A fin de mes, otra de resumen

Empezamos el mes con la suspensión de Bolivia de la agencia norteamericana contra la droga. Esta es una decisión tomada por Bolivia que acusa a la DEA de ser parte de un entramado norteamericano de espionaje en el país que involucra también a agencias como USAID y el ‘Peace Corps’ (cuerpo de paz) y que ya trato de apoyar a la derecha fascista y violenta de este país a través de su embajador.

Recientemente los Estado Unidos decidieron terminar (solo con Bolivia) el tratado preferencial de comercio para los estados andinos acusándoles de no hacer lo suficiente el su ‘guerra contra la cocaína’. Cuando Bolivia ha interceptado una cantidad record de cocaína este año, unos 27 toneladas de acuerdo con las últimas noticias, es difícil pensar que esto es algo más que una decisión política para castigar a un país que ha osado expulsar a su embajador.

La guerra diplomática entre los Estados Unidos y Bolivia no es la única preocupación del gobierno. La otra es una guerra económica entre Bolivia y esos países que insisten en los ‘tratados de libre comercio’ (TLC) que sólo son libres para los poderosos. La Unión Europea es partícipe de estos abusos de poder si creemos la acusación Boliviana de que Benita Ferrero Waldner ha hecho todo lo posible para no negociar con el bloque constituido por los países andinos (Bolivia, Perú, Colombia y Ecuador) y forzar un TLC de forma bilateral con cada uno de ellos. Los gobiernos de Perú y Colombia acceden a esto gustosos, claro, aunque sus poblaciones en general no están tan entusiasmadas a juzgar por las protestas que se han dado lugar en ambos países este mes.

Y es que Bolivia rechaza muchas de las bases de estos TLCs como la privatización de necesidades humanas básicas (el agua, la electricidad, el alcantarillado y la vivienda) o la producción de patentes de especies biológicas como ciertas semillas. Y yo creo que tienen razón en resistir esta interpenetración del capital que esta forzando la Unión Europea. Por eso es que Bolivia argumenta estar más interesada en el bienestar de sus ciudadanos y es por eso que está haciendo todo lo posible para que el acceso a la educación sea verdaderamente universal con un bono para todos los niños de hasta octavo de primaria, el bono Juancito Pinto, del cual hablábamos el 10 de noviembre.

La elección de Barack Obama como presidente de los Estados Unidos ha sido otra gran noticia para el mundo este mes. Por fin, alguien inteligente y no un tarado en la casa blanca. Las esperanzas para una mejora de las relaciones entre Estados Unidos, cuyo embajador en Bolivia tradicionalmente ha sido el verdadero poder detrás de la presidencia, son grandes pero los obstáculos también; veremos lo que pasa.

Mientras tanto, Bolivia esta intentando mejorar su situación de falta de poder económico y político en la región, haciendo amigos con países ideológicamente cercanos como Venezuela, Cuba o Ecuador. Resulta que el miércoles 26 de noviembre se juntaron en Caracas todos estos presidentes y otros para discutir, entre otras cosas, la creación de una moneda común, el Sucre, como parte de un proyecto de integración económica a largo plazo que pueda resistir los embates de las crisis creadas por el capitalismo y mejorar de verdad el bienestar humano en la región. El ALBA, la Alternativa Bolivariana de las Américas promete una visión distinta a la del ‘libre’ comercio. Sin duda hacen falta alternativas en el mundo que vayan más allá de darles billones y billones de dólares de los contribuyentes a los banqueros (no eran ellos los que no querían intervención del estado en la economía?) para que todo vuelva a donde estábamos antes de que la crisis empezara. Pues estamos buenos.

Y por fin terminamos el mes con dos noticias deprimentes de la manera de hacer política de la oposición de derecha en este país. La primera era referente al aniversario de tres muertes en Sucre que se dieron después de enfrentamientos con la policía por grupos de estudiantes manipulados por un grupito de racisto-fascistas que no quieren que nada cambie en el país y que se quejan de que “estos ya no son nuestros indios”, aquellos sumisos que bajan la cabeza al pasar al lado nuestro o que no voy a permitir que entren a la plaza central de Sucre. Su demanda de capitalía plena para Sucre estaba destinada a descarrilar el trabajo de la Asamblea Constituyente precisamente para que todo siga igual. Falló como esperamos que fallen todas las alzadas violentas que se le avecinan al país el año que viene.

La otra noticia era sobre la manera cínica de la oposición de negar que una masacre de indígenas tuviera lugar en Porvenir, Pando, el 11 de Septiembre pasado. No sólo lo niegan sino que además son lo suficientemente arrogantes como para pensar que están en su derecho de actuar de esta manera en Pando, el ‘lejano oeste’ de Bolivia, porque así se han portado toda su vida y nadie les ha parado los pies.

Termino con el mismo deseo de mi último ‘posting’ de que esperemos que la impunidad por fin desaparezca del país. Es absolutamente necesario que las instituciones del estado y el estado de derecho se impongan en esta batalla. De lo contrario, el MAS se va a encontrar con una derecha armada y envalentonada que le va ha hacer la vida imposible durante el año de elecciones que se avecina.

UNASUR only listened to Evo or “UNASUR solo escucho a Evo”

This is at least the main headline used by news TV channel UNITEL last Friday 21 November to greet the unveiling of some of the main conclusions reached by a high-level special commission tasked with conducting an enquiry on the Pando massacre of indigenous people on 11 September.

You will remember that the current president of UNASUR, Michelle Bachellet appointed this group of investigators led by a human rights expert, Argentinian Rodolfo Mattarollo in the wake of the September massacre and at a time when the political situation in Bolivia looked extremely delicate.

The final UNASUR report was delivered to Michelle Bachellet on Tuesday 25 November. It is interesting to check the main conclusions of this report because they contradict every single argument presented by the opposition to deny the events ever took place, question the veracity of the accounts, even pretend that the video evidence of the events was constructed. What are its main conclusions?

First: Contrary to arguments by the opposition, there are 18 deaths that have been confirmed. Another 70 people are still unaccounted for, presumed dead. Because many of the bodies were thrown in the river, it is thought these bodies will never be recovered.

Second: Contrary to arguments by the opposition, there was no armed confrontation between two groups. Instead, there was an ambush of hundreds of unarmed indigenous people travelling to a nearby community.

Third: Contrary to arguments by the opposition, this ambush was perpetrated by an armed militia consisting of employees of the prefecture and members of the local ‘civic committee’.

Fourth: Contrary to arguments by the opposition, there is more than indicative evidence to suggest that the ambush was premeditated and executed according to a plan masterminded from the prefecture.

It is horrifying to see civilians in public positions armed with submachine guns shooting at defenceless indigenous people. It is absolutely unbelievable that elected opposition MPs like José Villavicencio should appear on the video, not trying to stop the shooting but, ‘interrogating’ one of the kidnapped survivors of the massacre to try to extract a confession on camera that incriminates a local MAS MP and ‘proves’ that the victims were armed.

And to top it all, we have that a number of news organisations were present in the town of Porvenir at the moment the massacre took place. A microphone of the TV channel ‘Pat’ is clearly visible during the ‘interrogation’ of one of the people kidnapped. It seems, some of these organisations had been warned previously of what was coming, the same organisations whose video has now been aired by the public prosecution against the accused and who deny the events ever took place or argue the video has been shot in a studio.

The videos (4 of them), are available on the following link and make chilling viewing:
http://foro.univision.com/univision/board/message?board.id=190097542&message.id=47376

The opposition, aided by a majority of TV channels, have begun a propaganda campaign against this report and the judicial measures against the main accused, ex-prefect of Pando Leopoldo Fernandez, in prison since September, and another 20 people who worked for him. These are 20 of the more than 3500 who worked for him in a department with a population of no more than 60000.

The first part of the campaign included the headline in the title, followed by interviews with two opposition MPs who denied any legitimacy to the high-level UNASUR commission, accusing them of partiality, lacking any mandate to conduct their investigation and attempting against Bolivia’s sovereignty.

The second is the interviewing of some of those responsible for the massacre who escaped to nearby Brazil, to claim their status as ‘political refugees’ persecuted by a tyrannical and authoritarian state. And thirdly, some TV ‘analysts’ have brought out their ‘experts’ to continue to claim that the video evidence of the massacre has been manipulated to justify the political persecution of the opposition.

UNASUR president Michelle Bachellet has announced that impunity cannot be left to reign in Latin America like it has done for too long. The commission’s enquiry on the events in Porvenir is part of this process. Yet, given the current events in the judicial process against Leopoldo Fernandez and his lackeys (this is for another day, I’m afraid) it is difficult to believe justice will soon arrive to Bolivia.

A year on, those killed in La Calancha - Sucre, have found no justice

One year ago yesterday (24 November) three people were killed in Sucre during an escalation of violence by those who were demanding that the city is given full capital status.

In fact, the campana por la capitalia, as it became known, came out of nowhere to the surprise of many. It was, in retrospect, the last attempt by a virulent opposition to the government based in the lowlands, to derail the constituent assembly, elected for the purpose of writing a new constitution for the refoundation of Bolivia.

And this they did very well. After the events of the day in which hordes of young people commanded by the ‘civic’ committee of Sucre and led by key personalities in the city such as the major and the university vice chancellor, hundreds of people attacked the police station, stole dozens of cars and weapons and set fire to the prison, before attempting to invade the palace where the constituent assembly was in session.

The day’s events are yet to be fully clarified, in part because of the refusal to collaborate with any investigations on the part of the city’s leadership. The one fact that is known is that two people were killed by bullets not used by the police or the military.

What is shameful is the way in which, one year on, the events, and the dead, have been appropriated by the same virulent, unpleasant, and deeply racist opposition to the current government that organised the violence in the first place, and presented them as ‘our martyrs’ in order to launch a campaign against the new constitution that will be approved in referendum next January.

And so it was that a demonstration yesterday repeated the same chants of “Esto es Sucre carajo! Sucre se respeta!” that have become characteristic in the city and that we would witness again on the racist attacks against indigenous people of 24th May 2008. These events were witnessed and recorded by local theatre director Cesar Brie. His film, “Ofendidos y humillados”, gives a pretty clear idea of the type of people we are talking about here.

Thinking the unthinkable: Can we solve the global economic crisis?

According to Larry Elliot in the Guardian Weekly (21st November) the G8 (and the US that leads it) have lost their economic leadership in favour of a much more diverse G20 that met last weekend to tackle the calamitous collapse of the global economy.

Thank God for that, I hear you say. The only problem is that the meeting ended reaffirming the same principles of ‘free’ trade and light-touch financial regulation that got us in this mess in the first place.

Instead, what the leaders responsible for 80 per cent of global trade suggest to save the world from financial meltdown is more of what has already been taking place: the subsidy of those zillions of losses by the richest section of the world with more zillions of dollars from you, me and everyone else, so that we can go back to where we were two years ago.

Are they kidding? No, I really don’t feel sorry for the US and its loss of economic leadership. Instead, I feel sorry for the hundreds of millions of the world’s poor who are suffering, and by the looks of it will continue to suffer, the consequences of the global economic and financial policies that led to this mess because they did the least to produce the crisis but will end-up paying the consequences.

And the consequences are pretty dire. Listening to president Evo Morales in New York at the UN this week, we learnt that, in a matter of weeks, leaders of the richest nations have authorised spending 30 times (yes 30 times) the amount spent so far in (not) reaching the Millenium Development Goals. At least one thing is clear and that is where the priorities lie for the wealthiest nations.

No, thinking the unthinkable will have to go beyond the mere reform of the international financial system proposed by the G20 meeting. If will Hutton is right, it has to “overhaul the way we do capitalism” (Hutton, W. The Failure of Market Failure: Towards a 21st Century Keynesianism www.nesta.org.uk ). I’m not sure anyone has told our G20 leaders yet. And the problem is that no alternatives of any worth seem to be coming from the left. Anyone there?

Obama versus Morales, Part II (see previous post)

So let’s go back to yesterday’s question: What is the significance of an Obama victory for future US-Bolivian relations?

Let’s say that Bolivia welcomes Obama’s victory but does not expect a turnaround of diplomatic fortunes in the US any time soon.

It is not that anyone doubts about the political honesty of the man himself; it is just that it is difficult to see how he can turn the super-tanker of a US foreign policy driven by imperialist ideological aims and capital-driven interests.

And things really are not very good at the moment between the two countries.

First there is an official Bolivian ideology that is not particularly warm to neoliberal dogma. At least in Bolivia they know why, as the socioeconomic effects of the structural adjustment and shock therapy of the1980s are yet to be forgotten.

One sometimes hopes the US did what it preaches to others to get a taste of the consequences of economic dogma. But when we have a republican president like George W. Bush nationalising half of all American mortgages and becoming, in effect, more ‘socialist’ than Morales himself, you know there is no chance of that.

So, instead, the new Bolivian constitution talks about the state’s responsibilities towards the well-being of its population; the recuperation of sovereignty in the management of the country’s natural resources; the principles of solidarity in its relations with other countries; and the pacifist aims of its military, ruling out any foreign intervention and forbidding foreign military (read US) installations in its soil.

None of these positions is likely to warm the country towards US interests in the region.

Secondly, we have a diplomatic row between Bolivia and the US that has been escalating since September, when the US ambassador to Bolivia was expelled from the country following evidence that he was supporting a right-wing, opposition-led civil coup backed by violence and civil unrest that ended with the massacre of dozens of peasants in Pando.

Things have escalated since then. The US immediately responded by expelling the Bolivian ambassador to the US. Then came accusations that USAID had been involved in intelligence gathering, supporting a disingenuous US foreign policy in the country. USAID have already left; the Peace Corps evacuated their staff following the ambassador’s removal and are yet to come back.

And the trouble between the two countries didn’t end there. First the US president decided to de-certify Bolivia’s anti-narcotics efforts in spite of evidence that the country’s cocaine seizures this year are the biggest ever. This was used as justification to bring to an end, for Bolivia alone, the special tax privileges given to Andean nations so that their products can reach US markets. Bolivia has responded to this by expelling the DEA, citing again that dark foreign policy aims were at play in some of the DEA’s activities.

So the diplomatic situation cannot possible get any worse between the two countries. But will it get better any time soon? Over to you, Mr president.

Obama versus Morales (Part I)

Quite a few people have been asking me about the significance of an Obama victory for future US-Bolivian relations. Rather than in the ideas professed by both countries, this is a question that seems inspired by the significance of two such unlikely presidents who seem charismatic, intelligent and honest (not characteristics apparent in George W. Bush, unfortunately).

The symbolic significance of a first black president of the US is difficult to miss. Obama was, after all, born before the Civil Rights Movement that brought to the world the image of a divided America that didn’t afford constitutional rights to its black population. Nobody could possibly have dreamed then that a generation later they would have one of their own as president.

Even Evo Morales has commented on the significance of a member of the ‘oppressed black population’ (his words) becoming president of the most powerful nation on earth. But I still think that his own rise to the presidency of Bolivia is much more significant for being so much more unlikely.

Significantly, Obama never campaigned on a black-issues ticket. Instead, he emphasised his credentials as representative of the American people and the American dream. He has, however, made much of his being an outsider of the Washington-style cronyism and built a campaign on the need for change and hope.

And yet, it is difficult to see him as an outsider when, after all, he belongs to an educational elite, having studied at Harvard school of law. Donors to the presidential campaign also know when to back a winning horse and made him the highest spender ever in a presidential campaign. In this regard he represents a black middle class with the intelligence, skills, determination (and the means) to aspire and reach the highest office. But this, he has done from within the system and in any case, we already have the cases on Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice as examples of black political achievement.

No, the rise of Evo Morales to the presidency of Bolivia is much more significant because he truly represents the abandoned majority of the country. He is one of them, someone whose family survived the economic penuries of the 1980s; he is someone who had to work from a very early age – like hundreds of thousands of children do in Bolivia – to contribute to the household’s economy; and he is someone who, in spite of never having reached university, was able to lead a political coalition of social movements that did away with the old ‘partidocracy’ – a corrupt and self-serving political system – to create something truly new in Bolivia’s political history by bringing new forms of citizen participation and engagement to politics.

For these reasons, I think Evo Morales is the true outsider both socially and politically.

Do as I say and not as I do: How the EU helped derail the process of integration of the Andean community of nations

So, Benita Ferrero-Waldner, the EU’s external affairs commissioner is alone responsible for ruining Bolivia’s chances of entering trade negotiations with the EU as part of the regional bloc of Andean nations made up of Bolivia, Peru, Colombia and Ecuador.

This is at least the accusation coming from Bolivia who argue that both Peru and Colombia have ignored agreements made between the presidents by all four Andean countries in Guayaquil as recently as four weeks ago. They have accepted an invitation by Benita Ferrero-Waldner to enter bilateral trade negotiations with the EU. On the table, the possibility of free trade treaties between the EU and these countries.

In addition, they argue that Benita Ferrero-Waldner prevented the Bolivian ambassador to the EU from participating in the meeting that took place this week in Brussels with the chancellors of Colombia and Peru.

It is very interesting that in a EU in which the executive negotiates foreign trade policy on behalf of the EU's 27 member countries, the priority seems to divide other blocs and enter into bilateral talks instead, against the express mandate of the EU, I might add. This undermines the process of, in this case, Andean integration and marginalises those heretics with constitutions that explicitly forbid the privatisation of basic services (water, electricity…), the deregulation of the financial services (who would want that in the current global financial climate?) and claim that natural resources are for the benefit of the people, not multinational corporations.

That Peru and Colombia have orthodox neoliberal agendas that believe in this type of free trade and are prepared to be steamrolled by a much more powerful bloc into signing an agreement that gives away their assets to international business is not in question. But we have to remember the political capital that Colombia especially, hopes to gain from this free trade agreement when, after many years of negotiations with the US to achieve this precisely, Congress has vetoed the agreement concerned about human rights abuses in a country in which the state is one of the main culprits. Does the EU concern itself with these trifles? It seems not.

Juancito Pinto el tamborrero y el bono que lleva su nombre or an Educational Maintenance Allowance (EMA) with a difference

They say that Juancito Pinto was a 12 year-old drummer who took part, like many other children of yesteryear and of today, in the Pacific War that in 1880 saw Chile easily defeat Bolivian forces annexing Bolivia’s coastline and access to the sea.

This national tragedy cemented the country’s sense of identity and Bolivia’s highest foreign policy priority — recovering access to the sea — ever since. For Juancito Pinto, it meant his death when after seeing his friends killed, he chose to abandon his drum and take a weapon. It also meant his rebirth, many years later, as a national hero whose name today is symbol of a different campaign to ensure that every child attends school in Bolivia.

It is a tall order since as UN figures show, secondary education enrolment levels are below 70 percent, a problem that affects girls in even higher numbers. What the Bono Juancito Pinto does is give each school child up to grade 8, 200 bolivianos (around $ 30) at the end of each year providing they meet a minimum attendance requirement.

It is a key form of economic support that erodes the need for work, a need omnipresent in the streets of La Paz where children as young as nine are seen working as shoe shines, street sellers or as fare collectors in private minibuses.

In this regard, the Bono Juancito pinto shares its aims with the British Educational Maintenance Allowance for secondary school children who qualify according to a means test criteria. It is, in the President’s words, part of the country’s effort towards achieving the goal of ‘vivir bien’, literally ‘living well’ (another entry on vivir bien to follow soon).

Bolivia suspends DEA activities

OK, you might not have known this but the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has been operating in Bolivia on the so-called war on drugs, eradicating illegal plantations of coca leaf for about 35 years. Until now, that is.

This is because President Evo Morales has just asked DEA to suspend its operations in the country, after accusing it of supporting the near-coup that took place last September.

Whether or not this is the case, the fact is that the US recently accused Bolivia of not doing enough against cocaine trade and removed the country’s commercial status — shared with other Andean countries — that allowed textile exports to the US to receive preferential trade terms.

This, at a time when Bolivian authorities have announced record levels of cocaine seizures — at more than 25 tons this year — and illegal plantations destroyed. It is therefore difficult to avoid thinking that the expulsion of US ambassador on 11 September is behind this latest escalation in the diplomatic war between the two countries.

Which means that the work is already piling on the new US President’s in-tray.