If traditionally the term "axis" denotes evil and if a group of nations who are "allied", on the other hand, are the representatives of altruism and the defenders of humanity, then the right-wing media needs to either completely reconsider these definitions, or to adopt the practice of being scrupulously selective with what countries it labels into the "axis" category. In an article of the September 1st-7th 2007 edition of The Economist (A Wannabe Chavez Short of Oil), Ecuador's Rafael Correa, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales in Bolivia, and Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega are reffered to together as forming a "radical anti-American axis." These countries are in fact radical, but they are so only in that they seek to create authentic and lasting change in their continent, and for that to happen they necesarily have to be anti-American. These four countries also do not have the interests of imperialism and multinationals at heart, and it seems that is justifiable grounds to slander their profoundly democratic realities. So if the Revolutionary socialist movement in Latin America because of its intentions on dismantling the imperialist superstructure of power in the continent is an "axis" of radical anti-Americanism, then U.S. imperialism along with the neo-liberal governments of Mexico, Colombia, and Peru can accurately be reffered to as a reactionry axis against humanity.
The article goes on to say that "Mr.Correa's political experience is limited to striking radical poses rather than engaging in the art of the possible." What The Economist condescendingly refers to as "striking radical poses" is in fact Mr.Correa's fiery words and virtuous courage to make substantial social promises to his people. He unhesitatingly engages in this national dialogue between leader and nation, a reciprocal dialectic confidence, because he knows that with the help of his people those promises can and will be accomplished. The second part of that statement, "rather than engaging in the art of the possible", suggests that what Rafael Correa and Ecuadoreans are trying to acieve through Socialism of the 21st Century (political sovereignty and economic independence) is impossible, or at least vey innappropriate in the eyes of U.S. imperialism. The only thing the West sees as "the art of the possible" for underdeveloped countries, is free market economies and the imposition of neo-liberal policies.
In the very next paragraph they continue their trivial attack on Mr.Correa by quoting a representative from a polling firm, who claims "people say he doesn't handle himself like a statesman...He doesn't call for dialogue, he argues and fights." This is said from the point of view of the sterile world of western politics, which refuses to acknowledge that Mr.Correa doesn't conduct himself like a good, compliant "statesman" because revolutionaries like himself, and Hugo Chavez, and Evo Morales don't play the same game as right-wing politicians, and so don't abide by the same rules. They also fail to understand that arguing and fighting is what genuine people's politicians must do in order t achieve tangible social results.
They go on to lament the initiative of the constituent assembly saying that "changing a constitution adopted only a decade ago is hardly the most effective way to address the problems of ordinary Ecuadoreans." Yet, they overlook the fact that the 80% of "ordinary" Ecuadoreans who voted in favour of the constituent assembly in April think that rewriting the constitution is exactly what is needed to address the country's problems.
They compare Ecuador's economy with what Alan Garcia has done for his country's economy, yet they say nothing of Peru's worsening social disasters after his first year in office. They mention only that Peru's annual rate of growth is twice that of Ecuador's. Cuba's Granma newspaper in a recent article refers to APRA's neoliberal policies in Peru as granting "exorbitant privileges for capital and foreign interests, and the deepening of social inequalities" and points to privatization schemes that "have left the country exposed to transnational impunity." While a high growth rate on paper is a nice statistic for the World Bank, the IMF, or the IADB, it doesn't necessarily mean improved conditions for poor working class majorities, and the amount of foreign investment in a country is not a measuring stick for national progress or development.
What The Economist's article and what the western media in general clearly demonstrate is that the imperialists are either terrified by the events unfolding in Ecuador, or completely in denial. The fact is that at present the Ecuadorean people and its leaders are in the right place, and doing the right things. Mr.Correa is so harshly criticized precisely because he is doing exactly what the imperialists don't want him to do. But, he must relentlessly continue on transcending the oppressive structure of the capitalist bureaucracy and the priviliges of the imperialist puppet oligarchy. He must do so alongside the Ecuadorean people by utilising tools such as the constituent assembly, and by creating a participatory socialism based on development and equality, to replace Ecuador's old procedural and individualistic "democracy" of exclusion and exploition. The examles of what exists in Cuba, and what is being built in Venezuela and Bolivia, serve not as carbon copies, but as sources of reference, support, and inspiration. With yet another oligarch domino of imperialism falling in Ecuador, the continental Revolutionary wave in Latin America keeps getting bigger and stronger, and with the U.S. and its lapdogs already bogged down in the Middle-East, neo-colonialism is showing it is not invincible. The flood is growing and the imperialists are running out of sandbags, and so we must invoke our hero in urging the peoples of the world to keep on creating many more Vietnams!!!