Galeano 156-65, When Two Worlds Collide, Standard Oil Co. (2/4)
Galeano 156-65:
Galeano reflects on the power of petroleum as “a magnet for foreign capital” and a tool for economic exploitation by the global north in Latin America. He notes the power of oil companies to intervene in politics, including but not limited to coups, wars, and controlling the monopoly of violence through financial corruption of the military. Economically, the US enjoys a “ten to one” profit ratio compared to Latin America, such that every “$11 that the derivatives ... sell for, countries exporting ... get a sum total of $1 from taxes and extraction costs.” If this isn’t exploitation, I’m not sure what is. Further, this system wasn’t in place until “the United States became a net importer and the cartel began applying a new policy.” This “odd inversion of the ‘laws of the market’” as Galeano calls it, is a morally indefensible but economically justifiable paradox that disproportionately benefits the United States at the expense of primary product producers in countries like Venezuela, Mexico and Colombia. In Mexico, Standard Oil and Shell “defied the Mexican Supreme Court rulings on the application of Mexican Labor laws” and sapped the Mexican oil supply with little concern for the fate of Mexican workers. Pemex was founded in 1938 to combat such exploitation by “taking charge of all production and marketing.” Uruguay responded to the threat of exploitation by “installing a state refinery” called ANCAP. This effort ultimately failed due to economic hardball threats: no one would sell Uruguay machinery, and eventually, after a coup and intense pressure, “the Gabriel Terra dictatorship ... signed ominous ‘secret agreements’” that forced Uruguay “to buy 40 percent of its crude petroleum from whomever Standard Oil, Shell, Atlantic or Texaco might indicate, at prices fixed by the cartel.” Similar “emasculation” of Petrobras occurred in Brazil.
However, no costs were greater than the lives lost in the Chaco War. Even US Senator Huey Long noted the influence of Standard Oil and Shell in perpetuating the conflict, calling Standard Oil a “criminal, evil, wicked, domestic assassin” among other things. In the end, the “naked soldiers” bore the brunt of the cost. Such multinational companies would stop at nothing if profits were possible. Gulf oil signed a blatantly exploitative contract with Bolivia, which allowed them to “recover 100 percent of the capital ... of an area if petroleum was not found.” They were also found to be exploiting resources in the subsoil that “contains much more gas than petroleum” which was outside the realms of the contract. Further, the costs of exploration were charged to the state as liabilities until petroleum was found.
When Two Worlds Collide
This documentary provided exemplary detail into a pivotal moment in Peruvian history: the Bagua massacre. It summarizes the stances of both sides concerning the 1090 law that allowed foreign, multinational companies a “blank check” to explore and develop lands for petroleum, lumber and metallic harvesting without the consent of the Natives. This complete lack of concern for the constitution and indigenous rights was typical, as Galeano highlights in other countries such as Bolivia, Mexico, Paraguay and Argentina. Pizango calls such development “savage” in part because of the unilateral focus on profit and in part as a reversal of the common conception of his people as undeveloped savages. Throughout the film Garcia and his government refer to the natives as “savages” and “barbarians,” but the indigenous persist in peace. The narrative pendulum of the film swings between two narratives, Pizango’s and Garcia’s. Pizango fancies himself a defender of the Native mandate to Amazon land and a protector of indigenous democratic practice and autonomy. Garcia believes the government is responsible for moving the country toward greater development in the capitalist sense, and that the native community poses a serious threat to further investment and growth. They, led by Pizango, seek to hold Peru back from a more prosperous future. However, the great fraud in Garcia’s argument, according to the film, is that American investment depended on the rules set in place, when in fact, the agreement could have been changed so long as the stability of the investment environment remained. In trying to maintain stability, the Garcia government wrought chaos. Garcia didn’t respond gracefully, either. He condemned the indigenous demonstrators as barbarous and murderous perpetrators, and the police as victims. The government, in his eyes, was looking out for the interest of the majority (20+ million) at the expense of a vocal and violent minority (400k.) While this economically and logistically makes sense, it is once again (like the examples from Galeano) morally indefensible. As one man noted in the film, something is wrong when gold and oil cost more than a human life. He is right. None of this should have happened if the constitution was followed: indigenous trust would have remained in the government and constitution, rather than continuing to erode. And, most importantly, no lives would have been lost.
This documentary provided exemplary detail into a pivotal moment in Peruvian history: the Bagua massacre. It summarizes the stances of both sides concerning the 1090 law that allowed foreign, multinational companies a “blank check” to explore and develop lands for petroleum, lumber and metallic harvesting without the consent of the Natives. This complete lack of concern for the constitution and indigenous rights was typical, as Galeano highlights in other countries such as Bolivia, Mexico, Paraguay and Argentina. Pizango calls such development “savage” in part because of the unilateral focus on profit and in part as a reversal of the common conception of his people as undeveloped savages. Throughout the film Garcia and his government refer to the natives as “savages” and “barbarians,” but the indigenous persist in peace. The narrative pendulum of the film swings between two narratives, Pizango’s and Garcia’s. Pizango fancies himself a defender of the Native mandate to Amazon land and a protector of indigenous democratic practice and autonomy. Garcia believes the government is responsible for moving the country toward greater development in the capitalist sense, and that the native community poses a serious threat to further investment and growth. They, led by Pizango, seek to hold Peru back from a more prosperous future. However, the great fraud in Garcia’s argument, according to the film, is that American investment depended on the rules set in place, when in fact, the agreement could have been changed so long as the stability of the investment environment remained. In trying to maintain stability, the Garcia government wrought chaos. Garcia didn’t respond gracefully, either. He condemned the indigenous demonstrators as barbarous and murderous perpetrators, and the police as victims. The government, in his eyes, was looking out for the interest of the majority (20+ million) at the expense of a vocal and violent minority (400k.) While this economically and logistically makes sense, it is once again (like the examples from Galeano) morally indefensible. As one man noted in the film, something is wrong when gold and oil cost more than a human life. He is right. None of this should have happened if the constitution was followed: indigenous trust would have remained in the government and constitution, rather than continuing to erode. And, most importantly, no lives would have been lost.
Standard Oil Neruda
The poem, Standard Oil by Neruda directly addresses the issues present in Galeano and When Two Worlds Collide. The first imagery I notice is the organ and body imagery. It compares the drill to an “implacable intestine” referencing “scaly systems” and “a pale engineer.” The second stanza references “petroleum’s arteries” and the “earth’s bowels” evoking images of raping the land “when the fountain gushes its paraffin foliage.” I looked up the definition of paraffin to make the unfortunate connection. There is also a direct reference to the Chaco War, which Galeano discusses at length, and the involvement of the oil companies in the political and economic volatility of the region. Neruda makes a call to unity by noting that only the uniform “designates which brother is the enemy.” Also, the storm imagery in Patagonia compares oil to a tide and extraction to a bolt of lighting in a storm that dissolves to leave Standard Oil shining bright like the sun above. This also brings to mind light penetrating the darkness of the savage jungle culturally.
Comments
Post a Comment