By now you've probably heard of the Chickengate in Bolivia.
There is a chance that the president of Bolivia was joking about hormones in chickens causing premature baldness, reproductive developmental disorders, and other disorders due to sex hormone imbalances. ABI reports that the president was speaking "at times in a joking tone" ("a momentos en tono de guasa").
But if it was a joke, it in any case completely overshadowed what little coverage of the Summit on Climate Change in Bolivia there was in the corporate media. Seeking to counter the media coup, a gay indigenous man on the Left bravely put out a video statement: "I am a proud indigenous man, and I am a proud gay man, and I'd like to thank President Evo Morales for his leadership . . . in behalf of all humanity . . . in behalf of protection of our Mother Earth."
Evo can't be a homophobe -- especially given the new Bolivian constitution promulgated by his government specifically prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity for the first time in the history of Bolivia -- and the corporate media are wrong to try to pass him off as one.
However, the Chickengate in Bolivia does remind us that there is a tendency in considerable parts of the Left today to be too alarmist about science and technology, especially when it comes to food and energy. That basically leaves the people hanging in the scientific and political vacuum between the Apocalypticist Left and the Panglossian Right.
Showing posts with label Bolivia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bolivia. Show all posts
Friday, April 23, 2010
Friday, September 19, 2008
Luis Bilbao: For the United States, the Key Is Bolivia
Luis Bilbao: For the United States, the Key Is Bolivia
If the United States manages to unleash a civil war in Bolivia, the plan is to extend it throughout the region and to resort to massive and extensive use of violence to regain ground, said Luis Bilbao, director of Revista América XXI, in an interview with Ernesto Villegas (via satellite) for the VTV program "Mediodías en Confianza."
"What is at stake in Bolivia is peace and democracy for the entire Latin America," the Argentine journalist and economist added in the conversation, analyzing the results of the recent summit of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), regarding the unrest in Bolivia, as well as the economic crisis.
The original text in Spanish appeared on Aporrea.org on 18 September 2008. Translation by Yoshie Furuhashi.
If the United States manages to unleash a civil war in Bolivia, the plan is to extend it throughout the region and to resort to massive and extensive use of violence to regain ground, said Luis Bilbao, director of Revista América XXI, in an interview with Ernesto Villegas (via satellite) for the VTV program "Mediodías en Confianza."
"What is at stake in Bolivia is peace and democracy for the entire Latin America," the Argentine journalist and economist added in the conversation, analyzing the results of the recent summit of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), regarding the unrest in Bolivia, as well as the economic crisis.
Venezolana de Televisión
The original text in Spanish appeared on Aporrea.org on 18 September 2008. Translation by Yoshie Furuhashi.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Strategy of Chaos in Bolivia
Strategy of Chaos in Bolivia
by Maurice Lemoine
On the tenth of September, one day before the 35th anniversary of the death of Chilean President Salvador Allende, Evo Morales, the Bolivian head of state, declared US Ambassador Philip Goldberg "persona non grata." This is not a contrived symbolic decision. It came after the sabotage of a gas pipeline in the Department of Tarija by opposition extremists in Bolivia with whom the diplomat maintained close contacts.
In Cobija (in the Department of Pando), on the eleventh of September, eight people were killed and over thirty injured during a confrontation -- the first instance where firearms were used -- between government supporters and "autonomist" groups.
Read "Périlleux bras de fer en Bolivie" (Dangerous Arm Wrestling in Bolivia) in the September 2008 issue of Le Monde diplomatique.
The original article in French was published in the "valise diplomatique" section of Le Monde diplomatique on 12 September 2008. Translation by Yoshie Furuhashi.
by Maurice Lemoine
On the tenth of September, one day before the 35th anniversary of the death of Chilean President Salvador Allende, Evo Morales, the Bolivian head of state, declared US Ambassador Philip Goldberg "persona non grata." This is not a contrived symbolic decision. It came after the sabotage of a gas pipeline in the Department of Tarija by opposition extremists in Bolivia with whom the diplomat maintained close contacts.
La derecha boliviana intensifica la violencia
La Jornada Tv
In Cobija (in the Department of Pando), on the eleventh of September, eight people were killed and over thirty injured during a confrontation -- the first instance where firearms were used -- between government supporters and "autonomist" groups.
Bolivia no está sola: Chávez expulsa al embajador estadounidense en Venezuela
Read "Périlleux bras de fer en Bolivie" (Dangerous Arm Wrestling in Bolivia) in the September 2008 issue of Le Monde diplomatique.
The original article in French was published in the "valise diplomatique" section of Le Monde diplomatique on 12 September 2008. Translation by Yoshie Furuhashi.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Bolivia: Morales Wins amidst Opposition Pressure
Bolivia: Morales Wins amidst Opposition Pressure
by Franz Chávez
LA PAZ, 11 August (IPS) -- A storm of opposition broke out in Bolivia against President Evo Morales, whose mandate was resoundingly ratified by more than 63 percent of the votes in the referendum according to the consensus of exit polls broadcast by the major television networks in the country.
Bolivia has been shaken by the fiery speech of the leftist leader, who after confirming his new triumph offered to reconcile his proposed new constitution with the autonomy statutes approved in the departments of Santa Cruz, Beni, Pando, and Tarija, and the fervent rejection of his proposal by the opposition leader, Santa Cruz Governor Rubén Costas, whose mandate was also ratified.
While Morales called for unity between the departments in the west of the country, where he received the highest level of support, and the so-called "Media Luna" in the east, Costas said that the majority vote for non-ratification of the presidential mandate in this area and Chuquisaca in the south means a rejection of "dictatorship and the draft constitution that leads to confrontation among brothers."
The main square of La Paz, awash with supporters of the ruling Movement toward Socialism (MAS), roared when Morales ended his speech with the phrase coined by the Cuban Revolution "Patria o Muerte (Fatherland or Death)," the crowd shouting in response: "We will win!"
1,000 kilometers east of the seat of government, in the 24th of September Square in Santa Cruz de la Sierra, a chorus of supporters of rightist Costas repeated the word "independence" while he proclaimed the local victory against "Chavista Evoism."
With this particular expression, the followers of the leader of the Cruceño conglomerate of employers, landlords, and rightist groups, united in a conservative civic movement, are trying to tie the internal politics of Morales with his main external political ally, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez.
The ATB television network reported that, according to the exit polls, the yes vote for ratification of the mandate of the first indigenous president of Bolivia and Vice President Álvaro García Linera added up to 63.1 percent of the total votes at all the polling stations installed on Sunday.
For its part, the Unitel television network announced a 63.52 yes vote, based on the count of the surveys from 93 percent of the polling stations.
To remove Morales and García Linera from their office, the no votes had to exceed 53.740 percent of the valid votes, which was the percentage that this slate won in the December 2005 elections. In the case of the eight governors who also put their mandates at stake on Sunday, the rejection had to be more than 50 percent to remove them.
Morales's victory is a bittersweet one, political analysts hastened to say, seeing the president with strong support in only the departments of La Paz, where his support reached 81 percent of the votes; Oruro, 81 percent; Potosí, 79 percent; and Cochabamba, 71 percent.
Instead, the voices in favor of revocation of the mandate of the leftist leaders at the helm of the government dominated in Santa Cruz, where the yes votes were only 39 percent, while they reached 43 percent in Beni, 49 percent in Pando, 47 percent in Tarija, and 46 percent in Chuquisaca, according to data from Unitel.
The preliminary count of the referendum votes on television channels, in the case of the governors, indicates that the governor of the department of La Paz, José Luis Paredes, must leave his office as 57 percent of the voters said no.
Thus the Paceños condemend the unstable behavior of this political veteran, which oscillated between independence and clear pronouncements in favor of autonomy and influential groups of the autonomist departments, on top of his style of administration characterized as corrupt by the national government.
In Cochabamba, Governor Manfred Reyes Villa also lost with disapproval of 60 percent of the electorate, among whom are coca growers who support Morales, their former trade union leader, and opponents of the administration of the rightist regional leader and former ally of President Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada (1993-1997 and 2002-2003).
The ranks of government supporters, meanwhile, lost the governorship of the Oruno department, held by Alberto Aguilar, who was rejected by 54 percent of the voters, according to preliminary data from the exit polls.
At the forefront of the victors is the rightist Costas, who obtained a 66 percent support, the result that he interpreted as support for the process of autonomy, which he heads along with the local governments of Beni, Pando, and Tarija.
With the strength of support for his mandate, Costas proclaimed the creation of an "organ of security" parallel to the police, a tax collection agency, and an office of coordination to transfer resources generated from oil to other departments, replacing the Ministry of Finance that currently fulfils this role.
Among the opposition leaders who received the most votes is Tarija Governor Mario Cossío, who ran against the forecasts portending his defeat and won a 64 percent approval.
Beni Govenor Ernesto Suárez received a 61 percent support, while his Pando counterpart Leopoldo Fernández got a 56 percent support, according to the same initial unofficial calculations.
Mario Virreina from the governing party, who runs the department of Potosí, surprised by the wide support of 75 percent he won. He is the only card that the Movement toward Socialism has at the level of local governments.
The original article in Spanish appeared on the Web site of IPS on 11 August 2008. Translation by Yoshie Furuhashi.
by Franz Chávez
LA PAZ, 11 August (IPS) -- A storm of opposition broke out in Bolivia against President Evo Morales, whose mandate was resoundingly ratified by more than 63 percent of the votes in the referendum according to the consensus of exit polls broadcast by the major television networks in the country.
Bolivia has been shaken by the fiery speech of the leftist leader, who after confirming his new triumph offered to reconcile his proposed new constitution with the autonomy statutes approved in the departments of Santa Cruz, Beni, Pando, and Tarija, and the fervent rejection of his proposal by the opposition leader, Santa Cruz Governor Rubén Costas, whose mandate was also ratified.
While Morales called for unity between the departments in the west of the country, where he received the highest level of support, and the so-called "Media Luna" in the east, Costas said that the majority vote for non-ratification of the presidential mandate in this area and Chuquisaca in the south means a rejection of "dictatorship and the draft constitution that leads to confrontation among brothers."
The main square of La Paz, awash with supporters of the ruling Movement toward Socialism (MAS), roared when Morales ended his speech with the phrase coined by the Cuban Revolution "Patria o Muerte (Fatherland or Death)," the crowd shouting in response: "We will win!"
1,000 kilometers east of the seat of government, in the 24th of September Square in Santa Cruz de la Sierra, a chorus of supporters of rightist Costas repeated the word "independence" while he proclaimed the local victory against "Chavista Evoism."
With this particular expression, the followers of the leader of the Cruceño conglomerate of employers, landlords, and rightist groups, united in a conservative civic movement, are trying to tie the internal politics of Morales with his main external political ally, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez.
The ATB television network reported that, according to the exit polls, the yes vote for ratification of the mandate of the first indigenous president of Bolivia and Vice President Álvaro García Linera added up to 63.1 percent of the total votes at all the polling stations installed on Sunday.
For its part, the Unitel television network announced a 63.52 yes vote, based on the count of the surveys from 93 percent of the polling stations.
To remove Morales and García Linera from their office, the no votes had to exceed 53.740 percent of the valid votes, which was the percentage that this slate won in the December 2005 elections. In the case of the eight governors who also put their mandates at stake on Sunday, the rejection had to be more than 50 percent to remove them.
Morales's victory is a bittersweet one, political analysts hastened to say, seeing the president with strong support in only the departments of La Paz, where his support reached 81 percent of the votes; Oruro, 81 percent; Potosí, 79 percent; and Cochabamba, 71 percent.
Instead, the voices in favor of revocation of the mandate of the leftist leaders at the helm of the government dominated in Santa Cruz, where the yes votes were only 39 percent, while they reached 43 percent in Beni, 49 percent in Pando, 47 percent in Tarija, and 46 percent in Chuquisaca, according to data from Unitel.
The preliminary count of the referendum votes on television channels, in the case of the governors, indicates that the governor of the department of La Paz, José Luis Paredes, must leave his office as 57 percent of the voters said no.
Thus the Paceños condemend the unstable behavior of this political veteran, which oscillated between independence and clear pronouncements in favor of autonomy and influential groups of the autonomist departments, on top of his style of administration characterized as corrupt by the national government.
In Cochabamba, Governor Manfred Reyes Villa also lost with disapproval of 60 percent of the electorate, among whom are coca growers who support Morales, their former trade union leader, and opponents of the administration of the rightist regional leader and former ally of President Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada (1993-1997 and 2002-2003).
The ranks of government supporters, meanwhile, lost the governorship of the Oruno department, held by Alberto Aguilar, who was rejected by 54 percent of the voters, according to preliminary data from the exit polls.
At the forefront of the victors is the rightist Costas, who obtained a 66 percent support, the result that he interpreted as support for the process of autonomy, which he heads along with the local governments of Beni, Pando, and Tarija.
With the strength of support for his mandate, Costas proclaimed the creation of an "organ of security" parallel to the police, a tax collection agency, and an office of coordination to transfer resources generated from oil to other departments, replacing the Ministry of Finance that currently fulfils this role.
Among the opposition leaders who received the most votes is Tarija Governor Mario Cossío, who ran against the forecasts portending his defeat and won a 64 percent approval.
Beni Govenor Ernesto Suárez received a 61 percent support, while his Pando counterpart Leopoldo Fernández got a 56 percent support, according to the same initial unofficial calculations.
Mario Virreina from the governing party, who runs the department of Potosí, surprised by the wide support of 75 percent he won. He is the only card that the Movement toward Socialism has at the level of local governments.
The original article in Spanish appeared on the Web site of IPS on 11 August 2008. Translation by Yoshie Furuhashi.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Exit Polls: Morales Ratified by Larger Margin than in 2005
Exit Polls: Morales Ratified by Larger Margin than in 2005
by TeleSUR
The exit poll results ratified the mandate of President Morales and his Vice President García Linera and recalled three of the eight governors who were subjected to voting at the referendum.
Another survey by the Captura Consulting Group also gives victory to Morales and García Linera, though with 60 percent versus 40 percent, with a margin of error of 5 percent.
If this trend holds, the Morales-García Linera duo will have earned more than 7 percentage points above 53.7 percent that they needed, which was what they won in the presidential election of December 2005.
ATB, a private channel, noted that the president won 56.7 percent of the votes in his favor.
In the exit poll results of the recall of governors, José Luis Paredes, the opposition governor of La Paz (west), was recalled by 60 percent of the voters voting no, against 40 percent voting yes.
Manfred Reyes, the opposition governor of Cochabamba (center), was also recalled from office by a 40 percent yes vote versus a 60 percent no vote.
Mario Cossio, the governor of Tarija (south), won 65 percent of the votes, against 35 percent voting no, in the referendum, confirming him in his office.
Mario Virreira, the governor of Potosí (south), won 77 percent of the votes, against a 33 percent no vote, which ratifies his mandate as governor of this department.
Ernesto Suárez, the governor of Beni (North), won 72 percent of the votes, with 28 percent voting no, which ratifies his mandate as governor of this department.
Leopoldo Fernández, the governor of Pando (north), won a 59 percent yes vote, against a 41 percent no vote, thus also confirmed in office.
Rubén Costas, the governor of Santa Cruz (east), was confirmed in office by 79 percent voting yes, against 21 percent voting no.
Alberto Aguilar, the governor of Oruro (southwest), from the ruling party Movement for Socialism (MAS), obtained a 42 percent yes vote against a 58 percent no vote, which revokes his mandate.
The TeleSur special correspondent to La Paz, Patricia Villegas, said that the first official report of the National Electoral Court (CNE) will come at 20:00 local time (00:00 UTC).
The original report in Spanish was published on the Web site of TeleSUR on 10 August 2008. Translation by Yoshie Furuhashi.
by TeleSUR
The exit poll results ratified the mandate of President Morales and his Vice President García Linera and recalled three of the eight governors who were subjected to voting at the referendum.
The exit poll results published by TV Bolivia give victory to Morales and García Linera with 61 percent of the votes. (Photo: TeleSUR)
Another survey by the Captura Consulting Group also gives victory to Morales and García Linera, though with 60 percent versus 40 percent, with a margin of error of 5 percent.
If this trend holds, the Morales-García Linera duo will have earned more than 7 percentage points above 53.7 percent that they needed, which was what they won in the presidential election of December 2005.
ATB, a private channel, noted that the president won 56.7 percent of the votes in his favor.
In the exit poll results of the recall of governors, José Luis Paredes, the opposition governor of La Paz (west), was recalled by 60 percent of the voters voting no, against 40 percent voting yes.
Manfred Reyes, the opposition governor of Cochabamba (center), was also recalled from office by a 40 percent yes vote versus a 60 percent no vote.
Mario Cossio, the governor of Tarija (south), won 65 percent of the votes, against 35 percent voting no, in the referendum, confirming him in his office.
Mario Virreira, the governor of Potosí (south), won 77 percent of the votes, against a 33 percent no vote, which ratifies his mandate as governor of this department.
Ernesto Suárez, the governor of Beni (North), won 72 percent of the votes, with 28 percent voting no, which ratifies his mandate as governor of this department.
Leopoldo Fernández, the governor of Pando (north), won a 59 percent yes vote, against a 41 percent no vote, thus also confirmed in office.
Rubén Costas, the governor of Santa Cruz (east), was confirmed in office by 79 percent voting yes, against 21 percent voting no.
Alberto Aguilar, the governor of Oruro (southwest), from the ruling party Movement for Socialism (MAS), obtained a 42 percent yes vote against a 58 percent no vote, which revokes his mandate.
The TeleSur special correspondent to La Paz, Patricia Villegas, said that the first official report of the National Electoral Court (CNE) will come at 20:00 local time (00:00 UTC).
Bolivia: Evo Morales Gano Referendo Presidencial
The original report in Spanish was published on the Web site of TeleSUR on 10 August 2008. Translation by Yoshie Furuhashi.
Saturday, July 05, 2008
Bolivia: Regroup the Patriotic Movement
Bolivia: Regroup the Patriotic Movement
by Andrés Soliz Rada
The decree to nationalize hydrocarbons (1 May 2006), which enjoyed 95% public approval, was the zenith of the Evo Morales government. Now it has lost the Chuquisaca Prefecture, by a narrow margin, but legally, which lets the referendums that approved the autonomy statutes in Santa Cruz, Tarija, Beni, and Pando camouflage their illegality. It should be remembered that, in politics, if we wish to advance, it is more important to criticize our own errors than the errors of others.
The separatist schemes in Bolivia have escalated geometrically from the arbitrary election of "governors," the outrageous creation of a virtual parliament, which passes "laws" in Santa Cruz (published in its "legal gazette"), to making it impossible for the President to visit the official premises controlled by the opposition. Meanwhile, the armed forces and the police are unable to contain a creeping coup d'état through regional autonomies which, step by step, are disintegrating the nation.
Unfortunately, the MAS, with NGO funding, gave the pretexts that their adversaries needed. Only an absolute myopia (or bad faith) explains why the officialdom welcomed the proposal of Román Loayza, the head of the MAS bench, to change the name of the country from Bolivia to Tawantinsuyo and that of Plaza "Murillo" in La Paz to Plaza "Tupaj Katari." Similarly, Foreign Minister Choquehuanca couldn't resist warning that domestic workers, Aymara and Quechua, could poison their employers, opponents of the regime.
The physical abuses committed by irregular groups against parliamentarians, journalists, and opposition governors (who got their names attached to dogs whose throats were slit in Achacachi) explain the present difficulties. Such actions obscure the cruelty of oligarchic racists, who, on several occasions, beat Quechuaymara Indians in Santa Cruz and stripped campesinos naked in front of the "House of Liberty" in Sucre. In short, the MAS, instead of strengthening the alliance of mestizos and the indigenous against oligarchs, isolated the indigenous by pitting them against mestizos and agents of imperialism.
The government, abandoning the legal channel and tolerating corruption (not judging, for example, frauds in road construction as serious), had to submit itself to the illegalities of the opposition, since it approved a reckless draft Constitution, which, recognizing 36 indigenous nations, divorced Evo from middle strata. Lending money from Bolivia's foreign exchange reserves at 2%, only to receive loans at 8% from the very banks and entities that benefit from that money, has demonstrated the fragility of the government's anti-neoliberal convictions. Likewise, sending troops to Haiti has put its anti-imperialist rhetoric into question.
However, Vice President Álvaro García Linera, (who inspired the gaffes of Loayza and Choquehuanca), recently made the correct decision to reconsider the MAS's program of government, in which state capitalism regains its status as the engine of the country's economy, replacing the unviable politics of ethnic fragmentation. Based on this program, which is an expression of state capitalism, the government must put an end to the plagues of corruption and indigenous exclusion that still exist and must give effect to regional autonomies that bring the country together. Consistent application of this program will prevent the dismemberment of Bolivia. Then, Evo could better face the recall referendum on the tenth of August and, if that referendum doesn't come to pass, the early elections that his opponents demand.
Andrés Soliz Rada is a former Minister of Hydrocarbons of Bolivia. The original article in Spanish was published in Rebanadas de Realidad on 5 July 2008. Translation by Yoshie Furuhashi.
by Andrés Soliz Rada
The decree to nationalize hydrocarbons (1 May 2006), which enjoyed 95% public approval, was the zenith of the Evo Morales government. Now it has lost the Chuquisaca Prefecture, by a narrow margin, but legally, which lets the referendums that approved the autonomy statutes in Santa Cruz, Tarija, Beni, and Pando camouflage their illegality. It should be remembered that, in politics, if we wish to advance, it is more important to criticize our own errors than the errors of others.
The separatist schemes in Bolivia have escalated geometrically from the arbitrary election of "governors," the outrageous creation of a virtual parliament, which passes "laws" in Santa Cruz (published in its "legal gazette"), to making it impossible for the President to visit the official premises controlled by the opposition. Meanwhile, the armed forces and the police are unable to contain a creeping coup d'état through regional autonomies which, step by step, are disintegrating the nation.
Unfortunately, the MAS, with NGO funding, gave the pretexts that their adversaries needed. Only an absolute myopia (or bad faith) explains why the officialdom welcomed the proposal of Román Loayza, the head of the MAS bench, to change the name of the country from Bolivia to Tawantinsuyo and that of Plaza "Murillo" in La Paz to Plaza "Tupaj Katari." Similarly, Foreign Minister Choquehuanca couldn't resist warning that domestic workers, Aymara and Quechua, could poison their employers, opponents of the regime.
The physical abuses committed by irregular groups against parliamentarians, journalists, and opposition governors (who got their names attached to dogs whose throats were slit in Achacachi) explain the present difficulties. Such actions obscure the cruelty of oligarchic racists, who, on several occasions, beat Quechuaymara Indians in Santa Cruz and stripped campesinos naked in front of the "House of Liberty" in Sucre. In short, the MAS, instead of strengthening the alliance of mestizos and the indigenous against oligarchs, isolated the indigenous by pitting them against mestizos and agents of imperialism.
The government, abandoning the legal channel and tolerating corruption (not judging, for example, frauds in road construction as serious), had to submit itself to the illegalities of the opposition, since it approved a reckless draft Constitution, which, recognizing 36 indigenous nations, divorced Evo from middle strata. Lending money from Bolivia's foreign exchange reserves at 2%, only to receive loans at 8% from the very banks and entities that benefit from that money, has demonstrated the fragility of the government's anti-neoliberal convictions. Likewise, sending troops to Haiti has put its anti-imperialist rhetoric into question.
However, Vice President Álvaro García Linera, (who inspired the gaffes of Loayza and Choquehuanca), recently made the correct decision to reconsider the MAS's program of government, in which state capitalism regains its status as the engine of the country's economy, replacing the unviable politics of ethnic fragmentation. Based on this program, which is an expression of state capitalism, the government must put an end to the plagues of corruption and indigenous exclusion that still exist and must give effect to regional autonomies that bring the country together. Consistent application of this program will prevent the dismemberment of Bolivia. Then, Evo could better face the recall referendum on the tenth of August and, if that referendum doesn't come to pass, the early elections that his opponents demand.
Andrés Soliz Rada is a former Minister of Hydrocarbons of Bolivia. The original article in Spanish was published in Rebanadas de Realidad on 5 July 2008. Translation by Yoshie Furuhashi.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Bolivia: The Crime of Indigenous Insubordination
Bolivia:
The Crime of Indigenous Insubordination
by Jubenal Quispe
Bolivia today lives under the most cruel and appalling xenophobic dictatorship of masters whose demented pride has been wounded. If you haven't already seen it, watch this video.
It happened on the 24th of May, in Sucre, the capital of Bolivia and crucible of the failed attempt at Bolivian mestizaje.
Those who believed that ignorant racism was a bitter memory in Bolivia were wrong. White Bolivia, created and ruled by masters, was and is essentially anti-Indian. In 1825, the masters founded the Republic of Bolivia in the House of Liberty in the city of Sucre, excluding and subordinating indigenous peoples. Almost two centuries later, last week in front of the same mythical House, before TV cameras, they flogged insubordinate indigenous brothers. It was a macabre act that symbolizes the ethnophagic essence of official white Bolivia.
Given this situation, several questions arise. Where is the state, the monopoly of legitimate force? Will it be completely weakened in Bolivia? And if that's the case, what is the government of Compañero Evo Morales to do if there is no longer a state to manage? Or could it be that xenophobic violence of masters today is tolerated by the state so that its opponents would defeat themselves? These are questions that the government must answer. But the urgent question is: Why does white Bolivia hate Indians so much? There are many answers to this question.
They hate us because we are the mirror that reflects their failure and their historic defeat. They had nearly two centuries since the founding of Bolivia to build a "modern" and mestizo Bolivian nation, according to their interests and aspirations, but they failed morally and intellectually. Today, Bolivia is not "modern," nor is it mestizo. In two centuries of governing, they created only a kleptomaniac bureaucracy that squandered the country.
They copied educational reforms and compulsory military services and used the state to promote public policy to destroy our cultures, but they failed even in this. Now, as never before, Bolivian diversity bewilders them even in their bedrooms. Our presence pains them for it reminds them of their almost innate sterility, their impotence to achieve their aspirations.
They suffer from chronic anomie (lack of identity) in the face of multiple and dynamic indigenous identities that are affirming themselves everywhere. They suffer from profound existential insecurity because they can no longer affirm themselves by negating and annihilating the different, the Other. This pathological insecurity unleashes xenophobic behaviors in them. But with these attitudes the only thing they gain is national and international repudiation. Thus they are caught in the maelstrom of solitude.
They flog our brothers in public squares, as they flogged our fathers and grandfathers to death, because our presence reminds them of their schizophrenic reality. They dream of being Western, but indigenous genes run in their blood. They long to practice liberal morality, but their weak will pushes them to the vices of Indians whom they hate so much. They suffer from profound cultural schizophrenia: always hating what they are and dreaming about what they are not. They are unhappy wretches who don't even know who they are, much less have a clear vision of Bolivia as a country, nor have they ever had one. It pains them to go down in the history of Bolivia as vile moral and intellectual failures. It pains them that from now on criminals will no longer pass for national heroes in history.
It is demonstrated that the indigenous people are what they could not be: the bastion of the Bolivian identity in the making. We have defended and recovered the natural resources and dignity of the people against multinational corporations, monsters to whom the masters of white Bolivia prostituted themselves. Our achievements for Bolivia pain them because they demonstrate their fateful failure. So they humiliated our brothers in front of their House of Liberty.
The flogging that our fathers, mothers, brothers, and sisters endure pains our soul, but it's a productive pain because it keeps and will keep alive our fruitful and subversive historical memory. Together with our unburied dead who roam the fertile Bolivian lands demanding justice, we will fight till we restore dignity to the life without dignity to which they condemned us. We were not born only to die trying, nor have we risen only to surrender at dawn.
Jubenal Quispe is a lawyer, theologian, and writer in Spanish and Quechua. He is a university lecturer and researcher at the Maryknoll Center in Cochabamba, Bolivia. The original article in Spanish was published in Bolpress on 30 May 2008. Translation by Yoshie Furuhashi.
The Crime of Indigenous Insubordination
by Jubenal Quispe
Bolivia today lives under the most cruel and appalling xenophobic dictatorship of masters whose demented pride has been wounded. If you haven't already seen it, watch this video.
It happened on the 24th of May, in Sucre, the capital of Bolivia and crucible of the failed attempt at Bolivian mestizaje.
Those who believed that ignorant racism was a bitter memory in Bolivia were wrong. White Bolivia, created and ruled by masters, was and is essentially anti-Indian. In 1825, the masters founded the Republic of Bolivia in the House of Liberty in the city of Sucre, excluding and subordinating indigenous peoples. Almost two centuries later, last week in front of the same mythical House, before TV cameras, they flogged insubordinate indigenous brothers. It was a macabre act that symbolizes the ethnophagic essence of official white Bolivia.
Given this situation, several questions arise. Where is the state, the monopoly of legitimate force? Will it be completely weakened in Bolivia? And if that's the case, what is the government of Compañero Evo Morales to do if there is no longer a state to manage? Or could it be that xenophobic violence of masters today is tolerated by the state so that its opponents would defeat themselves? These are questions that the government must answer. But the urgent question is: Why does white Bolivia hate Indians so much? There are many answers to this question.
They hate us because we are the mirror that reflects their failure and their historic defeat. They had nearly two centuries since the founding of Bolivia to build a "modern" and mestizo Bolivian nation, according to their interests and aspirations, but they failed morally and intellectually. Today, Bolivia is not "modern," nor is it mestizo. In two centuries of governing, they created only a kleptomaniac bureaucracy that squandered the country.
They copied educational reforms and compulsory military services and used the state to promote public policy to destroy our cultures, but they failed even in this. Now, as never before, Bolivian diversity bewilders them even in their bedrooms. Our presence pains them for it reminds them of their almost innate sterility, their impotence to achieve their aspirations.
They suffer from chronic anomie (lack of identity) in the face of multiple and dynamic indigenous identities that are affirming themselves everywhere. They suffer from profound existential insecurity because they can no longer affirm themselves by negating and annihilating the different, the Other. This pathological insecurity unleashes xenophobic behaviors in them. But with these attitudes the only thing they gain is national and international repudiation. Thus they are caught in the maelstrom of solitude.
They flog our brothers in public squares, as they flogged our fathers and grandfathers to death, because our presence reminds them of their schizophrenic reality. They dream of being Western, but indigenous genes run in their blood. They long to practice liberal morality, but their weak will pushes them to the vices of Indians whom they hate so much. They suffer from profound cultural schizophrenia: always hating what they are and dreaming about what they are not. They are unhappy wretches who don't even know who they are, much less have a clear vision of Bolivia as a country, nor have they ever had one. It pains them to go down in the history of Bolivia as vile moral and intellectual failures. It pains them that from now on criminals will no longer pass for national heroes in history.
It is demonstrated that the indigenous people are what they could not be: the bastion of the Bolivian identity in the making. We have defended and recovered the natural resources and dignity of the people against multinational corporations, monsters to whom the masters of white Bolivia prostituted themselves. Our achievements for Bolivia pain them because they demonstrate their fateful failure. So they humiliated our brothers in front of their House of Liberty.
The flogging that our fathers, mothers, brothers, and sisters endure pains our soul, but it's a productive pain because it keeps and will keep alive our fruitful and subversive historical memory. Together with our unburied dead who roam the fertile Bolivian lands demanding justice, we will fight till we restore dignity to the life without dignity to which they condemned us. We were not born only to die trying, nor have we risen only to surrender at dawn.
Jubenal Quispe is a lawyer, theologian, and writer in Spanish and Quechua. He is a university lecturer and researcher at the Maryknoll Center in Cochabamba, Bolivia. The original article in Spanish was published in Bolpress on 30 May 2008. Translation by Yoshie Furuhashi.
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Evo Appeals for Dialogue and the Opposition Challenges Him to Win His Mandate at a Recall Referendum
Evo Appeals for Dialogue and the Opposition Challenges Him to Win His Mandate at a Recall Referendum
by Bolpress
Abruptly, and at record speed, the Senate passed a law to hold a recall referendum.
President Evo Morales invited the opposition governors of the "Media Luna" (the half-moon-shaped region composed of the Santa Cruz, Beni, Pando, and Tarija departments) to resume dialogue on Monday afternoon with an agenda for open discussion and offered guarantees for autonomy within limits of law. The opposition forces responded to the president's appeal by passing, at record speed, a law to hold a recall referendum on the mandates of the president, the vice president, and governors.
Trying to pave a path to a pact, President Morales said he was willing to accept any kind of international mediators and observers. Vice President Álvaro García Linera, hopeful that the opposition governors would respond positively to the appeal, suggested this morning that they reach a consensus on a "package of decisions" to exit the political crisis, including a recall referendum.
But the opposition in the Senate responded to the executive branch's invitation by approving at record speed a law to plan a referendum on whether to recall the highest national and departmental authorities that was introduced by the president himself and that has already been approved by the Chamber of Deputies .
The opposition lawmakers, who have a majority in the Senate, passed the recall plan by a large majority, rapidly approved all terms of each of its articles, established its rules, and sent it to the executive branch for enactment. They argue that the time has come for the people to decide whose position is right in the current political crisis -- the government or the opposition.
If the president does not sign or veto the law within 10 days, the vice president and the Congress could give the green light to the referendum. If Morales does not sign the law, he would leave an impression of great political weakness.
MAS Senator Félix Rojas said that the congressional caucus who supports the executive branch is in agreement with the law for a recall referendum but does not consider it sensible or appropriate to support it at a moment when efforts are being made to bring the government and the opposition to an agreement. Now the country is calling for resumption of dialogue, but if this referendum plan is authorized, it will harm the chance of any political rapprochement, he said.
Senator Antonio Peredo (MAS) said that the opposition is seeking to put the president "off balance" vis-à-vis what is happening in the country. "Given the illegal fashion in which the referendums are held in the departments, they want to give the president a hot potato; they are seeking an open confrontation between the central government and the governors," he said.
According to the rules established by the Senate this Wednesday, to recall the president and the vice president, more than 53.7% of voters must vote against them at the referendum. If both authorities lost the mandate, general elections would be held immediately.
The opposition maneuver is intended to block any attempt on the part of the government supporters to adopt laws for constitutional referenda, to ratify the Constitution adopted by the Constituent Assembly, and to put an end to controversy and set a ceiling on land ownership (5,000 or 10,000 hectares).
Before the "head start" of the opposition, García Linera announced in the morning that the central government will respect the principle of non-intervention in internal affairs, expressed his full support for all democratically elected authorities in Bolivia, and called for dialogue. After meeting with Vice President García Linera, US Ambassador Philip Goldberg suggested that the OAS, friendly countries, the Catholic Church, or another institution chosen by the parties in conflict could mediate the dialogue.
The original article in Spanish was published in Bolpress on 8 May 2008. Translation by Yoshie Furuhashi.
by Bolpress
Abruptly, and at record speed, the Senate passed a law to hold a recall referendum.
President Evo Morales invited the opposition governors of the "Media Luna" (the half-moon-shaped region composed of the Santa Cruz, Beni, Pando, and Tarija departments) to resume dialogue on Monday afternoon with an agenda for open discussion and offered guarantees for autonomy within limits of law. The opposition forces responded to the president's appeal by passing, at record speed, a law to hold a recall referendum on the mandates of the president, the vice president, and governors.
Trying to pave a path to a pact, President Morales said he was willing to accept any kind of international mediators and observers. Vice President Álvaro García Linera, hopeful that the opposition governors would respond positively to the appeal, suggested this morning that they reach a consensus on a "package of decisions" to exit the political crisis, including a recall referendum.
But the opposition in the Senate responded to the executive branch's invitation by approving at record speed a law to plan a referendum on whether to recall the highest national and departmental authorities that was introduced by the president himself and that has already been approved by the Chamber of Deputies .
The opposition lawmakers, who have a majority in the Senate, passed the recall plan by a large majority, rapidly approved all terms of each of its articles, established its rules, and sent it to the executive branch for enactment. They argue that the time has come for the people to decide whose position is right in the current political crisis -- the government or the opposition.
If the president does not sign or veto the law within 10 days, the vice president and the Congress could give the green light to the referendum. If Morales does not sign the law, he would leave an impression of great political weakness.
MAS Senator Félix Rojas said that the congressional caucus who supports the executive branch is in agreement with the law for a recall referendum but does not consider it sensible or appropriate to support it at a moment when efforts are being made to bring the government and the opposition to an agreement. Now the country is calling for resumption of dialogue, but if this referendum plan is authorized, it will harm the chance of any political rapprochement, he said.
Senator Antonio Peredo (MAS) said that the opposition is seeking to put the president "off balance" vis-à-vis what is happening in the country. "Given the illegal fashion in which the referendums are held in the departments, they want to give the president a hot potato; they are seeking an open confrontation between the central government and the governors," he said.
According to the rules established by the Senate this Wednesday, to recall the president and the vice president, more than 53.7% of voters must vote against them at the referendum. If both authorities lost the mandate, general elections would be held immediately.
The opposition maneuver is intended to block any attempt on the part of the government supporters to adopt laws for constitutional referenda, to ratify the Constitution adopted by the Constituent Assembly, and to put an end to controversy and set a ceiling on land ownership (5,000 or 10,000 hectares).
Before the "head start" of the opposition, García Linera announced in the morning that the central government will respect the principle of non-intervention in internal affairs, expressed his full support for all democratically elected authorities in Bolivia, and called for dialogue. After meeting with Vice President García Linera, US Ambassador Philip Goldberg suggested that the OAS, friendly countries, the Catholic Church, or another institution chosen by the parties in conflict could mediate the dialogue.
The original article in Spanish was published in Bolpress on 8 May 2008. Translation by Yoshie Furuhashi.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Evo's Dilemmas
Evo's Dilemmas
by Néstor Kohan
The Right respects legality only when legality favors it. The history of our America has shown that a thousand times. The confrontation that is convulsing Bolivia today is no exception.
The Santa Cruz autonomy referendum is just the tip of the iceberg. To limit the debate to a question of legal pettifoggery would be a very serious error. It is an open secret that the bourgeoisie of the "Media Luna" (the half-moon-shaped region composed of the Santa Cruz, Beni, Pando, and Tarija departments), white and racist, lumpen and dependent, are planning to overthrow Evo Morales. That's not all. They are advised and directed by US Ambassador Philip Goldberg (who worked in Kosovo between 1994 and 1996. . .).
The CIA is implementing a predictable plan in Bolivia. Combine a Kosovo-style secessionism, psychological warfare, and incitement to internal counterrevolution as it did yesterday in the Chile of Salvador Allende and is doing today in the Venezuela of Chávez. Goldberg is following a textbook scheme. Use foundations like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the US Agency for International Development (USAID), and other agencies to transfer money to "independent" NGOs and rightist groups, just like in Venezuela. Since 2005, the USAID has given $120 million a year to the supposedly "democratic" opposition.
The central plaza of Santa Cruz is full of young Mormons -- blue-eyed blonds in white shirts -- who barely speak Spanish and warn against "the devil." . . . To suggest that Evo Morales in this context sit down and dialogue meekly with this warrior bourgeoisie funded by the United States is not only unrealistic and hardly pragmatic. It is simply suicidal.
As Morales himself acknowledged in an interview that he gave in La Paz in March 2008 (see <amauta.lahaine.org>), the MAS has arrived at the government, but it has no power. That is precisely the problem. If we wish to transform Bolivian society from the bottom up, we cannot avoid the problem of power at risk of losing everything.
The current dilemma of Evo and the MAS is whether it is possible to restrain the Right by making concessions or preferable to confront it and advance the process. The answer is complex because the Bolivian government is not homogeneous. It is pulled between two poles: the option of its moderate advisers (where some officials of the old political class turned progressives today and some academic fellow travelers of the process are ensconced) and the option of its most radical activists and social bases. The latter propose to radically push the process of reforms to the point of breaking the implicit pact that ties the hands of the government and will slowly weaken it. If this option ends up prevailing, Evo must not only intensify the confrontation with the "Media Luna." He should also impose price controls to curb inflation (the slogan that, as we have been able to hear firsthand, his own bases have cried out to him in some demonstrations) and accelerate the process to regain the full -- not just partial -- control of natural resources.
There is little time left to choose between these two alternatives. History is cruel and does not forgive indecisions. The people left behind, humiliated and exploited, are waiting. Bolivia is in its decisive hour. The outcome will affect the entire region, from Venezuela to Argentina.
Néstor Kohan is a teacher at the Universidad de Buenos Aires (UBA) and coordinator of the Colectivo Amauta-Cátedra Che Guevara. The original essay in Spanish was published in Bolpress on 5 May 2008. Translation by Yoshie Furuhashi.
by Néstor Kohan
The Right respects legality only when legality favors it. The history of our America has shown that a thousand times. The confrontation that is convulsing Bolivia today is no exception.
The Santa Cruz autonomy referendum is just the tip of the iceberg. To limit the debate to a question of legal pettifoggery would be a very serious error. It is an open secret that the bourgeoisie of the "Media Luna" (the half-moon-shaped region composed of the Santa Cruz, Beni, Pando, and Tarija departments), white and racist, lumpen and dependent, are planning to overthrow Evo Morales. That's not all. They are advised and directed by US Ambassador Philip Goldberg (who worked in Kosovo between 1994 and 1996. . .).
The CIA is implementing a predictable plan in Bolivia. Combine a Kosovo-style secessionism, psychological warfare, and incitement to internal counterrevolution as it did yesterday in the Chile of Salvador Allende and is doing today in the Venezuela of Chávez. Goldberg is following a textbook scheme. Use foundations like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the US Agency for International Development (USAID), and other agencies to transfer money to "independent" NGOs and rightist groups, just like in Venezuela. Since 2005, the USAID has given $120 million a year to the supposedly "democratic" opposition.
The central plaza of Santa Cruz is full of young Mormons -- blue-eyed blonds in white shirts -- who barely speak Spanish and warn against "the devil." . . . To suggest that Evo Morales in this context sit down and dialogue meekly with this warrior bourgeoisie funded by the United States is not only unrealistic and hardly pragmatic. It is simply suicidal.
As Morales himself acknowledged in an interview that he gave in La Paz in March 2008 (see <amauta.lahaine.org>), the MAS has arrived at the government, but it has no power. That is precisely the problem. If we wish to transform Bolivian society from the bottom up, we cannot avoid the problem of power at risk of losing everything.
The current dilemma of Evo and the MAS is whether it is possible to restrain the Right by making concessions or preferable to confront it and advance the process. The answer is complex because the Bolivian government is not homogeneous. It is pulled between two poles: the option of its moderate advisers (where some officials of the old political class turned progressives today and some academic fellow travelers of the process are ensconced) and the option of its most radical activists and social bases. The latter propose to radically push the process of reforms to the point of breaking the implicit pact that ties the hands of the government and will slowly weaken it. If this option ends up prevailing, Evo must not only intensify the confrontation with the "Media Luna." He should also impose price controls to curb inflation (the slogan that, as we have been able to hear firsthand, his own bases have cried out to him in some demonstrations) and accelerate the process to regain the full -- not just partial -- control of natural resources.
There is little time left to choose between these two alternatives. History is cruel and does not forgive indecisions. The people left behind, humiliated and exploited, are waiting. Bolivia is in its decisive hour. The outcome will affect the entire region, from Venezuela to Argentina.
Néstor Kohan is a teacher at the Universidad de Buenos Aires (UBA) and coordinator of the Colectivo Amauta-Cátedra Che Guevara. The original essay in Spanish was published in Bolpress on 5 May 2008. Translation by Yoshie Furuhashi.
Evo: Half of Cruceños Do Not Want Separatists' Autonomy
Evo: Half of Cruceños Do Not Want Separatists' Autonomy
by Bolpress
This is no autonomist victory nor is it a "democratic fiesta" -- it's a violent, failed opinion poll whose rate of abstention is three times the usual rate, says the President.
The illegal and unconstitutional referendum resoundingly failed to adopt the statute of autonomy for Santa Cruz, said President Evo Morales, as the poll showed that at least half of Cruceño citizens do not support the model of autonomy pushed by some clans.
Leading politicians and businessmen from the Santa Cruz department swear that more than 80 percent of voters approved their statute. "Today we say to the world that we are already autonomous, viva Santa Cruz," declared the chairman of the Santa Cruz Civic Committee Branco Marinkovic in a triumphant speech at the 24th of September Plaza in the capital of Santa Cruz, as soon as the initial results of the referendum were made public.
Morales saluted the people of Santa Cruz for organizing themselves and resisting the separatist statute of oligarchies on Sunday, the fourth of May, and said that he was impressed by the wisdom and consciousness of people.
In his opinion, the Santa Cruz poll failed because it was not a "democratic fiesta" that autonomists were hoping for but a violent process plagued by irregularities, allegations of fraud, and aggressions of young Cruceño shock troops reinforced by citizens from the interior of the country.
According to the President, the autonomists cannot declare themselves winners who received more than 80 percent of the votes without considering the high rate of citizen abstention which was three times the levels of abstention in recent elections.
The average abstention rate at the national level ranges between 20 and 22 percent. In the Constituent Assembly election, abstention in Santa Cruz amounted to 19 percent. The media estimate that 39 percent of registered voters abstained from voting this Sunday.
The data presented by some media, many of which sympathize with and support the illegal referendum, should worry those who gambled on it, said Morales, because the percentage of abstention plus those of no votes and null votes conclusively shows that at least 50 percent of Cruceños do not support the capitalists' autonomy.
"To tell the truth, I am sure that far more than 50 percent said no to autonomy. . . , that more data will be found behind the media. . . . Leaders and authorities ought to tell the truth," emphasized the head of state.
Morales regretted that the referendum had further divided Santa Cruz and set families living in that department at odds with one another.
He appreciated the wisdom and consciousness of people and social movements who today, despite assault and humiliation, rebelled against minority groups who tried forcibly to ratify a model of autonomy that fractures the country.
Morales was referring not only to acts of social repudiation in the city and provinces of Santa Cruz, but especially to multitudinous mobilizations in El Alto, Cochabamba, and La Paz this Sunday "against the Cruceño landowners' statute." In Cochabamba, they called for the resignation of Governor Manfred Reyes Villa, and in El Alto they threw stones at the television station of Governor José Luis Paredes. Both Reyes Villa and Paredes are allies of Cruceño autonomists.
The President said that the people were not mobilized by economic resources or perks and assured that his government did not finance any of these mobilizations. "Hence my admiration for these spontaneous demonstrations in defense of legality and equality among Bolivians."
Morales called upon all opposition governors to work from tomorrow for a genuine autonomy for indigenous peoples, departments, and regions, based on the new Constitution of Bolivia. He hoped that his appeal "will be heard by the governors to ensure autonomy for communities, not for cliques."
The original article in Spanish was published in Bolpress on 4 May 2008. Translation by Yoshie Furuhashi.
by Bolpress
This is no autonomist victory nor is it a "democratic fiesta" -- it's a violent, failed opinion poll whose rate of abstention is three times the usual rate, says the President.
The illegal and unconstitutional referendum resoundingly failed to adopt the statute of autonomy for Santa Cruz, said President Evo Morales, as the poll showed that at least half of Cruceño citizens do not support the model of autonomy pushed by some clans.
Leading politicians and businessmen from the Santa Cruz department swear that more than 80 percent of voters approved their statute. "Today we say to the world that we are already autonomous, viva Santa Cruz," declared the chairman of the Santa Cruz Civic Committee Branco Marinkovic in a triumphant speech at the 24th of September Plaza in the capital of Santa Cruz, as soon as the initial results of the referendum were made public.
Morales saluted the people of Santa Cruz for organizing themselves and resisting the separatist statute of oligarchies on Sunday, the fourth of May, and said that he was impressed by the wisdom and consciousness of people.
In his opinion, the Santa Cruz poll failed because it was not a "democratic fiesta" that autonomists were hoping for but a violent process plagued by irregularities, allegations of fraud, and aggressions of young Cruceño shock troops reinforced by citizens from the interior of the country.
According to the President, the autonomists cannot declare themselves winners who received more than 80 percent of the votes without considering the high rate of citizen abstention which was three times the levels of abstention in recent elections.
The average abstention rate at the national level ranges between 20 and 22 percent. In the Constituent Assembly election, abstention in Santa Cruz amounted to 19 percent. The media estimate that 39 percent of registered voters abstained from voting this Sunday.
The data presented by some media, many of which sympathize with and support the illegal referendum, should worry those who gambled on it, said Morales, because the percentage of abstention plus those of no votes and null votes conclusively shows that at least 50 percent of Cruceños do not support the capitalists' autonomy.
"To tell the truth, I am sure that far more than 50 percent said no to autonomy. . . , that more data will be found behind the media. . . . Leaders and authorities ought to tell the truth," emphasized the head of state.
Morales regretted that the referendum had further divided Santa Cruz and set families living in that department at odds with one another.
He appreciated the wisdom and consciousness of people and social movements who today, despite assault and humiliation, rebelled against minority groups who tried forcibly to ratify a model of autonomy that fractures the country.
Morales was referring not only to acts of social repudiation in the city and provinces of Santa Cruz, but especially to multitudinous mobilizations in El Alto, Cochabamba, and La Paz this Sunday "against the Cruceño landowners' statute." In Cochabamba, they called for the resignation of Governor Manfred Reyes Villa, and in El Alto they threw stones at the television station of Governor José Luis Paredes. Both Reyes Villa and Paredes are allies of Cruceño autonomists.
The President said that the people were not mobilized by economic resources or perks and assured that his government did not finance any of these mobilizations. "Hence my admiration for these spontaneous demonstrations in defense of legality and equality among Bolivians."
Morales called upon all opposition governors to work from tomorrow for a genuine autonomy for indigenous peoples, departments, and regions, based on the new Constitution of Bolivia. He hoped that his appeal "will be heard by the governors to ensure autonomy for communities, not for cliques."
The original article in Spanish was published in Bolpress on 4 May 2008. Translation by Yoshie Furuhashi.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Interview with Bolivian Vice President García
Interview with Bolivian Vice President García:
"Brazil and Argentina's Support Restrained Adventurists' Plans in Bolivia"
by Pablo Stefanoni
Evo Morales' Vice President believes that regional backing neutralized the most radical sectors among secessionists.
The 10oC "summer" weather in Bolivia's capital city is strongly felt in Bolivian Vice President Álvaro García Linera's house, which has no heating, like nearly all the houses in La Paz.
For almost an hour we went over the conjuncture of a week of uncertain negotiations between the government and opposition, in search of an anxiously awaited national accord. "The media inflate political tension," he said.
Clarín: Is a political accord close?
Álvaro García Linera (AGL): On the part of the government there is an open, frank, and determined search for an accord. We have demonstrated great flexibility and broadmindedness regarding the issue of the distribution of the hydrocarbon taxes and the reopening of discussion on the new constitutional text in order to correct errors and see how we can make it compatible with the sensible proposals of regional autonomy. But there are opposition sectors that are reluctant to accept this.
Clarín: Not long ago you spoke of a "point of bifurcation." How do you negotiate in these conditions?
AGL: I took the idea from the Nobel physicist Ilya Prigogine, the idea of an order arising out of chaos. A system can evolve towards one of two possibilities: it can return to the original state of equilibrium (in the political terrain, to the old state) or else it begins to self-organize until it constitutes a new structure.
A point of bifurcation is a point of tension between forces, which in 1952 occurred in the form of a civil war. In 2008, President Evo Morales is wagering on resolving it by the ballot box (a constitutional and revocation referendum) and an agreed-upon solution.
Clarín: And if no accord is reached, how tense could the situation become?
AGL: It is difficult to predict. But some are betting on regionalized entrenchment, violating laws with a de facto autonomy by means of an illegal referendum. And if they accompany this with the occupation of institutions, they will enter into the path of illegality without exit. If that is the case, the government will use the constitutional means available to guarantee institutionality.
Clarín: There has been even talk of civil war -- do you consider it possible?
AGL: It was thought that on 15 December [when the four eastern departments declared autonomy] the civil war would erupt. The media greatly inflate political tension. Stop watching the media for a week, and you can size up the real dimension of the confrontation.
Today there is a common sense, whether you are from the Left or the Right, about the protagonist role of the state in economy, redistribution of wealth, equality between peoples, and decentralization and autonomy. There are a national project and regionalized resistances. There are no longer two national projects. In this process of replacement of elites, those who used to have national power are today bunkering down in the regions.
Clarín: Could secessionist ideas tempt some radical rightist groups?
AGL: There is a democratic right wing and a fascist right wing that burn houses, draw up blacklists. . . . Within the authoritarian Right, there are small minority groups of a secessionist character, with a desperate intent to preserve their privileges. They don't constitute a real danger, but they are there.
Clarín: Do they have influence on regional governors?
AGL: Yes, but a very marginal influence.
Clarín: On what must Santa Cruz yield?
AGL: People voted for autonomy in the referendum, but the statute establishes a federal and more than federal regime. They must respect what was voted on 2 July 2006.
Clarín: How do you evaluate the importance of regional support for the stability of Bolivia?
AGL: Very important. Brazil and Argentina, and also Chile, gave a very strong message of support for democracy and hope in the transformations. I believe that this has temporarily neutralized the most extremist sectors that perhaps thought they could find some external support for their adventurist plans. The signal was very clear.
Clarín: Does the recent change in the commander of the armed forces have any significance?
AGL: Institutionally, this is meant to occur after the second year. This is the first military general staff in decades that has resulted from observance of the norms. The rotation between forces is custom and usage of the armed forces, and we have respected it by naming a member of the air force.
Clarín: Does the government have confidence in the institutional fidelity of the armed forces?
AGL: Definitely.
The interview originally appeared in the 13 January 2008 issue of Clarín. Translation by Federico Fuentes and Yoshie Furuhashi.
"Brazil and Argentina's Support Restrained Adventurists' Plans in Bolivia"
by Pablo Stefanoni
Evo Morales' Vice President believes that regional backing neutralized the most radical sectors among secessionists.
The 10oC "summer" weather in Bolivia's capital city is strongly felt in Bolivian Vice President Álvaro García Linera's house, which has no heating, like nearly all the houses in La Paz.
For almost an hour we went over the conjuncture of a week of uncertain negotiations between the government and opposition, in search of an anxiously awaited national accord. "The media inflate political tension," he said.
Clarín: Is a political accord close?
Álvaro García Linera (AGL): On the part of the government there is an open, frank, and determined search for an accord. We have demonstrated great flexibility and broadmindedness regarding the issue of the distribution of the hydrocarbon taxes and the reopening of discussion on the new constitutional text in order to correct errors and see how we can make it compatible with the sensible proposals of regional autonomy. But there are opposition sectors that are reluctant to accept this.
Clarín: Not long ago you spoke of a "point of bifurcation." How do you negotiate in these conditions?
AGL: I took the idea from the Nobel physicist Ilya Prigogine, the idea of an order arising out of chaos. A system can evolve towards one of two possibilities: it can return to the original state of equilibrium (in the political terrain, to the old state) or else it begins to self-organize until it constitutes a new structure.
A point of bifurcation is a point of tension between forces, which in 1952 occurred in the form of a civil war. In 2008, President Evo Morales is wagering on resolving it by the ballot box (a constitutional and revocation referendum) and an agreed-upon solution.
Clarín: And if no accord is reached, how tense could the situation become?
AGL: It is difficult to predict. But some are betting on regionalized entrenchment, violating laws with a de facto autonomy by means of an illegal referendum. And if they accompany this with the occupation of institutions, they will enter into the path of illegality without exit. If that is the case, the government will use the constitutional means available to guarantee institutionality.
Clarín: There has been even talk of civil war -- do you consider it possible?
AGL: It was thought that on 15 December [when the four eastern departments declared autonomy] the civil war would erupt. The media greatly inflate political tension. Stop watching the media for a week, and you can size up the real dimension of the confrontation.
Today there is a common sense, whether you are from the Left or the Right, about the protagonist role of the state in economy, redistribution of wealth, equality between peoples, and decentralization and autonomy. There are a national project and regionalized resistances. There are no longer two national projects. In this process of replacement of elites, those who used to have national power are today bunkering down in the regions.
Clarín: Could secessionist ideas tempt some radical rightist groups?
AGL: There is a democratic right wing and a fascist right wing that burn houses, draw up blacklists. . . . Within the authoritarian Right, there are small minority groups of a secessionist character, with a desperate intent to preserve their privileges. They don't constitute a real danger, but they are there.
Clarín: Do they have influence on regional governors?
AGL: Yes, but a very marginal influence.
Clarín: On what must Santa Cruz yield?
AGL: People voted for autonomy in the referendum, but the statute establishes a federal and more than federal regime. They must respect what was voted on 2 July 2006.
Clarín: How do you evaluate the importance of regional support for the stability of Bolivia?
AGL: Very important. Brazil and Argentina, and also Chile, gave a very strong message of support for democracy and hope in the transformations. I believe that this has temporarily neutralized the most extremist sectors that perhaps thought they could find some external support for their adventurist plans. The signal was very clear.
Clarín: Does the recent change in the commander of the armed forces have any significance?
AGL: Institutionally, this is meant to occur after the second year. This is the first military general staff in decades that has resulted from observance of the norms. The rotation between forces is custom and usage of the armed forces, and we have respected it by naming a member of the air force.
Clarín: Does the government have confidence in the institutional fidelity of the armed forces?
AGL: Definitely.
The interview originally appeared in the 13 January 2008 issue of Clarín. Translation by Federico Fuentes and Yoshie Furuhashi.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Non-Alignment in the 21st Century
Whether or not Iran can resist the US-led multinational empire depends a lot on whether it can gain and keep allies -- Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and so on -- and get other countries that are neither full members of the empire nor allies of Iran -- Russia, China, India, Turkey, etc. -- to resist economic and other sanctions on Iran as much as possible.1
Iran should also continue to work on driving wedges between the USA on one hand and Japan and European states on the other hand, so the latter won't fully sign on to the US campaign to economically isolate Iran.
Conversely, the fall of Iran would embolden the empire and make it easier for it to intensify attacks on Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and others. Survival of Iran would weaken US hegemony further, a favorable outcome for all who are or may become Washington's targets.2
Condoleezza Rice claims that Non-Alignment "has lost its meaning":
1 InternetActivist.org has created a useful list of where other nations stand in their relations to Iran and the US campaign to isolate it: "So How Have the US/Israeli Efforts to Isolate Iran Fared around the World?" (27 September 2007).
2 Those leftists who try to isolate Iran from Latin socialist leaders are silly sectarians who have no mass following on the ground and care little about what will become of the Iranian people. The "Iranian Revolutionary Socialists' League," which says it is "highly critical of the Chavez government's extraordinarily close and fraternal relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran" in its open letter (17 September 2006), is a case in point.
Iran should also continue to work on driving wedges between the USA on one hand and Japan and European states on the other hand, so the latter won't fully sign on to the US campaign to economically isolate Iran.
Conversely, the fall of Iran would embolden the empire and make it easier for it to intensify attacks on Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and others. Survival of Iran would weaken US hegemony further, a favorable outcome for all who are or may become Washington's targets.2
Condoleezza Rice claims that Non-Alignment "has lost its meaning":
. . . I know that there are some who still talk about non-alignment in foreign policy. But maybe that made sense during the Cold War when the world really was divided into rival camps. Now the question that I would ask is, as fellow democracies with so many interests and principles in common at a time when people of every culture, every race, and every religion are embracing political and economic liberty, what is the meaning of non-alignment?Not true. Non-Alignment in the 21st Century means non-alignment with the US power elite, consciously building new military alliances (away from the NATO and other multilateral and bilateral military cooperation with the USA), financial networks (away from the dollar), cultural connections (away from the American media), and so on to roll back the empire.
It has lost its meaning. (Condoleezza Rice, "Remarks at the U.S.-India Business Council 32nd Anniversary 'Global India' Summit," U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Washington, DC, 27 June 2007)
1 InternetActivist.org has created a useful list of where other nations stand in their relations to Iran and the US campaign to isolate it: "So How Have the US/Israeli Efforts to Isolate Iran Fared around the World?" (27 September 2007).
2 Those leftists who try to isolate Iran from Latin socialist leaders are silly sectarians who have no mass following on the ground and care little about what will become of the Iranian people. The "Iranian Revolutionary Socialists' League," which says it is "highly critical of the Chavez government's extraordinarily close and fraternal relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran" in its open letter (17 September 2006), is a case in point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
