Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

ForeignPolicy

Bush Spending U.S. Tax Dollars to Foment Unrest in Bolivia

By Benjamin Dangl, The Progressive. Posted March 10, 2008.


Documents show that Washington is backing Right-wing opposition to Bolivia's democratic reforms.
Advertisement

A thick fence, surveillance cameras, and armed guards protect the U.S. Embassy in La Paz. The embassy is a tall, white building with narrow slits of windows that make it look like a military bunker. After passing through a security checkpoint, I sit down with U.S. Embassy spokesman Eric Watnik and ask if the embassy is working against the socialist government of Evo Morales. "Our cooperation in Bolivia is apolitical, transparent, and given directly to assist in the development of the country," Watnik tells me. "It is given to benefit those who need it most."

From the Bush Administration's perspective, that turns out to mean Morales's opponents. Declassified documents and interviews on the ground in Bolivia prove that the Bush Administration is using U.S. taxpayers' money to undermine the Morales government and coopt the country's dynamic social movements--just as it has tried to do recently in Venezuela and traditionally throughout Latin America.

Much of that money is going through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). In July 2002, a declassified message from the U.S. embassy in Bolivia to Washington included the following message: "A planned USAID political party reform project aims at implementing an existing Bolivian law that would . . . over the long run, help build moderate, pro-democracy political parties that can serve as a counterweight to the radical MAS or its successors." MAS refers to Morales's party, which, in English, stands for Movement Toward Socialism.

Morales won the presidency in December 2005 with 54 percent of the vote, but five regional governments went to rightwing politicians. After Morales's victory, USAID, through its Office of Transition Initiatives, decided "to provide support to fledgling regional governments," USAID documents reveal.

Throughout 2006, four of these five resource-rich lowland departments pushed for greater autonomy from the Morales-led central government, often threatening to secede from the nation. U.S. funds have emboldened them, with the Office of Transition Initiatives funneling "116 grants for $4,451,249 to help departmental governments operate more strategically," the documents state.

"USAID helps with the process of decentralization," says Jose Carvallo, a press spokesperson for the main rightwing opposition political party, Democratic and Social Power. "They help with improving democracy in Bolivia through seminars and courses to discuss issues of autonomy."

"The U.S. Embassy is helping this opposition," agrees Raul Prada, who works for Morales's party. Prada is sitting down in a crowded La Paz cafe and eating ice cream. His upper lip is black and blue from a beating he received at the hands of Morales's opponents while Prada was working on the new constitutional assembly. "The ice cream is to lessen the swelling," he explains. The Morales government organized this constitutional assembly to redistribute wealth from natural resources and guarantee broader access to education, land, water, gas, electricity, and health care for the country's poor majority. I had seen Prada in the early days of the Morales administration. He was wearing an indigenous wiphala flag pin and happily chewing coca leaves in his government office. This time, he wasn't as hopeful. He took another scoop of ice cream and continued: "USAID is in Santa Cruz and other departments to help fund and strengthen the infrastructure of the rightwing governors."

In August 2007, Morales told a diplomatic gathering in La Paz, "I cannot understand how some ambassadors dedicate themselves to politics, and not diplomacy, in our country. . . . That is not called cooperation. That is called conspiracy." Bolivian Vice President Alvaro Garcia Linera said that the U.S. Embassy was funding the government's political opponents in an effort to develop "ideological and political resistance." One example is USAID's financing of Juan Carlos Urenda, an adviser to the rightwing Civic Committee, and author of the Autonomy Statute, a plan for Santa Cruz's secession from Bolivia.

"There is absolutely no truth to any allegation that the U.S. is using its aid funds to try and influence the political process or in any way undermine the government," says State Department deputy spokesman Tom Casey. USAID officials point out that this support has gone to all Bolivian governors, not just those in the opposition. Despite Casey's assertion, this funding has been controversial. On October 10, Bolivia's supreme court approved a decree that prohibits international funding of activities in Bolivia without state regulation. One article in the law explains that Bolivia will not accept money with political or ideological strings attached.

In Bolivia, where much of the political muscle is in the streets with social organizations and unions, it's not enough for Washington to work only at levels of high political power. They have to reach the grassroots as well. One USAID official told me by e-mail that the Office of Transition Initiatives "launched its Bolivia program to help reduce tensions in areas prone to social conflict (in particular El Alto) and to assist the country in preparing for upcoming electoral events."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: morales, bush, bolivia

Benjamin Dangl is the author of "The Price of Fire: Resource Wars and Social Movements in Bolivia" (AK Press, March 2007). For more information on his book and current book reading tour, visit www.boliviabook.com



Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Thank You Alternet ...
Posted by: mmckinl on Mar 10, 2008 12:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
for keeping an eye on Latin America ... At some point one can only get exhausted just listening to the shenanigans of the United States in Latin America.

For two hundred years now, since the independence of Haiti, we have been engaged in suppressing the people and ravaging the resources of Latin America. Literally hundreds of incursions, coups, interference and asssasinations have been perpetrated over the years.

The latest ploy was well documented by Naomi Klein in Disaster Capitalism and John Perkins in Economic Hitman ...

Maybe someday we can help these people instead of try to take advantage of them. After 200 years, presidents Democrat and Republican ...it is a hard habit to break.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Thank You Alternet ... Posted by: PopRox80
» RE: Thank You Alternet ... Posted by: Scott Griffith
» RE: Thank You Alternet ... Posted by: johnjmccarthy
» RE: No country can Posted by: fearn
complicity and duplicity
Posted by: halrivers on Mar 10, 2008 3:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While not everything USAID does in Latin America is this directly nefarious, it demonstrates how concepts like “democracy” and “development” are overly determined by dominant power relations. For an account of how otherwise well-meaning Fullbright types and adventurers find themselves inevitably drawn to the imperialist project in an Andean paradise, see The Mother Earth Inn at http://phillipbannowsky.com/Motherearth.htm

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This Is Why 'They' Hate Us
Posted by: Wacre on Mar 10, 2008 6:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It has less to do with our 'freedoms' and 'democracy' that an annoying tendency we have to meddle in the affairs of others and contribute to the destabilization of governments that don't tow the American line.

I hope Bolivia throws us out, then again it's probably better for them if they let us stay because it's more difficult for us to raise a proxy army to overthrow their government (I hope) if some of our people are on the ground and under surveillance of some sort.

I hope Evo holds a tight leash on his military because American policy tends to seek out 'weak' links in places like the military, which often has the ability to overthrow a democratically elected government.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: This Is Why 'They' Hate Us Posted by: harryf200
Damn It, 'In Our Name'
Posted by: Andie927 on Mar 10, 2008 7:10 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
again!! I agree with the comment above, this is why they hate us!!

I know a lot of people will disagree with me;
but I believe this is why we should end ALL Foreign Aid! Put it into, Doctor's without Borders, the PeaceCorp, (non-religious org.that help "people" only) maybe commit more thru the UN, NOT our Government, that does the bidding of 'The Corporations'!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

pre Chile 9-11-73 redux
Posted by: zooeyhall on Mar 10, 2008 9:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sounds an awful lot like what the U.S. did leading up to the brutal 1973 coup in Chile.

For cryin' out loud--haven't we seen this movie script before? Has anyone told these State Department guys that the 1950's and the Reagan years are over? That South America is no longer our private feudal preserve--in need of some "discipline" when they don't toe the American corporatist-uber capitalist line?

Better take-out that pesky Chavez commie too. Probably some Young Republican-graduate geek head working at this very moment in the Bush administration on this project.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bolivia Takes Action, Would Hillary or Obama Be Better?
Posted by: stoller_dugway on Mar 10, 2008 9:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This issue of US interference is now taking front stage in Bolivian politics, with officials from the Evo Morales government traveling to Washington to take action

One question is, would Obama or Hillary allow for self-determination in South America, or would they push this same kind of interference disguised as "development"?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Are we supposed to be surprised?
Posted by: hurricane hugo on Mar 10, 2008 9:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Same shit, different day.

jdfu!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Excellent piece.
Posted by: Coleman on Mar 10, 2008 11:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I may have to pick up his book.

What if we redirected our resources away from imperialism (Middle East, Central America, South America, Caribbean) and...rebuilt our nation's schools? Funded an Apollo project for renewable energy? Did anything besides fomenting unrest and undermining legitimate governments?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When will the bushie bastards
Posted by: willymack on Mar 10, 2008 11:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Quit screwing over practically everybody in the world? My crystal ball (actually, it's a cue ball) tells me it'll all stop on Jan 20th, 2009, unless the rethugs manage to steal yet another "election" and shove mcjerk down our throats. If that happens we may just look back at the bush years as the "good ol' days".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Relative morality
Posted by: harryf200 on Mar 10, 2008 12:40 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've been thinking about this, trying to put myself in the boots of the US Government. Having done so, I now lean to a conclusion which surprises me!

It seems to me that criticism by US citizens of their Government's conspiracy to undermine countries in Latin America (and in just about every other continent in the World, including their "friends") is to shoot themselves in the foot. An example? Consider why the US was late in supporting the US, France and Belgium during the 1939-1944/45 war.

Careful analysis of this clandestine policy shows it is to protect US interests - that is, to preserve their world trade dominance in the World, which is done by eliminating anything that threatens it one way or another. In other words, these things are done in the name of the people who elected the US Government. It is well understood that a populace remains happy just so long as it is well fed and has money to spare and good to buy to meet their desires. But a hungry populace is the fuel of revolution. Such a catastrophe could happen to the US and cause it to break up, in much the same way as the USSR broke up, UNLESS the economy and, thence, US strategic interests are not managed well. If serving the US interests means undermining those of another country ...

Thence, relativity of morality comes into play: whatever the US Government does in the true interests of its people is absolutely right ... from THEIR point of view, even if it seems immoral to those of us whose interests are undermined by US policy. From a US and US-moral point of view, the USA has no business in supporting any cause, any nation, if doing so does not enhance the interests of the US, be that directly or indirectly. The US does not exist to aid other countries just for the sake of helping them, however much their government pretends it is! 1939-44/45 is a classic example: The US trading interest was to destroy, or allow the destruction of, the closed commonwealth trading alliances between parent countries and their colonies, some of whom were on the doorstep of the USA. So, it suited the purpose of the US not to jump into the war too soon, but to wait for colonial nations, like Belgium, France and the UK, to be economically on their knees...and begging the US for help. HOWEVER, what the US did not need was a new German colonial power, perhaps allied to Japanese colonial power, which could continue the squeeze on US trading interests. To capture new markets and to keep them, it was, and remains, vital for the US to dominate control of the seas so threatened by the might of the German and Japanese navies. So, as soon as their "allies" were beggared, that's when the US could jump in, rescue them and grab a hold of new trading partners previously excluded from them. And at the end of that war, it suited the economic interests of the USA to allow some countries to fall under the influence of the USSR, (or simply not to spend a dime on kicking the Red Army out of the Baltic States, Poland, et al) as it was to aid some countries to be rebuilt ... (Sound familiar? Knock down Iraq and charge the country $$$ zillions to rebuild it...)

Was/is that the right, moral, thing to do? Most certainly not from a British point of view, nor from a host of other countries, too! But from a US perspective, its trading and economic objectives, and the protection of them, had been met ... The resultant prosperity of the US, its dominant influence and power over and on the World, is why its citizens have been able to enjoy a level of relative prosperity much greater than most nations in the World. Sure, the US have its poor, but they are not as poor as their forefathers in the 1930s, and they are relatively much richer than poor people in most of the rest of the World! A classic example is the cost of fuel, esp. gasoline ... US citizens complain bitterly over the rising cost of it, but what they pay now...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Morality continued ...
Posted by: harryf200 on Mar 10, 2008 12:41 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
. is staggeringly cheap compared to what we have to pay in the UK! And those fuel costs are reflected in the price of every kind of food stuff and other goods that must be transported...

So, what the US does ... is it moral, is it good, is it fair? The question every US citizen should ask is, SHOULD they be fair, be moral, be good, to other nations if doing so would be against their own national interests?

If I were a US citizen, I might prefer to see my country's interests served before those of any other.

But as I'm not, as I live in the UK, I'll be glad to see the US catch a heavy cold IF that would benefit my OWN country.

I don't suppose this analysis will sit comfortably with most of the more liberal commentators reading this, with whom I generally agree! Yeah, here some the low scores! ;¬D But I'm trying to see things from "the other guy's point of view" which - I guess - we'd all be better off trying to do, so we better understand the motives even of our enemies. After all, if we understand themj better, the better it is to either compromise with them or defeat them!...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Morales and Bolivian Social Organizations Working Together...
Posted by: stoller_dugway on Mar 10, 2008 2:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In spite of what the US Embassy would like to see happen, it looks like Bolivia's social movements are collaborating in interesting ways with the Evo Morales government to work for big changes in the country....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bolivia is much like Irak
Posted by: arianabazan on Mar 10, 2008 2:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I`d like to raise the attention to the fact that Bolivia is a very rich country regarding Natural gas and other types of fossil fuels...
And, of course, the richest people in Bolivia, who happend to be the same that get US taxpayers money, are equally fuel-business involved as they are against Evo Morales' administration.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

USAID is a waste of money by any standards
Posted by: Hans B on Mar 10, 2008 3:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
USAID arrives in a poor country only after someone else has gotten the generators to run and installed the air conditioning. The only people who pay attention to it are the US media who measure "foreign aid" in dollars and not in effectiveness.

Bush has probably politicized the agency even more than it already was, but what has not changed is that USAID is a waste of money.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]