Crisis in Bolivia
Bolivia has long been identified as a place of extreme poverty and social inequality. The landlocked Andean nation is largely divided between the impoverished indigenous majority in the west, based in La Paz, and the wealthy mestizo minority in the east, centered in Santa Cruz. Change is afoot, however: Bolivia is now a leading proponent of the leftist “pink tide” movement currently reshaping the political, economic and social landscape of Latin America. Indeed, Bolivia’s populace has mobilized through the ballot box to address the disparities which have plagued the country for centuries. Garnering a rare majority of the national vote, Evo Morales, a former leader of the coca-growers union, was elected Bolivia’s first indigenous president on December 18, 2005.
As president, Morales has nationalized Bolivia’s vital hydrocarbons sector and seeks to enact land reform. Despite his majority support, however, Morales has faced stubborn opposition. The Santa Cruz Civic Committee, a powerful grouping of business interests, reportedly has been operating an unofficial campaign attempting to de-legitimize the government. Spearheading the political component of this opposition is Rubén Costas, the prefect of Santa Cruz, whose uncompromising rhetoric emboldened four of Bolivia’s nine departments to declare regional autonomy through illegitimate referendums.
Extremist right-wing youth groups, such as the Union Juvenil Cruceñista, represent the radical component of this opposition. Such groups have organized destructive boycotts and violent street demonstrations. They also have been charged with beating, killing, and terrorizing Morales’ supporters.
Relations between Bolivia and the U.S. have grown increasingly tense and unproductive since Morales was elected. His administration has accused parts of the U.S. government – such as the Office of Transition Initiatives, a subsidiary of the U.S. Agency for International Development – of allocating aid to decentralization projects so as to support dissenting prefectures in their stand against the national government.
Diplomatic tensions have escalated to the point that U.S. Ambassador to Bolivia, Philip Goldberg, was expelled from the country on August 10 for allegedly providing policy recommendations to opposition prefects. Not to be outdone, Washington expelled his Bolivian counterpart, Gustavo Guzman, soon afterward.
Another point of conflict between the two countries is the unresolved case of former president Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada and his former defense minister, Carlos Sanchez Berzain. The two men fled to and currently live in the U.S., where it is widely believed that they have been granted political asylum. Both seek to escape persecution in Bolivia for their involvement in the bloody suppression of Black October, when government security forces killed and injured scores of indigenous protesters in 2003, which arguably gave rise to the populist movement that elected Morales its leader two years later.
(The author is Chris Sweeney, Research Associate, Council on Hemispheric Affairs.)
Also, from the Literature:
“The US Embassy in Bolivia has repeatedly asked Peace Corps volunteers and one Fulbright scholar to spy…The NED (National Endowment for Democracy) has funded activities to destabilize the government.” (The Huffington Post, 9/21/08 by Mark Weisbrot, posted 2/19/08.)
“John McCain has chaired the International Republic Institute (IRI, which is part of the NED) since 1993.” (Upside Down World, 2/22/08.)
“On 9/15 an emergency meeting of Latin American leaders convened to seek a resolution to the conflict in Bolivia. Morales said, ‘I have come to explain…the civic coup d’etat by Governors of some Bolivian states…All of the leaders [even Colombia, a close US ally] backed Morales, condemned the opposition’s violent tactics and emphasized that they won’t recognize separatists in the country….” (Upside Down World, 9/16/08).
“Morales on 9/26 congratulated indigenous groups in Chuquisaca for becoming ‘territory-free of American imperialism’ after deciding to expel USAID.” (AP 9/28/08).
LASC STATEMENT ON BOLIVIA
The Latin America Solidarity Coalition, a network of US national and local grassroots organizations in solidarity with the peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean, is deeply concerned about the political crisis in Bolivia and worsening US relations with Latin America. We demand that the US government do nothing to further exacerbate the crisis.
We are in a very dangerous and fluid period regarding US-Latin America relations, highlighted by recent incidents:
1. A civil rebellion led by right-wing separatists in the Bolivia’s “media luna” provinces have taken at least 30 lives and caused hundreds millions of dollars of economic damage in South America’s poorest country.
2. Bolivia expelled US Ambassador Philip Goldberg for his ties to violent separatist leaders.
3. The Bush administration declared Bolivia’s ambassador to the US persona non grata and precipitously booted out his entire family including a daughter in college.
4. Venezuela expelled US Ambassador Patrick Duddy in solidarity with Bolivia and recalled Venezuelan Ambassador Bernardo Alvarez.
5. Honduras and Nicaragua took diplomatic actions in support of Bolivia’s action to expel the US ambassador.
6. 12 heads of state of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) held an emergency summit in Santiago de Chile and adopted a statement demanding respect for legitimate democracy in Bolivia.
7. The Bush administration accused Bolivia and Venezuela of noncooperation in the “war against drugs.”
This is an escalation of worsening relations with Latin America that includes US support for the failed 2002 coup against Venezuelan President Chavez, suspicion in Latin America about US involvement in assassination attempts against Chavez, Bolivian President Evo Morales, and recently revealed coup plots in Venezuela and Paraguay.
Appointments of new ambassadors in the hemisphere are also seen as provocative, especially in Bolivia, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. In Bolivia, Goldberg was known as the “Ambassador for Ethnic Cleansing” for his role in the dismemberment of Yugoslavia. His role in soliciting Peace Corps volunteers and a Fulbright scholar to spy for the US last year compromised the US mission in Bolivia. In Venezuela Ambassador Duddy oversaw the transfer of tens of millions of dollars to opposition groups through the Office of Transition Initiatives, and the new ambassador to Nicaragua, Robert Callahan, served under John Negroponte in Honduras during the 1980s when the US was pursuing its shameful contra war against the Sandinistas.
These provocations are in addition to electoral interference in Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua and currently El Salvador. US Agency for International Development (USAID), and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) are the two agencies primarily responsible for the US efforts to manipulate other countries’ elections. Bolivia is the greatest recipient of USAID money in Latin America and was expelled by one prefecture (state) a few months ago after civil society groups complained of its support for the right-wing and frequently racist’s opposition.
USAID and NED are investing heavily in Venezuela and Nicaragua’s upcoming local elections and are likely involved in El Salvador’s presidential campaign in an effort to stop the election of FMLN candidate Mauricio Funes, who leads in the polls.
Visit www.cispes.org and www.respect4democracy.org for more information.
These incidents are the result of centuries of US policy toward Latin America and specifically the result of reckless policies of the George W. Bush administration.
The Latin America Solidarity Coalition demands:
- that the US government take no further action to exacerbate what are already dangerous situations that could easily spin out of control involving tragic losses of life and spiking oil prices as we in the North enter the heating season – that the US government state support for the Union of South American Nations statement demanding respect for legitimate democracy in Bolivia. – that Congress require the Bush administration to detail the extent of US support for Bolivian separatist groups and to disclose which organizations are receiving US funding through USAID, NED, and the CIA.
Latin America Solidarity Coalition
October 2008
— Peter Mott
Truth Campaign proposed
Is it essential or naive for the Movement to consider a Truth Campaign?
All of us know that, in response to the needs of our colleagues in the South we must change US behavior in this Hemisphere: Foreign policy, economic policy, maybe much of domestic policy.
All of us know that this task will take a major educational campaign for the public and the Congress, and that will take far greater numbers of activists in the US-Latin America solidarity movement.
We would probably agree that all this will take careful planning. Such a large and growing movement, we have learned, should include networking with “equal and independent allies” in a non-hierarchical grouping.
May I suggest that step one should be a Truth Campaign, such as that proposed in my 2006 book, “Cancer in the Body Politic: Diagnosis and Prescription for an America in Decline” (see the home page of this website, or e-mail admin@epica.org and get a copy for $10). From pg. 77:
“Preparing the People for Change: Truth
To prepare the people to share an overall vision of a future, stronger USA, it is necessary to simplify and clarify the information available to the public. Many institutions and groups—schools, churches, agencies, clubs—can share in effecting this. We need both leaders and populace to begin at last to peel off the layers and reach what each citizen can freely decide is his or her truth. We must demand truth from our media, truth in government statements, truth in the cirriculum, especially of true US history, warts and all.
We must have truth. Why would it be considered naive to call for a full Truth Campaign—nationally, by state and region, and locally?
— Peter Mott
Comment [1]
interconnect blog
Please review the following and let me know your reaction, ideas. —-Peter
Purposes of the Blog:
To help build a national progressive movement which will become increasingly capable of affecting US policy in this hemisphere, we need to thoroughly discuss the following kinds of issues:
1. analysis of many unknowns
a. the truth about US-Latin America relations: the actual history of events
b. the probing of secret US plans for “democracy-building” in Latin America,
c. identification of untruths and how to correct them for the public and for Congress,
d. differing views north and south of democracy, national sovereignty vs. globalization,
e. confusion caused by the war on drugs and the war on terror,
f. current/pending crises affecting each nation to our south.
2. How to change US policy and how to:
a. Educate the media,
b. Educate the Congress and administrations
c. Organize ourselves.
Specific examples of issues which need exploring by blog: 1. send your ideas, please. But some that I think go with critical gaps in our knowledge or unsolved problem areas are: -how could we begin a campaign to terminate NAFTA? -what is the Administration doing currently to undermine Hugo Chavez? -what is the National Endowment for Democracy doing currently in Haiti to avoid any Aristide or Preval moves to decrease neoliberal economic measures? -how could we help the Movement learn to educate Congress to a deeper understanding of the needs of Latin America, and why the people want independence of US policy…re “democracy-building”, self-sufficiency, national sovereignty, fair trade, etc.?
— Peter Mott