A friend of mine is in Bolivia and was excited to see and be close to Evo Morales, the President of the country. It led me to find out a little about him.
I discovered that his political party is Movement for Socialism. The party is involved in much of the social unrest in Latin America. He is part of another group that supports the growing of coca, from which cocaine is made and sent to the USA. This group resists any effort to work with the USA to eradicate this plant from the area. He has stated quite clearly that the worst of enemy of humanity is US capitalism. He views the possibility of creating an "axis of good" (Bolivia, Venezuela, and Cuba) opposed to an axis of evil (which comprises the United States). He agrees with some Americans that the Free Trade Agreement is a bad thing, claiming that it is an extension of colonialism, while the opponents within the USA view it as a way to export jobs to other countries. Of course, he thinks the northern hemisphere owes reparations to the southern hemisphere.
Upon being elected President, he declared the ambassador of the USA to Bolivia as a non-person legally. The USA responded by expelling the Bolivian ambassador. His relationships in the rest of South America center around his agreement with other Leftist heads of state. He is attracted to business and economic relations with Russia, Iran, and Libya.
Some persons who were Leftist allies oppose the corruption they see in his government and the efforts toward nationalization.
I still do not know much about him, but you can tell much about a person by whom they choose as enemies and whom they choose as friends. He has made his choice, and based on that, I will make my choice regarding him. No, I would not go all soft in the knees over him. Instead, I would wish for and pray for his removal from his office.
When dealing with the data overload we subject ourselves to, generalizations & quick judgments are inevitable, and perhaps necessary. I am not weak in the knees about this guy either, but I'll push back on a few things. Forgive me, for I don't have time tonight to post all the supporting links.
ReplyDeleteMorales was the head of the coca grower's union. It's a hardly, reliable crop for poor farmers that can be harvested multiple times / year. It has been used for centuries as a mild stimulant for chewing & tea, not to mention it's religious significance. It now has many other industrial uses (creams, toothpaste, etc). It is not a drug any more than coffee, but yes, much of it is still processed into cocaine, the majority of which goes to Europe (Columbia provides our fix). It is well-documented that the US DEA had been involved in using violence and anti-democratic methods to suppress the drug trade. Considering our history in Latin America, it's no surprise, but of course not consistent with our ideals.
When people here hear "globalization" or "free trade" they think of colonialism, not prosperity. Europeans have had a long history of exploiting & exporting natural resources without improving local living conditions (this too is not debated - it's simply the history of the tin, gold, & silver mines, then natural gas & oil). In my estimation, Western countries (& businesses) shot themselves in the foot in this way, and in a sense "made" Pres. Morales. The people rationally elected an extreme reaction to the failed "free market" (free for the taking of foreign corporations colluding w/ the previous governments). Now they are stuck with extreme socialist economics, which end up hurting the people as well.
You might also be happy to know his earth-hugging rhetoric seems to be a smokescreen. He is paving over rainforests and drilling for fossil fuels as fast or faster than any of his predecessors. I'm not sure how far his "nationalization" of fossil fuels went, but I did hear some commentators say that is wasn't a true state-grab. We have found a rational middle ground in the U.S., after all, where Alaskan residents directly benefit from oil leases, without pushing out the expertise & profit motive of private industry (so I understand). My hope for the country is that they can develop their resources to pull millions of people out of poverty without driving away the investment they need to do so.
As the first indigenous president, his election in itself (economics notwithstanding) was a big step towards acknowledging/respecting indigenous cultures & people that have lived as slaves & serfs for so long. Maybe he is responsible for a certain degree of unrest (although Bolivia has always been quite volatile). But it should be noted that the great movements toward freedom, equality, and social progress are almost never gradual & calm (the U.S. has certainly had it's share - the Revolution, Civil Rights Era, women's suffrage, etc).
Anyway, I don't expect or necessarily hope to change your general estimation of the man or the movement - just hope that the wrong generalizations are not formed & passed on.
Make that "a hardy, somewhat reliable crop" in 2nd paragraph.
ReplyDeleteUSAID's strategy (which by it's own rules must promote the foreign policy interests of the US) was to require farmers to completely destroy their coca plants before planting their proposed alternatives, many of which took years to the first harvest, or rotted on the way to market for lack of infrastructure. Other development agencies worked alongside coca harvests & seemed to do much better (& didn't get kicked out of the country).
The country has an enforced maximum limit of how much coca can be grown - each farmer gets to plant a given amount, which isn't enough to completely support his or her family, but is a cornerstone of diversified agriculture.
I also believe that coca production only moved into Bolivian in a serious way when pressure was put on Columbian growers. The "success" story there was actually the balloon effect - squeeze down one end and the air just displaces to the other side. Libertarians see this futility and often call for legalization.
Sorry for being so verbose!