now that those assurances have proved false. And Mr. Greenspan has once again tried to come to the president's aid, insisting this week that we should deal with deficits "primarily, if not wholly," by slashing Social Security and Medicare because tax increases would "pose significant risks to economic growth."
Really? America prospered for half a century under a level of federal taxes higher than the one we face today. According to the administration's own estimates, Mr. Bush's second term will see the lowest tax take as a percentage of G.D.P. since the Truman administration. And don't forget that President Clinton's 1993 tax increase ushered in an economic boom. Why, exactly, are tax increases out of the question?
O.K., enough about Mr. Greenspan. The real news is the growing evidence that the political theory behind the Bush tax cuts was as wrong as the economic theory.
According to starve-the-beast doctrine, right-wing politicians can use the big deficits generated by tax cuts as an excuse to slash social insurance programs. Mr. Bush's advisers thought that it would prove especially easy to sell benefit cuts in the context of Social Security privatization because the president could pretend that a plan that sharply cut benefits would actually be good for workers.
But the theory isn't working. As soon as voters heard that privatization would involve benefit cuts, support for Social Security "reform" plunged. Another sign of the theory's falsity: across the nation, Republican governors, finding that voters really want adequate public services, are talking about tax increases.
The best bet now is that Mr. Bush will manage to make the poor suffer, but fail to make a dent in the great middle-class entitlement programs.
And the consequence of the failure of the starve-the-beast theory is a looming fiscal crisis - Mr. Greenspan isn't wrong about that. The middle class won't give up programs that are essential to its financial security; the right won't give up tax cuts that it sold on false pretenses. The only question now is when foreign investors, who have financed our deficits so far, will decide to pull the plug.
E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com
전국민중연대 정광훈 의장, 전국여성농민회총연합 윤금순 회장과 상파울로에서 열리는 비아캄페시나(농민의 길: 세계 소농운동조직) 브라질 조직인 땅없는 농업노동자들, 즉 MST가 주최하는 "활동가 정치교육"이라는 사전 세미나에 참가하고, 이후 세계사회포럼 본행사에 참여할 예정이다. MST 주최 행사에는 맑스주의 고증사전을 편집했다는 죠르주 라비카와 칠레 출신으로 쿠바에 망명해 있는 마르크수주의자 마르타 아르네케르(이 분이 지은 역사유물론 관련 책은 남미 전역에서 100만부 이상이 팔렸다고 한다)도 발제자로 참여한다고 한다. 인터뷰를 해 볼 참이다.
본 행사에서도 구석구석 잘 살펴보렵니다.
국내에서도 부시취임반대 투쟁, 현자 불파 투쟁, 민주노총 대의원대회 등 주요 일정이 있는데, 그리고 내가 속한 조직(노기연, 사회진보연대)에서도 평가 및 계획 토론이 진행되고 있는데 이런 일정을 전부 빠지면서 장기 해외출장을 하게 되어 마음 한켠이 무겁다.
허나 비아캄페시나 및 국내 농민조직과 맺은 작은 인연을 외면할 수도, 어떻든 소동구 붕괴 이후 세계적인 변혁(?)운동의 새로운 부활의 상징으로 되고 있는 사회포럼을 무시할 수도 없는 노릇.
브라질 가서 많은 것을 얻고 돌아와서는 밀린 일 열심히 해야겠다는 결의를 다져본다. 그리고 같이 가는 한국동지들과도 진지한 토론을 해봤으면 좋겠다.
암튼 사회포럼을 이런 저런 인연으로 많이(5차례 중 4번) 참가하게 되었는데, 무언가 그럴 듯한 보고서를 내야한다는 강박감도 있는데... 글쎄 잘 될지...
그럼 혹 여기를 들릴 몇안되는 분들,
돌아와서 뵙겠습니다. 혹 인터넷 환경이 좋고 여유가 있으면 여기에 글을 좀 끄적거릴 수도 있겠지요. 허나 워낙 글에 순발력이 없어서...
한편 필리핀 공산당이 월든 벨로 등 출신 사회포럼에 주도적으로 참여하는 몇몇 필리핀 인사들을 '반혁명분자'로 올렸고, 이는 암살명부라는 이야기들이 떠돌며 사회포럼이 어수선하게 시작되고 있어 분위기가 영 좀 그렇네요.
그럼 진짜로 안녕히...
부시의 외교정책이 후퇴를 할 것이고, 군부-니오콘은 약화될 것이고, 이라크에서 선거로 새정부(알 하킴이 수상이 될 것?)가 세워진다고 해도 민족주의적 성향을 보일 것이고, 부시는 북한 이란 등에 대해서도 암묵적으로 무능을 인정했고, 쿠바 러시아 중국 등과 대립각을 세울 수도 없을 것이고, 이런 상황에서 영리하고 원칙에 충실하지 않는 부시는 불리한 게임을 하려 하지 않을 것이다, 그래서 미국헤게모니의 약화의 공백을 여러 준비되지 않은 세력들의 불안정한 경쟁이 채울 것이다, 부시가 2001년 집권했을 때 미국은 이미 헤게모니가 약화하고 있었고 부시정부는 이를 더욱 악화시켰는데 부시 2기는 이 어리석은 정책의 부정적인 결과를 감수해야 할 것이라는 취지의 글이네요.
미국과 부시의 후퇴를 너무 쉽게 예측하고 있는 것은 아닌가 하는 생각이 드네요. 헤게모니 후퇴를 막기 위한 미국이나 부시정부의 강공과 온갖 무리수가 동원될 수도 있지 않을까요? 힘센놈들은 무리수인줄 알면서도 무리수를 쓰기도 하잖아요. 거함은 쉽게 가라않지 않을 거란 이야기죠. 암튼 참고하십시요.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment No. 152, January 1, 2005
"Bush and the World: The Second Term"
George W. Bush has been reelected for a second term of four years. It is rather certain what policy he will pursue on the U.S. domestic scene, since he has announced it clearly. He will push for further tax cuts. He will seek to privatize as much of the social security system as he can. He will appoint only judges who will reflect his conservative values, both on economic and social matters. He will seek to dismantle as much environmental legislation as possible. He will seek to strengthen the authority of the government in all police investigations and prosecutions. In short, he will pursue a classic rightwing agenda.
What remains much more obscure is what he intends to do in foreign policy, and this for one very simple reason. On the one hand, during his first term his administration committed itself strongly to a particular foreign policy - that of unilateral pre-emptive action whenever and wherever it felt like. On the other hand, this foreign policy has not been very successful, not only in the eyes of its critics at home and elsewhere in the world, but even in the eyes of many of its faithful supporters. There is turmoil in the ranks of the Bush partisans, which can be observed in the recent flurry of demands by certain major conservative figures for the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld combined with the immediate support Rumsfeld received from others, including the president himself. Rumsfeld simply exemplifies these policies.
What can we expect now? There are actually two questions here. Will the second Bush administration pursue the identical foreign policy as the first? And, to the extent that it changes, how will the rest of the world react?
The most immediate question is Iraq. The number one political priority of the U.S., as we enter 2005, is holding Iraqi elections in the end of January. But why is this so important? In the first place, it is important to the U.S. in order to show that these elections can be held at all, despite the attacks of the insurgents. Secondly, it is important because the U.S. fears that, if they weren't held, they would be blamed by the Ayatollah al-Sistani, who might then shift his position from one of prudent distance from the U.S. to one of active hostility. Thirdly, it is important because the U.S. hopes to be able to shift the political/military battle in Iraq from one in which it is Iraqi insurgents versus the U.S. to one in which it is Iraqi insurgents versus a legitimate elected Iraqi government. But fourthly, it is important because it is seen as the essential prerequisite to a reduction of the number of the U.S. troops in Iraq. Of course, there are others who also anxiously want these elections - the interim Iraqi government and the mainstream Shia parties in particular.
So, elections will almost certainly be held - amidst continuing and probably escalating violence and amidst a high rate of abstentionism, especially in Sunni areas. But what will happen then? We shall probably see a new government with Ayatollah Sayed al-Hakim, the leader of the main Shia party (SCIRI), as Prime Minister. Depending on how the elections actually go and the behavior of al-Hakim, this government may or may not start with some minimal acceptance as a national government. The insurgency will almost surely continue, however, charging that the new government is a U.S. puppet. And the new Iraqi government will sooner or later have to choose between continuing to pursue the overtly pro-American policy of Iyad Allawi and adopting a nationalist line more consonant with the demands of the Iraqi people. One does not have to be a Middle East expert to suspect that sooner or later the new Iraqi government will opt to be more nationalist, in order first of all to be more legitimate.
The pressure on the U.S. to withdraw its troops will then be coming from three sides: from the insurgents, from the new Iraqi government, and from public opinion at home. Within the U.S., all the polls indicate that more and more people feel that the price the U.S. is paying in soldiers killed and wounded and in the costs of war are simply too high. The U.S. is at the beginning of an isolationalist reaction. And since isolationism has always had a strong hold within the Republican party, we shall begin to see the president's own supporters pushing for troop withdrawal.
There is no doubt that there are others within the Bush administration such as the militarists and the neo-cons - the two are not identical, by any means - who will fight this tendency bitterly. But this camp is much weaker than it was in 2003. So we may get a big swing in U.S. foreign policy. What we will not get is the modulated middle position of "multilateralism" dear to the heart of Colin Powell and to the first President Bush's advisors like Brent Scowcroft, and dear as well to the leaders of the more conservative wing of the Democratic Party (such as Senators Biden and Lieberman).
What happens vis-a-vis Iraq will presage all the rest of the Bush foreign policy. It is already the case that Bush has pulled back on North Korea and Iran to a position of tacit recognition of impotence. The Bush team is huffing and puffing, but they know there is very little they can do. They would be happy to see renewed negotiations between Israel and Palestine, which Blair is trying his best to push, but the U.S. will merely go along with such developments rather than be their prime promoter. These renewed negotiations are in any case not likely to go very far. And, in that case, the laid-back position of the Bush administration will protect it from too much internal U.S. damage.
Looking around the world, where can Bush act now? In Cuba? He'd like to, no doubt. But today we have state officials in Alabama (the heart of Bush country) saying that if they don't sell chickens to Cuba, Brazil will, and adding that the government's restrictions on trade with Cuba are an unjustified sop to the Cuban exiles in Florida. There is no sign of any serious support within the U.S. for a Cuban adventure. In Russia? We have just seen how, even though the Ukrainian elections have caused a very bad press for Putin in the United States, nonetheless Bush went out of his way to indicate that the U.S. will continue to work with Putin. In China? The economic interests of the United States preclude anything hostile, despite the uneasiness the Bush administration has with China's increased political role in Asia. In Europe? Even Rumsfeld's "new Europe" is beginning slowly to desert the U.S. In short, Bush does not have many options available to him. And since Bush is a canny and very unprincipled politician, he will not want to play in a game in which the odds are so heavily against him.
And how will the world react to a de facto pulling inward -both militarily and economically - of the U.S.? One can expect that, after an initial period of caution, everyone will try to take advantage of this new display of U.S. geopolitical weakness. The problem is that, once the U.S. presence in the world is reduced, it is like removing an elephant from the living room. No one is quite sure how to fill the space. And it is probably the case that no one has a fully prepared set of policies for such a situation. So there will be much unsure jostling among all the other geopolitical players. The U.S. was already a declining hegemonic power when Bush came to power in 2001. In seeking to restore the U.S. world position in his first four years of power, Bush actually made the situation much worse for the U.S. The U.S. (and Bush) will reap the harvest of his folly in the second term.
by Immanuel Wallerstein
댓글 목록
자일리톨
관리 메뉴
본문
어딜가나 자영농과 자영업자를 노동자의 처지로 만들어버리는 것이 자유무역이라는 이름으로 행해지고 있는 것 같습니다. 너무 마음이 아프네요.부가 정보