查韋斯為什麽能再次當選 Zt 12-10

查韋斯為什麽能再次當選


馬克•韋斯布羅 獨家網譯 　



華盛頓－－對於大多數常在國際媒體上了解烏戈•查韋斯的人來說，周日他以較大優勢再次當選委內瑞拉總統是件讓人困惑的事。
幾乎我們聽到的所有關於查韋斯的消息都是負麵的：他挑起了對美的敵對，他與伊朗一樣的“敵人”站在一起；他是一個“獨裁者”“鐵腕人物”，浪費了國家的石油財富；委內瑞拉由於資源短缺經濟疲乏，處於崩潰邊緣。
然而，也有另外一種相反的看法：自從查韋斯政府控製了國家石油產業後，委內瑞拉貧困人口減半，處於赤貧狀態的人口削減了70％。大學入學人數增加了一倍多，上百萬人第一次享有了醫保，能領養老金的人數量也翻了三番。
所以委內瑞拉人再次選舉提高了他們生活水平的人當總統就不足為奇了。這種情況在占據南美洲大半壁江山的左翼政府領導的國家裏是很常見的。盡管，這些左翼領導人像查韋斯一樣，遭遇了本國大多數媒體的反對，盡管他們的反對派擁有著本國的大多數財富和收入。
這些領導人包括2009年以大優勢再次當選的拉斐爾•科雷亞總統；非常有名的巴西前總統路易斯•伊納西奧•盧拉•達席爾瓦，他2006年連任總統，後來幫助他的辦公室主任迪爾瑪•盧塞夫競選，使後者在2010年當選巴西總統；2009年再次當選總統的玻利維亞首位土著總統埃沃•莫拉萊斯；2009年從同屬廣泛陣線政治陣營的前總統那繼任了烏拉圭總統的何塞•穆希卡；2011年克裏斯蒂娜•費爾南德茲•德•基什內爾以穩定優勢贏得阿根廷大選，接替自己的丈夫內斯托爾•基什內爾成為總統。
這些左翼總統及其政黨能夠連任是因為他們與查韋斯一樣，在提高人民生活水平方麵做出了顯著的－－某些方麵甚至是巨大的進步。他們都是一開始就反對“新自由主義”，即拉美在之前20年所遭遇的百年間最嚴重的經濟衰退期所實行的政策。
所以左翼領導人把委內瑞拉視作一個戰壕的也就不足為奇了，因為委內瑞拉為這個地區帶來了民主、國家主權和經濟社會進步。是的，帶來了民主：許多學者都承認，即使是廣遭汙蔑的委內瑞拉，它的民主狀況也比查韋斯之前的時代要好得多。
當南美洲聯合起來在某些問題上反對華盛頓時，委內瑞拉是否民主就存在爭議了，比如2009年洪都拉斯發生軍事政變時。分歧如此明顯，以至於最後催生了一個新的半球組織的建立－－拉美及加勒比國家共同體，這個共同體排除了美國和加拿大，與美國主導的美國國家組織相競爭。
以下是盧拉上個月關於委內瑞拉大選講的話：“查韋斯的勝利不隻是委內瑞拉人民的勝利，也是屬於所有拉美人民的勝利……他的勝利是對帝國主義的又一次沉重打擊。”
喬治•W•布什政府想要讓委內瑞拉孤立的做法，卻導致了美國自己的孤立。奧巴馬總統延續了這個政策，所以在2012年哥倫比亞召開的美洲國家首腦會議上，奧巴馬與他的前任一樣被孤立了。

盡管一些媒體已經連續十多年叫嚷著委內瑞拉即將發生經濟崩潰，但到現在都沒有發生，以後也不見得會發生。
委內瑞拉逐漸從2009年開始的經濟衰退中恢複過來，兩年半來經濟保持增長，通脹率急劇下降，經濟增速也在提高。委內瑞拉的貿易順差也很可觀。它的公共債務相對較少，所以它的債務償還壓力也不大。委內瑞拉舉借外債的空間還很大（它已經從中國借了360億美元，大多數的利率都非常低），還可以從國內以低利率舉債，甚至實際利率為負。
所以即使石油價格臨時下跌（如2008至2009年發生的情況），也沒必要實行緊縮政策。況且，沒有人認為石油價格會出現長期的下跌狀況。
委內瑞拉的經濟確實存在一些長期的問題，比如相對較高的通脹率、基礎設施建設不足。但是人民收入的實質增長（在查韋斯任職期間，平均收入的增速遠遠快於通脹的增速），以及在醫療健康和教育方麵的改進，這些成功在選民心裏已經遠遠壓過了政府在其他領域的失敗，如法律執行方麵。
盡管美國對古巴的經濟禁運很愚蠢很失敗，但也堅持了半個多世紀。美國對委內瑞拉的敵意才隻持續了12年，也沒有停止的跡象，盡管事實表明美國這麽做隻能離間自己與這個半球的其他國家間的關係。
委內瑞拉的石油儲量大概有5000億桶，目前消耗的速度是每年10億桶。查韋斯或是他同一黨派的繼任者很可能還會管理這個國家許許多多年。唯一的問題就是，如果可能的話，華盛頓什麽時候才會接受這個地區的民主變化的結果。
馬克•韋斯布羅是華盛頓經濟與政策研究中心的主任，同時也是網站Just Foreign Policy（隻關乎外交政策）的主管。

原文：Why Chávez Was Re－elected

http：／／www.nytimes。com／2012／10／10／opinion／why－chavez－was－re－elected。html？＿r＝0
Jorge Silva／Reuters
By MARK WEISBROT
Published： October 9， 2012
WASHINGTON － For most people who have heard or read about Hugo Chávez in the international media， his reelection on Sunday as president of Venezuela by a convincing margin might be puzzling。
Almost all of the news we hear about him is bad： He picks fights with the United States and sides with “enemies” such as Iran； he is a “dictator” or “strongman” who has squandered the nation`s oil wealth； the Venezuelan economy is plagued by shortages and is usually on the brink of collapse。
Then there is the other side of the story： Since the Chávez government got control over the national oil industry， poverty has been cut by half， and extreme poverty by 70 percent。 College enrollment has more than doubled， millions of people have access to health care for the first time and the number of people eligible for public pensions has quadrupled。
So it should not be surprising that most Venezuelans would reelect a president who has improved their living standards。 That`s what has happened with all of the leftist governments that now govern most of South America。 This is despite the fact that they， like Chávez， have most of their countries media against them， and their opposition has most of the wealth and income of their respective countries。
The list includes Rafael Correa， who was reelected president of Ecuador by a wide margin in 2009； the enormously popular LuizInácio Lula da Silva of Brazil， who was reelected in 2006 and then successfully campaigned for his former chief of staff， now President DilmaRousseff， in 2010； Evo Morales， Bolvia`s first indigenous president， who was reelected in 2009； José Mujica， who succeeded his predecessor from the same political alliance in Uruguay － the FrenteAmplio － in 2009； Cristina Fernández de Kirchner， who succeeded her husband， the lateNéstor Kirchner， winning the 2011 Argentine presidential election by a solid margin。

These leftist presidents and their political parties won reelection because， like Chávez， they brought significant － and in some cases huge － improvements in living standards。 They all originally campaigned against “neoliberalism，” a word used to describe the policies of the prior 20 years， when Latin America experienced its worst economic growth in more than a century。
Not surprisingly， the leftist leaders have seen Venezuela as part of a team that has brought more democracy， national sovereignty and economic and social progress to the region。 Yes， democracy： even the much－maligned Venezuela is recognized by many scholars to be more democratic than it was in the pre－Chávez era。
Democracy was at issue when South America stood together against Washington on such issues as the 2009 military coup in Honduras。 The differences were so pronounced that they led to the formation of a new hemisphere－wide organization － the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States， which excluded the United States and Canada － as an alternative to the U。S。－dominated Organization of American States。
Here is what Lula said last month about the Venezuelan election： “A victory for Chávez is not just a victory for the people of Venezuela but also a victory for all the people of Latin America … this victory will strike another blow against imperialism。”

The administration of George W。 Bush pursued a strategy of trying to isolate Venezuela from its neighbors， and ended up isolating itself。 President Obama has continued this policy， and at the 2012 Summit of the Americas in Colombia he was as isolated as his predecessor。
Although some media have talked of Venezuela`s impending economic collapse for more than a decade， it hasn`t happened and is not likely to happen。
After recovering from a recession that began in 2009， the Venezuelan economy has been growing for two－and－a－half years now and inflation has fallen sharply while growth has accelerated。 The country has a sizeable trade surplus。 Its public debt is relatively low， and so is its debt－service burden。 It has plenty of room to borrow foreign currency （it has borrowed ￥36 billion from China， mostly at very low interest rates）， and can borrow domestically as well at low or negative real interest rates。
So even if oil prices were to crash temporarily （as they did in 2008－2009）， there would be no need for austerity or recession。 And hardly anyone is predicting a long－term collapse of oil prices。
Venezuela`s economy does have long－term problems， such as relatively high inflation and inadequate infrastructure。 But the substantial improvement in people`s income （the average income has risen much faster than inflation under Chávez）， plus gains in health care and education， seems to have outweighed the government`s failings in other areas， including law enforcement， in the minds of most voters。
The U。S。 economic embargo against Cuba has persisted for more than half a century， despite its obvious stupidity and failure。 American hostility toward Venezuela is only about 12 years old， but shows no sign of being reconsidered， despite the evidence that it is also alienating the rest of the hemisphere。
Venezuela has about 500 billion barrels of oil and is burning them currently at a rate of one billion barrels a year。 Chávez or a successor from his party will likely be governing the country for many years to come。 The only question is when － if ever － Washington will accept the results of democratic change in the region。
Mark Weisbrot is codirector of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington and president of Just Foreign Policy。
（（《環球視野globalview.cn》第510期，《獨家網》專供《環球視野》）