|
|
| (5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | {{anarchism}} | + | {{traduction}} |
| − | The origins of '''Chinese [[Anarchism]]''' are traceable to the early [[Chinese Nationalist]] movement, which had a wide range of influences both native and foreign. The predominance in the late 1800s of [[Nihilism]] and [[Anarchism]] in [[Russia]], which borders China, was a major source of anarchist influence on the nationalist movement. In particular, the use of [[assassination]] as a tool in the [[anti-Manchu movement]] as promoted by groups like the [[Chinese Assassination Corps]] corresponded to the widespread use of heroic self-sacrifice and assassination by Russian [[anti-czarist]] and nihilist groups like ‘[[The Peoples Will]]’ and [[pan-slavic]] [[nationalists]] like ‘[[The Black Hand]].’ (As described by Goldman) Even though [[Anarchism]] and [[Nihilism]] are distinct and separate ideologies, at that time the popular press in Europe and China generally conflated the two; which led to an early interest in Anarchism among some Chinese radicals. Because of the lack of Chinese-language materials, however, this early influence was very limited.
| + | Les '''émeutes de décembre 2001''' ont été un temps de civil unrest and rioting in [[Argentina]], et ont eu lieu durant le mois de décembre 2001 avec une culmination des incidents le 19 et 20 Décembre dans la capitale(Buenos Aires). |
| | | | |
| − | ==Anarchism and the Chinese Student Movement== | + | == Background == |
| − | The first explicitly and recognizably Anarchist presence originated in [[France]] and [[Japan]] with the study abroad programs for the children of wealthy families that were established after the failed [[Boxer Rebellion]]. While not accessible to the vast majority of the population, by [[1906]] these programs had attracted between five and six hundred students to Europe and about 10,000 to Japan. [[Tokyo]], and Japan in general, was the most popular destination because of its geographic proximity to China, it’s relatively affordable cost, and the natural affinity between the two cultures. In Europe, [[Paris]] was particularly popular because it was relatively cheap, the French government helped to subsidize the students, and because France was seen as the center of [[Western civilization]]. According to some accounts, there was also a conscious effort on the part of the Chinese government officials who ran the program to use it to get radical students out of the country, with the most radical students being sent to Europe and the more moderate students going to Japan. If this is so, then that policy was to prove remarkably short-sighted as these foreign educated students would use the methods and ideologies of European [[Socialism]] and [[Anarchism]] to completely transform Chinese society. It is interesting to note that in both locations of study, Anarchism quickly became the most dominant of the [[western]] ideologies adopted by the students, and in [[1906]], within a few months of each other, two separate Anarchist student groups would form, one in Tokyo and one in Paris. The different locations, and perhaps also the different inclinations of the students being sent to each location, would result in two very different Anarchisms, however.
| + | Les émeutes ont été surtout la rébellion de la classe moyenne contre le gouvernment du président Fernando de la Rúa, qui avait échouer à la tâche de contenir la crise économique et l'Argentine traversait sa troisième année de [[récession]]. |
| | | | |
| − | According to [[Li Shih-tseng]], who was a participant in the movement, the influences of the Paris group could be divided into 3 main fields, these being [[Radical Libertarianism]] and [[Anarchism]], [[Darwin]] and [[Social Darwinism]], and the classical Chinese philosophers. While the Paris group was far more reluctant then their counterparts in Tokyo to equate the teachings of [[Lao Tzu]] or the ancient [[Well-Fields system]] with the Anarchist communism they advocated, Li describes the group as consisting of young men who almost all had received excellent educations in the Chinese classical tradition admits that the old thinking doubtless influenced them. The clear tend with the Paris group, however, was to dismiss and even actively oppose any association of Anarchism with traditional culture.
| + | Vers Mars 2001, deux ministres de l'économie quittèrent leur poste successivement et Domingo Cavallo prit le poste. |
| | | | |
| − | In Tokyo, by contrast, they drew on the same influences but in a different order of preference. Where the Paris group was enamored of [[western science]] and [[western civilization]]; the Tokyo group rooted its anarchism in political traditions native to [[Asia]]. In practical terms that meant that the Paris group studied [[Esperanto]], advocated [[Anarchosyndicalism]], and drew heavily upon the works of [[Mikhail Bakunin]] and [[Peter Kropotkin]]. The Tokyo group, by contrast, advocated a [[peasant]]-based society built around democratically run villages organized into a free federation for [[mutual aid]] and defense, and based their ideology on a fusion of [[Taoism]], [[Buddhism]], the [[Well Field System]], and gave preference to [[Leo Tolstoy]] over Kropotkin. Both groups also advocated [[assassination]] early on, perhaps an indicator of the lasting influences of Nihilism, but by 1910 “conversion to Anarchism was typically accompanied by the renunciation of assassination.â€
| + | Cavallo took to administer the country's economy, establishing new taxes and special agreements with certain sectors of the Argentine industrial establishment. He also took to restructure Argentina's massive [[foreign debt]] in an operation known locally as the ''megacanje'' ("mega-exchange", i. e. an exchange of debt bonds for others at more advantageous conditions). From the first moment, there were allegations of corruption and [[money laundering]] about the ''megacanje''. |
| | | | |
| − | In the early 1900s the Anarchist movement was largely a western movement and the Chinese students studying in Paris were enthusiastically supportive of Anarchism because they saw it as the most forward-thinking of all the western [[ideologies]], and thus the furthest removed from what they perceived as a Chinese culture moribund by tradition. This position would repeatedly place them at odds with the Tokyo group who saw much that was good in traditional culture, and even argued that because China had not embraced the illusion of [[liberal]] [[capitalist]] [[democracy]], it might be easier for them to make the transition to Anarchism then it would be for the Europeans.
| + | De la Rúa's political situation was also precarious. His arrival to power in [[1999]] had been possible thanks to an alliance between the [[Radical Civic Union]] and the [[FrePaSo]] parties, which managed to defeat the incumbent [[Justicialist Party]] (the Peronists) in that year's presidential elections. However, the Alliance (as it was known) failed to achieve a majority in the [[Argentine Senate|Senate]] and the [[Argentine Chamber of Deputies|House of Deputies]], and lost the provincial elections to the Peronists, who then remained in charge of large and critical districts such as the [[Buenos Aires Province|Buenos Aires]], [[Córdoba Province, Argentina|Córdoba]] and [[Santa Fe Province|Santa Fe]] provinces. |
| | | | |
| − | These differences, however, do not mean that the two groups did not cooperate. Because of the [[decentralized]] political structure and emphasis on local economic and political [[self-determination]] advocated by both groups, they were able to come to a tacit understanding that after the revolution both systems could peacefully coexist. The conflict was essentially one of values, priorities, and – by implication – methods for achieving the revolution which both advocated. In particular, the conflict over the what place – if any – traditional Chinese philosophies should play in influencing Anarchist thoughts and actions was a major source of friction and debate between the two groups. The tendency for the advocates of different Anarchisms to disagree but agree to cooperate is not unique to the Chinese Anarchist experience. It is for this reason that many political scientists describe anarchism as a movement of movements, or as [[Noam Chomsky]] puts it “a set of ideologies and movements sharing certain basic characteristics.†The ideological diversity inherent in such a movement of movements has historically been one of its great strengths but also repeatedly undermined attempts to shape it into any cohesive force for social change.
| + | The government coalition was strained from the first moment; the FrePaSo leaders resented being "junior members" of the government (being forced to that position after losing their bid to the Governorship of Buenos Aires), while the Radicals were divided between their left- and right-leaning factions (De la Rúa was a leader of the party's conservatives), especially regarding economic policy. In late [[2000]] a [[political scandal]] broke out when it was reported that the SIDE, Argentina's [[intelligence service]], had paid massive [[bribe]]s to a number of senators to approve a controversial Labor Reform Act. The head of SIDE, Fernando de Santibañes, was a personal friend of De la Rúa. The crisis came to a head on [[October 2000]] when Vice President Carlos Ãlvarez resigned, citing De la Rúa's unwillingness to tackle corruption. |
| | | | |
| − | The Paris and Tokyo groups were unanimous, however, in their condemnation of [[Confucianism]] and advocation of a total social transformation. The European Anarchist movement also advocated social transformation, but the Chinese Anarchists stand out because of the primary importance they placed on the abolition of the old culture. Where European Anarchists reserved some of their harshest critiques for [[Christianity]] (which was seen as one of the three pillars of [[authoritarianism]], along with [[Capitalism]] and the [[State]]), Chinese anarchists would declare all-out war against [[Confucian culture]]; which they saw as a form of social control roughly analogous to western Christianity in it’s hegemonic penetration of society and proscription of social norms. As [[Chtu Min-I]] (one of the members of the Paris group) put it: | + | The March 2001 crisis (see above) also caused the resignation of all the FrePaSo Cabinet ministers, leaving De la Rúa without political support. The congressional elections of [[October 2001]] were a disaster for the government, which lost many of its seats in the Senate and the House of Deputies to the Peronists. The election results marked also a growing unrest within Argentina's voters, who took to cast millions of null or blank votes. The Peronists seized the opportunity to appoint Senator [[Ramón Puerta]] to be President Pro-Tempore of the Argentine Senate, a situation which added to De la Rúa's political weakness since in the Argentine system the President Pro-Tempore of the Senate is next in line for the Presidency after the Vice President. With no Vice President of its own, Puerta's designation meant that De la Rúa had a virtual Peronist Vice President. |
| | | | |
| − | “The Chinese seem to be the greatest lovers of things ancient, so much so that their minds have been wholly bound by traditional customs and thus they have become enslaved by the ancients.â€
| + | Social unrest was also growing. Since the late 1990s, protest movements had formed in Argentina, notably the [[piquetero]]s ("picketeers"). The piqueteros [[blockade]]d major roads and highways demanding government subsidies and other [[Welfare (financial aid)|welfare]] measures. They featured prominently during the [[March 2001]] crisis. |
| − | Over the course of the next twenty years, that emphasis on cultural transformation would be adopted by virtually all elements of the radical Chinese left; and it’s rhetoric – if not its substance – would eventually be used by Mao to justify the [[Cultural Revolution]].
| + | |
| | | | |
| − | ==Anarchism and Chinese Nationalism==
| + | This entire crisis came to a head on [[November 29]] [[2001]], when Argentines took to banks and financial institutions to withdraw millions of pesos and dollars from their accounts. Had the withdrawal continued, Argentina's entire banking system would have collapsed. |
| − | In the first phase of the movement, Anarchists of both schools were generally participants in the Nationalist movement, even though in theory they repudiated nationalism and nation-states. Thus the first attacks on the infant movement were to come from Nationalists who saw Anarchism as a threat to their effort to build a strong, unified, centralized modern nation that could stand up to the encroaching power of Western Imperialism. As one nationalist reader wrote in a letter to ''Hsin Shih-chi'' (An Anarchist newspaper published by the Paris group) "If you people know only how to cry emptily that ‘We want no government, no soldiers, no national boundaries, and no State’ and that you are for universal harmony, justice, freedom, and equality, I fear that those who know only brute force and not justice will gather their armies to divide up our land and our people."
| + | |
| | | | |
| − | Nationalists also argued that only by building a popular front could the Nationalist movement defeat the Manchu’s, and that in the long term if Anarchism was to have any chance to succeed it must necessarily be preceded by a Republican system that would make China secure. The response of the Hsin Shi-Chi editors, written by Li Shih-tseng, was based in the idea that the revolution they advocated would be global, simultaneous, and spontaneous; and that since it would be happening everywhere, the foreign imperialists would thus be too preoccupied with the revolutions in their home countries to bother invading or harassing China anymore. They also argued that having a strong centralized coercive government had obviously not prevented Chinas enemies from attacking her, and that in the long run tyranny is tyranny, regardless of whether it is “native†or foreign, so the only logical approach for people who want freedom must be to oppose all authority be it Manchu, Han, foreign, or native.
| + | == Corralito == |
| | + | The unrest started when Economy Minister [[Domingo Cavallo]], introduced restrictions to the withdrawal of cash from [[bank deposit]]s (see ''[[corralito]]''), intending to stop the draining of deposits that had been taking place throughout 2001 and had reached the point were 25% of all the money in the banks had been withdrawn. These measures were aimed at controlling the banking crisis for a period of 90 days, until the [[debt restructuring|exchange]] of Argentina's [[public debt]] could be completed. |
| | | | |
| − | In retrospect, the obvious question is how could they expect a global spontaneous revolution to come about, and the answer is that the Paris group – and many radicals of all stripes all over the globe at that time – believed in Revolution as something akin to a force of nature. Within the context of their thinking, Revolution would come because it was obviously needed, and their role was simply to prepare people for it and help them see the obvious necessity of social change. From a modern perspective, such thinking seems incredibly naïve. Understanding it, however, provides important insight into the fundamentally evolutionary nature of the movement, and explains the movement’s focus on education instead of organization building.
| + | Although people could still use their money via [[credit card]]s, [[cheque|check]]s and other forms of non-cash payments, the enforcement of these measures caused delays and problems for the general population and especially for businesses. Massive queues at every bank and growing reports of political crisis contributed to inflame Argentina's political scenario. |
| | | | |
| − | The involvement of prominent Nationalist figures indicates the role of personal relationships in the Paris groups’ organizing. The individuals who founded that group had come out of the Nationalist movement and remained strongly tied to it by a network of close personal friendships, so it was natural for them to attempt to include their friends in their organizing in the hopes of winning those friends (and the influence they possessed) over to the Anarchist cause. The actual result of such collaboration, however, was typically that it was the Anarchists, not the Nationalists, who compromised their positions since doing so allowed them to gain access to power positions in the Nationalist government that they theoretically opposed. That same year Jing Meijiu and Zhang Ji (another anarchist affiliated with the Tokyo group) would both be elected to the Republican parliament. Shifu and the Guangzhou group declared that by doing so they were traitors to the cause and proved their lack of commitment to the movement; but both men continued to call themselves anarchists and were active in promoting anarchism clear up to the late 1920s.
| + | In this context, certain factions of the opposition, as well as interest groups who wanted a [[devaluation]] of the [[Argentine peso]], seized the opportunity to fuel public anger and replace the government. |
| − | Dirlik argues that this was indicative of lingering ambiguity in the definition of Anarchism. It would be more accurate to say, however, that the issue was one of strategy. These men considered themselves anarchists because they were working for the long-term abolition of capitalism, the state, and coercive authority in general; but in their vision Anarchism was a very long-term goal and not something they expected to see realized in their lifetimes - Chiang, for instance, expected that it would take 3,000 years to bring about the revolution they dreamed of. Understanding that, it becomes much easier to see why they would be tempted to campaign for and hold political office or collaborate with sympathetic elements in the government, since doing so would help them achieve their short term goals. This attitude is clearly distinct from the revolutionary anarchism of Kropotkin and Bakunin, or even of the Guangzhou group, which aimed for immediate revolution and the creation of an Anarchist society in the immediate future. The tendency to indefinitely postpone the revolution and the preoccupation with abstract philosophy and theory instead of concrete organizing by some of the wealthier participants in the movement doubtless has a lot to do with their class backgrounds. The split between wealthier “philosophical†Anarchists/Marxists/socialists/etc and working class revolutionaries is a common feature of revolutionary movements all over the world, and does not tell us anything in particular about the Anarchist movement in China.
| + | |
| | | | |
| − | As a counter-point to such collaboration, however, there is evidence that many more anarchists could have joined the new Nationalist government and gained positions of power and privilege but refused to do so because doing so would have violated their principles. As Scalapino and Yu put it “there can be little doubt that many refused to play the kind of political role that was so desperately needed in a period when trained personnel were extremely scarce compared to the tasks at hand.â€
| + | De la Rúa's position had become unsustainable. An attempt by the [[Catholic Church]] to mediate between the government and the opposition in mid-December failed. Between [[December 16]] and 19th, there were several incidents involving unemployed activists and protesters which demanded the handing-out of food bags from supermarkets. These incidents ended up with outright looting of [[supermarket]]s and [[convenience store]]s on [[December 18]], taking place on [[Rosario]] and the [[Greater Buenos Aires]] areas. This was of historical significance, as the previous Radical administration of [[Raúl AlfonsÃn]] had been forced to resign after a wave of looting in [[1989]]. |
| | | | |
| − | ==Early Growth== | + | == 19 Décembre == |
| − | It was for this reason that the Paris group would declare that [[education]] was the most important activity revolutionaries could be involved in, and that only through educating the people could anarchism be achieved. [See for example Wu Zhihui: "Education as Revolution," The New Era, September 1908] [[http://www.blackrosebooks.net/anarism1.htm]] Accordingly, they geared their activities towards education instead of [[assassination]] or grass roots organizing (the other two forms of activism which they condoned in theory). To these ends the Paris group would set up a variety of student-run businesses, including a [[Tofu]] factory, to fund the studies of radical students from China who wanted an education abroad. The students would come to work part time and study part time, thus gaining a European education for a fraction of what it would cost otherwise; and in the process gaining first-hand experience on what it might mean to live, work, and study in an [[Anarchist]] society. This study-abroad program would play a critical role in infusing anarchist language and ideas into the broader [[nationalist]] and [[revolutionary movements]] as hundreds of students participated in the program. The approach was eminently pragmatic in that it served a real need for students who wanted to study abroad but lacked the financial resources to do so, and because it demonstrated that Anarchist organizational models based on mutual aid and cooperation were viable alternatives to profit-driven [[capitalist]] ventures.
| + | Throughout the day new lootings took place, and the Government believed that Peronist elements were fueling the protests, especially in the province of Buenos Aires. This came after noting that the lootings often took place in Peronist-governed towns, and that the Buenos Aires Provincial Police (which ultimately answered to Buenos Aires Governor [[Carlos Ruckauf]], a top Peronist) was strangely mild in restoring order. With violence mounting across Argentina's major cities, President De la Rúa began to consider alternative measures to restore order. |
| | | | |
| − | Despite the occasional friction, the overwhelming tendency of both the Paris and the Tokyo groups was to assist the [[nationalist]] cause. In fact, several of the Paris groups members were early members of the [[Kuomintang]] and became close friends of [[Sun Yet-Sen]], and on at least two occasions Sun asked for and received “considerable†economic assistance from [[Chang Ching-Chiang]], who was associated with the Paris group. This collaboration was understandable given the emphasis by both the Anarchists and the nationalists on the importance of Revolutionaries working together, and because of the extreme eclecticism of Sun Yet-Sen who stated that “the end goal of the three peoples principles [was] communism and anarchism.†It may also explain the willingness of the Paris group to accept funding from the Nationalist government to expand their programs during [[world war one]] some years later.
| + | The first option considered was to deploy the military to contain the violence. However, Argentine legislation forbids military intervention in domestic security matters unless the police and security forces are overwhelmed, a situation quickly pointed out by the Chairman of the Joint General Staff and the Chiefs of Staff of the [[Argentine Army|Army]], [[Argentine Navy|Navy]] and [[Argentine Air Force|Air Force]]. The military also pointed that they would only intervene if their deployment was authorized by a law voted in Congress, something impossible given the Peronist majority in both Houses. The Argentine military was unwilling to take the blame if violence grew worse, learning from what had previously happened when President Isabel Perón issued an executive order commanding them to fight the subversive guerrilla movements of the [[1970s]] (see [[Dirty War]]). |
| | | | |
| − | Anarchism had reached the mainland of China by [[1907]], and in fact some scholars go so far as claim that 1907 “marked the victory of Anarchism over Marxism†in China as [[anarchist communism]] became the dominant strain of [[socialist]] thought. There is significant truth to this statement since Marxism was just as clearly available to those students studying abroad and bringing radical ideas home as Anarchism was; but the overwhelming tendency was clearly to prefer Anarchism to Marxism. One explanation of this preference is the tendency of those students with authoritarian leanings to embrace Nationalism, with Anarchism being the clear alternative for those opposed to coercive authority. We must remember that it was not until after the [[Bolshevik Revolution]] that Marxists, led by [[Lenin]] in his polemics against [[Imperialism]], would embrace Nationalism as a means to achieving Communism, and even today many [[Marxists]] adamantly oppose nationalism. This accounts, at least in part, for the profound lack of interest in Marxism among Chinese revolutionaries until after the Bolshevik counter-revolution in Russia.
| + | With military intervention no longer an option, De la Rúa resorted to declare a [[state of siege]] (essentially a [[state of emergency]]) throughout the country, deploying the [[PolicÃa Federal Argentina|Federal Police]], the [[GendarmerÃa Nacional Argentina|National Gendarmerie]] (border guard) and the [[Prefectura Naval Argentina|Naval Prefecture]] (coast guard) to contain the growing violence. |
| | | | |
| − | Early converts to Anarchism came from broadly divergent segments of Chinese society and included pacifist [[Buddhist]] monks like [[Tai xu]], and advocates of Revolutionary Terrorism like [[Liu Shifu]] (who had been a member of the [[China Assassination Corps]], and who abandoned [[terrorism]] and [[assassination]] when he converted to anarchism - see his "Goals and Methods of the Anarchist-Communist Party").[[http://www.blackrosebooks.net/anarism1.htm]] Again, the depiction of Anarchism as a ‘movement of movements’ - capable of offering something for everyone - is critical to understanding this phenomenon. As with the student groups that were becoming increasingly active in Tokyo and Paris at this time, Anarchists in mainland China by and large agreed to disagree on those issues that they could not come to a consensus on and worked together wherever doing so was mutually beneficial. From an organizational perspective, the result was a broadly dispersed collection of revolutionary “nodes of activity†without any central coordination – let alone authority. In the short-term this organizational structure was an asset to the movement because it made it incredibly hard for the authorities to repress. The long-term implications, however, were not so positive.
| + | Later that night, De la Rúa addressed the nation to announce the state of siege and to call the Peronists to negotiate a "government of national unity". Following the broadcast, spontaneous ''[[cacerolazo]]s'' (manif où les gens font du bruit avec des pots et toutes sortes d'objets) took place throughout Buenos Aires and other major cities, signaling the middle-class' own unrest. [[December 19]] concluded with the resignation of Domingo Cavallo, who had lost whatever support he had within the government. Groups of protesters mobilized throughout Buenos Aires, some of them arriving to [[Plaza de Mayo]], where there were incidents with the Federal Police forces. |
| | | | |
| − | ==Anarchism as a Mass Movement== | + | == 20 décembre == |
| − | By 1911 Anarchism had become the driving force behind popular mobilization and had moved beyond its initial association with relatively wealthy students studying abroad to become a genuine revolutionary movement among the people as a whole. There is some evidence that the grassroots workers movement which was developing at this time enjoyed a secondary influx of Anarchist ideals as people who had been working in the United States were forced to return home following the passage of the [[Chinese Exclusion Act]] in [[1882]], which severely limited (but did not eliminate) the flow of Chinese workers to and from the [[United States]]. In the United States, anarchists had been almost alone in the [[labor movement]] in explicitly opposing [[racism]] against [[Asian]] and [[Mexican]] workers, and when [[Emma Goldman]] came to speak in [[San Francisco]] in the 1890's there were several thousand Chinese workers in attendance. Additionally, from 1908 on many thousands of Chinese workers in North America - particularly those working in California and the Pacific North-West - became members of the [[Industrial unionism|Industrial Union]], the [[Industrial Workers of the World]] (IWW). The [[Wobblies]] (as IWW members were called) were the first American labor union to oppose the institution of [[White supremacy]] in an organized and deliberate fashion and to actively recruit Asians, Blacks, Latinos, and migratory workers. Their defense of Chinese immigrants who were being subjected to systematic harassment and discrimination won them a large base of membership among Chinese workers, and widespread support among the Chinese community in North America. The influence of Chinese IWW members returning to China has gone largely unstudied, but the strong Anarchist participation in the Chinese union movement and the willing reception that they met may owe something to this earlier relationship between Chinese workers and Anarchist Revolutionaries.
| + | What had began as rioting by unemployed and leftist-leaning groups had turned into a middle-class protest with the ''cacerolazos'', and the resignation of Cavallo did nothing to calm down the situation. The De la Rúa administration had agreed with the military to participate in an emergency handing-out of food, however, the plan failed due to lack of cooperation from the Ministry of Social Development. |
| | | | |
| − | Following the Nationalist revolution of 1911 and the victory of the Revolutionary Alliance, which counted several prominent Anarchists as movement “elders,†Anarchists throughout China had a bit more room to engage in organizing. At the same time, however Nationalist rule was by no means a guarantee of freedom to organize for [[antiauthoritarians]], and government persecution was ongoing. With Nationalist goals of overthrowing the [[Manchu]] [[Qing dynasty]] having been achieved, the main ideological opposition to Anarchism came from self-described [[Socialists]], including the [[Chinese Socialist Society]] and the Left wing of the nationalist movement which – following Sun Yet-Sen’s lead – called itself socialist. [[Jiang Kanghu]], who founded the [[Chinese Socialist Society]] in [[1911]], had been a contributor to the New Era (one of the publications of the Paris Group), and included the abolition of the [[State]], the traditional family structure, and [[Confucian]] culture as planks of his parties’ platform. The main source of conflict came because the CSS wanted to retain market relations but supplement them with a broad social safety net, since they felt that without any incentive mechanism people would not produce anything and the society would collapse. Other sources of friction had to do with the CSS’s focus on building the revolution in China first, and using elected office as a tool to do so – both significant deviations from classical anarchism. In retrospect, the CSS’s program sounds like a hybrid pairing of Anarchist politics with an economic structure reminiscent of European Social Democracy – an odd mix to be sure, but clearly capable of fitting within the broad tent of the movement. Jiang did not call himself an anarchist however, so his party was generally perceived as being outside the movement, despite the similarities. [[Shifu]] founded a group in [[Guangzhou]] later that same year, with an explicitly anarchist-communist platform, and in [[1912]] Jiang's party split into two factions, the “pure socialists,†led by the Anarchist Buddhist monk [[Tai xu]], and the remains of the party led by Jiang. The “Pure†Socialists revised platform included the complete abolition of property and an anarchist-communist economic system. Shifu criticized them for retaining the name “Socialist†but their platform was clearly anarchist so the two groups generally considered each other comrades. The emphasis on the importance of the Peasant struggle, which had been pioneered earlier by the Tokyo group, would also become a major subject of discussion and organizing among Chinese anarchists from both the Pure Socialists and the Guangzhou group in this period. It was anarchists who first pointed to the crucial role that the peasants must play in any serious revolutionary attempt in China, and Anarchists were the first to engage in any serious attempts to organize the [[Peasants]].
| + | Throughout the morning, groups of protesters converged on Plaza de Mayo despite the state of siege. The Federal Police, acting under orders from the government, proceeded to try to control the protests. An attempt by a federal judge to halt police operations was disregarded, and the situation worsened with the arrival of new groups of protesters. |
| | | | |
| − | The main base of Anarchist activity in mainland China during this phase was in [[Guangzhou]], and the Paris and Tokyo groups continued to have significant influence. The Pure Socialists were also strongly involved, but because they were as much Buddhists as they were Anarchists, were more concerned with promoting virtue and less focused on immediate revolution. By this time the Paris group had rendered their Anarchism into an extremely abstract philosophy that was more concerned with the place of the individual in society then with the day-to-day realities of working people. This is perhaps not surprising given the relatively wealthy backgrounds of most of the Paris group, but it would lead to increased friction between them and their more class-struggle oriented comrades in Guangzhou.
| + | As violence expanded, President De la Rúa tried to impose censorship on all news outlets from Buenos Aires. The idea was to use the state of siege to force the television networks to stop transmitting current events and broadcast emergency programming. This plan also failed because De la Rúa's own Media Secretary refused to carry out his instructions. |
| | | | |
| − | The Guangzhou group is usually described as being “led†by [[Shifu]], and this is generally accurate insofar as we understand it as leadership by example since he was never granted any formal position or coercive authority by the group. Their most significant contributions at this stage were the foundation of “an alliance between intellectuals and workers†and their propaganda work which set out to differentiate anarchism from all the other socialisms that were gaining in popularity; and in so doing crystallized for the first time exactly what Anarchism was. Where the Paris group had preferred to outline their ideal in terms of [[negative freedoms]], i.e. freedom from coercion, freedom from tradition, etc; the Guangzhou group used positive assertions of rights and [[workers]], [[women]], [[peasants]], and other oppressed groups to outline their vision of an Anarchist society. Noticeably absent was any mention of [[Ethnic]] minorities, since a basic part of their platform was the elimination of [[Ethnic]], [[Racial]], and [[National]] identities in favor of an [[internationalist]] identity that placed primary importance on loyalty to humanity as a whole, instead of to ones ethnic or racial group. It is important to recognize that this position was formulated in response to the primacy placed on ethnicity by the [[Anti-Manchu movement]], which sought to assert the illegitimacy of the [[Qing dynasty]] based in part on the fact that its members were part of an ethnic minority out of touch with the [[Han]] majority, a position which Anarchists of all four major groups decried as [[racist]] and unbefitting a movement that claimed to be working for liberation. Their position, therefore, was that ethnicity-based organizing promoted Racism, and had no place in a Revolution that sought liberation for all of humanity.
| + | Meanwhile, there were violent incidents between the police and protesters throughout the country. The most notorious ones took place at the Plaza de Mayo, where five people were killed. Some claim that the deaths were provoked by covert elements of the Buenos Aires Provincial Police in an attempt to further destabilize De la Rúa. |
| | | | |
| − | While consistent with the stance of the global Anarchist movement at the time, this position elicits mixed responses from modern Anarchists, many of whom see revolutionary potential in the struggles of oppressed ethnic and racial groups. In terms of the Revolutionary project in China, Ward Churchill cites the declarations of support for ethnic self-determination for China’s ethnic minorities which the Communist movement made as key to winning their movement the support of those groups; which was to prove decisive during the later civil war between the [[Chinese Communist Party]] and the [[Chinese NAtionalism|Nationalists]]. It is ironic that Anarchist movement, which is based on the idea of local political and economic self-determination – and thus fulfills the autonomist aspirations of those group - was unable to articulate to minority communities how their desire for self-determination would be realized within the context of an Anarchist society.
| + | With his options steadily being reduced, De la Rúa went into national television at 4 p.m. to offer the Peronists to join the government and try to bring some peace to the country. At that time, a caucus of Peronist governors was taking place at a country villa in the province of [[San Luis Province|San Luis]]. Three hours later, Humberto Roggero, head of the Peronist bloc of the House of Deputies, announced that the Peronist Party would not be a part of a "government of national unity". |
| | | | |
| − | In practical terms, the work of the movement at this stage was [[propaganda]] and [[organizing]]. Guangzhou Anarchists founded a newspaper called “Peoples Voice†and began organizing workers, while in Taiyuan ([[Taiwan]]), [[Jing Meijiu]] - who had converted to Anarchism as part of the Tokyo group - founded an explicitly [[anarchafeminist]]] worker-run factory/school to serve as a tool to help women simultaneously earn a living and receive an education. The similarity to the Paris groups [[Diligent Work and Frugal Study]] program are obvious. In 1912, members of the Paris group that had returned to China established the “[[Promote Virtue Society]],†whose leadership included prominent Anarchists like [[Li Shezeng]] and Nationalists like [[Wang Jiangwei]]. The focus of that society, in keeping with the tendencies of the Paris group, was as much on virtuous and moral personal behavior as it was on Revolutionary [[praxis]]. Their rules for membership delineated different levels of commitment and discouraged members from eating meat and visiting prostitutes; and concretely forbade them from riding in Sedan chairs, taking concubines, or holding public office. While it may be tempting to see such rules as superfluous, the evidence suggests we should take them seriously, since most of the Anarchist organizations in China in this period included similar rules for their members. The goal was to create a cadre of Revolutionaries who would lead by example and help create a model for a new [[revolutionary culture]]. There are obvious parallels here to the traditional obligation for people involved in public life to set an example and promote virtue as well.
| + | After knowing the Peronists' response, De la Rúa decided to resign from office. The situation on Plaza de Mayo (right in front of the [[Casa Rosada]], the Presidential Palace) was still too violent for De la Rúa to leave by car to his official residence at Olivos, thus the President's security detail decided to take him out of the Casa Rosada onboard an Air Force helicopter. The images of De la Rúa's "escape" by helicopter were broadcast throughout the country. |
| | | | |
| − | Only a few years later, during World War I, the Paris group would take advantage of the French Governments need for laborers to gain funding from the French and Chinese governments to expand their work-study movement to include Chinese workers. The students continued to come, but part of their program of education now included holding classes and educating the thousands of Chinese workers supplementing the French war effort. In so doing they aided one [[imperialist]] capitalist power in its self-defense against another imperialist capitalist power. While a small number of well-known Anarchists, including [[Peter Kropotkin]], supported the French during [[World War I]] because they saw France as more progressive then Germany and feared a German victory would undermine their Revolutionary activity in France, this was definitely a minority position in terms of the global movement. However, the Paris group was nothing if not pragmatic, and since the Chinese workers were going to come one way or another, they took advantage of the situation and used it as an opportunity to meet their enemies short term needs while fulfilling their long-term goal of educating the workers. The fact that they were able to get government funding for an education program with the goal of training young people and workers in how to become effective revolutionaries is a vindication of their tactics. The practical implications of such a broad diffusion of Anarchist ideas, and the setting in which it took place, are both strong indicators of the strong fusion of pragmatism and idealism that typified the Paris groups activities. In any case, the increased contact with actual flesh-and-blood workers had a profound effect on their propaganda and theory, with [[labour (economics)|labor]] issues suddenly becoming a much more prominent part of their platform.
| + | The violence slowly abated. By the end of the day, 26 people had died, five of them in Buenos Aires. The President Pro-Tempore of the Senate, [[Ramón Puerta]], took over as Interim President, until Congress could appoint a successor to De la Rúa. |
| | | | |
| − | By [[1914]] Anarchism had become a genuine popular movement in China as increasing numbers of people from peasants and factory workers to intellectuals and students became disillusioned with the Nationalist government and its inability to realize the peace and prosperity it had promised. A major liability that the movement had picked up along the way, however, was the extreme diffusion of Anarchist idea to the point where it was becoming difficult to define exactly who was and who was not an Anarchist. [[Shifu]] set out to remedy that situation in a series of articles in Peoples Voice, which attacked [[Jiang Kanghu]], [[Sun Yet-Sen]], and the [[Pure Socialists]]. The debates that ensued served for the first time to really crystallize what exactly was meant by Anarchism in the broad sense. It is important to note that these articles were generally friendly in tone. The goal was to clearly differentiate between the different schools of thought that were available at that time. The letters directed at Sun Yet Sen and the Nationalists were aimed at exposing the ambiguities of their use of the word “socialism†to describe their goals, which were clearly not socialist according to any contemporary definition. The attacks on Jiang and the CSS sought to portray their vision of revolution and socialism as too narrow because it was focused on a single country, and to oppose their retention of market relations as part of their platform. The attack on the Pure Socialists was by far the mildest, with the main criticism being that if they were Anarchists then they should call themselves Anarchists and not socialists. Peoples Voice invited and printed responses from all parties, and their goal seems to have been the creation of an open and respectful debate among friends.
| + | == The RodrÃguez Saá Administration == |
| | + | According to the Acephaly Act, Puerta would only be President until the Legislative Assembly (a joint session of the Senate and the House of Deputies) convened and appointed a new President from either one member of Congress or a provincial governor to complete the resigning President's period. |
| | | | |
| − | For the next five years the movement would grow slowly but steadily as each of the disparate groups continued their propaganda, education, and organizing projects. In [[1915]] the anarchist arguments for a [[Social Revolution]] that had originated a decade earlier with the original Paris group would find broader acceptance in the [[New Culture Movement]] which was pioneered by a small group of intellectuals in [[Beijing]] but spread to the rest of the county over the next four years, until it merged into the [[May Fourth movement]]. The New Culture Movement was not Anarchist, but in it’s glorification of science and extreme disdain for [[Confucianism]] and traditional culture it extended critiques that had originated with the Paris group, and the proliferation of Anarchist thought during this period can be seen as a confirmation of the influence Anarchists had on the movement from its foundation on. The participants saw it as a conscious attempt to create a Chinese [[renaissance]], and consciously sought to create and live the new culture that they espoused.
| + | The Peronist governors assembled at San Luis -arguably the most powerful men in Argentina at the period- were divided on who to nominate. There were three "natural candidates", who were the governors of the three largest provinces: Carlos Ruckauf of Buenos Aires, José Manuel de la Sota of [[Córdoba Province|Córdoba]] and Carlos Reutemann of [[Santa Fe Province|Santa Fe]]. As a temporary arrangement, the governors decided to nominate [[Adolfo RodrÃguez Saá]], Governor of San Luis. The Peronists' easy majority on both houses of Congress ensured that RodrÃguez Saá be elected on [[December 22]]. |
| | | | |
| − | ==Anarchism and the Rise of Maoism==
| + | RodrÃguez Saá was to be President for only three months, until Presidential elections were held on March. De la Rúa's term expired in 2003, but some argued that only a President legitimated by popular vote would be able to bring Argentina out of the crisis. However, RodrÃguez Saá didn't seem at all satisfied with being a caretaker President. |
| − | Once the [[Bolsheviks]] in [[Russia]] had consolidated their power, they immediately sought to expand their sphere of influence. Their interpretation of [[Marx]]’s prediction that the [[revolution]] would be global was that – as the [[vanguard]] – it was their role to use the resources at their disposal to instigate and support Bolshevik-style revolutions all over the world. In keeping with [[Lenin]]’s doctrine on [[Imperialism]], their focus was on the undeveloped nations, because they believed that once those nations had thrown off imperialism, Western [[capitalism]] – deprived of the material support and raw materials it required – would collapse. They also specifically targeted countries with already established revolutionary movements, and China clearly qualified. In 1919 the anarchists played a significant role in the May 4th Movement which swept the country. It was at this time that first Bolshevik started organising in China and began contacting [[Anarchist]] groups for aid and support. The Anarchists, unaware of how the Bolsheviks had subbordinated the [[soviet]]s to their party apparatus, helped them set up communist study groups – many of which were originally majority Anarchist - and introduced the Bolsheviks into the Chinese [[labour movement|labor]] and [[student]] movements.
| + | |
| | | | |
| − | In [[1921]], with the establishing of the [[Chinese Communist Party]] (CCP), the anarchist movement almost immediately began to lose ground Several reasons have been suggested for this: Firstly of these was the Anarchist’s inability to coordinate activities across regions. Secondly, there was a growing awareness that the Bolsheviks were [[Marxists]], not anarchists – which caused an immediate loss of prestige for the anarchists who had previously claimed the success of the [[Russian Revolution of 1917|Russian Revolution]] for their own. Third and perhaps most critical is the [[evolutionary]] nature of large sections of the movement which did not expect to see their goals met any time in the even remotely near future. When workers are hungry they don’t want to hear about how great some hypothetical revolution 3,000 years in the future will be, they want change in the here and now –when it is useful. Bolshevism and the CCP platform were immediately attractive to working people because they offered the promise of change in the here and now.
| + | From the first moment, RodrÃguez Saá embarked on ambitious projects aimed at giving him popularity. In his inaugural speech, he announced that Argentina would [[default (finance)|default]] on its foreign debt, an announcement received by rousing applause from the members of Congress. He then proceeded to announce the issuing of a "third currency" (alongside with the peso and the dollar) to boost consumption. Later on, RodrÃguez Saá announced that he would extradite every former military officer charged with human rights abuses during the Dirty War who was requested by foreign courts. Another measure was to stand down the state of siege. |
| | | | |
| − | When the Communist party entered into the [[United Front]] with the [[Kuomintang]] against the [[warlords]] in [[1924]], they gained even broader access to the labor movement, and to mass movements in general. In a period of two years, the CCP grew from a membership of only a few hundred to over 50,000 through their support and assimilation of the various mass movements. With this increased membership, the CCP no longer felt the need to conceal their disdain for the Anarchist movement and began a series of attacks against anarchism and anarchists in its internal publications. The purpose of these attacks was first to discredit their opposition, and secondly to bring the [[ideology]] of their newly-acquired mass base into line. This is particularly critical since virtually all of the CCP’s leadership for the next fifty years would be drawn from people who had started as Anarchists. The fact that so many radicals left the Anarchist movement and joined the CCP is indicative of the limitations of Chinese anarchism during this period.
| + | There were also some unpopular designations to the Cabinet. The most notorious one was the appointment of former Mayor of Buenos Aires Carlos Grosso, arguably one of the most corrupt figures in Argentine politics. RodrÃguez Saá also courted the powerful Peronist [[trade unions]] in a move that was recognized as an attempt to wrestle power from the other Peronist governors. |
| | | | |
| − | As the influence of the CCP grew, their attacks on Anarchism became more overt and less friendly. Where the first debates between [[Ou Shenbai]] and [[Chen Duxiu]] (his former teacher) had been friendly, later debates became actively hostile. As the Anarchist movement rapidly shrank into insignificance, the comrades became increasingly desperate.
| + | New riots and ''cacerolazos'' took place on Buenos Aires, with some protesters entering the Congress Palace and burning furniture. On [[December 30]], RodrÃguez Saá called for a summit of Peronist governors at the Presidential holiday retreat of Chapadmalal. Of the fourteen Peronist governors, only five attended. Realizing that he lacked support from his own party, RodrÃguez Saá returned to his home province to announce his own resignation to the Presidency after barely a week in office. |
| | | | |
| − | A minority of Anarchists, mostly from the Paris group, had been involved in the [[Kuomintang]] almost from its founding; but that the majority of Anarchists, in keeping with their stated principles against involvement in the exercise of coercive authority, had declined to participate in this alliance. The “[[Diligent Work and Frugal Study]]†program was one prodyct of this collabotration of the anarchists with nationalists. When the Kuomintang purged the CCP from its ranks in [[1927]], the small minority of Anarchists who had long participated in it urged their younger comrades to join the movement and utilize the [[Nationalist]] movement as a vehicle to defeat the [[Communists]] and realize [[Anarchism]]. This drew immediate opposition from those Anarchist groups that were still functioning. But even those critical of this opportunism, however, eventually joined in – if only because doing so seemed to be the only remaining chance to make their movement relevant again and reclaim its lost momentum.
| + | == The designation of Eduardo Duhalde == |
| | + | Ramón Puerta refused to take over as interim President again, resigning as President Pro-Tempore of the Senate. With no President, Vice President or President Pro-Tempore of the Senate, the Presidency of Argentina was placed in the hands of the next-in-line: [[Eduardo Camaño]], who was the Speaker of the House of Deputies. |
| | | | |
| − | The result of this last collaboration was the creation of Chinas first [[Labor University]], which was intended to be a domestic version of the Paris groups educational program and sought to create a new generation of [[Labor Intellectuals]] who would finally overcome the gap between “those who work with their hands†and “those who work with their minds.†The university would only function for a very few years before the Nationalist government decided they the project was to subversive to allow it too continue and pulled funding. It had been acceptable for the Anarchists to use government funding to promote Anarchism as long as they did so in France, but when they began to do so at home, their “allies†were less then pleased. When the KMT initiated a second wave of repression against the few remaining mass movements, Anarchists left the organization en masse and were forced underground as hostilities between the KMT and CCP - both of whom were hostile towards anti-authoritarians - escalated. | + | Camaño was to take over until a new Legislative Assembly was convened. The Assembly convened on [[1 January]] of 2002, and debated extensively before designating Senator [[Eduardo Duhalde]] as President almost at midnight. |
| | | | |
| − | ==Rebirth==
| + | Duhalde was one of the top leaders of the Peronist Party. However, many had thought that Duhalde's political career was ruined after his defeat in the 1999 presidential elections. In an extremely ironic twist of events, Duhalde was called to complete the term of the man who beat him in the elections, Fernando De la Rúa. This was not to be a provisional Presidency, and Duhalde was designated to serve until the 2003 presidential elections. |
| − | Overtly Anarchist organizing has ceased to be a factor in modern Chinese politics due too the heavy repression levied against anti-authoritarians by the Marxist state from the time of the [[Cultural Revolution]] on. However, as an underground resistance movement Anarchism remains influential. [[Libertarian Socialist]] and [[Anarchist Communist]] currents have been particularly strong in the anti-dictatorship movement and in China's underground [[Labor Movement]]. The best known of these (in the west at least) is the [[Autonomous Beijing]] group, one of several groups responsible for organizing the [[Tiananmen Square protests of 1989]]. More recently, the Associated press has reported the emergence of a distinctly anarchist labor movement in China's old industrial rust-belt and a growing number of assassinations of communist party officials and factory bosses by disgruntled workers. Unfortunately, due to the extreme [[Censorship in the Republic of China|censorship]] imposed by the government of the [[People's Republic of China]], it is nearly impossible to accurately catalogue the ideological motivations and affiliations of such movements and groups.
| + | |
| | | | |
| − | ==Works Cited:==
| + | With regard to the economy Duhalde and his Economy Minister [[Jorge Remes Lenicov]] decided on an even more extreme freezing of the bank deposits, which was then coupled with the so-called ''pesificación'' (forced transformation of all dollar-denominated accounts into pesos at an arbitrary fixed [[exchange rate]]), and a huge devaluation. |
| − | *Anonymous “A Letter to Hsin Shi-chi from a Certain Individual with Answers†Hshin Shi-Chi No8. Aug 10, 1907
| + | |
| − | *Bernal, M. “The Triumph of Anarchism over Marxism,†China in Revolution. Ed M.C Wright, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971
| + | {{wikipedia}} |
| − | *Berkman, Alexander. The Russian Tragedy Der Syndicalist, Berlin, 1922. Reprinted by Phoenix Press, London.
| + | |
| − | *Chu Ho Chung, “The Record of European T’ung Meng Hui, inLo Chia-lun. (Documents of the Red Revolution), vol II Taipei 1953
| + | |
| − | *Chtu, Min-I “Looking to the Past†Hsin Shin-chi no 24, Nov. 30 1907
| + | |
| − | *Choi, Jennifer Jung Hee. The Rhetoric of Inclusion: The I.W.W. and Asian Workers http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~epf/1999/choi.html
| + | |
| − | *Churchill, Ward. “Marxism and Native Americans.†Acts of Rebellion: The Ward Churchill Reader. Routledge Nov. 2002
| + | |
| − | *Dirlik, Arif. Anarchism in the Chinese Revolution. University of California Press. Berkeley and LA, CA. 1991
| + | |
| − | *Feng Tzu-yu “The Master of the Hsin Shih-chi, Chang Ching-Chiang†Vol II pp 227-230
| + | |
| − | *Goldman, Emma. Living My Life Volume I Dover Publications (June 1, 1930)
| + | |
| − | *Goldman, Emma. Living My Life Volume II. Alfred A Knopf Inc. New York, 1931
| + | |
| − | *Internet-Encyclopedia.org, http://internet-encyclopedia.org/wiki.php?title=Libertarian_socialism
| + | |
| − | *Mouchan, G.E. (Editor) “Selection Of Materials on Anarchist Thought,â€. Beijing Daxue Chubanshe
| + | |
| − | *Polan, A.J. Lenin and the End of Politics, Methuen, London, 1984
| + | |
| − | *Scalapino, R. and Yu. G.T. “The Chinese Anarchist Movement†University of California Press, Berkeley CA 1969
| + | |
| − | *Shifu, "Goals and Methods of the Anarchist-Communist Party," The People's Voice, July 1914 (reprinted in Anarchism: A Documentary History of Libertarian Ideas - Volume One: From Anarchy to Anarchism (300CE-1939), ed. Robert Graham).[[http://www.blackrosebooks.net/anarism1.htm]]
| + | |
L'article Samarre/traduction2 est en cours de traduction
L'avancement de cette traduction est de %.
|
Catégorie:En traduction
Les émeutes de décembre 2001 ont été un temps de civil unrest and rioting in Argentina, et ont eu lieu durant le mois de décembre 2001 avec une culmination des incidents le 19 et 20 Décembre dans la capitale(Buenos Aires).
Background[edit]
Les émeutes ont été surtout la rébellion de la classe moyenne contre le gouvernment du président Fernando de la Rúa, qui avait échouer à la tâche de contenir la crise économique et l'Argentine traversait sa troisième année de récession.
Vers Mars 2001, deux ministres de l'économie quittèrent leur poste successivement et Domingo Cavallo prit le poste.
Cavallo took to administer the country's economy, establishing new taxes and special agreements with certain sectors of the Argentine industrial establishment. He also took to restructure Argentina's massive foreign debt in an operation known locally as the megacanje ("mega-exchange", i. e. an exchange of debt bonds for others at more advantageous conditions). From the first moment, there were allegations of corruption and money laundering about the megacanje.
De la Rúa's political situation was also precarious. His arrival to power in 1999 had been possible thanks to an alliance between the Radical Civic Union and the FrePaSo parties, which managed to defeat the incumbent Justicialist Party (the Peronists) in that year's presidential elections. However, the Alliance (as it was known) failed to achieve a majority in the Senate and the House of Deputies, and lost the provincial elections to the Peronists, who then remained in charge of large and critical districts such as the Buenos Aires, Córdoba and Santa Fe provinces.
The government coalition was strained from the first moment; the FrePaSo leaders resented being "junior members" of the government (being forced to that position after losing their bid to the Governorship of Buenos Aires), while the Radicals were divided between their left- and right-leaning factions (De la Rúa was a leader of the party's conservatives), especially regarding economic policy. In late 2000 a political scandal broke out when it was reported that the SIDE, Argentina's intelligence service, had paid massive bribes to a number of senators to approve a controversial Labor Reform Act. The head of SIDE, Fernando de Santibañes, was a personal friend of De la Rúa. The crisis came to a head on October 2000 when Vice President Carlos Ãlvarez resigned, citing De la Rúa's unwillingness to tackle corruption.
The March 2001 crisis (see above) also caused the resignation of all the FrePaSo Cabinet ministers, leaving De la Rúa without political support. The congressional elections of October 2001 were a disaster for the government, which lost many of its seats in the Senate and the House of Deputies to the Peronists. The election results marked also a growing unrest within Argentina's voters, who took to cast millions of null or blank votes. The Peronists seized the opportunity to appoint Senator Ramón Puerta to be President Pro-Tempore of the Argentine Senate, a situation which added to De la Rúa's political weakness since in the Argentine system the President Pro-Tempore of the Senate is next in line for the Presidency after the Vice President. With no Vice President of its own, Puerta's designation meant that De la Rúa had a virtual Peronist Vice President.
Social unrest was also growing. Since the late 1990s, protest movements had formed in Argentina, notably the piqueteros ("picketeers"). The piqueteros blockaded major roads and highways demanding government subsidies and other welfare measures. They featured prominently during the March 2001 crisis.
This entire crisis came to a head on November 29 2001, when Argentines took to banks and financial institutions to withdraw millions of pesos and dollars from their accounts. Had the withdrawal continued, Argentina's entire banking system would have collapsed.
Corralito[edit]
The unrest started when Economy Minister Domingo Cavallo, introduced restrictions to the withdrawal of cash from bank deposits (see corralito), intending to stop the draining of deposits that had been taking place throughout 2001 and had reached the point were 25% of all the money in the banks had been withdrawn. These measures were aimed at controlling the banking crisis for a period of 90 days, until the exchange of Argentina's public debt could be completed.
Although people could still use their money via credit cards, checks and other forms of non-cash payments, the enforcement of these measures caused delays and problems for the general population and especially for businesses. Massive queues at every bank and growing reports of political crisis contributed to inflame Argentina's political scenario.
In this context, certain factions of the opposition, as well as interest groups who wanted a devaluation of the Argentine peso, seized the opportunity to fuel public anger and replace the government.
De la Rúa's position had become unsustainable. An attempt by the Catholic Church to mediate between the government and the opposition in mid-December failed. Between December 16 and 19th, there were several incidents involving unemployed activists and protesters which demanded the handing-out of food bags from supermarkets. These incidents ended up with outright looting of supermarkets and convenience stores on December 18, taking place on Rosario and the Greater Buenos Aires areas. This was of historical significance, as the previous Radical administration of Raúl AlfonsÃn had been forced to resign after a wave of looting in 1989.
19 Décembre[edit]
Throughout the day new lootings took place, and the Government believed that Peronist elements were fueling the protests, especially in the province of Buenos Aires. This came after noting that the lootings often took place in Peronist-governed towns, and that the Buenos Aires Provincial Police (which ultimately answered to Buenos Aires Governor Carlos Ruckauf, a top Peronist) was strangely mild in restoring order. With violence mounting across Argentina's major cities, President De la Rúa began to consider alternative measures to restore order.
The first option considered was to deploy the military to contain the violence. However, Argentine legislation forbids military intervention in domestic security matters unless the police and security forces are overwhelmed, a situation quickly pointed out by the Chairman of the Joint General Staff and the Chiefs of Staff of the Army, Navy and Air Force. The military also pointed that they would only intervene if their deployment was authorized by a law voted in Congress, something impossible given the Peronist majority in both Houses. The Argentine military was unwilling to take the blame if violence grew worse, learning from what had previously happened when President Isabel Perón issued an executive order commanding them to fight the subversive guerrilla movements of the 1970s (see Dirty War).
With military intervention no longer an option, De la Rúa resorted to declare a state of siege (essentially a state of emergency) throughout the country, deploying the Federal Police, the National Gendarmerie (border guard) and the Naval Prefecture (coast guard) to contain the growing violence.
Later that night, De la Rúa addressed the nation to announce the state of siege and to call the Peronists to negotiate a "government of national unity". Following the broadcast, spontaneous cacerolazos (manif où les gens font du bruit avec des pots et toutes sortes d'objets) took place throughout Buenos Aires and other major cities, signaling the middle-class' own unrest. December 19 concluded with the resignation of Domingo Cavallo, who had lost whatever support he had within the government. Groups of protesters mobilized throughout Buenos Aires, some of them arriving to Plaza de Mayo, where there were incidents with the Federal Police forces.
20 décembre[edit]
What had began as rioting by unemployed and leftist-leaning groups had turned into a middle-class protest with the cacerolazos, and the resignation of Cavallo did nothing to calm down the situation. The De la Rúa administration had agreed with the military to participate in an emergency handing-out of food, however, the plan failed due to lack of cooperation from the Ministry of Social Development.
Throughout the morning, groups of protesters converged on Plaza de Mayo despite the state of siege. The Federal Police, acting under orders from the government, proceeded to try to control the protests. An attempt by a federal judge to halt police operations was disregarded, and the situation worsened with the arrival of new groups of protesters.
As violence expanded, President De la Rúa tried to impose censorship on all news outlets from Buenos Aires. The idea was to use the state of siege to force the television networks to stop transmitting current events and broadcast emergency programming. This plan also failed because De la Rúa's own Media Secretary refused to carry out his instructions.
Meanwhile, there were violent incidents between the police and protesters throughout the country. The most notorious ones took place at the Plaza de Mayo, where five people were killed. Some claim that the deaths were provoked by covert elements of the Buenos Aires Provincial Police in an attempt to further destabilize De la Rúa.
With his options steadily being reduced, De la Rúa went into national television at 4 p.m. to offer the Peronists to join the government and try to bring some peace to the country. At that time, a caucus of Peronist governors was taking place at a country villa in the province of San Luis. Three hours later, Humberto Roggero, head of the Peronist bloc of the House of Deputies, announced that the Peronist Party would not be a part of a "government of national unity".
After knowing the Peronists' response, De la Rúa decided to resign from office. The situation on Plaza de Mayo (right in front of the Casa Rosada, the Presidential Palace) was still too violent for De la Rúa to leave by car to his official residence at Olivos, thus the President's security detail decided to take him out of the Casa Rosada onboard an Air Force helicopter. The images of De la Rúa's "escape" by helicopter were broadcast throughout the country.
The violence slowly abated. By the end of the day, 26 people had died, five of them in Buenos Aires. The President Pro-Tempore of the Senate, Ramón Puerta, took over as Interim President, until Congress could appoint a successor to De la Rúa.
The RodrÃguez Saá Administration[edit]
According to the Acephaly Act, Puerta would only be President until the Legislative Assembly (a joint session of the Senate and the House of Deputies) convened and appointed a new President from either one member of Congress or a provincial governor to complete the resigning President's period.
The Peronist governors assembled at San Luis -arguably the most powerful men in Argentina at the period- were divided on who to nominate. There were three "natural candidates", who were the governors of the three largest provinces: Carlos Ruckauf of Buenos Aires, José Manuel de la Sota of Córdoba and Carlos Reutemann of Santa Fe. As a temporary arrangement, the governors decided to nominate Adolfo RodrÃguez Saá, Governor of San Luis. The Peronists' easy majority on both houses of Congress ensured that RodrÃguez Saá be elected on December 22.
RodrÃguez Saá was to be President for only three months, until Presidential elections were held on March. De la Rúa's term expired in 2003, but some argued that only a President legitimated by popular vote would be able to bring Argentina out of the crisis. However, RodrÃguez Saá didn't seem at all satisfied with being a caretaker President.
From the first moment, RodrÃguez Saá embarked on ambitious projects aimed at giving him popularity. In his inaugural speech, he announced that Argentina would default on its foreign debt, an announcement received by rousing applause from the members of Congress. He then proceeded to announce the issuing of a "third currency" (alongside with the peso and the dollar) to boost consumption. Later on, RodrÃguez Saá announced that he would extradite every former military officer charged with human rights abuses during the Dirty War who was requested by foreign courts. Another measure was to stand down the state of siege.
There were also some unpopular designations to the Cabinet. The most notorious one was the appointment of former Mayor of Buenos Aires Carlos Grosso, arguably one of the most corrupt figures in Argentine politics. RodrÃguez Saá also courted the powerful Peronist trade unions in a move that was recognized as an attempt to wrestle power from the other Peronist governors.
New riots and cacerolazos took place on Buenos Aires, with some protesters entering the Congress Palace and burning furniture. On December 30, RodrÃguez Saá called for a summit of Peronist governors at the Presidential holiday retreat of Chapadmalal. Of the fourteen Peronist governors, only five attended. Realizing that he lacked support from his own party, RodrÃguez Saá returned to his home province to announce his own resignation to the Presidency after barely a week in office.
The designation of Eduardo Duhalde[edit]
Ramón Puerta refused to take over as interim President again, resigning as President Pro-Tempore of the Senate. With no President, Vice President or President Pro-Tempore of the Senate, the Presidency of Argentina was placed in the hands of the next-in-line: Eduardo Camaño, who was the Speaker of the House of Deputies.
Camaño was to take over until a new Legislative Assembly was convened. The Assembly convened on 1 January of 2002, and debated extensively before designating Senator Eduardo Duhalde as President almost at midnight.
Duhalde was one of the top leaders of the Peronist Party. However, many had thought that Duhalde's political career was ruined after his defeat in the 1999 presidential elections. In an extremely ironic twist of events, Duhalde was called to complete the term of the man who beat him in the elections, Fernando De la Rúa. This was not to be a provisional Presidency, and Duhalde was designated to serve until the 2003 presidential elections.
With regard to the economy Duhalde and his Economy Minister Jorge Remes Lenicov decided on an even more extreme freezing of the bank deposits, which was then coupled with the so-called pesificación (forced transformation of all dollar-denominated accounts into pesos at an arbitrary fixed exchange rate), and a huge devaluation.
- REDIRECT Modèle:Wikipedia
|
