Mulham Assir discusses the emergence of calls for unity in South America, and finds parallels with previous continental unification movements Revolutionary ideals animating wide national or social movements that are imperfectly realised or thwarted in one generation seem to die down in the following generation, only to resurface in the next. Some offspring often resemble their grandparents more than their parents. The anti-colonialist liberation movements of the late 1950s and 1960s in Africa and the Middle East, the anti-war and civil rights activism of the youth in Europe and America are such examples. The rest of the 20th century seemed to have sunk in torpor and slumber, overcome by apathy, consumerism, greed and loss of hope. Nasser's dream of pan-Arab unity to oppose Anglo- American imperialism and its offspring, the Israeli settler- colonialist occupation of Palestine, lit a spark that set the whole "Arab street" on fire from Cairo to Casablanca, Damascus and Baghdad. As wide as it was at the street level, it was rather thin at the top: largely the burden of one man with an enormous visionary dream, beset by regional rivalries and blocked by the colossal might of the colonialist powers that, unlike the Arab leadership, did set aside their differences and power squabbles to unite against this threat to their dominance. But two generations later, the same causes and similar conditions engender the same effect: a call to unity again, across state boundaries, against imperialist power. Not in Arabic. Not yet. A revolutionary tide is gathering in South America, characterised by social reforms promulgated from the top by democratically elected leaders brought to power by popular movements, and by manifestations of increased independence from the giant in the northern continent. In Bolivia they call it "a new page in our history". In Washington they call it defiance. The "Latin street," ahead of its leaders like all "streets," has long been protesting the devastating economic effects of the onerous IMF loans, the depredations of the multi-national corporations operating in Latin America like robber barons in tandem with the local oligarchies, the savage repression of human rights by various extreme right regimes installed by coups backed by the CIA and the death squads trained at the School of the Americas (SOA) in Fort Benning, Georgia. Venezuela, Uruguay and Argentina have taken the step of cutting all ties with the SOA and the product it sells: terror and repression. Bolivia and Chile followed suit. The democratic election of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez -- regional nemesis of the White House -- might have seemed an isolated exception before the landslide victory of Evo Morales in Bolivia and of Chile's Michelle Bachelet (whose father died in prison after being tortured under Pinochet's regime, installed by a CIA-backed coup). Morales is the first indigenous president in Bolivia, a country whose indigenous "Indios" comprise more than 60 per cent of the population. His landslide victory is all the more resounding when examined against the competition. Morales, a man of humble roots and scant education, was the candidate of the Movement towards Socialism (MAS), the party opposed to the "neoliberalism" that had impoverished the already poor and whose candidate was Jorge Quiroga, a former Bolivian president, IBM executive and Texas A&M University graduate, strongly supported by Washington and the corporate interests. Both Chavez and Morales embarked upon ambitious, sweeping plans of internal reform and reconfiguration of external alliances, all meant to alleviate poverty, democratise participation in the political process, and at the same time decrease their countries' political and economic domination by foreign, notably US domination. The reforms underway, as well as the announced plans, are revolutionary and too many to mention briefly, from the increased royalties favourable to Venezuela imposed on the multinational energy companies and meant to "re-nationalise" the oil industry, which led to Exxon's selling its shares in 32 oil fields and leaving the country, Morales' plan for the nationalisation of the natural gas industry in Bolivia, Argentina and Venezuela's agreement on a gas pipeline envisioned as a tool to provide energy, "to all of South America for the next 200 years". It is not a pipe dream only: Venezuela is the world's fifth largest oil producer and Bolivia has the second largest energy reserves in Latin America. With Venezuela joining Mercosur (the free trade agreement between South American countries), the US-sponsored Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) gains one additional opponent. Morales is on record calling FTAA "an agreement to legalise the colonisation of the Americas". In Peru, Ollanta Humala, another "anti-globalisation" leader made major gains in the presidential elections. These expressions of sovereignty, seen as defiance by Washington, are met with blackmail. For one we had the non-delivery of spare parts for US-made aircraft to Venezuela. On the other hand, we witnessed veiled threats of punishment to Bolivia, like Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's statements in an interview with CNN: "Will the new Bolivian government have a democratic behaviour? Will it be ready to have good relations and maintain the economic aid it receives?" South American uppity presidents have already found alternatives to the pricey US largesse, as seen in their increased contacts and new trading partnerships with Spain (aircraft and patrol boat deal already concluded), Russia, China and many others. It is naïve to expect that the US and the multinational interests will go away gently into the night. The veiled threats will become naked interference, even aggression, all under the guise of safeguarding "democracy". Newly minted propaganda phrases are already being tried out, as heard when Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Charles Shapiro said about Bolivia's Morales, "It would not be welcome news in Washington to see the increasingly belligerent Cuban-Venezuelan combo become a trio." It sounds like a new "axis of evil" is being cooked up to be served with a side of necessary regime change to "liberate" the South Americans. If only they were Muslim -- but you can't have everything. Among all the South American changes of direction, however, one stands up above all others and should be the most worrisome to the US: the call for a united South America. "We Bolivians have endorsed change and the rebuilding of Bolivia, and we cannot betray the hope that is not only national, but continental, for the construction of [Bolivar's] big homeland, which is also a worldwide hope," said Morales. Statements like these cannot be received with indifference in Washington, particularly when they are endorsed by Chavez, who said not only that a union is the sole solution to stop the US from "eating us up one by one," but also that "higher levels of freedom could only be attained via South American integration". Although it comes from the top (both Chavez and Morales have articulated it clearly), the call for transnational unity has a large echo among their people and deep roots. These are peoples who have a common culture, language (except for Brazil), majority religion, geographical contiguity or proximity, and a shared centuries-old history of foreign colonial exploitation and domination. The newly-elected South American leaders can count on the support of their people whose mandate they have won so decisively; it is important for them to be able to count on each other in the interests of unity, to forego ego temptations and to reject the foreign hatched plots to divide them, which are sure to come. The lessons of the trajectory of Nasserism should not be lost on the South Americans. Nothing is more threatening to the transnational corporatist powers than a strong transnational opposition of the dominated peoples. Therefore divisions among them -- ethnic, religious, tribal, political -- are the best levers of crushing and dismantling such movements. Offers of support extended to factions against "unionists" are poisoned gifts to be rejected.
