|

|
 |
|
Opinion-editorials decyphered - 17 January 2006
The Unknown Evo Morales
Decyphering
Coca-leaf farmer Evo Morales – president of the Movement to Socialism (MAS) – has been elected President of Bolivia in the first electoral round on December 18, 2005. The CIA/NED has given up any inquiry about the regularity of the ballot due to the presence of independent international observers, which was made possible by the Spanish CEPS backed by Voltaire Network.
This article takes the opportunity to inform our readers about the integration of BolPress in our non-aligned press network. The Bolivian press agency has come to strengthen an original source which, in one year, has become the major source of political information in America, globally independent.
The international press approaches the event in some skeptical manner which translates into the US loss of interest in South America along with growing ignorance of its history and evolution.
Though supposedly a place for debate or expressing different points of view, the “free opinion” pages of NATO states’ mainstream press are seldom a place for a thing other than disseminating a unique vision of the facts – an essential element in the “factory of consent”. It would be exaggerated to say that there never is an argument against that of the prevailing press in those pages but, regrettably, Forums & Analyses they testify this in every delivery: something extremely weird. Such pages present an incomplete discussion where opponents truly face each other with controversial arguments but basing themselves on common representations of world issues. There are only different views on the pages of those dailies intended for other cultural universes. Hence our interest in the Russian, Arab or Latin-American press
However, rarely does an unexpected event gives rise to cacophony among mainstream media experts and editorialists. The uniformity of thought involves an authority setting the tone, and that’s exactly what has happened with the election of Evo Morales, which, while not a surprise, it has exposed poorly prepared analysts.
As a matter of principle, for a large left-wing side which has traditionally supported parties of social vocation and re-nationalization programs for national wealth, Morales’s election is good news, though questioned by some minorities. Some neo-liberals become alarmed at the policy he could follow, while others think there is no much to fear from an individual they consider as very moderate or poorly supported by his people to undertake political transformations in his country. The press is also divided as regards to his alliances. Although most dailies present him as Hugo Chávez’s ally, the French daily Le Monde says that they both are very upset with each other [1].
The US extreme right, on the contrary, has already an opinion on the new Bolivian President. In a leading article dated December 22, 2005, Reverend Moon’s daily – the Washington Times – stated that “a US enemy” had been elected in Bolivia and it was alarmed at the legalization of coca production and the re-nationalization of oil resources.
This point of view is shared and even developed by the vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police Jim Kouri (an adviser for the “anti-terror fight”) in the MenNews Daily and the Free Republic. Kouri is already calling to overthrow Evo Morales, whom he accuses, among other things, of being a “communist”, “a US enemy” and an ally of drug dealers. He lashed out at the US left media which applauded Morales’s election, by identifying them as drug addicts. Noting the weakness of the Bolivian army, Kouri suggested “actions”to prevent that country from developing the cocaine traffic to the US – an invasion pretext that was already used to attack Panama in 1989. Despite his excesses, Kouri’s text is not to be taken for granted. In fact, while running for president, Evo Morales revealed that President Eduardo Rodríquez had handed the Bolivian army missiles to the US, thus disarming his country and green-lighting a US military intervention, to which we dedicated an article. Kouri did not limit himself to one column, just a few days later he wrote about the same subject again in the MenNews Daily.
This opinion and the way he reflects President Morales has not been spread by the whole press yet. The time is one to wonder.
The Spanish conservative media outlets also hesitate somewhere between prudence and light concern.
The Spanish conservative representative Jesús López-Medel advised the new president, somehow paternalistically, about a good government in the Madrid’s daily El Mundo, in which he said that, first of all, Evo Morales should restore the order in his country, break with nepotism and open Bolivia to foreign investments; in short, ignore his political commitments and follow his predecessors’ policy. López-Mendel regretted the new president’s clear admiration for Fidel Castro and Hugo Chávez but without further ado. Speeches make no difference as long as Morales does as he told! But, will he do it?
Researcher Carlos Malamud shows himself reassuring to the readers of the strongly conservative Spanish daily ABC. It’s true that Morales is well acquainted with Chávez and Castro but the analyst thinks that he is not really anchored and that he was elected by the middle class only to restore order. Any attempt to venture off the beaten track will reduce his term to nothing.
Peruvian researcher Álvaro Vargas Llosa’s analysis is being widely spread by the New York Times international service. Llosa also said in the New York Times, the International Herald Tribune and the Argentinean daily Clarín, that Evo Morales will not have the means, a priori, to apply his policy and that his rhetoric is deceitful for Bolivians. According to Llosa, Bolivia badly needs foreign investors, why then implement a policy to distance them? Bolivia depends on Brazil – a country with a moderating influence – and power is too unsteady for Evo Morales to be able to take radical actions. However, everything is up to Washington. In fact, if the US attacked Morales, the national unity might strongly gather around the President for radical measures.
However, the above writers analyze the Bolivian issue without taking into account the regional dynamics. For the time being, rather than Evo Morales’s actions, what really matters is the signal given by this election that something is changing in the continent. Latin-American voters can choose en masse candidates who promise more social fairness, re-nationalization of the national wealth, and the independence from the US, which is particularly relevant due to the rejection of the FTAA. Evo Morales’s election is not an isolated case. Through different ways, Chile, Peru, Mexico and other countries could soon take the same direction.
In the Colombian daily El Tiempo, Colombian writer Oscar Collazos highlights this trend and Washington’s loss of influence. He regrets that the Colombian right-wing associated to Washington should analyze the situation in South America through the obsolete and distorting prism of the Cold War and of the 1960’s – 1970’s communist movements. The world has changed, Collazos tells them, and it is no longer possible to impose military dictatorships to fight a pseudo- “communist” subversion.
On the other hand, former Argentinean President Raúl Alfonsín also stressed this tendency and expressed his concerns in a forum spread by Project Syndicate and equally published by the Daily Times (Pakistan) and the Taipei Times (Taiwan), among others. In fact, the announced victories of different Latin-American left-wing movements that support an autonomous South American integration in relation to Washington’s dictates could lead the US to get back to the hemisphere issue with all its strength. Alfonsín thus fears the return of the stick policy and a hardening of US positions in its old influence area.
In analyzing the impact of Bolivia’s elections, French alterworldist and political scientist Eddy Fougier expressed his satisfaction in Libération for the victory of Evo Morales whom he compares to Hugo Chávez. Fougier thinks that Bolivia will play an exemplary role for the alterworldist movements, showing the French alterworldists that they should also aim at power and introduce a candidate to the presidential elections.
Voltaire Network
[1] See “Le Monde pétrit la pâte à modeler latino-américaine”, by Renaud Lambert, Acrimed, January 5, 2006.
|
 |
|

17 January 2006
From
Paris (France)
Tools

Print
Send
All the versions of this article:

français
Español
русский
Countries
Bolivia
Themes
Control of Latin America
Authors and Sources of Op-Eds Decyphered
|
 |
“A Bolivian Thug Becomes President”
Author
Jim Kouri

 |
 |
Jim Kouri is vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police. He is former chief of New York police department. He is serving as advisor on security and counter terrorism matters to organizations and companies, as well as conservative media such as Fox News. Although politically speaking he is close to libertarian circles, he makes a difference due to his approach on top security matters and systematic defense of a police State as the only means to prevent crime and terrorism. During the 80’s, his main enemy was the “drug lord” (Tom Clancy was inspired by the character for his novels) while since September 11, 2001, his focus has been on the “global war on terror” and the military action against “US enemies”. He supports the idea of creating a general file of the population with free access by the police.
|
Sources
Free Republic (United States), MenNews Daily (United States)
Reference “A Bolivian Thug Becomes President”, by Jim Kouri, MenNews Daily, December 18, 2005.
“Bolivian Thug Becomes President”, Free Republic, December 18, 2005.
Summary As you already know from the dramatic coverage of the media, another left-wing thug became president of a South American country. This same thug may also be the downfall of Bolivia. Evo Morales, a radical socialist and a coca farmer is another tough guy leader who is getting some favorable press in the United States thanks to our own left-wing news media. His verbal attacks on President George W. Bush make American news reporters almost giddy with delight. It brings to mind the axiom: “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
As with most communist politicians, Morales spent much of his campaign lashing out at America, capitalism and President Bush. Except for his campaign promise to legalize coca growing, he offers few insights into his plans to help the impoverished voters. During his campaign, Morales told the US press: “If the US wants to establish diplomatic relations with us, they have to be based on equal basis. The relationship cannot be the one of submission.”
While the White House may have problems inviting a thug like Morales, there are others in the US who are more than willing to welcome President Moralest and share his thoughts on a US President whom they hate more than Saddam Hussein. According to Morales, he has already received an invitation from Harvard University. Is this a surprise? Harvard University wants US military recruiters barred from its campus, but it warmly welcomes socialist thugs.
According to National Security experts, Morales’ electoral victory will further expedite destabilization of the South American continent. As a coca-leaf farmer, he is a natural allied of drug cartels, smugglers in Bolivia and neighboring countries. Since the cocaine extracted from Bolivian coca is sent to the United States and Western Europe, some Bolivians fear that, with a coca farmer as Bolivian President, their country might become the central platform for cocaine smuggling.
If Morales policy will increase cocaine smuggling on US streets, its government would be rightly considered by ourselves as a threat to our national security. And Morales’ rhetoric cannot hide the fact that the Bolivian army is a farce, even if it is judged from the French army’s point of view. Unlike his comrade in Venezuela who has his pockets full of oil, Bolivia has nothing that the US might either want or accept – except, of course, for drug addicts and the fauna of Hollywood that loves to powder their nose.

“Risks and opportunities of Evo Morales’ victory”
Author
Jesús López-Medel

 |
 |
Jesús López-Medel is representative for the People’s Party in Madrid and spokesman of the Committee for Foreign Relations of the Spanish Parliament.
|
Source
El Mundo (Spain)
Reference “Riesgos y oportunidades de la victoria de Evo Morales”, by Jesús López-Medel, El Mundo, January 2, 2006.
Summary There are countries that combine the beauty of their places with certain curse. Bolivia is one of those countries. It was the scenario of multiple wars since it became independent and it still achieves the same GDP as 50 years ago.
During its 180 years of history, it has experienced almost 200 coup d’états, counterattacks and failed revolutions. It is a country with a territorial extension twice as large as Spain but barely populated with 9 million people. Some people live in areas located above 4 000 meters and with a huge diversification of ethnic groups and at extreme poverty level (64%), but with high literacy rate and great potential. It is divided between a small economic elite that intends to drive the country into modernity and a very poor indigenous majority.
Three presidents in the last two years, two of them overthrown by people’s pressure. The Movement to Socialism (MAS) of Evo Morales obtained a resounding victory during the elections held three weeks ago. In light of the divisions of his country, the new President will have to come up with an integration plan. It is an opportunity to reestablish confidence and put an end to nepotism. The period that is beginning is of major unrest but also a great opportunities. Changes in political culture will be necessary. It is crucial that the rules of the game be respected by the leadership and the citizens themselves. Bolivia will not become a modern state as long as it does not eliminate corporatism and divisions.
The new Bolivian leaders have to be an example of respect and compliance with the democratic law. It is necessary to ensure security and stability. Foreign investments should be facilitated and that is something that unfortunately raises uncertainty if we take into account the statements made by the new President, and autonomy of certain regions must also be allowed.
Spain should assist Bolivia and prevent it from falling into the banana direction of Hugo Chávez and Fidel Castro whom Morales admires, unfortunately.

“A Condor soars over the Andes”
Author
Carlos Malamud

 |
 |
Carlos Malamud is a specialized investigator on Latin American matters at Real Instituto Elcano.
|
Source
ABC (Spain)
Reference “Un cóndor planea sobre los Andes”, by Carlos Malamud, ABC, January 2, 2006.
Summary The categorical victory of Evo Morales has expended rivers of ink. The headlines of the world press highlight the indigenous origin of the new president and his ties with Castro and Chavez. All these ideas show the fears over Latin America due to the combination of indigenousness and populism. However, it is necessary to deal with some of our fears.
If Evo Morales won the elections so overwhelmingly, it was because he had the votes of the well-off class, which was anxious to put an end to social and political instability, and willing to vote for an “Aborigine” provided that order was restored. The vote for Morales was also a vote for punishment against the traditional parties, which were unable to face the major problems of the poorest nation of Latin America. Morales won because during the campaign he knew how to negotiate with different groups. MAS is not a disciplined party, it lacks experience of governance, and that is why Morales knows his weakness and is aware that social mobilization might hit him.
Morales’ statements do not relieve public opinion. He uses a language typical of the 60’s. Will his discourse be coherent with his actions? Will he increase the authoritarian trends like Hugo Chavez? Future will tell us.

“No left turn”
Author
Alvaro Vargas Llosa

 |
 |
Alvaro Vargas Llosa est directeurr du Centro para la Prosperidad Global de l’Instituto Independiente.
|
Sources
International Herald Tribune (France), New York Times (United States), Clarin (Argentina)
Reference “No left turn”, by Alvaro Vargas Llosa, New York Times, December 27, 2005.
“No left turn”, International Herald Tribune, December 28, 2005.
“Evo Morales no es un giro a la izquierda”, Clarín, January 5, 2006.
Summary When the Aymaran indegenous leader Tupac Katari was executed in 1781 by Spanish colonial rulers, he cried out that he would return incarnated in millions. The overwhelming victory of Evo Morales, being himself also an Aymaran aborigine, seems that Katari was right.
His electoral victory was interpreted as the confirmation that Latin America was turning right. The new president does not hide his admiration for Castro or Chávez and hopes to nationalize the oil industry and legalize coca-leaf growing. He also criticizes neo-liberalism. But it is not worthy to worry about that. It would be a mistake to think that he would become a new Hugo Chávez, even though he sets out himself to become so. Bolivia does not have the resources of Venezuela and Morales’ voters are less stable than those of the Venezuelan President. On the other hand, Brazil should play a moderating role in the country. Bolivia depends on US aid and the uprisings frightened off the foreign investors that the country needs. In a short term, Bolivia will have no possibilities to exploit its gas. The indigenous population, which wants quick results, might also have Morales on the rack.
In fact, Bolivia’s future will depend on the US. If Washington has an exaggerated reaction to the legalization of growing coca (a symbolic measure that will not change anything), Bolivians will rise up, and as a reaction, will push Morales to the left. Opening the US borders to Bolivian products will be a much smarter policy.

“Changes in Latin America”
Author
Óscar Collazos

 |
 |
Óscar Collazos, Colombian writer, is an editorialist of the Colombian newspaper El Tiempo.
|
Source
El Tiempo (Colombia)
Reference “Cambios en América Latina”, by Óscar Collazos, El Tiempo, January 5, 2006.
Summary What is happening in the continent is alarming Washington’s allies. The right-wing policy, shortsighted and color-blind, wants to see the changes in Latin America as a “triumph” of Fidel Castro and Hugo Chávez. Some recommended even against this new “conspiracy” that methods of the 60’s and 70’s be used when Henry Kissinger empowered military dictatorships. It is the same right-wing that welcomed the atrocities committed by the tyrants from the South. Fifteen years after the demise of the former Soviet Union, all policies aimed at reestablishing national sovereignty are presented as “enemies”.
It is difficult for the right-wing to accept that the Latin American reaction is not due to pro-communist vagaries, but the response to the social situation. The center left-wing of Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, Brazil and now Bolivia, is seen as an appendix of Chavism, which is in turn seen associated to Castrism. But if the right-wing gets alarmed by the victories announced by the left-wing in Chile and Mexico is also, and above all, because Colombia will be the only ally of Washington in the continent.. As the former Argentinean President Raúl Alfonsín indicated: “The election of José Miguel Insulza as General Secretary of the Organization of American States and the subsequent defeat of the candidate backed by the Bush administration mark the declining trend of US leadership”. To this, it may also be added the US failure in Mar del Plata.

“Latin America at a crossroads”
Author
Raùl Alfonsin

 |
 |
Radical party member Raúl Alfonsín was the first democratically elected president in Argentina after the dictatorship of the 70s.
|
Sources
Taipei Times (Taiwan), Daily Times (Pakistan)
Reference “Latin America at a crossroads”, by Raúl Alfonsin, Daily Times, January 4, 2006 .
_”Latin America at the crossroads” Taipei Times, January 4, 2006.
Summary Last year marked a change in Latin America. An increasing number of countries of the region seem to be determined to defend their interests despite the United States’ plans. José Miguel Insulza’s election as the head of the Organization of American States (OAS) against the candidate supported by the Bush Administration has clearly showed the decline of the American leadership in the continent. The United States has not only lost the control of the OAS, which usually backs its interests. It also failed in the 2005 Summit of the Americas for it could not convince participants of favouring a declaration aimed at defending its economic and political positions in the region. The failure was more evident because the Summit had been carefully planned to achieve the success of the United States.
During 2005, all different efforts aimed at exerting pressures and condemning the Venezuelan government failed as well. President George W. Bush was not capable of convincing other countries to back his plan to isolate President Hugo Chávez. The United States’ policy of direct intervention in the internal affairs of Colombia did not get the regional support either.
But, not everything is bad for the United States. Colombian Luis Alberto Moreno’s election as President of the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) was an American option, obviously. This means the bank will keep its orthodox neo-liberal policy. However, a clear distinction has emerged between Latin American countries favouring regional integration based on their own conditions and those defending hemispheric integration controlled by the United States.
Promoted by Brazil and, above all, supported by Argentina and Venezuela, the first plan of the group is the creation of a South American Community of Nations. The MERCOSUR countries try to defend their respective national interests and a more equitable international democratic order. They don’t want a confrontation. The second group –the countries that have a more direct relation with Washington- is divided into two tendencies. Some states like Colombia, Ecuador and Peru act on their own whereas other, especially from Central America and the Dominican Republic- act based on a regional perspective. They all follow the policy established by Mexico and, to a lesser degree, by Chile.
But it’s in the ideological field where differences are more evident. In fact, the whole region could be affected by the consequences of a confrontation between Venezuela and the United States, as well as by a possible victory of the Sandinista National Liberation Front in Nicaragua. For the United States, the possible creation of a triangle connecting Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua can only be seen as a direct threat to regional stability. Its immediate result would be putting Latin America in the dangerous position of leading the list of ghosts considered by Washington as threats to its security. The victory of the Movement to Socialism (MAS) can increase this fear.

“With Evo Morales another world is possible”
Author
Eddy Fougier
|
Former researcher at the Institut Français des relations internationales (IFRI), Eddy Fougier is a political scientist and writer. He is the autor of Altermondialisme, le nouveau mouvement d’émancipation ? and La Contestation de la mondialisation: une nouvelle exception française ?.
|
Source
Libération (France)
Reference ”Un autre monde est possible avec Evo Morales”, by Eddy Fougier, Libération, January 3, 2006.
Summary Evo Morales’ election as president of Bolivia is an important event due the number of votes garnered by the new president since the first round, the situation of the country that is just coming out of the “second oil war” and the Amerindian origin of the winner. He was the spokesman for coca-leaf farmers and the leader of the Movement to Socialism (MAS), an anti-American and anti-capitalist party which had an important role in the oil wars, close to Hugo Chávez and Fidel Castro. Morales is the first Amerindian president in Latin America and the ruler of the poorest country of the continent, in which social inequalities are very common.
His election is a sign of a regional change. There’s a strong anti-liberal dynamics that has been translated into the arrival in power of progressive movements and the determination in favour of the collective use of natural resources. This is what happened in Uruguay which, for the first time in its history, moved to the left and included water in its constitution as a collective good. The last Summit of the Americas showed how strong the opposition to the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) is in several countries. Evo Morales promised he would nationalize oil, Bolivia’s main resource, although he has been more prudent since his election.
His election is significant for the alterglobalist movement in which Americans play a significant role. Evo Morales is an important figure of the alterglobalism, and the revolt of year 2000 in the city of Cochabamba against the privatization of water is a relevant element, almost mythical, of the struggle against “neo-liberal globalization”. If the dominant tendency in France, represented by the NGOs and the ATTAC, refuses to admit the transformation of that trend into a political movement willing to take power, others among them or closer to them have not given up to power, revolution and socialism. After Hugo Chávez, the temptation to see Morales’ Bolivia as a model to be followed can be huge for a considerable part of the alterglobalists.

|
|
|
 |
 |
Information base about Gulf wars
Information base about the 9/11th attacks
|
 |