Oliver Stone heads 'South of the Border' to chat up Chavez and others

Reed Johnson
Los Angels Times
September 1, 2009

The director's new documentary seeks to change U.S. perceptions of South America's leftist leaders.

South of the Border
Directed by Oliver Stone
Produced by Oliver Stone
Written by Tariq Ali
Cinematography Carlos Marcovich, Albert Maysles
Editing by Alexis Chavez
Release date(s) September, 2009
Running time 102 minutes
Country United States
Language English

In his new documentary "South of the Border," Oliver Stone is shown warmly embracing Hugo Chávez, nibbling coca leaves with Evo Morales and gently teasing Cristina Elizabeth Fernández de Kirchner about how many pairs of shoes she owns.

These amiable, off-the-cuff snapshots of the presidents of Venezuela, Bolivia and Argentina, respectively, contrast with the way these left-leaning leaders often are depicted in U.S. political and mass media circles. That's especially true of Chávez, the former military officer turned democratically elected socialist leader, who has become the ideological heir apparent to Fidel Castro and the bête noire of Bush administration foreign policy officials.

In setting out to make "South of the Border," which is scheduled to have its world premiere this week at the Venice Film Festival, Stone, a lightning-rod figure himself for the better part of three decades, says that he wanted to supply a counterpoint to the prevailing U.S. image of Chávez, who's frequently represented in stateside op-ed pieces and political cartoons as a bellicose dictator-cum-comic opera figure.

"I think he's an extremely dynamic and charismatic figure. He's open and warmhearted and big, and a fascinating character," says the director of "JFK" and "Wall Street," speaking by phone from New York, where he's working on a much-publicized "Wall Street" sequel. "But when I go back to the States I keep hearing these horror stories about 'dictator,' 'bad guy,' 'menace to American society.' I think the project started as something about the American media demonizing Latin leaders. It became more than that as we got more involved."

In addition to Chávez, Stone sought to flesh out several other South American leaders whose policies and personalities generally get scant media attention in the United States and Europe: Morales; Cristina Kirchner and her husband, Argentine former president Néstor Kirchner; Rafael Correa of Ecuador; Raúl Castro of Cuba; Fernando Lugo Méndez of Paraguay; and Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil.

"The press in America, I think you're aware, has divided the Latin continent into the 'bad Left' and the 'good Left,' " Stone says. "They've now listed Correa as the bad Left, along with Morales and with Chávez. They call . . . Lula, the good Left. I don't know what they make of Kirchner yet, because they go back and forth, but I think they're turning against Kirchner more and more. You get this distinction, and I think it's a false distinction."

Both Stone and the film's writer, the Pakistani-British historian, novelist and commentator Tariq Ali, say that the roughly 90-minute documentary isn't intended to be a comprehensive analysis of current South American political trends. It doesn't try to parse the radically divergent views of a figure as polarizing as Chávez. Nor does it substantially address the ongoing criticisms of his incendiary rhetoric (he once called Bush the devil), his frequent dust-ups with Venezuela's opposition media (which supported a 2002 coup against him), or his disputed role in aiding leftist rebels fighting the government of neighboring Colombia.

"We had not set out in the spirit of, like, making this a contentious debate," says Stone, who first met the Venezuelan president in 2007. "When you try to get into every single rightist argument against Chávez, you're never going to win. You're going to bore the audience."

Instead, the filmmakers decided to make what Ali calls "a political road movie" by visiting Chávez's peers throughout the hemisphere and asking what they think of him. Stone and his crew travel from the Caribbean down the spine of the Andes trying to explain the Chávez phenomenon and account for the continent's recent leftward tilt.

A big part of the explanation the film advances is that the free-market economic policies pushed by the U.S. and the International Monetary Fund over the last several years largely have failed to alleviate Latin America's chronic income inequality. The film suggests that financial calamities such as the Argentine peso collapse of 2001, combined with Latin suspicions of U.S. drug-eradication efforts and resentment over the selling off of natural resources through multinational companies, also have contributed to the rise of socialist and social-democratic leaders across the region.

Ali believes that many United States foreign policy officials still are operating on a Cold War paradigm that prevents them from grasping the changing social realities that have brought a new generation of politicians to power.

"These changes that are taking place are not coming about through armed struggle or guerrilla warfare or Che Guevara," Ali says, speaking from London. "All these changes have come about through democratic elections. And that makes it a very, very significant development in that continent."

For some viewers and critics, the political nuances in "South of the Border" may register less than the sight of Stone playfully kicking a soccer ball with Morales or listening empathetically as Chávez articulates his dream of spreading what he calls his "Bolivarian Revolution" across the continent. Stone was roundly criticized for taking too chummy a tone with Fidel Castro in his 2003 documentary "Comandante." He then produced a harder-edged follow-up, "Looking for Fidel," in which he pressed the Cuban leader about his treatment of dissidents and other sensitive matters.

In an era when few Hollywood directors bother to deal with historical or political topics at all, Stone frequently has been targeted for playing loose with historical facts in movies including "JFK" and "Alexander," about Alexander the Great. On this score, he vigorously defends his record.

"You do your homework, you do your research, we always did, whatever you think of my work," he says. "Even going back to 'JFK,' I've always done as much research as we could. And there's mistakes made, but there's a lot of truth, you know, as much as we can put into these movies."

He's alert to accusations of "being soft-hearted or human-hearted" to politicians with whom he sympathizes. But he freely acknowledges where his sympathies lie in "South of the Border."

"I'm rooting for this Bolivarian movement," he says. "I'm rooting for their independence because I think that America has a new role to play in this world, and that's not of an oppressor, but that of a cooperative and, let's call it equal, partner."

The director says that the broader theme behind "South of the Border," and much of his other film work, is the question of "why does America reach out to make enemies." He plans to develop this theme in a 10-part cable TV documentary series "The Secret History of America" that is scheduled to premiere in 2010.

"I'm fascinated by that subject, whether it's the Taliban or whether it's Iran or whether it's South Vietnam, going back to those days," Stone says. "As a young man I [was] brainwashed into believing we had enemies left and right. And now that I've traveled the world, I mean you have to wonder why. Why do we constantly do this? Where is this paranoia born in us?"

Official Trailer : South of the Border

Bolivia completes nationalization of oil and gas sector

Xinhua news Agency
July 21, 2009

LA PAZ -- Bolivia's state-owned oil giant YPFB announced on Tuesday it has completed nationalization of the country's oil and gas sector.

YPBF, abbreviation for Yacimientos Petroliferos Fiscales Bolivianos in Spanish, acquired a natural gas supplier in Cochabamba, a step concluding its nationalization efforts in the country's hydrocarbon industry.

"At this moment facilities like the oil and gas pipelines, including those under construction, are completely the property of the Bolivian state," YPFB interim president Carlos Villegas said.

"The state is now the owner of domestic hydrocarbon resources under and above the ground," Villegas said.

The state has also taken full control of the hydrocarbon storage capacity by nationalizing the Guillermo Elder Bell Refinery in Santa Cruz and the Gualberto Villarroel Refinery in Cochabamba.

"The nationalization process has allowed YPFB to regain control of the domestic oil and gas sector," Villegas said. He said the company's management of this sector will contribute to state revenues and the welfare of the Bolivian people.

YPFB was created in 1936 as a state owned and run gasoline company. It underwent partial privatization under the presidency of Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada in the 1990s.

The Bolivian government also announced a plan on Tuesday to invest 5 billion U.S. dollars over the next five years in oil and gas explorations, operations and distribution.

Bolivia has the second largest reserves of natural gas in Latin America after Venezuela.

A landmark for Bolivia

Richard Gott
The Guardian, UK
January 26, 2009

Richard Gott is a British journalist and historian, who has written extensively on Latin America. A former Latin America correspondent and features editor for the British newspaper The Guardian, he is currently an honorary research fellow at the Institute for the Study of the Americas at the University of London. He is the author of the books Hugo Chávez and the Bolivarian Revolution (2005), and Cuba: A New History (2004)

It may not help a fraught relationship with Washington, but Bolivia's new constitution is a victory to savour (…)

Sunday's referendum vote on a new constitution for Bolivia, which has led to a predicted victory for president Evo Morales and his Movement for Socialism party, will be welcomed by all those anxious for the country's future, but it will not in itself lead to a healing of the country's deep political and ethnic divisions. Yet it will certainly provide Morales with some breathing space as he contemplates the next steps to be taken towards a fairer society, to give the indigenous majority of the population the possibility of participating more comprehensively in Bolivian politics.

During the course of last year, the country was close to an undeclared civil war, with violence erupting in several cities, and rising to a violent crescendo in September. An opposition-inspired massacre of 18 people, mostly indigenous farmers, in the northern town of Pando led to political intervention by the newly-created Union of South American Nations (UNASUR). The subsequent establishment of formal negotiations in October between government and opposition allowed the referendum to take place in relatively peaceful conditions.

Some have compared Morales' strategy with that of Hugo Chávez, who organised the re-writing of the Venezuelan constitution shortly after his election in 1998, and used it as a springboard for reformist measures in many areas of national life. The reforms proposed by Morales are comparably radical, yet many people would argue that they are long overdue. Unlike Chávez, who seeks a constitutional reform in February that would permit a president to enjoy permanent re-election (if actually re-elected), Morales agreed during October's negotiations with the opposition that the constitution would require presidents to stand down after two terms. He will put his name forward again for re-election next year, and since he is an indigenous candidate representing the majority population, he will almost certainly win.

The problems in Bolivia are caused largely by the ethnic minority, mostly the descendants of white settlers, who live in the eastern provinces of the country that contain the chief engines of the economy – oil and gas. Many of these people have a racist and fascist mentality and, after centuries in control, dislike the prospect of their future being dominated by the formerly-suppressed indigenous majority.

Like so much else in the world, much will depend on the decisions taken by Obama's team. The outgoing administration had long been opposed to Morales, even before he was first elected, regarding the former leader of the coca-growers' union as a political firebrand and not much better than a drug baron. The Americans worked so openly with the opposition behind the scenes that Morales was obliged last year to expel the US ambassador, a gesture that was immediately imitated by Chávez. (Morales repaid the compliment this month by expelling the Israeli ambassador from La Paz, during the Israeli assault on Gaza, in the wake of the Venezuelan decision to do the same.)

Obama will certainly wish to distance himself from the legacy of George Bush, and the relative quiescence of the Bolivian opposition since the Pando massacre suggests that they are unsure what future assistance they will get from Washington. The traditional allies of Bolivia's white minority have been their close Latin American neighbours, Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay, but these – on a leftist path – have all expressed their support and solidarity for Morales.

Whatever the eventual outcome of Morales' reforms, the new approved constitution is a major landmark in Bolivian history, providing for the long-needed re-shaping of the judiciary (including the establishment of "community courts"), a revival of the land reform legislation of the 1950s (including a cap on the size of landholdings by an individual owner), and the safe-guarding of the oil and gas reserves for the benefit of the people. Yet more important – and at the heart of the new constitutional charter – are the clauses that strengthen the rights of the country's indigenous peoples. Sunday's victory is one to savour and ponder, and will create frissons of excitement throughout Latin America.

Bolivia's Revolutionary New Charter

Jean Friedman-Rudovsky / La Paz
TIMES Magazine
January 27, 2009

If President Barack Obama were to decide that "change" includes rewriting the United States constitution, he would probably find himself on the curb of Pennsylvania Avenue quicker than you can say Bill of Rights. But for left-wing Latin American Presidents, redoing national charters has become a norm. On Sunday, Bolivia became the most recent nation to be reborn.

Pro-government demonstrators gather in La Paz, Sunday, Jan. 25, 2009.
Juan Karita / AP

"I'd like to take this opportunity to acknowledge all my brothers and sisters who have used their democratic participation to re-found Bolivia," President Evo Morales said on Sunday night in front of thousands of exhilarated supporters after more than 60% of his nation had voted in favor of a new constitution. "Internal and external colonialism have come to an end."

It isn't all that novel a move: the new constitution is Bolivia's 17th. But it's the first to be written via a specially elected delegate assembly and the first to undergo a national vote. (The last constitution was written and enacted by Parliament in 1967 without the participation of a single indigenous person). An elaborate document, it expands the rights of the indigenous majority. Bolivia's 36 native tongues are now all official languages, along with Spanish, and Parliament will include ethnic group representation. Also, the text solidifies state control over natural resources and makes access to water a basic human right.

The win was widely expected, as was the strong showing in support of the constitution by rural and highland voters. But like Bolivia's recall vote last August, in which Morales won 67% national approval, Sunday showed that Bolivia's east/west regional divide that brought the country to the brink of civil war last September remains. The constitution was heavily rejected in the eastern lowlands of Santa Cruz, Beni, Pando and Tarija where wealthy land and business owners dominate local politics. Criticism ranged from the constitution's elimination of Catholicism's privileged position as official religion to worry about "extreme indigenous power."

But for many, the document's specifics were only a part of Sunday's contest. Five year-old Joaquin Claros, who was hanging onto his mom's arm outside a La Paz polling station on Sunday, knew what was at stake. Mom and dad, he exclaimed excitedly, had voted "for Evo!"

"Evo," of course, wasn't a ballot option (it was either Yes or No on various categories). But Sunday's vote was considered just as much a referendum on the President as it was on the text. Government officials therefore interpret the 20-plus point victory as a solid win. Opposition leaders say that the document's rejection in the eastern part of the country means that there must be some move toward compromise.

Compromise may in fact have already been key in the constitution's passage. An earlier version allowed for expropriation of large estates — a hot button issue in a country where less than one percent of the population owns more than two thirds of the land. But negotiations resulted in leaving the current holdings as is and limiting future landownership. On Sunday voters had a choice between limiting ownership to 10,000 or 25,000 acres per person limit. They voted 75% in favor of the former.

An agreement before the referendum avoided a battle over re-election. Sometime after Morales' ally Venezuela President Hugo Chavez failed in his bid at ending presidential term limits, Morales agreed to keep Bolivia's re-election laws as is. He is therefore able to compete in this December's Presidential elections for one more five-year term — but no more. That doesn't mean he wont try "to pull a Chavez," noted Santa Cruz resident Alberto Montero last week, referring to the Venezuelan's attempt to pass a separate referendum on indefinite re-election after Venezuela's new constitution was approved.

But there will be more wrangling down the line. "A constitution is only a foundation," says Carlos Alarcon, a constitutional lawyer and Vice Minister of Justice under former President Carlos Mesa. There is likely to be debate about any new legislation based on the language of the new charter. "Bolivia is going to have to strengthen its institutions — both state and judicial — if this new constitution and the new laws are going be implemented."

In Washington, the Obama Administration responded positively to Bolivia's vote. Responding to a reporter's question, acting State Department Spokesman Robert Wood said, "we congratulate the Bolivian people on the referendum... we look forward to working with the Bolivian Government in ways we can to further democracy and prosperity in the hemisphere." Says Mark Weisbrot, director of the Washington-based Center for Economic and Policy Research: "it's a hopeful sign" for the future of relations between the two countries. The previous U.S. administration would most likely have remained silent on Bolivia's electoral processes.

Bolivia: Compromise and advance

Pablo Stefanoni & Ricardo Bajo
Green Left Weekly
14 November 2008

(La Paz) The ominous clouds that seemed to indicate the worst of storms, and which tend to hypnotise analysts inside and outside of Bolivia, dissipated following a political agreement that has set January 25 as the date for a referendum on the draft for a new constitution.

The partners were not the “pro-autonomy” prefects in the east — who maintain an intransigent position, halting the negotiations — but rather the debilitated opposition Podemos parliamentary bench that continues to hold an important institutional weight.

Once again the “particular” interests of these relics played an involuntary but effective role in aiding the consolidation of the left-wing government of indigenous President Evo Morales.

If the August 10 recall referendum, in which more than 67% of voters endorsed Morales’s mandate, the president’s support expanded the length and breadth of the country, then the political agreement reached between the government and Podemos on October 21 has allowed the government to concentrate all initiatives in its hands.

Opposition divisions

It made clear the lack of strategy and strength of the opposition in the so-called half moon departments of Santa Cruz, Beni, Pando and Tarija in Bolivia’s east.

These forces lack the means to dent the support of a national government protected by its 80% vote in the western Andean region and a solid base of more than 40% in the most hostile zones of the country.

From now until January 25, Morales’s Movement Towards Socialism (MAS) party and the government apparatus has set itself the task of raising support for the process of change in the east — aiming to “reach 90%” approval for the new constitution.

Various elements explain the current breaking-up of the opposition.

Firstly, an underestimation of Morales’s leadership, which expresses a truly national movement equivalent to that of Bolivia’s 1952 National Revolution, and that is deeply embedded in the Bolivia that was always invisible to the accommodated classes — the impoverished, indigenous majority.

This includes the half moon, where the intensity of the 2000-2005 cycle of mass struggle was much lower than in the west.

Secondly, the lack of political experience among the half moon leaders — whom the more “political” Tarija prefect Mario Cossio attempted without success to redirect away from their delirious actions — meant that they gambled away the political capital won on August 10 when their mandates were ratified in referendums, due to their violent take over of state institutions and the massacre of unarmed peasants in Pando during September.

And thirdly, the regional factor. Other South American nations took a strong stance in favour of institutional stability, denying legitimacy to the violent campaign from the “pro-autonomy” forces in the half moon.

Once again, it was made clear that Bolivia is governed from its capital based in the west, La Paz.

The crisis of the right has deepened. One part of the opposition will vote in favour of the new constitution, while those that decided against doing so will be left in the uncomfortable situation of rejecting a constitution that legalises autonomies and supporting, by default, a the current constitution that is ferociously centralist.

The demoralisation of the conservative forces has reached such a level that its leaders now rely on the hope that the global economic crisis will have a devastating effect on the government — something its erratic strategies have failed to do. Instead, they have helped to consolidate the government.

The attempts to reconstruct a right out off the ashes of the current Santa Cruz elites brings with it the danger of a negative response from their own bases and provoking social isolation and/or a radicalisation without a clear destination.

The emergence of new leaderships among the regional right wing, especially in Santa Cruz, will take time, as it will need to find new faces that haven’t been “burned”. In particular, they need new banners to shield themselves and work out a political program that could be presented as an alternative, in the medium or long term, to “Evismo” and its effective banner of left nationalism with an indigenous face.

In an unexpected way, under this banner, the government has been able to construct a new national-popular hegemony — perhaps not entirely in line with the aspirations of the government’s eclectic base.

But it is what exists.

Limits of constituent assembly

However, all the victims of the political agreement cannot be placed on the right. The tally of the damage is broader.

The triumph of a “compromise outcome” over the “revolutionary” road, fuelled by the intransigence of the half moon prefects, also dealt a blow to the illusions of the “new left” and its belief in the re-founding of the country via a constituent assembly that was to put into action the power of the “multitudes”, materialised in the form of a plurality of “social movements”.

Right from the beginning, it was clear that the assembly lacked any real power, not only to draft up the new constitution without (excessive) interference, but also to reach political agreements that would allow for the construction of a majority with moderate sectors of the opposition, isolating the hard right that was wagering on a boycott.

As opposed to the experiences of Colombia or Ecuador, the assembly did not want to, or could not, temporarily assume the functions of the Congress.

Bogged down with formal debates (such as over two-thirds consensus that chewed up many months) it also could not — or did not want to — generate a truly national debate that reached beyond certain union elites, NGOs and political leaders.

It ended up getting bogged down over the demand to make Sucre the “full” capital, a demand plucked out of a hat and supported in an opportunist manner by the “half moon” in order to muddy the playing field and impede the assembly from achieving its mission.

Neither are the complaints of the “radicals” from El Alto (an impoverished city on the outskirts of La Paz) worth much: during the two years that the assembly met, this city, that when it mobilises is unstoppable, only came out onto the streets to chant, in a corporative manner, that “the headquarters will not be moved” (i.e.: La Paz should remain the capital).

At no time were there any important mobilisations in defence of the assembly or against the destabilisation of the regionalist right.

The rhetoric of the theoretically and practically inconsistent “left of the left”, opposed to the “change of more than 100 articles”, could not resist the first wave of a foreseeable militant and media-based campaign by MAS to close ranks in “defence of the process of change” and its proud baby: the new Political Constitution of the State.

Conceived of as a horizon of resistance in the middle of neoliberal hegemony, the assembly was a victim of the successes of the popular movements: time sped up and the assembly delegates were faced with the expectation that out of the assembly would emerge a new generation of cadre.

Assembly delegates were only able to partially achieve their objectives.

Despite the wishful thinking of many “anti-systemic” intellectuals, during the congressional negotiations Morales acted as he always has: a popular politician with strong doses of realism and a reluctance towards projects involving the revolutionary taking of power.

Morales also maintains a complex relationship with the peasant unions that combine, not without contradictions, autonomy with “verticalism” by its leaders.

On the other hand, would it have been desirable — and sustainable in time — for the left to close down Congress and force through the constitutional referendum in a “bonapartist” manner; that is, based on the support of the streets but above all the Armed Forces?

Because that is what it would have been, not the indigenous and anti-Western revolution that the pachamamaist indigenists — many of them middle-class mestizos — had imagined.

Despite the concessions, the new constitution has everything that Morales needs to construct his project for power: reelection, greater spaces for state intervention in the economy and certain instruments to use towards a “decolonialisation” understood as social equality.

New challenges

But the consolidation of the “process of change” will perhaps have another auspicious consequence: without the spectre of a conspiracy by the right — which acted as a shadow over the nape — the popular state of alert may begin to be relaxed, allowing space for some much needed constructive criticism.

Such criticism is as necessary as it is absent from the government ranks (and a renewed left, that is, if a left exists in Bolivia today).

With clearer skies, a possibly more difficult stage begins (without the enemies that, at the same time as threatening the government, helped unite and cohere its bases). This stage involves transforming the aspirations for change — drawn up in the proposed new constitution — into public policies that begin to change the living conditions of the majority of Bolivians.

Health, education, housing, new gas exploration and exploitation, and rural development all require strong and efficient institutions to become a reality.

All this in a new context: the world no longer has to pay the price of gold to be the beneficiaries of our primary materials. Rather it is awash in a sea of doubts about the future, darkened by a crisis, for now, without a light at the end of the tunnel.

With the “enemy” drawing back, at least for the moment, the postponed demands can begin to take the form of new challenges to a power that the popular sectors perceive as their own.

This article was translated by Federico Fuentes, with permission. It is abridged from the November issue of the Bolivian edition of Le Monde Diplomatique, of which Stefanoni and Bajo are the director and sub-director, respectively.

The fight is not over by any means but Bolivia has entered a new phase

Forrest Hylton

Bolivia's Congress ratified President Evo Morales' draft constitution on Tuesday, beginning a new phase to the president’s quest of empowering Bolivia’s long oppressed indigenous majority. Congress approved holding another referendum scheduled for January 25. Despite this development, Journalist and Author Forrest Hylton believes "the fight is not over by any means but [Bolivia] has entered a new phase."

Forrest Hylton is the author of Evil Hour in Colombia (Verso, 2006), and with Sinclair Thomson, co-author of Revolutionary Horizons: Past and Present in Bolivian Politics (Verso, 2007). He is a regular contributor to New Left Review and NACLA Report on the Americas.

Transcript of interview by Bolivia Rising

Bolivia approves draft constitution
Producer: Zaa Nkweta

ZAA NKWETA, TRNN: Bolivia's Congress ratified President Evo Morales' draft constitution on Tuesday, beginning a new phase to the president's quest of empowering Bolivia's long-oppressed indigenous majority.

EVO MORALES, BOLIVIAN PRESIDENT (SUBTITLED TRANSLATION): If regional governors reject all of these modifications, these civil committees will turn into the enemies of regional autonomy. If there shall be any civil authority or governor who rejects this document, they would be an enemy of the country because they would be rejecting the nationalization of our natural resources.

NKWETA: Bolivia's Congress also approved holding a referendum on the new constitution, scheduled for January 25. The Real News spoke to author and historian Forrest Hylton.

~~~

NKWETA: So welcome to The Real News, Forrest.

FORREST HYLTON, JOURNALIST AND HISTORIAN: Thanks for having me, Zaa.

NKWETA: So Bolivia has ratified the draft constitution. What do you make of this?

HYLTON: It's a major victory for Evo Morales as president of Bolivia, for MAS as the governing party of Bolivia. And La Paz is currently filled with tens of thousands, perhaps more than 100,000 people of indigenous background, workers and peasants and miners, celebrating what they understand to be their Constitution. And there's a lot in the fine print, in fact, that reflects negotiations between Morales and the right-wing opposition prefects, and particularly the political parties that represent them. But people aren't worried about the fine print right now. They feel that this is a big victory in terms of moving the country forward politically and at least establishing a framework that's agreed on by all sides for government and, hopefully, the rule of law.

NKWETA: What do you think were some of the critical turning points that got us to this point?

HYLTON: The international intervention from UNASUR, the discussions of this issue in the General Assembly at the United Nations by President Fernández de Kirchner, and the way that Brazil intervened very decisively in favor of the democratically elected government of Evo Morales, the extent to which the United States has become entirely isolated from the rest of the hemisphere. And Evo Morales is at the same time very strong right now; and after the referendum in August, which saw a 13 percent gain for him, he was able to translate that into international legitimacy, and that international legitimacy eventually forced the right to make concessions that it really never wanted to make. It never wanted to see Evo Morales and his government get the credit for passing the new constitution, and a new constitution and a constitutional assembly was a key part of the agenda of October, which is basically what set the framework for Evo Morales's government. It's what brought Evo Morales to power. And it refers to October 2003, when right-wing President Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada was overthrown through a mass popular insurrection. So this really represents in some ways a closure of that process that was initiated when people began to demand a new constitution and a new constitutional assembly through mass direct action in the streets, which was capable of overthrowing two presidents.

NKWETA: Do you believe that the grassroots organizations that the opposition used to push Morales, do you believe that these have been abated?

HYLTON: Well, I mean, it's unlikely, I think, that we've seen the last of them altogether, but the increasingly central protagonism that they have taken on in the last, you know, couple of years or so, particularly in the last year, I think, is something that has now come to a close; I think it'll really fade into the background. And they might be mobilized as necessary, but I think the kind of constant mobilization that we've been seeing that has led to the deaths and ultimately to the massacre in Pando in September, I think [inaudible] with the forging of this kind of new consensus. And the key concession that MAS and Evo Morales had to make was on land, the idea that none of the expropriation of unproductive land would be retroactive, so the people who have legal title to their land, if they're using it productively, are not in danger of using any of it. This is the key issue for these folks down in the eastern lowlands, because their representatives in the prefectures and the civic committees are huge landowners, and they belong to kind of a caste of landowning families. And so the Constitution doesn't explicitly take them on, and up until now that was a point that MAS was really unwilling to negotiate on, and it was perhaps the key grievance of the folks in the lowlands. A lot of the debate took place over hydrocarbons and the distribution of gas resources between the nation and the different regions within it. But in fact this question of land has been fundamental at every point, and it was really the tensest point of friction between the government and the opposition. Now that's really been taken care of, and I think there will be much more live-and-let-live.

NKWETA: Is the fight over?

HYLTON: I wouldn't say it's over by any means, but I think we've really probably entered a new phase, and I think things are likely to be quite a bit calmer in Bolivia in the next year than they have in the past.

Socialist Reform Changes Lives of Bolivian Farmers

Republished from RedOrbit
24 September 2008

The fate of Bolivian farmers such as Julio Mamani hang in the balance amid erupting violence this month following leftist reforms put in place by President Evo Morales.

Morales, the country’s first Indian president, has increased state control of the nation’s economy, and has distributed roughly 2.47 million acres of land to indigenous peasants.

"Because I don't own land I feel like I've got nothing in life," 44 year old Mamani said.

"Thanks to Evo we're going to have a piece of the land that belongs to big land owners."

Mamani currently lives in a shack roughly 50 miles north of La Paz, where frost, drought and hailstorms regularly devastate crops. He burns cow dung to obtain heat and works the land of others to make his living, which amounts to the equivalent of about $2 per day.

Under Morales’ new land redistribution proposal, dozens of families in Achacachi have been promised land in the tropical lowlands in eastern Bolivia.

However, that plan, along with Morales’ broader socialist program, caused a violent reaction by large farming families in the country’s eastern agricultural heartland. The opposition has occupied many government buildings and blocked highways, and 13 people have been killed in the violence according to local media reports.

So far, Morales has distributed only government land, but under a newly proposed constitution a limit on land ownership would be cut from 123,600 acres to 12,360 acres, which would lead to the redistribution of private land.

Bolivia's wealth was traditionally held in the silver mines high in the Andes. However, families from Asia, Europe and elsewhere moved into the eastern lowlands during the 1960s and converted the area into a breadbasket of rice, soy, sugar and beef.

Today, the country remains divided between wealthier white people in the fertile lowlands and poor indigenous people in the western highlands, with about 1 percent of landowners owning 66 percent of the agricultural land.

"Not for a minute have we hesitated in our rejection of agrarian reform," said Guido Nayar, who leads a prominent agriculture federation in the opposition stronghold of Santa Cruz.

"They want to limit property for those who produce food but not for those who produce drugs," he said, referring to the coca leaf, the main ingredient of cocaine.

Indians use in the coca leaf in rituals and chew it to ward of hunger, a practice Morales, a former coca grower, has actively encouraged.

Almost all Latin American countries have attempted at some point to change systems in which a small number of elites own most of the land.

Those elites traditionally opposed such initiatives, and even took down presidents who instituted agrarian reform, sometimes with U.S. support.

Morales expelled the U.S. ambassador earlier this month, claiming the United States was endorsing the opposition protests in an attempt to destabilize him.

Nayar said Morales was trying to implement a 1950s model for agrarian reform that contradicts modern, consolidated agriculture, sentiments echoed in places like Mexico, where land redistribution has resulted in farms too small in some cases to even provide for a single family.

However, Morales has the backing of other Latin American leaders, and has vowed to move ahead with his plans.

After taking office in January 2006, Morales first nationalized Bolivia’s energy sector, mining projects and the nation’s largest telecom company. He used the proceeds of these widely popular measures to combat poverty. Morales won 67 percent backing in a vote in August, despite resistance in eastern Bolivia.

"We're starting the repossession process. It will be the end ... of large idle land holdings," Cliver Rocha, head of the government land reform office, told Reuters.

The Bolivian government wants to redistribute more than 19.77 million acres of land to more than 200,000 families by 2011. To accomplish this the government will need to complete surveys and then seize any land it determines is either illegally owned or idle.

According to Rocha, the focus will be on land grants to "the historically dispossessed." However, unlike Bolivia's last significant land reform effort in 1953, the current campaign will not allow people to sell their land, which will prevent speculation, he said.

Silverio Vera of the land rights group Landless Movement said roughly 180 families are better off after relocating to Santa Cruz and establishing a community called "Pueblos Unidos" on state land.

"We have a school, small clinics, water tanks and we are sowing ... The families are doing well because we have access to work."

In Achacachi, where Morales received nearly 100 percent of the vote in August, Mamani hoped for a better life for his family in Santa Cruz.

"With land and hard work we'll be able to move forward," he told Reuters, adding that he won't miss the extreme cold of the Andes, where his family has lived for generations.

"I'm going to take a small picture of the mountains as a souvenir and I'll be fine looking at the picture."

Indigenous people lead Bolivian democracy struggle

John Riddell
September 29, 2008

A popular uprising in Bolivia is defending its government and democratic institutions against U.S.-inspired minority violence.

On September 23, about 20,000 peasants and miners marched on the eastern city of Santa Cruz, where the right-wing government has been encouraging terrorism and intimidation of Bolivia’s indigenous majority and trying to oust the government of President Evo Morales.

Popular assemblies in La Paz, Cochabamba and elsewhere in the country added to the pressure against this disruptive minority, whose supporters have killed dozens of Bolivians in recent weeks. The right-wing opposition’s banner is “autonomy” for the provinces they rule, but their real goal is to return the rich oligarchy to power.

Morales, a man of peace, has refrained from using armed force against such illegality, seeking a dialogue with right-wing leaders and peaceful resolution of differences.

Morales, Bolivia’s first indigenous president, was confirmed in office by a 67 per cent majority in a national referendum in August. He was first elected in 2005 on a program including land reform, nationalization of natural resources and a new constitution.

The Morales government acted vigorously on all three fronts, but progress has been stymied by forces loyal to the country’s previous ruling elite and their backers in Washington. U.S. ambassador Philip Goldberg brazenly proclaimed his right to intervene in Bolivian political life. He met frequently with opposition leaders until Bolivia expelled him from the country September 10 for “conspiring against democracy.”

Among the causes of opposition outrage is the government’s decision to use some of profits from gas exports to fund the country’s first universal pension plan.

Even more provocative to rich oligarchs is the Morales government’s goal of ending the centuries-old exclusion of indigenous people. Their goal is to refound the nation on a “plurinational” basis – that is one of equality between each of Bolivia’s indigenous nations and its Hispanic population.

Bolivian popular movements incorporate traditional indigenous values of collectivism and protection of the natural environment. Together with their government, they seek to rebuild Bolivia around these values, while urgently recommending them to the world at large.

For example, in addressing the United Nations General Assembly September 23, Morales warned, “If we continue the way we were, we will all be responsible for destroying the planet.” He proposed 10 principles to save life on earth, beginning with “putting an end to capitalism, the synonym for exploitation and pillage.”

Morales urged “respect for Mother Nature, which is not a commodity,” and called for taking energy, water and other basic services out of the hands of private business, making them public services and human rights. Our goal, he said, must be “living well,” an indigenous concept that includes living in harmony with one’s community and the natural world.

In Bolivia, Morales’s overwhelming victory in the August referendum opened the road for a vote to adopt the proposed constitution, scheduled for December 7. It was this prospect that drove rightists into a frenzy of violence and law-breaking over the last month. On September 11, rightist gangs massacred more than 30 unarmed government supporters in the state of Pando.

The Santa Cruz marchers delivered their warning on September 23 and stopped short of taking the city. Meanwhile, the popular upsurge continues, strengthening Morales’s hand against the violent minority.

But what of the foreign backers of this opposition in Washington?

As Morales said at the United Nations, “The combat of our people is a historic struggle against empire.” Here Bolivia has received decisive support from the other peoples of Latin America. On September 15, an emergency meeting of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) voted unanimously to pledge “fullest and decided support for the constitutional government of President Evo Morales.”

The U.S. government has been shut out of these deliberations. The Organization of American States (OAS), to which Canada belongs, has played no role. The government of Stephen Harper has said not a word about the political terrorism in Bolivia.

It’s high time for Canadians to follow the South American example, declare their independence of the Bush-Harper combination, and take their stand in support of Bolivia’s government, democratic institutions and integrity.

To find out about efforts in Canada to support Bolivian democracy, contact torontoboliviasolidarity@gmail.com.

Bolivia: 'This is a fight between rich and poor'

Federico Fuentes
Caracas
27 September 2008

Speaking from within the belly of the beast, Bolivia’s indigenous President Evo Morales announced at the 63rd United Nations General Assembly that the world today is paying witness to a “fight between rich and poor, between socialism and capitalism”.

“There is an uprising against an economic model, a capitalistic system that is the worst enemy of humanity”, Morales said.

With his confidence boosted following the recent rolling back of a right-wing offensive whose objective was a “civil coup” against his government, Morales used his intervention at the UN summit to do what he had done last year: denounce capitalism.

Morales also used the opportunity to refer to recent events in his own country. Following his crushing victory in the August 10 recall referendum — in which close to seven out of 10 voters demonstrated their support for him and the process of change he is leading — the right-wing pro-autonomy opposition based in the east of Bolivia unleashed a desperate wave of violence and terrorism aimed at toppling his government.

In response, Morales expelled the US ambassador due to his role in leading the coup conspiracy and decreed marshal law in the department (state) of Pando — site of the most intense violence. Pando’s opposition-aligned prefect Leopoldo Fernandez ordered the September 11 massacre of pro-government peasants. With the official death toll reaching almost 20, and more than 100 people still missing, the military successfully hunted down the fugitive prefect, who is now facing trial for charges of genocide.

Three days after the massacre, the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) convened an emergency summit to declare “their fullest and decided support for the constitutional government of President Evo Morales” and “warn that its respective governments energetically reject and do not recognise any situation that implies an intent of civil coup d’etat, the rupture of institutional order, or that compromises the territorial integrity of the Republic of Bolivia”.

“I would like to hear representatives of the US government rejecting these acts of terrorism”, proclaimed Morales during his speech to the UN General Assembly. “But you know, they are allies, of course they will never condemn this.”

“When you work for equality and social justice, you are persecuted and conspired against by certain groups, not concerned about equality”, he said.

The battle for Bolivia’s future
Since being inaugurated as president in January 2006, Morales has faced a constant right-wing campaign aimed at undermining and ultimately overthrowing his government. Elected with a historic 53.7% of the vote, his entrance into the presidential palace represented an important leap forward for Bolivia’s indigenous movement, which had set itself the goal of moving “from resistance to power”. But as Morales has explained, winning the elections didn’t equal holding power.

Backed by Bolivia’s powerful indigenous, peasant and social movements, the Morales government quickly moved to implement a number of key election promises such as the nationalisation of the country’s gas reserves — the second largest in Latin America — and an “agrarian revolution”.

The centrepiece of the government’s program, however, was the holding of a Constituent Assembly to write a new constitution and “refound” Bolivia. The demand was first raised in the early ’90s by the indigenous peoples of the country’s east, and gained strength during the cycle of social struggle opened up with the community rebellion in 2002 against Bechtel. The transnational corporation bought Cochabamba’s water supplies and intended to more than double the price of water. The Constituent Assembly was officially inaugurated in August 2006.

From day one, the right-wing opposition pulled out all stops to try to block the advance of the Constituent Assembly. Following the escalation of a wave of violence against assembly delegates, it was forced to convene, without the presence of most of the opposition delegates to the assembly and in a military compound, where the draft of a new constitution was approved by a clear majority of elected delegates.

The new draft constitution, along with “constitutionalising” the gains made until now in the “democratic and cultural revolution” headed by Morales — such as nationalisation of natural resources and agrarian reform — would also dramatically increase the rights of Bolivia’s traditionally excluded indigenous majority within a new “plurinational” state.

Sensing the threat this represented to their economic interests, the agribusiness elites and gas transnationals, through their control of the prefectures and civic committees of the departments of the east, have done all they can to stop the advance of the indigenous nationalist project that Morales’ Movement Towards Socialism (MAS) government represents.

But “these coup plotters made a mistake, they do not have either national or international support, and happily there exists a consciousness in the people to reject these conspiratorial acts”, stated Morales

Back to the negotiating table?
As a relative calm — one which resembles those that come before a storm — returns to Bolivia after weeks of right-wing violence and terrorism during which state institutions were burnt down, beatings were meted out to indigenous peasants, police officers and soldiers, and takeovers of airports and blockades of major highways occurred, the government and opposition returned to the negotiation table.

At the same time, social movements aligned with the MAS government initiated a massive mobilisation on September 17, marching on Santa Cruz to demand the resignation of the prefect. While stating his disagreement with the demands of the protesters, Morales said that the movements were autonomous from the government and that they were reacting against the right wing and in favour of democracy.

The three key issues for discussion at the negotiation table are the new constitution and autonomy statutes promoted by the right-wing prefects, the redistribution of the Direct Tax on Hydrocarbons and the filling of vacant spaces in judicial bodies such as the Constitutional Tribunal.

Expressing its clear desire to see the negotiations advance within the context of a new balance of forces following the referendum vote and the repelling of the “civil coup” attempt, the Morales government denounced the unwillingness of the right wing to truly participate in a dialogue.

Not content with the proposals by the government to give way on some of these issues, the opposition demanded that discussion be reopened on the draft constitution.

For Morales, the opposition forces were “counterposing themselves to the sectors that have mobilised for so many years demanding a Constituent Assembly, and with it a new constitution … In doing so they are opposing the refoundation of Bolivia which seeks equality between Bolivians.”

Stating that it appeared as though the will to reach an agreement did not exist among the opposition, Morales said “the people will oblige them to approve the new constitution”.

The negotiations were halted on September 24, in recess until the following Monday.

The social movements announced on September 25 that they would meet over the weekend to plan further actions in favour of approving the new constitution.

While suspending their march shortly before reaching the capital of Santa Cruz, the social movements that make up the National Coalition for Change (CONALCAM) — which makes up the majority of the indigenous, peasant and social movements in Bolivia — announced that they will most likely initiate a march on parliament to force the approval of a law to hold a referendum on the draft constitution.

From New York, Morales announced that a meeting of CONALCAM would be held on September 27 where “for sure, if the prefects do not guarantee an agreement, once again there will be mobilisations until the prefects understand the clamour of the Bolivian people which is for the refoundation of Bolivia with a new constitution”.

Fidel Surco, head of CONALCAM, added that while the social movements had “been flexible in lifting the mobilisation on Santa Cruz, we greatly lament the fact that the prefects do not want to dialogue over the constitutional text. Either way, we will approve the new constitution. No matter what, the referendum will go ahead. If they do not support it, they should vote No. We have decided that once again we will surround the Congress.”

Surco stated that, along with the option of surrounding Congress, there was also the possibility of reinitiating the march on Santa Cruz.

On previous occasions, indigenous and peasant organisations have surrounded parliament and forced the approval of laws such as those regarding agrarian reform and the new gas contracts.

The peasant federation of Chuquisaca has announced, that regardless of what CONALCAM decides, it will restart blockades around the capital of the department, Sucre, to force the local prefect to sign an agreement for peace in the country.

International solidarity
Meanwhile, international solidarity with the government and people of Bolivia continues to grow. A declaration by the Presidency of the European Union stated that “The European Union supports the step taken by UNASUR, whose Heads of State held an extraordinary meeting in Santiago on 15 September with a view to helping resolve in a peaceful and democratic manner which respects Bolivia’s territorial integrity the crisis gripping the country”, adding that it endorses the terms of the UNASUR resolution.

Kintto Lucas reported on September 22 for IPS News that “Indigenous organisations from several countries in Latin America declared their solidarity with Bolivian President Evo Morales with respect to the crisis in his country …

“Humberto Cholango, the head of the [Confederation of Peoples of the Quechua Nationality of Ecuador, Ecuarunari], which groups Quechua communities from Ecuador’s highlands region, warned that an attempted coup against Morales could trigger a generalised uprising by indigenous people throughout the Andean region.”

“The indigenous movement in Ecuador and other countries is on the alert to any attempt to overthrow our brother Evo by economic power groups backed by the government of the United States”, Cholango told IPS.

“The indigenous leader said that ‘a great global chain of solidarity with Bolivia’ is being created by indigenous and social organisations as well as intellectuals throughout South America, which will culminate in a major demonstration in La Paz [Bolivia’s administrative capital]”, IPS reported

ECUARUNARI, together with the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador (CONAIE), the Movement of Those Without Land (MST, Brazil), Via Campesina and others are holding a meeting in solidarity with Bolivia in Santa Cruz on October 23-25.

Bolivia: Defeat of the Right

Immanuel Wallerstein
1 October 2008

Immanuel Wallerstein is Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Sociology, State University of New York at Binghamton. Among his numerous books are The Modern World-System (1974, 1980, 1989), Unthinking Social Science (1991), After Liberalism (1995), The End of the World As We Know It (1999), and The Decline of American Power: The U.S. in a Chaotic World (2003).

In the amazing series of elections in South America in the last five years, the most radical results were in Bolivia, with the election of Evo Morales as President. It is not because Morales stood on the most radical platform. It was rather that, in this country in which the majority of the population are indigenous peoples, this was the very first time that an indigenous person was elected president of the republic. This in itself was a profound social revolution, and was not at all appreciated by the descendants of European immigrants who had always controlled the country.

The big question when Morales was elected was whether he could stay long in office, or whether the Bolivian right, perhaps in collusion with the armed forces, could oust him. He has now demonstrated that he can.

There were three major elements in his program. Bolivia's national income today is primarily drawn from its gas exports, essentially to Brazil and Argentina. The gas is located in the eastern provinces, the so-called Half Moon. And these areas are the ones in which there are the lowest percentages of indigenous peoples. The majority are Euro-descendants. Until Morales came to power, the prices at which the gas was sold were ridiculously low. And the income remained largely with the eastern provincial governments.

So, Morales sought to renegotiate the prices of the gas being exported. And he instituted a hydrocarbon tax so that much more of the income would come to the national government. Morales intended to use the money for social redistribution throughout the country, which would of course significantly benefit the indigenous populations.

In addition, the land in the eastern provinces is exceptionally mal-distributed. Two-thirds of the land are owned by one-sixth of 1% of the population. Morales wished to place a cap on the acreage any one person could own -- a form of major agrarian reform.

In foreign policy, Morales attempted to maintain reasonable relations with the United States. He continued to accept the money the U.S. had been giving for anti-narcotic operations, especially since this money went to the armed forces. He did, however, in addition, welcome Venezuelan aid and Cuban doctors. The U.S. government was clearly not happy with Morales and would have preferred to see the Bolivian right return to power.

The strategy of the Bolivian right was to demand more autonomy for the regional governments, ultimately hinting at secession -- a project they had never advocated as long as they controlled the central government. They demanded a recall election of Morales. The tactic badly backfired.

Morales accepted the challenge, adding to the recall election the question of whether the nine provincial prefects should also be recalled. In the elections Morales got a whopping 68% support, far greater than the votes he had originally received when he was elected. Seven prefects were returned but two anti-Morales governors were ousted, which has allowed Morales to name successors.

The right in the eastern provinces then sought to block exports of gas. They hoped thereby to induce the Brazilian and Argentine governments to put pressure on Morales. Supporters of Morales then began to demonstrate. The governor of Pando province, Leopoldo Fernández responded with repression. Over 30 demonstrators were killed in the capital city, El Porvenir. Morales arrested the governor and named a navy admiral as the new prefect.

At this point, President Michelle Bachelet of Chile convened an emergency meeting of the organization of the 12 South American states, UNASUR, to consider the situation. All twelve presidents came to Santiago for the meeting, and unanimously adopted a resolution of "full and complete support for the constitutional government of Evo Morales," denouncing any possible coup d'état. The significance of this resolution was that it was unanimous, being signed even by the deeply pro-American president of Colombia, Alvaro Uribe. The resolution was then endorsed by the Grupo Río, composed of 22 countries from all of Latin America and the Caribbean, including Mexico.

UNASUR called for dialogue. Morales called for dialogue himself, even before the UNASUR resolution. The right is stymied. Its last hope was some U.S. intervention. But Bolivia has now expelled the U.S. ambassador, Philip Goldberg, for "conspiring against democracy," that is, with the Bolivian right. The United States is now withdrawing its small aid projects in Bolivia. Russia has offered to enter the breach. The United States is becoming more and more irrelevant in Latin America.

If one asks why even Uribe supported the resolution, it is because no president wants to see the new tactic of secession receiving support. The United States is trying this also in Ecuador, where it has backfired equally, with the great victory of President Rafael Correa's referendum on the constitution.

Call to an International Meeting of Solidarity with Boliva

Santa Cruz, Bolivia, October 23-25, 2008

THOSE WHO STAND WITH BOLIVIA, STAND FOR ALL PEOPLE, ALL THE TIME!

1. The dignified inhabitants of this Abya Yala (American) continent have been struggling for centuries to re-establish SUMAK KAWSAY (Living Fully) that was seized from us by the invaders and subsequent colonizers.

Throughout the ages they have murdered worthy leaders, usurped the wealth of the people and at the height of their greed, violated all human rights and those of Pachamama [Mother Earth], aided and abetted by members of the religious hierarchies who forged accords with the political and economic power in each historical period.

2. After 516 years, the neo-invaders and conquistadores seek to abort the libertarian rebirth in Latin America, and so the descendants of the murderers and usurpers return with their neoliberal policies, provoking new genocides and larcenies.

3. North American imperialism and its allies within the Latin American oligarchy are trying to halt the liberation processes in countries such as Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Nicaragua, among others; and so the oppressors shed their sheep's clothing in order to fully display their predatory wolves' fangs, ready to save their outdated political, social, economic and cultural system by any means necessary. Bolivia is now the target of the largest offensive by these sectors who believe themselves to be owners and lords of the world, intending to permanently appropriate for themselves the water, gas, oil, and land that belong to the Bolivian people.

4. In Bolivia, the groups that make up the so-called "Half-Moon," which are fascist civic-prefectural groups, descendants of those who served Hitler in his deathly project and following their defeat in the Second World War, fled to various countries, Bolivia among them, are unable to comprehend that the time has come for stolen property to be returned to its legitimate owners.

They cannot bear that in Bolivia, for the first time in Latin American history, with more than 53% of the vote, the people chose the Aymara brother, Evo Morales Ayma as their president; an heir to the rebellion of Tupac Katari, Bartolina Sisa, Tupak Amaru and Che Guevara; a man born of Pachamama and forged in the social insurgency lit by the millennial fire of the sacred COCA leaf; who called a new Constituent Assembly and won all battles cleanly and with dignity; who struggles for a true Agrarian Reform in a country where more than 80% of the population is impoverished, and who was ratified as President of the Republic by 67% in a referendum held August 10th; who nationalized strategic resources such as oil and natural gas; who implemented social measures in solidarity, in order to favor the least protected; who with a dignified attitude expelled the United States Ambassador in La Paz, Philip Goldberg, for conspiring against Bolivia's sovereignty and refusing to respect the people's right to self-determination; among other measures that demonstrate his unwavering commitment to serve the people who now ratify him as President.

5. These anti-democratic sectors, finding themselves defeated and in the middle of complete desperation to maintain their privileges, began a divisive plan of autonomy for Santa Cruz, Tarija, Beni, Pando, and with the help of a terrorist group called the "juventud cruceñista " [Santa Cruz Youth Union] are implementing a new phase of their COUP PLAN, by the taking of public institutions, and in an effort to destabilize the legitimate government of Evo Morales, SLAUGHTERED AND KILLED scores of unarmed indigenous and peasants in Porvenir (Pando), the very same who through their struggle have been added to the thousands of heroes and martyrs who have offered their lives for the ultimate recovery of Sumak Kawsay on our continent.

6. Faced with these situations, in the name of Pachamama's loving and rebellious cry for justice, of the dignified women and men who aspire to leave our sons and daughters a planet where we might live in universal brotherhood, through the exercise of the right to a dignified life, the right to self-determination for the people, and respect for inter-cultural and multinational coexistence; for a just and fraternal world, we call on all organizations of indigenous, Afro-Americans, peasants, workers, women, social movements, students, networks, intellectuals, personalities, friends of revolutionary causes, to the INTERNATIONAL MEETING OF SOLIDARITY WITH BOLIVIA, to be held on October 23 and 25 in Santa Cruz, Bolivia, in order to unite our forces and hearts, and testify together to the world that BOLIVIA DOES NOT STRUGGLE ALONE.

That is why we join with President Evo Morales and endorse his words:

"Many times I will be wrong, who isn't once in awhile? But in the struggle against neoliberal colonization, I will never be wrong, I will never betray them." (Evo Morales, Umala, May 3rd, 2008)

CONVOCATION

* Confederacion de Pueblos de la Nacionalidad Kichwa del Ecuador (ECUARUNARI) - Ecuador
[Confederation of People of Kichwa Nationality from Ecuador (ECUARUNARI) - Ecuador]

* Confederaci?n de Nacionalidades Ind?genas del Ecuador (CONAIE) - Ecuador
[Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador (CONAIE) - Ecuador]

* Organizacion Nacional Indigena de Colombia (ONIC) - Colombia
[National Indigenous Organization of Colombia (ONIC) - Colombia]

* Consejo de Todas las Tierras - Chile
[Council of All Lands - Chile]

* Movimiento Sin Tierra (MST) - Brasil
[Landless Movement (MST) - Brazil]

* Via Campesina - Brasil
[Campesina Way - Brazil]

* Tlaxcala, the Network of Translators for Linguistic Diversity

European MPs Appeal : No more Pinochets in Latin America

On the 35th anniversary of the military overthrow of Salvador Allende in Chile in 1973, which had the overt support of the United States, the presidents of Bolivia and Venezuela asked the US ambassadors accredited to their countries to leave.

They both believe they have faced the possibility of imminent coups in which they accuse the United States' administration of being involved.

A third country, Paraguay, announced ten days previously that they had detected a conspiracy involving military officers and opposition politicians.

Latin America now faces its most serious crisis since the re-introduction of democracy at the end of the 20th century.

The plot against democracy in Venezuela centred on a conspiracy, revealed in telephone conversations between senior military officers broadcast on national television, to assassinate the democratically elected head of state, President Chavez.

In Bolivia, the separatist governors of the five eastern regions, in close touch with the US embassy in La Paz, have begun a campaign of violence and economic sabotage designed to create the conditions for a coup.

These events demonstrate unequivocally who defends democracy and who threatens it in Latin America today.

We are appalled by the failure of much of the international media to provide accurate and proportionate coverage of these events.

We call upon democrats throughout the world to rally to defend democracy, social progress and national independence in Latin America and to condemn these conspiracies against democracy and human rights.

We call upon the European Union and European governments to adopt a policy independent of the Bush administration in the US and unequivocally condemn all attempts to overthrow democratically elected governments in Latin America.

Richard Gott

Ken Livingstone

John Pilger

Hugh O'Shaughnessy

Colin Burgon MP

Tony Benn

Diane Abbott MP

Jeremy Corbyn MP

Ian Gibson MP

Colin Challen MP

Jim Devine MP

Rob Marris MP

Michael Connarty MP

Mark Fisher MP

David Taylor MP

Ian Davidson MP

Baroness Gibson

Chris McLaughlin, Editor Tribune

Alexander Ulrich MP, Germany

Jörn Wunderlich MP, Germany

Heike Hänsel MP, Germany

Kornelia Möller MP, Germany

Elke Reinke MP, Germany

Inge Höger MP¸Germany,

Helmut Scholz, Die Linke

Ilda Figueiredo MEP, Portugal

Pedro Guerreiro MEP, Portugal

Manuel Talens, Spain

Pascual Serrano, Spain

Isaac Rosa, Spain

Carlos Tena:, Spain

South American leaders back president of Bolivia

Agence France-Presse,

September 16, 2008

SOUTH American presidents holding a crisis summit here over unrest in Bolivia issued a strong statement giving Bolivian President Evo Morales their support.

The statement agreed by Morales and the presidents of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Uruguay and Venezuela also rejected any break-up of Bolivia's territory (see below).

The nine presidents in the Chilean capital Santiago expressed "their full and firm support for the constitutional government of President Evo Morales, whose mandate was ratified by a big majority."

Argentine President Cristina Kirchner said after the six hours of talks that "the agreement was unanimous."

She had called the summit under the auspices of the newly formed Union of South American Nations, which is currently presided over by Chile.

The leaders also said they were looking at creating a committee to attend talks between Morales's Government and rebel governors in Bolivia's east opposing his socialist reforms.

Bolivia last week was gripped by violent unrest that left at least 18 people dead and a hundred wounded in the northern state of Pando.

The disturbances occurred in five eastern states whose conservative governors are seeking autonomy.

Mr Morales has called their push an illegal attempt at secession.

On arrival in Santiago, he accused his foes at home of mounting a "civic coup d'etat" against him.

The summit statement said the presidents "warn that our respective government energetically reject and will not recognize any situation that attempts a civil coup and the rupture of institutional order and which could compromise the territorial integrity of the Republic of Bolivia."

They also condemned the deaths in Pando and called for a commission to investigate allegations many of the victims were pro-Morales peasants gunned down in an ambush.

***** ***** *****

UNASUR declaration on Bolivia

Santiago de Chile, September 15 2008

The heads of state and the government of Unasur, meeting in the Palace of the Moneda, Santiago de Chile, September 15 2008, with the purpose of considering the situation in the Republic of Bolivia and remembering the tragic episodes 35 years ago in this very place that shocked all humanity:

Considering the the constitutive treaty of Unasur, signed in Brasilia on May 23rd 2008, enshrines the principles of unrestricted respect for sovereignty, of the non-interference in internal affairs, of the integrity and inviolbility of territory, of democracy and its institutions and the unrestricted respect of human rights;

Faced with the grave occurances reported in the sister Republic of Bolivia, and in favour of the strengthening of political dialogue and cooperation for the strengthening of citizen's security, the countries that make up Unasur express:

1. Their fullest and decided support for the constitutional government of President Evo Morales, whose mandate was ratified by a wide margin in the recent referendum.

2. They warn that its respective governments energetically reject and do not recognize any situation that implies an intent of civil coup d'etat, the rupture of institutional order, or that compromises the territorial integrity of the Republic of Bolivia

3. Consequent to the above, and in consideration of the grave situation that affects the sister Republic of Bolivia, they condemn the attack on government installations and public forces by groups that look for the destabilization of Bolivia's democracy, and demand the prompt return of those installations as condition for the start of the dialogue process.

4. At the same time, they call for all political and social actors involved to take the necessary measures so that acts of violence, intimidation, attacks on the democratic institutionality and estabished judicial order cease immediately.

5. In this context, they express the firmest condemnation of the massacre that took place in the department of Pando, and support the call made by the Bolivian government for a Unasur commission to be set up in this brother country to impartially investigate and report this lamentable occurance as soon as possible, and to formulate recommendations in such a way that it is not left unpunished.

6. They ask all members of Bolivian society to preserve national unity and the territorial integrity of that country, basic fundamentals of any State, and to reject any intent to undermine those principles.

7. They call for dialogue to establish the conditions that will permit the present situation to be overcome, and create the search for a sustainable solution, under full respect of the state of curfew and the current legal order.

8. In this respect, the Presidents of Unasur agree to create a commission open to all members, coordinated by the Pro-tempore Presidency, to accompany the tasks of the the dialogues conducted by the legitimate government of Bolivia

9. They will create a support and assistance commission to the government of Bolivia, in function to its requirements and including specialist human resources.

[Translated by Inca Kola News]

The ultra right is preparing a real genocide in Bolivia

Hugo Moldiz

(Hugo Moldiz is a MAS leader and the head of the General Staff of the Peoples, which unites most of Bolivia’s social movements.)

The fascist onslaught, foreseeable in the coming week, by the ultra right and their paramilitary groups, armed with automatic rifles, FALs and AKs, will be a real test of the level of consciousness and organisation of the people, the loyalty of the High Command of the Armed Forces, some of whom have tight links with the Pentagon, and the strength of the revolution.

The tears and anger erupted across the country. Pando was the scene of the largest massacre that Bolivia has witnessed in the last 50 years and the state of siege, declared by President Evo Morales last Friday, is the opportunity, perhaps the only one, if the soldiers do not switch sides, to save the unity of the homeland and the revolution, and above all to avoid an even larger massacre being registered in the following days.

Bolivia is going against the clock. The civic committees, the political organisation form of the dominant classes that lack a party, and the paramilitary groups organised over the last 2 years, are finalising details for the “final confrontation” as the prefect of Tarija, Mario Cossio, warned about only minutes before beginning a meeting with the government last Friday afternoon in representation of the opposition bloc.

All available information, obviously silenced by the mass media, leads us to think that between Monday and Wednesday, although it cannot be ruled out that it may happen before, these paramilitary groups, armed as we have seen with FALs and even AK machine guns, will launch themselves against the zones with presence of MAS militants and social movements.

The leaders and social movements know that the deadline approaches with the passing of each day. There is no lack of wanting and decisiveness either. What is clear is that these men and women do not have weapons to confront the paramilitaries, as a peasant from Pando said impotently on Sunday morning, after miraculously escaping from the raid that the paramilitaries carried out, leaving up to now 35 dead.

The relative calm on Sunday is like those that precedes the days of big storms. President Evo Morales, who personally heads the preparations for resistance against what he has defined as a “civil-prefectural coup”, is profoundly conscious of what is coming and in front of millions of peasants in Cochabamba on Saturday reiterated that it is preferable to die for the homeland before betraying the struggle of the people. The words of the indigenous, revolutionary leader and head of state were not a demagogic attempt to reap applause, but rather an call to the conscience and heart in the moments of a final battle that approaches and on which will depend the future of the Bolivian revolution and in part the course of the Latin American revolution.

Goldberg has been expelled, but imperialism’s plans continue. In the week just gone by, several of his operators have dedicated themselves to knocking on the doors of the Military High Command to ask them to pay back past debts. The maximum Commander of the Armed Forces, Luis Trigo, who asked authorisation to work as co-pilot of Jorge Tuto Quiroga in the electoral campaign last December, maintains direct relations with the bourgeois of the department of Santa Cruz and has business interests in the United States. It is not even worth talking about [Commander of the Military Freddy] Macay, he was always the Pentagon’s man in the Armed Forces, his brother works in an office in charge of security issues in the US embassy in La Paz, as does his cousin.

The Eight Division of the Army in Santa Cruz, led by General Bracamonte, is strategic for the conspiratorial and coup plotting plans of imperialism and the right. The information available up to now is not encouraging for the government. At the beginning of the week, a private meeting between this military leader and the seditious Ruben Costas and Branco Marinkovic, where Gary Prado (the soldier who captured Che) also participated, finished with the commitment of the general to not act against the population or, what is basically the same: do nothing against the paramilitary groups that act with impunity in this department, the epicentre of the counter revolution.

The only thing that has stopped this kind off “sit down strike of the Bolivian Armed Forces” denounced by the Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez from growing over to openly coup plotting measures against the government is the patriotic position of the other high level soldiers and the support that President Morales has amongst sub officials, classes and troops.

Time is running out. The hope that international pressure can help put an end to the violence against the people is minimal. Unasur, the UN and the OAS can pronouncement themselves in favour of dialogue, but it is highly unlikely that the ultra right will deactivate their plans, just as they didn’t in the organisation of their referendums on the autonomy statutes that the National Electoral Court declared illegal. Today the panorama is worse and the deaths and injuries send out signals that they are not contemplating taking a backward step.

It is not a lack of finance that is pushing the ultra right to maintain the state of convulsion, given that that a fund of no less than $12 million would have been built up with the support of the United States and ex-president Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada, who today is seeking refuge in the country to the north, but rather the certainty the longer this drags out, the bigger will be the national and international reaction that is activated against them.

And that is the key. The only thing that remains is the confidence that there is no weapon more powerful than the consciousness and the organisation of the people, and that this 67% of support for the government convert itself into an active majority and not a passive one as it has been up until now.

[Translated from La Epoca]