Evo Morales: A divisive president

Came across this article in the Economist. Very interesting…

Evo Morales is a popular president, but his brand of politics is dividing his country

Reuters

ON THE high plane, the altiplano, surrounding La Paz, where the landscape is drawn in shades of dusty brown, new brick buildings stand out against the bright sky. Most are residences of a couple of storeys, but there are schools and clinics too. Some even boast cement balustrades, a flourish that echoes the Spanish colonial style. In a place where there are still adobe houses, and where a dowry may be measured partly in potatoes freeze-dried by nights spent above 4,000 metres (13,000 feet), this is a transformation.

President Evo Morales’s government has shovelled money towards this part of the country ever since he was elected in 2005. But its time in power has been deeply divisive. Leopoldo Fernández, an opposition politician who is governor of the Pando province in the north, has been in prison for ten months without standing trial. In March Victor Hugo Cárdenas, an Aymara Indian who was once the country’s vice-president, had his house attacked by a mob after opposing a new constitution proposed by the government.

Abroad, Mr Morales’s government has revelled in the worsening of a number of its most important relationships. It expelled the United States’ ambassador, along with his country’s drug-enforcement agents. The accusations of American plots against the government had abated in anticipation of the new Obama administration, but business has now returned to usual, with President Morales expelling another American diplomat and lambasting the United States for refusing to renew a preferential trade agreement that is linked to Bolivia’s performance on combating its drug barons. Bolivia’s relations with Peru are awful and it has failed to convince Brazil to abandon plans for new hydro resources in the Amazon which will lessen its demand for Bolivia’s gas.

In part this drive to isolate the country is deliberate. Many in the government dream of an economic autarky, powered by gas. Yet Mr Morales has accepted help from Venezuela, Cuba, Russia and Iran to further his “Movement to Socialism” (MAS) party. Venezuelan troops helped quell a rebellion centred on the airport at Santa Cruz in the east in 2007.

The antagonism between the government in the Andean city of La Paz and its opponents in Santa Cruz is Bolivia’s clearest fault line. The conflict is usually described as pitting indigenous Bolivians in the uplands against descendants of Spain in the lowlands, or poor versus rich, but in fact Santa Cruz is ethnically mixed and average incomes in the two cities are comparable. Instead, the conflict is one of identity. The cruceños see themselves as pioneers who carved prosperity out of a pestilential jungle. Those who live on the altiplano are likely to view Mr Morales, the country’s first indigenous president, with pride and to think that his government offers them a chance to get their share of revenues from the gasfields around Santa Cruz. By contrast, the cruceño elite fear losing their property, businesses and power.

This fear has increased since April, when government troops burst into the Hotel Las Américas in Santa Cruz, killed three men and arrested two others. The government claimed that this raid prevented an assassination attempt on Mr Morales. The hotel, all brown marble and glass with a few sad ferns in the atrium, seems an unlikely base for a terrorist cell, and the supposed terrorists were an unlikely bunch. That three of them were killed in their beds rather than spared for interrogation has aroused suspicion that they were in effect executed.

Whatever the case, a continuing investigation acts as a useful reminder to would-be rebels that they should stay in line. It has also destroyed any kind of moderate opposition. Carlos Dabdoub Arrien, one of the more constitutionally minded of the government’s opponents in Santa Cruz, describes Mr Morales as an “indigenous fascist”.

Those new brick houses on the altiplano are likely to keep Mr Morales in power in the elections due at the end of the year. He has handsomely increased government spending for the past three years, including much-needed increases in cash-transfer programmes. Some of these were inherited from the previous government, but they have been boosted and renamed. One programme is called “Bolivia changes, Evo delivers”.

Maybe. But at least one pundit, reckoning that the voters are still unlikely to give Mr Morales the landslide he craves in the legislature, says Bolivia is suffering a classic bout of Latin American populism: personalised politics, mild paranoia, bad economic policy and a weak opposition.

Morales opens the door to mob justice… consequences begin to pop up

An outbreak of government paranoia

From the Economist

IN THE mid-1990s, when he was vice-president, Víctor Hugo Cárdenas, an Aymara Indian, oversaw the introduction of bilingual education: pupils were to be taught in their indigenous language as well as Spanish. You might think that would still endear him to Bolivia’s Indians. Not so, to some of them at least.

Having disappeared from the political limelight for a decade, Mr Cárdenas recently emerged as a powerful opponent of the new constitution promoted by Evo Morales, a fellow Aymaran who, as president since 2006, claims to be refounding the country along indigenous-socialist lines. Ahead of a referendum in January in which voters approved this document, Mr Cárdenas appeared in opposition television advertisements. He says that the constitution’s endorsement of “community justice” is a “mechanism of abuse”.

document.write(‘<script language=”JavaScript” src=”http://ad.doubleclick.net/adj/web.economist.com/all_articles;nav=world_politics_v_the_americas;pos=mpu_left;tile=4;sz=350×300,336×236,300×250,250×250;subs=’ + isSubscriber() + segQS + ‘;ord=’ + ord + ‘?” type=”text/javascript”><\/script>’);

On March 7th a mob of indigenous people several hundred-strong attacked Mr Cárdenas’s house in a village on the shore of Lake Titicaca, violently evicting his wife, Lidia Katari, herself an indigenous-rights activist, and two of his children before setting fire to his belongings. The few police who turned up did nothing. The assailants claimed that they had staged an act of “community justice” against Mr Cárdenas. They later said that they would not allow him, the police or public prosecutors to enter the area, claiming that the new constitution gives them control over a large swathe of surrounding territory.

Mr Morales may well have had nothing to do with the attack. But his opponents have long claimed that he is opening the way to this kind of mob rule. The government information service implausibly claimed that Mr Cárdenas had staged the incident himself as a publicity ploy.

Certainly, Mr Cárdenas has emerged as a potential leader for an opposition hitherto dominated by lighter-skinned Bolivians from the eastern lowlands. Under the new constitution, a presidential election is due to be held in December in which Mr Morales will seek a second term. And he suddenly looks rattled.

In an opinion poll in January by Ipsos-Apoyo, a respected pollster, the president’s popularity rating had slipped to 53%, nine points down from November and the lowest level for two years. Since then the government has been shaken by a corruption scandal at YPFB, the state-owned oil and gas company which Mr Morales revived. Santos Ramírez, the company’s president, was sacked and arrested, accused of orchestrating backhanders of over $3m from a company contract. Other YPFB officials are implicated.

What makes this so damaging is that Mr Ramírez was a senior leader in Mr Morales’s Movement to Socialism. And the nationalisation of the natural-gas industry, along with the new constitution, is the president’s main initiative. The opposition claims that the policy of giving state companies free rein to sign contracts—which the government says is necessary to sidestep bureaucracy—is a recipe for graft.

In another sign of growing official paranoia, Mr Morales blamed the YPFB imbroglio on the CIA, expelling an American diplomat this week who he claimed was involved (he turfed out the ambassador last year). He still has a bedrock of support among poorer Bolivians of Indian descent in the west of the country. But he is starting to look as if he is on the defensive.

The United States and Bolivia

Published by the Huffington Post on Feb 25

With the Obama administration’s policy towards Venezuela pretty much decided, and the embargo on Cuba considered untouchable because no one is willing to risk losing support among Cuban Americans in the swing state of Florida, that leaves Bolivia as a left government in the region where the hostility of the Bush administration could be quickly reversed. However there are a number of outstanding issues between the two countries. The United States and Bolivia currently do not have ambassadors. Bolivia expelled the U.S. ambassador on September 10, on the grounds that he (and Washington) were intervening in Bolivia’s internal affairs. Among other offenses, the U.S. embassy was caught trying to use Peace Corps volunteers and a Fulbright scholar for spying; U.S. ambassador Phillip Goldberg had met privately with opposition leaders at a time when elements of the opposition were engaged in destabilizing violence; and the U.S. seemed to lend tacit support to the Bolivian opposition by not condemning this violence or even offering condolences when dozens of government supporters were massacred in Pando on September 11. The Bush administration responded to the expulsion of the U.S. ambassador by expelling Bolivian ambassador Gustavo Guzmán. But there are also other important issues for Bolivia. On September 26, the Bush administration suspended Bolivia’s trade preferences under the ATPDEA (Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act). The official reason was that Bolivia had not been co-operating sufficiently in the war on drugs. But according to the UN’s 2008 report, Bolivia’s coca cultivation had increased by just 5%, compared to a 27% increase in Colombia, the biggest beneficiary of U.S aid in the region. The Bolivians are eager to begin a new chapter of improved relations with Washington. To demonstrate this willingness, the Bolivian government refrained from filing a complaint at the World Trade Organization (WTO) against the United States for the suspension of its trade preferences. Their legal case is quite solid; under WTO rules, countries are allowed to establish rules for preferential access to their markets, but the rules must be applied equally to all countries receiving the preferences. But before filing a complaint at the WTO, Bolivia wanted to see if the new administration is interested in improving relations. Then there is another holdover from the Bush administration: Bolivia’s new constitution declares that health care (along with water and other necessities) is a human right and cannot be privatized. In keeping with their constitutional law, Bolivia asked the WTO for permission to withdraw the previous government’s commitment to open up its hospitals and health care sector to foreign corporations. According to the WTO’s procedural rules, if there are no objections to such a request within 45 days, it is approved. The European Union, home to some of the big health care corporations that might have an interest in the issue, responded that it had no objections. On January 5, the last day of the waiting period, the Bush administration objected. The Obama team has not yet decided whether it will rescind the Bush administration’s objection to Bolivia’s WTO request. Presumably they will; if not, it would be an unmistakable signal of continued hostility. Far from being an arcane detail of constitutional or international law, it has real meaning to millions of Bolivians: the struggle against water privatization was a significant part of the movement that brought Evo Morales to power. This is the political origin of the constitutional provisions establishing these essentials as human rights that cannot be infringed upon by private interests: many poor Bolivians had found themselves unable to afford water after it was privatized and user fees tripled. Bolivia has also kicked out the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, and it does not look like they are coming back. To the Bolivians, the U.S. is using the “war on drugs” throughout Latin America mainly as an excuse to get boots on the ground, and establish ties with local military and police forces. They see the whole process as destabilizing and a threat to their sovereignty and democracy. Despite all of these differences, it is still possible that Washington might choose to normalize relations with Bolivia. There are apparently some divisions within the administration over tactics. The “doves” apparently include Thomas Shannon, the current top State Department official for the Western Hemisphere, and a holdover from the Bush administration. These officials can see that there is a public relations problem in abusing Bolivia, the poorest country in South America and more importantly one led by the country’s first indigenous president, Evo Morales. To most of the world, he is the Nelson Mandela of Bolivia, with his government bringing an end to centuries of apartheid-like exclusion of the country’s indigenous majority. For the “doves” in the new administration, it would be better to avoid a public fight with Bolivia, so as not to distract from the guy who is sitting on what may be the largest petroleum reserves in the world – in Venezuela – and whom they have already successfully vilified in the media. On the other hand, there are hard liners who feel the need to “lay down the law” with Bolivia. We will soon know who has prevailed.

Chavez: “Holiday to honour me”

Schools turned pupils away, civil servants stayed home and banks shut their doors after President Hugo Chávez, taking Venezuela by surprise, declared Monday a national holiday. He announced the holiday on Sunday to commemorate his rise to power 10 years ago and the start of his Bolivarian Revolution. “Be alert, for the sword of Bolívar strides through Latin America,” he said at a ceremony on Monday, at the tomb of the liberation hero Simón Bolívar.

Businesses and schools were closed after they scrambled on Sunday to tell their employees and students to stay at home. Mr. Chavez’s decree, and threats to fine companies failing to comply, showed the sometimes arbitrary leadership of Mr. Chavez as well as his political astuteness to understand the move would be popular with Venezuelan workers.

wow. nuff said.

Season 8 of the West Wing

Well, not quite. But if it ever was going to happen the credits would look like this:

Obama vs Chavez: So it begins…

(reuters) Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said on Saturday Barack Obama had the “stench” of his predecessor as U.S. president and was at risk of being killed if he tries to change the American “empire.

Chavez said frayed ties with Washington were unlikely to improve despite the departure of Bush, who the Venezuelan leader has often called the “devil.”

“I hope I am wrong, but I believe Obama brings the same stench, to not say another word,” Chavez said at a political rally on a historic Venezuelan battlefield.

“If Obama as president of the United States does not obey the orders of the empire, they will kill him, like they killed Kennedy, like they killed Martin Luther King, or Lincoln, who freed the blacks and paid with his life.”

Venezuela is a leading supplier of oil to the United States and the two countries once enjoyed close ties.

Relations deteriorated after Chavez first won election in 1998 as he took on U.S. companies as part of his socialist agenda of nationalization of various industries and accused Washington of backing a brief coup against him.

Last year, he expelled the U.S. ambassador from Venezuela.

Chavez’s foreign policy is based on countering U.S. global influence and promoting countries like Russia and China as world leaders. He has close ties to U.S. foes Cuba and Iran.

What Obama said:

In an interview shown in the past week on the Spanish-language network Univision, U.S. President-elect Barack Obama said that Venezuela’s firebrand president, Hugo Chávez, has hindered progress in Latin America, and he expressed concern that Chávez’s leftist government has assisted Colombia’s biggest guerrilla movement, a group the United States considers a terrorist organization.

Obama said his administration is open to starting talks with Chávez to improve relations, which have frayed badly since the Bush administration celebrated Chávez’s brief overthrow at the hands of rebellious military officers in 2002. But in the 13-minute interview aired by Univision, Obama said Chávez had “been a force that has interrupted progress in the region.”

He then raised the issue of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, a 45-year-old rebel group loathed by Colombians for carrying out selective assassinations, attacks on civilian targets and mass kidnappings. Last year, Colombian authorities released internal rebel documents that outlined how Chávez and his close allies had assisted the group in an effort to isolate Colombian President Álvaro Uribe, the Bush administration’s closest ally in Latin America. The Chávez government denies it helps the FARC, as the group is known.

“We need to be firm when we see this news, that Venezuela is exporting terrorist activities or supporting malicious entities like the FARC,” Obama said. “This creates problems that are not acceptable.”

God’s Land: Mennonites and land ownership in Bolivia

Came across this excellent radio documentary which briefly reviews the current hardships Mennonites in Bolivia are experiencing as their way of life intersects with the current Bolivian political reality.

From the CBC:
Forty years ago, a group of Canadian Mennonites packed up and headed for Bolivia. They went in search of good farm land and isolation. And that’s what they got. But now, their quiet, comfortable existence has been caught up in a fierce political debate.

According to one study, the majority of arable land in Bolivia is concentrated on just 700 farms leaving many of the country’s indigenous people with little or nothing. Evo Morales has vowed to change that. He’s Bolivia’s first indigenous leader and he’s proposing a series of new laws on land ownership as well as a new constitution that Bolivians will vote on in two weeks. And if those laws pass, the Mennonites — and there are nearly ten thousand of them — could see their way of life disappear.

Freelance broadcaster Sarah Richards traveled to eastern Bolivia to visit these reclusive Mennonite communities. And she’s prepared this documentary about their uncertain future. It’s called God’s Land.

Listen to the documentary on the CBC website. Scroll down to Part 2.

Bolivia’s New Constitution will create “chaos” if approved: Carlos Mesa

Former President of Bolivia, Carlos Mesa, outlines some of the reasons why the new constitution’s approval could be detrimental for the nation.

From Bloomberg.com
By Jonathan J. Levin

Bolivia’s proposed constitutional overhaul will create “chaos” in the Andean nation if it’s approved in a nationwide vote on Jan. 25, former President Carlos Mesa said.

The proposal, spearheaded by current President Evo Morales, would increase the power of the indigenous majority by setting quotas for the representation of ethnic groups in the government. The quotas threaten the rights of other Bolivians, Mesa said at a news conference today at his office in the capital La Paz.

“I will vote ‘no’ for the constitution on Jan. 25,” Mesa said. “The construction of a plural democracy is based in the free and equal election of citizens; this mechanism will generate chaos and inequality.”

Mesa, who governed Bolivia from 2003 to 2005, is running for president against the incumbent Morales in December elections. Morales is the first indigenous leader of the Andean nation and has a 56 percent approval rating, according to a January poll from La Paz-based pollsters Ipsos Apoyo.

Mesa said Morales has polarized Bolivia with policies that favor some groups at the expense of others.

The Morales government seizes land it decides was illegally acquired by large landowners with the aim of eventually redistributing the land to native communities for farms. The government also uses taxes on Bolivia’s natural gas industry to fund stipends for students and senior citizens.

“The government has brought the country to polarization and division like we haven’t lived in decades,” Mesa said. “On Jan. 26 the country will be more polarized and more divided than ever before.”

Hugo Chavez sets date for referendum on presidential re-elections

The vote is set for February 15th, and if passed, would allow President Hugo Chavez to run for office again.

The announcement comes a day after MPs backed a constitutional amendment brought by Mr Chavez’s supporters.

A plan to lift term limits was defeated by the Venezuelan people last year. To Mr. Chavez the number one priority continues to be the consolidation of power around him rather than the garnering of support for his vision among all groups of society. He has openly stated that he believes he needs at least another 10 years to implement his socialist revolution.

If the revolution were about the poor in Venezuela, he would be focusing on engaging the opposition and finding ways for everyone to move forward together rather than further dividing the country with his attempts to stay in power indefinitely. Venezuela’s poor continue to be poor, crime levels have not decreased and the promised benefits of the revolution remain unseen. Worst of all, the political intolerance that grows daily in Venezuela may be opening the doors and windows of the country to violence and civil unrest.

Something to think about.

Article on this by the BBC

Bolivia and Venezuela cut ties with Israel over Gaza conflict

Bolivia and Venezuela have become the first countries in the world to cut diplomatic ties with Israel over the conflict in Gaza.

President Evo Morales made the announcement in a speech to diplomats in the government palace in La Paz. He referred to the Israeli offensive in Gaza as a “genocide”.

Morales is a close ally of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who expelled Israel’s ambassador to his country on January the 6th, in protest over Gaza.

Caracas accused Israel of what it said were “flagrant violations of international law” and of using “state-sponsored terrorism” against the Palestinians.

Israel maintains the offensive is aimed at ending cross-border rocket attacks by militants in Gaza.