I don’t think the US was trying to overthrow Banzer (then president).

Well, durrrrrr, Miguel. Banzer was a neoliberal.

Naturally, a leftist government has concerns of a different nature, given the long history of U.S. support for the overthrows of leftist governments (in Venezuela in 2002, Haiti in 2004, not to mention numerous cases prior to these rather sordid affairs). And yes, in both the Venezuelan and Haitian cases, USAID and/or NED provided resources to opposition groups involved in the overthrows.

The Morales government has every reason to be concerned about where USAID is channeling its resources. You ought to know better.

In the Venezuelan case, the Office of Transition Initiatives provides millions to opposition groups and refuses to divulge the identity of the recipients or the nature of much of the work being funded.

Whether or not Diego Ayo is Aymara tells us nothing. (Peru's Toledo is indigenous, for example. So what? That tells us nothing about his politics, in and of itself. In fact, Toledo was a neoliberal and ended up being broadly despised for it.)

Miguel,

As you say, the USAID programs have been around for quite a while, including the time that Morales has been in office.

I would have thought that he would have bounced these programs (including the Alternative Development Program) as soon as he came into office, but he didn't.

The question of course, is why is the USAID program suddenly a hot, public issue now? Given deteriorating situation in the media luna, I suspect the attacks on USAID are less than coincidental, i.e., lash out at all enemies in a time of stress, and use those actions as a way to enlist anti-gringo allies.

Oh, the attacks were clearly not coincidental. I think the MAS government is lashing out in all directions, almost blindly, and certainly frantically. Because of who some of those social scientists are, it knows them. So I don't think MAS leaders actually believe their own accusations. That's part of what makes publicly calling them "vendepatrias" and "antinacional" even more despicable.

Justin,

I only now read your comment. Sorry, it was a very long day yesterday (workwise) and I somehow missed your comment.

I completely agree w/ all your arguments. My issue is not that Banzer wasn't a neoliberal (I'm not a total idiot, I know my Bolivia history) or the being "indigenous" makes someone anti-neoliberal (being "indigenous" doesn't make someone good, either, since people come as individuals and shouldn't be stereotyped).

I was merely concerned at the nature of a witch hunt, a public purge of sorts, against social scientists. Many of whom I respect and admire. And many of whom I know have long histories of being activists, like you. By Quintana's tortured logic, Justin, you & I are both of us! tools of American imperialism, since we receive monies from US institutions (although that would make me explicitly a vendepatria since I was actually born & raised in Bolivia).

Do you at least understand that part of my argument? Even if you disagree w/ it, do you at least understand that this is my beef against what was said?

I can understand your defense of certain Bolivian individuals against claims that they are traitors, but I do not agree with any defense of USAID as an institution. Given that USAID has internal documents referring to the need to fund programs to "reestablish a democratic government in the country," the Morales government and its supporters have every right and reason to be insensed. Bolivia is a sovereign country with its own democratically-elected government, and the United States government has no business whatsoever trying to "reestablish" squat there.

Fair enough. So should the US take all its millions in aid money and go home? Is there any positive role the US government's aid *could* (this is, of course, a different question than *is*) play in Bolivia?

Also, I don't remember any program in USAID meant to "reestablish" democracy (though there are some aimed at "deepening" it).

But, fundamentally, if we're arguing that sovereign countries shouldn't receive any external assistance (I assume that if countries have interests, so do corporations, and other groups/individuals)? Should every country live in comlete isolation from the other? If so, should Cuba stop sending doctors to Latin America? (For the record, I don't see any probem w/ Cuban doctors in Latin America.)

To suggest that *some* countries shouldn't give aid to others isn't to stand on principle, but rather simply to argue for a partisan position. That's fine. But let's not pretend it's about "non-intervention" if we're willing to accept aid from sources we like, but not from those we don't. The principle might be ideological (socialists countries should be allowed to interfere in other countries), but it's not abstract (no country should interfere in another country).

Justin,

It also seems you want to view all issues into "either-or" dilemmas. I don't have to be "defending" USAID to oppose the way in which USAID was attacked. Just like I don't have to agree w/ racists in order to defend their right to free speech (as the UCLA regularly does, and rightly so, I might add!). Life is more complex than that. I guess I refuse to be polarized.

One of the problems w/ the attacks made by Quintana is that, in the Bolivian context, it's difficult to find any social scientists (or even activists) who aren't somehow tied to USAID in one way or another. Let me explain (think "six degrees of Kevin Bacon").

Bolivia is very poor. This means two things: a) it doesn't have enough domestic capital to fund social science think tanks and b) it's a magnet for international donor aid. Additionally, most Bolivian research institutions, think tanks, etc., often work together in collaborative ways. If you read a Bolivian book, it's often hard to know whether the "publisher" was USAID, FUNDEMOS, ILDIS, Plural, or a host of other entities.

Most social scientists in Bolivia hold teaching positions at more than one university & are also affiliated w/ more than one NGO. In the course of their careers, they will have moved through several NGOs & universities, attended conferences hosted by others, etc. Again, even w/in the ranks of MAS, there are consultants & others who have at some point been "vinculated" w/ a research institute that derives some of its funding from USAID.

In short, attacking Bolivian social scientists for their current (or past) affiliation w/ an NGO that itself was also affiliated w/ USAID is akin to a McCarthyite witch hunt. "Are you now or have you ever been affiliated w/ USAID?" may be the new question. And, like the disgustingly-named US congressional committee on "un-American" activities, I'm sure Quintana meant the same thing, by calling out such people as "vendepatrias" & "anti-national". What was that line by George Orwell about patriotism?

To suggest that *some* countries shouldn't give aid to others isn't to stand on principle, but rather simply to argue for a partisan position.

Foreign funding of non-partisan activities is not necessarily a problem. U.S. funding of people engaged in the overthrows of democratically elected governments is a very serious problem, however. And that's precisely what's happened in the Venezuelan and Haitian cases. If you're not aware of the evidence, then you're not looking very hard.

As far as I can tell, Cuban doctors haven't been fomenting any coups, Miguel.

By the way, these aren't abstract discussions of just any old interaction between countries. The discussion is a concrete one about the activities in the developign world of the world's lone superpower, a superpower with a very sordid history of supporting bloody coups and military dictatorships in the region.

Justin,

That's totally fine. And I can see your point. You win! ;-)

But if all Quintana said was that he objected to USAID funds for certain program—or even to *all* USAID funds—I'd be fine. It's certainly his right.

But that's not my issue here. It's not that Quintana merely attacked USAID. He specifically attacked a group of Bolivian social scientists. I don't object to the attack on USAID (even if I don't agree w/ it). I object to the attack on specific people and—most especially—of calling them "anti-national."

I object to the attack on specific people and—most especially—of calling them "anti-national."

I haven't contested that point because I don't know the specifics of the case.

Justin,

So, are there instances when it might be OK to label social scientists as "anti-national" and "unpatriotic"?

This might be a little snarky. But ... A recent feria of USAID programs, attended by Álvaro García Linera (vice president of Bolivia), in October 2006.

So, are there instances when it might be OK to label social scientists as "anti-national" and "unpatriotic"?

To answer that question in any principled manner requires that we look at it from a U.S. perspective. Suppose that an U.S. social scientist were to work with a foreign government in attempting to forcibly overthrow the U.S. government. Would anyone in the American political context publicly object to the application of the term "unpatriotic," "seditious" or "treasonous" to such a person? I seriously doubt it.

So if we were say that Bolivians would be somehow unjustified in applying such labels to a Bolivian social scientist who worked with a foreign government in attempting to forcibly overthrow the Bolivian government, we would indeed be hypocrites.

Justin,

Much hinges on your assumption that those social scientists were, in fact, actively (or even passively?) conspiring to "overthrow" a regime.

Yes, if a social scientist were seeking to overthrow the US government, one might consider him/her "treasonous" (under current law). I'm sure, of course, that many would defend such person's right to publish inflamatory rhetoric. Clearly, by your own logic, you wouldn't. Logical consistency would demand it.

But there is no proof that any of the people listed by the government were involved in any conspiracies to overthrow Evo Morales or Bolivia's democracy. And, again, I'm not basing this on what any US official has said. I'm basing this on nearly ten years of closely following the career parths (and their writings) of the people listed.

Justin,

Are you suggesting that the US government would be justified in publicly attacking Noam Chomsky, labelling him a "traitor", and seeking to end his tenure? I think that's an interesting analogy. (For the record: I would defend Chomsky.)

It seems you are arguing that states—and leaders of states—are justified in taking any action against private citizens. That seems to be an underlying assumption for your defense of these regimes (Bolivia, Venezuela) in its treatment of opponents. Would you extend the same priviledge to any regime? How about Putin's Russia? Or our own Dubya? I should hope not.

Much hinges on your assumption that those social scientists were, in fact, actively (or even passively?) conspiring to "overthrow" a regime.

No, Miguel, I make no such assumption. As I told you before, I don't know all the specifics of the case.

I suspect that most of the social scientists mentioned have not engaged in anything approaching sedition or treason. I suspect that you are correct that at least some have been unjustly labeled as "anti-national." The point was that we can think of hypothetical examples in which such heated charges would meet the same standards that we, as U.S. citizens, apply to seditious or treasonous activities.

Your question was as follows:

So, are there instances when it might be OK to label social scientists as "anti-national" and "unpatriotic"?

Again, my answer was that, since we can think of hypothetical examples in which such labels would be roundly accepted in the United States, we can't then turn around and make a principled argument that Bolivians could never apply the same sorts of standards that we do.

Are you suggesting that the US government would be justified in publicly attacking Noam Chomsky, labelling him a "traitor", and seeking to end his tenure? I think that's an interesting analogy. (For the record: I would defend Chomsky.)

That's an idiotic question, Miguel. Chomsky hasn't worked with any foreign government in an attempt to forcibly overthrow the U.S. government. Nor would he consider that to be a legitimate political activity.

Justin,

But I refuse to accept that standard. I don't think any government should be allowed to attack academics (or anyone!) simply for writing or speaking about changing the regime. I would restrict "sedition" to actually taking up arms or actively plotting to make specific attacks.

Besides, except for the horrible experience of McCarthyism, most of US history has had little of the sort of attack on intellectuals you suggest. Even William Pierce, the racist author of The Turner Diaries was never prosecuted for a book that encouraged the Oklahoma bombing, which Tim McVeigh himself explicitly thought of us an "act of war" (sedition) against the US federal government.

The ACLU defended Pierce's right to publish & speak. And they were right to do so.

That's an idiotic question, Miguel.

OK. How about Ward Churchill? Or Michael Moore (he did go to Cuba)? Or it might be an interesting exercise to think about what social scientists in the US you *would* think the US could "legitimately" call "traitors" and act against them.

See, I still have a fundamental problem w/ your giving away that kind of power to the state—any kind of state.

OK. How about Ward Churchill? Or Michael Moore (he did go to Cuba)? Or it might be an interesting exercise to think about what social scientists in the US you *would* think the US could "legitimately" call "traitors" and act against them.

None whom I know because none are stupid enough to plot coups against the U.S. government. Not Ward Churchill, not Michael Moore, and not anyone else that I know of.

Going to Cuba is not sedition. Writing in defense of Venezuela's government is not sedition. I worked for a month for the Venezuelan government analyzing U.S. press coverage of Venezuela. That's not sedition either.

But if anyone --whether social scientist or not-- starts actively plotting with foreign groups to overthrow his or her government, you better believe that the law is going to have something to say about it, and for good reason.

OK. But again, none of the names on the list have any past w/ advocation "sedition" (though, to be fair, Evo's government is now defining "sedition" so broadly that it covers nearly all organized political opposition to his administration). So let's make an American analogy that's more similar:

What about Karl Rove (a position similar to Quintana's) making a press release w/ a list of people—including Michael Moore—who "collaborated" w/ the Cuban government (which by law is defined roughly as a "enemy" state). Do you think the government *should* use the bully pulpit that way?

See, I still think you misunderstand my basic objection: I don't think the power of the state should be abused that way. I don't care about what is "legal" (the old cliche: everything the Nazi's did was "legal") but about what is "ethical."

What about Karl Rove (a position similar to Quintana's) making a press release w/ a list of people—including Michael Moore—who "collaborated" w/ the Cuban government (which by law is defined roughly as a "enemy" state). Do you think the government *should* use the bully pulpit that way?

No, but the example you give is not analogous because the contexts are entirely different. Cuba poses no threat whatsoever to the security of the United States or to the Bush Administration's hold on executive power.

The U.S. government, on the other hand, does pose a real threat to the Morales government's hold on executive power (as the recent history in Venezuela and Haiti demonstrate).

(And by the way, the U.S. government is already harassing Moore on his Cuba trip, despite the fact that Cuba poses no threat whatsoever to the security of the United States or to the Bush Administration's hold on executive power.)

Justin,

I'm well aware that Moore is being harassed. And he shouldn't be. But not because Cuba isn't a threat (though 9/11 suggests that "threat" can be more broadly construed), but simply because GOVERNMENTS shouldn't behave that way. It's one thing for private individuals to say things, but I hold GOVERNMENTS (or states if you prefer) to a different standard.

Are you arguing that it's OK for governments to behave that way if the person (social scientist or not) so long as the third party state in question is a "threat"? (In that case, who defines what is a "threat" becomes an interesting question.)

So, let's say Russia (a nuclear power) or China (ditto) or Iran (getting there). Are you suggesting that if an academic did consulting work or advocacy work for such a regime, then the US government should be able to attack them? Your logic suggests that you would agree w/ that proposition. Again, I would disagree: democratic governments **shouldn't** behave that way.

Are you arguing that it's OK for governments to behave that way if the person (social scientist or not) so long as the third party state in question is a "threat"? (In that case, who defines what is a "threat" becomes an interesting question.)

Miguel, this isn't an abstract question. That the United States government and its agencies pose a threat to leftist Latin American governments is patently obvious. Just look at the failed coup in Venezuela, for example. The State Department has admitted that U.S. agencies aided Venezuelan parties that were involved in the coup plot. The involvement of NED-funded Haitian groups in the overthrow of Aristide is even more well-documented.

Again, that the United States government and its agencies pose a direct threat to the Morales government should be patently obvious to any serious scholar.

So, let's say Russia (a nuclear power) or China (ditto) or Iran (getting there). Are you suggesting that if an academic did consulting work or advocacy work for such a regime, then the US government should be able to attack them? Your logic suggests that you would agree w/ that proposition.

I don't know what you mean by "attack them." If U.S. nationals are doing consulting work on, say, the construction of dams in China or the provision of health care in Iran, nobody could seriously consider that a threat to U.S. security. On the other hand, the U.S. state does not permit private U.S. nationals to carry out espionage for other countries, for example. That's a reasonable standard and one that the Bolivian state could likewise apply to Bolivian nationals who carry out espionage for the United States government or work with U.S. agencies in an attempt to forcibly overthrow the Bolivian government.

I wanted to clarify one other thing. I agree with you that the impropriety of U.S. harassment of Michael Moore has nothing to do with whether or not Cuba is a threat to U.S. security (which it clearly isn't). The point here is that Moore's action itself --travelling to Cuba to get health care for 9/11 rescue workers-- poses no threat whatsoever to U.S. national security.

USAID, on the other hand, may very well pose a threat to Bolivian national security, if the recent history is any guide. My view is that any Bolivian national who collaborates with U.S. agencies in an attempt to overthrow the Bolivian government should be subject to legal sanction.

Justin,

Again, you're not fully aware of the Bolivian context (a point you yourself made earlier). Quintana gave *no* proof (or even hinted at the existence of such!) that any of the people named were actively involved in any efforts to overthrow the current Bolivian government. None. He merely attacked them for having at one time worked for (or w/ others who worked for!) USAID & USAID-related NGOs. He alluded, he implied, and that was about it (notice that no charges were filed, there is no criminal investigation).

My analogy of McCarthyism still holds. In the 1950s, Senator McCarthy attacked academics, intellectuals, even actors who may have at one time or other known someone who was affiliated w/ communists (and by extension, the USSR). Sure, a few people were actually spies or something else. But the attacks were broad to anyone who ever went to a conference, to spoke at an event, who worked for "socialist" organizations (even ones funded by FDR's programs). It was a witch hunt. It's one thing to go after the Rosenbergs (who may have been innocent); it's another to go after columnists & other public intellectuals.

And that is exactly what Quintana did. If we assume (as you have clearly stated that you do) that states can do that to people if they (the states) define such actions as "threats," then we give the power to the state of judge, jury, and executioner in a case involving itself, and in cases where it can be decided retroactively (many on that list haven't worked for USAID or USAID partner NGOs for years). I don't know why we're willing to give that power away to some states, but not others.

Notice that I'm willing to concede that perhaps USAID is in the wrong. But I'm treating that as a *separate* issue. USAID may have ulterior motives, but to impute that those who have at one time been "fellow travelers" share those ulterior motives is bizarre. Do all Fulbright fellows share the ideology of the senator? Or the US government? I think one can separate the two issues: The "is USAID good?" argument and the "can states conduct public witch hunts of their ideological opponents?"

Notice also that I'm not forcing you to concede that in the post-9/11 world a reasonable case can be made that any state (or organization) can be a realistic "threat" to any other. If so, we can write blank checks for states to aggressively attack all their critics. Instead, I'm arguing that states shouldn't have that ability. No state.

And that is exactly what Quintana did. If we assume (as you have clearly stated that you do) that states can do that to people if they (the states) define such actions as "threats," then we give the power to the state of judge, jury, and executioner in a case involving itself, and in cases where it can be decided retroactively (many on that list haven't worked for USAID or USAID partner NGOs for years).

Um, actually, Miguel, the Morales government hasn't done anything in the way of acting as "judge, jury and executioner" in this case. A minister strongly criticized some prominent social scientists. No judgement in a court of law. No jury either. And certainly no execution. So let's not get carried away here, Miguel.

And I do not assume any guilt on the part of the accused. I have no idea if any of the people Quintana singled out have done anything to compromise Bolivian national security. Moreover, the parameters I've laid out are very clear, not arbitrary ones. The mere criticism of the government by private individuals does not constitute a threat.

My point, speaking HYPOTHETICALLY, is that espionage and collaboration with foreign agencies in an attempt to overthrow the government would constitute a clear threat to Bolivia's political institutions. The point is that the Bolivian state would have the right to investigate and to attempt to prosecute Bolivian nationals who compromise Bolivian national security. The Bolivian state has a right to attempt prosecute activities that are in breach of the law, just as the American state has that right. Pretty simple concept, Miguel.

Justin,

I was using a metaphor (or perhaps more accurately, a simile).

Look, I agree that attempts to actually overthrow a regime should be met w/ appropriate legal responses. No doubt there.

But I don't think Quintana merely "strongly criticized" some social scientists. He did more than that. I don't see why the same kind of outrage extended at the Bush administration for the comments it makes towards prominent US intellectuals can't be extended to the Bolivian state.

I think our disagreement hinges one simple fact: You trust states and state power. You don't like states that ideologically disagree w/ you, but you think states *should* be allowed to exercise their power. I hold the opposite view. I don't trust states, regardless of their ideological orientation. I'd rather states "whither away", not get stronger.

The mere criticism of the government by private individuals does not constitute a threat.

Yes. But the open criticism of individuals by the states *does* constitute a threat. And that makes all the difference. Trotsky himself recognized that the foundation of the state is violence. When states attack individuals, it is in a sense removing its protection over them.

I think our disagreement hinges one simple fact: You trust states and state power. You don't like states that ideologically disagree w/ you, but you think states *should* be allowed to exercise their power. I hold the opposite view. I don't trust states, regardless of their ideological orientation. I'd rather states "whither away", not get stronger.

Ah, yes, one minute Miguel is lauding USAID --an institution of the American state-- for its supposed efforts to "deepen" democracy in Bolivia. The next minute he's claiming a principled distrust of ALL states, so as to make his case against the Bolivian state.

It's obvious, Miguel, that the only principle guiding you here is an ulterior motive to bash left-populist governments.

The philosophical differences between us are much much deeper than you understand them to be, but I'll save that discussion for later.

Yes, I opppose all populist governments, left or otherwise. Absolutely. I don't want more of Peron, Vargas, or Fujimori (or in the Bolivian context Busch, Villarroel, Banzer, etc.). Absolutely.

Did I "laud" (praise, glorify) USAID? Weird. I don't remember doing that. And, if I seemed to support USAID, I then backed away from that position, conceding away that point (scroll up to August 31; I surrended on that point six days ago!). Or are people not allowed to change their minds?

So let me get this straight: People who disagree w/ you are evil, imperialist idiots. People who decide to agree w/ you on some point are hypocrites & two-faced. So people must agree w/ you from the start and never waver from their dogmatism? And it seems people must agree w/ you 100% of the time, otherwise they are idiots and/or two-faced. That seems to be the pattern.

I find it interesting that your constant tactic has been to sweep aside the bits of arguments you find inconvenient, then go for direct personal attacks on people's character. Like the ad hominem where you villified me for being (gasp!) happy to have gotten married (how bourgeoise of me!). Kudos!

Since I'm clearly too stupid and/or shallow to understand our deep disagreements, why are you bothering w/ me?

Interesting how you become really touchy when the contradictions of your arguments are exposed. There's nothing ad-hominem in my points here, Miguel. I'm simply pointing out the contradictions in your arguments.

Did I "laud" (praise, glorify) USAID? Weird. I don't remember doing that.

Actually, yes, you did laud USAID. In fact, the original title of this post was "Bolivian government attacks USAID," not "Bolivian government attacks USAID-affiliated social scientists." Both here and on my blog you've told us how USAID has sought to "deepen" democracy. Your post --and other posts you've written on Greg's site-- have been chock full of apologetics for USAID.

The next minute, of course, you're claiming a principled distrust of ALL states, never mind your gullibility with regard the claims of the American state about the purposes of USAID.

You see, Miguel, principles are something that one stands by and has a record of standing by. Principles are not something that you alter from one day to the next to fit your latest argument against the Bolivian government.

Food for thought.

Principles & positions are different. I don't think I've ever said "USAID does a marvellous job, let's celebrate it!" or anything of the sort. I merely stated that "from what I could tell" USAID's DDCP progra [in 1998] was "legitimate" and that USAID's "stated purpose" was to "deepen" democracy. If that's a ringing endorsement. Wow. You seem to read what you want to read.

I don't think I'm being "contradictory" as much as you think. I'm just not being "dogmatic" and "rigid". The true mark of intelligence--and integrity--isn't a steadfast unwavering adherence to own's previous ideas, but rather one's willingness to change one's mind when presented w/ a convincing argument. Your anger (disappointment?) at my changing my mind on some points (points that I conceded to you!) is baffling.

Or perhaps you just like to rile people up for shits & giggles? If so, then you're right, I shouldn't get offended. I'll move on. I'm sure you'll respond to this, you'll find some way to attack me (and not engage in an actual discussion) because, frankly, you've demonstrated (and not just to me!) that you don't respect other people.

This could've been an interesting discussion based on mutual respect and willingness to listen to the other. Instead, you chose deliberately at every turn to make this a personal vendetta where you had to "win" at the cost of obliterating your opponent. What an odd way to engage in academic, intellectual exchange. Odd, indeed.

You hate me. On a deep, personal level. I get it. Message received. Am I supposed to care?

My, you're touchy today, Miguel. I can understand why.

The point is, Miguel, that you can't possibly claim a principled distrust of ALL states if, just two days earlier, you were blathering on about USAID efforts to "deepen" democracy. It just doesn't work that way, fella.

I have nothing against you, Miguel. I'm just telling you that you shouldn't try to get on your high horse and say, "You trust states and I don't," when it's obvious that your distrust of states is selective, not particularly principled.

The issues are actually much more complicated than whether we trust or distrust states, but we can save that debate for another day.

Well, you've worn out my patience. And on numerous ocassions you have chosen to be as abrassive as possible. So, yes, I'm touchy. You don't want to really engage in "discourse" but rather just be self-righteous. I mean, you insist on attack people over issues on which they've conceded days ago. Talk about a sore winner! But if that's the kind of public reputation you want to make for yourself, who am I to tell you otherwise.

Uh, Miguel, you can't just one day concede a point and the next day claim it as your "principle."

For you to claim that you --in contrast to me-- have a principled distrust of all states is not only self-righteous but also somewhat disingenous on your part.

Did I ever say I "trusted" USAID?

Did I ever argue that no states should **ever** involve itself in the affairs of others?

You have assumed that I cheered USAID on (I said no such thing) and from that implied that I trust the US government (I certainly said no such thing) and then made up your own assumptions. Then, by refusing to actually **listen** to my point of view, and by only engaging in your own pre-conceived assumptions, you not only demonstrate your own biases (we all have biases, of course) but showed a very ugly side of your personality.

I've gotta pack for LASA. So I'm through w/ this nonsense.

I'm through w/ this nonsense.

If I spouted as many contradictions as you do, I'd run too.

Did I ever say I "trusted" USAID?

Well, you certainly implied it.

You wrote:

the USAID program (at least the DDCP program I'm familiar with) isn't there to "reestablish" democracy, it's there to "deepen" democracy.

(Hey, if the American state says so, it must be true, right?)

Then this:

I think our disagreement hinges on one simple fact: You trust states and state power. You don't like states that ideologically disagree w/ you, but you think states *should* be allowed to exercise their power. I hold the opposite view. I don't trust states, regardless of their ideological orientation.

Ah, yes, thanks be to God for Miguel's two-day old "principle" of distrusting ALL states.

Children, children...
Reading your comments is like watching a Ferrari go at 15 mph. So much to offer, yet so little performance!

(Sorry for the simplistic example, I hope it's not too basic for your deep intelects)

Actually, you're right. I let my passions get the better of me & let Justin rile me up. My better angels didn't win this time.

seeing the circumstances of our democracy, feel forced to write you this letter of great concern.
First of all, I'm a third year student of modern languages at Gabriel Rene Moreno, Santa Cruz city.
The next day after the general election when Evo Morales was offcially nationwide announced as the New President of Bolivia, I didn't know what to say, I felt so powerless because that day it was my birthday, ,later during that day I starting realizing that the bolivian population was the winner because there was democracy, with not political interference whatsoever, you know in the crooky selection of the new president.

Y'all know about the history of the Armed Forces of Bolivia a good part of military take overs in the political inestability were the main causes of Bolivia's backwardness, I'm fully aware that the military position nowadays is to guarantee and preserve the sovereighnty of democracy.It stands to reason so far that the bolivian army learnt the lesson, but how would yall take it on a possible military intervention?, it's all up to you, I completely rely on God's divinely isnpiration on the United States's foreign affairs visions,it won't be that easy this time for you to do the job. I know that you don't have any natural right to interfere in the Bolivia government, but a foster right acquisition would grant you stomp your inevitable presence once again, hopefully this time for good, you know a complete renovation in the bolivian department of defense will do a lot.
The armed forces generals must understand that they need to be instilled and prompted by you, if you told you unconditonally what your country is made of, I can't say we all want to make a mountain out of a molehill, it's about democracy, synonim of freedom.
Finally a democracy engagement confirmation only made by the executive-board of the armed forces would help Bolivia in a big way to get out of it's situation. Please take into account my personal opinion.
truthfully yours,
Armando.

Aramando:

¡¿Qué?! Si m'estas pidiendo que apoye a un golpe military, perdon, pero no puedo hacer eso. Una democracia no se debe reforzar por un glope militar. Si m'estas pidiendo que apoye a una intervención estadounidense, pues tampoco haré eso. ¿O seré que te malentendi totalmente?

Tal véz entro un poco tarde al debate, pero pienso que no se debe confundir el defecto con el concepto. El concepto es el respeto al individuo, al humano, a la persona. El defecto es que un Ministro, portador de la Fé Pública, difame a individuos con estar muy cercanos a "traidores de la patria". Si así lo cree que nos meta preso haciendo uso de los instrumentos legales que tiene la democracia Boliviana. Eso es un estado de derecho, lo contrario es persecución política, venga de donde venga.

Creo que ese es el debate de fondo, no el uso o la intención que una u otra agencia de cooperación internacional tiene.

Rubens:

Estoy totalmente de acuerdo contigo. Algunos (ya podes léer quienes) prefieren convertir esto en un asunto de si es o no es USAID una vaina o no. Pero yo estoy contigo: lo principal es que el portavoz de un Estado no deberia atacar tan personalmente a ciudadanos en la forma que el lo hizo, usando el poder estatal para un ataque personal y sobre todo político.