tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32492462.post7908868772399656532..comments2023-12-27T05:36:10.037+11:00Comments on Bolivia Rising: Bolivia: Amazon protest -- development before environment?Bolivia Risinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07931217260294325442noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32492462.post-14756386659394359502011-09-29T21:01:31.964+10:002011-09-29T21:01:31.964+10:00Sorry if I'm a little bit late on this news. P...Sorry if I'm a little bit late on this news. People really should start caring for the environment before anything else and you two should start being kind to each other. Everyone has different points of view and can sometimes misunderstood what the author is trying to say.ISO 14001 Traininghttp://www.isocampus.com/iso-14001-training-online-courses/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32492462.post-4941934603524721922011-09-27T22:15:09.244+10:002011-09-27T22:15:09.244+10:00Yeah, I have to agree with Duderino. What a lame ...Yeah, I have to agree with Duderino. What a lame response.<br />The one thing that you should feel responsible to answer is your claim that the Brazilians are footing the bill. A loan is a very different thing than paying the bill, as anyone with student loans or an overvalued house payment can tell you. You should answer why you were so reckless in claiming this.<br />UC Grad Student/Bolivian residentAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32492462.post-19557775055595971662011-09-25T15:09:41.601+10:002011-09-25T15:09:41.601+10:00This is a very sad response on your part. You'...This is a very sad response on your part. You've really lost it, man.El Duderinohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10563180127607015578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32492462.post-7359320807366684942011-09-20T11:04:01.310+10:002011-09-20T11:04:01.310+10:00On US involvement: again your argument is based on...On US involvement: again your argument is based on fabrications. Both Quispe and Nuni have said they had phone contact with the US embassy (something collaborated by the embassy itself). What they questioned was the supposed content of the phone calls. On this i am happy to accept their argument until proven otherwise. <br /><br />However, it question whether communications with the US embassy (whose previous head was expelled for organising a coup!) is or isnt a question of "state security" jsut shows how far you are willing to go in attacking Morales while ignoring US imperialism. This is repeated by the fact you describe as "pittance" the money received from USAID, as if there is no problem here, perhaps just the small nature of the amount given to them.<br /><br />On racist comments: here again, in your attempt to slander the Morales govenrment you fail to look at facts. Coraite from the CSUTCB came out immediately saying his comments had been taken out of context by the media and apologised for any harm caused. Why do you prefer to repeat right wing corporate media lies than the statements of social movement leaders?<br /><br />On land redistribution: it is patently false to say it was only CIDOB that is forcing redistribution. Whose guns do you think were present when the lands have been militarily occupied. Clearly the governmetn has been supporting rather than hindering land distribution (which as i point out in the article, has benefited indigneosu communities in the east far more than those aligned with the CSUTCB and colonisers). I support the government in any further redistribution, but of course such actions come with consequences that neither i nor you have to deal with. In the meantime i support the government in its continued program of land reform that has and continues to benefit peasants, colonisers and indigenous peoples.<br /><br />On the COB: i clearly said COB leaders and not the COB as a whole. Although i have read no statement from any COB leader opposing the highway, only asking for the government to dialogue. <br /><br />On REDD: clearly you have not read the protestors demands. Number 4 is specifically titled REDD Fonde Verde. And again it is a lie to say that the MAS government, which rejected the Cancun declaration in part due to the question of Fondo Verde is implementing it. You have no evidence for this. If it was true, this should be opposed, but not from a position of saying local communities should instead profit. The fact you are not willing to oppose this also shows how far you have gone to supporting US-imposed climate "solutions" in your attempt to prove that Morales is the real "climate criminal"<br /><br />El Duderino, you would do much better to focus on facts in this complex situation than standing on the sideline throwing rocks at the Morales government and the process of change (the two are clearly interlinked and not opposing forces as you claim). If not you may turn around to find that it is the US, IMF and right-wing corporate media that stands shoulder to shoulder with you in your campaign.Bolivia Risinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07931217260294325442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32492462.post-35935770019572046342011-09-20T11:03:51.274+10:002011-09-20T11:03:51.274+10:00On TIPNIS highway: you want to have it both ways, ...On TIPNIS highway: you want to have it both ways, you say the highway will destroy indigenous communities and say that proof of this is that it will not go near the communities! But in the end all this is false as it is public knowledge that there are atleast 8 proposed routes, and the government has stated it willingness to discuss any further proposals. IN this regards, it is the march leaders who refuse to propose any alternative.<br /><br />Of course this is there right. But it is false to then claim it is the govenrmetn and not the march leaders who dont want to carry out consultation. In fact this has been proven by the fact that the march leaders have explicitly refused any consultation process. Again it is their right to hold such a position, a legitimate one by all means. What is not legitimate is for others to misrepresent the conflict and pretend it is the march that is demanding consultation when the reality if patently the opposite.<br /> <br />The same is true of your claims this is all about resource extractions. Firstly the government has made clear that TIPNIS is not within its projects for gas exploration, Secondly, logging (with the complicity of some of the local indigenous communities) is already happening against the government's wishes. Hence why studies show that at current desforestation rates over 40% of TIPNIS will disappear by 2030. <br /><br />In the face of this, the government has proposed to draft a new law (in collaboration with the communities in TIPNIS) greatly increasing punishment against those that illegally settle, log or plan coca in TIPNIS. So far no response has been forthcoming on this from the march leaders.<br /><br />On the constitution: i have read it, and it explicitly states consultation not veto rights. So why are the march leaders opposing consultation! If by consultation though you mean that TIPNIS communities should have a veto right on this issue, then say so and stop hiding behind the demand for consultation. but then you must also state whether you support veto rights for Guarani people in the Aguagua gas fields to halt all extraction there (90% of Bolivia's gas exports). If so you will again find that most poor Bolivians will be violently oppsoed to such a proposal and what it would entitle for Bolivia.<br /><br />On dividing sectors: my article was clear, both sides have hindered more than helped dialogue, to claim otherwise is nonsense.Bolivia Risinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07931217260294325442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32492462.post-13185389103944618772011-09-20T11:03:32.482+10:002011-09-20T11:03:32.482+10:00[Apologies as i thought i had posted a response la...[Apologies as i thought i had posted a response last week but noticed it as not appeared, must have pressed the wrong button. this also means this response will be shorter as i dont have time to go through all the same points again]<br /><br />El Duderino wrote: " Fuentes, you have done something very dangerous which is confuse Morales and MAS with the ‘proceso de cambio’. The party’s full name is Movement towards Socialism – Political Instrument of the Sovereign Peoples. They are just a temporary instrument, not the process."<br /><br />Sorry El Duderino but it is you who are making a very serious mistake in cobbling together any slander you can find against the government of social movements as part of a broader campaign aimed, not at defending TIPNIS, but helping to undermine support for the process of change and divide its social base. This is clear by the false arguments you raise that condemn everyting from Morales "racism" to Brazilian "neocolonialism" while dismissing clear evidence of US attempts to convert this struggle into one that benefits its aims.<br /><br />So lets go through this point by point<br /><br />On IIRSA: your position is clear, any loan/donation whether from the US and IMF or Brazil is neocolonialism and therefore should be opposed. But again i raise the question: do you support abandoning all highways that are being built under IIRSA. If so you will find such arguments difficult to make among Bolivia's poor who will benefit from the integration of the country via these and other road constructions.<br /><br />Do you also believe that Bolivia should not accept loans from anyone on the basis this is neocolonialism? your comparision with Banzer shows more about your lack of understanding of the Morales government than anything else. The fundamental difference you fail to grasp is that it is the Bolivian government now, not the US or others, who decides what loans are used for and not dictated to them as was the case with Banzer.Bolivia Risinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07931217260294325442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32492462.post-80973462070345222372011-09-18T16:31:45.544+10:002011-09-18T16:31:45.544+10:00excellent article. But I need more writtenexcellent article. But I need more writtenAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32492462.post-71483593783907303742011-09-15T15:06:44.669+10:002011-09-15T15:06:44.669+10:00second part:
On the point of dividing sectors, wh...second part:<br /><br />On the point of dividing sectors, who is attempting to divide Bolivia’s popular sectors? CIDOB, which is carrying out a peaceful march in the great Bolivian tradition of protest? Or the Morales government which has accused CIDOB and CONAMAQ of being analogous imperialist lackeys to the violent and racist rightwing coup mongers of the Media Luna? <br /><br />Morales claimed to have acquired the private phone records of Rafael Quispe and his own MAS congressman Pedro Nuni showing contacts the US Embassy, alleging coordination on the march. Both have fiercely denied the accusation. When the press asked under what legal pretense the private records were acquired Morales’ ministers responded “state security”. How is a peaceful march an existential threat to state security? <br /><br />Other concrete accusations of US interference? The only others made so far were by Quintana citing public USAID documents detailing funding for conservation projects with indigenous communities in the Amazon (a pittance in comparison to what they gave the civicos). He called for the expulsion of USAID, which Carlos Romero quickly denied the next day, claiming the presentation was only his personal opinion and not that of the government. If USAID is the real nefarious force behind the march, why does Morales not expel them like he did to Goldberg during the 2008 coup attempt? I have no love for the agency. <br /><br />Further, who has made racist statements in the dispute? The head of the CSUTCB stated openly in a press conference that, “the indigenous should accept the road project to stop living like savages”. Need I say more?<br /><br />Who is dividing campesinos, colonos, and indigenous? Those marching, or a government that has illegally promised land to campesinos in the TIPNIS and indigenous TCOs in the Amazon? If the government wanted to break the economic power of landowning elites in Santa Cruz, a much better way would be to redistribute their estates to campesinos rather than encourage colonization in the Amazon. How is breaking up communal indigenous land into private property apart of the transition to socialism? Who actually has forced the redistribution of land in Santa Cruz from the elite? CIDOB- Ronald Larsen being the lighting rod of attention.<br />Additionally you are wrong about COB support for the highway. COB, as it is with most issues these days, is divided on the matter. COD-Beni is actually apart of the march. MST-B also supports the march. And CIDOB is not advancing REDD in their demands. Their demand is that the funds from the REDD program Morales’ government is already planning on implementing with the UN, the “Fundo Verde”, actually go to the indigenous communities whose forests are utilized.<br /><br />Fuentes, you have done something very dangerous which is confuse Morales and MAS with the ‘proceso de cambio’. The party’s full name is Movement towards Socialism – Political Instrument of the Sovereign Peoples. They are just a temporary instrument, not the process.El Duderinohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10563180127607015578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32492462.post-63936249040515756922011-09-15T15:05:39.038+10:002011-09-15T15:05:39.038+10:00You are correct. I was so nauseated by your articl...You are correct. I was so nauseated by your article that I began skimming it and missed your mention of IIRSA. But now that you have pointed it out, let’s discuss your presentation of the initiative.<br /><br />You state that, “Brazil is footing 80% of the bill for the disputed highway”. That is bullshit. The Brazilian National Development Bank is financing 80% of the project’s estimated cost through a loan, with which Bolivia is required to contract a Brazilian construction company to do the work. So, as opposed to Brazil “footing the bill”, Bolivia is going into debt to hire Brazilian workers to build a highway through the heart of one of its most pristine nature reserves; a highway project that is already officially estimated to be the most expensive in Bolivian history. How is this any different from a USAID or World Bank “development” infrastructure project? Or is neocolonialism acceptable when it is not the US doing it?<br /><br />If you did your research you would also know that IIRSA originated as a neoliberal proposal in 2000 when the FTA was still on the drawing board. It was that great socialist revolutionary Hugo Banzer who approved the project for Bolivia. The principle objective of IIRSA is not helping poor Bolivians have access to goods, communication, and services, but resource extraction with easy access to Asian ports. <br /><br />If that was the intention of the TIPNIS highway project, why is it intended to go through the western half of the territory when the vast majority of indigenous communities live in the eastern half? What then is in the western half?: Pristine forests and natural gas and oil concessions. It’s about extracting prime resources. So, no. I do not believe that the TIPNIS highway will benefit poor Bolivians. I have the historical experience of 500 years of resource extraction in Bolivia on my side on this one.<br /><br />On the point of the constitutional rights, perhaps you never read the constitution. Indigenous peoples have the explicit right to consultation in their territories (colonizers are not a party to the process because it is not their territory, as designated by law and title). Consultation never happened as mandated by the constitution in the TIPNIS, despite the fact that plans for the project where drawn up in 2008. The right of consultation is the obligation of the state to carry out and comply. The Viceministry of Environment admitted that consultation never happen in a radio interview with Red Erbol weeks ago. The failure of the state to live up to its obligations is why the march happened in the first place. The decision to march for the application of the right of consultation was approved unanimously in a meeting of the representatives of all 64 communities in the TIPNIS, the highest legal authority in the territory. How is that a just a few leaders of CIDOB, unrepresentative of their base? <br /><br />Since the march commenced, and the Brazilian development bank publically stated that they would not finance the project unless the government dialogued with affected indigenous communities, Morales’ government has given lip service to consultation. Yet every time they claim to be “open” to consultation (note: it is the government’s constitutional obligation, not the burden of indigenous peoples to comply) and dialogue they also state that no matter the decision of the indigenous, the highway will go through; as Evo stated “if they want it or not”. Choquehuanca reiterated the same just yesterday. The issue is not whether a road can be built between Cochabamba and Beni or regional development in Beni, neither of which CIDOB opposes. The question is how is consultation a constitutional right if it is meaningless? How is Bolivia a plurinational state if indigenous rights are mute? Who designed the highway project? The 64% of Bolivians that approved the rights in the plurinational constitution? Or a select few bankers and bureaucrats? How is that participatory or communitarian democracy?El Duderinohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10563180127607015578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32492462.post-54707571443201761012011-09-14T15:26:47.754+10:002011-09-14T15:26:47.754+10:00Hi El Duderino,
Perhaps my article was so tortured...Hi El Duderino,<br />Perhaps my article was so tortured that you were unable to read the whole thing. otherwise you would have noticed that i do mention IIRSA when i write "Some have criticised this highway. They point to the fact it is part of the Initiative for the Integration of the Regional Infrastructure of South America, a Brazilian-led project to economically integrate the continent, as proof of Bolivia’s subordination of Brazilian “sub-imperialism”.<br /><br />Brazil is footing 80% of the bill for the disputed highway."<br /><br />But as i also note in the article:<br /><br />"Others have noted that the highway is critical to breaking the department of Beni’s dependency on Santa Cruz.<br /><br />At the moment, all agricultural products must go via Santa Cruz to the east before being able to be transported westward.<br /><br />The proposed highway would directly connect Beni to Cochabamba. This would reduce costs for agricultural producers (and consumers) and travel distance from 848 kilometres to 306 kilometres.<br /><br />Given Beni’s status as the largest meat producing department, this would break the hold that Santa Cruz-based slaughterhouses have on imposing meat prices.<br /><br />This is one of the reasons why important sections of the Santa Cruz elite are opposing the highway."<br /><br />If your criticism of the road is based on the fact it is part of IIRSA, does that mean you also oppose all other highways currently being constructed as part of this process? If so you would definitely find strong opposition to your position from many poor Bolivians who have been clamouring for them.<br /><br />Do you also discount the very real benefits the highway would bring to Bolivia itself as i note in the article? <br /><br />And why do you claim Bolivian's constitutional rights are being violated? The government has made clear it is more than happy to carry out a consultation process with the people in TIPNIS. In fact it is the march leaders that are now opposing this.<br /><br />If on the other hand you believe consultation means inherently accepting as final the statement of the leaders of some (not all) communities in TIPNIS that no road can go through, would you also extend this position to the immediate halting of gas extraction in the Guarani peoples land which represents 90% of Bolivia's gas exports? This would seem to be a suicidal position.<br /><br />Finally, i prefer to support the Bolivian process of change (warts and all) rather than foment divisions between different movements. This is not a question of CIDOB versus the government, as there are many social sectors within the process (and within TIPNIS) that support it. Rather my position is that all sides try as best as possible to come up with a resolution to the benefit of all, without further fracturing the process of change. Something that would only benefit the enemies of the process. <br /><br />Whether this ends up being resolved in favor or against the highway i leave up to the Bolivians themselves. Meanwhile i will not participate in an international campaign whose goal is not to protect the environment (sorry but REDD and the privatisation of forests are as far removed from protecting Mother Earth as you can get) but to undermine the process of changeBolivia Risinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07931217260294325442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32492462.post-43433474988916374772011-09-14T06:37:36.832+10:002011-09-14T06:37:36.832+10:00This is a very tortured defense of the Morales gov...This is a very tortured defense of the Morales government's anti-constitutional position on the highway construction. I, like you, admire what Morales and MAS has made possible in Bolivia in the last five years, but on this issue, they are putting the interests of Brazilian capital (you never mention IIRSA?) above the constitutional rights of Bolivians. We ought to support CIDOB and oppose the highway.El Duderinohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10563180127607015578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32492462.post-45610149313237023252011-09-11T14:36:06.534+10:002011-09-11T14:36:06.534+10:00Wow, you could have saved yourself a lot of over-i...Wow, you could have saved yourself a lot of over-intellectualizing and words by just stating your obvious point: Whether it is kneeing a soccer opponent in the balls or building a new road through the rainforest so that cocaleros can invade even more of the Pachamama, we should all fall in line behind Evo and drink the Koolaid. Does that about sum it up?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com