Lurching Towards Fascism in Argentina

InsightSur.com ^ | April 17, 2012 | InsightSur.com Editor

[InsightSur]

Argentina has just lurched toward becoming a Fascist nation as “Peronist” president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner announced the nation’s intentions to nationalize the largest oil company in the country yesterday.

Combined with rabble rousing rhetoric dredging up the impotent claim to the Falkland Islands, and a tightened control of the press, many fear that the leadership in Argentina have finally dropped all pretenses of a democratic and free market nation as they appear to be hurtling the nation towards populist policies that wrecked the entire continent of Europe during WWII.

Cristina’s party controls the government, so there is little hope that the bill will fail in Congress. The move would mean the nationalization of YPF which is the largest oil and gas company in the resource rich nation.

Experts have expressed concern for the nation’s industry especially over the past decade, as restrictions, regulations, and taxes intended to redistribute wealth stifled any motivation to develop the country’s energy sources. Ironically, those selfsame regulations, taxes, and restrictions have largely been the cause of higher prices, and poor efficiencies cited as justification for the government seizure of property.

[ScottfromNJ]

“Shouldn’t Argentina therefore be returned to whatever natives are left given that Europeans simply “waltzed in uninvited and claimed the country?” Same for the US? Should Australia be returned to the aborigines?”

Apples to Oranges. Early on just prior to European settlement those continents were mostly uninhabited and sparsely populated, unestablished as nations. Argentina was an established nation at the time and had a natural claim to the nearby islands.

You make a better argument by saying it’s been nearly 200 years, generations of Brits have been settled in the Falklands for centuries under UK rule, what’s established was established a long time ago, lets leave well enough alone, instead of trying to explain away old England’s claim to the islands that was based on imperial aggressive actions, a nation we ourselves had to extract from our territory.

[InsightSur]

On the contrary, I don’t buy the argument that simply occupying territory for long enough is justification for ownership. Does that mean that Tibet will be justifiably Chinese territory in 150 more years?

You’re playing semantics, and your argument was that if it was far back enough, it doesn’t matter. Your definition of justifiable landgrabs vs unjustafiable is entirely subjective.

Should the UK give the US Bermuda? Should Chile give Bolivia land they lost after the war? Should France give Germany territory taken just 60 years ago? Should Aruba be given to Venezuela simply because of its proximity?

The UK’s claim is far more justifiable than any of those.

[Sam Gamgee]

Outside Columbia (and maybe Chile), this is why I would not have anything to do with any resource company with the majority of its assets in South America. Venezuela is fascist. Bolivia and Ecuador are socialist. Brazil is turning socialist.