
© Ricardo Rojas/ReutersEcuadorian Foreign Minister Guillaume Long
Latin America is not necessarily the poorest continent in the world, but it is the most unequal and damage caused by neoliberalism is largely to blame, Guillaume Long the Foreign Minister of Ecuador told RT's Chris Hedges.
RT: Ten years ago we saw the rise in Argentina, Venezuela, Brazil, etc. challenging free trade agreements, pushing through social programs, and so on. That was a moment of hope, when many thought that they have broken free from the chains of American imperialism and corporate power. Could you describe that moment, what they did?Guillaume Long: We have to start from the terrible damage caused by neoliberalism in Latin America, particularly in 1980's and 1990's. Neoliberalism in the US is sometimes called deregulation. I think neoliberalism is more complete, because there is an ideological component of it. Neoliberalism was very harmful to Latin America. It started with [Augusto] Pinochet in the 1970's, and then in the 1980's democratization in Latin America was permitted, because the Cold War was won, but it was conditioned on economically towing the line of the neoliberal ideology, and it was terrible.
Neoliberalism, I would argue from my left-wing perspective, is bad in most contexts: it has been bad in Europe, in another parts of the world; it has kind of dismantled the welfare state. But in a context where you already have a weak state, where institutions are not really consolidated with a kind of strong feudal remnants, such as in Latin America, where you don't have a strong social contract with institutions, with modernity -
neoliberalism just shatters any kind of social pact. And it meant more poverty, more inequality, huge wave of political instability.
Comment: Maloof makes a number of excuses for the United States under the cover of criticism. It should be quite apparent that the US was never interested in negotiation, diplomacy, or sincere talks about Syria. Russia has pushed for talks over and over again, only to be met with obfuscation, stalling, and even craven violence. There has been no change in policy. The US wants what it has always wanted in Syria: chaos and collapse. The question many have now is how far they are willing to go. They will likely follow the same course they have for decades, which would not be to directly engage in a 'hot war' but to continue pushing the boundaries through covert and cowardly maneuvers.