Sunday, March 30, 2008

The U.S. and crisis in Bolivia

Miguel and Blog From Bolivia note that the National Electoral Court (CNE) has not authorized any of the previously announced referenda, but that Santa Cruz is ignoring that fact and wants to push ahead with an autonomy vote. If it goes forward, it will almost guarantee violence.

I found it interesting that the EU very clearly said it would respect the CNE’s decision, and not recognize an illegal vote. The U.S. government, however, has said nothing (or at least I cannot find anything). When we think of the negative image of the U.S. in Latin America, this is a good example. The EU takes an unambiguous stand about a critical issue and the U.S. remains mum.

While searching, I ran across an interview Evo Morales just did with Al Jazeera. Here is his take:

You recently said that the United States government was pushing to try to turn Bolivia into a kind of Kosovo. What proof do you have of that?

First the American congressmen that visited me recently asked me to support that division of Kosovo. It's impossible that we can support the division of a country. Secondly, the conspiracy against my government is headed by the US ambassador.

USAID, with funds that come American tax payers, who think they are helping the Bolivian people, is using the money in a dirty campaign against my government and especially against me. They meet with NGOs and other groups here, always with the intention of conspiring. They offer them money on condition that they take part in the campaign against Evo Morales.

The mayor of a city, who recently visited me, told me he was offered money by the USAID agency to run as an opposition congressman. They even offered to pay for his campaign.

And the mayor told me that the people who work for the US agency go from house to house telling people that if they get rid of Evo Morales, they will have more money. If we wanted to document this we could. We are going to present the documents to prove this to the US Congress.

10 comments:

Bosque 1:36 PM  

The US has a horrific history in South America, it operated under its Jim Crow laws from the 50's ... its the very reason why SA no longer wants much to do with the US.

Also, the US was one of two countries which voted "no" to the UN resolution of recognition for indigenous rights.

SA is majority indigenous.

Bolivia is one of two countries with an indigenous President. Both countries catch nothing but hell from a nation which perpetrates its behavior based on skin tone.

Anonymous,  2:30 PM  

I wouldn't call either Brazil, Colombia or Argentina, the three largest nations on the continent majority indigenous nations. I would agree that Bolivia and perhaps Paraguay are.

That being said, I largely agree with you that South America is largely uninterested in US input. Perhaps the silence is essentially calculated

Anonymous,  8:40 PM  

Governments that don't support property rights for foreigners don't have much of a leg to stand on when they start complaining that other governments don't support them. Go ahead and ask the Brazilian shareholders (which includes pension funds of little old Brazilian ladies) of Petrobras what they think of Evo Morales and his attempts to steal their assets. Or ask the Chileans living in northern Chile how they feel about Mr. Morales attempts to beat a dead horse about access to the sea. The US is a minor factor in Bolivia by comparison.

If you consistently complain about foreign involvement in your business community, then don't be surprised when the governments of those people choose not to support you.

Greg Weeks 8:47 PM  

Do you have links? All I've seen recently is Petrobras investing more, not less, in both Bolivia and Venezuela.

Miguel Centellas 8:20 AM  

I actually found it ironic that the EU took a stand deliberately against Santa Cruz's referendum initiative only weeks after pushing to support Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence.

From a democratic theory perspective, I don't see how a region can be denied the right to hold an election on the issue of its relationship with the central government. Especially when the issue is autonomy, *NOT* secession. That right was extended to Scotland, Catalonia, and Quebec, among others.

Bolivia remains a highly centralized country. Regional autonomies (including autonomies to indigenous communities) would help alleviate centuries of political conflict.

Greg Weeks 9:21 AM  

My impression, though, is that it doesn't deny the vote, but rather says it can't take place that quickly. However, I do not know how legitimate that argument is.

boz 12:01 PM  

As I understand it (and I could be wrong), after the date for the autonomy referendum was set, the Bolivian legislature set the national constitutional referendum for the same day, and then the court ruled that the regional referendum could not constitutionally be held on the same day as the national one. However, I'd be interested if someone else has a better sense for the timing.

Anonymous,  3:41 PM  

The Chaco subunit of Tarija is bargaining for its own autonomy from Tarija. So is the city of Bermejo. It will be interesting to see how far autonomy extends in Bolivia.

See El Pais, http://www.elpaisonline.com/

--John

Boli-Nica 4:37 PM  

I found it interesting that the EU very clearly said it would respect the CNE’s decision, and not recognize an illegal vote. The U.S. government, however, has said nothing (or at least I cannot find anything). When we think of the negative image of the U.S. in Latin America, this is a good example. The EU takes an unambiguous stand about a critical issue and the U.S. remains mum.

I fail to see how the US would benefit from following the EU for a couple of reasons:

1. There is a legitimate legal argument that the statutes and the vote are not "illegal". The problem is there is no superior court to determine certain issues outside of the CNE's jurisdiction. There is no high court because Evo filed a legislative trial against the supreme court, and most of its members quit. Santa Cruz argue that they followed proper procedures for the vote, including getting a ruling from the departments highest Court. They argue this Court has jurisdiction to rule in the absence of a sitting Supreme Court.

2. The EU being relatively quiet over Evo locking out the opposition, and ramming through the constitution. The impression many Bolivians have is that the EU is partial to Evo.

Subalternate 3:11 AM  

mcentellas: The difference between Kosova and Santa Cruz is large and one of the reasons why Morales did not recognize Kosova was precisely because of the message it would sent to people in the media luna, who would think that their struggle is somehow compared to that in Kosova. There is no comparison between those two places.

As far as the U.N. is concerned, Santa Cruz is the wealthiest region of Bolivia and autonomy is seen as a way to consolidate wealth in the hands of a few. Autonomy in the media luna sense of the word does not simply mean regional elections. It includes regional control of natural resources, the retention of two-thirds of all tax revenue generated by the state and most radically, the authority to set all policies other than defense, currency, tariffs and foreign relations. In effect, autonomy would take away MAS’ governmental mandate and capacity to redistribute.

Also, indigenous people are not asking for ‘autonomy’. Bolivia’s 1994 Law of Popular Participation and the subsequent Administrative Decentralization in 1995 transferred considerable political power away from the state and into the country’s 311 municipalities and the indigenous operate from the municipalities.

  © Blogger templates The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP