<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<h2 class="entry-title"><a
href="http://whiterosereader.org/2013/02/12/correa-and-ecuadors-left-an-interview-with-marc-becker/"
title="Permalink to Correa and Ecuador’s Left: An Interview with Marc Becker"
rel="bookmark">Correa and Ecuador’s Left: An Interview with Marc Becker</a></h2>
<div class="entry-meta"> <span class="meta-prep meta-prep-author">Posted
on</span> <a
href="http://whiterosereader.org/2013/02/12/correa-and-ecuadors-left-an-interview-with-marc-becker/"
title="5:06 pm" rel="bookmark"><span class="entry-date">February 12,
2013</span></a> <span class="by-author"><span class="sep">by</span> <span
class="author vcard"><a class="url fn n"
href="http://whiterosereader.org/author/kenklippenstein/"
title="View all posts by kenklippenstein" rel="author">kenklippenstein</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://whiterosereader.org/">http://whiterosereader.org/</a><br>
</span> </span> </div>
<p><i>Marc Becker is an associate professor of Latin American Studies
at Truman State University. He has worked with indigenous movements
and has written widely on social and indigenous movements in Latin
America. He is the cofounder of Nativeweb, an educational
organization dedicated to using technology to disseminate information
from and about indigenous issues and foster communication between
native and non-native peoples. </i></p>
<p><strong>Paul Gottinger:</strong> In the US Rafael Correa is
portrayed as a leftist, but in Ecuador some of the Indigenous movements
and other leftist social forces accuse him of implementing neoliberal
policies. How would you characterize his policies?</p>
<p><strong>Marc Becker:</strong> I’ve long worked with leftist
indigenous movements in Latin America, so in a lot of these issues I
follow along with their interpretations. But, calling Rafael Correa a
neoliberal is maybe an overstatement, or a bit polemical. A better
question is whether he has completely broken from the neoliberal
patterns. Correa presents himself as a leftist and the question here
is what exactly does he mean by that. A concern here is that he comes
out of a technocratic, academic, pragmatic left, rather than a social
movement-left. This is a distinction that some activists make. The
electoral-left versus a social movement-left.</p>
<p><strong>PG:</strong> How does Correa balance his image as a leftist
when has tried to implement water privatization, continues with oil
exploration and mining, and other policies similar to Ecuador’s
previous presidents? And how do these policies affect his relationship
with the indigenous communities and movements?</p>
<p><strong>MB:</strong> There are two different visions, that go back
for decades, and there is this indigenous critique that says the left
is part of the same old European forms of modernization that inform
capitalism. Correa is very much in that line. He embraces an
extractivist modernization type of mentality. Part of the problem
you’re seeing in Ecuador is that contradicts directly with what was
codified in the 2008 constitution, which was supposed to incorporate
indigenous sensibilities. This is particularly true in terms of
plurinationalism and <i>sumak kawsay</i> (the good life). This is
supposed to incorporate alternative visions of development and Correa
wants to see those exclusively on the levels of symbolic statements
rather than something that will be operationalized. That’s the problem
we’re seeing with the indigenous movements. They don’t see this as
something symbolic, but something that needs to be operationalized and
put into practice.</p>
<p><strong>PG:</strong> Are many of the indigenous movements
anti-development?</p>
<p><strong>MB:</strong> They would not say that and their allies would
not say that. The difference is talking about what’s sustainably and
what’s not sustainable. One place where it really struck me was at the
world social forum in 2005 in Porto Alegre, Brazil. Hugo Chavez came
and he gave a talk where for the first time he defined himself as a
socialist. He laid this out really clearly. He basically said he have
two paths that we can follow, socialism or death. If we continue to
follow along the capitalist framework we will destroy the planet. The
planet cannot sustain this extractivist, commodity based, development
at all cost mentality. It will lead to death. The other option is to
look for more sustainable ways of surviving. Chavez defined the
sustainable path with socialism. He’s saying we need to figure out a
better way to survive on this planet or we will destroy the planet and
human life as we know it. The indigenous critique is of this
development at all costs model that the Chinese and Correa are
following. So, its not anti-moderization, anti-development mentality.
It’s saying look there are more important things than modernization and
development at all costs if that going to end up destroying the world
in which we live. In a nutshell that’s what the <i>sumak kawsay</i>
is about. It’s saying how can we develop in a sustainable way. That’s
really the debate that is going on in Ecuador around mineral and
petroleum extraction and water usages. Is there alternative ways to
pursue these issues in a way that is sustainable and benefits
everybody? Rather than saying we are going to modernize our country
even if it ends up destroying it, which is what the indigenous left
accuses Correa of following.</p>
<p><strong>PG:</strong> How do you see Correa’s relationship to the
non-indigenous left in Ecuador? Is it substantially different than his
relationship to the indigenous left?</p>
<p><strong>MB:</strong> The people who seem to be most opposed to
Correa’s policies are what I would call the ‘center-left’. A social
democratic-left or moderate-left. For the most part I would group most
indigenous movements in to that category. I think it’s a mistake to
see the indigenous movements as separate from the broader political
phenomena in Latin America. That’s for a variety of reasons. The are
Indigenous movements and I use the plural intentionally because the
indigenous movements are not homogenous . There’s multiple positions
here. So, there’s not really an indigenous position. In the upcoming
elections on February 17 there is this conservative, evangelical
indigenous communities that will probably vote heavily for Lucio
Gutierrez the more conservative candidate, or what I would characterize
as the neoliberal candidate. There are also other wings of the
indigenous movement, particularly in the Amazon, that would be
characterized as anti-modernization and anti-development left. In the
groups that I work with there’s a dominant center left position that is
looking for how to develop Ecuador along the lines that benefit all of
Ecuador and not just the indigenous movements. In many ways the
argument would be that we’re not doing this just for indigenous
peoples, or even just Ecuador, but we’re doing this for the world as a
whole. The indigenous movements have become some of his strongest
opposition from the left because they have historically been the
best-organized sectors of Ecuador. There are also the remnants of what
I would call a Stalinist-left. That strongly supports Correa and these
are people who are Stalinists in the sense that they are advocating for
strong government structures as a way to solve problems. Correa is
providing, really for the first time, an example of somebody that is
making strong use of government structures in order to improve
society. A lot of his support comes from that part of the left. Then
there is another part, which I could call the technocratic-left, NGO-
left, academic-left. I wouldn’t say a lot of these people are
ideologically committed to a leftist agenda. They’re more a group of
people who are technocrats that are taking advantage of the government
that’s currently in power in order to position themselves into
positions of power. Some of these people who have positions of power
in Correa’s government have long been in government and have worked
with previous neoliberal governments. This is where Correa comes out
of. He’s never been part of the leftist political party, he’s never
been an activist, or involved in social struggles. He has the outlook
of how can we solve problems with technocratic solutions. The left
that is opposing the Stalinist and technocratic-left is a social
movement-left that is more committed to a participatory left. They are
committed to trying to mobilize people and involve people in political
processes. Some people see them as more of an anarchistic-left because
of their opposition to strong state structures and opposition to
authoritarianism. I don’t think in the Ecuadorian case it’s really
proper to characterize this segment of the left in that way. There are
some anarchistic tendencies there, but for the most part it’s not
really an anarchistic model similar to the Zapatistas in Chiapas. The
influences and ideas are a little bit different.</p>
<p><strong>PG:</strong> One thing that strikes me is how much
variation and how well-developed and dynamic the left is in Ecuador
when compared to the left in the US. Is this something that has always
been the case?</p>
<p><strong>MB:</strong> Its something that’s always been the case. My
research focuses on the 1920s and 1930s. A key moment is when the
socialist party is founded in Quito in 1926 because globally we see
three main trends in the left. The anarchist wing, like the Wobblies
(IWW). There’s the Marxist-left and a utopian-socialist-left. Marxism
states you need a class struggle between the workers and owners to
achieve socialism. Utopian-Socialism states socialism will magically
appear. These three tendencies form the modern-left and in Ecuador
there are two other tendencies which are strong influences here. One
is radical liberalism. These are people who break from 19<sup>th</sup>
century liberalism and are looking for more radical structural
solutions. In Ecuador there is strong presence of an indigenous left
that persists until the present. Its those five tendencies that formed
the Socialist Party in 1926 and for a moment they worked together, but
very quickly they broke apart. What’s interesting is that they didn’t
break apart along the same lines that they came together. In Ecuador
the communists and socialists fragmented over the idea whether this was
a national or international struggle. The Communists wanted to ally
with Communist International and the socialists didn’t want to adhere
to an international line. There was a third wing, which was a
vanguardist wing that was associated with military socialism. That’s
the type of trend that Hugo Chavez comes out of. Subsequently, those
three tendencies have fragmented along other lines. The communist-left
fragmented into pro-Soviet and pro-Chinese tendencies and parts of that
are still apparent. The socialists broke into three wings. A right,
left and center. You see this in Chile, for example, with Salvador
Allende. As a socialist he was to the left of the communists. That’s
the case in Ecuador as well. There was a revolutionary-socialist wing
that was more radical than the communist wing. The strongest and
best-organized wing of the indigenous movement was aligned with the
pro-Soviet/Stalinist wing of the communist party. That is probably
because of the structure that they brought to organizing patterns. So,
the current indigenous movements are influenced by this history. But,
for the most part the indigenous movements haven’t followed the
remnants of the Stalinist wing into support of the Correa
administration. There is very little indigenous presence in Correa’s
administration. There’s really a Western mentality that excludes
indigenous voices in the administration of the Ecuadorian state.</p>
<p><strong>PG:</strong> Ecuador has such a healthy left! There is so
much nuance and division where in the US the left is really scattered
by comparison.</p>
<p><strong>MB:</strong> People often lay out reasons why the US never
has as strong of a left as other places, but I don’t find any of the
usual excuses convincing. I think it’s a matter of what kind of world
we want to create. One thing I find really inspiring about studying
indigenous movements in Latin America, and social movements in general,
is the intelligence, determination, and willingness to create
alternative structures. The Correa administration very much emerges
out of this trend. There is always a danger in criticizing Correa if
it strengthens the common enemies on the right, particularly the
oligarchy. One way you see the mainstream indigenous movements in
Ecuador being very politically aware of this is that they will never
make alliances with oligarchical right against Correa because they want
to push Correa to the left and they don’t want to undermine their
historic left interests. This is something we see in the US as well.
How to we push Barak Obama to the left without strengthening the
right. It’s a common concern that faces the social movement-left when
confronting electoral politics and the inevitable compromises
politicians have to make.</p>
<p><strong>PG:</strong> What’s your guess at how Correa sees the
indigenous movements and the social forces to his left?</p>
<p><strong>MB:</strong> The Correa administration occupies political
and social spaces that indigenous movements previously occupied. He
appears to view them as a political opponent. He sees it as something
to combat. If you look at this as part of a broader phenomenon its not
at all unique. For example, in Chiapas, Mexico there’s a struggle
between subcomandante Marcos and Bishop Ruiz over who is going to lead
the masses. There’s a competition there. It’s not exactly the same as
in Ecuador, but it is a similar type of dynamic. The question is: are
the social movements going to set the agenda, or is Correa going to set
the agenda? In some ways Correa seems to see it as a zero sum game. I
don’t think it is the best way to see it. In the 2006 election when
Correa won. Pachakutik (the indigenous party) pulled 2%. This time it
looks like they’re on line to pull maybe about 5%. Correa says: this
is an insignificant percentage of the population and I don’t need to
bring it into my coalition as an electoral calculation to gain power.
In fact, my collogues in Ecuador say that since Correa was elected
there’s been an increase of racist incidents and racism in general.
This is a phenomenon we see elsewhere, like Columbia for example. The
indigenous movements are so well-organized that they gain political
space that exceeds their numerical representation in the country. In
the Ecuador there is a certain amount of resentment by non-indigenous
of indigenous for gaining political power and political space. It
appears that Correa plays the race card and plays into the latent
racist attitudes of the dominant population of white and mestizo
people. You see this in Correa’s rhetoric. He says very nasty things
about indigenous people, environmentalists, and what he terms
ultra-leftists. He seems to make these statements in order to shore up
his electoral support among other sectors of the population. It’s a
populist strategy to cement his electoral support rather than
mobilizing the population as a social movement. That’s what concerns a
lot of us.</p>
<p><b>PG: </b> Why is the indigenous left so well organized compared
to other sectors of the left in Ecuador?</p>
<p><b>MB: </b>Some of it is a matter of leadership, such as who
emerges and who is able to organize a sector of society. Part of it is
an economic and social context that provides a situation where you can
organize effectively. Part of it is a historical trajectory and
momentum. Part of it is the ability to make effective use of
discourse. There have been times where the indigenous movements have
made very good use of the nationalist discourse in order to mobilize
people. The nationalist discourse hasn’t been as effective at making
structural changes, or addressing class based issues. One of the
reasons why Ecuador’s indigenous movements have been so successful is
because they are able to intersect issues of racial discrimination with
class oppression. Weaving together multiple issues in a way that
imagines another world and that addresses oppression on a variety of
levels. So, there’s a series of practical, personal, ideological, and
economic conditions that converge and lead to these indigenous
organization.</p>
<p><strong>PG:</strong> How have Correa’s policies impacted the urban
poor and how have they impacted the rural or indigenous poor?</p>
<p><strong>MB:</strong> For the urban poor Correa’s policies have been
the best things. I would say Correa is the best president that Ecuador
has ever had. In ways that says more about the other presidents than
about Correa. In the history of the world I would say there are very
few presidents that have made really positive contributions to their
societies. So, it’s important to understand Correa’s policies in this
context. A lot of Correa’s policies have resulted in demonstrable
improvements for the urban poor. There are a couple criticisms
though. One is that there is human development bond, which is like
welfare payments. This was recently increased form $35 dollars a month
to $50. The social movement-left says: this is nothing more than
neoliberalism. This is just handouts rather than dealing with
structural problems in society. These types of polices play really
well in terms of bringing the urban poor into Correa’s coalition. The
social movement-left criticizes this as being a populist strategy.
This is a broader theme in Latin America where there is historically a
lot of tension between populists and Marxists. The populists are
appealing to the economic interests of the population that seemingly
should provide the base of support for a Marxist class based movement.
But, the populists use this rhetoric to supplant this. In Ecuador this
has historically been a problem. Correa has been far better about this
than past populists at using this discourse, these handouts, and these
policies in order to mobilize the electoral base. This is in contrast
to past presidents never doing anything to actually benefit the
people. I think this is some of Correa’s longevity. He actually
follows through on welfare payments to the lower classes. While
poverty rates, inequality, extreme poverty, illiteracy, all of these
socio-economic indicators are moving in very positive directions in
terms of the urban poor. But, Correa’s policies are not having that
impact among the rural poor. One interpretation is that Correa isn’t
interested in the rural poor because they provided the base of support
for the indigenous movements. These are his political opponents, so
why cater to them. Some people say it’s because of the demographic
shift and this is electoral calculation. In Ecuador, as is the rest of
the world, is becoming increasingly urbanized, so rural issues like
agrarian reform don’t have the electoral importance that they
previously had. The most recent numbers I’ve seen indicate that the
socio-economic indicators are improving in the countryside, while
initially they were going backwards. So, there may have been a lag
there.</p>
<p><strong>PG: </strong> How have indigenous and general left protests
move Correa’s policies to the left and what has been Correa’s response
to the protests?</p>
<p><strong>MB:</strong> For me this is really a key issue. This is
something that indigenous and social movements across Latin America
have faced. About 5 years ago the thinking really shifted. If we look
back at the neoliberal 90s the social movements always provided the
check against neoliberal policies. We see this in Ecuador where these
social movements have pulled down governments that were ruling against
their class interests. But, the problem is if you pull down a
government that ruled against your class interest and you don’t have a
positive alternative to implement, then a new neoliberal government
comes into place. This is what dragged social movements into the
electoral realm. There was a need to create a positive concrete
alternative. In the era of Guerilla warfare this wasn’t an issue. For
instance, in the Cuban revolution they organized a guerilla war and
overthrew the government and put themselves in power, but social
movements aren’t able to do that because they’re not organized along
that type of structure. About 5 years ago there emerged a common
slogan in the indigenous movements across the entire continent, which
was ‘From Protest to Proposal’. It was this idea that we’re no longer
protesting policies we disagree with, but we’re putting forward
concrete proposals. That’s been driving this. This has really been
frustrated in Ecuador. The social movements have provided checks on
implementing policy. If it weren’t for the social movements the Correa
administration would be farther right. In that way their results are
positive. But, to take an entirely different example there has been
languishing in the congress for two years or three years now a law to
reform the media system, which would open up more space for community
media. But, the legislation never gets passed. This is just one
specific example of how implementing legislation like that would really
benefit social movements and society in general by making it a more
participatory society. The proposal is supposed to divide the media
into 3 parts: the private media, state owned media, and community
media. The community media, in terms of creating participatory
governance is something that Ecuador is really missing and the social
movements are pushing for it. This is part of the problem with
Correa. He would have to give up control and he’s not willing to give
up that type of control over those structures.</p>
<p><strong>PG:</strong> Could you talk about the 2010 coup attempt
against Correa? Specifically who was responsible for it and to what
degree was police benefit reduction really behind it?</p>
<p><strong>MB:</strong> This is something that is going to be debated
forever because there is contradictory information that comes out.
There are different perspectives on what happened on September 30,
2010. It appears that it started as a police protest that got out of
hand. One interpretation of why it escalated is that Correa showed up
the barracks where the police where protesting and they weren’t
expecting that. So, some people blame him for putting democracy at
risk. There is a protest and the president goes wading into the middle
of it thinking he can calm them down. There is a conspiracy theory
that Correa engineered this in order to strengthen his political hand.
But, there’s no evidence for that. Though, Correa and the police did
come out of this strengthened. The police got what they wanted. One
of the main accusations against Correa at that time was that this
police benefit reduction was an example of his neoliberal governance.
Some of the Maoists in Ecuador made an alliance with the police saying:
the police are workers and we’re going to defend their interests as
workers. But, the part of the Maoists that came out in support of the
police was really criticized by other wings of the social movements.
The social movements stated that: historically the police are
oppressors and our class enemies and we’re not going to defend them.
If given the choice we’ll defend Correa and electoral democracy over
repressive aspects of state administrations. I alternate between
amused and bothered by how often the September 30 police protest gets
talked about more broadly in activist circles. Often, this is
simplistically represented as another example of US imperial over-reach
into Latin America. The curious thing about that is that throughout
this entire process Correa made very warm overtures to US Secretary of
State Hilary Clinton and US President Obama. Apparently, Obama called
Correa personally and said: we’re opposed to these moves against your
government. On the day of the alleged coup attempt Clinton made a
statement strongly supporting Correa. In the run up to the upcoming
February 17 election Correa has made statements that ‘Rogue elements in
the CIA are conspiring against his government’. This isn’t a direct
quote, but the gist of what he said is even though these are rogue
elements Barak Obama supports me. This incident simplistically gets
filtered into leftist activist circles as the US government opposes
Rafael Correa in Ecuador. Which isn’t at all what Correa is saying.
It leads to an interesting spin in Ecuador. Those on Correa’s left
accuse him of not being sufficiently anti-imperialist or even
sufficiently politically conscience of how the US would negotiate
against his government. What troubles me is that there is a really
ironic situation where the international anti-imperialist-left opposes
the Ecuadorian domestic anti-imperialist left, and where the Ecuadorian
anti-imperialist left opposes Correa because he’s not sufficiently
leftist.</p>
<p><strong>PG:</strong> So, in your opinion you don’t think the US had
anything to do with the coup attempt?</p>
<p><strong>MB:</strong> Rafael Correa is quite clear that he doesn’t
think that it is the case that the US president or the US secretary of
state was behind or supported the coup attempt. There is a whole
academic literature which talks about how Ecuador US relations are more
horizontal than they are in say Guatamala for example. This is outside
the US sphere of influence and the US doesn’t have strategic interests
there. International activists talk about the 2010 coup attempt being
payback for throwing out the US from MANTA air force base. I see
absolutely no evidence for that being the case. Correa said we’re not
renewing the base. The US just left. The US, from what I can tell,
recognized Ecuadorian sovereignty. This is not the same as the US
leaving Vieques in Puerto Rico for example. We’re in an entirely
different part of the world. There’s a different dynamic and different
situation. In fact, the MANTA base was on a ten year lease. There are
serious questions that when the agreement for the base was signed that
it was an illegal treaty entered into by the state of Ecuador. There
was a significant segment of the left who argued that the treaty needed
to be abrogated on Correa’s part and not just let lapse. They argue
that when he came to power he should have said this is an illegal
treaty and we need to stop it right now. He was in power for 2 years
and 2 months before he let the treaty lapse. The anti-imperialist-left
wanted to take a more aggressive stand against the United States
because Ecuador was forced to sign this treaty. They believed it was a
violation of not only Ecuadorian sovereignty, but of the legal
system. In comparison to that position Correa has taken a much more
pragmatic or moderate position then what his left opposition wants.</p>
<p><strong>PG:</strong> I’ve heard prominent writers on the left say
they believed the US was behind the September 30 coup attempt.</p>
<p><strong>MB:</strong> I’ve studied Ecuador for a long time and other
writers will extract things that they know to be true in other parts of
Latin America and apply them to Ecuador without understanding the
uniqueness of the Ecuadorian situation. Politically, I agree with
these writers and I appreciate their intent. But, if you look at it
from an academic prospective it simply doesn’t jive with what we know
about Ecuador’s history. There’s a long history here of the US
negotiating these types of things with Ecuador. There appears to be a
pattern where because Ecuador is a small, insignificant country it can
get away with things that larger countries, like Chile, for example, or
countries closer to the US, like Guatamala, couldn’t get away with.
People end up misunderstanding what’s happening in Ecuador because
they’re not familiar with the specifics of the situation in Ecuador.</p>
<p><strong>PG: </strong> How do you see Ecuador’s degree of
independence from the global financial powers?</p>
<p><strong>MB:</strong> That’s a really good question to raise and I
think this is why many of us have such ambivalent feelings. Correa has
done many, many good things, which is why I said he is the best
president Ecuador has ever had. This is particularly true in the area
of economic policy. He’s been great. The social movement-left that I
work with applauds a lot of these things. For instance, the way Correa
has dealt with the issues of debt crisis and increased taxation on oil
companies. Perhaps, part of this is logical because Correa is an
economist and he’s more capable of negotiating these issues than past
presidents were. This is true in terms of establishing autonomous and
South looking economic policies. So, on some issues Correa has been a
very strong leader. There are questions that I’ve never gotten
satisfactory answers to. One of them is: despite Hugo Chavez’ urging,
Correa was very slow to join ALBA (Bolivarian Alliance for the
Americas). It was never clear to me why he delayed it for so long and
why he did finally join ALBA when he did. Some people guess that this
was due to domestic and geopolitical considerations in terms of how
best to position himself. Again, this is often a leftist critique of
Correa. The left wishes he would more often take principled stances
rather than political opportune stands. There is a very important
critique to keep in mind of what some people call the ‘ultra-left’,
which is what people associate me with, which is that we live in the
real world and real life conditions need to be taken into account when
making these type of decisions. We can wish that Correa would always
make the type of positive policy decisions that he has in these
economic realms, but he’s constrained by broader macro conditions.
This has always been a problem for the left. Salvador Allende in Chile
said that we need to make haste slowly. There’s this idea that if you
move too quickly you get over thrown by the oligarchy and if you move
to slowly your social movement base gets upset with you and over throws
you. Correa is a good politician and so far he’s done a remarkably
good job negotiating between those political tensions.</p>
<p><strong>PG:</strong> How do you see Latin American integration
(things like ALBA) and general movement away from subservience to the
US affecting the region and its relationship to the US?</p>
<p><strong>MB:</strong> Many people say George W. Bush and the Iraq
war was the best thing to ever happen to Latin America because it
removed the US’ imperialist gaze and allowed a lot of these autonomous
developments to emerge. Ecuador has been a significant player in terms
of pushing forward some of these objectives. As I’ve said there’s
questions as to why Correa delayed joining ALBA, however in other ways
Ecuador has been at the forefront with UNASUR, which isn’t an
explicitly left leaning alliance, but which is building a South
American alliance separate from the United States. UNASUR is based in
Quito right now. With the September 30, 2010 police protest crisis in
Ecuador one thing that was a really positive and maturing step of the
whole political process was that the United States didn’t step in with
a solution. Instead regional groups like UNASUR took the lead and made
really clear statements that extra-constitutional changes in government
would not be acceptable here. It’s a really positive development that
these governments are able to solve their problems on their own. This
is not at all incidental that this maturation of international
structures has happened under left wing governments rather than pro-US
governments.</p>
<p><strong>PG:</strong> I wanted to ask you about something you often
here about in the US mainstream media and even with groups like
Committee to Protect Journalists, which is Correa’s attacks on media
freedom. How do you see this?</p>
<p><strong>MB: </strong> Personally, I think it’s a false issue. I
think it’s a conservative issue. A lot of the social movements are
more concerned with economic bread and butter and structural issues.
You have this case of this editorialist for <i>El Universo</i> who is
now sitting in Miami and claiming political repression. But, having
rich people go to Miami and whine about how they’ve been treated just
doesn’t gain much sympathy from a social movement-left. I think
there’s a real difference between liberals and leftists. Liberals
being concerned about individual freedoms, private property, and
capitalism. Leftists are concerned about structural issues and how
society is put together. This does influence the social movement-left
in terms of Correa’s growing authoritarianism and taking political
space away from them. This is particularly true if we look at
something like community media. But, the international press uses
these allegations about media freedom as a battering ram against
Ecuador’s left. Last January there was this concerted campaign of the
New York Times, and few other major papers in the US, which at almost
the same time published editorials against Correa’s alleged crack down
on press freedom. It seems to have been just a right wing attack.</p>
<p><strong>PG:</strong><b> </b>Why do you think Correa decided to
shelter Julian Assange?</p>
<p><strong>MB:</strong> Correa gave asylum to Julian Assange in August
of last year and in June of last year he pulled Ecuador out of the
school of the Americas, which is now called WHINSEC. When he did it he
said: I thought we had done this a long time ago. Coincidentally,
these issues played very well with the social movement left. This may
be an example of the left successfully pushing Correa left and him
doing something more so for principled reasons rather than broader
geo-political reasons. There’s little things like that the left should
really cheer the Correa administration.</p>
<p><strong>PG:</strong><b> </b>So, you don’t see it as direct
antagonism toward the US?</p>
<p><strong>MB:</strong> I don’t know. This goes back to the
beginnings of Hugo Chavez administration in Venezuela where his bark
was much worse than his bite. He would say really antagonistic things
against the US, but then never really do anything to follow through.
For example, cutting off oil supply to the US, though this has changed
a little bit now. The reason I frame it like that is because I don’t
know what Correa would have to gain by intentionally antagonizing the
US, when at the same time he claims to have such warm relations with
Obama and Clinton. This may be all political posturing, but this goes
back to September 30. If he’s relying on tacit US and Ecuadorian
military support, because those are the two that could most easily
remove him from power, other than the social movement left, then I
don’t see him having a reason to directly antagonize those power
players. So, something like this strikes me as more of a principled
stance. There have also been some really strong leftists in the
foreign ministry in Ecuador. It might be a result of leftist activists
and the foreign ministry trying to push Correa on these types of issues.</p>
<p><strong>PG:</strong><b> </b> Why is there this space in Latin
America where through so much of the 20<sup>th</sup> century even very
mildly left leaning governments would be over thrown by a US backed
coup?</p>
<p><strong>MB:</strong> It goes back to what I said before. Ten years
ago George W. Bush was distracted by the Iraq war and that opened the
space. Some people who watch international policy and foreign
relations much more closely than I do complain about Barak Obama being
more of the same and that his administration is not in favor of having
this space. So, its obviously not due to any gesture on the part of
the Obama administration. Taking a long-term view of history we know
empires don’t last forever. I might be wrong, but I’m just assuming
that we’re beginning to see the decline of the US empire. It’s no
longer hegemonic. During the Cold War some of its actions were held in
check by the Soviet Union and non-aligned movements saw that as a
positive thing because it created some space for the non-aligned
movement. But, even after the end of the cold war, where the US is
supposed to be hegemonic we see that it is not hegemonic and that there
are significant spaces here. Either we over estimate the imperial
reach of the US, or maybe that empire is coming to an end. From my
perspective its too early to be clear about what’s happening. But,
this is really foundational for world history. It’s really a watershed
moment and these are dramatic shifts in politics.</p>
<p><strong>PG:</strong> So, Correa is expected to win the upcoming
election on February 17. How do you see his policies changing and do
you think his focus will be?</p>
<p><strong>MB:</strong> I don’t know. I don’t do a good job at
forecasting the future. One quick observation that I think is worth
keeping in mind is that everybody assumes that Correa will win the
election. So, maybe he will. A bigger concern is whether he is going
to win control over the congress and if he doesn’t win control who is
going to have that balance of seats. If people to his left win a
controlling majority they will push Correa to the left. If
conservatives win a majority in congress Correa will be forced to
compromise with them and they will push his policies to the right.
There is this pattern in Ecuador of people splitting their tickets,
specifically in conservative areas. That means voting for Correa, the
populist at the top of the ticket and voting for right wing parties
farther down. That’s what’s been happening over the last couple
years. I think that’s a real danger. The presidency is just one
position and he may have to negotiate power with other power brokers.
I think that is a real concern because if we’re going to have a
revolution it needs to be thorough and through all sectors of society.
That seems to be where the limitations are. I think that’s an issue of
concern.</p>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
415 863.9977
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.freedomarchives.org">www.freedomarchives.org</a>
</div>
</body>
</html>