Seven Years of Revolution in Bolivia

Bolivian president Evo Morales

Granma Internacional

THE profound democratic and cultural revolution initiated in Bolivia in 2006 with the coming to government power of President Evo Morales, has reached its seventh year of struggle, having come a long way, with important victories won and challenges met.

The President addressed the Legislative Assembly on the third anniversary of the establishment of the Plurinational State of Bolivia under a new constitution and presented a detailed account of his administration’s work over this time-period. He described the government’s principal accomplishments, the economic prosperity Bolivia is experiencing and the consequent reduction of poverty – emphasizing that “The era of neoliberalism will not return,” Telesur reported.

In his speech, Morales announced a long-term plan, projected through 2025, which has as its objective the development of a “just, equitable society.”

He put special emphasis on the goals of eradicating extreme poverty, guaranteeing basic services for all and developing industries to produce finished products with the country’s raw materials.

Morales reported that basic poverty has been reduced from 60.5% in 2005 to 45% in 2011. Extreme poverty was 38.2% in 2005, reduced to 20.9% by 2011.

He recalled the delivery of 83,473 computers to teachers across the country, in fulfillment of a commitment made in 2009, and said, “In no country of the world have teachers been afforded computers, and now we are moving toward their provision to every student, this is the goal.”

Morales also reported that last year, Bolivia surpassed the United Nations Millennium Goal for the availability of potable water, another accomplishment of the administration. He indicated that plans are underway for the implementation of the third phase of the national water program.

Morales emphasized, however, that much remains to be done in the area of health and called on medical personnel to dedicate themselves to working for better healthcare for the Bolivian people.

In the economic arena, the President reported that the Gross Domestic Product grew 5.1% in 2012, while exports increased by $3.6 billion. The inflation rate stands at 4.54%, he said, one of the lowest in Latin America. He also commented on growth in the country’s net hard currency reserves, which stood at $1.7 billion in 2006 and have now reached more than $14 billion.

Morales recalled that the crucial contribution made by the mining sector to the country’s finances has grown by approximately 1156% since 2006, when he first took office. He specified that public investment made possible by the metallurgical-mining sector came to a total of $231 million over the period 2006-2012, eleven times greater than the $20 million generated between 1999 and 2005, according to Prensa Latina.

The President also addressed important projects such as the comprehensive development of the Salar de Uyuni salt flats, the construction of a pilot lithium carbonate plant and one for the manufacture of lithium batteries. He described these efforts as significant steps toward achieving national sovereignty over mining, saying that chains of submission had been broken and that the commitment to nationalizing natural resources and strategic services was being fulfilled.

On the international level, Morales confirmed his attendance at the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States Summit in Chile.

He asserted that the country had contributed to the development of regional bodies and agreements, “to construct and strengthen alliances of the South,” saying that Bolivia has promoted the organization of the world’s peoples, with respect for the earth, without domination or imperial hegemony, according to Telesur.

In regards to relations with the United States, President Morales reaffirmed that Bolivia is a dignified and sovereign nation, which seeks relations with “any nation in the world whatsoever – be it of the left or the right. They have no reason to coerce us or subjugate us,” he said, referring to U.S. intervention in Bolivia’s internal affairs.

He expressed optimism that by 2025, the country will recover its access to the Pacific Ocean, a continuing Bolivian demand of Chile, which acquired the territory in the war of 1879.

The first indigenous president in Bolivia’s history assumed the position January 22, 2006, after winning 53.7% of votes in presidential elections and was reelected with 64%, for the current 2010-2015 term.

Evo Morales: United States is “Real Terrorist”

Capitalism: No Solution for Humanity

Granma Internacional

President Evo Morales of Bolivia condemned this Wednesday the inclusion of Cuba on the list of countries sponsoring terrorism drawn up by the United States.

During his speech to the UN General Assembly, Morales said that this unilateral Washington measure serves as an excuse to maintain the blockade of the Cuba, rejected by the overwhelming majority of nations.

“The real terrorist is the United States,” he said. “It is not possible that the blockade should continue existing in the 21st century,” DPA reported.

At the same time, he conveyed greetings to the Cuban leader Fidel Castro and asked for justice to be done in the case of the “five Cuban brothers unjustly detained in the United States.”

“Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has noted that the world must be changed, but how are we going to change the world if we do not change the United Nations, responsible for many interventions,” the Bolivian leader emphasized.

“Now I feel that we are losing our fear. There is no need to fear the empire or capitalism. Capitalism is no solution for humanity,” he observed.

Morales began his speech by asking Chile to return Bolivia’s sea exit. “We are not living in a time of internal or external colonialism,” he noted.

“Malvinas for Argentina and the sea for Bolivia,” affirmed the President with the aim of “definitively solving this conflict which is damaging the American continent.”

President Morales also referred to the legalization of the coca leaf, an issue which Bolivia has consistently defended at the UN.

U.S. Attempts to Besiege Bolivia

A plot to reverse the process of change led by Evo

Patricio Montesinos

THE exacerbation of internal social disputes, tense relations between the governments of Santiago de Chile and La Paz in the context of their maritime disagreement, and press revelations as to U.S. bases possibly being installed on the Paraguayan border with Bolivia are all evidence of a clear Washington plan to besiege this nation.

Recent events related to Bolivia demonstrate that the U.S. government is plotting the overthrow of President Evo Morales, with the aim of derailing the process of integration underway in Latin America, which is contrary to the empire’s hegemonic interests, in the wake of the recent coup d’état against Paraguayan President Fernando Lugo.

The United States believes that Bolivia could now be the weakest link in the chain currently linking a significant group of countries immersed in revolutionary processes and the defense of the sovereignty and independence, and in which nobody wants a repeat of Washington’s former domination in the region.

Political analysts are saying that in this new perverse plot, the U.S. government has the backing of the right-wing government in Chile, which has adopted a harder position against its neighbor Bolivia, and the Paraguayan pro-Federico Franco coup organizers financed by the Pentagon and U.S. secret services.

Press reports a few days ago revealed that an ultra-right deputy implicated in Lugo’s overthrow negotiated the installation of U.S. military bases on the Paraguayan-Bolivian border with the Barack Obama administration.

To date Washington has not reacted in the context of this dangerous news, as is the case when it is engineering destabilizing acts or military aggression anywhere in the world, but it is true that there is no smoke without fire, as the saying goes.

The U.S. conspiracy also includes internal acts of subversion in conjunction with Bolivia’s weakened and discredited traditional right, directly implicated in the recent police mutiny in this country, and in the exacerbated indigenous conflicts in Tipnis, utilized to create an image of chaos and weakening of support for President Morales’ executive.

Naturally, the conservative national press, plus international media such as the CNN network and Spain’s El País, part of the Prisa consortium, are part of the Bolivian destabilization operation.

However, in spite of Washington, which scorns the intelligence of the millenary indigenous culture, Bolivian authorities and the people are fully aware of every move made by their adversaries to turn around the process of change underway in the nation, where serenity and an appropriate response at the right time and in the right place are paramount.

The conspiracies against Bolivia, similar to those instigated in Paraguay and Venezuela and Ecuador, to cite certain countries which are constant U.S. targets, will not to able to achieve their objective because Evo has sufficient popular support to deal another defeat to his enemies.

Bolivian Reactionaries Manipulate Police, Once Again

Bolivian Reactionaries Play Old Card

Pedro de la Haz

ON January 27, 2006, barely a few hours before Evo Morales assumed the leadership of Bolivia for the first time, the presidential minister of the inaugural cabinet issued an order to dismantle a spy station located on one of the mezzanine floors of the Quemado Palace.

Given his training and background, the minister, Juan Ramón Quintana, a former student at the notorious School of the Americas and a sociologist specializing in military intelligence, knew that the station run by the CIA and involving certain police commands, had operated there with total impunity for years.

In an interview Quintana gave to Luis Báez and myself in June 2008, he stated that prior to Evo’s inauguration, “the strongest, most effective and successful link that the U.S. government had in Bolivia was with certain police structures; the Americans perceived this force as one of its social bases.”

In a conversation around the same time, Alfredo Rada, then Minister of the Interior, stated, “Many Bolivian police agents are patriots, have assumed a nationalist doctrine and have worked enthusiastically on tasks such as the nationalization of hydrocarbons, the telecommunications enterprise and the Vinto foundry in Oruro department.”

However, he noted, “We cannot close our eyes to the reality of a police force which, during the last 20 years at least, had a strong presence of operators from the U.S. embassy who interfered heavily in the internal life of the police, and not just in the special combat force combating drug trafficking. The U.S. embassy has given economic support of close to $30 million, not only to anti-drugs operatives, but also in the form of bonuses to police personnel, and has interfered in the handling of disciplinary matters.”

I have brought up these authorized comments as references to be borne in mind in relation to the current situation in Bolivia, where a wage demand by members of the police force, incited by spurious interests, could have led to a more serious conflict, in a scenario where intentions to frustrate the process of changes led by Evo Morales and the Movement Toward Socialism are constantly latent.

Given the escalation of events around Murillo Plaza, during a meeting with mineworkers on June 24, Evo himself stated,

“Without any doubt, these people who privatized (state enterprises in the past) are using some of their brothers in the police to prepare a coup d’état, to have the minister of government killed and to confront the armed forces with Molotov cocktails. I want to say that we have intercepted their messages; it is our obligation to detect what is being plotted and how they are communicating. This right wing is infiltrating, using certain police agents (…) we are calling on our brothers in the police to take up their responsibilities to the people, to provide security, because the police have been created to provide security and not insecurity.”

Two days later, Vice President Alvaro García Linera affirmed,

“Lamentably, taking advantage of a legitimate economic demand to which the government is responding, negative forces are beginning to manipulate the mobilization. We have seen on television hooded ex-candidates of political parties, who have been removed from the police force, entering the police unit, raising arms and distributing weapons.”

These negative forces have long-term links with U.S. intelligence services and diplomatic corps, and the backing of the latter has been apparent in every destabilizing conflict suffered by the Bolivian process of change.

Hence another coordinated plot comes as no surprise, particularly in a period of assaults on Latin American governments with a vocation for social transformations.

For now, the danger would appear to have been averted. Interior Minister Carlos Romero assured on June 27 that police services are gradually returning to normal throughout the country. He stated that the current authorities are not responsible for the outbreak of conflict. “It has befallen us to inherit an accumulation of tension, malaise, conflicts and requirements to which we have responded by making an exceptional effort.”

Bolivia’s Economy Grows, but Challenges Still Persist

Sara Shahriari

Evo Morales promised a new economic policy based on indigenous principles and an aggressive redistribution of natural resource wealth to benefit all Bolivians when he became the country’s first indigenous president in 2006. Observers wondered how his plans to increase the role of the state in industry would play out, and some predicted foreign investors would be scared out of the Andean nation for good. So how did a president who bucked prevailing economic policy and raised eyebrows globally build the growing economy Bolivia enjoys today?

The Road to Evo

“They were tragic days, because people were killed who were demanding their rights–natural resources, and who with a clear conscience fought for gas, which is national patrimony and can bring us a better quality of life.” —Valentina Jurado, Voices From Bolivian October

Bands of protesters with bandanas fixed tight over their faces to ward of tear gas as they braved gunshots and blazing gasoline explosions became normal for several weeks in the Bolivian city of El Alto in 2003. This was the Andean nation’s Gas War, a conflict that pitted Bolivia’s government, which permitted cheap natural gas exports via Chile, against the people of El Alto, a city of Aymara Indians. Bolivians were tired of seeing their natural resources exported over hundreds of years while the communities those resources came from remained poor and tired of a government dominated by a white elite that seemed out of touch with the country’s indigenous majority.

Nearly 70 protesters died in the Gas War, and one of its political casualties was Bolivia’s president, Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada, who resigned. A few years later all eyes then turned toward Evo Morales, head of a powerful coca-growers union. In a country where the political winds change in an instant, he was a popular leader with a remarkably durable base of support. In 2006 Morales, an Aymara Indian and former llama herder with only a high-school education, became president of Bolivia. His election was a milestone in a country where prejudice against Indigenous Peoples runs so deep that the word Indian is considered a slur. Morales answered the demands voiced in El Alto in 2003, vowing Bolivia could have a new kind of economy—one based on the concept of vivir bien, or suma qamaña in the Aymara language, a phrase that means “to live well.”

“Capitalism is the worst enemy of humanity. Capitalism and the senseless development of unlimited industrialization are what destroy the environment,” President Morales said during a 2009 interview with Democracy Now! Morales added that the economic policy must change and luxury consumption end. “It’s ending ‘living better,’ which exploits people and means plundering natural resources, which is egoism and individualism. In capitalism there is neither solidarity nor reciprocity. It’s crucial to think of another way of life: in vivir bien, not living better. Living better comes at the cost of others, and at the cost of the destruction of the environment.”

Despite aggressive opposition concentrated in the eastern part of the country, Morales forged forward, backed by portions of the country’s middle class and most of its Indigenous Peoples, who often refer to him as Brother Evo.

The government is building this chemical plant to maximize the country’s lithium reserves.

Resources for Bolivians

“We don’t want a beggar state—sadly we have been made beggars; we don’t want Bolivia, her government and her economic teams to go asking for alms from the United States, Europe or Asia. We want that to end, and for it to end we must nationalize our natural resources.” —Evo Morales, address to the Bolivian Congress, 2006

During much of the 1990s, international organizations like the World Bank pushed Bolivia to privatize businesses held by the state, a plan now referred to as a neoliberal model. Operations from water service to gas extraction were transferred from the state to private companies in hopes that international investment would jump-start chronically poor Bolivia’s economy.

“There is a predominant view in academics that considers government direct intervention as less efficient than privately run enterprises,” says Diego Vacaflores, an economist and assistant professor at Texas State University–San Marcos. Vacaflores points out that state-owned businesses before the neoliberal reforms were accused of problems with profitability, corruption and political favoritism, while privately run enterprises in Bolivia are often perceived as socially unresponsive and disinclined to reinvest their profits.

The neoliberal plan also included bringing down out-of-control inflation because the country’s currency was rapidly losing value. On the inflation front the reforms were successful, but sluggish economic growth from 2000 to 2005 prompted questions about who benefited from the reforms, especially as they resulted in the elimination of thousands of jobs in state-run companies, according to Benjamin Kohl and Linda Farthing, who investigate economic reforms in their book Impasse in Bolivia. The protests against water privatization in 2000 and the El Alto conflict in 2003 manifested boiling dissatisfaction with the government’s pro-privatization stance.

“It’s ironic that past Bolivian administrations were the faithful pupils of neoliberalism,” says Kathryn Ledebur, director of policy analyst group the Andean Information Network. “They followed all the rules, but the results left a lot to be desired and [left] the bulk of the population impoverished. The demise of their political credibility and clout coincided neatly with demands for a new model.”

Morales’s predecessor, President Carlos Mesa, started the transition in 2005, when he pushed a hydrocarbons law that gave Bolivia a bigger share of the industry’s profits. Morales later brought electricity generation and some telecommunications and mining operations back under government control, and he pushed for the creation of small state-run businesses.

Morales is pushing an agenda that calls for the wellness of all, over the wellness of the individual.

Following that push, government revenues rose. Some of the new money went toward programs called conditional cash transfers that give money to the elderly, mothers with babies, and children who successfully complete a year in school. Ariel Zabala David, director of planning for the ministry of productive development and plural economy, says these rewards are part of the country’s redistributive economic strategy, and promote the concept of vivir bien. “The cash transfers are created specifically for the neediest people in urban and rural areas…[and generate] development in internal commerce and the internal market,” he explains.

Though the amounts range from about $30 to $350 a year, they can make a difference in the lives of Bolivia’s poor, many of whom earn just a few dollars a day. The government estimates that in 2011 30 percent of Bolivians received a cash transfer.

Exactly how much poverty has decreased in Bolivia since 2006 remains unclear, mainly because of a lack of good data. The Bolivian government estimates that moderate poverty fell nearly 12 percentage points from 2006 to 2011, while extreme poverty fell more than 13 points. However, those figures rely on estimates for 2010 and 2011.

The Oxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative (OPHDI) also saw a reduction in poverty when it analyzed data from 2003 and 2008. That group co-created the Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) with the United Nations Development Program, which measures three key dimensions of poverty: health, education and living standard. They found that the MPI in Bolivia fell from 36 percent in 2003 to 21 percent in 2008. “The biggest progress was observed in improvements to school attendance and access to improved sanitation,” said José Manuel Roche, a research officer at OPHDI.

Despite that good news there is still much work ahead for Bolivia, which still has one of the highest poverty rates in Latin America.

Economic Growth and Risks

“In 2007 the neoliberals began to notice that the State was driving and controlling the economy, and it was not the market that controlled the economy as it did under the neoliberal model.” —Minister of Finance Luis Arce Catacora, 2011

Bolivia’s gross domestic product has grown steadily in recent years, averaging a 4.7 percent annual increase between 2006 and 2011, compared with three percent between 2000 and 2005. As many observers predicted, instability in Bolivia in the early 2000s led to a fall in net direct foreign investment by 2005. During the first years of the Morales presidency foreign investors seemed wary, but that appears to be changing: foreign investment hit $859 million in 2011, compared with $703 million 10 years earlier, according to Bolivia’s Central Bank.

Bolivia’s international reserves and trade balance also improved over the past decade. International reserves rose significantly, from about $1 billion in 2001 to more than $12 billion in 2011. The country had a negative trade balance in 2001, but in 2011 exports led over imports to the tune of nearly $1.5 billion.

Indigenous groups and environmentalist marched 242 miles to La Paz to block a planned highway.

Hydrocarbons have been selling fairly steadily at high prices and account for a largest chunk of the country’s exports, so a drop in oil prices would hurt Bolivia’s economy. To mitigate its dependence on a few raw material exports, Bolivia is pushing internal demand and striving to industrialize, but a February 2012 Chartis risk assessment noted that, “Attempts to boost industrialization have failed, at least so far, to break Bolivia’s extreme dependency on the export of a handful of volatile commodity exports.”

The Search for Vivir Bien

“A state based on respect and equality between all, with principles of sovereignty, dignity, complementarity, solidarity, harmony and equity in the distribution and redistribution of social product, where the search for vivir bien predominates.” —Preamble to new Bolivian Constitution

“Vivir bien connotes respect for life. Life means living together and asking, ‘Am I going to live throwing things out of order, am I going to live by force? Or am I going to live in harmony and balance?’ ” says Fernando Huanacuni, an Aymara Indian who works in Bolivia’s Foreign Ministry. He says vivir bien is a concept all people can understand, a collective as opposed to individual state of well-being that should be taught in schools and embraced by all.

However, for most Bolivians it’s still not clear what the government means by vivir bien, and ideas on what constitutes living well are as diverse as Bolivia itself.

Tensions between different concepts of vivir bien were thrown into the spotlight last year when indigenous groups clashed with the Bolivian government over construction of a road that would cut through their territory in the Isiboro Secure Indigenous Territory and National Park (TIPNIS). Supporters of the road say it will bring economic opportunities to many communities and provide an important link between east and west Bolivia. Many TIPNIS residents say it will open up their land to exploitation by outsiders—including logging, large-scale farming and possibly oil or gas extraction companies—that will damage their way of life.

For some, extractive industry can never be reconciled with the concept of vivir bien. Raúl Prada helped draft Bolivia’s 2009 constitution, but today he is an outspoken critic of the government. “The model for a society of vivir bien is an alternative model to modernity, capitalism and development,” he says. “The constitution’s model is not an extractive model; the government has chosen to continue the extractive model and to continue the dependent capitalism of Bolivian and Latin American elites, which is a colonial imposition.”

Gregorio Vicente, a highlands indigenous leader, says mining and other extractive industries don’t need to end in Bolivia in order for vivir bien to exist, but that they must be conducted in strict accordance with environmental standards and with respect for Indigenous Peoples. For Vicente, success hinges on balance. “For us vivir bien is not just a slogan, it’s wisdom and balance between mankind and the Earth, men and women, everything is dual,” he says. He worries that today the balance between people and the Earth is broken as some extractive projects contaminate both. “If the environment is poisoned, there is no vivir bien.”

Vicente’s concerns point to one of the Bolivian government’s biggest challenges as it moves forward: How to reconcile a growing extractive economy pushing toward industrialization with the principles of balance and concern for the environment and indigenous rights that helped it rise with the support of many of Bolivia’s Indigenous Peoples.

Fernandez, Morales Storm Out of Americas Summit

MercoPress

Argentine President Cristina Fernández left the 6th Summit of the Americas held in Cartagena de Indias, Colombia, before the official closing meeting allegedly in protest against a lack of regional support for Argentina’s claims in the Falklands/Malvinas dispute with the UK.

The president attended the official closing photo session of the summit with the other heads of state still present at the meeting to then rapidly abandon the facilities and head to the international airport.

According to Colombian media network Radio Caracol, “The Argentine president declined to participate in the final private meeting of the presidents and went directly to the airport of Cartagena.”

Colombian journalists assured that Fernández de Kirchner’s behaviour comes in response to the lack of consensus on support to Argentina’s sovereignty claim over the Falklands/Malvinas and other South Atlantic Islands, a topic not included in the summit’s final report.

The summit had already been marred by a lack of consensus on the Cuban issue with Latin America countries opposing the decades-old US embargo policy on Cuba.

Several countries put pressure on Barack Obama to end the ban, as the US president continued to be plagued by a US secret service scandal involving prostitutes.

The Colombian media reported that the collapse of the summit was no surprise since there was complete disagreement about signing a final statement but the nail in the coffin came when Cristina Kirchner stormed out of the summit followed by Bolivia’s Evo Morales.

“Cristina Fernandez was furious, we are told, because of the lack of full, complete support for Argentina’s claim of Falkland Islands sovereignty” according to news agencies.

“We understand she was very, very angry that other leaders didn’t even mention the dispute over the Islands with the UK,” and furthermore she was overheard saying, “This is pointless. Why did I even come here?’”

“All countries in Latin America and the Caribbean support Cuba and Argentina, yet two countries (US and Canada) refuse to discuss it” Bolivia’s president Morales said referring to widespread support for Argentina’s claims to sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. Morales said: ”How is it possible that Cuba is not present in the Summit of the Americas? What sort of integration are we talking about if we are excluding Cuba?“

Although there were widespread hopes for a rapprochement with Cuba under Obama when he took office, Washington has done little beyond ease some travel restrictions, saying democratic changes must come on the island before any further steps can be taken.

Obama has not spoken of Cuba in Colombia, though he did complain that Cold War-era issues, some dating from before his birth, were hindering perspectives on regional integration.

“Sometimes I feel as if in some of these discussions, or at least the press reports, we’re caught in a time warp, going back to the 1950s and gunboat diplomacy and Yankees and the Cold War, and this and that and the other,” the 50-year-old Obama said. “That’s not the world we live in today.”