Bolivia: Rich countries must pay their `ecological debt'

Submission by Republic of Bolivia to the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the [UN Framework Convention on Climate Change] (AWG-LCA)

April 25, 2009 -- We call on developed countries to commit to deep emission reductions in order to advance the objective of avoiding dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system and its consequences, to reflect their historical responsibility for the causes of climate change, and to respect the principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities in accordance with the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

The causes and consequence of climate change

Since 1750 the emission of greenhouse gases has increased significantly as the result of human activities. These emissions have accumulated in the atmosphere leading to current atmospheric concentrations, which now far exceed levels dating back hundreds of thousands of years. These concentrations, in turn, are warming the Earth with significant and catastrophic effects. Current levels of warming are already damaging forest, mountain and other ecosystems, melting snow and glaciers, thinning ice sheets, causing the oceans to rise and acidify, threatening coral reefs and intensifying droughts and floods, fires and extreme weather events. These adverse effects threaten to worsen the damages already produced by the current global warming on the Earth’s systems.

The countries most vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change are developing countries. Climate-induced disasters, water stress, adverse impacts on agriculture, threats to coastlines, ecosystems and infrastructure, and altered disease vectors are already imposing substantial and rising costs, damages and setbacks in development -– undermining developing countries’ rights and aspirations to development.

The historical cumulative emissions debt of developed countries

Responsibility for the majority of the historical emissions contributing to current atmospheric concentrations and to current and committed future warming lies with developed countries. Developed countries with less than 20% of the world’s population are responsible for around three quarters of historical emissions. Their current per person emissions continue to exceed those of developing countries by a factor of four. Their accumulated historic emissions on a per person basis exceed those of developing countries by a factor of eleven.

Developed countries -– which have contributed disproportionately to the causes of climate change –- now seek to appropriate a disproportionate share of the Earth’s remaining environmental space. By basing their future emission allowances on their past excessive level of emissions, they seek an entitlement to continue emitting at 70% or more of their 1990 levels through until 2020 (i.e. consistent with reductions of 30% or less). At the same time, they propose limiting developing countries –- which most need environmental space in the course of their development –- to much lower levels of per person emissions.

The excessive past, current and proposed future emissions of developed countries are depriving and will further deprive developing countries of an equitable share of the much diminished environmental space they require for their development and to which they have a right. By overconsuming the Earth’s limited capacity to absorb greenhouse gases, developed countries have run up an “emissions debt” which must be repaid to developing countries by compensating them for lost environmental space, stabilising temperature and by freeing up space for the growth required by developing countries in the future.

Quantifying developed countries’ mitigation commitments

Developed countries’ commitments to reduce emissions should be sufficient to address their historical emission debt, minimise their contribution to further adverse impacts on the climate and developing countries, provide sufficient environmental space for developing countries to develop, and conform with the ultimate objective of the Convention.

The scale and timing of these commitments should reflect the latest scientific information and be rooted in the objective, principles and provisions of the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol. They should be quantified on the basis of a clear and objective methodology that reflects, among other factors:

The historic responsibility of developed countries for current atmospheric concentrations;
The historic and current per-capita emissions of developed countries; and
The share of global emissions required by developing countries in order to meet their first overriding priorities which are the economic and social development and poverty eradication.
The establishment of assigned amounts of emissions for developed countries is a question of policy as well as science and must address issues of equity as well as effectiveness. The level of their assigned amounts also bears a close relationship to the extent of their obligations to provide compensation for the effects of climate change. Bearing in mind these considerations, the Annex to this document offers some possible elements of a methodology for evaluating developed countries’ emission debt and associated further mitigation commitments.

Emissions and adaptation debts are components of climate and ecological debt

Despite not being responsible for the problem of global warming, developing countries are among the worst affected its adverse impacts. The historical emissions of developed countries, as well as denying developing countries the atmospheric space they need for development, are harming poor countries and people who live daily with rising costs, damages and lost opportunities for development.

These impacts are the direct result of current atmospheric concentrations, which have been caused predominantly by emissions from developed countries. Developed countries are thus responsible for compensating developing countries for their contribution to the adverse effects of climate change as part of an “adaptation debt” owed by developed countries to developing countries. Developed countries “climate debt” -– the sum of their emissions debt and adaptation debt –- are part of a broader ecological debt reflecting their heavy environmental footprint, excessive consumption of resources, materials and energy and contribution to declining biodiversity and ecosystem services.

Repaying their climate debt

The climate debt of developed countries must be repaid, and this payment must begin with the outcomes to be agreed in Copenhagen.

Developing countries are not seeking economic handouts to solve a problem we did not cause. What we call for is full payment of the debt owed to us by developed countries for threatening the integrity of the Earth’s climate system, for over-consuming a shared resource that belongs fairly and equally to all people, and for maintaining lifestyles that continue to threaten the lives and livelihoods of the poor majority of the planet’s population. This debt must be repaid by freeing up environmental space for developing countries and particular the poorest communities.
There is no viable solution to climate change that is effective without being equitable. Deep emission reductions by developed countries are a necessary condition for stabilising the Earth’s climate. So too are profoundly larger transfers of technologies and financial resources than so far considered, if emissions are to be curbed in developing countries and they are also to realise their right to development and achieve their overriding priorities of poverty eradication and economic and social development. Any solution that does not ensure an equitable distribution of the Earth’s limited capacity to absorb greenhouse gases, as well as the costs of mitigating and adapting to climate change, is destined to fail.

Developed countries must therefore fulfill their responsibilities through deeper domestic emission reduction commitments than so far considered in the current negotiations, and through all available means to generate the opportunities required for developing countries to achieve their development. Developing countries are willing to play their part in addressing this common challenge. But any such participation can and must be based on the provisions of the Convention, on a clear understanding of the causes of climate change and its consequences, and on an equitable approach to stabilising the Earth’s climate system and to ensuring a sustainable future.

bolivia250409-1

Publish at Scribd or explore others:

Bolivia, Paraguay End Border Dispute With Accord

BUENOS AIRES (AFP)--Bolivian President Evo Morales and Paraguayan President Fernando Lugo signed a historic accord here Monday, ending a boundary dispute that led to a catastrophic war in the last century.

In a solemn ceremony chaired by Argentine leader Cristina Kirchner, both presidents agreed that the dispute over the Chaco region - where a war between 1932 and 1935 left more than 100,000 people dead - was brought on by foreign interests.

The armed conflict "came from outside, driven by transnational corporations competing for our natural resources," said Morales after signing the agreement, which agreed to the terms of the Bolivian-Paraguayan Boundary Demarcation Commission.

"These are new times of peace, friendship and fraternity between the peoples of South America," he added.

The Western companies seeking energy riches in the vast region at the continent's heart were U.S. Standard Oil, backed by Bolivia, and the Anglo-Dutch Shell Oil company, supported by Paraguay.

Lugo expressed hope that the two nation's bountiful natural resources could in the future "be developed and used by both countries without any foreign intervention."

He said that "never again" should the two countries let outside influences promote distrust and suspicion that would "poison our relations."

At the end of the ceremony, held at the palacial Casa Rosada in Buenos Aires, Kirchner also alluded to the interests of powerful oil companies that had shaped the region.

The war between Bolivia and Paraguay "smelt of oil, as did many wars in those days and now," she said.

Bolivia: Evo Morales speaks on International Mother Earth Day

(Media-Newswire.com) - The primary cause of the twenty-first century should be the recognition of the rights of Mother Earth, Bolivian President Evo Morales Ayma declared hours after the General Assembly passed a resolution designating 22 April as “International Mother Earth Day”.

“If we want to safeguard mankind, then we need to safeguard the planet,” he said, stressing that social movements, regular citizens and presidents the world over needed to understand and support the rights of Mother Earth. “That is the next major task of the United Nations”.

Speaking at a Headquarters press conference this afternoon, he said previous centuries had witnessed a permanent ongoing battle for human rights. With those human rights now secured, it was time to fight for those of the planet, including the right to life, the right to regeneration of the planet’s biodiversity, the right to a clean life free of pollution, and the right to harmony and balance among and between all things.

“Mother Earth cannot be a piece of merchandise”, he argued, stressing that it was necessary to correct humanity’s historic mistake of buying and selling the planet. Human beings could not exist without Mother Earth, but changes in climate and the environment were already beginning to threaten that existence in some places. In the Andes, mountain peaks were losing their white snow-caps, lakes were drying up, and fish were disappearing from the Orinoco.

In light of the damage traditional power plants caused to the environment and the fact that gas and oil deposits are limited, he said his Government would be reconsidering its energy policy. It would explore developing clean energy sources, especially its numerous natural opportunities for hydroelectric energy, but investment would also be needed.

He was also working to defend equality, democracy and the rule of law in Bolivia, he said. Moreover, he intended to defend himself as Bolivia’s constitutionally-elected President and head of a Government that had, for the first time in the Republic’s 180-year history, been elected four times in a row with over 50 per cent of the vote.

Bolivia was also moving towards the approval of a new Constitution, which was supported by some 70 per cent of the population, he said. “This is a process of great transformation and change. Unfortunately, the neoliberal groups which still exist in some regions have attempted to take over the palace, but did not succeed”.

President Morales was joined by Paul Oquist, Senior Adviser to the President of the General Assembly, who outlined the run-up to the high-level General Assembly meeting on the World Financial and Economic Crisis and Its Impact on Development, scheduled for 1 to 3 June in New York. Informal consultations had already begun, with Member States submitting proposals for the meeting’s outcome document. Those deliberations would continue until 4 May, when the President of the General Assembly would issue a draft document that would then be subject to intergovernmental negotiations ahead of the high-level meeting.

The high-level conference would, he said, allow the “G-192” of the United Nations “to give voice and participation to all the world’s countries on the most important issue of our decade and perhaps our century”. It was intended to be a forum that was legal, representative and credible, since it would take into account the interests of all those affected by the crisis.

Echoing that statement, Mr. Morales said he was looking forward to the meeting, which would be an opportunity for everyone to be heard and the economic problem collectively resolved. “We all need to shoulder the responsibility for resolving the financial crisis.”

In response to a question on whether the United States stimulus plan was good enough to bring it out of the economic doldrums, he said that the crisis of capitalism could not be solved merely by injecting money. “You cannot issue more and more money unless you increase the means of production and the real economy of countries”, he stressed, underlining how even the G-20 [Group of Twenty] disagreed on how to turn national economies, as well as the global economy, around.

To a number of questions about the global financial architecture, he pointed out that France and Germany had questioned the bureaucracy of the International Monetary Fund and he welcomed proposals by Brazil and Argentina for its radical reform. He further welcomed ongoing changes within the World Bank, which had previously urged him to privatize a number of Bolivia’s industries, to no avail.

He went on to say that the response to the financial crisis had to be more than just the provision of money by the same institutions that had contributed to its cause, such as the International Monetary Fund. In fact, a revolution within the Fund was needed, with its bureaucrats thinking about the big picture rather than “lining their own pockets”.

Asked when his Government would provide more information on what it had described as a plot to assassinate him and two other high-level members last week, he said the investigation was ongoing. [Three men were killed and two others jailed by Bolivian police last week in the eastern city of Santa Cruz.] But, it was his hope that the Bolivian justice system would pursue the case to its end.

Asked about Government efforts to end cases where the working conditions of servants among some wealthy landowners seemed tantamount to slavery, as well as initiatives to redistribute land to the poor, he said a great deal of education was needed to end such conditions. The Government hoped to do more than institute agrarian reform. Indeed, the four components of its initiatives were just redistribution of land; mechanization; increased production of organic and biological products; and just and fair trade. It was also focusing on credit for micro-enterprise.

Responding to a question about recent educational reforms, such as the right of indigenous people to be instructed in their own languages, he said those new types of universities sought to repair the damage of the last 500 years. But, radical change –- as seen in the case of the new Constitution -- was needed. He hoped that those universities would teach young patriotic students who were committed to their country and would eventually work for it, rather than participating in a “brain drain”.

Asked about his recent hunger strike, he noted that such methods had previously been against the military dictatorship, but were now being used against the neoliberal model. Those who subscribed to that model were frightened of democracy, because they knew they would not win.

Alaska tribes meet with Bolivian president

ANCHORAGE – Alaska Tribes will be holding a private tribal leader reception with the president of Bolivia, the honorable Evo Morales Ayma in Anchorage, Alaska.

Morales would like to use this opportunity to meet with indigenous leaders in the U.S. and develop a lasting relationship between indigenous people in Bolivia and the United States. The president will be in Alaska to attend the Indigenous Peoples Summit on Climate Change where he will deliver an address during the morning hours of April 23. Immediately following, the Bolivian government, in coordination with the Alaska InterTribal Council, the National Congress of American Indians, and the National Tribal Environmental Council, will hold a private reception with the president.

President Morales seeks to learn more about the current issues facing American Indians and believes the best way to do so is to meet with tribal leaders.

This is a historic opportunity for several reasons. President Morales is Bolivia’s first nationally elected indigenous leader and has been president of Bolivia since 2005. During his tenure, Morales has been actively engaged in indigenous issues at the international level, with participation in the United Nations and advocacy for the ratification of the Declaration of Indigenous Rights and the recognition of Mother Earth Day as an official holiday.

Most recently, a new constitution was passed in Bolivia by wide margins that protect ancestral lands, medicine and the culture of Bolivia’s indigenous peoples. It also recognizes all 36 indigenous languages as official languages and guarantees indigenous communities the right to maintain their cultural identity, religious beliefs, practices and customs, and their own vision of the cosmos or universe.

Republished from Indian Country Today

Document of the Bolivarian Alternative for the Peoples of Our Americas (ALBA) countries for the 5th Summit of the Americas

Cumaná, April 17, 2009

The heads of state and governments of Bolivia, Cuba, Dominica, Honduras, Nicaragua and Venezuela, member countries of ALBA, consider that the proposed Declaration of the 5th Summit of the Americas is insufficient and unacceptable for the following reasons:

- It offers no answers to the issue of the Global Economic Crisis, despite the fact that this constitutes the largest challenge faced by humanity in decades and the most serious threat in the current epoch to the wellbeing of our peoples.

- Unjustifiably excludes Cuba in a criminal manner, without mentioning the general consensus that exists in the region in favour of condemning the blockade and the isolation attempts, which its people and government have incessantly objected to.

For these reasons, the member countries of ALBA consider that consensus does not exist in favour of adopting this proposed declaration and in light of the above; we propose to have a thoroughgoing debate over the following issues:

1) Capitalism is putting an end to humanity and the planet. What we are living through is a global economic crisis of a systemic and structural character and not just one more cyclical crisis. Those who think that this crisis will be resolved with an injection of fiscal money and with some regulatory measures are very mistaken.

The financial system is in crisis because it is quoting the value of papers at six times the real value of goods and services being produced in the world. This is not a “failure of the regulation of the system” but rather a constitutive part of the capitalist system that speculates with all goods and values in the pursuit of obtaining the maximum amount of profit possible. Until now, the economic crisis has created 100 million more starving people and more than 50 million new unemployed people, and these figures are tending to increasing.

2) Capitalism has provoked an ecological crisis by subordinating the necessary conditions for life on this planet to the dominance of the market and profit. Each year, the world consumes a third more than what the planet is capable of regenerating. At this rate of wastage by the capitalist system, we are going to need two planets by the year 2030.

3) The global economic, climate change, food and energy crises are products of the decadence of capitalism that threatens to put an end to the existence of life and the planet. To avoid this outcome it is necessary to develop an alternative model to that of the capitalist system. A system based on:
* Solidarity and complementarity and not competition;
* A system in harmony with our mother earth rather than the looting of our natural resources;
* A system based on cultural diversity and not the crushing of cultures and impositions of cultural values and lifestyles alien to the realities of our countries:
* A system of peace based on social justice and not on imperialist wars and policies;
* In synthesis, a system that recuperates the human condition of our societies and peoples rather than reducing them to simple consumers or commodities.

4) As a concrete expression of the new reality on the continent, Latin American and Caribbean countries have begun to construct their own institutions, whose roots lie in the common history that goes back to our independence revolution, and which constitutes a concrete instrument for deepening the processes of social, economic and cultural transformation that will consolidate our sovereignty. The ALBA-TCP [TCP = Peoples Trade Agreement], Petrocaribe and UNASUR [Union of South American Nations], to only cite the most recently created one, are mechanisms for solidarity-based union forged in the heat of these transformations, with the manifest intention of strengthening the efforts of our peoples to reach their own liberation.

In order to confront the grave effects of the global economic crisis, the ALBA-TCP countries have taken innovative and transformational measures that seek real alternatives to the deficient international economic order rather than strengthen these failed institutions. That is why we have put in march a Single System of Regional Compensation, the SUCRE, that includes a Common Accounting Unit, a Chamber of Compensations of Payments and a Single System of Reserves.

At the same time, we have promoted the constitution of grand national companies in order to satisfy the fundamental necessities of our peoples, establishing mechanisms of just and complementary trade, that leave to one side the absurd logic of unrestrained competition.

5) We question the G20’s decision to triple the amount of resources going to the International Monetary Fund, when what is really necessary is the establishment of a new world economic order that includes the total transformation of the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO [World Trade Organisation], who with their neoliberal condition have contributed to this global economic crisis.

6) The solutions to the global economic crisis and the definition of a new international financial architecture should be adopted with the participation of the 192 countries that between June 1 and 3 will meet at a United Nations conference about the international financial crisis, in order to propose the creation of a new international economic order.

7) In regards to the climate change crisis, the developed countries have an ecological debt with the world given that they are responsible for 70% of historic emissions of carbon accumulated in the atmosphere since 1750.

The developed countries, debtors with humanity and the planet, should contribute significant resources towards a fund so that the countries on the path towards development can undertake a model of growth that does not repeat the grave impacts of capitalist industrialisation.

8) The solutions to the energy, food and climate change crises have to be integral and interdependent. We cannot resolve a problem creating others in the areas fundamental to life. For example, generalising the use of agro fuels can only impact negatively on the price of food and in the utilisation of essential resources such as water, land and forests.

9) We condemn discrimination against migrants in all its forms. Migration is a human right, not a crime. Therefore, we demand an urgent reform to the migration policies of the United States government, with the objective of detaining deportations and mass raids, allowing the reunification of families, and we demand the elimination of the wall that divides and separates us, rather than uniting us.

In this sense, we demand the repeal of the Cuban Adjustment Act and the elimination of the policies of Wetbacks-Drybacks, which has a discriminatory and selective character, and is the cause of loss of human lives.

Those that are truly to blame for the financial crisis are the bankers that steal money and the resources of our countries, not migrant workers. Human rights come first, particularly the human rights of the most unprotected and marginalised sectors of our society, as undocumented workers are.

For there to be integration there has to be free circulation of people, and equal human rights for all regardless of migratory status. Brain drain constitutes a form of looting of qualified human resources by the rich countries.

10) Basic services such as education, health, water, energy and telecommunications have to be declared human rights and cannot be the objects of private business nor be commodified by the World Trade Organisation. These services are and should be essential, universally accessible public services

11) We want a world where all countries, big and small, have the same rights and empires do not exist. We advocate against intervention. Strengthen, as the only legitimate channel for discussion and analysis of bilateral and multilateral agendas of the continent, the base of mutual respect between states and governments, under the principal of non-interference of one state over another and the inviolability of the sovereignty and self-determination of the peoples.

We demand that the new government of the United States, whose inauguration has generated some expectations in the region and the world, put an end to the long and nefarious tradition of interventionism and aggression that has characterised the actions of the governments of this country throughout its history, especially brutal during the government of George W. Bush.

In the same way, eliminate interventionist practices such as covert operations, parallel diplomacy, media wars aimed at destabilising states and governments, and the financing of destabilising groups. It is fundamental that we construct a world in which a diversity of economic, political, social and cultural approaches are recognised and respected.

12) Regarding the United States blockade against Cuba and the exclusion of this country from the Summit of the Americas, the countries of the Bolivarian Alternatives for the People of Our Americas reiterates the position that all the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean adopted last December 16, 2008, regarding the necessity of putting an end to the economic, trade and financial blockade imposed by the government of the United States of America against Cuba, including the application of the denominated Helms-Burton law and that among its paragraphs notes:

“CONSIDERING the resolutions approved by the United Nations General Assembly on the need to put an end to the economic, commercial, and financial embargo imposed by the United States on Cuba and the decisions on the latter approved at several international meetings,

“DECLARE that in defence of free trade and the transparent practice of international trade, it is unacceptable to apply unilateral coercive measures that will affect the well-being of nations and obstruct the processes of integration.

“WE REJECT the implementation of laws and measures that contradict International Law such as the Helms-Burton law and urge the U.S. Government to put an end to its implementation.

WE ASK the U.S. Government to comply with the 17 successive resolutions approved at the United Nations General Assembly and put an end to the economic, commercial and financial embargo it has imposed on Cuba.”

Moreover, we believe that the attempts to impose an isolation on Cuba, which today is an integral part of the Latin American and Caribbean region, is a member of the Rio Group and other organisations and regional mechanisms, that carries out a policy of cooperation and solidarity with the people of the region, that promotes the full integration of the Latin American and Caribbean peoples, has failed, and that, therefore, no reason exists to justify its exclusion from the Summit of the Americas.

13) The developed countries have destined no less than $8 trillion towards rescuing the financial structure that has collapsed. They are the same ones that do not comply with spending a small sum to reach the Millennium Goals or 0.7% of GDP for Official Development Aid. Never before have we seen so nakedly the hypocrisy of the discourse of the rich countries. Cooperation has to be established without conditions and adjusted to the agendas of the receiving countries, simplifying the procedures, making resources accessible and privileging issues of social inclusion.

14) The legitimate struggle against narco-trafficking and organised crime, and any other manifestation of the denominated “new threats,” should not be utilised as excuses for carrying out acts of interference or intervention against our countries.

15) We are firmly convinced that change, which all the world is hoping for, can only come about through the organisation, mobilisation and unity of our peoples.

As the Liberator well stated:
“The unity of our peoples is not simply the chimera of men, but an inexorable fate”
Simón Bolívar.

Translated by Federico Fuentes

Evo Morales: I want to declare myself as a marxist and communist, let's see if the OAS expels me

April 16, 2009 – During his intervention at the VII ALBA Summit, Bolivian president Evo Morales recalled the 1962 documents of the Organisation of American States (OAS) that resulted in Cuba being expelled from the organization, and outlined the importance of reflecting over the motives of that expulsion.

The resolution indicates that the adherence of any member country to Marxism-Leninism, and the association of any member government of the organization with the communist bloc, broke the unity and solidarity of the hemisphere. Therefore, given that the government of Cuba identified itself as Marxist Leninist, it was incompatible with the purpose of the OAS and was therefore excluded from participating.

“Cuba was expelled for being Leninist, Marxist, communist. I want to say to the members of the OAS, here, I want to declare myself Marxist, Leninist, communist, socialist and now let them expel me, I want them to expel me from the OAS, it is unbelievable that for being Marxist Leninist one can be expelled from the OAS” exclaimed Morales.

He made reference to the recent declarations made by the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, who said that there is no democracy in Cuba. He recalled that once when he was in the US, he found out that deputies who do not win more than 50% of the votes can not be sworn in and the vote has to occur again.

“The US has no right or authority to speak of democracy, because they are the ones that foster coups, military coups, just as they are now arming a civic coup in Bolivia”

He highlighted the fact that on the other hand in Cuba they exercise full democracy, where bribes or million dollar campaigns do not exist.

ALBA council on human rights

Morales proposed the creation of an ALBA Council for Human Rights. His proposal parts from the position that there exists many institutions that emit reports on human rights and that the only thing they do is report on anti-imperialist government. “No matter what good things we do, they never recognize them, they do not take into consideration that we are in a process of liberation of deep transformation” affirmed Morales.

He stated that these international human rights institutions only condemn governments of liberation. Therefore, in this framework, he proposed the creation of an ALBA Council for Human Rights, to be able to say the truth on human rights.

He pointed out that the general objective should be to investigate and denounce political, military and cultural interference, carry out investigations on policies that go against our countries, establish a permanent system of monitoring media attacks, exchange of information amongst countries that make up the council to evaluate systematic violations of human rights, promote the exercising of human rights especially in regards to sovereignty and self-determination of the member countries.

According to his proposal, the council would be made up of representatives of all the member countries, representatives of social movements, human rights experts and representatives of any non-member country that wanted to be part of the council.

Evo Morales gave thanks for all the international solidarity he received during his recent struggle for the approval of an electoral law in Bolivia and expressed his enormous satisfaction of being there as part of the anti-imperialist struggle, which he indicated is the struggle of our peoples.

He highlighted the creation of the Sucre, as another form of thinking of solutions to the financial crisis. He affirmed that the relationship which Bolivia has with the IMF and World Bank now is different, given all the conditions they have put on his nation.

Translated from Aporrea

Plot to kill Bolivia's president foiled

Eduardo Garcia, Thu Apr 16, 2009

LA PAZ (Reuters) - Bolivian security forces thwarted an assassination plot against President Evo Morales on Thursday, killing three people in a half-hour shootout at a hotel, government and police officials said.

Police chief Hugo Escobar said two Hungarians and a Bolivian, who were believed to be part of a conspiracy to kill Morales, were killed in the gunfight in the eastern Bolivian city of Santa Cruz, an opposition stronghold.

Morales, a socialist, is Bolivia's first indigenous president and has faced strong opposition in relatively wealthy regions of the country, including Santa Cruz. Morales was not in Santa Cruz at the time of the incident shortly after midnight local time.

Speaking later on Thursday during a visit to Venezuela, Morales said an Irish person may have been among what he called foreign mercenaries involved in the suspected plot. Government officials said authorities had recently been following the suspects.

"Yesterday I gave instructions to the vice president to move to arrest these mercenaries and this morning I was informed of a half-hour shootout at a hotel in the city of Santa Cruz," Morales said, adding two people were under arrest.

There was confusion regarding the nationalities of the foreigners killed. While the chief of police said two of those killed were from Hungary, several local media organizations reported they were from Romania and Ireland.

In La Paz, Bolivian Vice President Alvaro Garcia told reporters the men were carrying guns and grenades and attacked police as they approached them.

He said that after the shootout, police found documents "about preparations for an assassination, an attempt on the lives of the president and the vice president."

Heavily armed police cordoned off the hotel where the shootout occurred.

Morales has announced several plots against him in the past but the results of investigations have never been released, causing some Bolivians to doubt their veracity.

Last year, right-wing opposition groups launched violent protests against a referendum promoted by Morales that gives more power to the indigenous majority.

Morales expelled the U.S. ambassador to Bolivia in September, accusing him of encouraging the protests in a bid to oust him.

The president ended a five-day hunger strike on Tuesday after lawmakers passed an electoral law that creates more seats in indigenous areas where his support is strongest. Morales had stopped eating to pressure legislators to pass the law.

Critics say the law tilts the electoral odds in his favour before a December presidential election the former coca farmer is expected to win.

(Additional reporting by Frank Jack Daniel in Caracas, Editing by Kieran Murray and Peter Cooney)

Latin America Changes: Hunger Strikes in Bolivia, Summits in the Caribbean

Benjamin Dangl

After Bolivia beat the Argentine soccer team led by legendary Diego Maradona by 6 to 1, Maradona told reporters, "Every Bolivia goal was a stab in my heart." Bolivia was expected to lose the April 1 match as Argentina is ranked as the 6th best soccer team in the world, and Maradona enjoys godlike status among soccer fans. This story of David and Goliath in the Andes is just one of various events shaking up the hemisphere.

Bolivian President Evo Morales just completed a five day hunger strike to push through legislation that allows him to run again in general elections this December. And at this weekend’s Summit of the Americas US President Barack Obama will meet with Latin American presidents who may end up giving some economic advice to their troubled neighbor in the north.

Evo Morales on a Hunger Strike

When opposition party members in Bolivia left a Congress session on April 9, refusing to pass a bill that would allow for general elections in December of this year, Evo Morales began a hunger strike while thousands of government supporters rallied in the streets in support of the bill.

Morales began the fast to pressure opponents into passing the legislation, which in addition to enabling elections, would give indigenous communities broader representation in parliament and give Bolivian citizens living abroad the right to vote in the December elections. The opposition blocked the bill in part because they said it would give Morales more power and did not significantly prevent the possibility of electoral fraud. On April 12, opposition members returned to Congress when Morales agreed to changes regarding a new voter registry.

During his hunger strike, Morales slept on a mattress on the floor in the presidential palace and chewed coca leaves to fight off hunger. Morales said that this was the 18th hunger strike he participated in; before becoming president, Morales was a long-time coca farmer, union organizer and congressman. He said the longest hunger strike he had been on lasted 18 days while he was in jail, according to Bloomberg. But Morales wasn’t alone: 3,000 other MAS supporters, activists, workers and union members also participated in the hunger strike, including Bolivians in Spain and Argentina.

Early in the morning on April 14, once it was official that the Senate passed the bill, Morales ended his strike. "Happily, we have accomplished something important," he told reporters. "The people should not forget that you need to fight for change. We alone can't guarantee this revolutionary process, but with people power it's possible."

This controversy erupted just weeks after Bolivia’s new constitution was approved in a January 25 national referendum. Among other significant changes, the constitution grants unprecedented rights to the country’s indigenous majority and establishes a broader role for the state in the management of the economy and natural resources.

Summit of the Americas: Cuba, Obama and Chavez

On April 17-19 the Summit of the Americas will take place in Trinidad and Tobago. Most of the hemisphere’s presidents will be in attendance. It will also mark the first meeting between Presidents Barack Obama and Hugo Chavez.

Before the larger Summit begins, a Summit for the Bolivarian Alternative of the Americas (ALBA) will take place in Venezuela from April 14-15. Those planning to attend this gathering include President Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua, Evo Morales, Paraguayan President Fernando Lugo, and others. Chavez announced that this ALBA meeting will take place with the objective of formulating common positions to bring to Trinidad and Tobago, including plans regarding the formation of a regional currency, called the Sucre. These leaders are also likely to lead the push for an end to the blockade against Cuba.

Chavez said that if the US wants to come to the Summit "with the same excluding discourse of the empire – on the blockade – then the result will be that nothing has changed. Everything will stay the same… Cuba is a point of honor for the peoples of Latin America. We cannot accept that the United States should continue trampling over the nations of our America."

In a recent column, Fidel Castro noted that Obama planned to lift travel and remittance restrictions to Cuba, but that that wouldn’t be enough – the blockade still needs to be lifted. "[N]ot a word was said about the harshest of measures: the blockade," Castro wrote. "This is the way a truly genocidal measure is piously called, one whose damage cannot be calculated only on the basis of its economic effects, for it constantly takes human lives and brings painful suffering to our people. Numerous diagnostic equipment and crucial medicines -- made in Europe, Japan or any other country -- are not available to our patients if they carry U.S. components or software."

The blockade against Cuba will likely be a hot topic of debate at this weekend’s Summit, and will be partly fueled by tension between Obama and Chavez. Explaining the failure of the Bush administration in the region, Obama once said, it is "No wonder, then, that demagogues like Hugo Chavez have stepped into this vacuum. His predictable yet perilous mix of anti-American rhetoric, authoritarian government, and checkbook diplomacy offers the same false promise as the tried and failed ideologies of the past."

Yet a closer look at the region will show that the rise of leaders like Chavez is a result of more than just neglect on the part of the empire – it has to do with the disastrous impact of neoliberalism in the region, and a desire among Latin Americans to seek out alternatives. Considering the current economic crisis in the US, Obama could learn a thing or two from the policies of leaders like Chavez, who is incredibly popular in Venezuela, works in solidarity with many of the region's leaders, and has developed sucessful economic policies in his country. At the upcoming Summit, Obama should put into action something he said when meeting with the G20: "We exercise our leadership best when we are listening."

Latin America Changes

Those expecting an end to the same old Cold War tactics toward Latin America from Washington may be surprised when Obama continues to treat the region as a backyard. Yet whether or not the perspective from Washington changes, Latin America is certainly a different place than it was 30 years ago.

I asked Greg Grandin, a professor of history at New York University, and the author, most recently, of Empire's Workshop, if another US-backed coup such as the one that happened against socialist Chilean President Salvador Allende in 1973 would be possible in today’s Latin America. He said, "I don’t think it would be possible. There isn’t a constituency for a coup. In the 1970s, US policy was getting a lot more traction because people were afraid of the rise of the left, and they were interested in an economic alliance with the US. Now, the [Latin American] middle class could still go with the US, common crime could be a wedge issue that could drive Latin America away from the left. But US policy is so destructive that it has really eviscerated the middle class. Now, there is no domestic constituency that the US could latch onto. The US did have a broader base of support in the 1970s, but neoliberalism undermined it."

Grandin explained that in the 1960s and 1970s, security agencies in Latin America built up their relationship with Washington to "subordinate their interests to the US’s cold war crusade."

There was a willingness among the Latin American middle class to do this, Grandin explained, and the US was also interested in building the infrastructure and networks to ensure that the region’s new dictators’ fanaticism could be led by anti-communism. "Now in South America, there has been a wide rejection to subordinate their military to the US," Grandin explained. "In a 2005 defense meeting in Quito, Ecuador [former US Secretary of Defense Donald] Rumsfeld attempted to elevate the war on terror in the region [as a military priority], and it was roundly rejected. … As of now, I don’t think there has been a willingness for Latin America to serve as an outpost of this unified war [on terror]."

Grandin wrote in a 2006 article that the Pentagon has tried to "ratchet up a sense of ideological urgency" in the war on terror in Latin America. but these pleas have fallen on deaf ears. "The cause of terrorism," said Brazil's Vice President José Alencar, "is not just fundamentalism, but misery and hunger."

However, the Latin America Obama will visit this weekend is already significantly different than the one Rumsfeld tried to convince in 2005. Obama’s counterparts in the south are generally more independent and leftist than they were even four years ago. But all that can change, and at least some of it depends on how Obama works with – or ignores - the region.

Outside of Obama’s influence, one question remains: will changes made by leftist leaders in Latin America be irrevocable, even if the right regains power in the region in the next five years? Not according to political analyst Laura Carlsen of the Americas Program in Mexico City, "In order for that to happen it would take more than just a change in the government, and I find it unlikely for anything like that to happen in the short term. It took years for the left in power to build up these social movements and the development of alternatives. It was the result of that process that brought these governments into power, and to reverse it you would have to silence or repress these movements."

I asked Grandin the same question. "It depends," he said, "the changes seemed pretty irrevocable in the 1970s and with Reaganism and militarism… The failure of neoliberalism is certain, but it’s hard to say what the response will be in the long term."
This weekend’s summit, where Obama and Chavez will shake hands for the first time, might offer some glimpses into the region’s future.

Benjamin Dangl is currently based in Paraguay, and is the author of "The Price of Fire: Resource Wars and Social Movements in Bolivia" (AK Press), and the editor of UpsideDownWorld.org, a website on activism and politics in Latin America, and TowardFreedom.com, a progressive perspective on world events. Email: Bendangl(at)gmail(dot)com.

Morales about the IMF: “the wolf can not keep the flock”

April 3, 2009/ Ennaharonline / AFP

The Bolivian President Evo Morales has denounced Friday the injection of more than 1,000 billion dollars through the IMF against the global crisis, saying that countries at the root of the crisis can not solve it, or his words, that “the wolf can not keep the flock.”

“It's like giving money to the wolves, or to entrust the care of the flock: the wolf is not going to keep the sheep, it will devour them,” Morales told the foreign press in La Paz, commenting on the decisions G20 in London to fight against the crisis.

“It is not possible that the countries of capitalism, which has caused the financial crisis, are now the same from where comes the solution,” said the Socialist leader, adding that few countries are at the origin of this financial crisis, but “180 must cope.”

Bolivia is experiencing the beginning of economic deceleration, and is 5% growth at best in 2009, against 6.5% in 2008.

“As long as we do not touch the structural points of capitalism, it will be difficult to resolve the financial crisis,” said Morales about the G20. “If we want to solve economic problems, we must first end the free market, then the speculative capitalism.”

Morales has challenged the role of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), accusing him of the award of credit conditions, as “the privatization of our natural resources, our basic services, to implement the business models that are part of the capitalist system.”

Bolivia: National revolution and ‘communitarian socialism’

Federico Fuentes, 27 March 2009

The historic enactment of Bolivia’s new constitution that grants unprecedented rights to the country’s indigenous majority, approved by over 61% of the vote on January 25, represented the beginning of “communitarian socialism”, according to President Evo Morales.

This was not the first time Bolivia’s first indigenous president had raised the concept of “communitarian socialism”. In his April 2008 speech to the United Nations, Morales spoke of the need for “a communitarian socialism in harmony with Mother Earth”.

While Morales’s political party is officially known as Movement Towards Socialism–Political Instrument for the Sovereignty of the Peoples (MAS-IPSP), it was originally simply IPSP.

Blocked from registering itself as an electoral party, the IPSP took up the offer of the then-existing MAS party to use its registered name to run in elections.

While individual socialists were involved from the beginning with the IPSP, they were a tiny minority within a party that was formed as a “political instrument” of Bolivia’s largest peasant organisations.

Forged through the struggles of the coca growers and the other peasant organisations, against US military intervention and neoliberal policies, the MAS developed a strong anti-imperialist and anti-neoliberal character.

As the social struggles intensified, and the MAS’s weight began to grow in the electoral sphere, this political instrument increasingly became an outlet for growing disillusionment with the corrupt traditional party system.

The election of Morales as president in 2005, with a historic 53.7% of the vote, consolidated the MAS as the leadership of a broad-based national liberation movement — in which the peasant and indigenous majority led urban and middle class sectors.

The dominant ideology was a militant indigenous nationalism, whose vision involves promoting the inclusion and empowerment of the indigenous majority.

Since being elected, the Morales government has focused on modernising the country, promoting industrialisation, increasing state intervention in the economy, promoting social and cultural inclusion, and a more democratic distribution of revenue from natural resources through various social programs.

A major achievement has been the successful drafting of a new constitution by an elected constituent assembly — with the draft adopted by referendum — to refound the nation on the basis of justice for the indigenous majority.

In early 2008, Morales began to develop some underlying principles of what “communitarian socialism” might entail, according to sources within and close to the MAS leadership.

Differences, and then the onslaught by the right-wing opposition against the government, put this discussion on the backburner.

However, the crushing defeat of the right-wing attempts to bring down the government in 2008 greatly weakened the power of the opposition.

In this context, the MAS-IPSP held its seventh national congress on January 10-12, where it approved the document “Communitarian socialism to liberate Bolivia from the colonial state”.

The document provides a picture of how the MAS views the current revolutionary process and its direction.

According to the document, quoted by the March 2 Opinion, the inauguration of the MAS government marked the beginning of a “democratic and cultural revolution” that “reflects, due to the nature of its historic subject (indigenous), a communitarian and socialist conception orientated towards surpassing capitalist relations of production”.

The MAS “is not proposing that we deny the possibility of utilising the institutions or mechanisms provided by bourgeois democracy”, but nonetheless seeks to “ideologically [prepare] our people for the path of the revolutionary struggle”.

“That is, a revolutionary has to utilise to the maximum effect the democratic institutions, not to consolidate them, but rather to unmask the essence of capitalist democracy and prepare the masses for the qualitative leap.

“With concrete political proposals that correctly interpret the mood of the oppressed people and correctly characterise the existing balance of social forces, it will be the people themselves who draw the conclusions and the people who will decide — if leadership exists, of course — the transformation of society via the revolutionary struggle.

“In conclusion, in determined conjunctures and not at all times, it is possible to utilise the democratic struggle to prepare for the revolutionary struggle.”

The document argued that in “a dependent [country] like ours, it is essential that the people and its vanguard accomplish and develop a series of bourgeois democratic tasks that have not been carried out by the bourgeoisie.

“All the experiences of the international revolutionary movement, above all in Latin America, have demonstrated that the socialist revolution can not be realised if the democratic and anti-imperialist banners are not raised.

“But neither can the democratic and anti-imperialist [tasks be] carried out to the end, if it is not through a socialist revolution.”

The goal of the “historic project” of the indigenous peoples and popular movements is “a social formation where large private property of the means of production will given way to communitarian social property; the political power of the ‘colonial-imperialist oligarchic bloc’ will be substituted by the revolutionary construction of a new power by the ‘indigenous nations, revolutionary classes and urban sector bloc’.”