bolivian unrest!
June 8, 2005 6:30 PM Subscribe
Indigenous communities taking over oil fields.... Is any one paying attention to what is happening in Bolivia? On the brink of civil war over the second largest reserve of natural gas in South America.
Mod note: two comments removed, sorry if the one before this doesn't make so much sense
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:07 PM on June 8, 2005
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:07 PM on June 8, 2005
I heard Bill Faries, a correspondent for the Christian Science Monitor in La Paz, interviewed on Marketplace tonight.
posted by mlis at 7:08 PM on June 8, 2005
posted by mlis at 7:08 PM on June 8, 2005
Why was the CIA comment removed? It's perfectly relevant for Bolivia's resource-rich neighbor, so why is it off-topic here?
posted by AlexReynolds at 7:16 PM on June 8, 2005
posted by AlexReynolds at 7:16 PM on June 8, 2005
What's happening down there, and tell me if I'm wrong, is much like what has happened in the U.S. with it's native americans.
Or what happened in Canada after the Anglos arrived, eh snsranch?
posted by Francophone at 7:17 PM on June 8, 2005
Or what happened in Canada after the Anglos arrived, eh snsranch?
posted by Francophone at 7:17 PM on June 8, 2005
Perhaps if the country wasn't being strongarmed by the WTO to privatize ownership (usually to foriegn companies) of their natural resources, there wouldn't be this kind of unrest.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 7:42 PM on June 8, 2005
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 7:42 PM on June 8, 2005
Hmm, always the same problem just a different country.
Viva la Revolucion!
posted by Mr Bluesky at 8:08 PM on June 8, 2005
Viva la Revolucion!
posted by Mr Bluesky at 8:08 PM on June 8, 2005
I'm from Bolivia so I've been following the situation fairly closely. The current problems have very complex origins, but in a nutshell what happened was that a few years ago the Bolivian government partially privatized most of the state-owned companies (the process was called "capitalization"). The state oil and gas company ended up in the hands of large multinationals, Enron among them.
The privatization process was far from transparent; most of the politicians and technocrats involved became millionaires overnight. The contracts signed with the multinationals were outrageous. Large loopholes allowed the multinationals to evade paying taxes. At the same time what was initially sold as partial privatization, where foreigners could own up to 49% of the state companies while the other 51% would be owned by all Bolivians, turned into almost full privatization without most people realizing how or why.
Once people realized that they had been duped, and that the extensive gas reserves did not belong to Bolivia anymore, large scale protests erupted. The former president was forced to resign (Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada), and his vice-president (Carlos Mesa) took over. Mesa tried to defuse the situation by changing some of the terms of the privatization, but opposition leaders sabotaged all his moves. He resigned yesterday and nobody know what will happen next.
Before you think that the people leading the protests are great leaders though, you have to realize that many of them still believe that Lenin and Trotsky are great role models. Opposition leaders don't have a concrete plan to solve the mess, their only interest seem to be in plunging the country into total chaos.
Behind the scenes it is certain that the multinationals, the US government, and neighboring countries are trying to take advantage of the situation, for Bolivia's gas reserves are huge and there is a lot of money at stake.
posted by miguelbar at 8:18 PM on June 8, 2005
The privatization process was far from transparent; most of the politicians and technocrats involved became millionaires overnight. The contracts signed with the multinationals were outrageous. Large loopholes allowed the multinationals to evade paying taxes. At the same time what was initially sold as partial privatization, where foreigners could own up to 49% of the state companies while the other 51% would be owned by all Bolivians, turned into almost full privatization without most people realizing how or why.
Once people realized that they had been duped, and that the extensive gas reserves did not belong to Bolivia anymore, large scale protests erupted. The former president was forced to resign (Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada), and his vice-president (Carlos Mesa) took over. Mesa tried to defuse the situation by changing some of the terms of the privatization, but opposition leaders sabotaged all his moves. He resigned yesterday and nobody know what will happen next.
Before you think that the people leading the protests are great leaders though, you have to realize that many of them still believe that Lenin and Trotsky are great role models. Opposition leaders don't have a concrete plan to solve the mess, their only interest seem to be in plunging the country into total chaos.
Behind the scenes it is certain that the multinationals, the US government, and neighboring countries are trying to take advantage of the situation, for Bolivia's gas reserves are huge and there is a lot of money at stake.
posted by miguelbar at 8:18 PM on June 8, 2005
Trotsky wasn't soo bad.
But what was in those two posts? Are we deleting posts for being off topic now?
posted by jmgorman at 8:30 PM on June 8, 2005
But what was in those two posts? Are we deleting posts for being off topic now?
posted by jmgorman at 8:30 PM on June 8, 2005
When the CIA makes jessamyn delete posts, the terrorists have won.
posted by Balisong at 8:32 PM on June 8, 2005
posted by Balisong at 8:32 PM on June 8, 2005
But what was in those two posts? Are we deleting posts for being off topic now?
I didn't see the second one, but the first was a reasonably offensive comment about "brown people" that was probably intended as a strawman but came across as both racist and unfunny.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 8:40 PM on June 8, 2005
I didn't see the second one, but the first was a reasonably offensive comment about "brown people" that was probably intended as a strawman but came across as both racist and unfunny.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 8:40 PM on June 8, 2005
Here's some (opinionated-to-strident) coverage. Y en Español. Sift accordingly.
posted by trondant at 9:16 PM on June 8, 2005
posted by trondant at 9:16 PM on June 8, 2005
Trotsky wasn't soo bad.
Compared to Lenin, Hitler, Stalin and Mao? Yeah, maybe you're right.
Are we deleting posts for being off topic now?
When you're in a position to be one of the first posters in a thread about a potential civil war, maybe it would be best to restrain yourself from trying to show the world just how clever you can be.
On topic: If any foreign country is involved here* it's Venezuela. Chavez has been funding the opposition in Bolivia for years, hoping for just such a destabilization to accomodate his and Castro's new and improved Bolivar revolution. I imagine to many, this is a good thing. Good luck to the Bolivians. They're going to need it if they fall in with that crowd.
*Yes, of course, I know the CIA and the US also get involved everywhere, including Bolivia and Venezuela
posted by loquax at 9:40 PM on June 8, 2005
Compared to Lenin, Hitler, Stalin and Mao? Yeah, maybe you're right.
Are we deleting posts for being off topic now?
When you're in a position to be one of the first posters in a thread about a potential civil war, maybe it would be best to restrain yourself from trying to show the world just how clever you can be.
On topic: If any foreign country is involved here* it's Venezuela. Chavez has been funding the opposition in Bolivia for years, hoping for just such a destabilization to accomodate his and Castro's new and improved Bolivar revolution. I imagine to many, this is a good thing. Good luck to the Bolivians. They're going to need it if they fall in with that crowd.
*Yes, of course, I know the CIA and the US also get involved everywhere, including Bolivia and Venezuela
posted by loquax at 9:40 PM on June 8, 2005
The state oil and gas company ended up in the hands of large multinationals, Enron among them.
You know, if multinationals and governments weren't being run by such greedy fucks, there'd be little reason for crowds of poor folks to turn to dogmatic Marxists for their leadership. It really seems like a seesaw where one group sparks excesses from the other, but on this planet at this time, it sure seems to me that the greedy fucks at the multinationals are the primary force driving the vicious circle. Just felt like saying that. Oh, and what Mr Bluesky's link said.
posted by mediareport at 9:51 PM on June 8, 2005
You know, if multinationals and governments weren't being run by such greedy fucks, there'd be little reason for crowds of poor folks to turn to dogmatic Marxists for their leadership. It really seems like a seesaw where one group sparks excesses from the other, but on this planet at this time, it sure seems to me that the greedy fucks at the multinationals are the primary force driving the vicious circle. Just felt like saying that. Oh, and what Mr Bluesky's link said.
posted by mediareport at 9:51 PM on June 8, 2005
first of all, the second i can go to Guarani Oil gas station in my town, it'll get every one of my gasoline cents.
second, i think it's very interesting that the article calls them "violent protests," when (and maybe i'm full of shit, but i'm sure someone will tell me all about it if my reading's been faulty) the large bulk of the violence appears to be coming from the police. there have been some minor scuffles between scared white business owners and Indians (no injury reports that i could find), loud bangs and tiny fires on the street. the protestors are carrying fake guns and homemade dynamite that doesn't appear to have damaged anything. seems to me they're only demanding what's right. as far as not "having a plan"--seems opposition leader Evo Morales is calling for elections and the re-nationalization of the hydrocarbon resources. what's wrong with that? how far down the road to hell are folks supposed to go before they're allowed to say "NO Fucking Way!" and "Over My Dead Body"??
but yeah, the thing about oil companies in South America--seems governments and their corporate overseers will do just about anything to protect their stashes and mainlines.
i especially liked how the Nigerian women dealt with them.
viva zapata. if you're asking me. just sayin'.
posted by RedEmma at 10:23 PM on June 8, 2005
second, i think it's very interesting that the article calls them "violent protests," when (and maybe i'm full of shit, but i'm sure someone will tell me all about it if my reading's been faulty) the large bulk of the violence appears to be coming from the police. there have been some minor scuffles between scared white business owners and Indians (no injury reports that i could find), loud bangs and tiny fires on the street. the protestors are carrying fake guns and homemade dynamite that doesn't appear to have damaged anything. seems to me they're only demanding what's right. as far as not "having a plan"--seems opposition leader Evo Morales is calling for elections and the re-nationalization of the hydrocarbon resources. what's wrong with that? how far down the road to hell are folks supposed to go before they're allowed to say "NO Fucking Way!" and "Over My Dead Body"??
but yeah, the thing about oil companies in South America--seems governments and their corporate overseers will do just about anything to protect their stashes and mainlines.
i especially liked how the Nigerian women dealt with them.
viva zapata. if you're asking me. just sayin'.
posted by RedEmma at 10:23 PM on June 8, 2005
You know, if multinationals and governments weren't being run by such greedy fucks, there'd be little reason for crowds of poor folks to turn to dogmatic Marxists for their leadership.
Except multinationals are supposed to be greedy fucks. Governments are supposed to serve their constituents.
posted by Kwantsar at 10:28 PM on June 8, 2005
Except multinationals are supposed to be greedy fucks. Governments are supposed to serve their constituents.
posted by Kwantsar at 10:28 PM on June 8, 2005
"[the Sao Paolo Forum] serves as the glue that binds anti-American leftist groups in Latin America with like-minded rogue states such as Iran and North Korea, and international radical groups and terrorists worldwide."
please. just because people protest against economic domination does not mean they are terrorists, and it certainly doesn't mean they are collaborating with Iran ferchrisakes. It's debatable how much support the indigenous interests bolivia is receiving from venezuela, i don't see how cuba can be of much help. It's pretty insulting to say that the thousands in the streets are mindless puppets, and don't have their self-interests in mind.
If Bechtel has raised the price of your water 3-400%, to an abominable percentage of your yearly income, how are you supposed to live? are you going to wait years until the government decides to hold elections, and hope that the elections aren't rigged, and hope your candidate comes through? or are you going to get together with your numerous fellows and take back the water, so you can drink it?
just because 'dogmatic marxists' are the vocal opposition in the halls of power doesn't mean they won't be dumped if they don't work for the people they claim to represent. the power of the 'bolivarian revolution' is in the neighborhood and indigenous councils, and not the speeches of the senators and presidents.
could it be possible that the bolivians' own 'water war' has taught them how to pull themselves up by the bootstraps?
venezuela would be a natural ally in helping bolivia develop a nationalized hydrocarbon infrastructure, when the interests of multinationals are no longer served. why can't those people help each other out without it being labeled 'anti-american'? why does the US need its finger in every goddamn pie?
posted by eustatic at 10:50 PM on June 8, 2005
please. just because people protest against economic domination does not mean they are terrorists, and it certainly doesn't mean they are collaborating with Iran ferchrisakes. It's debatable how much support the indigenous interests bolivia is receiving from venezuela, i don't see how cuba can be of much help. It's pretty insulting to say that the thousands in the streets are mindless puppets, and don't have their self-interests in mind.
If Bechtel has raised the price of your water 3-400%, to an abominable percentage of your yearly income, how are you supposed to live? are you going to wait years until the government decides to hold elections, and hope that the elections aren't rigged, and hope your candidate comes through? or are you going to get together with your numerous fellows and take back the water, so you can drink it?
just because 'dogmatic marxists' are the vocal opposition in the halls of power doesn't mean they won't be dumped if they don't work for the people they claim to represent. the power of the 'bolivarian revolution' is in the neighborhood and indigenous councils, and not the speeches of the senators and presidents.
could it be possible that the bolivians' own 'water war' has taught them how to pull themselves up by the bootstraps?
venezuela would be a natural ally in helping bolivia develop a nationalized hydrocarbon infrastructure, when the interests of multinationals are no longer served. why can't those people help each other out without it being labeled 'anti-american'? why does the US need its finger in every goddamn pie?
posted by eustatic at 10:50 PM on June 8, 2005
these are not marxist demands, and it makes me fume to hear that they are called 'undemocratic':
Here, in this city which has been an inspiration to the world for its retaking of that right through civil action, courage and sacrifice standing as heroes and heroines against corporate, institutional and governmental abuse, and trade agreements which destroy that right, in use of our freedom and dignity, we declare the following:
For the right to life, for the respect of nature and the uses and traditions of our ancestors and our peoples, for all time the following shall be declared as inviolable rights with regard to the uses of water given us by the earth:
1. Water belongs to the earth and all species and is sacred to life, therefore, the world's water must be conserved, reclaimed and protected for all future generations and its natural patterns respected.
2. Water is a fundamental human right and a public trust to be guarded by all levels of government, therefore, it should not be commodified, privatized or traded for commercial purposes. These rights must be enshrined at all levels of government. In particular, an international treaty must ensure these principles are noncontrovertable.
3. Water is best protected by local communities and citizens who must be respected as equal partners with governments in the protection and regulation of water. Peoples of the earth are the only vehicle to promote earth democracy and save water."
posted by eustatic at 11:12 PM on June 8, 2005
Here, in this city which has been an inspiration to the world for its retaking of that right through civil action, courage and sacrifice standing as heroes and heroines against corporate, institutional and governmental abuse, and trade agreements which destroy that right, in use of our freedom and dignity, we declare the following:
For the right to life, for the respect of nature and the uses and traditions of our ancestors and our peoples, for all time the following shall be declared as inviolable rights with regard to the uses of water given us by the earth:
1. Water belongs to the earth and all species and is sacred to life, therefore, the world's water must be conserved, reclaimed and protected for all future generations and its natural patterns respected.
2. Water is a fundamental human right and a public trust to be guarded by all levels of government, therefore, it should not be commodified, privatized or traded for commercial purposes. These rights must be enshrined at all levels of government. In particular, an international treaty must ensure these principles are noncontrovertable.
3. Water is best protected by local communities and citizens who must be respected as equal partners with governments in the protection and regulation of water. Peoples of the earth are the only vehicle to promote earth democracy and save water."
posted by eustatic at 11:12 PM on June 8, 2005
Is any one paying attention to what is happening in Bolivia?
Well, the non-thinking response I often hear is "No one is paying attention to what is happening in country X because country X is not oil-rich and it's all about oiiiiiiiil!!!"
posted by uncanny hengeman at 11:19 PM on June 8, 2005
Well, the non-thinking response I often hear is "No one is paying attention to what is happening in country X because country X is not oil-rich and it's all about oiiiiiiiil!!!"
posted by uncanny hengeman at 11:19 PM on June 8, 2005
loquax, anyone who's serious about South America understands that US intervention there is not a footnote but the dominant theme. As for the links you provide:
#1: Guardian, 1/24/05. Refers Colombia sending mercs into Venezuela to nab a rebel. Notes higher gasoline prices. Cites one or more anonymous MAS sources. Acknowledges Chavez paying for road paving and educational loans.
#2: townhall.com, October '03. Because they hate America more than they love their country. The ad for the Hillary book at bottom says it all.
#3: YCLUSA, March '04, referring events of 11/13/03. Cuban & Bolivian flags photographed together. Chavez addresses people at an alternate rally in Bolivia. Pro-Castro banner seen in a photograph.
Three articles written months to years ago? I have no doubt Chavez, Castro, Morales, et. al. have plans of one sort or another. The links you have offered, however, don't prove a thing one way or the other, and are woefully out of date.
posted by trondant at 11:21 PM on June 8, 2005
#1: Guardian, 1/24/05. Refers Colombia sending mercs into Venezuela to nab a rebel. Notes higher gasoline prices. Cites one or more anonymous MAS sources. Acknowledges Chavez paying for road paving and educational loans.
#2: townhall.com, October '03. Because they hate America more than they love their country. The ad for the Hillary book at bottom says it all.
#3: YCLUSA, March '04, referring events of 11/13/03. Cuban & Bolivian flags photographed together. Chavez addresses people at an alternate rally in Bolivia. Pro-Castro banner seen in a photograph.
Three articles written months to years ago? I have no doubt Chavez, Castro, Morales, et. al. have plans of one sort or another. The links you have offered, however, don't prove a thing one way or the other, and are woefully out of date.
posted by trondant at 11:21 PM on June 8, 2005
Sounds like the Bolivian people suddenly developed a need to be liberated. What's sad is that the resisters, who will disrupt the rape of their resources in whatever disorganized means is available, will quickly become "terrorists" under the eye of CNN, MS-NBC, Fox, and even NPR. Well, maybe NPR will call them "insurgents." What they are is patriots; confused but gutsy, and right, and with nothing to lose. Americans will applaud their extinction, same as they do that of the Iraqi nationalists.
posted by squirrel at 11:33 PM on June 8, 2005
posted by squirrel at 11:33 PM on June 8, 2005
I see an interesting parallel with the water rights war currently being fought in the US West. Farmers and ranchers are losing water rights to cities, severely impacting their livelihoods and in at least one case have physically taken over a pumping station and irrigated their lands. We don't call them terrorists.
posted by fshgrl at 1:31 AM on June 9, 2005
posted by fshgrl at 1:31 AM on June 9, 2005
My brother lives in La Paz, and I have been speaking with him daily. Apparently the campisinos have surrounded Sucre and far out number the Bolivian police/military, which is poorly trained and poorly equipped. This has the potential for being a victory for the indigenous people (65-70% of the population),
which I am sure is making the US interests very nervous, as there is a growing movement away from free-market policies in S. America.
The geopolitical ramifications of this will be empowering for leftist movements if the indigenous groups have a victory today. viva la revolucian!
but at least there are ice cream vendors at all the blockades!
posted by tarantula at 4:19 AM on June 9, 2005
which I am sure is making the US interests very nervous, as there is a growing movement away from free-market policies in S. America.
The geopolitical ramifications of this will be empowering for leftist movements if the indigenous groups have a victory today. viva la revolucian!
but at least there are ice cream vendors at all the blockades!
posted by tarantula at 4:19 AM on June 9, 2005
Thanks for the word from the front line, tarantula. Best to your people in La Paz.
posted by squirrel at 4:23 AM on June 9, 2005
posted by squirrel at 4:23 AM on June 9, 2005
NPR did 5 minutes on Bolivia this morning and focused solely on the political upheaval in the capitol - they mentioned nothing about the native peoples. Guess that would elicit too much liberal sympathy. I'm writing a letter to my senator (not that he'll listen).
Thanks everyone for the local insights.
posted by jmgorman at 6:43 AM on June 9, 2005
Thanks everyone for the local insights.
posted by jmgorman at 6:43 AM on June 9, 2005
The links you have offered, however, don't prove a thing one way or the other, and are woefully out of date.
Not trying to prove anything, only trying to say Chavez and Castro have long had interests in destabilizing the Bolivian government - hence the older links. I happen to think that's a bad thing, maybe not in the short term when confronted with a corrupt government, or mismanagement of resources, but in the long term, after land and wealth redistribution, nationalization and collectivization.
Of course the US involvement is more than a footnote. I think it's a given that they're trying to influence events along the lines that they would prefer all over the place, as are Venezuela and Brazil and the UK and just about everyone else. Maybe US involvement hasn't been the most helpful, but if I had to choose between them and Evo Morales, Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro, I know what I'd do.
Oh, and remember, if things don't go the way Mr. Morales wants, he promises bloodshed! Viva la revolucion!
posted by loquax at 6:47 AM on June 9, 2005
Not trying to prove anything, only trying to say Chavez and Castro have long had interests in destabilizing the Bolivian government - hence the older links. I happen to think that's a bad thing, maybe not in the short term when confronted with a corrupt government, or mismanagement of resources, but in the long term, after land and wealth redistribution, nationalization and collectivization.
Of course the US involvement is more than a footnote. I think it's a given that they're trying to influence events along the lines that they would prefer all over the place, as are Venezuela and Brazil and the UK and just about everyone else. Maybe US involvement hasn't been the most helpful, but if I had to choose between them and Evo Morales, Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro, I know what I'd do.
Oh, and remember, if things don't go the way Mr. Morales wants, he promises bloodshed! Viva la revolucion!
posted by loquax at 6:47 AM on June 9, 2005
It's easy to say "viva la revolucion" when you're so far away from the violence. The people who are leading the protests are no patriots, for they are plunging Bolivia into chaos.
The protests are definitely violent. Many buildings in La Paz (not Sucre) were destroyed, roads have been blocked and also destroyed, and one group of peasants sabotaged one of the water treatment plants that feed La Paz. As a result many neighborhoods in La Paz don't have running water. Many hospitals and orphanages are running out of cooking gas and food.
Violence is not the answer to Bolivia's problems. I don't have any sympathy for the multinationals, but what the protesters are doing in La Paz is a crime. Blaming the police is easy, but in this case most of the violence comes from the protesters. What kind of "peaceful protest" includes people armed with dynamite?
posted by miguelbar at 8:25 AM on June 9, 2005
The protests are definitely violent. Many buildings in La Paz (not Sucre) were destroyed, roads have been blocked and also destroyed, and one group of peasants sabotaged one of the water treatment plants that feed La Paz. As a result many neighborhoods in La Paz don't have running water. Many hospitals and orphanages are running out of cooking gas and food.
Violence is not the answer to Bolivia's problems. I don't have any sympathy for the multinationals, but what the protesters are doing in La Paz is a crime. Blaming the police is easy, but in this case most of the violence comes from the protesters. What kind of "peaceful protest" includes people armed with dynamite?
posted by miguelbar at 8:25 AM on June 9, 2005
fshgrl writes "in at least one case have physically taken over a pumping station and irrigated their lands. We don't call them terrorists."
Well watch for it happening when taps stop flowing in cities.
posted by Mitheral at 9:10 AM on June 9, 2005
Well watch for it happening when taps stop flowing in cities.
posted by Mitheral at 9:10 AM on June 9, 2005
Violence is not the answer to Bolivia's problems. I don't have any sympathy for the multinationals, but what the protesters are doing in La Paz is a crime. Blaming the police is easy, but in this case most of the violence comes from the protesters.
Is turning off a water pump really Violence? Is it a crime? Probably, but so should be charging an arm and a leg for water in the first place.
posted by delmoi at 9:13 AM on June 9, 2005
Is turning off a water pump really Violence? Is it a crime? Probably, but so should be charging an arm and a leg for water in the first place.
posted by delmoi at 9:13 AM on June 9, 2005
again, i have yet to see A Single Report of injury to a PERSON except for Indians beaten or tear-gassed by police.
property crime is not violence unless it Hurts Someone Physically, IMO. not being able to shop is not violence. a road being blocked or damaged is not violence. "running out" of necessities could certainly *lead to* violence, but is not violent in and of itself. damaging a building, depending upon how it was done, could be--but again, i haven't heard the exact circumstances of that. were they empty buildings? were the people in them given ample opportunity to leave? (if damaging a building is violent, then why don't city inspectors who tear down a building against the owners' wills get called out?)
believe me, i'm not saying that this all couldn't escalate into a situation where things go seriously bad. however, it seems to me that if the government was behaving democratically, with the people's desires in mind, none of this would have happened at all.
i mean, if you're going to say what the Indians and peasants are doing is violence, then why isn't what the government has been perpetrating upon them for ages considered violence? isn't this just self-defense, then?
posted by RedEmma at 9:29 AM on June 9, 2005
property crime is not violence unless it Hurts Someone Physically, IMO. not being able to shop is not violence. a road being blocked or damaged is not violence. "running out" of necessities could certainly *lead to* violence, but is not violent in and of itself. damaging a building, depending upon how it was done, could be--but again, i haven't heard the exact circumstances of that. were they empty buildings? were the people in them given ample opportunity to leave? (if damaging a building is violent, then why don't city inspectors who tear down a building against the owners' wills get called out?)
believe me, i'm not saying that this all couldn't escalate into a situation where things go seriously bad. however, it seems to me that if the government was behaving democratically, with the people's desires in mind, none of this would have happened at all.
i mean, if you're going to say what the Indians and peasants are doing is violence, then why isn't what the government has been perpetrating upon them for ages considered violence? isn't this just self-defense, then?
posted by RedEmma at 9:29 AM on June 9, 2005
it seems to me that if the government was behaving democratically, with the people's desires in mind, none of this would have happened at all.
Well, no, not exactly. As far as I know, the democratic process is being circumvented by Morales and his "neo-liberal" or Marxist alliance of coca farmers, indigenous people and "workers" supported by Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. They "overthrew" the democratically elected President in bloody riots killing more than 100 people in 2003, and they are threatening to do the same today if their demands are not met. Intimidation and violence are the basis of this power grab, and it doesn't bode well for the future, regardless of the competance or performance of the current or previous governments.
posted by loquax at 10:02 AM on June 9, 2005
Well, no, not exactly. As far as I know, the democratic process is being circumvented by Morales and his "neo-liberal" or Marxist alliance of coca farmers, indigenous people and "workers" supported by Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. They "overthrew" the democratically elected President in bloody riots killing more than 100 people in 2003, and they are threatening to do the same today if their demands are not met. Intimidation and violence are the basis of this power grab, and it doesn't bode well for the future, regardless of the competance or performance of the current or previous governments.
posted by loquax at 10:02 AM on June 9, 2005
are you honestly saying that the majority of the people in Bolivia were perfectly happy to denationalize the country's natural resources? show me the vote on that one. (i keep thinking of Norway, and how their common ownership of the oil has led to one of the best standards of living in the world--but hey, experience never seems to have taught anybody anything.)
are you saying there has been no intimidation and violence committed by the government in Bolivia?
it took me two clicks to get to this 2003 article in which i found the following:
"At least 59 people died in September and October during anti-government protests sparked by plans to export Bolivian natural gas through Chile. The single bloodiest day was October 12, when 26 civilians were killed in El Alto, a poor industrial city overlooking La Paz. Many were shot when army troops armed with combat rifles broke up crowds that were preventing fuel tankers from reaching La Paz. At least 14 civilians were shot and killed in La Paz on the following day, as the protests continued.
Then-President Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada and his cabinet resigned on October 17. They now face a possible “trial of responsibilities” for the October deaths if Congress votes to allow such a proceeding to go forward."
Sounds pretty plain that it was THE ARMY that committed the murders, not the protesters. how convenient of you to claim the opposite.
posted by RedEmma at 1:21 PM on June 9, 2005
are you saying there has been no intimidation and violence committed by the government in Bolivia?
it took me two clicks to get to this 2003 article in which i found the following:
"At least 59 people died in September and October during anti-government protests sparked by plans to export Bolivian natural gas through Chile. The single bloodiest day was October 12, when 26 civilians were killed in El Alto, a poor industrial city overlooking La Paz. Many were shot when army troops armed with combat rifles broke up crowds that were preventing fuel tankers from reaching La Paz. At least 14 civilians were shot and killed in La Paz on the following day, as the protests continued.
Then-President Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada and his cabinet resigned on October 17. They now face a possible “trial of responsibilities” for the October deaths if Congress votes to allow such a proceeding to go forward."
Sounds pretty plain that it was THE ARMY that committed the murders, not the protesters. how convenient of you to claim the opposite.
posted by RedEmma at 1:21 PM on June 9, 2005
i should have said "imply" instead of claim.
incidentally, even though i don't think for one minute that this is a concerted communist plot fomented by Chavez and Castro--why is it that when commies or socialists work together it's sinister, but when the capitalists work together, it's about "freedom."
i'm starting to think that Freedom is the new F-word.
posted by RedEmma at 1:43 PM on June 9, 2005
incidentally, even though i don't think for one minute that this is a concerted communist plot fomented by Chavez and Castro--why is it that when commies or socialists work together it's sinister, but when the capitalists work together, it's about "freedom."
i'm starting to think that Freedom is the new F-word.
posted by RedEmma at 1:43 PM on June 9, 2005
are you honestly saying that the majority of the people in Bolivia were perfectly happy to denationalize the country's natural resources?
No. I'm saying that democratically elected governments were, for better or worse. I gather you and Mr. Morales disagree. I am very happy that my country's natural resources are not nationalized, despite Norway's example, for whatever relevance either have in Bolivia.
are you saying there has been no intimidation and violence committed by the government in Bolivia?
No. Where did I say that? I said that Mr. Morales and his supporters "overthrew" [in his own words] one democratically elected president by inciting riots, protests and blockades and is now looking to do the same to another, with the ultimate goal of obtaining power for himself through intimidation and coercion.
Sounds pretty plain that it was THE ARMY that committed the murders, not the protesters. how convenient of you to claim the opposite.
Poor sentence construction on my part, I meant to convey that more than a 100 people died as a result of the blockades, protests, rioting and overthrow of the government. Without knowing the specifics of each incident, the police and military are certainly to be held accountable, as is the government for whatever actions they took with respect to the pipelines and the gas fields. However it seems pretty clear to me that none of that would have happened had Morales and his allies not attempted to circumvent the political process for their own gain. That was your point that I was trying to refute. (it seems to me that if the government was behaving democratically, with the people's desires in mind, none of this would have happened at all.)
If they have the numbers and the will, why not wait for elections? Why put your own people in the path of the military and the police with their heavy weaponry?
i don't think for one minute that this is a concerted communist plot fomented by Chavez and Castro
Why not? They've said as much. They're all very good friends. The definition of "plot" aside, Chavez and Castro are certainly "supporting" Morales and the "Neo-Liberals", probably in much the same way that the US and the UK are "supporting" the government.
posted by loquax at 1:50 PM on June 9, 2005
No. I'm saying that democratically elected governments were, for better or worse. I gather you and Mr. Morales disagree. I am very happy that my country's natural resources are not nationalized, despite Norway's example, for whatever relevance either have in Bolivia.
are you saying there has been no intimidation and violence committed by the government in Bolivia?
No. Where did I say that? I said that Mr. Morales and his supporters "overthrew" [in his own words] one democratically elected president by inciting riots, protests and blockades and is now looking to do the same to another, with the ultimate goal of obtaining power for himself through intimidation and coercion.
Sounds pretty plain that it was THE ARMY that committed the murders, not the protesters. how convenient of you to claim the opposite.
Poor sentence construction on my part, I meant to convey that more than a 100 people died as a result of the blockades, protests, rioting and overthrow of the government. Without knowing the specifics of each incident, the police and military are certainly to be held accountable, as is the government for whatever actions they took with respect to the pipelines and the gas fields. However it seems pretty clear to me that none of that would have happened had Morales and his allies not attempted to circumvent the political process for their own gain. That was your point that I was trying to refute. (it seems to me that if the government was behaving democratically, with the people's desires in mind, none of this would have happened at all.)
If they have the numbers and the will, why not wait for elections? Why put your own people in the path of the military and the police with their heavy weaponry?
i don't think for one minute that this is a concerted communist plot fomented by Chavez and Castro
Why not? They've said as much. They're all very good friends. The definition of "plot" aside, Chavez and Castro are certainly "supporting" Morales and the "Neo-Liberals", probably in much the same way that the US and the UK are "supporting" the government.
posted by loquax at 1:50 PM on June 9, 2005
I spent some time in Illallgua last February, a tin mining village in Bolivia. I was invited to photograph a woman who is one of the leaders of the women who work outside of the mines cracking open the rocks looking for teeeny amounts of tin. She is 78, and has been doing this for 40 years. When they British were heavily mining, the blew up Inca monolithic architecture to use as gravel for the train track beds.
The tin story cam before the water story, before the oil story, but after the silver story.
The exploitation of human labor/resources in the Andes is shocking--and from what I experienced, while most I meet were less educated, many had much more knowledge about the impact of international trade agreements than most American even care.
I'd be pissed to. The difference between that region and North America, is that the conquerors became the majority of the population, where in Bolivia the are still the extreme minority, with pure European blood being only about 10%. This has not changed in 100's of years. They are fighting back, as they have been for centuries, only this time it seems that they have more power than ever.
Just spoke with my brother in La Paz, where everyone is on pins and needles and my nephew is running around in his spiderman costume.
Again, viva la revolucion!
posted by tarantula at 2:12 PM on June 9, 2005
The tin story cam before the water story, before the oil story, but after the silver story.
The exploitation of human labor/resources in the Andes is shocking--and from what I experienced, while most I meet were less educated, many had much more knowledge about the impact of international trade agreements than most American even care.
I'd be pissed to. The difference between that region and North America, is that the conquerors became the majority of the population, where in Bolivia the are still the extreme minority, with pure European blood being only about 10%. This has not changed in 100's of years. They are fighting back, as they have been for centuries, only this time it seems that they have more power than ever.
Just spoke with my brother in La Paz, where everyone is on pins and needles and my nephew is running around in his spiderman costume.
Again, viva la revolucion!
posted by tarantula at 2:12 PM on June 9, 2005
I'm saying that democratically elected governments were [perfectly happy to denationalize Bolivia's natural resources], for better or worse. I gather you and Mr. Morales disagree.
and the majority of Bolivia's population, it would seem. didn't Jefferson say something about what might happen when a government operates against the interests of the people??
I am very happy that my country's natural resources are not nationalized, despite Norway's example, for whatever relevance either have in Bolivia.
why are you happy? what's so crazy about using the inherent wealth of the country (it's natural resources, the things that are actually in its soil) to benefit the people of that country? i would think that the relevance of Norway's common ownership of the oil resources it has is obvious: they are a small country whose high standard of living is almost *entirely* due to the oil wealth invested for the good of the country as a whole. it would seem obvious that if the oil wealth of Bolivia were actually used for the good of everyone, then the standard of living in Bolivia would also drastically increase.
I said that Mr. Morales and his supporters "overthrew" [in his own words] one democratically elected president by inciting riots, protests and blockades and is now looking to do the same to another, with the ultimate goal of obtaining power for himself through intimidation and coercion.
overthrow is not inherently a violent or non-democratic act. if a president acts against the will of the people, he ought to be removed. "inciting riots, protests and blockades"--well, what exactly are an oppressed people supposed to do when those they have elected start operating to sell them down the river and leave them starving? [i haven't even explored how "democratic" these elections supposedly were. perhaps later this evening.] how do you know that Mr. Morales is a power grabbing egomaniac? got some evidence to back that up?
more than a 100 people died as a result of the blockades, protests, rioting and overthrow of the government. Without knowing the specifics of each incident, the police and military are certainly to be held accountable...
why isn't it just as logical to say that those 100 people died because the government is acting against their interests and the fact that they're objecting is causing the police to shoot at them and beat them and tear gas them? isn't that what they do in China that USians have such a cow about? as far as the police and military being held accountable--it doesn't seem that is happening at all.
Why put your own people in the path of the military and the police with their heavy weaponry?
it would seem that the people themselves are a) doing that themselves (--who's putting them there? that's such an odd view of things, as if these folks aren't capable of acting on their own behalf) and b) saying quite clearly that they've had enough.
why is that people are so eager to dismiss the acts of folks who actually put their lives on the line when they see their country squandering its resources for the benefit of a few? do you honestly think they are blind idiots who act because somebody brainwashed them with communism? what kind of people stand up and say, "if you kill my country, you'll have to do it over my dead body"? it seems obvious to me that they are acting with courage and fortitude (and extraordinary restraint) in the face of cultural, physical and environmental annihilation. the dozens of photos i've seen in the most mainstream publications show the overwhelming peaceful intent of these people--they are simply putting their collective foot down.
posted by RedEmma at 4:48 PM on June 9, 2005
and the majority of Bolivia's population, it would seem. didn't Jefferson say something about what might happen when a government operates against the interests of the people??
I am very happy that my country's natural resources are not nationalized, despite Norway's example, for whatever relevance either have in Bolivia.
why are you happy? what's so crazy about using the inherent wealth of the country (it's natural resources, the things that are actually in its soil) to benefit the people of that country? i would think that the relevance of Norway's common ownership of the oil resources it has is obvious: they are a small country whose high standard of living is almost *entirely* due to the oil wealth invested for the good of the country as a whole. it would seem obvious that if the oil wealth of Bolivia were actually used for the good of everyone, then the standard of living in Bolivia would also drastically increase.
I said that Mr. Morales and his supporters "overthrew" [in his own words] one democratically elected president by inciting riots, protests and blockades and is now looking to do the same to another, with the ultimate goal of obtaining power for himself through intimidation and coercion.
overthrow is not inherently a violent or non-democratic act. if a president acts against the will of the people, he ought to be removed. "inciting riots, protests and blockades"--well, what exactly are an oppressed people supposed to do when those they have elected start operating to sell them down the river and leave them starving? [i haven't even explored how "democratic" these elections supposedly were. perhaps later this evening.] how do you know that Mr. Morales is a power grabbing egomaniac? got some evidence to back that up?
more than a 100 people died as a result of the blockades, protests, rioting and overthrow of the government. Without knowing the specifics of each incident, the police and military are certainly to be held accountable...
why isn't it just as logical to say that those 100 people died because the government is acting against their interests and the fact that they're objecting is causing the police to shoot at them and beat them and tear gas them? isn't that what they do in China that USians have such a cow about? as far as the police and military being held accountable--it doesn't seem that is happening at all.
Why put your own people in the path of the military and the police with their heavy weaponry?
it would seem that the people themselves are a) doing that themselves (--who's putting them there? that's such an odd view of things, as if these folks aren't capable of acting on their own behalf) and b) saying quite clearly that they've had enough.
why is that people are so eager to dismiss the acts of folks who actually put their lives on the line when they see their country squandering its resources for the benefit of a few? do you honestly think they are blind idiots who act because somebody brainwashed them with communism? what kind of people stand up and say, "if you kill my country, you'll have to do it over my dead body"? it seems obvious to me that they are acting with courage and fortitude (and extraordinary restraint) in the face of cultural, physical and environmental annihilation. the dozens of photos i've seen in the most mainstream publications show the overwhelming peaceful intent of these people--they are simply putting their collective foot down.
posted by RedEmma at 4:48 PM on June 9, 2005
i wonder what would happen if the police just started shooting at demonstrators in the US, with things other than tear gas and rubber bullets. just a few years ago, i thought we'd never use rubber bullets against our own people (because of Chicago 1968). that folks would object to idealist or rowdy youth getting injured or even killed (like that girl who got killed by a rubber bullet Out East at a raucous sports celebration)... but i wonder how far off we are, since the majority of the US probably sees the shooting of Indians to keep the oil flowing as nothing much important--like "what do they expect?" how long until USian youth are getting shot at at an anti-government/anti-corporate demonstration? will that bother you, or will you just think they got what they deserved?
posted by RedEmma at 4:57 PM on June 9, 2005
posted by RedEmma at 4:57 PM on June 9, 2005
Blog From Boliva looks like it has a measured and realistic approach to what's happening, with lots of blame to go around on all sides.
posted by chaz at 5:32 PM on June 9, 2005
posted by chaz at 5:32 PM on June 9, 2005
Welcome to MeFi, RedEmma; You just made my muse list! I look forward to reading more of your writing here. Power to the peeps!
posted by squirrel at 3:44 AM on June 10, 2005
posted by squirrel at 3:44 AM on June 10, 2005
The term "neo-liberal" is being misused quite a bit on this thread. The people who are currently in charge are neo-liberals. The people who are rejecting this regime are not.
Now, I'm not going to argue that Morales is an out-and-out Marxist, as many people claim that he's only a tad bit to the left of center and in fact is more worried about electoral politics than the Bolivian people.
posted by trey at 4:28 AM on June 10, 2005
Now, I'm not going to argue that Morales is an out-and-out Marxist, as many people claim that he's only a tad bit to the left of center and in fact is more worried about electoral politics than the Bolivian people.
posted by trey at 4:28 AM on June 10, 2005
I was headed to Bolivia (supposed to be there right now) and had to backtrack to the Peruvian side of Lake Titicaca and stay here instead. Apparently, all the borders and airports are closed. From an island in the lake yesterday, we could see Bolivia, and damn it, it looked so peaceful. But we know it's not. Good to hear that the congress accepted Mesa's resignation, amd maybe things will lighten up again. The indigeonous Bolivians mostly have next to nothing and so a deal in their favor will only help South America. After spending two weeks seeing Peruvian poverty, my heart really goes out to them. Infant mortality rates in these two countries are very sad. And, as I write this, a hoard of little schoolchildren are going by in a parade to bring attention to preventable diseases. It's a vivid place down here, and just have to say that I feel lucky that I wasn't stuck in Bolivia when the borders shut down... even La Paz is running out of food due to the blockades. Anyway, ¡Viva La Puebla!
posted by moonbird at 8:03 AM on June 10, 2005
posted by moonbird at 8:03 AM on June 10, 2005
« Older Men, you don't control your own pecker, at least... | Raid on Deerfield Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by snsranch at 7:04 PM on June 8, 2005