Bolivia Government Freezes Separatist Santa Cruz Province Accounts

[Judi Lynn]

Source: AFP

Bolivia Government Freezes Separatist Santa Cruz Province Accounts
04-25-081047ET

LA PAZ, Bolivia (AFP)--A crisis that threatens to split Bolivia has worsened, with the government freezing the accounts of the eastern province of Santa Cruz just days before the territory holds a referendum on whether to declare autonomy.
(snip)

Arce said the government froze the accounts holding tax revenue for Santa Cruz because the province disconnected itself from a nationwide government computer system that tracked municipal spending and receipts.

The government also accused the U.S. ambassador to Bolivia, Philip Goldberg, of siding with the rebel provinces.

"Ambassador Philip Goldberg has unveiled an agenda more political than diplomatic in Bolivia, and this agenda is linked to opponents of the current government," Interior Minister Alfredo Rada said.



Read more: http://www.nasdaq.com/aspxcontent/NewsStory.aspx?cpath=20080425%5CACQDJON200804251047DOWJONESDJONLINE000771.htm&&mypage=newsheadlines&title=Bolivia%20Government%20Freezes%20Separatist%20Santa%20Cruz%20Province%20Accounts

[Judi Lynn]

1. Bolivia Halts Region Funds Before Referendum, La Razon Says

Bolivia Halts Region Funds Before Referendum, La Razon Says

By Alex Emery

April 25 (Bloomberg) -- Bolivia's Finance Ministry froze bank accounts for the province of Santa Cruz, 10 days before the region holds a referendum for ``autonomy,'' the daily La Razon reported.

The government froze the accounts because of a lack of information on the province's budget from the prefect of Santa Cruz, the La Paz-based newspaper said, citing Finance Minister Luis Alberto Arce.

Santa Cruz, the wealthiest region of Bolivia, is due to receive 830 million bolivianos ($112 million) this year in oil and gas royalties, according to La Razon.

Santa Cruz Prefect Jose Luis Paredes said the province presented budget reports every quarter and called the account freeze ``an abusive measure,'' the newspaper said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=aopJOVy1LUyw&refer=latin_america

[mickeyraul]

2. Santa Cruz is an oil-rich area control by right-wingers

Who want to separate from Bolivia in order to keep all the oil and oppress the poor.

[Judi Lynn]

7. You've got that right, as most of us are well aware by now!

Here's a quick reference:

Bolivia: New constitution sparks right-wing revolt


Rachel Evans, La Paz
18 January 2008


In December, after 16 months of wrangling, the elected delegates to the constituent assembly finally passed a draft constitution that will be put to a national referendum sometime before September.


A new constitution to re-found the country in order to include the indigenous majority subjected to 500 years of racial oppression has been a key demand of Bolivia’s powerful social movements. Evo Morales, Bolivia’s first indigenous president, was elected in December 2005 promising to convoke an assembly.

The draft constitution recognises the rights of the indigenous peoples and guarantees state control over natural resources, among other progressive changes — including protection for gays and lesbians from discrimination.

After the constitution was passed, right-wing forces backed by the Bolivian oligarchy led a violent campaign that saw four people killed in Sucre.

The main right-wing opposition party, Podemos, boycotted the final assembly session, allowing delegates from the Movement Towards Socialism (MAS) — Morales’ party — and allies to pass the draft with the two thirds majority required. Opposition groups — backed by US imperialism — have refused to recognise the draft as legitimate.

In retaliation the oligarchy based in the “media luna” (“half moon” — the four departments in the east of the country home to much of Bolivia’s natural resources) have launched plans to hold referendums to declare “autonomy” from the Bolivian state.

Polarisation

The resource-rich eastern states are the main base of the racist white elite, with the predominantly indigenous, poorer, western departments being main base of support for Morales. The push for autonomy is a move aimed at securing control over gas reserves and land.

More:
http://www.greenleft.org.au/2008/736/38118

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Some words to ponder from another source, Santa Cruz: The Other Bolivia:

Santa Cruz: The Other Bolivia
October 8, 2006

~snip~
....... Santa Cruz is known for its racial divisions, emphasized and enforced mostly by paler skinned Cruceños (Santa Cruzians), who call themselves Cambas, as opposed to the darker skinned Cruceños, who they call K’ollas. Camba usually means whiter and upper class, while K’olla can mean everyone else, darker skinned and poorer. This terminology was explained to me as semi-scientific by Cruceños who considered themselves Cambas, but was deemed little more than racist and classist euphemisms by other Cruceños I talked to.

Cruceños who seriously identify themselves as Cambas do a lot of creative nationalist myth making, about how Cambas are the real Cruceños, that there aren’t really very many indigenous people, and that the ones who do exist are poor because they are lazy and they want to be. Various Cambas told me that K’ollas are unfriendly, stingy and dirty. There is an interesting binary in Camba discourse which delegitimizes indigenous people while simultaneously usurping indigenous culture and humble farmers as a part of its nationalist myth. On the day I left Santa Cruz, Unitel, the Santa Cruz owned Bolivian equivalent of Fox News, showed milk white Camba teens dancing indigenous dances in the lobby of a shiny new mall and movie theater. Autonomy is a magic word for both Cambas and Cruceños at large, but it means very different things for each. Indigenous nations in Bolivia (of which there are at least 36) are demanding autonomy to be able to make decisions about their land, as well as to get back their land from large estates. Eastern politicians in Santa Cruz, however, demand autonomy as a way to maintain control over resources and neoliberal policies in the face of a new government elected for its promise to re-nationalize formerly state owned industries such as gas, mining, railroads, as well as to redistribute land.

Not surprisingly, the Cruceño elites hate Morales, and they express it in several ways. The press, mostly owned by friends and allies, follow them around like dogs hoping to get a good butt sniff. The same ten old white men from Santa Cruz get at least 50% of the nightly television screen time, and the rest goes to models and soap operas. Papers are no better, usually twisting statements by the administration to sound inflammatory, and publishing daily interviews with members of the right. Newspapers are even less abashed in Santa Cruz itself, where interviews of the public always show different shades of the same perspective. The day I arrived, I bought a copy of El Deber, the local newspaper, in which one man was quoted as saying ” Cruceños need to stop being such fags and go out and confront these Indian niggers. For another, loudmouthed, very privileged social institutions have grown up as “representativesâ€� of the people, when in fact they represent the same 10 white men I mentioned before. The most vociferous of those organizations is the Comité Cívico Pro Santa Cruz.

http://upsidedownworld.org/april/?p=11

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Good comment, mickeyraul. Welcome to D.U. :hi:

[nerddem]

15. collas y cambas

ok, a camba is anyone from the east, specifically santa cruz, beni, and pando. i don't know where the word camba came from, but colla is an ancient term for people from around lake titicaca (the former kollasuyo "colla country" in quechua), so a colla is anyone from the west, specifically la paz and oruro, and nowadays potosi gets lumped in there too, even though it's less aymara than lp and or.

those are the main geographically-based nicknames. cochabamba, chuquisaca, and tarija are sort of no man's land or on their own little worlds. in cocha there are cochalas, and in tarija they're just tarijenos or chaquenos. down in tarija it really is more of a supranational regional culture of the chaco.

me, i'm from la paz, so i call anyone from santa cruz a camba, regardless of their skin color. my dad is from la paz too, and he's pale and always gets sunburns, whereas at the end of the summer i'm darker than a good chunk of black people, haha.

anyway, yeah, there are annoying (and loud) wingers in santa cruz, just as there are anywhere else, and as well all know, wingers anywhere in the world seek differences to create division. don't get me wrong, i have a lot of colla pride, but i really really dislike morales, and have seen him push these divisions further rather than try to heal the country. if only we had a bolivian obama...

and on that note, viva la paz, carajo, la sede no se mueve! haha

[Rydz777]

3. The situation is complicated and has racial implications. The

highlands largely are occupied by Quechua and Aymara peoples, two quite distinct languages. The eastern lowlands (e.g. Santa Cruz,) where the hydrocarbon wealth lies, is largely occupied by Guarani people, another entirely distinct language. Their natural affinity is to Guarani speaking Paraguay which borders them to the south. The Guaranis have historically disliked the Quechua and Aymara of the Altiplano. Add to this mix the Spanish and other Europeans who live in both areas.

This is just another example of artificial boundaries drawn by the Spanish conquerors now under stress.

[totodeinhere]

6. Correct. We can't necessarily couch this in ideological terms.

[Peace Patriot]

9. Nope, not correct. The indians have nothing, no matter their tribe. The whites own

everything, though they are a small minority--and the Bushites side with the whites, because both the Bushites and the white separatists are fascists, murderers, torturers and enslavers of the indigenous, and greedy beyond belief.

What is going on here is colossal unfairness, and to assert that "we can't necessarily couch this in ideological terms" is a disinformation tactic, to fuzz over the truth of the matter: The leftist, socialist MAJORITY are the poor and the unfairly excluded, just now coming into their RIGHTFUL political power, through democratic institutions, and the rightwing, fascist, predatory capitalist MINORITY is trying to STEAL resources that BELONG TO the majority, just as they stole the land from them in the past. It IS an ideological struggle, in this sense--a very basic one: democracy vs. not democracy. It is also an economic struggle: Socialist vs. rancid, murderous, Bushite capitalist. And a human rights struggle: Justice vs. vast injustice. And a struggle between morality vs. immorality.

The injustice is REAL. It is not a theory. It is not a matter of choosing shades of liberalism, or degrees of socialism, or predatory capitalism vs. communism, or any other "ideological" construction. The ideology can be seen on the map. It can be felt in the impoverishment of the many. The remedy is socialism, or to be more precise, a mixed socialist/capitalist economy with strong democratic control of land use, public works, resources and business activity. That is what is right and just. It is not an imposition of "ideology." It is a proper and rightful remedy to ideology that has been imposed! The fascist ideology--that the rich rule the earth.

[Rydz777]

10. The same point has been made by the Vice-President of

Bolivia, Alvaro Garcia Linares. He is a former mathematics professor and guerilla fighter, and along with the President Ewo Morales leads the "Movement to Socialism. But Garcia Linares makes the point that Bolivia must not be trapped in the ideological categories growing out of the experiences of the European urbanized proletariat. They must find solutions based on the traditional rural cultures of the indigenous peoples which have a strong collectivist element.

Garcia Linares is of European extraction; Ewo Morales is Aymara. Europeans and North Americans make a mistake when they lump all the indigenous peoples into one undifferentiated mass. The Aymaran language, for instance, has a unique grammatical structure which seems to reverse future and past tenses in their worldview - a characteristic which seems to impart remarkable patience. The present borders of Bolivia are equivalent to a European structure in which Russians, Italians, and Norwegians - each group speaking their own language at home and maybe English in public - are bound together within lines drawn by an outside group of conquerors.

[Peace Patriot]

14. You obviously know more about this than I do, but I wasn't saying there are no

differences among the indigenous groups, only that the issue of land and wealth is so overwhelming as the reality of all of their lives, and of the situation in Bolivia, that I see no reason to stress those differences, nor to attribute the separatist movement TO the indigenous. It is clearly a white, rich, landowner movement--in the interests of white, rich landowners--and backed by the Bushites. NO indigenous person will benefit from this. They will be--and already are--treated as second-class citizens within the white enclave.

So I guess I don't understand your point. What do differences among the indigenous groups have to do with the white separatist movement?

I also didn't mean to say that European political ideology can or should be used to describe South American struggles, or to devise solutions to them. I think I do understand this pretty well. I only meant to say that calling it "non-ideological" ignores the blatant, fascist, European/North American ideology of the landowners, and the remedy--which Evo Morales himself proposes: socialism. It for sure has different components than European socialism, but it IS socialism (for instance, establishment of "the commons," as to public works, land uses and resources, and the obligation of the state to use revenues for education, medical care and other social needs). I haven't read the new constitution, but I understand that it redefines land ownership--that the lands that indigenous groups will receive--through land reform programs that will reclaim fallow land, and compensate where there is clear title--will be held in common by the group, not by individuals. That is different from European socialism, and brings a whole new consciousness and set of values--indigenous reverence for the land--into the law of the land.

I'm aware of the problem of European colonizers imposing borders on indigenous groups. It has occurred in Africa as well. And I was thinking a lot about this when the last Peruvian presidential election occurred. There was an indigenous candidate, Ollanta Humala who did very well--almost won it, in fact, with no experience and no money. Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales endorsed him. And the Bushites and their benighted press corps immediately jumped on this as "outside interference" and even claimed that it lost Humala votes (which it didn't--it gained him more votes--about 15% more--in the runoff). And I was thinking how irrelevant this North American notion of "outside interference" was to the indigenous groups in Peru and Bolivia. To indigenous voters in Peru, the fact that Evo Morales is 100% indigenous would be far more important than that he was Bolivian. (Also, that Chavez is part indigenous, and obviously a kindred spirit.) The Bushites and the Associate Pukes had no understanding of what happened in that election--or, if they did, were deliberately lying.

Please tell us more about the indigenous groups in Bolivia, and how this affects the situation. I am fascinated by what you said about the Aymaran language. I sort of grokked this patience characteristic you mentioned, in Morales, in his TV appearances, but more, just in his photos and statements. There is something indefinably different about him, than what I sense in any other national leader I could name. I sense a spine of steel--or should I say reeds?--that is, courage and determination. And I also get this sense that he is a thousand years old, has seen it all, is still fresh as a mountain flower, and more than intelligent--he is wise! I had to laugh a short time ago, when he said something like, "Well, if you don't like the new constitution that you elected me to get written, then let's put me to a vote again--an up or down vote. Am I in or out? You decide."

It was so...indigenous! Your average politician doesn't DO that. Once they get power, they hang onto it with tooth and claw. But he was willing to just walk away--and go back to growing his coca leaves in the mountains.

Like he's been doing for a thousand years.

[Judi Lynn]

4. Bolivia's splitters

Bolivia's splitters
Hugh O'Shaughnessy

Published 13 December 2007

Evo Morales' opponents are pushing to break free of him and his pesky drive for a better deal for the country’s poorest, the indigenous peoples, writes Hugh O'Shaughnessy

Bolivia’s white and near-white minority have been content to lord it over the Aymara and Quechua majority for nearly five centuries and see no reason to change.

And certainly not now, just when the money is beginning to flow in from oil and gas exports. Just when a traditionally bankrupt country has a balanced budget and a surplus on its foreign trade. Just when the Cruzeños, the respectable people in the self-regarding city of Santa Cruz, capital of the oil belt, are beginning to be able to afford their first Mercedes.

When the Spaniards arrived in the sixteenth century in what is now Bolivia, they overthrew the native peoples and their Inca empire, enslaving not just the Aymaras and Quechuas but Guaraníes, Chiquitanos, Ayoreos, Baures, Canichanas and twenty other races.

Merely because a poor itinerant Aymara trumpeter like Morales got a thumping majority in the 2005 presidential election is, for them, no reason to weaken the established order. Good grief, no.

If the poor benighted cholos and collas – the Bolivian equivalents to words like 'niggers' and 'coons' - learn to read what will they not demand, say the Cruzeños and their allies?

Bolivia’s legitimate, president meanwhile presses on with the new constitution - fairer to the dispossessed majority and the indigenous peoples - that he was elected to enact.

The right-wing majority in the upper house of congress, sabotaged the drafting but, in the absence of the opposition, this was adopted last month.

Opposition leaders thereupon called for civil disobedience, challenging the government for control of the streets, airports and oil and gas fields.

For good measure they have brought back the red herring of transferring the government and parliament from the country’s largest conurbation, La Paz, to the small rural Sucre, seat of the supreme court and the Bolivia’s official capital. That sort of sabotage would equate to transferring Whitehall and the British parliament to Old Sarum or Thetford.

And the Cruzeños and their allies are not alone. The Bush government has been alert since before the presidential elections, worried by Morales’ refusal to accept the US line on the outlawing of coca bushes (he is against the production of cocaine but utterly refuses to outlaw the leaf whose mild narcotic effect has been a harmless comfort to the inhabitants of the High Andes for millennia before the Europeans arrived).

More:
http://www.newstatesman.com/200712130067

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This article was written in November, 2005. Note how important the two bases in Ecuador and Paraguay have been, then imagine the change which is looming into view now that Ecuador's Correa plans to close the Manta base in 2005, and Paraguay's President elect, Fernando Lugo has voiced opposition to the U.S.'s continuing presence in their air base (built during the 35 year rule of fascist dictator Stroessner), Mariscal Estigarribia.

Dark Armies, Secret Bases, and Rummy, Oh My!
Conn Hallinan | November 21, 2005

Editor: John Gershman, IRC

Foreign Policy In Focus www.fpif.org

It would be easy to make fun of President Bush's recent fiasco at the 4th Summit of the Americas in Mar del Plata, Argentina. His grand plan for a free trade zone reaching from the Arctic Circle to Tierra del Fuego was soundly rejected by nations fed up with the economic and social chaos wrought by neoliberalism. At a press conference, South American journalists asked him rude questions about Karl Rove. And the President ended the whole debacle by uttering what may be the most trenchant observation the man has ever made on Latin America: “Wow! Brazil is big!”

But there is nothing amusing about an enormous U.S. base less than 120 miles from the Bolivian border, or the explosive growth of U.S.-financed mercenary armies that are doing everything from training the military in Paraguay and Ecuador to calling in air attacks against guerillas in Colombia. Indeed, it is feeling a little like the run up to the ‘60s and ‘70s, when Washington-sponsored military dictatorships dominated most of the continent, and dark armies ruled the night.

U.S. Special Forces began arriving this past summer at Paraguay's Mariscal Estigarribia air base, a sprawling complex built in 1982 during the reign of dictator Alfredo Stroessner. Argentinean journalists who got a peek at the place say the airfield can handle B-52 bombers and Galaxy C-5 cargo planes. It also has a huge radar system, vast hangers, and can house up to 16,000 troops. The air base is larger than the international airport at the capital city, Asuncion .

Some 500 special forces arrived July 1 for a three-month counterterrorism training exercise, code named Operation Commando Force 6.

Paraguayan denials that Mariscal Estigarribia is now a U.S. base have met with considerable skepticism by Brazil and Argentina . There is a disturbing resemblance between U.S. denials about Mariscal Estigarribia, and similar disclaimers made by the Pentagon about Eloy Alfaro airbase in Manta , Ecuador . The United States claimed the Manta base was a “dirt strip” used for weather surveillance. When local journalists revealed its size, however, the United States admitted the base harbored thousands of mercenaries and hundreds of U.S. troops, and Washington had signed a 10-year basing agreement with Ecuador .

The Eloy Alfaro base is used to rotate U.S. troops in and out of Columbia, and to house an immense network of private corporations who do most of the military's dirty work in Columbia. According to the Miami Herald , U.S. mercenaries armed with M-16s have gotten into fire fights with guerrillas in southern Columbia, and American civilians working for Air Scan International of Florida called in air strikes that killed 19 civilians and wounded 25 others in the town of Santo Domingo.

The base is crawling with U.S. civilians—many of them retired military—working for Military Professional Resources Inc., Virginia Electronics, DynCorp, Lockheed Martin (the world's largest arms maker), Northrop Grumman, TRW, and dozens of others.

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/2939

[Judi Lynn]

5. Rerun of earlier thumbnail on Bolivian monstrous dictator, Hugo Banzer.

Sorry to D.U.'ers who've seen it enough, but this is important to know for anyone who's been left in the dark by our own ordinary resources. It's important as it shows part of the molding of modern Bolivia, and the U.S. heavy-handed role in Bolivia's current dilemna:

COLONEL HUGO BANZER
President of Bolivia

In 1970, in Bolivia, when then-President Juan Jose Torres nationalized Gulf Oil properties and tin mines owned by US interests, and tried to establish friendly relations with Cuba and the Soviet Union, he was playing with fire. The coup to overthrow Torres, led by US-trained officer and Gulf Oil beneficiary Hugo Banzer, had direct support from Washington. When Banzer's forces had a breakdown in radio communications, US Air Force radio was placed at their disposal. Once in power, Banzer began a reign of terror. Schools were shut down as hotbeds of political subversive activity. Within two years, 2,000 people were arrested and tortured without trial. As in Paraguay, Argentina and Brazil, the native Indians were ordered off their land and deprived of tribal identity. Tens-of-thousands of white South Africans were enticed to immigrate with promises of the land stolen from the Indians, with a goal of creating a white Bolivia. When Catholic clergy tried to aid the Indians, the regime, with CIA help, launched terrorist attacks against them, and this "Banzer Plan" became a model for similar anti-Catholic actions throughout Latin America.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/dictators.html





Banzer on the right, mass murdering, Nixon-supported monster Augusto Pinochet on the left.

(He also ruled from August 6, 1997 to August 7, 2001 after the small thumbnail above was published.)

[Judi Lynn]

8. Illegal Autonomy Referendum Deepens Division in Bolivia

Illegal Autonomy Referendum Deepens Division in Bolivia
Written by the Andean Information Network
Friday, 25 April 2008
Source: Andean Information Network

Santa Cruz and the other lowland departments of Bolivia plan to go ahead with a referendum to approve autonomy statutes, setting a new system of government for the department on May 4th, in spite of the National Electoral Court ruling forbidding the referendum and the disapproval of the international community. Speculation and tension continue to soar and the potential for conflict and even violence is high. Santa Cruz regional elites argue that the national constitutional draft, which was nominally approved in December of 2007, primarily by MAS delegates, is illegal and invalid. The Morales administration claims that the vote on autonomy statutes is illegal because the new constitution already includes a process for departmental, regional, municipal and indigenous governments to obtain autonomy.

National Electoral Court Brakes Race for Referendums

In February 2008, lowland departmental leaders and the Morales administration began a breakneck race to convoke referendums to approve the national constitution, and departmental equivalents, autonomy statutes, in an effort to block each others’ initiatives. As tensions grew the president of the National Electoral Court ruled that none of the initiatives had a sufficient legal mandate, and put them on hold indefinitely, “until there is a law to convoke them. Furthermore, we mandate that this law must respect the 90 day minimum planning period... We advocate that the departmental governors cannot convoke referendums on autonomy statutes. This is the responsibility of Congress and Departmental Electoral Courts cannot mandate referendums, it is the National Electoral Court’s job.” <1>

Although the MAS government accepted the ruling and canceled the national referendum to approve the constitution, three departmental governments refused to comply and continue to plan referendums. Santa Cruz forged ahead with plans to approve its autonomy statutes in violation of several laws. Legally, departments that voted for autonomy in 2006 must wait for the approval of the new constitution to set guidelines before approving statutes. <2> Furthermore, Bolivian law requires that the Constitutional Tribunal, currently not functioning because of a lack of quorum, must rule that the question presented in a referendum is constitutional.

MOre:
http://upsidedownworld.org/main/content/view/1251/1/

[Peace Patriot]

11. The Bolivian Supreme Electoral Court forbade both elections--

both the referendum on the new constitution, which has been hammered out in public assemblies all over Bolivia, over the last year, and this illegal LOCAL referendum on secession, which was concocted by the white separatists to sabotage the constitutional process. The Court no doubt suspended both votes to prevent a civil war, and to give time to mediators (the OAS, the Catholic bishops and others) to try to get the matter resolved without bloodshed.

So, the white separatists--if they proceed with the vote--are doing so with no legal authority, and in defiance of a ruling by the highest election authority in the country. They are acting as a law unto themselves. The election will have no monitors. The rich, armed, white separatists will be free to bully and intimidate voters, and rig the vote. What they are doing violates everything the OAS has been trying to achieve, as to honest elections and democratic institutions. It is in direct defiance of the rule of law.

What if Arnold Schwarzenegger called for a vote on California's secession from the union, and then proceeded to use the machinery of government to hold that vote? Hard to know what would happen in BushWorld, but in the normal world, all hell would break loose. The president would nationalize the state's National Guard and would put US military bases in California on high alert. Federal revenue would be stopped (what Morales just did). Air travel and all cross border travel would likely be suspended. Federal courts and federal agencies in California would be locked up. Most business would come to halt. Oil imports would be stopped--and all tanker deliveries. And likely the Supreme Court would be involved, and simply say, "No, you can't do that." The state's constitution pledges loyalty to the federal government. You can't secede. And if Californians were to proceed with the vote, and vote themselves out of the union, they would need to be prepared to fight the U.S. military.

The entities that would stop this secession would first of all be the Bolivian military, and if there is continued fighting, the OAS, first by denying the separatists status in the community of Latin American countries, and then possibly by an OAS or UN peacekeeping force. The U.S. would try to block it, but the Latin American countries are pretty united on issues like this. None of them wants the U.S. meddling in their affairs, and starting civil wars. Brazil will have a big say. I'm sure that leftist Lula da Silva doesn't want a fascist mini-state on his border. Argentina will also have a say (borders Bolivia); also, Paraguay (borders Bolivia), and Uruguay (near to it)--all three now with leftist governments. And, finally, of course, Venezuela and Ecuador, major allies of Evo Morales. (There have been tensions between Chile and Bolivia, due to a war over a hundred years ago, in which Bolivia was denied access to the sea. But the two leftist governments have recently been working that out, and Chile--although more influenced by the U.S. than the others--would likely oppose the split-up of Bolivia.)

The Bushites are no doubt arming, funding and organizing the white separatists, who have been forming militias for some time (they use them to intimidate, beat up and kill uppity indigenous). They may be counting on "swift action" by the U.S. in support of "friends and allies" in South America, as Donald Rumsfeld urged in an op-ed in the Washington Post five months ago.* I've figured for some time that this is what he meant--civil war in Bolivia, with the white separatists declaring their "independence." He is out to cause major "divide and conquer" trouble in South America--to create chaos, mayhem, destabilization and war--in order to regain global corporate predator control of the oil and other resources. It's his "retirement" project, and if he can't get the U.S. military involved this year, or if the mediators succeed in heading off the crisis, he will go to Plan B, a long term war of attrition against the leftist democracies that now control the resources he and his pals lust after.

I don't think he will succeed. The Bushites just "lost" Paraguay, for godssakes! Paraguay! The last fascist outpost except for Colombia. (New leftist president elected there last Sunday, overturning 60 years of rightwing rule and dictatorship.) They're going to lose their military base in Paraguay, and in Ecuador. The leftist tide has become a tidal wave and it's going to sink the fascists and their Bushite/corporate daddies, even if they do manage to create a little fascist enclave and launching pad in eastern Bolivia. They will be the pariahs of the continent, like Colombia has become.

------------------

*"The Smart Way to Beat Tyrants Like Chávez," by Donald Rumsfeld, 12/1/07
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/30/AR2007113001800.html

[Judi Lynn]

20. Looks as if OAS is claiming they're not going to get involved, after all:

OAS denies sending observers to Bolivia referendum

www.chinaview.cn 2008-04-26 09:08:44

LIMA, April 25 (Xinhua) -- The Organization of American States (OAS) on Friday denied that it will send observers to the autonomy referendum in Bolivia's Santa Cruz province on May 4.

Bernhard Griesinger, OAS's representative in Bolivia, said the OAS does not have any opinion on the referendum since it is Bolivia's internal issue, according to reports from the Bolivian capital La Paz.

Santa Cruz has called for an autonomy referendum set for May 4,which Bolivian President Evo Morales considered illegal. Morales has also described Santa Cruz's officials as separatists.

Griesinger said the OAS is concerned with the confrontation between the Bolivian central government and the opposition, led by the governors and civil fronts of Santa Cruz, Beni and Pando in the northern Amazonian region and Tarija, as well as Cochabamba and La Paz.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-04/26/content_8053441.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Don't know why they are not getting involved, since elections, etc. have always been part of their activities. I don't get this.

[Peace Patriot]

21. Trying to mediate the dispute, and sending election monitors, are two very

different things. Sending election monitors gives legitimacy to the election. I imagine the OAS doesn't want to give any official stamp of approval to it. It's an ILLEGAL election. The Electoral Court told them no. And President Morales would be greatly offended if they came into the country, invited by these renegade secessionists, and oversaw their illegal referendum. Also, normally they wouldn't do it without being invited by the country. The white separatists have no authority to ask them. They can't just drop in. And I would suspect that the white separatists don't want them there anyway, because they would interfere with plans to repress the indigenous vote and rig the results. And usually they won't do it without considerable preparation. They work with the country's election officials for months, sometimes for years, to insure that election monitors understand and approve of their system, and that it meets certain standards.

MEDIATION of the dispute is an entirely different matter. I read that the OAS is trying to mediate the dispute. You'll notice that OAS rep Griesinger expresses concern about the confrontation. He doesn't say that the OAS is not involved in trying to mediate. This rogue state, if they try to create it, is going to have no legitimacy anywhere. Morales won't recognize it--and may send troops. He's already frozen their funds. I doubt that any of the neighbor governments will recognize it or trade with it (Paraguay, Argentina, Brazil). So the likely place it will end up--if it remains unresolved, and especially if civil war breaks out--is the OAS. They have a vital interest in heading it off. Sovereignty is a big issue in Latin America these days. The integrity of their national states must be preserved. The Bush-U.S. has made three recent assaults on the sovereignty of South American countries--the U.S./Colombia bombing/incursion against Ecuador, their efforts to get Zulia state in Venezuela to break off, and this Bushite-stoked separatist thing in Bolivia--and numerous other attacks, large and small, over the last 6 years. It WILL be, and IS, an OAS matter. Mediation may be informal at first--although I did read a news report that the OAS was already mediating. This doesn't mean they are giving their sanction to the white separatists--and they've said they won't monitor the referendum. But in their diplomatic, and dispute resolution, capacity, they would, of course, talk to anyone involved in the dispute.

[Judi Lynn]

23. Yep, that sounds really solid, now that you've mentioned it. It IS hard to imagine most countries

doing ANY business with them, after some calmer reflection. It wouldn't sound honorable at any level to treat them as a legitimate "state," when they ARE thieves, cheats, liars, bullies, and racists of the first water.

It's a miserable pity that things have gotten this extreme, and tilted so much in favor of the monsters who have been allowed to gather immoral, sadistic, brutal power over the powerless.

Hope OAS can in some way bring international pressure to bear on the group of regional tyrants who are attempting to steal even more of Bolivia from its rightful inheritors.

[David__77]

12. They should arrest the provincial government leaders.

And try them for treason. Then they should nationalize the major industries in the province and redistribute the land to poor peasants. Then institute capital controls to prevent the transfer of wealth out of the country. And finally ban private schools. Watch the worms flee to Miami and then Bolivia can be free and united.

[bemildred]

13. I want a referendum on whether California should secede from the US.

I'll bet it would pass.

[Judi Lynn]

16. Bolivia: Political Racism in Question

Bolivia: Political Racism in Question
by Idón Moisés Chivi Vargas
28 August 2007

Bolivia is living through a time of political transition where the verbal masks used prolifically by the television, radio, and press to cover up reality and, as Galeano would say, lie in what they say and lie even more in what they don't say.

We live in a country where reality is one thing and what the media says is another, the media racism is a close relative of political racism, and it constructs a country where paradoxes have the perversity of showing us the world upside down.

In this context, born democrats are those with white skin; born dictators are the ones that have dark skin and that's why:

Democracy is when the political minority govern; dictatorship is how the social majority govern.

Democracy is the savage market where the only ones that are saved are those than can and those that have the ability to; dictatorship is the search of a society of equals.

Democracy is beating Indians, mestizos, or progressive intellectuals with impunity; dictatorship is when the Indian, or the mestizo, or the progressive intellectual does not allow this to happen.

Democracy is the failure of deliberative mechanisms to find the solution to a historic crisis; dictatorship is the success of these mechanisms.

Democracy is the infamous sellout of the nation to transnationals; dictatorship is the recuperation of those resources for the nation.

Democracy is being an accomplice to transnationals; dictatorship is to not be one.

Democracy is being an accomplice to corrupt judges; dictatorship is justice for all.

Democracy is protecting the privileges of the powerful; dictatorship is not doing this.

Democracy is being the privileged owner of the state; dictatorship is when the state belongs to the entire nation

Democracy is telling lies; dictatorship is telling the truth

Democracy is the exacerbated racism of the white; dictatorship is the diversity of colors.

Democracy is the media justification of racial violence; dictatorship is preserving social peace.

This is because majestic democracy sustains itself on skin color, on the most simple, and at the same time most grotesque and perverse, racism.

This string of political facts is not fiction, rather the reality of a country that has decided to decolonize itself and put things in their rightful place. They are the reverse of what is occurring today.

Bolivia is facing the task of saving the Constituent Assembly, of saving democracy, the state of law, and the plurinational republic.

The oligarchic minorities persist in the protection of old privileges, of old forms of impunity and infamous domination.

More:
http://www.monthlyreview.org/mrzine/vargas040907.html

[Judi Lynn]

17. The right's manipulation of racism in Sucre

The right's manipulation of racism in Sucre
by Info on Fri 14 Dec 2007 12:14 PM BOT


Elsa’s voice trembled as she recounted her story: “We ran up the road as about 100 young men chased us shouting ‘kollas de mierda’ (Indian shits) as fast as we could. We found a policeman and asked him for help but he refused, saying he couldn’t because then he would be attacked too…Eventually the young men caught up with us, and started hitting us, grabbing our aguayos (vibrant indigenous shawl used to carry everything), taking our stuff. I lost everything…”

“We finally managed to get away and hid in a forest, dead still against the trees, thirsty because we hadn’t drunk anything, listening to their shouts of ´those Indian shits are here, we need to kill them.’” Elsa’s voice cracked as tears streamed down her face. “There is so much discrimination… I felt I was about to die, thinking well at least we have made history in our lives.” Elsa Vasquez, from El Alto who works at the Vice-Ministry of gender and generation affairs, recounted that she and about 40 women finally managed to escape by speaking Quechua and pretending to be from Potosi rather than La Paz.

Elsa told her story at a “Conversation on the Constituent Assembly and Racism” organised by Fundación Solón in La Paz on the 30 November 2007. The meeting brought together more than 20 women from various social movements including representatives from the Household Workers Union, Federation of Campesinas Bartolina Sisas, El Alto Worker’s Federation, Indymedia as well as members of the Government and the Constituent Assembly.

Many of the woman, such as Elsa, had been in Sucre at the time of the planned confrontations because a women’s summit had been convened there. They became witnesses to the racism unleashed by the Right determined to stop the Constituent Assembly. The conversation allowed their testimonies, which have been excluded from mainstream media, to be told. It also gave space for some reflections on the roots of racism and the rightwing backlash in Bolivia.

Elsa’s testimony was repeated in different forms by many of the women who had gone with great hope to attend the summit. Carla Esposito from Fundacion Solon recounted a story that brought back memories of Nazy Germany when young fascists in Sucre got on board her bus to examine identity cards in order to identify people from La Paz. She only escaped because she offered an card from a human rights’ organisation. Another told the story of a woman who was beaten and who was refused treatment by the hospital nurse. Irma Campos from the vice-ministry of gender spoke of seeing a woman from Tarija hide her indigenous hat: “Seeing this person hiding her very identity affected me greatly” she noted. With bitter irony, Irma noted that the attacks happened on the National Day of No-Violence against Women.

All those present in the workshop were clear that the principal cause of racist violence in Sucre was the Right who used classic division tactics to create confrontation. Carla Esposito said, “Let’s be clear, this was not spontaneous, it was very organised. At every violent demonstration you could see the “shock troops” of young fascist youths receiving orders by phone.” She concluded “The theme of capitalia {where the capital is} was used to divide people and set in train a cycle of violence. The violence, racism and division is a political project of the Right.” Carmina Moscoso from the El Alto Workers’ Federation noted that the Sucre InterInstitutional Committee used young people, who are more malleable, lack formation or a historical experience of Bolivian struggles for social justice to initiate violence. “How else can you explain that sons were fighting against their parents and grandparents,” she asked.

More:
http://www.newstatesman.com/200804240026

[Judi Lynn]

18. Bolivia: New constitution sparks right-wing revolt

Bolivia: New constitution sparks right-wing revolt
Rachel Evans, La Paz
January 18, 2008

~snip~
The resource-rich eastern states are the main base of the racist white elite, with the predominantly indigenous, poorer, western departments being main base of support for Morales. The push for autonomy is a move aimed at securing control over gas reserves and land.

In an article posted on the Bolivia Rising blog on December 30, Bengamin Dangel explained that the autonomy plans for the eastern department of Santa Cruz includes refusing to send two thirds of all oil and gas revenue to the central government.

A separate proposed article on land reform for the new constitution will also be put to referendum and if passed will allow the government to redistrute large amounts of idle land to landless campesinos (peasants). Key figures in the opposition are also major landowners.

On December 15 the largest demonstrations of the autonomistas took place in Santa Cruz, rallying against land reform plans.

With the government declaring the plans for autonomy illegal and the oligarchy arguing the same about the draft constitution, the country is potentially on a dangerous collision course.

Last year saw a series of mobilisations and counter-mobilisations by opponents and supporters of the process of change, many of which were marred by violence. The right-wing mobilised fascist gangs in Sucre to attempt to stop the constitutional assembly from proceeding. The private media, viciously anti-Morales, has run a racist campaign to undermine the government, including presenting Morales as a puppet of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

In an attempt to break the deadlock, Morales has announced referendums to be held sometime this year on whether or not he, his vice president and all nine department governors should stay in office. Despite the destabilisation campaign, Morales remains popular with an approval rating of 56% according to Dangel.

Murderous oligarchy

However, indigenous blood is being more readily split by an increasingly frustrated opposition. The latest battle has centred on the government’s creation of the “Dignity Pension” for elderly Bolivians, who have never had access to a pension before — a significant gain for the 37% of Bolivians who live in extreme poverty.

The new pension is being paid for by gas revenue redirected from the departments, and therefore is opposed by the “media luna” governments.

More:
http://boliviarising.blogspot.com/2008/01/bolivia-new-constitution-sparks-right.html

[Judi Lynn]

19. Another reference to how Bolivian dictators stole land from indigenous citizens and GAVE IT AWAY to

white South Africans in the attempt to create a "White Bolvia:"

~snip~
Some of the worst abuses of the land reform system came during the dictatorships of the 1970’s, especially that of Hugo Banzer. Banzer and other military leaders exploited the Council to “re-distribute” enormous tracts of land for free or at rock-bottom prices to friends and cronies, in effect re-creating an array of new latifundios. These years signified a definitive step-back in efforts to benefit the nation’s – the spirit of the times is captured in the words of Dr. Guido Strauss, Banzer’s Undersecretary of Immigration, in 1977. In this year Banzer was trying to attract wealthy white immigrants from South Africa and Rhodesia to settle and create new latifundios in eastern Bolivia. The government offered 800,000 hectares of land free of charge, as well as $150 million (US) in funds, part of which would be available for repressing the 120,000 indigenous peasants who already lived on the designated lands. Strauss, trying to entice the white Africans, assured them of favorable conditions: you “will certainly find our Indians no more stupid or lazy than own blacks,” he wrote, as recorded in June Nash’s We Eat the Mines and the Mines Eat Us (Columbia University Press, 1979).

The result of this era was that, except for some areas in Bolivia’s western altiplano, land was never truly re-distributed. Problems were especially pronounced in the eastern and most fertile part of the country, specifically in the departments of Santa Cruz, Pando, the Chaco, Tarija, and Beni.
(snip)

Yet, the reality of INRA was disappointing. Manual Morales Davila, in his popular analysis of the law, characterizes INRA as a “complete sham.” Specifically, what many found objectionable was that the new reform made an exception to the 1953 maxim, “the land belongs to those who work it.” It now stated, the land also belongs to those who pay taxes – pitifully low taxes – on it. Many, like Morales Davila, considered this antithetical to the spirit of ‘53, in that it legalized absentee ownership, speculation, and enormous holdings, characteristics favored by wealthy landholders, not the peasants INRA claimed to benefit.

More:
http://www.narconews.com/Issue42/article1997.html

[Judi Lynn]

22. Bolivian leader enjoys slice of league action

Bolivian leader enjoys slice of league action
April 27, 2008



Bolivian President Evo Morales, seen here at his debut with
the second division team Litoral (of the National Police)
against Municipal, in La Paz in 2006, donned his shorts
Saturday to help second division league outfit Litoral see off
Municipal 4-1.

Bolivian President Evo Morales donned his shorts Saturday to help second division league outfit Litoral see off Municipal 4-1.

Morales, a vocal opponent of FIFA's attempts to prevent the Andean nation playing World Cup qualifiers at high altitude in La Paz, is a lifelong fan of the game and had long dreamed of a slice of league action.

The president, who last year was photographed in his kit and kicking a ball high up in the mountains as part of his campaign to force a FIFA rethink, played the first half wearing the number 10 shirt beloved of fans across Latin America and worn not least by Pele and Diego Maradona.

The 49-year-old just about kept pace with teammates more than 20 years younger, most of them young police cadets.

More:
http://www.terra.net.lb/wp/Articles/DesktopArticle.aspx?ArticleID=397067&ChannelId=49