Bolivia, neoliberalism, and latin america's resurgent leftist populism .
. .
. . . American Empire stumbles in its own backyard . . .
By now, you've read about the troubles in
Bolivia. Early
this morning, Bolivian army troops struggled to block the nation's capitol from
a river of protesters pouring in from the countryside and provincial
cities . The protesters - - an alliance of indigenous peoples,
farmers, and unionists - - hope to terminate the Bolivian
government's plan to export natural gas through a pipeline,
constructed largely through foreign investment, from the gas fields to a Chilean
port.
Why the army? Because many of the Bolivian police have joined the protestors and can no longer be trusted by the government.
The current unrest has long been brewing . Bolivian President Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozado was elected 14 months ago with less than 25% of the popular vote. He barely bested Evo Morales, leader of the coca growers' union and candidate for the Movement Toward Socialism. On Sept. 29, Bolivia's national labor federation, Central Obrera Boliviana, led a two-day general strike. Today , as miners battled police less than fifty miles from La Paz and as President Sanchez's ministers have been defecting one-by-one from his government, Bolivia's capital sits like a ghost town, cut off from basic goods and necessities, silently waiting for the oncoming storm.
While a result of a host of immediate causes, the current eruption in Bolivia is aimed squarely at neo-liberalizing efforts by Sanchez and at the United States-funded campaign to reduce coca production. Efforts to privatize the Bolivian economy, undercut the public sector, and invite multinational corporations to control more of the country's natural resources have been met consistently over the past several years by popular struggle. In April 2000 , popular protests against hikes in water rates and skyrocketing unemployment resulted in a national state of emergency and at least three deaths at the hands of the army. United States efforts to curtail coca production have hit hard at the indigenous peoples of Bolivia, many of whom barely earn a couple of dollars a month and rely on coca for that. Unable to provide alternatives to coca production, the U.S. and the Bolivian governments have imposed economic hardship and unleashed mass discontent.
Bolivia's turmoil points to a broader trend in Latin America: popular rejection of neo-liberalism expressing itself through a resurgence of leftist populism. Lula's election in Brazil. Chavez's ability to hang on to power in Venezuela. Lucio Gutierrez's recent victory in Ecuador. Local politics have been drifting leftward as well in Argentina and Peru. The Southern Hemisphere is in the process of rejecting the political and economic order being installed at the barrel of a gun in Iraq.
In 1970, Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger plotted to forestall Salvador Allende's election in Chile; later they encouraged the Pinochet coup. Reagan had his contras. Today's U.S. leadership has almost nothing to say about Latin America, except for sugar-coated crumbs thrown to Miami's Cuban-Americans. Perhaps the U.S.'s ambitions for Empire are bit too overwhelming to handle any other distractions. Or, perhaps, those in power feel they can solve the current insurgency the same ways they've handled former Latin American insurgencies - - payoffs, juntismo, caciques, golpes, etc. These won't work in today's globalized world; against today's smarter, savvier leftists (who have rejected the Castroism that enthralled their predecessors to embrace a kind of populist social democracy) these kinds of efforts just won't find purchase.
What's my point? If you look to the east, you see American Empire battling its way to dominance and waving the bloody flag of patriotism and victimage to rally the people. But, for a more hopeful prospect, look to the South. What's happening there might be just as important - - as a new generation of leaders not only rallies resistance to U.S. political hegemony and neo-liberalized globalization but also forges new models of democratic governance and development.
Hasta la proxima!
Why the army? Because many of the Bolivian police have joined the protestors and can no longer be trusted by the government.
The current unrest has long been brewing . Bolivian President Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozado was elected 14 months ago with less than 25% of the popular vote. He barely bested Evo Morales, leader of the coca growers' union and candidate for the Movement Toward Socialism. On Sept. 29, Bolivia's national labor federation, Central Obrera Boliviana, led a two-day general strike. Today , as miners battled police less than fifty miles from La Paz and as President Sanchez's ministers have been defecting one-by-one from his government, Bolivia's capital sits like a ghost town, cut off from basic goods and necessities, silently waiting for the oncoming storm.
While a result of a host of immediate causes, the current eruption in Bolivia is aimed squarely at neo-liberalizing efforts by Sanchez and at the United States-funded campaign to reduce coca production. Efforts to privatize the Bolivian economy, undercut the public sector, and invite multinational corporations to control more of the country's natural resources have been met consistently over the past several years by popular struggle. In April 2000 , popular protests against hikes in water rates and skyrocketing unemployment resulted in a national state of emergency and at least three deaths at the hands of the army. United States efforts to curtail coca production have hit hard at the indigenous peoples of Bolivia, many of whom barely earn a couple of dollars a month and rely on coca for that. Unable to provide alternatives to coca production, the U.S. and the Bolivian governments have imposed economic hardship and unleashed mass discontent.
Bolivia's turmoil points to a broader trend in Latin America: popular rejection of neo-liberalism expressing itself through a resurgence of leftist populism. Lula's election in Brazil. Chavez's ability to hang on to power in Venezuela. Lucio Gutierrez's recent victory in Ecuador. Local politics have been drifting leftward as well in Argentina and Peru. The Southern Hemisphere is in the process of rejecting the political and economic order being installed at the barrel of a gun in Iraq.
In 1970, Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger plotted to forestall Salvador Allende's election in Chile; later they encouraged the Pinochet coup. Reagan had his contras. Today's U.S. leadership has almost nothing to say about Latin America, except for sugar-coated crumbs thrown to Miami's Cuban-Americans. Perhaps the U.S.'s ambitions for Empire are bit too overwhelming to handle any other distractions. Or, perhaps, those in power feel they can solve the current insurgency the same ways they've handled former Latin American insurgencies - - payoffs, juntismo, caciques, golpes, etc. These won't work in today's globalized world; against today's smarter, savvier leftists (who have rejected the Castroism that enthralled their predecessors to embrace a kind of populist social democracy) these kinds of efforts just won't find purchase.
What's my point? If you look to the east, you see American Empire battling its way to dominance and waving the bloody flag of patriotism and victimage to rally the people. But, for a more hopeful prospect, look to the South. What's happening there might be just as important - - as a new generation of leaders not only rallies resistance to U.S. political hegemony and neo-liberalized globalization but also forges new models of democratic governance and development.
Hasta la proxima!
Posted: Wed - October 15, 2003 at 09:09 PM
Quick Links
Links
The Iraq Occupation in Dollars
Cost of the War in Iraq
(JavaScript Error)
Archives
Calendar
Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: May 23, 2004 01:07 PM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: May 23, 2004 01:07 PM