That's the headline for an excerpt from an interview with Rafael Correa, Ecuador's President from today's WaPo. I don't know whether to laugh or cry every time people start talking about Hugo Chavez as if he's the Devil or something. But anyhow, there were a few interesting nuggets from the interview.
Q. People want to know if you are as anti-U.S. as your rhetoric would indicate.
A. I lived here and have two academic diplomas from the University of Illinois. Historically we have had very good relations with this country, so we are not anti-American at all. We would like to improve our commercial cooperation with the U.S.
Q . Then why do you oppose the U.S.-Ecuador trade pact?
A. Because it will destroy our agricultural sector.
Q. What is wrong with the free-trade agreement?
A. When you are trading with a country with huge subsidies for the agricultural sector like the U.S. -- the impact of this free-trade agreement would be dangerous for our farmers.
Q. But surely overall, the impact would be positive?
A. You are wrong. Even for Mexico, you can see a lot of problems [from NAFTA]. The impact on small farmers is very dangerous.
You have to give him credit for understanding history. NAFTA didn't work for Mexico's farmers and Ecuadorian farmers are not that different from Mexico's. Protectionism for one person may be taking care of your own for another.
Q. Why have you said that you would not renew the U.S. lease on the base at Manta in '09?
A. You are asking me why not. I am asking you why "yes."
Q. Because it is used for anti-drug surveillance flights.
A. Ecuador is not a drug producer, and we have been very successful in our fight against drugs. So why put a foreign military base in our country?
Just plain brilliant: first, the issue of sovereignty. Notice how the interviewer assumes the U.S. has some sort of "right" to have its lease renewed. Correa turns it around and asks the interviewer "why 'yes'" or "why should I allow the U.S. to have a military presence in my country?"
Then, he goes on to point out that drug production and trafficking is not an Ecuadorian problem. I'm not going to debate the merits of that statement, though. But taking it as correct, then there's no upside for Ecuador.
Q. In order to create jobs, don't you have to attract foreign direct investment?
A. At this moment, Ecuador doesn't have external financing. We have enough national and public savings in order to make loans to start the growth process and employment creation.
Q. Why wouldn't it be smarter to attract foreign capital instead of using up public savings?
A. We are not refusing foreign investment. If foreign investment wants to come, it is welcome, but we have our own savings.
Q. So you are not going to get outside companies to come in and finance refineries? Are they welcome to own them?
Emphasis added. Now the cat's out of the bag. This isn't really about how Ecuador spends its money. It's about who has control of Ecuador's oil assets.
A. They are welcome, but we are counting on our own savings in the first instance.
Q. What's the law? Are they welcome to own them or are you going to nationalize them?
A. We prefer that the kind of business related to non-renewable resources to be owned by the state or by public enterprises.
Emphasis added. Translation: we are going to develop our resources with our money. Private sector is welcomed as long as they offer the government of Ecuador a deal we like.
Q. Why do you support the seizing of the Occidental oil fields?
A. Because they broke 52 times the contract, our Ecuadorian law -- they believe we are still a colony.
What did Occidental do?
[T]he company violated a pact signed in May 1999 by transferring 40 percent of its concession to Canadian company EnCana Corp. in 2000 without authorization from the Energy Ministry.
Again, protectionism and economic nationalism means different things, depending from where you stand. If this is what works for Ecuador, more power to them.
Tags: Politics, Latino Matters
