Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
It's Time for a New Relationship With Bolivia
Evo Morales is the most popular President Bolivia has ever had, winning re-election last month with 64% of the vote in spite of the fact that he is often at loggerheads with Bolivia's upper classes who have control over the country's print and television media.
Evo Morales and representatives of the US government have a history of tense relations as well. The situation dates back to the 1980s, when the United States government declared the War on Drugs and Evo Morales became a leader of a federation of indigenous farmers' unions representing the growers of the coca plant. US policy of forced eradication of the coca plant turned Morales' home community into a war zone.
While coca leaf is often processed into concentrated cocaine to meet consumer demand in the US and elsewhere, it has a very different significance in Bolivian culture. Millions of Bolivians chew the leaf daily, because in its natural form coca acts as a harmless stimulant similar to coffee, and the leaves have been central to indigenous religious rituals for centuries. Imagine how US citizens might respond if a foreign power declared war on both their morning cup of coffee and their Sunday communion wafers.
The Morales government has been quite serious about its policy of "Yes to coca, but no to cocaine." In spite of rocky diplomatic relations, Bolivia has continued to cooperate with the Narcotics Affairs Section of the US embassy. Bolivian police have confiscated more cocaine under the Morales administration than any previous government. The government has also worked to limit coca production to small family plots per family intended for legal uses. This policy has not worked perfectly, but it has reduced conflict, and Bolivia produces less cocaine than either Peru or Colombia, countries who are major allies of the United States in the region.
Evo Morales' first landslide election victory in 2005 shocked Bolivia's upper classes. Many of them did not believe that an Aymara Indian who never had a chance to finish high school should be allowed to govern the country. The right wing began engaging a blockade of the parliamentary process and threatening secession of lowland departments where they still held control of regional governments.
At the height of the conflict in October 2008, US Ambassador Phillip Goldberg met publicly with the conservative Prefect of Santa Cruz Ruben Costas. Many Bolivians interpreted the meeting as a show of support for the right wing elites, just before allies of Costas launched attacks on indigenous people and burned government buildings. A few days later the Bolivian government accused Goldberg of supporting a coup attempt and expelled him. Unsurprisingly the United States retaliated in kind by expelling Bolivia's ambassador. A short time later, Morales also expelled United States Drug Enforcement Administration police, stating that some were being used in espionage actions to support the right wing coup effort.
In spite of the diplomatic spat, Bolivia has continued to cooperate with the US Embassy's Narcotics Affairs Section, which had a much larger presence in Bolivia than the DEA. But the United States government has been reluctant to patch things up and has continued retaliatory measures. First the Bush administration withdrew the Peace Corps, and then trade preferences were cancelled costing jobs to thousands of poor Bolivian who worked in the textile industry.
The election of Barack Obama brought great hope for a better relationship, but after one year, little has changed. The Obama administration and the Democrats, citing erroneous data on the drug war, have twice refused to restore trade preferences which were unjustly removed and they have refused to acknowledge the ways in which Bolivia has been cooperating with counter-narcotics efforts.
Meanwhile, support for the right wing in Bolivia has diminished and Evo Morales has grown more popular. His policies have recognized the dignity of poor indigenous Bolivians and provided economic stimulus by redistributing natural gas income. This resulted in the poorest nation in South America showing the best economic growth in the hemisphere during a global recession.
Morales has played a key role in ushering in a new era of democracy where the majority of poor and indigenous Bolivians are able to choose a candidate who they identify with and who is attempting to address their situation. Bolivia is still a long way from solving its many problems, but the United Sates needs to recognize that a genuinely democratic process of change is underway in Bolivia. The United States' old approach to the drug war and economic development policies has been counter-productive and it's time to allow Bolivia to try its own ideas. As Evo Morales begins his second term in office on January 22, the United States should move forward to reach agreement with Bolivia on respectful relations, transparent aid, and a new exchange of ambassadors.
- Posted in
21 Comments so far
Show AllI was curious to read this piece for reasons that were not mentioned here. Good article by someone not afraid to point to good things done by a socialist.
My curiosity was aroused because it turns out that Bolivia has the largest known deposits of lithium on the planet and as we race to develop hybrid and all-electric cars lithium for batteries is becoming an absolute necessity.
Being socialist, Morales and Bolivia will most likely grant developmental agreements with China before they will with U.S. interests. At least you would guess. But China today is merely what the USSR was before it collapsed - a totalitarian industrial state. From what I've read and observed the various movements in South America more closely come to achieving the promise of socialism than anything ever attained in the USSR or China.
Of course The US still hasn't come to grips with the fact that the rest of the world does not hold us in the awe that it once did, and I'm afraid that the old strategy of counter-revolutionary interference and bloodshed to secure exploitive acces to that lithium is a very real possibility.
"Being socialist, Morales and Bolivia will most likely grant developmental agreements with China before they will with U.S. interests. At least you would guess."
Morales and Bolivia will most likely grant developmental agreements with China before the US, NOT because of socialism. Because the US has been, and is dumb and arrogant enough, to meddle in Bolivia, to do things to try to weaken Morales, to do things to try to unseat Morales.
Or put another way, Bolivia could sign agreements with Japanese companies, with various European companies, with Korean companies, with Taiwanese companies, etc. Basically with companies from countries that can provide the technological expertise but which haven't tried various means to depose Morales.
I don't disagree. During the Bush years and the escalating tensions between Chavez and Bush's imperialism I took the time to dig into many of the writings by the current movers and shakers of socialism there. An entire continent still trying to pull itself out of the slime of centuries of colonialist exploitation. Smart enough to recognize that exploitation is exploitation no matter what ideological package it is wrapped in. Which is why currently Bolivia is trying to develop the lithium industry on its own.
You make the same point I was trying to make. We haven't learned anything yet and I'm afraid we'll go down the well beaten path of subversive operations, murder, and propoganda.
Current-day China is nothing like the USSR. I am inclined to think of it as comparable to the industrial parts of the US in the late 19th century - completely unregulated capitalism - low wages, horribly unsafe workplaces, unsafe food and consumer products, with the state lending a hand to put down strikes when the workers get unruly.
But even that isn't accurate, because China also has large public sector and is aggressively pursuing low-carbon energy and transportation development - wind, hydro, nuclear and low-cost lithium cells. The most common form of personal urban transportation in China is the electric motor scooter. I own two of them myself. I upgraded them to Lithum cells in 2008 - thanks to the Chinese firm Thundersky Battery limited, no thanks to US businesses.
But the state of civil liberties in China is indeed poor.
According to the Wayne Marsden report (The veracity of such left to the readers to decide) President Obama has issued orders to destabilize the Government of Venezuala. With US Bases in Colombia, and with the Netherlands allowing US Military presence in Curcao and Aruba , the destabilization of Venezuala is seen as a means by which the USA can roll back progress in South America so that it once again becomes US Territory by proxy.
These efforts will included funding of opposition groups in the country along with "Organized" street protests much like they did in Allendes Chile.
It felt that by toppling Chavez and putting in place a business friendly ally like neighboring Columbia, the US can once again gain control over the resources of that nation wresting them away from the people. This in turn would see Bolivia, Paraguay and Ecuador to follow in turn.
Literally TRILLIONS in profits are at stake here for the Corporations and given the Fascist Supreme courts ruling that the Corporation has more rights then even the people, Bolivias attempts to use their own mineral wealth for the benefit of people puts them squarely in the gunsights of the Corporate States of America.
Unlike Bolivia, and Ecuador and Brazil and Paraguay and Venezuala, all of which have turned from Military dictatorships to Governments with the broad support of the peoples, the entity called the "United States of America" seems unable to reform itself. It is fast becoming one of the LEAST democratic States in the Western Hemisphere if not already having reached that stage.
The strategy is a simple one. Attempt to impoverish the people so that they are as poor as those in Haiti and then "save them from themselves" by having the people give over all their resource wealth to Corporate interests all of this aided by the US Military.
I believe that one of the reasons, apart from primary resources, that the USA gov't and its corporate masters are fighting so hard against the rising social democracies in South America as well as any left leaning policies set in Central America (ie: Honduras, pre-coup)is the very real fact that these governments are giving more voice to the non-elite.
Participatory democracy (or direct democracy)is being implemented in the favelas and barrios as well as in the rural communities. Western democracies are trying to diminish the "common" persons' voices and do not want this form of governance to catch on.
Watch this film: http://www.beyondelections.com/
There is also a clip included with a Canadian professor from Universite de Montreal who highlights this growing trend in one of Montreal's boroughs - the Plateau. This burough does indeed, strongly promote direct democracy and it is having an effect. You can sense the community bonds that have been created and the residents are definitely politicized: as we all should be - the government after all, is supposed to be us.
Thanks for that link. I've not watched the whole thing yet, but from the parts I did see it looks fantastic.
Regretfully this article, like many, only discusses one side of the issue. Having lived and worked in Latin America for three year I understand and have experience first hand events in Bolivia and other countries. Morales is only able to suceed in his position by attacking and conficating property and assets from the rich to give to the poor Indians. However, like Chaves is finding in Venezuala, there is only so many assets to conficate and redistribute.
The cry to take from the rich to give to the poor sound good in theory but is often unsustainable in practice. We are finding that out here in the US. I remember when rich was $1 million dollars. Now you are considered rich at $250,000. The poor have few assets and limited options. The rich have endless options. As New Jersy is finding, their rich are leaving the state and taking their money with them because of the increase in taxes and fees.
Instead of attacking the rich, Morales should be working with them to provide more opportunities for the poor. Governments cannot create jobs and opportunities, only the private sector can. Any government only has what they have taken from others through taxes and confication actions.
As you can tell I'm not a supporter of big government. Government, like any other organization, will only work if held in check. This includes businesses. The government should provide a climate for businesses to grow and develop without undue interference. However, businesses cannot be allowed to grow without strong boundries, rules and regulations.
Bolivia is a country with tremendous resources, natural and human. However, its government, present and past, seem more intent on obtaining power for a select few instead of working to help the people grow and develop. Morales, like those before him, is not the amswer.
RE: "Instead of attacking the rich, Morales should be working with them to provide more opportunities for the poor." - Sam
MY COMMENT: I agree. Let's send them Bernie Madoff and the rest of Wall Street! Oh, wait...you referred to opportunities "for the" poor. I misread that as opportunities "to be" poor. My bad!
RE: "Instead of attacking the rich, Morales should be working with them to provide more opportunities for the poor." - Sam in VA
MY COMMENT: So the U.S. would be better off had we not rebelled against King George? We should have "worked" with him to provide more "opportunities". Sam in VA, did your family own slaves?
P.S. Is English your "native" language? I suspect not.
RE: "Regretfully this article, like many, only discusses one side of the issue." - Sam in VA
MY COMMENT: Well, thanks for giving us the "Fair and Balanced"™ perspective!
RE: "The cry to take from the rich to give to the poor sound good in theory but is often unsustainable in practice. We are finding that out here in the US." - Sam in 'Old Virginny'
MY COMMENT: No, what we are 'finding out' "here in the US" is that taking from the 'middle class(es)' to give to the (often idle) rich is always unsustainable in practice (in the absence of an expanding Empire able to freely plunder other countries).
Where is it you think the Rich , got all that "wealth" that they consider "theirs" ?
They did not create it . All that land and mineral wealth in Bolivia was not created by the rich. Their being given OWNERSHIP of it was hardly due some magical god given formula devised by "Nature" wherin only the very "best" rewarded.
Granting ownership of the natural wealth of a nation to a small segment of the population only creates classes of people. It does not "create wealth"
Assume we have some remote island wherein the only source of food was fishing off its coast. Any of the inhabitants are free to take to the sea and catch fish. I live on that island and decide "I am going to declare these fish MY Property. As they will be considered MINE the other inhabitants of this island will have to render me some SERVICE in order for them to eat".
Goodness look at all the "Jobs" I have created! Rather then being just a fisherman the others living on the Island can now be MY gardener, or they can work for me washing my floors. Or they can work for me by mending the roof on my hut. Or they can work for me by sending their daughters to me so I can bed them. Or they can cook my supper. Or they can carry my baggage. All of this in return for some of that "Fish" so that THEY can eat. All of this due to some LAW *I* created that declared the fish as MINE.
Now of course I will be much better off then all of the other people of that Island. Of course *I* will be better off then I was when the fish were all owned in Common. Of course those that are close to me will be better rewarded in fish depending on the service rendered. Those that enforce MY right to own all that Fish as my own will be well rewarded. We all used to be able to get along eating one fish a day but i say to someone "Look..beat up these people for me that try and catch my fish..I will PAY you two fish a day and you can use that extra fish to get them to work for you"
But none of this means *I* created wealth. I have simply claimed a resource that was once commonly owned as my own. I have simply created a class system wherein one small segment of people are "The owners" and everyone else works for the owner.
The "poor Indians" are a MAJORITY. A MAJORITY. Not the "few". At least 55% of the Bolivian population is indigenous.
And if the rich want to leave, good riddance. That would mean more of those natural resources for the "poor Indians".
"Governments cannot create jobs and opportunities, only the private sector can. Any government only has what they have taken from others through taxes and confication actions."
No matter how many times you repeat a mantra, it doesn't make it true. There is nothing that says a government cannot manage and use those natural resources, instead giving them away to scum such as you.
About 30 years ago as I researched a thesis on the origins of land ownership I came across a UN report (concerning Central and South America) that stated quite simply that there will be no progress toward freedom, reducing poverty, improving quality of life unless ordinary (not rich ) people and families have a direct interest in the land. If that does not neccesarily mean ownership, then the right to occupy, farm and live without the constant threat of being run off, burned out, or murdered.
Yes, Chavez is trying to make land available to the "common" people in Venezuala and the rich powerful and often absentee owners form goon squads to burn out, run off, and murder the homesteaders. For those of you who only hear the US propagandist view of affairs there Chavez has tried and is trying to "liberate" this land through the operation of law. Law that can be defended internationally, and not just through the justification of "revolutionary" principles.
While I respectfully disagree, I must point out you need to learn more about macroeconomics.
And history. Ever heard of the Homestead Act? Was that socialism?
Bumper sticker:
Virginia is for Losers.
RE: "the United States should move forward to reach agreement with Bolivia on respectful relations..." - Hertzler
MY COMMENT: Phat chance? No, 'fat chance'!
The big US fear is that once participatory democracy takes hold in countries like Bolivia is becomes very difficult to get them back under control. After all that US supported destableization Morales popularity just grew: the economy grows, becomes much more inclusive and Bolivians feel they have a hope for the future. And thus the chances for a transnational corporate grab of that lithium get weaker and weaker.