The left-wing leaders of Bolivia, Cuba and Venezuela have signed a three-way trade agreement aimed at countering US influence in Latin America.
The pact was signed in Cuba by Bolivian President Evo Morales, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, and their host Fidel Castro.
The initiative, the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas, was drawn up by Cuba and Venezuela.
Mr Morales, an ally of both Mr Castro and Mr Chavez, decided to join it after his election last December.
The initiative - known by its Spanish acronym Alba - is being promoted as a socialist alternative to the Washington-backed Free Trade Area of the Americas.
The deal aims to reduce or eliminate tariffs between the three countries. But apart from this, it is very unlike conventional trade agreements, the BBC's Stephen Gibbs in Havana says.
Full story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/4959008.stm
Posted by proutist-universal on May 1, 2006 6:24 PM | TrackBack
|
"In economic life there is extreme inequality and exploitation. Although colonialism no longer exists openly in the political and economic sphere, still it persists indirectly, and this should not be tolerated... In this respect you should remember that in economic life, we will have to guarantee the minimum requirements of life to one and all... There cannot be any sort of adjustment as far as this point is concerned. The minimum purchasing requirement must be guaranteed to all. Today these fundamental essentialities are not being guaranteed. Rather, people are being guided by deceptive economic ideas like outdated Marxism, which has proven ineffective in practical life and has not been successfully implemented in any corner of the world. Why do people still believe in such a theory, which has never been proved successful? The time has come for people to make a proper assessment of whether they are being misguided or not." |
|
"Human beings have still not been able to form a human society, and have still not learned to move with the spirit of a pilgrim. Although many small groups, motivated by self-interest, work together in particular situations, not even a small fraction of their work is done with a broader social motive. By strict definition, shall we have to declare that each small family unit is a society in itself? If going ahead in mutual adjustment only out of narrow self-interest or momentary self-seeking is called society, then in such a society, no provision can be made for the disabled, the diseased or the helpless, because in most cases nobody can benefit from them in any way... in that case there always remains the possibility of some people getting isolated from the collective. All human beings must attach themselves to others by the common bond of love and march forward hand in hand; then only will I proclaim it a society." |