957 resultados para 320.01
Resumo:
The design, reformulation, and final signing of Plan Colombia by the then US President, Bill Clinton, on the 13 July 2000 initiated in a new era of the US State´s involvement in supposedly sovereign-territorial issues of Colombian politics. The implementation of Plan Colombia there-on-after brought about a major realignment of political-military scales and terrains of conflict that have renewed discourses concerning the contemporary imperialist interests of key US-based but transnationally-projected social forces, leading to arguments that stress the invigorated geo-political dimension of present-day strategies of capitalist accumulation. With the election of Álvaro Uribe Vélez as Colombian President in May 2002 and his pledge to strengthen the national military campaign aganist the region´s longest-surviving insurgency guerrilla group, Las FARC-EP, as well as other guerrilla factions, combined with a new focus on establishing the State project of “Democratic Security”; the military realm of governance and attempts to ensure property security and expanding capitalist investment have attained precedence in Colombia´s national political domains. This working paper examines the interrelated nature of Plan Colombia -as a binational and indeed regional security strategy- and Uribe´s Democratic Security project as a means of showing the manner in which they have worked to pave the way for the implementation of a new “total market” regime of accumulation, based on large-scale agro-industrial investment which is accelerated through processes of accumulation via dispossession. As such, the political and social reconfigurations involved manifest the multifarious scales of governance that become intertwined in incorporating neoliberalism in specific regions of the world economy. Furthermore, the militarisation-securitisation of such policies also illustrate the explicit contradictions of neoliberalism in a peripheral context, where coercion seems to prevail, something which leads to a profound questioning of the extent to which neoliberalism can be thought of as a hegemonic politico-economic project.
Resumo:
Seit einigen Jahren erfährt Lateinamerika einen epochalen Umbruch. Das neoliberale Modell ist in einer Krise. Die Politik des „Washington Consensus“ und das Diktum einer politisch nicht kontrollierbaren Globalisierung werden zunehmend hinterfagt. Aus der Linkswende haben sich neue alternative Politikkonzepten entwickelt. In dem vorliegenden Working Paper wird auf die Beziehung von sozialen Bewegungen, Ideologien und Regierungen eingegangen. In ihrer Diagnose arbeitet Maristella Svampa die ambivalenten Charakteristiken des aktuellen Wandels in Lateinamerika heraus. Daran schließt eine analytische Annäherung an die verschiedenen ideologischen Traditionen an, die den Widerstandssektor prägen. Abschließend werden bei der Analyse der vier wichtigsten Tendenzen einige der wichtigsten Daten über die Region präsentiert. Zu diesen Tendenzen gehören der Fortschritt der indigenen Kämpfe, die Konsolidierung neuer Formen des Kampfes, die Reaktivierung der national-populären Tradition, sowie die Rückkehr des „Desarrollismo“. Letztere wird sowohl von progressiven als auch eher konservativ-neoliberalen Regierungen unterstützt.
Resumo:
The rejection of the European Constitution marks an important crystallization point for debate about the European Union (EU) and the integration process. The European Constitution was envisaged as the founding document of a renewed and enlarged European Union and thus it was rather assumed to find wide public support. Its rejection was not anticipated. The negative referenda in France and the Netherlands therefore led to a controversial debate about the more fundamental meaning and the consequences of the rejection both for the immediate state of affairs as well as for the further integration process. The rejection of the Constitution and the controversy about its correct interpretation therefore present an intriguing puzzle for political analysis. Although the treaty rejection was taken up widely in the field of European Studies, the focus of existing analyses has predominantly been on explaining why the current situation occurred. Underlying these approaches is the premise that by establishing the reasons for the rejection it is possible to derive the ‘true’ meaning of the event for the EU integration process. In my paper I rely on an alternative, discourse theoretical approach which aims to overcome the positivist perspective dominating the existing analyses. I argue that the meaning of the event ‘treaty rejection’ is not fixed or inherent to it but discursively constructed. The critical assessment of this concrete meaning-production is of high relevance as the specific meaning attributed to the treaty rejection effectively constrains the scope for supposedly ‘reasonable’ options for action, both in the concrete situation and in the further European integration process more generally. I will argue that the overall framing suggests a fundamental technocratic approach to governance from part of the Commission. Political struggle and public deliberation is no longer foreseen as the concrete solutions to the citizens’ general concerns are designed by supposedly apolitical experts. Through the communicative diffusion and the active implementation of this particular model of governance the Commission shapes the future integration process in a more substantial way than is obvious from its seemingly limited immediate problem-solving orientation of overcoming the ‘constitutional crisis’. As the European Commission is a central actor in the discourse production my analysis focuses on the specific interpretation of the situation put forward by the Commission. In order to work out the Commission’s particular take on the event I conducted a frame analysis (according to Benford/Snow) on a body of key sources produced in the context of coping with the treaty rejection.
Resumo:
Dr. Maria N Ivanova; Professor Dr. Christoph Scherrer
