FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Ecuador’s Elections: Why National Sovereignty Matters

National sovereignty is an undervalued asset in today’s world, especially in the international media, where the views of Washington and its allies largely prevail. This is true with regard to economic as well as political issues, and its consequences can be quite heavy in a region like Latin America, long regarded by US officials as their “back yard.”

The election in Ecuador is being watched as well as contested by forces that have opposing views on this question. On the left, there is the presidential bid of former vice president Lenin Moreno, and his party — which has already won a majority of the Congress — Alianza PAIS (Patriotic Alliance, AP). Like all of the left parties and governments that came to power in the “Pink Tide” that swept the region in the 21st century, the AP values national sovereignty and self-determination. Its leaders, as well as its activist and much of its electoral base, understand that the progress that has been made over the last decade would not have been possible if the government of President Rafael Correa had followed the economic prescriptions of Washington.

This progress included reducing poverty by 38 percent and extreme poverty by 47 percent. Inequality was also substantially reduced: the ratio of the income of the richest 10 percent to the bottom 10 percent was reduced from 36 in 2006 to 25 by 2012. Annual growth of income per person rose from 0.6 percent over the prior 26 years, to 1.5 percent. And access to health care and education was substantially increased, with spending for higher education rising from 0.7 to 2.1 percent of GDP — more than is spent by even many high-income countries. Social spending overall doubled, and public investment more than doubled, as a percentage of GDP.

In order to accomplish these goals the government had to re-regulate the financial sector, tax capital flight, require banks to repatriate most of their liquid assets held overseas, and make the central bank part of the executive’s economic team — among other economic reforms. Without this new role of the state — crucially, acting in the public interest instead of on behalf Ecuador’s bankers and richest citizens — Ecuador could not have made most of the gains over the past decade.

The challenger, former banker Guillermo Lasso, proposes a traditional right-wing program of tax cuts for the rich and spending cuts that will have to more than match these, so as to bring down the national budget deficit. He pledges to reduce the government’s role in the economy, which was actually quite important to the progress of the past decade, arguing that “free markets” are the key to unleashing the country’s economic potential. And he has pledged to restore the “independence” of the central bank, which would make it more an instrument of the big bankers, like it was when Lasso himself was in his prime in the late 1990s (when the economy was wrecked by a banking collapse).

Lasso has also admitted to owning a bank in Panama whose main line of business is to facilitate capital flight from Ecuador. This is also a big issue of national sovereignty in Ecuador, as the majority of people just voted (in the February 19 election) to approve a ballot initiative saying that people who are holding money in offshore tax havens should have not be able to hold public office.

All this would bode ill under any circumstances, but the lack of respect for national sovereignty means that as the economy runs into trouble — which is likely, given the proposed budget cuts — Lasso would probably go to the IMF for a loan. This would mean the end of Ecuador’s hard won sovereignty over economic policy, and a host of “structural reforms” made in the USA, which Lasso and his allies would be all too eager to implement.

It is worth noting that according to a leaked document from the US Embassy in Ecuador, Lasso briefed US embassy officials on his efforts to organize business opposition to the Correa government in 2007. If there were hard evidence like this on Donald Trump’s relations with the Russians, that would spell the end of his presidency.

We know what the decades of Washington-sponsored structural reforms looked like in the past: almost zero growth in income per person in Ecuador over an entire 20 years (1980–2000). We can also look at how the new, Washington-supported right-wing governments of Brazil and Argentina are doing. It is nearly a year since the right-wing corrupto Michel Temer took power through an “impeachment” — which many experts labeled a coup because of the lack of an impeachable offense. Brazil’s worst depression has continued to deepen through the fourth quarter of 2016, with record levels of unemployment, and no end in sight. Investment continues to fall despite — or rather because of — austerity and budget cuts that were supposed to excite investors even as they sank the economy.

In Argentina, 40 percent inflation and a recession, as well as devastating hikes in utility prices have given millions of Argentines second thoughts about the right-wing president that a majority actually voted for in December 2015. Like Lasso and Temer, Argentina’s Mauricio Macri is a protégé of Washington. Leaked diplomatic cables from 2009 show him appealing to US officials to come down harder on the Kirchner government in Argentina. Now these people will have Donald Trump and Republican extremists in the US Congress, people like Senator Marco Rubio who would happily destroy Ecuador in order to save it — as their closest allies.

Not a great time for Ecuador to give its hard-won national sovereignty back to Washington.

This article originally appeared in The Hill.

More articles by:

Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in Washington, D.C. and president of Just Foreign Policy. He is also the author of  Failed: What the “Experts” Got Wrong About the Global Economy (Oxford University Press, 2015).

July 19, 2018
Rajai R. Masri
The West’s Potential Symbiotic Contributions to Freeing a Closed Muslim Mind
Jennifer Matsui
The Blue Pill Presidency
Ryan LaMothe
The Moral and Spiritual Bankruptcy of White Evangelicals
Paul Tritschler
Negative Capability: a Force for Change?
Patrick Bond
State of the BRICS Class Struggle: ‘Social Dialogue’ Reform Frustrations
Rev. William Alberts
A Well-Kept United Methodist Church Secret
Raouf Halaby
Joseph Harsch, Robert Fisk, Franklin Lamb: Three of the Very Best
George Ochenski
He Speaks From Experience: Max Baucus on “Squandered Leadership”
Ted Rall
Right Now, It Looks Like Trump Will Win in 2020
David Swanson
The Intelligence Community Is Neither
Andrew Moss
Chaos or Community in Immigration Policy
Kim Scipes
Where Do We Go From Here? How Do We Get There?
July 18, 2018
Bruce E. Levine
Politics and Psychiatry: the Cost of the Trauma Cover-Up
Frank Stricker
The Crummy Good Economy and the New Serfdom
Linda Ford
Red Fawn Fallis and the Felony of Being Attacked by Cops
David Mattson
Entrusting Grizzlies to a Basket of Deplorables?
Stephen F. Eisenman
Want Gun Control? Arm the Left (It Worked Before)
CJ Hopkins
Trump’s Treasonous Traitor Summit or: How Liberals Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the New McCarthyism
Patrick Bond
State of the BRICS Class Struggle: Repression, Austerity and Worker Militancy
Dan Corjescu
The USA and Russia: Two Sides of the Same Criminal Corporate Coin
The Hudson Report
How Argentina Got the Biggest Loan in the History of the IMF
Kenn Orphan
You Call This Treason?
Max Parry
Ukraine’s Anti-Roma Pogroms Ignored as Russia is Blamed for Global Far Right Resurgence
Ed Meek
Acts of Resistance
July 17, 2018
Conn Hallinan
Trump & The Big Bad Bugs
Robert Hunziker
Trump Kills Science, Nature Strikes Back
John Grant
The Politics of Cruelty
Kenneth Surin
Calculated Buffoonery: Trump in the UK
Binoy Kampmark
Helsinki Theatrics: Trump Meets Putin
Patrick Bond
BRICS From Above, Seen Critically From Below
Jim Kavanagh
Fighting Fake Stories: The New Yorker, Israel and Obama
Daniel Falcone
Chomsky on the Trump NATO Ruse
W. T. Whitney
Oil Underground in Neuquén, Argentina – and a New US Military Base There
Doug Rawlings
Ken Burns’ “The Vietnam War” was Nominated for an Emmy, Does It Deserve It?
Rajan Menon
The United States of Inequality
Thomas Knapp
Have Mueller and Rosenstein Finally Gone Too Far?
Cesar Chelala
An Insatiable Salesman
Dean Baker
Truth, Trump and the Washington Post
Mel Gurtov
Human Rights Trumped
Binoy Kampmark
Putin’s Football Gambit: How the World Cup Paid Off
July 16, 2018
Sheldon Richman
Trump Turns to Gaza as Middle East Deal of the Century Collapses
Charles Pierson
Kirstjen Nielsen Just Wants to Protect You
Brett Wilkins
The Lydda Death March and the Israeli State of Denial
Patrick Cockburn
Trump Knows That the US Can Exercise More Power in a UK Weakened by Brexit
Robert Fisk
The Fisherman of Sarajevo Told Tales Past Wars and Wars to Come
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail