| Situations: July 24 - Aug. 18 - Aug. 19 - Sept. 17 |
The Situation in Bolivia:
The Upsurge in Protest and Violence;
the Impact of September 11
Copyright: Jim Ciotti, 2001
November 23, 2001
It appears that some sort of political melt-down is now taking place in Bolivia. One-day general strikes have been held by the departments of La Paz and Potosi and cities of El Alto, Aquile, and Uyuni. General strikes are semi-official protests which last for a fixed, usually short, duration during which everything shuts down. The strikes in La Paz and Potosi demanded greater attention to proposed projects. The strike in El Alto was held for similar reasons - as all transportation into the capitol passes through El Alto, the strike also shut it down. La Paz finally called off its annual fiesta because there were so many disturbances. The Aquile strike (a town near Cochabamba) protested the Banzer administration's misuse of foreign aid sent to rebuild the town after an earthquake destroyed it 3 years ago - apparently Banzer needed a new airplane. Meanwhile many in Aquile are sill living in tents. The Uyuni strike, which had no fixed duration, protested the hotels out in the salt-flats. This brought all travel to a halt in the entire southwest of Bolivia and stranded 300 tourists. It ended with an agreement to destroy the hotels. It's no surprise that the agreement is not being honored...the hotels in question are owned by government ministers and departmental officials...
The retired petroleum workers held a hunger strike wanting better pensions. They were later joined by current petroleum workers. People who ended up with no pension at all (lost when the nationalized mines were closed) held a protest and crucifixion (a symbolic crucifixion, not the real thing) in La Paz. A group from the town of Vinto (just west of Cochabamba) blocked the Cochabamba – Oruro highway to protest corruption in the mayor's office. This blockade was held in conjunction with an ongoing hunger strike and "crucifixion" held in Cochabamba's central plaza. Workers of the privatized tin mine at Huanuni went on strike on Oct. 29th and are now threatening to block the Oruro – La Paz highway. A group of Campesinos did block the Oruro - Potosi highway wanting rural electrification and a paved road.
If things here sound a bit chaotic, they are, and the chaos makes it difficult to travel. We narrowly avoided the Vinto roadblock on a recent trip to the central tin mines and just missed the Huanuni miner's protest coming back. What Bolivia needs is a strike, blockade, crucifixion calendar where groups could sign up to take their turn. Perhaps a few "protest professionals" wouldn't hurt either - folks who could organize these things and make sure that hot dogs and tee shirts are available.
All kidding aside, people here are losing their patience and strikes, protests, and blockades have popped up everywhere. There is even a long standing protest against the abuses of the Mormon Church. However, things have turned nasty as well. While in La Paz, we watched a group of young students on their way to protest the privatization of technical schools (yes, the privatization mantra is heard here too…). We learned later that they’d been tear-gassed. This was not a dangerous group; it was young students who wanted to make their position known - not gun-toting or even rock-carrying bad guys. Tear-gassing them seemed an overreaction. The people protesting the loss of pensions were also tear gassed in La Paz. Here in Cochabamba, the Vinto blockaders and a group protesting in the market were tear gassed and for days, the bridges over Cochabamba's one dreary river were under armed guard - a successful effort to prevent a group from closing down the city. Finally, someone set a bomb off in La Paz's Catholic University.
Believe it or not there is an epicenter to all this protest, and since July, it has gradually shifted from the stark, Altiplano hills of north La Paz to the teeming jungles and savannahs located along the highway between Cochabamba and Santa Cruz. Here there are two major protests. An organization of landless people called the Movimiento Sin Tierra (Movement without Land, MST), took both military and civilian hostages and held onto them for weeks before they were set free. In a more recent clash, 7 people died (6 without land - 1 with) It is difficult to understand why any Bolivian should be without land. There are 8 million Bolivians living in a territory the size of Spain and France, and a lot of it is vacant. People say the MST situation is a mal-distribution problem - large corporations are snapping up vast tracts of land squeezing people out.
The MST situation is only a sideshow, however. The real focus of attention has been on the struggle between the Chapare-based coca-growers union and the government. The political economics that fuel this tension are complicated. In the background, of course, is the USA; the Bolivian government is only the spear-carrying flak-catcher for the USA's drug interdiction program. Be this as it may, the Yungas (in the Department of La Paz) is the traditional coca-growing region of Bolivia - the Chapare (in the Department of Cochabamba) is a newcomer. An argument is made that the coca produced in the Chapare represents the non-domestic excess that ends up up the noses of Americans and Europeans. However, when, at US prodding, Bolivia underwent its neo-liberal reform in the mid-1980’s, state-owned mines were closed and miners were told to go off and be productive entrepreneurs. Many did; they settled in the Chapare and started growing coca. Woops, time for the much-maligned state to come to the rescue! Again with US prodding, the Bolivian government vowed to destroy all Chapare coca. Unfortunately, the foreign aid sent to develop alternatives for coca growers never made it to its destination – it disappeared into a maze of bureaucracy and corruption.
Thus, the Chapare coca growers are angry and trouble has been brewing for years. Over the last couple of months it evolved into a tense struggle in which neither side was able to capture the moral high ground. Although the government has attempted to appear restrained, it has been unable to prevent the embarrassing, often tragic mishaps of a young, scared, and poorly-trained military force. A few weeks ago a local guide was killed when troops opened fire on a group of journalists who were on their way to interview them. Wow, could the coca growers have planned it better - if you're going to shoot at someone, why the press of all people? Soon afterwards, it was announced that a campesina was killed when a tear-gas canister hit her in the head. This story turned out to be a union-inspired fabrication, but only after the initial impression had already been made.
The coca growers' union has fared no better in the publicity war. In a land where it is exclusively reserved for government officials, Evo Morales, the union's leader, is the only populist-rebel type who gets bad graffiti. He recently turned down a government offer to pay growers more than the value of a coca crop if they would turn to alternatives. As it turns out, this offer was not as good as it sounds. There are three coca crops a year, and together they are worth much more than that offered. However, the refusal reinforced the opinion that Morales had lost sight of the interests of his constituency. Soon after the incident, members of the union burnt down a project designed to develop alternatives and then proudly announced that they would destroy all similar projects.
With or without credibility, Morales and his union began efforts to blockade the Chapare highway starting November 6th. This is a vital transportation link joining Santa Cruz, the hub of Bolivia’s vast, burgeoning "Oriente," with Cochabamba and the rest of the country. In response, the government sent in 12,000 troops. So far, the military has managed to keep the road open, but there have been temporary closings, skirmishes, tear gas, shooting, and injuries on both sides...along with the death of 3 protesters.
Even if Morales and the coca growers failed to close the Chapare highway, the large amount of resources and energy devoted to keeping them open has drained Bolivia’s ability to respond to disturbances. This has encouraged others. The Yungas coca growers (15,000) are threatening to march on La Paz claiming that the government has not followed through on promises made to them. Felipe Quispe, Mallcu, and his campesino federation have voted to come to both Morales’ and the MST’s aid although, so far, they have done so only with words.
Certainly, most of the morass of issues being raised are serious, long standing problems, but there does seem to be some link between the upsurge of protest and violence here in Bolivia and the terrorist attacks in the USA and George W. Bush’s subsequent war on terrorism. Shortly after Bush declared his war, Mallcu made a speech that made it sound as if the war had been declared on him. This seemed pretentious at the time. Then the students and others were tear gassed and government bullets started flying. Maybe Bush’s war has served to condone a more brutal response to protest - and maybe the terrorist attack has illustrated that even the most powerful have weaknesses and are vulnerable. Maybe.
However, whatever other impact the terrorist attack and the war have had, since September 11, the rhetoric of protest here has taken on an anti-American tinge. What has been difficult for us to understand is why the USA has been so absent in this rhetoric before. First of all, there is the resentment over the USA long history of meddling in Bolivia's domestic and foreign affairs. A good example is the current Chapare impasse - no one here wants this problem; it is a direct import from the USA. Furthermore, in the mid-1980s, Bolivia was the test case for the US/World Bank/IMF sponsored "coldwater treatment," an abrupt, brutal method for transitioning a government-involved economy into a liberal, free-market economy.
The justification for the method was that, although there would be a bit of pain, the economy would soon turn around, businesses would be sound and competitive, and everyone would benefit. 15 years later the promised prosperity has not been forthcoming. In fact, the freewheeling, minimal government approach was recently panned by this year’s nobel laureat in economics. He suggests that it favors the corporate and the rich at the expense of the poor; he suggests that a serious crisis is now looming among the poor of the world and particularly the poor of the poor countries; he suggests that the USA must do something significant (not involving bullying and bombs) soon to alleviate tensions that are building.
Bolivia seems a case in point. The ex-miner/coca growers are not the only ones who have suffered…no one seems to be working and everyone’s well-being is threatened. The ex-miner’s brethren who stayed behind, now organized in mining cooperatives, work for a pittance under unbelievable conditions. Find a job elsewhere? There are no jobs. Start a business? In the cities, there are men walking the marketplace selling safety pins to feed their families. It seems that everyone is going to college because there is nothing else to do; this has produced large armies of unemployed and underemployed lawyers, architects, and engineers. In the jungles, there are well-educated people slinging coffee in desolate, truck stops. In Cochabamba alone, 3 businesses fail every day. The disparity between the rich and the poor has become so great that even the World Bank, a venerable bastion of neoliberal thinking, has recommended that the rich should be taxed more heavily to support programs for the poor.
But where the neo-liberal approach is supposed to really shine is in making those ghastly, inefficient state run businesses more efficient…this too has proven to be a disaster. LAB, Lloyd Aereo Boliviano, the national airline, was sold to an airline from Brazil. The idea was to improve it by exposing it to true competition and sound business practices. After such exposure, however, what was once a well-run airline is now in ruins. This is not merely because of the downturn in passengers currently plaguing airlines. LAB is just another victim of modern buy, gut, and run capitalism - a company bought it, robbed of its value, and refused to reinvest. Now with a serious crisis looming, Bolivia is now looking for a new owner – does anyone have Wackenhut’s phone number? (The state of Florida contracts with Wackenhut, the guard service, to run one of its psychiatric hospitals.) Although the privatized version of Bolivia’s railways is still afloat, much the same thing has happened to it – the state is left to build lines that its owner left to rust.
This is not to suggest that the USA or the liberalization of Bolivia’s economy is responsible for every problem facing Bolivia – or that there weren’t problems before - or that there aren't problems elsewhere. There are problems elsewhere and there have been a rich multitude of causes for Bolivia's dismal economy - some beyond anyone’s control, many self-inflicted. However, the USA offered a panacea and made big promises and it didn’t do so as a mealy-mouthed consultant – it wielded its usual unilateral, heavy hand.
So, it’s surprising that the USA has been so absent from the rhetoric of protest up to September 11th, and certainly, Bolivians were horrified and saddened by the events that occurred on that date. However, shortly afterwards, several currents of thought began to emerge - the attack was a reaction to the US-led, economic globalization now threatening indigenous business and culture as much in Bolivia as in the Middle East, Africa, Asia and elsewhere. Again, without condoning the attack, this notion provided a rationale that most Bolivians understand, particularly given the current economic conditions as well as the business climate in the country – almost everything Bolivian that Bolivians have taken pride in is now owned by someone else (e.g. LAB, the trains, Pil (milk), the national breweries, Simba (soft drinks), etc., etc. etc.)
The USA reaction to the terrorist attack also made people here uneasy. Of all the people we’ve talked to both before and after September 11th, and this includes both Europeans and Bolivians – only one has expressed a positive opinion about George W Bush. People think little of him and don’t trust his advisors. Then September 11th. Something serious had happened, what would he and his henchmen do? When Bush’s war turned out to primarily consist of bombing Afghanis, it seemed a cold and cowardly way to get at the Talliban in order to get at Osama Bin Laden. Photos of homeless, injured, and maimed Afghanis appeared on television and in the press - people were appalled. But think about it; the photos could as easily have been of Bolivians - would US planes next be bombing campesinos to get at Mallcu or Evo Morales?
Yes, Bolivians have also seen ample photos of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and were horrified by these too. But the difference is that the innocent Afghanis are being victimized by a government, not a renegade group. The war on terrorism is, itself, nothing more than an act of state sponsored terrorism. Whatever self-congratulatory mania is going on about the war in the USA, the US government has been found wanting by a broad spectrum of people here.
Make no mistake here, Bolivia and the majority of Bolivians are friendly toward Americans. Even as anti-American protests are going on, we can watch and listen to the histrionics without harassment - we're never singled out. However, like it or not, September 11th has put US behavior in the spot light. US involvement in Bolivian affairs is no longer unspoken and off in the background - it is on the table and part of debate. The ultimate effect of this will be to reduce US influence here.
This has already been the case with regard to the Chapare, Bolivia's current sore spot. Frustrated with Bolivian intransigence on the "cato of coca" issue (i.e. whether all in the Chapare should be allowed to grow a half-acre of coca), Evo Morales recently announced that he would go to the US ambassador to seek a resolution. Mallcu, Morales’s Altiplano compadre, also expressed doubts that the government could resolve the Chapare problem - because it was a "gringo, yankee-imperialist puppet." Students carry signs that read "erradicate Coca Cola, not coca! It's great to be back in the 60's, isn't it? Even Episcopalian ministers, certainly no radical, left-wing group, suggested that the government take a more flexible stance on the issues facing the people of the Chapare.
Such doubts incensed President Jorge Quiroga – it is we, and not the USA, that make Bolivian policy, was his reaction. Then, as if to suggest otherwise, some US Congressmen got in the act; they sent a message to the US ambassador urging him to mediate the conflict. Alas, without ambassadorial assistance, Quiroga and the coca union met and Quiroga put the cato of coca issue on the table. The US Embassy has registered its disapproval.
What happens next? We’ll have to see.
Ciao,
Jim (and Anne)
| Situations: July 24 - Aug. 18 - Aug. 19 - Sept. 17 |