查韦斯为什么能再次当选 Zt 12-10

查韦斯为什么能再次当选


马克•韦斯布罗 独家网译 　



华盛顿－－对于大多数常在国际媒体上了解乌戈•查韦斯的人来说，周日他以较大优势再次当选委内瑞拉总统是件让人困惑的事。
几乎我们听到的所有关于查韦斯的消息都是负面的：他挑起了对美的敌对，他与伊朗一样的“敌人”站在一起；他是一个“独裁者”“铁腕人物”，浪费了国家的石油财富；委内瑞拉由于资源短缺经济疲乏，处于崩溃边缘。
然而，也有另外一种相反的看法：自从查韦斯政府控制了国家石油产业后，委内瑞拉贫困人口减半，处于赤贫状态的人口削减了70％。大学入学人数增加了一倍多，上百万人第一次享有了医保，能领养老金的人数量也翻了三番。
所以委内瑞拉人再次选举提高了他们生活水平的人当总统就不足为奇了。这种情况在占据南美洲大半壁江山的左翼政府领导的国家里是很常见的。尽管，这些左翼领导人像查韦斯一样，遭遇了本国大多数媒体的反对，尽管他们的反对派拥有着本国的大多数财富和收入。
这些领导人包括2009年以大优势再次当选的拉斐尔•科雷亚总统；非常有名的巴西前总统路易斯•伊纳西奥•卢拉•达席尔瓦，他2006年连任总统，后来帮助他的办公室主任迪尔玛•卢塞夫竞选，使后者在2010年当选巴西总统；2009年再次当选总统的玻利维亚首位土著总统埃沃•莫拉莱斯；2009年从同属广泛阵线政治阵营的前总统那继任了乌拉圭总统的何塞•穆希卡；2011年克里斯蒂娜•费尔南德兹•德•基什内尔以稳定优势赢得阿根廷大选，接替自己的丈夫内斯托尔•基什内尔成为总统。
这些左翼总统及其政党能够连任是因为他们与查韦斯一样，在提高人民生活水平方面做出了显著的－－某些方面甚至是巨大的进步。他们都是一开始就反对“新自由主义”，即拉美在之前20年所遭遇的百年间最严重的经济衰退期所实行的政策。
所以左翼领导人把委内瑞拉视作一个战壕的也就不足为奇了，因为委内瑞拉为这个地区带来了民主、国家主权和经济社会进步。是的，带来了民主：许多学者都承认，即使是广遭污蔑的委内瑞拉，它的民主状况也比查韦斯之前的时代要好得多。
当南美洲联合起来在某些问题上反对华盛顿时，委内瑞拉是否民主就存在争议了，比如2009年洪都拉斯发生军事政变时。分歧如此明显，以至于最后催生了一个新的半球组织的建立－－拉美及加勒比国家共同体，这个共同体排除了美国和加拿大，与美国主导的美国国家组织相竞争。
以下是卢拉上个月关于委内瑞拉大选讲的话：“查韦斯的胜利不只是委内瑞拉人民的胜利，也是属于所有拉美人民的胜利……他的胜利是对帝国主义的又一次沉重打击。”
乔治•W•布什政府想要让委内瑞拉孤立的做法，却导致了美国自己的孤立。奥巴马总统延续了这个政策，所以在2012年哥伦比亚召开的美洲国家首脑会议上，奥巴马与他的前任一样被孤立了。

尽管一些媒体已经连续十多年叫嚷着委内瑞拉即将发生经济崩溃，但到现在都没有发生，以后也不见得会发生。
委内瑞拉逐渐从2009年开始的经济衰退中恢复过来，两年半来经济保持增长，通胀率急剧下降，经济增速也在提高。委内瑞拉的贸易顺差也很可观。它的公共债务相对较少，所以它的债务偿还压力也不大。委内瑞拉举借外债的空间还很大（它已经从中国借了360亿美元，大多数的利率都非常低），还可以从国内以低利率举债，甚至实际利率为负。
所以即使石油价格临时下跌（如2008至2009年发生的情况），也没必要实行紧缩政策。况且，没有人认为石油价格会出现长期的下跌状况。
委内瑞拉的经济确实存在一些长期的问题，比如相对较高的通胀率、基础设施建设不足。但是人民收入的实质增长（在查韦斯任职期间，平均收入的增速远远快于通胀的增速），以及在医疗健康和教育方面的改进，这些成功在选民心里已经远远压过了政府在其他领域的失败，如法律执行方面。
尽管美国对古巴的经济禁运很愚蠢很失败，但也坚持了半个多世纪。美国对委内瑞拉的敌意才只持续了12年，也没有停止的迹象，尽管事实表明美国这么做只能离间自己与这个半球的其他国家间的关系。
委内瑞拉的石油储量大概有5000亿桶，目前消耗的速度是每年10亿桶。查韦斯或是他同一党派的继任者很可能还会管理这个国家许许多多年。唯一的问题就是，如果可能的话，华盛顿什么时候才会接受这个地区的民主变化的结果。
马克•韦斯布罗是华盛顿经济与政策研究中心的主任，同时也是网站Just Foreign Policy（只关乎外交政策）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。
（（《环球视野globalview.cn》第510期，《独家网》专供《环球视野》）