Latin American Herald Tribune, La Paz - President Evo Morales warned that he will nationalize sugar refineries whose owners try “to sabotage the Bolivian people” by selling their product at elevated prices in Bolivia’s domestic market.
“If some owners of sugar refineries continue selling their sugar more cheaply abroad and more dearly (domestically), I will see myself forced to nationalize ... those factories, without any fear,” Morales said.
The president reiterated the need to have state-run sugar factories “so that the private ones are not sabotaging or blackmailing the Bolivian people by selling their sugar more cheaply abroad and more dearly in Bolivia.”
Four sugar refineries operate in the eastern region of Santa Cruz and one in the southern province of Tarija, and the government has plans to establish one in the south and another in the north of La Paz province.
Annual sugar production, according to government estimates, is about 450,000 tons and domestic consumer demand is about 300,000 tons, leaving a surplus of 150,000 tons for export.
The Morales administration in February decreed a temporary prohibition on sugar exports with the aim of guaranteeing the domestic supply and halting the increase in price for that commodity.
Producers had threatened not to begin this year’s harvest if the prohibition was maintained, arguing that they would have to harvest and process less sugar cane if the surplus could not be exported.
After negotiations, the government and the sugar growers agreed that the restriction will be lifted in April to coincide with the start of the harvest.
Invitation to the Assembly of Social Movements, Cochabamba, Bolivia, April 19, 2010
We, activists of many diverse social movements, characterize this current moment as one of arrogance and authoritarianism on the part of the United States, the European Union and transnational corporations. This was demonstrated in Copenhagen when very few countries tried to create an outcome that was in disagreement with the COP 15, and did nothing to stop global warming and the climate crisis.
The increase of military presence and military bases in various parts of the world, “humanitarian” invasions and occupations which indicate war, the occupation of markets and territories, and the military presence to control energy resources, water, and natural biodiversity are all tactics derived from civilization’s crisis of capitalism and the logics of exploitation, racism, and patriarchy. These tactics also work to disguise the climate crisis in illegitimate negotiations.
Our response is to fight for the right of all people to live decent lives in their communities, against false solutions to crises, against militarization as a solution, and against the actions of transnational corporations. These transnationals, with the support of governments or multilateral institutions like the World Bank, undermine national borders for the production of monocultures and for the privatization of air and the creation of speculative markets called “carbon credits.”
It is in this context that we present to the People’s World Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth. In Cochabamba we have organized an Assembly of Social Movements, a continuation of our efforts and articulations in the fight, with two goals:
-To discuss and organize our support of the proposals and initiatives of governments committed to the rights of people and the environment;
-To discuss and organize our agenda as social movements to promote our alternatives and our resistence to the marketization of the relationship between people and between people and their environment—the offense of transnationals and militarization.
Alianza Social Continental
ATALC (Amigos de la Tierra América Latina)
Cebrapaz
Central Sindical de las Américas
Climate Justice Now!
CLOC
COMPA
Fdim
Marcha Mundial das Mulheres
Oclae
Red CADTM AYNA
Via Campesina
The increase of military presence and military bases in various parts of the world, “humanitarian” invasions and occupations which indicate war, the occupation of markets and territories, and the military presence to control energy resources, water, and natural biodiversity are all tactics derived from civilization’s crisis of capitalism and the logics of exploitation, racism, and patriarchy. These tactics also work to disguise the climate crisis in illegitimate negotiations.
Our response is to fight for the right of all people to live decent lives in their communities, against false solutions to crises, against militarization as a solution, and against the actions of transnational corporations. These transnationals, with the support of governments or multilateral institutions like the World Bank, undermine national borders for the production of monocultures and for the privatization of air and the creation of speculative markets called “carbon credits.”
It is in this context that we present to the People’s World Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth. In Cochabamba we have organized an Assembly of Social Movements, a continuation of our efforts and articulations in the fight, with two goals:
-To discuss and organize our support of the proposals and initiatives of governments committed to the rights of people and the environment;
-To discuss and organize our agenda as social movements to promote our alternatives and our resistence to the marketization of the relationship between people and between people and their environment—the offense of transnationals and militarization.
Alianza Social Continental
ATALC (Amigos de la Tierra América Latina)
Cebrapaz
Central Sindical de las Américas
Climate Justice Now!
CLOC
COMPA
Fdim
Marcha Mundial das Mulheres
Oclae
Red CADTM AYNA
Via Campesina
BOLIVIA: Activists from across the globe to attend Peoples Conference on Climate Change
Cambio - Renowned human rights activists, scientists, academics, and social organisations from various parts of the world have confirmed their participation in the Global Peoples Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth, which will be held in Cochabamba, April 20-22.
Among those who will be present are Naomi Klein, author of No Logo; Eduardo Galeano, author of The Open Veins of Latin America; Danny Glover, actor in films such as Lethal Weapon and 2012; Nobel Peace prize winner Adolfo Perez Esquivel; Jim Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies and NASA climate expert; Bill McKibben, director of 350.org; the philosophy Samir Amin, North American Jerry Mander and others.
Moveover, 8 “undeveloped” countries, as the UN refers to them, have confirmed their presence, among them Franck Armel, foreign minister of the Republic of Benin; Idi Nadhoim, vice-president and agriculture minister of the Union of the Comoros; Thant Kyaw, director of foreign relations of Myanmar; Konte Cheikh Abdel Kader, international expert on environment of Senegal; Brima Munda Sowa, general administrator of environmental issues for Sierra Leon; Abdullah Ali Fadhel Al-Saadi, Minister Plenipotentiary of Yemen; and Khampadith Khammounheuang Ang, director general of Laos, as well as a representative from Nepal.
Bolivia has invited the 192 member nations of the United Nations to participate in the summit that was convoked by president Evo Morales following the failure of the Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen.
International social movements who felt defrauded by the document signed in Copenhagen have also confirmed their presence. Representatives from countries such as Belgium, France, Mexico, Malaysia and the US will attend the summit in Cochabamba.
There will be various working groups. In the working group “Reestablish harmony with nature” will be Frei Betto, one of the maximum exponents of Liberation Theology; Bolivian Foreign Minister, David Choquehuanca; and Nobel Peace prize winner Rigoberta Menchu.
In the working group “Rights of Mother Earth” will be Leonardo Boff, one of the main promoters of the rights of the Earth; Corman Cullinan, who in his Wild Law proposes not only changing jurisprudence in the world, but also creating a jurisprudence of the Earth.
As panelists in the working group “Climate Justice Tribunal” will be present the South African bishop Desmond Tuto; the ex-president of the General Assembly of the US, Miguel d’Escoto; and writer Adolfo Perez Ezquivel.
In the working group “Climate debt” will be the writer Eduardo Galeano; Michael Meacher, research on the social impact of the exploitation of oil; and Andrew Sims, among others.
In the working group “Climate migrants” will be the author of No Logo, Naomi Klein; and John Davidson.
In the working group “Forests, food and water under climate change” will be present Pat Money, Alberto Gómez, Hildebrando Vélez, Timothy Byakola and others.
In the working group “Do we need a referendum on climate change?” will be present Amy Goodman, journalist Ignacio Ramonet, Joao Pedro Stedile and Antonio Hill.
Moreover, 10 presidents have confirmed their participation in the summit, who will debate some alternatives to confront climate change.
Translated from Cambio
Among those who will be present are Naomi Klein, author of No Logo; Eduardo Galeano, author of The Open Veins of Latin America; Danny Glover, actor in films such as Lethal Weapon and 2012; Nobel Peace prize winner Adolfo Perez Esquivel; Jim Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies and NASA climate expert; Bill McKibben, director of 350.org; the philosophy Samir Amin, North American Jerry Mander and others.
Moveover, 8 “undeveloped” countries, as the UN refers to them, have confirmed their presence, among them Franck Armel, foreign minister of the Republic of Benin; Idi Nadhoim, vice-president and agriculture minister of the Union of the Comoros; Thant Kyaw, director of foreign relations of Myanmar; Konte Cheikh Abdel Kader, international expert on environment of Senegal; Brima Munda Sowa, general administrator of environmental issues for Sierra Leon; Abdullah Ali Fadhel Al-Saadi, Minister Plenipotentiary of Yemen; and Khampadith Khammounheuang Ang, director general of Laos, as well as a representative from Nepal.
Bolivia has invited the 192 member nations of the United Nations to participate in the summit that was convoked by president Evo Morales following the failure of the Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen.
International social movements who felt defrauded by the document signed in Copenhagen have also confirmed their presence. Representatives from countries such as Belgium, France, Mexico, Malaysia and the US will attend the summit in Cochabamba.
There will be various working groups. In the working group “Reestablish harmony with nature” will be Frei Betto, one of the maximum exponents of Liberation Theology; Bolivian Foreign Minister, David Choquehuanca; and Nobel Peace prize winner Rigoberta Menchu.
In the working group “Rights of Mother Earth” will be Leonardo Boff, one of the main promoters of the rights of the Earth; Corman Cullinan, who in his Wild Law proposes not only changing jurisprudence in the world, but also creating a jurisprudence of the Earth.
As panelists in the working group “Climate Justice Tribunal” will be present the South African bishop Desmond Tuto; the ex-president of the General Assembly of the US, Miguel d’Escoto; and writer Adolfo Perez Ezquivel.
In the working group “Climate debt” will be the writer Eduardo Galeano; Michael Meacher, research on the social impact of the exploitation of oil; and Andrew Sims, among others.
In the working group “Climate migrants” will be the author of No Logo, Naomi Klein; and John Davidson.
In the working group “Forests, food and water under climate change” will be present Pat Money, Alberto Gómez, Hildebrando Vélez, Timothy Byakola and others.
In the working group “Do we need a referendum on climate change?” will be present Amy Goodman, journalist Ignacio Ramonet, Joao Pedro Stedile and Antonio Hill.
Moreover, 10 presidents have confirmed their participation in the summit, who will debate some alternatives to confront climate change.
Translated from Cambio
Bolivian army adopts Cuba's revolutionary slogan
BBC
Bolivia's army has begun using the revolutionary motto "Fatherland or death, we shall overcome!", angering some conservative former generals.
President Evo Morales introduced the slogan, which was popularised by Fidel Castro and Che Guevara - the leaders of the Cuban communist revolution.
It is seen as part of Mr Morales' effort to turn the army into guarantors of his socialist revolution.
Bolivian troops executed Che Guevara, who led rebels there in 1967.
Indigenous people's champion
The Bolivian army began using the chant "Patria o muerte, venceremos!" on Tuesday, during an annual ceremony known as the "Day of the Sea".
It is observed to remember the 1879-84 war against Chile, during which Bolivia lost its Pacific coastline.
The BBC's Andres Schipani in La Paz says the rebranding of Bolivia's armed forces - which have historically been associated with right-wing repression - has sparked controversy in some conservative military and civilian circles.
He says Mr Morales has also ordered the army to give official recognition to the chequered indigenous flag, or "wiphala".
Since his election victory in 2005, President Morales has been pushing through reforms to place indigenous peoples at the heart of the Andean nation's government and society, our correspondent says.
Republished from BBC
Bolivia's army has begun using the revolutionary motto "Fatherland or death, we shall overcome!", angering some conservative former generals.
President Evo Morales introduced the slogan, which was popularised by Fidel Castro and Che Guevara - the leaders of the Cuban communist revolution.
It is seen as part of Mr Morales' effort to turn the army into guarantors of his socialist revolution.
Bolivian troops executed Che Guevara, who led rebels there in 1967.
Indigenous people's champion
The Bolivian army began using the chant "Patria o muerte, venceremos!" on Tuesday, during an annual ceremony known as the "Day of the Sea".
It is observed to remember the 1879-84 war against Chile, during which Bolivia lost its Pacific coastline.
The BBC's Andres Schipani in La Paz says the rebranding of Bolivia's armed forces - which have historically been associated with right-wing repression - has sparked controversy in some conservative military and civilian circles.
He says Mr Morales has also ordered the army to give official recognition to the chequered indigenous flag, or "wiphala".
Since his election victory in 2005, President Morales has been pushing through reforms to place indigenous peoples at the heart of the Andean nation's government and society, our correspondent says.
Republished from BBC
Bolivian ex-general who captured 'Che' summoned for questioning in alleged separatist plot
Carlos Valdez, Associated Press, March 19, 2010
LA PAZ, Bolivia (AP) — The retired general who captured legendary revolutionary Ernesto "Che" Guevara was summoned Friday by Bolivian authorities investigating an alleged plot against President Evo Morales.
Former Gen. Gary Prado allegedly exchanged "ultrasecret" encrypted e-mail with Eduardo Rozsa, a Bolivian-born Hungarian who was slain in an April 2009 raid by an elite police unit.
Authorities allege that Rozsa and two other men killed — an Irishman and an ethnic Hungarian from Romania — were involved in a conspiracy to create a separatist right-wing militia in the eastern, opposition-dominated state of Santa Cruz.
Morales said when they were killed that a plot to assassinate him had been foiled.
Prado denied having any connection with an anti-government conspiracy and said he would refuse to travel from his home in Santa Cruz, the state capital, to La Paz for questioning.
He told Fides radio Friday that his only contact with Rosza came when Rosza asked for an interview, saying he was a foreign journalist.
"What 'ultrasecret' communication did I have with Rosza, other than that interview? None," Prado said. "I did not have anything to do with that group."
Also summoned was Prado's son, who carries the same name and is running for mayor of Santa Cruz. He said the allegations were worse than a "bad soap opera."
Bolivians will elect mayors and governors across the country April 4, when the immensely popular Morales hopes to consolidate power with gains in the eastern lowlands.
Wealthy ranchers and agro-businessmen in the east oppose Morales' policy of seizing fallow lands and giving them to poor peasants from Bolivia's long-suppressed indigenous majority.
Prosecutor Marcelo Soza did not say whether authorities had been able to decrypt the e-mails he said were exchanged by the elder Prado and Rozsa, a journalist-adventurer who fought for Croatia after Yugoslavia dissolved.
Prado did not deny knowing Rozsa, who he said had approached him to inquire about his involvement in the 1967 capture of Guevara. The Argentine hero of the Cuban revolution was trying to foment an uprising in Bolivia and was later executed.
Prado, then an army captain, commanded the patrol that captured him.
The Rozsa case has major political overtones. The Morales government contends prominent opposition leaders in Santa Cruz were involved.
One of them, Branko Marinkovic, was implicated this week by a former close associate who told prosecutors Marinkovic helped fund Rozsa's group.
The accusation prompted Marinkovic, the son of Croatian immigrants, to slip out of the country. Marinkovic's lawyer denies his client's involvement in the alleged conspiracy.
Shortly after Morales' December re-election, the government confiscated land from Marinkovic.
___
Associated Press writer Frank Bajak contributed from Bogota.
LA PAZ, Bolivia (AP) — The retired general who captured legendary revolutionary Ernesto "Che" Guevara was summoned Friday by Bolivian authorities investigating an alleged plot against President Evo Morales.
Former Gen. Gary Prado allegedly exchanged "ultrasecret" encrypted e-mail with Eduardo Rozsa, a Bolivian-born Hungarian who was slain in an April 2009 raid by an elite police unit.
Authorities allege that Rozsa and two other men killed — an Irishman and an ethnic Hungarian from Romania — were involved in a conspiracy to create a separatist right-wing militia in the eastern, opposition-dominated state of Santa Cruz.
Morales said when they were killed that a plot to assassinate him had been foiled.
Prado denied having any connection with an anti-government conspiracy and said he would refuse to travel from his home in Santa Cruz, the state capital, to La Paz for questioning.
He told Fides radio Friday that his only contact with Rosza came when Rosza asked for an interview, saying he was a foreign journalist.
"What 'ultrasecret' communication did I have with Rosza, other than that interview? None," Prado said. "I did not have anything to do with that group."
Also summoned was Prado's son, who carries the same name and is running for mayor of Santa Cruz. He said the allegations were worse than a "bad soap opera."
Bolivians will elect mayors and governors across the country April 4, when the immensely popular Morales hopes to consolidate power with gains in the eastern lowlands.
Wealthy ranchers and agro-businessmen in the east oppose Morales' policy of seizing fallow lands and giving them to poor peasants from Bolivia's long-suppressed indigenous majority.
Prosecutor Marcelo Soza did not say whether authorities had been able to decrypt the e-mails he said were exchanged by the elder Prado and Rozsa, a journalist-adventurer who fought for Croatia after Yugoslavia dissolved.
Prado did not deny knowing Rozsa, who he said had approached him to inquire about his involvement in the 1967 capture of Guevara. The Argentine hero of the Cuban revolution was trying to foment an uprising in Bolivia and was later executed.
Prado, then an army captain, commanded the patrol that captured him.
The Rozsa case has major political overtones. The Morales government contends prominent opposition leaders in Santa Cruz were involved.
One of them, Branko Marinkovic, was implicated this week by a former close associate who told prosecutors Marinkovic helped fund Rozsa's group.
The accusation prompted Marinkovic, the son of Croatian immigrants, to slip out of the country. Marinkovic's lawyer denies his client's involvement in the alleged conspiracy.
Shortly after Morales' December re-election, the government confiscated land from Marinkovic.
___
Associated Press writer Frank Bajak contributed from Bogota.
Bolivia creates a new opportunity for climate talks that failed at Copenhagen
Bolivia will host an international meeting on climate change next month because it is not prepared to 'betray its people'
Pablo Solón Romero
In the aftermath of the Copenhagen climate conference, those who defended the widely condemned outcome tended to talk about it as a "step in the right direction". This was always a tendentious argument, given that tackling climate change can not be addressed by half measures. We can't make compromises with nature.
Bolivia, however, believed that Copenhagen marked a backwards step, undoing the work built on since the climate talks in Kyoto. That is why, against strong pressure from industrialised countries, we and other developing nations refused to sign the Copenhagen accord and why we are hosting an international meeting on climate change next month. In the words of the Tuvalu negotiator, we were not prepared to "betray our people for 30 pieces of silver".
Our position was strongly criticised by several industrialised countries, who did their brazen best to blame the victims of climate change for their own unwillingness to act. However, recent communications by the European Commission have confirmed why we were right to oppose the Copenhagen accord.
In a report called International climate policy post-Copenhagen (pdf), the commission confirmed that the pledges by developed countries are equal to between 13.2% and 17.8% in emissions reductions by 2020 – far below the required 40%-plus reductions needed to keep global temperature rise to less than 2C degrees.
The situation is even worse once you take into account what are called "banking of surplus emission budgets" and "accounting rules for land use, land use change and forestry". The Copenhagen accord would actually allow for an increase in developed country emissions of 2.6% above 1990 levels. This is hardly a forward step.
This is not just about gravely inadequate commitments, it is also about process. Whereas before, under the Kyoto protocol, developed countries were legally bound to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by a certain percentage, now countries can submit whatever targets they want without a binding commitment.
This dangerous approach to climate negotiations is like building a dam where everyone contributes as many bricks as they want regardless of whether it stops the river.
The Copenhagen accord opens the dam and condemns millions. Various estimates suggest that the commitments made under the accord would lead to increases of between three to four degrees celsius – a level that many scientists consider disastrous for human life and our ecosystems.
For Bolivia, the disastrous outcome of Copenhagen was further proof that climate change is not the central issue in negotiations. For rich countries, the key issues in negotiations were finance, carbon markets, competitiveness of countries and corporations, business opportunities along with discussions about the political makeup of the US Senate. There was surprisingly little focus on effective solutions for reducing carbon emissions.
President Evo Morales of Bolivia observed that the best way to put climate change solutions at the heart of the talks was to involve the people. In contrast to much of the official talks, the hundreds of civil society organisations, communities, scientists and faith leaders present in Copenhagen clearly prioritised the search for effective, just solutions to climate change against narrow economic interests.
To advance an agenda based on effective just solutions, Bolivia is therefore hosting a Peoples' Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth on 19-22 April, and inviting everyone to participate. Unlike Copenhagen, there will be no secret discussions behind closed doors. Moreover the debate and proposals will be led by communities on the frontlines of climate change and by organisations and individuals dedicated to tackling the climate crisis. All 192 governments in the UN have also been invited to attend and encouraged to listen to the voices of civil society and together develop common proposals.
We hope that this unique format will help shift power back to the people, which is where it needs to be on this critical issue for all humanity. We don't expect agreement on everything, but at least we can start to discuss openly and sincerely in a way that didn't happen in Copenhagen.
• Pablo Solón is Ambassador to the UN for the Plurinational State of Bolivia. He is a sociologist and economist, was active in Bolivia's social movements before entering government, and is an expert on issues of trade, integration, natural resources and water.
Republished from The Guardian
Pablo Solón Romero
In the aftermath of the Copenhagen climate conference, those who defended the widely condemned outcome tended to talk about it as a "step in the right direction". This was always a tendentious argument, given that tackling climate change can not be addressed by half measures. We can't make compromises with nature.
Bolivia, however, believed that Copenhagen marked a backwards step, undoing the work built on since the climate talks in Kyoto. That is why, against strong pressure from industrialised countries, we and other developing nations refused to sign the Copenhagen accord and why we are hosting an international meeting on climate change next month. In the words of the Tuvalu negotiator, we were not prepared to "betray our people for 30 pieces of silver".
Our position was strongly criticised by several industrialised countries, who did their brazen best to blame the victims of climate change for their own unwillingness to act. However, recent communications by the European Commission have confirmed why we were right to oppose the Copenhagen accord.
In a report called International climate policy post-Copenhagen (pdf), the commission confirmed that the pledges by developed countries are equal to between 13.2% and 17.8% in emissions reductions by 2020 – far below the required 40%-plus reductions needed to keep global temperature rise to less than 2C degrees.
The situation is even worse once you take into account what are called "banking of surplus emission budgets" and "accounting rules for land use, land use change and forestry". The Copenhagen accord would actually allow for an increase in developed country emissions of 2.6% above 1990 levels. This is hardly a forward step.
This is not just about gravely inadequate commitments, it is also about process. Whereas before, under the Kyoto protocol, developed countries were legally bound to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by a certain percentage, now countries can submit whatever targets they want without a binding commitment.
This dangerous approach to climate negotiations is like building a dam where everyone contributes as many bricks as they want regardless of whether it stops the river.
The Copenhagen accord opens the dam and condemns millions. Various estimates suggest that the commitments made under the accord would lead to increases of between three to four degrees celsius – a level that many scientists consider disastrous for human life and our ecosystems.
For Bolivia, the disastrous outcome of Copenhagen was further proof that climate change is not the central issue in negotiations. For rich countries, the key issues in negotiations were finance, carbon markets, competitiveness of countries and corporations, business opportunities along with discussions about the political makeup of the US Senate. There was surprisingly little focus on effective solutions for reducing carbon emissions.
President Evo Morales of Bolivia observed that the best way to put climate change solutions at the heart of the talks was to involve the people. In contrast to much of the official talks, the hundreds of civil society organisations, communities, scientists and faith leaders present in Copenhagen clearly prioritised the search for effective, just solutions to climate change against narrow economic interests.
To advance an agenda based on effective just solutions, Bolivia is therefore hosting a Peoples' Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth on 19-22 April, and inviting everyone to participate. Unlike Copenhagen, there will be no secret discussions behind closed doors. Moreover the debate and proposals will be led by communities on the frontlines of climate change and by organisations and individuals dedicated to tackling the climate crisis. All 192 governments in the UN have also been invited to attend and encouraged to listen to the voices of civil society and together develop common proposals.
We hope that this unique format will help shift power back to the people, which is where it needs to be on this critical issue for all humanity. We don't expect agreement on everything, but at least we can start to discuss openly and sincerely in a way that didn't happen in Copenhagen.
• Pablo Solón is Ambassador to the UN for the Plurinational State of Bolivia. He is a sociologist and economist, was active in Bolivia's social movements before entering government, and is an expert on issues of trade, integration, natural resources and water.
Republished from The Guardian
Bolivia summit to seek global climate change referendum
AFP, La Paz — An alternative "people's conference" on climate change in the Bolivian city of Cochabamba in April will seek to advance an international global warming referendum, organizers said.
"The only thing that can save mankind from a (climate) tragedy is the exercise of global democracy," said Bolivia's United Nations Ambassador Pablo Solon, a key organizer of the summit.
A priority of the meeting would be discussing the possibility of a global referendum "with the goal of reaching two billion people," he told reporters
Thousands of people, mostly members of social movements and indigenous groups, are expected to attend the People's World Conference on Climate Change and Mother Earth Rights from April 20-22.
Organizers say it is intended to "give a voice to the people" on climate change after the perceived failure of the United Nations-sponsored Copenhagen summit on the same issue.
Solon said he expected participants from 94 countries and representatives from 70 governments to attend, without giving further details.
Bolivian President Evo Morales, who in January issued an open invitation to the conference to governments, scientists and social movements, has said a number of South American presidents would also attend.
But the outlines of the conference remain vague, and it is shaping up so far like something between an environmental forum and a political rally.
It is expected to tackle many of the themes Morales raised at the Copenhagen summit last year, including creating a "climate court of justice" and the need to "change the system of capitalist consumerism" -- proposals that could be included in the suggested global vote.
Solon said the summit's conclusions would be delivered to the next UN-sponsored meeting on climate change, currently scheduled for December in Mexico.
Questions proposed by Evo Morales for a global referendum on climate change
1) Do you agree with reestablishing harmony with nature while recognizing the rights of the Mother Earth? YES or NO
2) Do you agree with changing this model of over-consumption and waste that represents capitalist system? YES or NO
3) Do you agree that developing countries reduce and reabsorb their domestic greenhouse gas emissions for temperature not to rise more than 1 degree Celsius? YES or NO
4) Do you agree with transferring all that is spent in wars and for allocating a budget bigger than used for defense to climate change? YES or NO
5) Do you agree with a Climate Justice Tribunal to judge those who destroy Mother Earth? YES or NO
Evo Morales Defends New Bolivian Armed Forces Slogan
La Paz, Mar 12 (Prensa Latina) Bolivian President Evo Morales defended on Friday the new Armed Forces slogan: Homeland or Death, we Shall Overcome! entailing a deep commitment with the change process begun in 2006, highlighted he.
The president told media in a press conference in Quemado Palace that the slogan reflects wishes to die for the homeland, as says one of the national anthem’s verses, “Morir antes que esclavos vivir” (to die before being slaves), which will be pronounced in military and public-spirited ceremonies this year.
Morales ruled out before media the possibility of carrying out a popular survey about the slogan’s acceptance, which he has already consulted the high military commands..
The president also criticized the military institution’ ex chief, the opposition senator and retired general Marcelo Antezana, who questions the General of the Armed Forces’ decision.
“They are incapable of understanding the homeland’s meaning”, stated Morales, who added that the new slogan will not replace the traditional slogan: “subordinación y constancia” (subordination and confidence), which expresses the necessary discipline in the military commanders. Morales recalled that the majors opposite to the change process in the military doctrines are those who gave the Chinese antiaircraft missiles to the United States during the Eduardo Rodriguez Veltze’s government (2005-2006).
In the meantime, the president highlighted the Executive’s decision of modernizing the Armed Forces and released the purchase of helicopters to defend the homeland better.
The general attorney’s office will sanction severely the ex military chiefs who have took part in separatist plans in Bolivia, Morales said.
The Bolivian Vice President Alvaro Garcia said on Thursday that the new slogan sums up struggle and efforts made by the Bolivians generations during the independence struggle against the Spanish colonialism.
The Minister of Defense Ruben Saavedra said that the slogan will be added to the disciplinary traditions of the Bolivian Army.
Saavedra highlighted that the Armed Forces are part of the Bolivian people and are also an important factor to the comprehensive development because that institution takes part in the social policies actively.
Bolivia’s New Political Space: An Interview With Ambassador Pablo Solón
Pablo Solón is Bolivia’s ambassador to the United Nations. He has served as President Evo Morales’s top ambassador on trade and economic integration matters, the secretary pro tempore of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), and the Andean spokesperson for the “cooperation pillar” in negotiations between the Andean Community and the European Union. Before taking governmental posts, Solón worked as an activist with indigenous movements, labor unions, student associations, and human rights and cultural organizations in Bolivia. Having been a leading voice and organizer against free trade policies under neoliberal presidents, Solón became a key architect of Bolivia’s trade and integration policies under Morales, which enabled him to translate into policy many of the ideas that had been articulated and refined in the crucible of struggle. From 1997 to 2005, he was the executive director of the Solón Foundation, created for the preservation of the work and thoughts of his father, Walter Solón Romero, a renowned Bolivian muralist. He was interviewed in Vancouver, British Columbia, on March 7, by NACLA research associate Jason Tockman.
Can you describe what happened at the summit that took place February 21–23 in Cancún, Mexico, with the creation of a new Community of Latin American and Caribbean States?
In Cancún, all of the Latin American nations agreed to build a new organization that would begin a process of integration of Latin America and the Caribbean, without the United States and Canada. This is really a very important achievement because it means that Latin America is no longer the backyard of the United States. You must remember the Monroe Doctrine, which said, “What is good for America is good for Latin America.” So, now we are seeing a change in Latin America, saying “What is good for Latin America is what we Latin Americans think is good.” That is the big message, and the big accomplishment. Now we must see it as a process. It’s not something that’s going to be accomplished in one year. No, it’s going to be a process. It will take time, and there will be a lot of contradictions. It’s not going to be easy. But the first step has been taken.
How do you see this Community existing alongside the other regional bodies, like the Organization of American States (OAS), the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), and the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (ALBA)?
For the OAS, it’s a really great challenge. In the future, this integration of Latin America and the Caribbean will be in place in reality; then, the power of the OAS and the United States in the region will decrease. In the case of UNASUR, it is the other way around. For example, in UNASUR, we already have a treaty that establishes UNASUR, and one of our main goals as UNASUR is to build this process of integration. When we agreed to create the UNASUR, we always said that this was a step in order to accomplish the big process of integration. So, there is no contradiction. There is only a process of how you begin to build it. When it comes to ALBA, it is a process of political alliance. The countries are there not because of geographical circumstances, but because they are anti-neoliberal. That is the main reason. ALBA works inside the OAS. ALBA works inside the UNASUR, with the countries that are part of South America. ALBA will work inside this new broader alliance. What’s good about this broader alliance is that all members of ALBA are part of it.
What has been the vision of the ALBA?
ALBA has changed in the process; that is my personal point of view. At the beginning, it was something against the process of the Free Trade Area of the Americas [FTAA]. At the beginning, it was a way to respond to what the FTAA was. Then the FTAA really died in Mar del Plata, but ALBA continued to exist and grow, because Evo Morales came into the government, and then we have the cases of Ecuador, Nicaragua, Dominica, and so on. Now you have an ALBA point of reference for several issues, not only regional issues that have to do with cooperation or trade, but also global concerns like climate change. So ALBA is an alliance. The name has changed, from “Alternative” to “Alliance.” They have the same initials, but now there has been a change. We realized that now we were developing something different.
What have been the major advances of the ALBA?
The major advance has been to unify, to articulate and to coordinate the policies of progressive, anti-neoliberal governments. Then you have cooperation, solidarity, and fair trade between states.
And how has it affected Bolivia?
In many ways, but the main way is political. To be part of a broader political alliance—in a world that is globalized and dominated by the United States, especially in our region—is to have space around you, political space. And then, of course, Venezuela has participated very strongly when it comes to cooperation and trade in the cases of the importation of diesel or the export of textiles. [Bolivia’s] trade preferences with the United States were lost, and if we hadn’t had another market to sell those textiles, around 10,000 jobs would directly have been lost, and probably 20,000 to 25,000 jobs would have been indirectly lost. The possibility of maintaining that market, but redirecting it to Venezuela, and to grow in textile exports, has allowed us to not only keep those jobs, but to begin to create new jobs and new companies which have more participation by small producers. That is one of the main accomplishments.
Shifting to the crisis in Honduras with the overthrow of President Manuel Zelaya, what should the international community do about Honduras now, in terms of recognition of the new government?
The position of Bolivia is that we cannot recognize it, because to recognize it would mean that, in the end, we accept that a coup d’état is something that you can allow – if after that coup d’état the putschists call an election. That is not acceptable. Our position is that we do not recognize the government. They have violated the Democracy Charter of the OAS. That is the charter that the United States promoted, but now they do not want to respect it when it comes to Honduras.
What was the role of the United States in how events unfolded?
The United States has one of its main military bases in Honduras, so it is impossible to have a coup d’état in Honduras without the United States knowing in advance. Second, the United States did not act as it would have acted in other cases. They did not block the government of Micheletti. They were obliged to agree to expel Honduras from the OAS, but in reality, they worked to have a way out so that those who committed the violation were not sanctioned by the international community. And that is what we are seeing now. This sends a really bad message to the opposition to progressive governments in Latin America, because they can say: “Hey, we can do what we did in Honduras. We can lead a coup d’état, and we’ll be criticized; maybe we’ll be isolated in some way. But in the end, look what has happened: You can manage to move on.”
On the domestic front, now that the Movement Toward Socialism (MAS) has secured a strong majority in the Legislative Assembly, what will be at the top of its political agenda?
We have a new Constitution, but in order to implement it, we need a lot of new laws—laws that have to do with judicial power, the environment, land, international relations, foreign investment. The second issue is that we need to industrialize the country, which imports most of what it consumes other than food. Third, we need to provide access to all public services to the whole population. It is not enough to say that access to water is a human right. You have to guarantee electricity; you have to guarantee telecommunications; you have to guarantee mobility—things that, now in Bolivia, are not yet solved.
You mentioned industrialization. What are the roles for both the private sector, including international capital and foreign governments, like that of Venezuela, in Bolivia’s industrialization strategies?
First of all, we encourage associations between states that have the purpose of solidarity, and in which that investment does not just exploit raw materials but transforms them and adds value inside the country. In some cases, we can do this in association with other states, but in other cases, we need foreign investment. The issue is the rules under which we are going to allow this foreign investment—how much they are going to leave for the country, how much they are going to have as profit, who is going to own it, the transfer of technology, the transformation of raw materials inside the country. Those are the key issues that Bolivia has synthesized into the words “When it comes to foreign investment, we don’t want bosses; we want partners.” If they can accept that rule, they are welcome. We will no longer accept the relations that we had before.
Lastly, can you describe what you see as the most important forms of popular participation that exist in Bolivia today?
The most important is the participation of social movements. If we weaken the organization of social movements, the process in Bolivia can go backward. The second mechanism is the referendum. This is the first government in the history of Bolivia that has had so many referendums. So, direct referendums are very important. Another is to now have people elect judges of the Supreme Court. And the proposal to have a worldwide referendum on climate change goes even beyond what we had hoped in terms of participation.
Republished from NACLA
Can you describe what happened at the summit that took place February 21–23 in Cancún, Mexico, with the creation of a new Community of Latin American and Caribbean States?
In Cancún, all of the Latin American nations agreed to build a new organization that would begin a process of integration of Latin America and the Caribbean, without the United States and Canada. This is really a very important achievement because it means that Latin America is no longer the backyard of the United States. You must remember the Monroe Doctrine, which said, “What is good for America is good for Latin America.” So, now we are seeing a change in Latin America, saying “What is good for Latin America is what we Latin Americans think is good.” That is the big message, and the big accomplishment. Now we must see it as a process. It’s not something that’s going to be accomplished in one year. No, it’s going to be a process. It will take time, and there will be a lot of contradictions. It’s not going to be easy. But the first step has been taken.
How do you see this Community existing alongside the other regional bodies, like the Organization of American States (OAS), the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), and the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (ALBA)?
For the OAS, it’s a really great challenge. In the future, this integration of Latin America and the Caribbean will be in place in reality; then, the power of the OAS and the United States in the region will decrease. In the case of UNASUR, it is the other way around. For example, in UNASUR, we already have a treaty that establishes UNASUR, and one of our main goals as UNASUR is to build this process of integration. When we agreed to create the UNASUR, we always said that this was a step in order to accomplish the big process of integration. So, there is no contradiction. There is only a process of how you begin to build it. When it comes to ALBA, it is a process of political alliance. The countries are there not because of geographical circumstances, but because they are anti-neoliberal. That is the main reason. ALBA works inside the OAS. ALBA works inside the UNASUR, with the countries that are part of South America. ALBA will work inside this new broader alliance. What’s good about this broader alliance is that all members of ALBA are part of it.
What has been the vision of the ALBA?
ALBA has changed in the process; that is my personal point of view. At the beginning, it was something against the process of the Free Trade Area of the Americas [FTAA]. At the beginning, it was a way to respond to what the FTAA was. Then the FTAA really died in Mar del Plata, but ALBA continued to exist and grow, because Evo Morales came into the government, and then we have the cases of Ecuador, Nicaragua, Dominica, and so on. Now you have an ALBA point of reference for several issues, not only regional issues that have to do with cooperation or trade, but also global concerns like climate change. So ALBA is an alliance. The name has changed, from “Alternative” to “Alliance.” They have the same initials, but now there has been a change. We realized that now we were developing something different.
What have been the major advances of the ALBA?
The major advance has been to unify, to articulate and to coordinate the policies of progressive, anti-neoliberal governments. Then you have cooperation, solidarity, and fair trade between states.
And how has it affected Bolivia?
In many ways, but the main way is political. To be part of a broader political alliance—in a world that is globalized and dominated by the United States, especially in our region—is to have space around you, political space. And then, of course, Venezuela has participated very strongly when it comes to cooperation and trade in the cases of the importation of diesel or the export of textiles. [Bolivia’s] trade preferences with the United States were lost, and if we hadn’t had another market to sell those textiles, around 10,000 jobs would directly have been lost, and probably 20,000 to 25,000 jobs would have been indirectly lost. The possibility of maintaining that market, but redirecting it to Venezuela, and to grow in textile exports, has allowed us to not only keep those jobs, but to begin to create new jobs and new companies which have more participation by small producers. That is one of the main accomplishments.
Shifting to the crisis in Honduras with the overthrow of President Manuel Zelaya, what should the international community do about Honduras now, in terms of recognition of the new government?
The position of Bolivia is that we cannot recognize it, because to recognize it would mean that, in the end, we accept that a coup d’état is something that you can allow – if after that coup d’état the putschists call an election. That is not acceptable. Our position is that we do not recognize the government. They have violated the Democracy Charter of the OAS. That is the charter that the United States promoted, but now they do not want to respect it when it comes to Honduras.
What was the role of the United States in how events unfolded?
The United States has one of its main military bases in Honduras, so it is impossible to have a coup d’état in Honduras without the United States knowing in advance. Second, the United States did not act as it would have acted in other cases. They did not block the government of Micheletti. They were obliged to agree to expel Honduras from the OAS, but in reality, they worked to have a way out so that those who committed the violation were not sanctioned by the international community. And that is what we are seeing now. This sends a really bad message to the opposition to progressive governments in Latin America, because they can say: “Hey, we can do what we did in Honduras. We can lead a coup d’état, and we’ll be criticized; maybe we’ll be isolated in some way. But in the end, look what has happened: You can manage to move on.”
On the domestic front, now that the Movement Toward Socialism (MAS) has secured a strong majority in the Legislative Assembly, what will be at the top of its political agenda?
We have a new Constitution, but in order to implement it, we need a lot of new laws—laws that have to do with judicial power, the environment, land, international relations, foreign investment. The second issue is that we need to industrialize the country, which imports most of what it consumes other than food. Third, we need to provide access to all public services to the whole population. It is not enough to say that access to water is a human right. You have to guarantee electricity; you have to guarantee telecommunications; you have to guarantee mobility—things that, now in Bolivia, are not yet solved.
You mentioned industrialization. What are the roles for both the private sector, including international capital and foreign governments, like that of Venezuela, in Bolivia’s industrialization strategies?
First of all, we encourage associations between states that have the purpose of solidarity, and in which that investment does not just exploit raw materials but transforms them and adds value inside the country. In some cases, we can do this in association with other states, but in other cases, we need foreign investment. The issue is the rules under which we are going to allow this foreign investment—how much they are going to leave for the country, how much they are going to have as profit, who is going to own it, the transfer of technology, the transformation of raw materials inside the country. Those are the key issues that Bolivia has synthesized into the words “When it comes to foreign investment, we don’t want bosses; we want partners.” If they can accept that rule, they are welcome. We will no longer accept the relations that we had before.
Lastly, can you describe what you see as the most important forms of popular participation that exist in Bolivia today?
The most important is the participation of social movements. If we weaken the organization of social movements, the process in Bolivia can go backward. The second mechanism is the referendum. This is the first government in the history of Bolivia that has had so many referendums. So, direct referendums are very important. Another is to now have people elect judges of the Supreme Court. And the proposal to have a worldwide referendum on climate change goes even beyond what we had hoped in terms of participation.
Republished from NACLA
Draft Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth to be discussed at World People's Summit on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth
UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF MOTHER EARTH
[draft February 2010]
Preamble
We, the peoples of Earth:
gratefully acknowledging that Mother Earth gives us life, nourishes and teaches us and provides us with all that we need to live well;
recognizing that Mother Earth is an indivisible community of diverse and interdependent beings with whom we share a common destiny and to whom we must relate in ways that benefit Mother Earth;acknowledging that by attempting to dominate and exploit Mother Earth and other beings, humans have caused severe destruction, degradation and disruption of the life-sustaining communities, processes and balances of Mother Earth which now threatens the wellbeing and existence of many beings;
conscious that this destruction is also harmful to our inner wellbeing and is offensive to the many faiths, wisdom traditions and indigenous cultures for whom Mother Earth is sacred;
acutely conscious of the critical importance and urgency of taking decisive, collective action to prevent humans causing climate change and other impacts on Mother Earth that threaten the wellbeing and survival of humans and other beings;
accepting our responsibility to one another, future generations and Mother Earth to heal the damage caused by humans and to pass on to future generations values, traditions, and institutions that support the flourishing of Mother Earth;
convinced that in order for communities of humans and other beings to flourish we must establish systems for governing human behavior that recognize the inalienable rights of Mother Earth and of all beings that are part of her;
convinced that the fundamental freedoms and rights of Mother Earth and of all beings should be protected by the rule of law, and that the corresponding duties of human beings to respect and defend these rights and freedoms should be enforced by law;
proclaim this Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth to complement the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and to serve as a common standard by which the conduct of all human beings, organizations, and cultures can be guided and assessed; and
pledge ourselves to cooperate with other human communities, public and private organizations, governments, and the United Nations, to secure the universal and effective recognition and observance of the fundamental freedoms, rights and duties enshrined in this Declaration, among all the peoples, cultures and states of Earth.
Article 1. Fundamental rights, freedoms and duties
(1) Mother Earth is an indivisible, self-regulating community of interrelated beings each of whom is defined by its relationships within this community and with the Universe as a whole. Fundamental aspects of these relationships are expressed in this Declaration as inalienable rights, freedoms and duties.
(2) These fundamental rights, freedoms and duties arise from the same source as existence and are inherent to all beings, consequently they are inalienable, cannot be abolished by law, and are not affected by the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory within which a being exists.
(3) All beings are entitled to all the fundamental rights and freedoms recognized in this Declaration without distinction of any kind, such as may be made between organic, living beings and inorganic, non-living beings, or on the basis of sentience, kind, species, use to humans, or other status.
(4) Just as human beings have human rights, other beings may also have additional rights, freedoms and duties that are specific to their species or kind and appropriate for their role and function within the communities within which they exist.
(5) The rights of each being are limited by the rights of other beings to the extent necessary to maintain the integrity, balance and health of the communities within which it exists.
Article 2. Fundamental rights of Mother Earth
Mother Earth has the right to exist, to persist and to continue the vital cycles, structures, functions and processes that sustain all beings.
Article 3. Fundamental rights and freedoms of all beings
Every being has:
(a) the right to exist;
(b) the right to habitat or a place to be;
(c) the right to participate in accordance with its nature in the ever-renewing processes of Mother Earth;
(d) the right to maintain its identity and integrity as a distinct, self-regulating being;
(e) the right to be free from pollution, genetic contamination and human modifications of its structure or functioning that threaten its integrity or healthy functioning; and
(f) the freedom to relate to other beings and to participate in communities of beings in accordance with its nature.
Article 4. Freedom of animals from torture and cruelty
Every animal has the right to live free from torture, cruel treatment or punishment by human beings.
Article 5. Freedom of animals from confinement and removal from habitat
(1) No human being has the right to confine another animal or to remove it from its habitat unless doing so is justifiable with reference to the respective rights, duties and freedoms of both the human and other animal concerned.
(2) Any human being that confines or keeps another animal must ensure that it is free to express normal patterns of behavior, has adequate nourishment and is protected from injury, disease, suffering and unreasonable fear, pain, distress or discomfort.
Article 6. Fundamental duties of human beings
Human beings have a special responsibility to avoid acting in violation of this Declaration and must urgently establish values, cultures, and legal, political, economic and social systems consistent with this Declaration that:
(a) promote the full recognition, application and enforcement of the freedoms, rights and duties set out in this Declaration;
(b) ensure that the pursuit of human wellbeing contributes to the wellbeing of Mother Earth, now and in the future;
(c) prevent humans from causing harmful disruptions of vital ecological cycles, processes and balances, and from compromising the genetic viability and continued survival of other species;
(d) ensure that the damage caused by human violations of the freedoms, rights and duties in this Declaration is rectified where possible and that those responsible are held accountable for restoring the integrity and healthy functioning of affected communities; and
(e) enable people to defend the rights of Mother Earth and of all beings.
Article 7. Protection of the law
Every being has –
(a) the right to be recognised everywhere as a subject before the law;
(b) the right to the protection of the law and to an effective remedy in respect of human violations or attacks on the rights and freedoms recognized in this Declaration;
(c) the right to equal protection of the law; and
(d) the right to equal protection against any discrimination by humans in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 8. Human education
(1) Every human being has the right to be educated about Mother Earth and how to live in accordance with this Declaration.
(2) Human education must develop the full potential of human beings in a way that promotes a love of Mother Earth, compassion, understanding, tolerance and affection among all humans and between humans and other beings, and the observance of the fundamental freedoms, rights and duties in this Declaration.
Article 9. Interpretation
(1) The term “being” refers to natural beings which exist as part of Mother Earth and includes a community of other beings and all human beings regardless of whether or not they act as a corporate body, state or other legal person.
(2) Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms in it.
(3) Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as restricting the recognition of other fundamental rights, freedoms or duties of all or specified beings.
Republished from PWCCC website
Bolivian campaign raises 1.4 mln USD for quake-hit Chile, Haiti
LA PAZ, March 7 (Xinhua) -- A Bolivian fundraising telethon has collected 1.4 million U.S. dollars for quake-hit Chile and Haiti and the organizers have decided to extend the campaign to raise more money, Bolivian Minister of the Presidency Oscar Coca said on Sunday.
The campaign "Chile and Haiti Need You" began on Tuesday and it was originally set to end on Saturday. Coca said the donations stood at about 1.4 million dollars as of Saturday.
Warm response by the public prompted the authorities to extend the fundraising for one more week, and continue to accept donations till next Saturday, said Coca.
The donations came from all parts of the country, including senior government officials headed by President Evo Morales and Vice President Alvaro Garcia.
A few days ago both Morales and Garcia announced the decision to donate half of their one-month salaries for the campaign.
During his visit to Julio Borelli coliseum, the headquarters of the telethon, Morales urged the Bolivian people to show solidarity with the countries affected by the earthquakes.
The campaign also collected money with cellphone text messages to the state-run Empresa Nacional de Telecomunicaciones, or National Company of Telecommunications.
Coca said they received phone calls from different regions of the country requesting the campaign to be extended in order to collect more money.
"We estimate that we will reach at least 1.5 million dollars, an amount that surpass our first goal," Coca said.
Over the past week, Bolivia has also sent 120 tons of bottled water to Chile to aid the victims of the 8.8-magnitude earthquake that shook the South American country on Feb. 27.
In January, Garcia took aid to Haiti, including 50 tons of rice, blood and plasma, to aid the victims of a 7.3-magnitude earthquake that shook the Caribbean country on Jan. 12.
Morales party set to win in Bolivia’s April regional elections
The ruling party of President Evo Morales, Movement towards Socialism, MAS, is set to win the coming April regional elections with victories in six of the nine departments (provinces) in which the country is divided, according to the latest public opinion poll published by La Paz main daily La Razon.
Mercopress, March 11
According to the poll, MAS is favoured in the regions of La Paz, Oruro, Potosí, Cochabamba, Chuquisaca and Pando while the opposition remains unmoveable in its strongholds of Beni and Santa Cruz while in southern oil rich Tarija there’s a technical draw.
The poll from Ipsos, Apoyo, Opinion & Mercado was taken between February 20 and March 2, having interviewed 2.940 people in over one hundred locations in the nine regions.
César Cocarico from MAS is poised to become governor of La Pay with 41% of the vote and the former president of the Lower House Edmundo Novillo with 51% of the vote is expected to win in Cochabamba; Feliz Gonzalez in Potosi with 49% support and Esteban Urquizo in Chuquisaca with 44% of the vote.
Luis Flores in Pando is expected to win with 41% of the vote and Santo Tito in Oruro with 27%.
In Beni, the current opposition governor Ernesto Suárez could repeat with 44% support followed by a former Miss Bolivia Jessica Jordan, handpicked by Morales with 25% vote intention.
In Santa Cruz province the richest and most prosperous region of Bolivia Ruben Costas from the opposition is ready for a second mandate with 58% support while the MAS candidate Jerie Justiniano figures with 26%.
In Tarija there’s a technical draw with 37% vote intention for MAS candidate Carlos Cabrera and 37% for opposition hopeful Mario Cossio. According to Bolivian legislation those governors running for re-election had to resign last January.
Besides the nine governors, Bolivia will be voting on April 4 for 144 members of regional assemblies; 337 mayors and 1.887 Councillors and 23 indigenous authorities.
Evo Morales the first indigenous president elected in Bolivia reformed the constitution and was comfortably re-elected for a second term. His reforms to compensate “centuries” of indigenous exploitation have triggered reactions from the richest provinces under political control of the Spanish descendents, but Morales continues with strong support and has managed a relative stability in a country with a long tradition of political upheavals.
Mercopress, March 11
According to the poll, MAS is favoured in the regions of La Paz, Oruro, Potosí, Cochabamba, Chuquisaca and Pando while the opposition remains unmoveable in its strongholds of Beni and Santa Cruz while in southern oil rich Tarija there’s a technical draw.
The poll from Ipsos, Apoyo, Opinion & Mercado was taken between February 20 and March 2, having interviewed 2.940 people in over one hundred locations in the nine regions.
César Cocarico from MAS is poised to become governor of La Pay with 41% of the vote and the former president of the Lower House Edmundo Novillo with 51% of the vote is expected to win in Cochabamba; Feliz Gonzalez in Potosi with 49% support and Esteban Urquizo in Chuquisaca with 44% of the vote.
Luis Flores in Pando is expected to win with 41% of the vote and Santo Tito in Oruro with 27%.
In Beni, the current opposition governor Ernesto Suárez could repeat with 44% support followed by a former Miss Bolivia Jessica Jordan, handpicked by Morales with 25% vote intention.
In Santa Cruz province the richest and most prosperous region of Bolivia Ruben Costas from the opposition is ready for a second mandate with 58% support while the MAS candidate Jerie Justiniano figures with 26%.
In Tarija there’s a technical draw with 37% vote intention for MAS candidate Carlos Cabrera and 37% for opposition hopeful Mario Cossio. According to Bolivian legislation those governors running for re-election had to resign last January.
Besides the nine governors, Bolivia will be voting on April 4 for 144 members of regional assemblies; 337 mayors and 1.887 Councillors and 23 indigenous authorities.
Evo Morales the first indigenous president elected in Bolivia reformed the constitution and was comfortably re-elected for a second term. His reforms to compensate “centuries” of indigenous exploitation have triggered reactions from the richest provinces under political control of the Spanish descendents, but Morales continues with strong support and has managed a relative stability in a country with a long tradition of political upheavals.
Bolivia, our beacon of hope
If the prospect of the election has you in despair, look to the inspiring example of Evo Morales's Bolivian government
Matt Kennard
There's a game I've been playing recently. Any time I read the news and get depressed about the parlous state of our world, I type "Bolivia" into Google news and wait for the results. It's really all you need to brighten up your day.
In the last month things such as this have popped up: Bolivian women spearhead Morales revolution, which describes the decision by Bolivia's president, Evo Morales, to stock half his new cabinet with women, nearly half of them indigenous. More recently there was this: Bolivian president donates half pay to victims, which detailed Morales and his vice president Alvaro García's decision to donate half their March salaries to help the victims of the Haiti and Chile earthquakes.
What is happening in Bolivia now – and has been since MAS, or Movimiento al Socalismo, came to power in 2005 – is truly inspiring. There has been a lot of talk about how the left is dead and Francis Fukayama's "End of History" means we all have to accept that a global economic system that creates obscene inequalities and mass starvation is the highest stage of social and economic organisation our species can attain.
That might be true for an academic at Johns Hopkins, but for everyone else looking to the future and something to fight for, I ask them to kindly divert their gaze to Bolivia. It is the closest thing we have to real democratic socialism: a government, but more importantly a grassroots movement, committed to economic and gender equality, anti-racism, free speech and every other ideal the left should hold dear.
In December last year MAS won their second five-year term with 67% of the public vote, more than double the percentage won by their nearest opponent, Manfred Reyes Villa. The re-election of an incumbent was particularly exceptional in Bolivia. A country often dismissed by regional experts as "ungovernable" due to its bloody history of military coups and mass public protests, it has seen only a handful of presidents complete their terms in office. The FT now calls Morales "one of Latin America's most popular leaders".
Morales's landslide victory was a clear sign of public support for the present administration and the extensive social reforms they have implemented. On coming to power in 2005, Morales pledged to see through a "democratic revolution" in an attempt to alleviate poverty in Bolivia, the poorest country in South America. The democratic revolution had its genesis in 2000 in what were called the "water wars", centred in the city of Cochabamba. The water industry had just been privatised with the help of the neoliberal government and the IMF and was run now by the US corporation Bechtel.
Prices soared and police were even instructed to arrest people collecting rainwater to bypass the new prices. The indigenous community was up in arms and Bechtel was forced out by the local communities. The indigenous movement, which is based around small micro-democratic communities, went on to blockade La Paz. The government shot dead a score of protesters in 2005, before the presidential incumbent was forced out and fled to Miami.
When Morales was elected he became the country's first indigenous president and his party embarked on a programme of "decolonising the state". For Latin America, the election of an indigenous leader had the same poignancy as Barack Obama's election in the US.
Throughout his mandate Morales has determinedly pursued a programme of social change, including the part-nationalisation of the country's energy resources and a surge in social spending that has focused on conditional cash transfers (whereby payments have been made to poor families on the condition that they send their children to school.) These measures have seen Bolivia record a fiscal surplus for the first time in 30 years; the country has been predicted a higher growth rate this year than anywhere else in the Americas; and poverty levels have dropped continually since MAS came to power. Even the head of the IMF's western hemisphere countries unit has praised the Morales government for what he referred to as its "very responsible" macroeconomic policies.
The backbone of Morales's reform programme was the creation of a new Bolivian constitution, which was ratified by a public referendum in 2009. Morales has signalled that he will make the implementation of the new constitution his main legislative priority at the start of his second term. In a country that is often compared to apartheid South Africa, as the stark divisions of poverty and inequality are marked along racial lines, this constitution represents Bolivia's Freedom Charter.
The texture of the modern Bolivian revolution is different to that of Hugo Chávez's Venezuela. It is a much more bottom-up revolution, and Morales is kept on a tight leash by the democratic movement that was behind his rise to power in a way Chávez isn't. As you look to our election battle between a Labour government that has been in power for 13 years and allowed inequality to worsen and a Conservative cabinet full of reactionary Old Etonians, it's easy to despair. But when you do, look to Bolivia. The future lies in that small landlocked Latin American country of 9 million people.
Republished from Guardian
Matt Kennard
There's a game I've been playing recently. Any time I read the news and get depressed about the parlous state of our world, I type "Bolivia" into Google news and wait for the results. It's really all you need to brighten up your day.
In the last month things such as this have popped up: Bolivian women spearhead Morales revolution, which describes the decision by Bolivia's president, Evo Morales, to stock half his new cabinet with women, nearly half of them indigenous. More recently there was this: Bolivian president donates half pay to victims, which detailed Morales and his vice president Alvaro García's decision to donate half their March salaries to help the victims of the Haiti and Chile earthquakes.
What is happening in Bolivia now – and has been since MAS, or Movimiento al Socalismo, came to power in 2005 – is truly inspiring. There has been a lot of talk about how the left is dead and Francis Fukayama's "End of History" means we all have to accept that a global economic system that creates obscene inequalities and mass starvation is the highest stage of social and economic organisation our species can attain.
That might be true for an academic at Johns Hopkins, but for everyone else looking to the future and something to fight for, I ask them to kindly divert their gaze to Bolivia. It is the closest thing we have to real democratic socialism: a government, but more importantly a grassroots movement, committed to economic and gender equality, anti-racism, free speech and every other ideal the left should hold dear.
In December last year MAS won their second five-year term with 67% of the public vote, more than double the percentage won by their nearest opponent, Manfred Reyes Villa. The re-election of an incumbent was particularly exceptional in Bolivia. A country often dismissed by regional experts as "ungovernable" due to its bloody history of military coups and mass public protests, it has seen only a handful of presidents complete their terms in office. The FT now calls Morales "one of Latin America's most popular leaders".
Morales's landslide victory was a clear sign of public support for the present administration and the extensive social reforms they have implemented. On coming to power in 2005, Morales pledged to see through a "democratic revolution" in an attempt to alleviate poverty in Bolivia, the poorest country in South America. The democratic revolution had its genesis in 2000 in what were called the "water wars", centred in the city of Cochabamba. The water industry had just been privatised with the help of the neoliberal government and the IMF and was run now by the US corporation Bechtel.
Prices soared and police were even instructed to arrest people collecting rainwater to bypass the new prices. The indigenous community was up in arms and Bechtel was forced out by the local communities. The indigenous movement, which is based around small micro-democratic communities, went on to blockade La Paz. The government shot dead a score of protesters in 2005, before the presidential incumbent was forced out and fled to Miami.
When Morales was elected he became the country's first indigenous president and his party embarked on a programme of "decolonising the state". For Latin America, the election of an indigenous leader had the same poignancy as Barack Obama's election in the US.
Throughout his mandate Morales has determinedly pursued a programme of social change, including the part-nationalisation of the country's energy resources and a surge in social spending that has focused on conditional cash transfers (whereby payments have been made to poor families on the condition that they send their children to school.) These measures have seen Bolivia record a fiscal surplus for the first time in 30 years; the country has been predicted a higher growth rate this year than anywhere else in the Americas; and poverty levels have dropped continually since MAS came to power. Even the head of the IMF's western hemisphere countries unit has praised the Morales government for what he referred to as its "very responsible" macroeconomic policies.
The backbone of Morales's reform programme was the creation of a new Bolivian constitution, which was ratified by a public referendum in 2009. Morales has signalled that he will make the implementation of the new constitution his main legislative priority at the start of his second term. In a country that is often compared to apartheid South Africa, as the stark divisions of poverty and inequality are marked along racial lines, this constitution represents Bolivia's Freedom Charter.
The texture of the modern Bolivian revolution is different to that of Hugo Chávez's Venezuela. It is a much more bottom-up revolution, and Morales is kept on a tight leash by the democratic movement that was behind his rise to power in a way Chávez isn't. As you look to our election battle between a Labour government that has been in power for 13 years and allowed inequality to worsen and a Conservative cabinet full of reactionary Old Etonians, it's easy to despair. But when you do, look to Bolivia. The future lies in that small landlocked Latin American country of 9 million people.
Republished from Guardian
Is Bolivia heading for Andean- Amazonian capitalism?
Eric Tousaint1
In spite of its considerable natural resources, this country of 10 million inhabitants is one of the poorest in Latin America. In 1952 Bolivia went through a major revolutionary upheaval leading to land reform, nationalization of mines, free, compulsory education and universal suffrage. From 1971 to 1978, Bolivia was under the iron rule of Hugo Banzer’s military regime. From 1985 on, the worst kind of neo-liberal policies were enforced on the country. To bring 20 years of such policies to an end, social movements in Bolivia waged fierce, heroic battles. Finally in 2005, for the first time in Bolivian history, a representative of the country’s Indian majority was elected president. 2
Evo Morales’ government has undertaken a vast programme of reforms, not necessarily in themselves a clear break with capitalism. Their purpose, in particular, is to establish full, comprehensive rights for an Indian majority that has suffered oppression for over five centuries, and to regain public control of natural resources so that they can be used to serve the economic, social and cultural rights of Bolivia’s citizens.
The new Constitution adopted by referendum in January 2009 is a significant step forward for political democracy and for ensuring the people’s economic, social and cultural rights. Of course, adoption of this new Constitution does not mean that all its provisions in terms of collective and individual rights will be carried out immediately. Rather, a series of Articles set out the mid-term objectives to be reached. Their implementation will depend on the capacity of the party in power –MAS-IPSP (Movement Towards Socialism – Political Instrument for the Sovereignty of Peoples) – to put to good use the two-thirds majority it commands in the Plurinational Legislative Assembly.3 The decisive point is that adoption of the new Constitution provides the government and the legislative with a legal framework for pursuing the reforms initiated since 2006. As a corollary, it also provides social movements with a legal framework for ensuring that the government adopts all necessary measures for making the Constitution a practical reality. The challenge is therefore a tough one, because the experiment undertaken by MAS-IPSP is vulnerable to external threats and to its own shortcomings.
The right-wing opposition and the threat of separatism
In 2008 Evo Morales’ government had to face very violent opposition from rightist elements representing the interests of the local capitalist class (industrialists, large landowners, financial groups) associated with the interests of private multinationals exploiting Bolivia’s natural resources (oil, gas, various minerals). An interview4 with Bolivian vice-president Álvaro García Linera provides a strategic view of these confrontations. Here are a few particularly significant excerpts. García Linera starts out with the observation that the right refused to accept its minority status as a political force and opted for a separation between the wealthy western departments5 and the rest of the country, including the capital, La Paz. He goes on to describe the policy the government has followed, refusing confrontation on several occasions before deciding to clamp down.
“The right was not willing to be included in the national-popular project as a minority force led by others, and it opted for territorial explosion. The struggle for power brought closer the moment for its warlike or final solution insofar as, in the last analysis, State power is coercion. This is what we call ‘the fork in the road’, the moment at which the crisis of the State, begun eight years beforehand, would be resolved either through restoration of the old State power, or through the consolidation of the new popular power bloc. (…)
After the outcome of the approval referendum in August 2008, the civic-prefectorial bloc (i.e. the right, Editor’s note) undertook its putschist escalation: they took over institutions, we waited; they attacked the police, we waited; they destroyed and sacked public buildings and institutions in 4 departments, we waited; they disarmed the troops, we waited; they took over airports, we waited (…). They worked themselves into an impasse (…) The prefect launched the Pando6 massacre to send an intimidation signal to the people’s leaders… and this act pushed the whole of Bolivian society’s tolerance to its extreme limits. The peasant massacre (…) forced the State to react by sharp, swift intervention in defence of democracy and society. And without a single second’s doubt, we were aiming at the weakest link in the putschist chain: Pando. This was the first state of siege in Bolivian history dictated by the defence and protection of society, with the total support of a population horrified by the putschists’ actions.
This fact, combined with the international community’s rejection of the putschists, was to put an end to the civic-prefectorial initiative, bringing about their disorderly retreat. It was the time for a popular counter-offensive, with social and popular organizations in Santa Cruz7 department in the front lines. Not only did the peasants and the colonizadores8 mobilize, but also the poor in Santa Cruz popular districts and especially urban youth, who, during memorable days of resistance against fascist gangs, defended their districts in Santa Cruz and broke with the clientelist domination of the Santa Cruz lodges.
The government’s vigorous, firm political and military response to the coup combined with the social mobilization strategy in Santa Cruz and towards Santa Cruz, created a perfect junction between society and State rarely seen in Bolivia’s political history.(…) The right took stock of the state of its shock troops - isolated, in disarray - and recognized the high level of political determination in an indigenous-popular bloc that was ready for anything. The right preferred to admit defeat and surrender. This is how the cycle of State crisis and political polarization was closed and a durable new State structure was established during a warlike show of force.”
Up to this point, Álvaro García Linera has developed a very optimistic viewpoint on the right’s political rout, but later in the interview he points out that the right wing does not lack the leverage to bounce back and try to regain the initiative in order to put an end to the ongoing left experience: “The private income bourgeoisie no longer has the petroleum firms as a generous source of revenue. The agrarian patronage network that the landowners set up in the agro-industrial field has been greatly weakened by the existence of the State food corporation EMAPA and the fact that the public share in the soy, wheat and rice production chain represents between 20 and 30% of total production. But the intransigent opposition bloc still controls important areas of agricultural,9 commercial and financial power and this provides the bloc with a great capacity for pressure and confrontation.
On the other hand what it lacks today, and this can last for years, is a State project: for how long will it be without one? Nobody knows, but its goal is to prevent the popular project from continuing to make headway. (…) There is a difference in how the fork in the road is consolidated when the popular sector is politically and materially defeated, compared to when the employer side is defeated, because the latter can lose politically but hold on to economic power, enabling it to keep a permanent power of veto.”
On the demands of indigenous originary peoples10
To learn more about the indigenist political project defended by large organizations with links to MAS (Movement Towards Socialism, Evo Morales’ political party) we must refer to the Unity Pact made public in 2006 to prepare for the Constituent Assembly.
Autonomy: “Indigenous, originary and peasant autonomy, as a fundamental axis of the decolonization and self-determination process, is the condition for and basis of the freedom of our peoples and nations. (…)It aims for the permanent construction of a full and complete life, via our own forms of representation, administration and ownership of our lands.”
Landholding and territorial regime: “Original rights to non-renewable resources belong to indigenous originary nations and peoples and peasants. Ownership of non-renewable resources belongs equally to the originary indigenous nations and people and peasants and to the unitary plurinational state.” This formulation can be interpreted in various ways. In practice, what tends to hold sway in Evo Morales’ governmental policy is the State’s exploitation of national resources, as the vice-president of the Republic clearly stated in a recent interview (see below: “Oil resources in the Amazonian region: an emblematic issue”).
Latifundio: “[The State must] distribute lands fairly, and be the guarantor of current and future rights and needs of originary peoples and peasants, and see to the well-being of the population as a whole.”
Education: “The priority for the plurinational State is to provide an intracultural, intercultural, pluricultural and plurilingual character to education, a basic cornerstone, on all levels and in different forms; in conformity with the ethnic and linguistic diversity of the country, teaching and administration will use indigenous language as a priority, and then Spanish as a language of intercultural communication.”
The Unity Pact also calls for the coexistence of originary and peasant legal systems with the western legal system and the creation of a fourth power independent of the State: alternative instituting social power rooted in the social movements. The theme of plurinational social power has been broadly debated, as a civil and corporatist type “fourth power” (its members would be chosen on a customary basis and by universal suffrage). It would have the responsibility to “watch over and control” State powers and would be empowered to inflict sanctions on them, being independent of them. This idea was eventually omitted in the NCPE (New Political Constitution of the State).
The new Constitution, finally approved in January 2009 during the constitutional referendum by 62% of voters, is a step forward for indigenous and originary people. As we see below in the full text of part I, Title II, chapter 4, this Constitution guarantees in particular: recognition of indigenous languages, recognition of the rights of indigenous nations and peoples to exercise their own political, legal and economic system, establishment of “peasant originary indigenous” territories empowered in terms of definition of their own form of development, administration of indigenous justice, management of renewable natural resources, etc. Several parts of the Constitution guarantee these rights.
A test of power for MAS
Evo Morales’ party, MAS-IPSP (Movement Towards Socialism – Political Instrument for the Sovereignty of Peoples) was founded by peasant trade-union organizations in the late 1990s. As regards the social nature of MAS, Pablo Stefanoni12 now wonders whether or not it would be interesting to study this political movement as a party of rural and urban smallholders (merchants, micro-entrepreneurs) of indigenous origin. Adopting this outlook would mean changing our understanding of a political organization until now seen as an outgrowth of social movements of the most oppressed. This being said, we are talking here about small business owners it would be foolish to ostracize. They certainly have a place in a process of building a society that is an alternative to capitalism; a society in transition to socialism. Pablo Stefanoni asks another question that takes this issue further: “Doesn’t family accumulation – renamed “Andean capitalism” – still rely on forms of exploitation and self-exploitation at least equal, and generally worse, than those prevailing in formal capitalism, regulated by labour law ?” He goes on: “The current government has rescinded the labour flexibilization approved in the 1990s – in particular, ‘the freedom to dismiss’ – but these rules do not hold in the family or informal economies that are prevalent in entire cities such as El Alto, close to La Paz, where nearly one million people live. (…) The superiority of “indigenous cosmovision” – a smokescreen that often hides corporatist practices or deep-rooted regional identities – over “liberal cosmovision” is scarcely debated and the emphasis on the ethnic dimension of oppression has practically overshadowed its class dimension. It is no accident if progress in terms of labour movements’ rights is rare or non-existent.” 13
With a majority in the Chamber of Deputies since 2006, MAS must come to terms with the exercise of political power. As time goes on, as with any left-wing party involved in the concrete exercise of participation in parliamentary institutions and government, certain changes occur. MAS is no exception. As Pablo Stefanoni says, the reasoning of a certain number of activists is changing from “politics must serve to change the country” to “why am I not entitled to a post when I campaigned and fought for MAS to win”? This is all the more widespread since, according to a MAS operating rule, candidates foot their own electoral campaign expenses. This means that some of them (perhaps the majority?) go into debt to be able to wage an electoral campaign that could earn them a seat.14 In some cases, they also make commitments in order to ensure support. This shores up the patronage already permeating Bolivia’s political life.
When MAS came to government, it announced that it was breaking with the tradition by which the winning party sacks a large number of civil servants to replace them with its members, protégés or clients. It set the replacement threshold very low: 5% of civil servants, in order to guarantee a non-partisan institutionalization of the civil service. This decision was hard to accept for some party activists who had hoped their efforts during the electoral campaign and various struggles would be rewarded with a job - or several. Finally, the MAS leadership relaxed its stance and increased the 5% limit.
In January 2007, a scandal occurred in La Paz. Certain MAS activists were taking payments in exchange for support to civil service applicants. This scandal was of limited development. However, early in 2009 a second scandal caused greater damage: Santos Ramírez, a historic MAS leader15 who had been placed at the head of YPFB, the public petroleum company, was caught red-handed in a large-scale corruption scandal. The MAS government took strong action to set an example. Santos Ramírez was jailed while awaiting trial. MAS showed Bolivian society that although some of its cadres were not immunized against corruption, the party was breaking with the tradition of impunity for political office-holders by favouring their conviction in the case of a legal offence. The Santos Ramírez scandal caused a genuine commotion that would leave its marks.16
When Evo Morales entered office, he took an exemplary measure to show he was putting an end to privileges: he lowered his own salary. Of course, this was very popular among the people, for understandable reasons. This measure also entailed lowering the salaries of other political officeholders, since it was unthinkable for them to be earning more than the president and not showing the example of a government refusing privileges for itself. Later, the government decided to relax its position so that it could authorize high salaries for public corporation executives. These executives are allowed to earn more than the President of the Republic. Álvaro García Linera, justifying this decision, called it Bolivia’s NEP, in reference to the NEP applied by Lenin in the early 1920s in Soviet Russia17: “It is our version of Lenin’s NEP (the New Economic Policy in post-revolutionary Russia). NEP’s aim, beyond an alliance with the peasantry, was fundamentally to recruit technicians to administer State technical bodies, taking into account the fact that although the State is a political structure, it has bureaucratic-administrative and technical-scientific levels demanding knowledge and competencies that cannot be acquired or transformed swiftly. To call a halt to the economic disaster that followed on the heels of the revolution, Lenin had to rehire technicians from the former State, until a simpler administration could be gradually built. His watchword was: under each technical manager, we must place a young person who will learn. We are doing the same. We already began in 2006: we changed the organization and personnel at the decision-making levels of public administration (ministers, deputy ministers and some directors) but we have not touched the secondary level of the State administrative structure until young, trained State managers can take over from the senior managers.”
Towards an “Andean-Amazonian capitalism”?
Álvaro García Linera backs the development of an “Andean-Amazonian capitalism” in which the State plays a key role. Without deforming his concept, it can be said that the Bolivian vice-president is favourable to an Andean-Amazonian form of State capitalism. Using a railway metaphor, he clearly outlines the hierarchy of participants in this model: “The State is the only actor that can unite society. It is the State that takes on the synthesis of the general will, plans the strategic framework and steers the front carriage of the economic locomotive. The second carriage is Bolivian private investment. The third is foreign investment. The fourth is small business. The fifth is the peasant economy and the sixth, the indigenous economy. This is the strategic order in which the country’s economy must be organized.”18 The outlook described by Álvaro García Linera is clearly different from, or opposed to, an authentic 21st century socialism. It is true that he does not disguise the true nature of his project with pompous socialist rhetoric. This project, which could potentially drift in dangerous directions, is one possible scenario for the future.
According to Pablo Stefanoni, Evo Morales has an outlook similar or identical to his vice-president Álvaro García Linera: “Far from encouraging the class struggle in its Marxist sense, Evo Morales has updated the divisions already mentioned – nation/anti-nation, people/oligarchy and in practice is promoting a new “class alliance” – without using a term reminiscent of the 1950s. This alliance includes “patriotic entrepreneurs” and “nationalist military”, to build a “productive and modern country”, thanks to the profits from natural resources “repossessed by the State”. The core of the governmental economic program thus bears on the modernization and industrialization of a backward economy under the leadership of a strong State, which substitutes for a non-existent national bourgeoisie.”19 This is a far cry from Evo Morales’ many statements in international forums and in his own country when he speaks out against the capitalist system and declares that we must rid the planet of it.
Furthermore, Álvaro Garcia Linera challenges a certain “NGOist”20 and “indigenist” view of Bolivian Indians: “The outlook according to which the indigenous world has its own cosmovision, radically opposed to that of the West, is typical of latecomer indigenists or those closely linked to certain NGOs. I don’t want to imply that there are no specific organizational, economic and political logics. Basically, everyone wants to be modern. The Felipe Quispe insurgents, in 2000, were demanding tractors and Internet. This does not mean giving up their organizational principles. Moreover, this can be seen in indigenous economic practices. The development of indigenous businesses follows a very flexible logic. They seek to accumulate, but they don’t risk everything for accumulation. First of all, I start to work alone with my family group, the ultimate basic social core. That goes very well: I hire more people and I stop working; that doesn’t work: I go back to the second level: that goes very badly: I return to my family where we put up with everything. We never break with the family logic… They want to modernize but they do it their way. They can export, be part of globalization, but the family core remains the last resort where they can survive on just bread and water. When business expands to 10 or 15 workers, instead of expanding to 30, 40 or 50 workers they stop and another small business emerges, their son’s, their brother-in-law’s; the logic says you never put all your eggs in one basket. It is different from a very rational Weberian accumulation, with economies of scale, with a lot of technological innovation. In this case, the family is never the last fulcrum for productive activity, it is an element among links, networks, markets, and matrimonial strategies… The indigenous world has its own logic but it is not an antagonistic logic, standing apart from “western” logic. The people who took part in recent movements are very aware of this.” 21
Oil resources in the Amazonian region: an emblematic issue
Coherently, in relation to the prospect of an “Andean-Amazonian capitalism”, Álvaro García Linera advocates the exploitation of the Amazonian region’s petroleum resources. There again, he defends a “Realpolitik” at odds with the ecological outlook often expressed by Bolivia’s president:
“In the case of gas and petroleum exploration in the Amazonian north of La Paz, we seek to produce hydrocarbons in order to geographically balance the sources of society’s collective wealth, generate a State surplus and at the same time preserve the environmental space in coordination with the indigenous communities. Today, we are not in the process of opening up the Amazonian north to let Repsol or Petrobras in. We are opening up to let the State in. (…) Do we have to exploit gas and petroleum in the Amazonian north of La Paz? Yes. Why? Because we need to balance Bolivian society’s economic structures, given that rapid development of Tarija,22 with 90% of the gas, will generate long-term imbalances (…)
Answering the question “what if the communities said the State couldn’t come in either?” Álvaro García Linera continues: “This is the debate. What happened? When we consulted the Central Organization of Indigenous Peoples of La Paz (CPILAP in Spanish), they asked us to go negotiate in Brussels with their legal firm and to respect the environmentalist principles published by USAID. How is this possible? Who wants to prevent the State from exploring petroleum north of La Paz? Indigenous Tacana communities? NGOs?23 Or foreign countries? We went to negotiate community by community and we obtained support from the indigenous communities to continue to explore for and exploit petroleum. The indigenous-popular government consolidated the long struggle of the peoples for land and territory. In the case of the minority indigenous peoples of the lowlands, the State consolidated millions of hectares as a historic territoriality for many peoples of low demographic density; but besides a people’s right to land, the State (the State led by the indigenous-popular and peasant movement) has the right to prioritize the higher collective interest of all the peoples. And this is how we proceeded afterwards.”24
It is legitimate to ask the following questions: by persuading Amazonian peoples, in the name of the “indigenous-popular bloc” (Álvaro García Linera’s expression) to accept exploitation of non-renewable underground resources in the ancestral territories they occupy, isn’t the Evo Morales government perpetuating the extractive, productivist model? Wouldn’t a right-wing government have faced very strong popular resistance by indigenous peoples if it had wanted to exploit Bolivian Amazon petroleum found on their lands? If the right returns to power in a few years, won’t it radically cut back on the concessions the central power made to originary peoples when it wanted to secure the right to exploit resources on their lands? In this case, wouldn’t it be better for the indigenous originary peoples to refuse industrial exploitation of non-renewable natural resources?
Translated by Marie Lagatta in collaboration with Judith Harris
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Box: The rights of originary indigenous and peasant nations and peoples
(Excerpts from the new Bolivian Constitution)
Chapter Four
Article 30. I. Any human community that shares a cultural identity, language, historical tradition, institutions, territory and cosmovision whose existence is prior to the Spanish colonial invasion is an indigenous originary and peasant nation or people.
II. Within the framework of State unity and in accordance with this Constitution, originary indigenous and peasant nations and people enjoy the following rights:
1. To exist in freedom;
2. To their cultural identity, religious beliefs, spirituality, practices and customs and their own cosmovision.
3. That the cultural identity of each of their members, if the member so desires, be recorded along with Bolivian citizenship on the member’s identity card, passport or any other legally valid identity documents.
4. To self-determination and territoriality.
5. That their institutions are part of the overall structure of the State.
6. To collective property title to their lands and territories.
7. To the protection of their sacred sites.
8. To create their own communications systems, media and networks.
9. That their own traditional knowledge and wisdom, traditional medicine, languages, rituals and symbols and clothing are valued, respected and promoted.
10. To live in a healthy environment, with proper management and use of ecosystems.
11. To collective intellectual ownership of their knowledge, science and wisdom and their valorization, use, promotion and development.
12. To intra-cultural, intercultural and multilingual education throughout the educational system.
13. To a universal, free healthcare system that respects their cosmovision and traditional practices.
14. To the exercise of their political, legal and economic systems in accordance with their cosmovision.
15. To be consulted through appropriate procedures and in particular through their own institutions, whenever legislative or administrative measures that may affect them are planned. In this context, their right to a preliminary, compulsory consultation, carried out by the State, in good faith and in concertation, will be respected and guaranteed, with regard to the exploitation of non-renewable natural resources in the territory they inhabit.11
16. To sharing in the profits from exploitation of natural resources in their territories.
17. To autonomous indigenous territorial management and exclusive use of and benefit from the renewable natural resources found in their territories without prejudice to rights legitimately acquired by third parties.
18. To participate in State bodies and institutions.
III. The State guarantees, respects and protects the rights of originary indigenous peoples and peasants enshrined in the Constitution and the law.
Article 31. I. Originary indigenous nations and peoples in danger of extinction, in a situation of voluntary isolation and without contact, will be protected and respected in their forms of individual and collective life.
II. Indigenous nations and peoples in isolation and without contact have the right to remain in that condition and the right to demarcation and legal consolidation of the territory they occupy and inhabit.
Article 32. The Afro-Bolivian people enjoys, in everything concerning themselves, economic, social, political and cultural rights recognized in the Constitution for originary indigenous and peasant nations and people.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Notes
[1] Eric Toussaint, president of CADTM Belgium (Committee for the Abolition of Third World Debt, www.cadtm.org ). He is the author of Bank of the South. An Alternative to the IMF-World Bank, VAK, Mumbai, India, 2007; The World Bank, A Critical Primer, Pluto Press, Between The Lines, David Philip, London-Toronto-Cape Town 2008; Your Money or Your Life, The Tyranny of Global Finance, Haymarket, Chicago, 2005.
[2] In the presidential elections Evo Morales won 53.7% of votes, with a very high turnout (84%). It should be noted that in Santa Cruz, a bastion of the right, the MAS attracted 33.2% of votes.
[3] In the general elections held in December 2009, MAS-IPSP won two thirds of parliamentary seats and a majority in the Senate. Evo Morales was elected for a new term with 64.3% of votes. He scored impressively in many departments associated with the opposition, for example in Tarija, with 40% of votes.
[4] Interview with Maristella Svampa, Pablo Stefanoni and Ricardo Bajo, “El punto de bifurcación es un momento en el que se miden ejércitos” http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=90782 .
[5] The eastern departments making up the media luna (half moon) are those of Santa Cruz, Beni, Pando and Tarija. Together, they make up 36% of the population and 45% of gross domestic product.
[6] Some 15 peasants were murdered and dozens of others wounded on 11 September 2008 in El Porvenir in Pando province. Its prefect, Leopoldo Fernández, one of the central figures of the right opposition and directly involved in the massacre, was jailed upon order of the central power.
[7] Santa Cruz department was the epicentre of the right-wing reaction.
[8] The colonizadores are peasants who occupied new lands, either in the framework of colonization policies promoted by the State in the 1930s, or in the framework of self-organized population movements. This is the case of families that emigrated towards Chapare province, in Cochabamba department, to cultivate coca. They came first from Altiplano, either through State colonization policies in the 1930s, then, with the structural adjustment plan implemented in 1985, from the mining regions of Oruro and Potosi following the closing of the mines and the loss of their jobs. Evo Morales’ family was one of these peasant families that left the cold, arid high plains for the hot, humid lowlands of Chapare. However, as indicated above, if the cocaleros are indeed colonizadores, the latter are not only coca farmers. For example, while the mobilization towards Santa Cruz involved cocaleros from the Chapare area, the peasant settlers from the San Julián area were in the front ranks.
[9] According to Charles-André Udry, in the two departments of Beni and Santa Cruz, 14 families own some 312,966 hectares. Part of these lands is not cultivated. These families have long been the pillars of the most hardcore right-wing parties. Today, these families – who appropriated the lands between 1953 and 1992, in particular under military dictatorial regimes – are violently protesting the implementation of land reform. (Réforme agraire et réappropriation territoriale indigène, http://risal.collectifs.net/spip.php?article2017)
[10] Bolivian aboriginal peoples are generally referred to as “originary” in the Andes and “indigenous” in Amazonia. The new Bolivian Constitution makes “peasant originary indigenous” populations a legal subject when it is a matter of giving collective rights to rural communities.
[11] We should point out however that if consultation of populations affected by non-renewable natural resource exploitation is mandatory (a positive measure), its outcome is not binding!
[12] Pablo Stefanoni is the co-author, with Hervé Do Alto, of Evo Morales, de la coca al Palacio (Malatesta, La Paz, 2006).
[13] Pablo Stefanoni in “L’indianisation du nationalisme ou la refondation permanente de la Bolivie”, in the journal Alternatives Sud published by CETRI: La Bolivie d’Evo. Démocratique, indianiste et socialiste? Vol XVI -2009/3, Louvain-la-Neuve, http://www.cetri.be/spip.php?rubrique119&lang=fr .
[14] This rule effectively bars the poorest people from being candidates for the office of member of parliament, senator or member of the Constituent Assembly. In practice, it is not rare to see trade union leaders with a strong political background and training forced to give up their places to middle class intellectuals or small entrepreneurs with bigger economic resources, when electoral slates are drawn up.
[15] According to Álvaro García Linera, Santos Ramírez could claim to be next in line to Evo Morales as MAS candidate to the Presidency of the Republic.
[16] See Hervé Do Alto, “¿“Más de lo mismo” o ruptura con los “tradicionales”? Bolivia y el MAS: un caso de democratización paradójica”, Le Monde diplomatique (Edición boliviana), February 2009, nº 11, pp. 6-8.
[17] In the interview with Maristella Svampa, Pablo Stefanoni and Ricardo Bajo, entitled: “El punto de bifurcación es un momento en el que se miden ejércitos ”. http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=90782 [18] Ortiz P. (2007), “Fue un error no liderar el pedido autonómico” (entrevista a Álvaro García Linera), El Deber, Santa Cruz de la Sierra, 21 January 2007. Quoted by Pablo Stefanoni in “L’Indianisation du nationalisme ou la refondation permanente de la Bolivie”, op. cit.
http://www.cetri.be/spip.php?rubrique119&lang=fr[19] Pablo Stefanoni in “L’Indianisation du nationalisme ou la refondation permanente de la Bolivie”, op. cit.
[20] A neologism meaning: related to NGOs (non-governmental organizations).
[21] In Svampa M., Stefanoni P. (2007), “Evo simboliza el quiebre de un imaginario restringido a la subalternidad de los indígenas” (entrevista a Álvaro García Linera), in Monasterios K., Stefanoni P. and Do Alto H. (dir.), Reinventando la nación en Bolivia, La Paz, Clacso-Plural.[22] The prefect of Tarija province was part of the right-wing opposition together with the prefects of Santa Cruz, Beni and Pando provinces.
[23] However in the case of Bolivia, such a line frankly opposing NGOs is all the more astonishing for being in total contradiction with the very makeup of the government, as most of its ministers come from such institutions. Among these is the CEJIS (Centre for Legal Studies and Social Research), recognized by Eastern indigenous movements as a staunch supporter in the reconquest of aboriginal peoples’ prerogatives on their ancestral territories. Some of the heavyweights in Morales’ team earned their wings there, such as Carlos Romero, the current minister of Autonomies.
[24] Interview conducted by Maristella Svampa, Pablo Stefanoni and Ricardo Bajo entitled: “El punto de bifurcación es un momento en el que se miden ejércitos”
In spite of its considerable natural resources, this country of 10 million inhabitants is one of the poorest in Latin America. In 1952 Bolivia went through a major revolutionary upheaval leading to land reform, nationalization of mines, free, compulsory education and universal suffrage. From 1971 to 1978, Bolivia was under the iron rule of Hugo Banzer’s military regime. From 1985 on, the worst kind of neo-liberal policies were enforced on the country. To bring 20 years of such policies to an end, social movements in Bolivia waged fierce, heroic battles. Finally in 2005, for the first time in Bolivian history, a representative of the country’s Indian majority was elected president. 2
Evo Morales’ government has undertaken a vast programme of reforms, not necessarily in themselves a clear break with capitalism. Their purpose, in particular, is to establish full, comprehensive rights for an Indian majority that has suffered oppression for over five centuries, and to regain public control of natural resources so that they can be used to serve the economic, social and cultural rights of Bolivia’s citizens.
The new Constitution adopted by referendum in January 2009 is a significant step forward for political democracy and for ensuring the people’s economic, social and cultural rights. Of course, adoption of this new Constitution does not mean that all its provisions in terms of collective and individual rights will be carried out immediately. Rather, a series of Articles set out the mid-term objectives to be reached. Their implementation will depend on the capacity of the party in power –MAS-IPSP (Movement Towards Socialism – Political Instrument for the Sovereignty of Peoples) – to put to good use the two-thirds majority it commands in the Plurinational Legislative Assembly.3 The decisive point is that adoption of the new Constitution provides the government and the legislative with a legal framework for pursuing the reforms initiated since 2006. As a corollary, it also provides social movements with a legal framework for ensuring that the government adopts all necessary measures for making the Constitution a practical reality. The challenge is therefore a tough one, because the experiment undertaken by MAS-IPSP is vulnerable to external threats and to its own shortcomings.
The right-wing opposition and the threat of separatism
In 2008 Evo Morales’ government had to face very violent opposition from rightist elements representing the interests of the local capitalist class (industrialists, large landowners, financial groups) associated with the interests of private multinationals exploiting Bolivia’s natural resources (oil, gas, various minerals). An interview4 with Bolivian vice-president Álvaro García Linera provides a strategic view of these confrontations. Here are a few particularly significant excerpts. García Linera starts out with the observation that the right refused to accept its minority status as a political force and opted for a separation between the wealthy western departments5 and the rest of the country, including the capital, La Paz. He goes on to describe the policy the government has followed, refusing confrontation on several occasions before deciding to clamp down.
“The right was not willing to be included in the national-popular project as a minority force led by others, and it opted for territorial explosion. The struggle for power brought closer the moment for its warlike or final solution insofar as, in the last analysis, State power is coercion. This is what we call ‘the fork in the road’, the moment at which the crisis of the State, begun eight years beforehand, would be resolved either through restoration of the old State power, or through the consolidation of the new popular power bloc. (…)
After the outcome of the approval referendum in August 2008, the civic-prefectorial bloc (i.e. the right, Editor’s note) undertook its putschist escalation: they took over institutions, we waited; they attacked the police, we waited; they destroyed and sacked public buildings and institutions in 4 departments, we waited; they disarmed the troops, we waited; they took over airports, we waited (…). They worked themselves into an impasse (…) The prefect launched the Pando6 massacre to send an intimidation signal to the people’s leaders… and this act pushed the whole of Bolivian society’s tolerance to its extreme limits. The peasant massacre (…) forced the State to react by sharp, swift intervention in defence of democracy and society. And without a single second’s doubt, we were aiming at the weakest link in the putschist chain: Pando. This was the first state of siege in Bolivian history dictated by the defence and protection of society, with the total support of a population horrified by the putschists’ actions.
This fact, combined with the international community’s rejection of the putschists, was to put an end to the civic-prefectorial initiative, bringing about their disorderly retreat. It was the time for a popular counter-offensive, with social and popular organizations in Santa Cruz7 department in the front lines. Not only did the peasants and the colonizadores8 mobilize, but also the poor in Santa Cruz popular districts and especially urban youth, who, during memorable days of resistance against fascist gangs, defended their districts in Santa Cruz and broke with the clientelist domination of the Santa Cruz lodges.
The government’s vigorous, firm political and military response to the coup combined with the social mobilization strategy in Santa Cruz and towards Santa Cruz, created a perfect junction between society and State rarely seen in Bolivia’s political history.(…) The right took stock of the state of its shock troops - isolated, in disarray - and recognized the high level of political determination in an indigenous-popular bloc that was ready for anything. The right preferred to admit defeat and surrender. This is how the cycle of State crisis and political polarization was closed and a durable new State structure was established during a warlike show of force.”
Up to this point, Álvaro García Linera has developed a very optimistic viewpoint on the right’s political rout, but later in the interview he points out that the right wing does not lack the leverage to bounce back and try to regain the initiative in order to put an end to the ongoing left experience: “The private income bourgeoisie no longer has the petroleum firms as a generous source of revenue. The agrarian patronage network that the landowners set up in the agro-industrial field has been greatly weakened by the existence of the State food corporation EMAPA and the fact that the public share in the soy, wheat and rice production chain represents between 20 and 30% of total production. But the intransigent opposition bloc still controls important areas of agricultural,9 commercial and financial power and this provides the bloc with a great capacity for pressure and confrontation.
On the other hand what it lacks today, and this can last for years, is a State project: for how long will it be without one? Nobody knows, but its goal is to prevent the popular project from continuing to make headway. (…) There is a difference in how the fork in the road is consolidated when the popular sector is politically and materially defeated, compared to when the employer side is defeated, because the latter can lose politically but hold on to economic power, enabling it to keep a permanent power of veto.”
On the demands of indigenous originary peoples10
To learn more about the indigenist political project defended by large organizations with links to MAS (Movement Towards Socialism, Evo Morales’ political party) we must refer to the Unity Pact made public in 2006 to prepare for the Constituent Assembly.
Autonomy: “Indigenous, originary and peasant autonomy, as a fundamental axis of the decolonization and self-determination process, is the condition for and basis of the freedom of our peoples and nations. (…)It aims for the permanent construction of a full and complete life, via our own forms of representation, administration and ownership of our lands.”
Landholding and territorial regime: “Original rights to non-renewable resources belong to indigenous originary nations and peoples and peasants. Ownership of non-renewable resources belongs equally to the originary indigenous nations and people and peasants and to the unitary plurinational state.” This formulation can be interpreted in various ways. In practice, what tends to hold sway in Evo Morales’ governmental policy is the State’s exploitation of national resources, as the vice-president of the Republic clearly stated in a recent interview (see below: “Oil resources in the Amazonian region: an emblematic issue”).
Latifundio: “[The State must] distribute lands fairly, and be the guarantor of current and future rights and needs of originary peoples and peasants, and see to the well-being of the population as a whole.”
Education: “The priority for the plurinational State is to provide an intracultural, intercultural, pluricultural and plurilingual character to education, a basic cornerstone, on all levels and in different forms; in conformity with the ethnic and linguistic diversity of the country, teaching and administration will use indigenous language as a priority, and then Spanish as a language of intercultural communication.”
The Unity Pact also calls for the coexistence of originary and peasant legal systems with the western legal system and the creation of a fourth power independent of the State: alternative instituting social power rooted in the social movements. The theme of plurinational social power has been broadly debated, as a civil and corporatist type “fourth power” (its members would be chosen on a customary basis and by universal suffrage). It would have the responsibility to “watch over and control” State powers and would be empowered to inflict sanctions on them, being independent of them. This idea was eventually omitted in the NCPE (New Political Constitution of the State).
The new Constitution, finally approved in January 2009 during the constitutional referendum by 62% of voters, is a step forward for indigenous and originary people. As we see below in the full text of part I, Title II, chapter 4, this Constitution guarantees in particular: recognition of indigenous languages, recognition of the rights of indigenous nations and peoples to exercise their own political, legal and economic system, establishment of “peasant originary indigenous” territories empowered in terms of definition of their own form of development, administration of indigenous justice, management of renewable natural resources, etc. Several parts of the Constitution guarantee these rights.
A test of power for MAS
Evo Morales’ party, MAS-IPSP (Movement Towards Socialism – Political Instrument for the Sovereignty of Peoples) was founded by peasant trade-union organizations in the late 1990s. As regards the social nature of MAS, Pablo Stefanoni12 now wonders whether or not it would be interesting to study this political movement as a party of rural and urban smallholders (merchants, micro-entrepreneurs) of indigenous origin. Adopting this outlook would mean changing our understanding of a political organization until now seen as an outgrowth of social movements of the most oppressed. This being said, we are talking here about small business owners it would be foolish to ostracize. They certainly have a place in a process of building a society that is an alternative to capitalism; a society in transition to socialism. Pablo Stefanoni asks another question that takes this issue further: “Doesn’t family accumulation – renamed “Andean capitalism” – still rely on forms of exploitation and self-exploitation at least equal, and generally worse, than those prevailing in formal capitalism, regulated by labour law ?” He goes on: “The current government has rescinded the labour flexibilization approved in the 1990s – in particular, ‘the freedom to dismiss’ – but these rules do not hold in the family or informal economies that are prevalent in entire cities such as El Alto, close to La Paz, where nearly one million people live. (…) The superiority of “indigenous cosmovision” – a smokescreen that often hides corporatist practices or deep-rooted regional identities – over “liberal cosmovision” is scarcely debated and the emphasis on the ethnic dimension of oppression has practically overshadowed its class dimension. It is no accident if progress in terms of labour movements’ rights is rare or non-existent.” 13
With a majority in the Chamber of Deputies since 2006, MAS must come to terms with the exercise of political power. As time goes on, as with any left-wing party involved in the concrete exercise of participation in parliamentary institutions and government, certain changes occur. MAS is no exception. As Pablo Stefanoni says, the reasoning of a certain number of activists is changing from “politics must serve to change the country” to “why am I not entitled to a post when I campaigned and fought for MAS to win”? This is all the more widespread since, according to a MAS operating rule, candidates foot their own electoral campaign expenses. This means that some of them (perhaps the majority?) go into debt to be able to wage an electoral campaign that could earn them a seat.14 In some cases, they also make commitments in order to ensure support. This shores up the patronage already permeating Bolivia’s political life.
When MAS came to government, it announced that it was breaking with the tradition by which the winning party sacks a large number of civil servants to replace them with its members, protégés or clients. It set the replacement threshold very low: 5% of civil servants, in order to guarantee a non-partisan institutionalization of the civil service. This decision was hard to accept for some party activists who had hoped their efforts during the electoral campaign and various struggles would be rewarded with a job - or several. Finally, the MAS leadership relaxed its stance and increased the 5% limit.
In January 2007, a scandal occurred in La Paz. Certain MAS activists were taking payments in exchange for support to civil service applicants. This scandal was of limited development. However, early in 2009 a second scandal caused greater damage: Santos Ramírez, a historic MAS leader15 who had been placed at the head of YPFB, the public petroleum company, was caught red-handed in a large-scale corruption scandal. The MAS government took strong action to set an example. Santos Ramírez was jailed while awaiting trial. MAS showed Bolivian society that although some of its cadres were not immunized against corruption, the party was breaking with the tradition of impunity for political office-holders by favouring their conviction in the case of a legal offence. The Santos Ramírez scandal caused a genuine commotion that would leave its marks.16
When Evo Morales entered office, he took an exemplary measure to show he was putting an end to privileges: he lowered his own salary. Of course, this was very popular among the people, for understandable reasons. This measure also entailed lowering the salaries of other political officeholders, since it was unthinkable for them to be earning more than the president and not showing the example of a government refusing privileges for itself. Later, the government decided to relax its position so that it could authorize high salaries for public corporation executives. These executives are allowed to earn more than the President of the Republic. Álvaro García Linera, justifying this decision, called it Bolivia’s NEP, in reference to the NEP applied by Lenin in the early 1920s in Soviet Russia17: “It is our version of Lenin’s NEP (the New Economic Policy in post-revolutionary Russia). NEP’s aim, beyond an alliance with the peasantry, was fundamentally to recruit technicians to administer State technical bodies, taking into account the fact that although the State is a political structure, it has bureaucratic-administrative and technical-scientific levels demanding knowledge and competencies that cannot be acquired or transformed swiftly. To call a halt to the economic disaster that followed on the heels of the revolution, Lenin had to rehire technicians from the former State, until a simpler administration could be gradually built. His watchword was: under each technical manager, we must place a young person who will learn. We are doing the same. We already began in 2006: we changed the organization and personnel at the decision-making levels of public administration (ministers, deputy ministers and some directors) but we have not touched the secondary level of the State administrative structure until young, trained State managers can take over from the senior managers.”
Towards an “Andean-Amazonian capitalism”?
Álvaro García Linera backs the development of an “Andean-Amazonian capitalism” in which the State plays a key role. Without deforming his concept, it can be said that the Bolivian vice-president is favourable to an Andean-Amazonian form of State capitalism. Using a railway metaphor, he clearly outlines the hierarchy of participants in this model: “The State is the only actor that can unite society. It is the State that takes on the synthesis of the general will, plans the strategic framework and steers the front carriage of the economic locomotive. The second carriage is Bolivian private investment. The third is foreign investment. The fourth is small business. The fifth is the peasant economy and the sixth, the indigenous economy. This is the strategic order in which the country’s economy must be organized.”18 The outlook described by Álvaro García Linera is clearly different from, or opposed to, an authentic 21st century socialism. It is true that he does not disguise the true nature of his project with pompous socialist rhetoric. This project, which could potentially drift in dangerous directions, is one possible scenario for the future.
According to Pablo Stefanoni, Evo Morales has an outlook similar or identical to his vice-president Álvaro García Linera: “Far from encouraging the class struggle in its Marxist sense, Evo Morales has updated the divisions already mentioned – nation/anti-nation, people/oligarchy and in practice is promoting a new “class alliance” – without using a term reminiscent of the 1950s. This alliance includes “patriotic entrepreneurs” and “nationalist military”, to build a “productive and modern country”, thanks to the profits from natural resources “repossessed by the State”. The core of the governmental economic program thus bears on the modernization and industrialization of a backward economy under the leadership of a strong State, which substitutes for a non-existent national bourgeoisie.”19 This is a far cry from Evo Morales’ many statements in international forums and in his own country when he speaks out against the capitalist system and declares that we must rid the planet of it.
Furthermore, Álvaro Garcia Linera challenges a certain “NGOist”20 and “indigenist” view of Bolivian Indians: “The outlook according to which the indigenous world has its own cosmovision, radically opposed to that of the West, is typical of latecomer indigenists or those closely linked to certain NGOs. I don’t want to imply that there are no specific organizational, economic and political logics. Basically, everyone wants to be modern. The Felipe Quispe insurgents, in 2000, were demanding tractors and Internet. This does not mean giving up their organizational principles. Moreover, this can be seen in indigenous economic practices. The development of indigenous businesses follows a very flexible logic. They seek to accumulate, but they don’t risk everything for accumulation. First of all, I start to work alone with my family group, the ultimate basic social core. That goes very well: I hire more people and I stop working; that doesn’t work: I go back to the second level: that goes very badly: I return to my family where we put up with everything. We never break with the family logic… They want to modernize but they do it their way. They can export, be part of globalization, but the family core remains the last resort where they can survive on just bread and water. When business expands to 10 or 15 workers, instead of expanding to 30, 40 or 50 workers they stop and another small business emerges, their son’s, their brother-in-law’s; the logic says you never put all your eggs in one basket. It is different from a very rational Weberian accumulation, with economies of scale, with a lot of technological innovation. In this case, the family is never the last fulcrum for productive activity, it is an element among links, networks, markets, and matrimonial strategies… The indigenous world has its own logic but it is not an antagonistic logic, standing apart from “western” logic. The people who took part in recent movements are very aware of this.” 21
Oil resources in the Amazonian region: an emblematic issue
Coherently, in relation to the prospect of an “Andean-Amazonian capitalism”, Álvaro García Linera advocates the exploitation of the Amazonian region’s petroleum resources. There again, he defends a “Realpolitik” at odds with the ecological outlook often expressed by Bolivia’s president:
“In the case of gas and petroleum exploration in the Amazonian north of La Paz, we seek to produce hydrocarbons in order to geographically balance the sources of society’s collective wealth, generate a State surplus and at the same time preserve the environmental space in coordination with the indigenous communities. Today, we are not in the process of opening up the Amazonian north to let Repsol or Petrobras in. We are opening up to let the State in. (…) Do we have to exploit gas and petroleum in the Amazonian north of La Paz? Yes. Why? Because we need to balance Bolivian society’s economic structures, given that rapid development of Tarija,22 with 90% of the gas, will generate long-term imbalances (…)
Answering the question “what if the communities said the State couldn’t come in either?” Álvaro García Linera continues: “This is the debate. What happened? When we consulted the Central Organization of Indigenous Peoples of La Paz (CPILAP in Spanish), they asked us to go negotiate in Brussels with their legal firm and to respect the environmentalist principles published by USAID. How is this possible? Who wants to prevent the State from exploring petroleum north of La Paz? Indigenous Tacana communities? NGOs?23 Or foreign countries? We went to negotiate community by community and we obtained support from the indigenous communities to continue to explore for and exploit petroleum. The indigenous-popular government consolidated the long struggle of the peoples for land and territory. In the case of the minority indigenous peoples of the lowlands, the State consolidated millions of hectares as a historic territoriality for many peoples of low demographic density; but besides a people’s right to land, the State (the State led by the indigenous-popular and peasant movement) has the right to prioritize the higher collective interest of all the peoples. And this is how we proceeded afterwards.”24
It is legitimate to ask the following questions: by persuading Amazonian peoples, in the name of the “indigenous-popular bloc” (Álvaro García Linera’s expression) to accept exploitation of non-renewable underground resources in the ancestral territories they occupy, isn’t the Evo Morales government perpetuating the extractive, productivist model? Wouldn’t a right-wing government have faced very strong popular resistance by indigenous peoples if it had wanted to exploit Bolivian Amazon petroleum found on their lands? If the right returns to power in a few years, won’t it radically cut back on the concessions the central power made to originary peoples when it wanted to secure the right to exploit resources on their lands? In this case, wouldn’t it be better for the indigenous originary peoples to refuse industrial exploitation of non-renewable natural resources?
Translated by Marie Lagatta in collaboration with Judith Harris
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Box: The rights of originary indigenous and peasant nations and peoples
(Excerpts from the new Bolivian Constitution)
Chapter Four
Article 30. I. Any human community that shares a cultural identity, language, historical tradition, institutions, territory and cosmovision whose existence is prior to the Spanish colonial invasion is an indigenous originary and peasant nation or people.
II. Within the framework of State unity and in accordance with this Constitution, originary indigenous and peasant nations and people enjoy the following rights:
1. To exist in freedom;
2. To their cultural identity, religious beliefs, spirituality, practices and customs and their own cosmovision.
3. That the cultural identity of each of their members, if the member so desires, be recorded along with Bolivian citizenship on the member’s identity card, passport or any other legally valid identity documents.
4. To self-determination and territoriality.
5. That their institutions are part of the overall structure of the State.
6. To collective property title to their lands and territories.
7. To the protection of their sacred sites.
8. To create their own communications systems, media and networks.
9. That their own traditional knowledge and wisdom, traditional medicine, languages, rituals and symbols and clothing are valued, respected and promoted.
10. To live in a healthy environment, with proper management and use of ecosystems.
11. To collective intellectual ownership of their knowledge, science and wisdom and their valorization, use, promotion and development.
12. To intra-cultural, intercultural and multilingual education throughout the educational system.
13. To a universal, free healthcare system that respects their cosmovision and traditional practices.
14. To the exercise of their political, legal and economic systems in accordance with their cosmovision.
15. To be consulted through appropriate procedures and in particular through their own institutions, whenever legislative or administrative measures that may affect them are planned. In this context, their right to a preliminary, compulsory consultation, carried out by the State, in good faith and in concertation, will be respected and guaranteed, with regard to the exploitation of non-renewable natural resources in the territory they inhabit.11
16. To sharing in the profits from exploitation of natural resources in their territories.
17. To autonomous indigenous territorial management and exclusive use of and benefit from the renewable natural resources found in their territories without prejudice to rights legitimately acquired by third parties.
18. To participate in State bodies and institutions.
III. The State guarantees, respects and protects the rights of originary indigenous peoples and peasants enshrined in the Constitution and the law.
Article 31. I. Originary indigenous nations and peoples in danger of extinction, in a situation of voluntary isolation and without contact, will be protected and respected in their forms of individual and collective life.
II. Indigenous nations and peoples in isolation and without contact have the right to remain in that condition and the right to demarcation and legal consolidation of the territory they occupy and inhabit.
Article 32. The Afro-Bolivian people enjoys, in everything concerning themselves, economic, social, political and cultural rights recognized in the Constitution for originary indigenous and peasant nations and people.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Notes
[1] Eric Toussaint, president of CADTM Belgium (Committee for the Abolition of Third World Debt, www.cadtm.org ). He is the author of Bank of the South. An Alternative to the IMF-World Bank, VAK, Mumbai, India, 2007; The World Bank, A Critical Primer, Pluto Press, Between The Lines, David Philip, London-Toronto-Cape Town 2008; Your Money or Your Life, The Tyranny of Global Finance, Haymarket, Chicago, 2005.
[2] In the presidential elections Evo Morales won 53.7% of votes, with a very high turnout (84%). It should be noted that in Santa Cruz, a bastion of the right, the MAS attracted 33.2% of votes.
[3] In the general elections held in December 2009, MAS-IPSP won two thirds of parliamentary seats and a majority in the Senate. Evo Morales was elected for a new term with 64.3% of votes. He scored impressively in many departments associated with the opposition, for example in Tarija, with 40% of votes.
[4] Interview with Maristella Svampa, Pablo Stefanoni and Ricardo Bajo, “El punto de bifurcación es un momento en el que se miden ejércitos” http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=90782 .
[5] The eastern departments making up the media luna (half moon) are those of Santa Cruz, Beni, Pando and Tarija. Together, they make up 36% of the population and 45% of gross domestic product.
[6] Some 15 peasants were murdered and dozens of others wounded on 11 September 2008 in El Porvenir in Pando province. Its prefect, Leopoldo Fernández, one of the central figures of the right opposition and directly involved in the massacre, was jailed upon order of the central power.
[7] Santa Cruz department was the epicentre of the right-wing reaction.
[8] The colonizadores are peasants who occupied new lands, either in the framework of colonization policies promoted by the State in the 1930s, or in the framework of self-organized population movements. This is the case of families that emigrated towards Chapare province, in Cochabamba department, to cultivate coca. They came first from Altiplano, either through State colonization policies in the 1930s, then, with the structural adjustment plan implemented in 1985, from the mining regions of Oruro and Potosi following the closing of the mines and the loss of their jobs. Evo Morales’ family was one of these peasant families that left the cold, arid high plains for the hot, humid lowlands of Chapare. However, as indicated above, if the cocaleros are indeed colonizadores, the latter are not only coca farmers. For example, while the mobilization towards Santa Cruz involved cocaleros from the Chapare area, the peasant settlers from the San Julián area were in the front ranks.
[9] According to Charles-André Udry, in the two departments of Beni and Santa Cruz, 14 families own some 312,966 hectares. Part of these lands is not cultivated. These families have long been the pillars of the most hardcore right-wing parties. Today, these families – who appropriated the lands between 1953 and 1992, in particular under military dictatorial regimes – are violently protesting the implementation of land reform. (Réforme agraire et réappropriation territoriale indigène, http://risal.collectifs.net/spip.php?article2017)
[10] Bolivian aboriginal peoples are generally referred to as “originary” in the Andes and “indigenous” in Amazonia. The new Bolivian Constitution makes “peasant originary indigenous” populations a legal subject when it is a matter of giving collective rights to rural communities.
[11] We should point out however that if consultation of populations affected by non-renewable natural resource exploitation is mandatory (a positive measure), its outcome is not binding!
[12] Pablo Stefanoni is the co-author, with Hervé Do Alto, of Evo Morales, de la coca al Palacio (Malatesta, La Paz, 2006).
[13] Pablo Stefanoni in “L’indianisation du nationalisme ou la refondation permanente de la Bolivie”, in the journal Alternatives Sud published by CETRI: La Bolivie d’Evo. Démocratique, indianiste et socialiste? Vol XVI -2009/3, Louvain-la-Neuve, http://www.cetri.be/spip.php?rubrique119&lang=fr .
[14] This rule effectively bars the poorest people from being candidates for the office of member of parliament, senator or member of the Constituent Assembly. In practice, it is not rare to see trade union leaders with a strong political background and training forced to give up their places to middle class intellectuals or small entrepreneurs with bigger economic resources, when electoral slates are drawn up.
[15] According to Álvaro García Linera, Santos Ramírez could claim to be next in line to Evo Morales as MAS candidate to the Presidency of the Republic.
[16] See Hervé Do Alto, “¿“Más de lo mismo” o ruptura con los “tradicionales”? Bolivia y el MAS: un caso de democratización paradójica”, Le Monde diplomatique (Edición boliviana), February 2009, nº 11, pp. 6-8.
[17] In the interview with Maristella Svampa, Pablo Stefanoni and Ricardo Bajo, entitled: “El punto de bifurcación es un momento en el que se miden ejércitos ”. http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=90782 [18] Ortiz P. (2007), “Fue un error no liderar el pedido autonómico” (entrevista a Álvaro García Linera), El Deber, Santa Cruz de la Sierra, 21 January 2007. Quoted by Pablo Stefanoni in “L’Indianisation du nationalisme ou la refondation permanente de la Bolivie”, op. cit.
http://www.cetri.be/spip.php?rubrique119&lang=fr[19] Pablo Stefanoni in “L’Indianisation du nationalisme ou la refondation permanente de la Bolivie”, op. cit.
[20] A neologism meaning: related to NGOs (non-governmental organizations).
[21] In Svampa M., Stefanoni P. (2007), “Evo simboliza el quiebre de un imaginario restringido a la subalternidad de los indígenas” (entrevista a Álvaro García Linera), in Monasterios K., Stefanoni P. and Do Alto H. (dir.), Reinventando la nación en Bolivia, La Paz, Clacso-Plural.[22] The prefect of Tarija province was part of the right-wing opposition together with the prefects of Santa Cruz, Beni and Pando provinces.
[23] However in the case of Bolivia, such a line frankly opposing NGOs is all the more astonishing for being in total contradiction with the very makeup of the government, as most of its ministers come from such institutions. Among these is the CEJIS (Centre for Legal Studies and Social Research), recognized by Eastern indigenous movements as a staunch supporter in the reconquest of aboriginal peoples’ prerogatives on their ancestral territories. Some of the heavyweights in Morales’ team earned their wings there, such as Carlos Romero, the current minister of Autonomies.
[24] Interview conducted by Maristella Svampa, Pablo Stefanoni and Ricardo Bajo entitled: “El punto de bifurcación es un momento en el que se miden ejércitos”
US protects Bolivian terrorist
Federico Fuentes
The US authorities continue to harbour Branko Marinkovic, a leader of the Bolivian right-wing opposition accused of financing a terrorist cell to assassinate Bolivian President Evo Morales.
Evidence has now come to light that the CIA was receiving information from contacts close to the very same terrorist cell.
On April 16, 2009, Bolivian police stormed one of the rooms in the Hotel Las Americas in Santa Cruz to break up a group of foreign and Bolivian mercenaries who were part of a plan to assassinate the Bolivian president and vice president.
Bolivian attorney Marcel Soza revealed on February 11 that evidence obtained from the hotel room showed that Hungarian ex-military intelligence officer Istvan Belovai not only provided reports to the terrorist cell, but also sent information directly to the CIA.
Belovai’s reports were used by the anti-Morales group, the Supreme Council, which financed the paramilitary group’s activities. Marinkovic, a large landowner, was one of the leaders of the Supreme Council.
In 2008, Marinkovic was instrumental in the violent campaign waged by opposition forces in Bolivia’s east that aimed to overthrow Morales. He also heads up FULIDE, a fascist group whose members carry swastikas on their marches.
Despite strong evidence that he personally funded the terrorist cell to the tune of US$200,000, he has been living freely in the US since July 2009. He joins the long list of terrorists involved in campaigns against the Cuban, Venezuelan and Bolivian governments that are being harboured by the US.
Republished from Green Left Weekly
The US authorities continue to harbour Branko Marinkovic, a leader of the Bolivian right-wing opposition accused of financing a terrorist cell to assassinate Bolivian President Evo Morales.
Evidence has now come to light that the CIA was receiving information from contacts close to the very same terrorist cell.
On April 16, 2009, Bolivian police stormed one of the rooms in the Hotel Las Americas in Santa Cruz to break up a group of foreign and Bolivian mercenaries who were part of a plan to assassinate the Bolivian president and vice president.
Bolivian attorney Marcel Soza revealed on February 11 that evidence obtained from the hotel room showed that Hungarian ex-military intelligence officer Istvan Belovai not only provided reports to the terrorist cell, but also sent information directly to the CIA.
Belovai’s reports were used by the anti-Morales group, the Supreme Council, which financed the paramilitary group’s activities. Marinkovic, a large landowner, was one of the leaders of the Supreme Council.
In 2008, Marinkovic was instrumental in the violent campaign waged by opposition forces in Bolivia’s east that aimed to overthrow Morales. He also heads up FULIDE, a fascist group whose members carry swastikas on their marches.
Despite strong evidence that he personally funded the terrorist cell to the tune of US$200,000, he has been living freely in the US since July 2009. He joins the long list of terrorists involved in campaigns against the Cuban, Venezuelan and Bolivian governments that are being harboured by the US.
Republished from Green Left Weekly
Bolivian women rise up
Lisa Macdonald
In January, Bolivia’s left-wing President Evo Morales began his second term by appointing a new cabinet in which women are equally represented for the first time.
Morales, Bolivia’s first president from the nation’s long-oppressed indigenous majority, is leading a revolutionary process of transformation.
The 10 women ministers are from a wide range of backgrounds, and three of them are indigenous. Introducing the new ministers, Morales said: "My great dream has come true — half the cabinet seats are held by women.
"This is a homage to my mother, my sister and my daughter."
In the December 6 national elections, in which there was the highest-ever voter participation in Bolivia, Morales and his Movement to Socialism (MAS) party won a resounding victory. Morales was re-elected with a record 64.2% of the vote and the MAS secured the two-thirds majority in the Senate needed to pass legislation to advance its pro-people program.
The proportion of women in Bolivia’s new parliament doubled, from 14% to 28%. Women now hold 47% of Senate seats and Ana Maria Romero from MAS has been elected Senate president.
This is a remarkable achievement in the poorest country in South America. It was not until the 1952 national revolution that either women or the 60% of Bolivia’s population that are indigenous were even entitled to vote.
Until 1996, women were largely prohibited from owning or inheriting land.
MAS senator Gabriela Montano told the BBC on January 29: "This is the fruit of the women’s fight: the tangible proofs of this new state, of this new Bolivia, are the increasing participation of the indigenous peoples and the increasing participation of women in the decision-making process of this country."
Morales was first elected in 2005 on the back of five years of massive protests and uprisings — in particular against the privatisation of Bolivia’s gas.
Morales’ government has implemented some of the key demands of the people’s struggle — in particular the partial nationalisation of gas and the convening of an elected constituent assembly to draft a new constitution based on justice and equality for the indigenous peoples.
The new constitution — passed in a national referendum in January 2009 — guarantees equal rights for women and men, and empowers women and Bolivia’s indigenous majority in all areas of society.
Morales and MAS have stated that their goal, reflecting the will of the people, is to build a new state "from below" that is based on three pillars: "plurinationality" (recognition of indigenous equality); regional and indigenous autonomy within the framework of "a democratic decentralisation of power"; and a mixed economy in which the state plays the central role in strategic sectors.
At his January 21 inauguration, Morales argued for the need to build a "communitarian socialism" in Bolivia — to replace capitalism’s destruction of life and the planet.
Despite women’s traditional exclusion from politics, they were at the centre of the process that brought Morales to power and, with most to gain from the radical changes under way, have become a driving force in the revolutionary process.
Thousands of campesino (peasant) women were the backbone of the roadblocks, marches and demonstrations against the neoliberal policies implemented by pre-Morales governments.
They played a key role in the huge protests in 2000 and 2003 against foreign corporate ownership and further privatisation of Bolivia’s natural resources. Their leadership in the coca growers’ movement and for indigenous land rights has been a motor force of the revolution.
Montano told the BBC: "The awakening of women has been brewing for a while. Women have been a key element in the consolidation of this process of change led by President Morales, from the rallies, the protests, the fights.
"Now, they will be a key element in affairs of national interest."
Bolivia’s women’s movement still has many big battles to win. The power of the Catholic Church means that women are still unable to access safe and legal abortions, and Bolivia has the highest maternal mortality rate in Latin America.
Female illiteracy is still around 20% and domestic violence is a major problem, Bolivia’s women’s rights organisations say.
Bolivia’s laws establishing women farmers’ right to land ownership are among the most advanced in Latin America. The Morales government allocated property deeds for 164,401 hectares of land to 10,299 women between January 2006 and January 2009 (compared with only 4125 such deeds between 1997 and 2005).
However, illiteracy and traditional cultural practices mean that many rural women are still unaware of their rights under the new constitution.
Morales and the social movements are striving to overcome the legacies of centuries of colonial and imperialist oppression.
Equal gender representation in government, although a significant achievement in any country, is far from a guarantee of equality and freedom for all women.
But when that representation is the product of, and embodies leaders of, mass struggles by the poorest and most oppressed women, it takes on deep significance.
It is a central part of the broader struggle by the oppressed in Bolivia to create a new society
The women of Bolivia are proving that women can fight and win — for their rights as women and for a radically new type of society based on equality and self-determination by the people.
The courageous and inspiring struggles of women and other sectors of the oppressed in Bolivia are part of a global struggle.
Bolivian Vice-President Alvaro Garcia Linera used his January 21 inauguration speech to call for global socialist revolutions: "No revolution can triumph if it is not supported by other revolutions in the world. The empire is a global demon, and the only way to defeat it is [by] globalising the power of the people."
Republished from Green Left Weekly
In January, Bolivia’s left-wing President Evo Morales began his second term by appointing a new cabinet in which women are equally represented for the first time.
Morales, Bolivia’s first president from the nation’s long-oppressed indigenous majority, is leading a revolutionary process of transformation.
The 10 women ministers are from a wide range of backgrounds, and three of them are indigenous. Introducing the new ministers, Morales said: "My great dream has come true — half the cabinet seats are held by women.
"This is a homage to my mother, my sister and my daughter."
In the December 6 national elections, in which there was the highest-ever voter participation in Bolivia, Morales and his Movement to Socialism (MAS) party won a resounding victory. Morales was re-elected with a record 64.2% of the vote and the MAS secured the two-thirds majority in the Senate needed to pass legislation to advance its pro-people program.
The proportion of women in Bolivia’s new parliament doubled, from 14% to 28%. Women now hold 47% of Senate seats and Ana Maria Romero from MAS has been elected Senate president.
This is a remarkable achievement in the poorest country in South America. It was not until the 1952 national revolution that either women or the 60% of Bolivia’s population that are indigenous were even entitled to vote.
Until 1996, women were largely prohibited from owning or inheriting land.
MAS senator Gabriela Montano told the BBC on January 29: "This is the fruit of the women’s fight: the tangible proofs of this new state, of this new Bolivia, are the increasing participation of the indigenous peoples and the increasing participation of women in the decision-making process of this country."
Morales was first elected in 2005 on the back of five years of massive protests and uprisings — in particular against the privatisation of Bolivia’s gas.
Morales’ government has implemented some of the key demands of the people’s struggle — in particular the partial nationalisation of gas and the convening of an elected constituent assembly to draft a new constitution based on justice and equality for the indigenous peoples.
The new constitution — passed in a national referendum in January 2009 — guarantees equal rights for women and men, and empowers women and Bolivia’s indigenous majority in all areas of society.
Morales and MAS have stated that their goal, reflecting the will of the people, is to build a new state "from below" that is based on three pillars: "plurinationality" (recognition of indigenous equality); regional and indigenous autonomy within the framework of "a democratic decentralisation of power"; and a mixed economy in which the state plays the central role in strategic sectors.
At his January 21 inauguration, Morales argued for the need to build a "communitarian socialism" in Bolivia — to replace capitalism’s destruction of life and the planet.
Despite women’s traditional exclusion from politics, they were at the centre of the process that brought Morales to power and, with most to gain from the radical changes under way, have become a driving force in the revolutionary process.
Thousands of campesino (peasant) women were the backbone of the roadblocks, marches and demonstrations against the neoliberal policies implemented by pre-Morales governments.
They played a key role in the huge protests in 2000 and 2003 against foreign corporate ownership and further privatisation of Bolivia’s natural resources. Their leadership in the coca growers’ movement and for indigenous land rights has been a motor force of the revolution.
Montano told the BBC: "The awakening of women has been brewing for a while. Women have been a key element in the consolidation of this process of change led by President Morales, from the rallies, the protests, the fights.
"Now, they will be a key element in affairs of national interest."
Bolivia’s women’s movement still has many big battles to win. The power of the Catholic Church means that women are still unable to access safe and legal abortions, and Bolivia has the highest maternal mortality rate in Latin America.
Female illiteracy is still around 20% and domestic violence is a major problem, Bolivia’s women’s rights organisations say.
Bolivia’s laws establishing women farmers’ right to land ownership are among the most advanced in Latin America. The Morales government allocated property deeds for 164,401 hectares of land to 10,299 women between January 2006 and January 2009 (compared with only 4125 such deeds between 1997 and 2005).
However, illiteracy and traditional cultural practices mean that many rural women are still unaware of their rights under the new constitution.
Morales and the social movements are striving to overcome the legacies of centuries of colonial and imperialist oppression.
Equal gender representation in government, although a significant achievement in any country, is far from a guarantee of equality and freedom for all women.
But when that representation is the product of, and embodies leaders of, mass struggles by the poorest and most oppressed women, it takes on deep significance.
It is a central part of the broader struggle by the oppressed in Bolivia to create a new society
The women of Bolivia are proving that women can fight and win — for their rights as women and for a radically new type of society based on equality and self-determination by the people.
The courageous and inspiring struggles of women and other sectors of the oppressed in Bolivia are part of a global struggle.
Bolivian Vice-President Alvaro Garcia Linera used his January 21 inauguration speech to call for global socialist revolutions: "No revolution can triumph if it is not supported by other revolutions in the world. The empire is a global demon, and the only way to defeat it is [by] globalising the power of the people."
Republished from Green Left Weekly
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
