Kerry and Bolivia: to the right of Bush?
By Sean Donahue
Cochabamba, Bolivia, Aug. 18— On June 26, speaking to the
National Association of Elected and Appointed Latino Officials in Washington,
DC, John Kerry laid out a hard line against Latin America’s grassroots
social movements, telling the assembled officials that “we can’t
sit by and watch as mob violence drives a president from office, like
what happened in Bolivia or Argentina.”
Four days later, in an op-ed in the Miami Herald, he reiterated his
position that the Bush administration hasn’t been forceful enough
in defending US economic interests in Latin America, writing that “In
Bolivia, Bush encouraged the election of a pro-market, pro-US president
and did nothing to help the country when riots shook the capital and
the president was forced to flee.”
The “mob violence” that drove Bolivian President Gonzalo Sanchez
de Lozada from power last fall was a largely nonviolent campaign of
strikes, road blockades, and street protests organized by labor unions,
coca growers, and indigenous people to prevent Sanchez de Lozada from
selling off the nation’s natural gas reserves to foreign corporations.
Bolivia is the poorest country in Latin America, and sustainable, locally
directed development of the country’s natural gas fields may be
the last, best hope for the country’s indigenous majority to lift
itself out of poverty. But Sanchez de Lozada, under pressure from the
US, wanted to sell off the gas rights in order to pay off the country’s
debts to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank — debts
which date back to the military dictatorship of Gen. Hugo Banzer, and
which were incurred without the consent of the rural poor who for the
most part never saw the benefit of the “development projects”
driven by the international financiers. Kerry is right that there was
violence in Bolivia last fall — but it mostly came from the military
and the police who attacked unarmed demonstrators with tear gas, batons,
and live ammunition.
The US sent additional military advisors to try to help Sanchez de Lozada
quell the insurrection during his last days in power. Human Rights Watch
confirms that at least 59 people were killed by security forces during
the demonstrations last fall, and most Bolivian human rights groups
say that the actual number is much, much higher. In La Paz, some police
units did reportedly side with the demonstrators and open fire on the
military.
Not surprisingly, while some campesinos have been arrested and tortured
on flimsy or fabricated evidence in connection with vague charges of
inciting violence against the military, the government hasn’t even
begun to investigate most of the cases of police and military violence
against unarmed protesters. Referring to the “mob violence”
that drove Sanchez de Lozada from power, is a little like rewriting
the history of the US civil rights movement to talk about the violence
that ensued when a throng of civil rights protesters defied the legal
orders given by police officers under the command of the democratically
elected mayor of Selma, Alabama. It’s a classic case of blaming
the victim and obscuring the truth. Kerry could learn a lot about democracy
from the Bolivian “mobs.”
In a talk at the School for Authentic Journalism in Cochabamba, Oscar
Olivera, who helped to coordinate successful campaigns against gas privatization
and water privatization, spoke of how a truly democratic leader must
remain in touch with and accountable to the people. Quite a contrast
to John Kerry who has spurned his party’s traditional progressive
base and who never even considered meeting with the demonstrators outside
the Democratic National Convention. But Olivera and the popular movements
he represents have an even more important lesson for the US left.
In recent months, a part of the Bolivian left, led by Evo Morales of
the Movement Toward Socialism party, has renounced street protests and
road blockades and tried to earn a seat at the table in La Paz by playing
by the rules of electoral politics. Morales and his supporters have
taken to demonizing Olivera and others who believe in grassroots, participatory
democracy, alternately accusing them of being unrealistic and of having
sold out the movement.
For his part, Olivera has remained focused on the strategic and philosophical
differences between the two tendencies. Speaking at the School for Authentic
Journalism, he said. “Today in Bolivia there are two currents within
the social movements. The first current is a reformist current looking
for changes within the political structure. Others in the social movements
are going toward the transformation of political and economic systems
that aren’t working. I think the concept of power is important.
Some movements and leaders seem to think that power is in the parliament
and the office of the president. And some think that, as in the water
war and the coca war and the gas war, power comes from below.”
To liberals who believe that incremental change can bring about a more
humane and responsive government, Olivera says: “If you have a
blind government and a dead government that doesn’t listen to the
people, victory can come much faster. History has placed us in a decisive
moment for the social movements, and we have no choice but to keep on
working for the power of the people.”
We would do well to heed his advice.
Sean Donahue is a poet and freelance journalist based in Lawrence,
MA. He wrote the chapter on Rand Beers, Kerry’s top foreign policy
advisor, for CounterPunch’s new book on the 2004 elections, Dime’s
Worth of Difference. He can be reached at: wrldhealer@yahoo.com
Source: CounterPunch
