I’m Miguel Centellas, a political science professor at Mount St. Mary’s University. I post regularly on Bolivian politics. But I also occasionally discuss interesting books, pop culture, and daily life in Baltimore.
The sad thing here is that these are not military units, which should be the forces (along w/ the police) used to restore state authority. The consequence—assuming they actually do march on Santa Cruz & other opposition-controlled areas—will be a higher casualty count. For all their bravura, Ponchos Rojos (like the UCJ) lack military discipline & training. That means their clashes will be bloody, like the clash in Pando that left at least 8 dead & 80 injured.
The other sad reality is that this is nothing new, historically. “Indian” militias were used to break up opposition uprisings by the MNR governments of the 1950s & by the Barrientos dictatorship in the 1960s (he also sometimes pitted rival indigenous groups against each other). The worst was in 1899, when La Paz Liberals used an Indian army led by Zarate Willka against the Sucre Conservatives in the “Federal” War (which didn’t make Bolivia federal, it only moved the capital to La Paz); after the Liberals won, they turned on their Indian allies & massacred them. I’m not suggesting that Evo will do the same w/ the Ponchos Rojos. But the sad reality is that MAS civilian supporters will be used as cannon fodder. This all benefits the military, of course, which won’t have to risk its men or material.
I dunno...agree that police and military is preferable in theory (state monopoly on force, etc.), but frankly I don't think the UJC types will mind having images of "martyrs" shot by the security forces to use as international propaganda. Also, lacking military discipline and training can mean less efficiency in violence. Not sure one can just assume that Ponchos Rojos would make it worse (except on themselves.) Also, What about the attempt to enter Plan Tres Mil by the UJC? That seems like an even more wrongheaded and provocative misadventure than the Ponchos Rojos trying to retake the government installations. What the hell would the UJC do once they "took" it?
Posted by
jd
September 12, 2008 1:19 PM
I agree that UJC types may welcome "martyrdom" by the military/police. But they'll be "martyred" by MAS supporters (and vice versa), so it then just comes down to who should do it.
Also, lack of military training & discipline is problematic precisely because it means less efficiency in violence. Confrontations between undisciplined civilians will mean more deaths & injuries (and ones made by makeshift weapons), more bystander casualties, more confusion. While an elite unit like the Rangers or the GRE (disbanded, I believe) could probably put down a disturbance quickly by containing & minimizing the level of violence, mob violence between UJC & MAS supporters will just be an absolute mess.
It does not surprise me that the Ponchos Rojos are stirring at this point or that the opposition is pointing to them (in order to distract from real violence). But right now the front lines in this are in and around the eastern departmental capitals, not in Achacachi. I doubt that the Ponchos Rojos will be important. If they are, it will only be due to support in the eastern provinces.
I'm hoping Cossío has good luck on his trip to La Paz. Who knows? Could happen.
Posted by
John
September 12, 2008 9:18 PM
It's not that Ponchos Rojos are merely stirring, it's that they're being mobilized towards Santa Cruz. In other words, Evo's government is preferring to rely on his own paramilitaries rather than police/military forces. And this is the historical pattern I pointed to.
Above, you say they "are mobilizing." Now you say they're "being mobilized", and you imply that's due to Evo. Are you saying that columns of "Ponchos Rojos" from the Achacachi area will be arriving today in the eastern capitals? So maybe preemptive violence is justified?
I should be clear: I don't know *who* is mobilizing the Ponchos Rojos. I only know what I've read, which was a report in the news of a press conference by the Ponchos Rojos leader saying they were ready to mobilize. Evo also gave statements calling on "social bases" (his supporters) to mobilize to defend his government. I assume there's a connection, but I could be wrong.
As for preemptive violence? I'm not sure what you mean, or what that would mean. I'd rather see the military/police serve their legal/constitutional functions and restore order—w/o taking sides in the conflict. I also very much hope that the conversations between the prefects & the president are fruitful & lead to a compromise of some sort.
Although I'm not sure why Evo didn't attend the meeting w/ Cossio.
Headline--Morales, dispuesto a revisar parte autonómica de Constitución para acuerdo
from EFE -
"El presidente de Bolivia, Evo Morales, se mostró hoy dispuesto a revisar la propuesta autonómica de la nueva Constitución para lograr un acuerdo con sus opositores regionales por la "unidad del país", tras haber obtenido la autorización de sus bases para ello."
Confrontations between undisciplined civilians will mean more deaths & injuries (and ones made by makeshift weapons), more bystander casualties, more confusion. While an elite unit like the Rangers or the GRE (disbanded, I believe) could probably put down a disturbance quickly by containing & minimizing the level of violence, mob violence between UJC & MAS supporters will just be an absolute mess.
Six of one, half dozen of the other. This assumption is pretty big. At best, it's a toss up. Military forces would be more disciplined but that doesn't mean that casualties would be lower. Bolivian military, particularly Ranger-type and GRE units, do not have much civil disturbance training or equipment. They also have more mass casualty producing weapons, and better training on how to use them, than undisciplined civilians do. Undisciplined civilian mobs may produce a few casualties, and more than say if it was police forces trying to contain mob violence, but it ain't anywhere near the type of casualties that a military assault force would produce if they were thrown into a civil disturbance situation.
Posted by
GS
September 13, 2008 7:53 PM
I should be clear also: I'm saying the civic committees of the eastern capitals and their supporters exaggerate the danger from the Ponchos Rojos in order to justify preemptive violence against supporters of Evo. If the pro-Evo forces can be portrayed as dangerous enough, then higher levels of violence can be justified. Isn't that the story in the Pando massacre, at barrio Plan 3000 in SCZ, and at the Mercado Campesino in Tarija?
OK, OK, maybe that's not your intent, or your sources' intent, but isn't this the effect, to make it easier to overreact?
So to be clear, I'm not advocating preemptive violence. I'm criticizing the lack of context in your reporting, in this case. (Maybe I should have just skipped the first line of your post.)
Posted by
John
September 13, 2008 11:31 PM
@John: Yes, I think often both sides use such "reports" (whether exagerated or not) as pretext to then launch their own reactions.
@GS: Good point; military/police might inflict more casualties (or just as many) as civilian forces. But I'd like to think units like GRE (which relied on tear gas & rubber bullets, rather than assault rifles) might keep the body count down.
Miguel, the problem I see with your blog is that it leaves the user struggling to find your real positions. They are implicit in the way you hand pick the news but you present them as a fact without much of your opinion. This is weird since you are in political science professor and therefore one expect to read your opinion on matters and not some sort of garage made newswire service. Nevertheless your view is here (as an exception curiously originally written somewhere else)... and it is made quite clear in the entry you wrote and I pasted bellow.
The thing is that is difficult to have an exchange of ideas with you because you choose not to present yours over being agreeable.
The US government has been hostile to the democratically elected government of Bolivia from the get go. It is showcasing one of his naval fleet in latin america where they have nothing to do. And the ambassador has sustained many improper meetings interfering into Bolivia's internal politics, of course with the secessionists ...
Miguel Centellas wrote:
>Addendum: For some more on the Bolivia >situation, visit the Gringo Tambo blog (“US >ambassador asked to leave Bolivia”), where I >posted the following: “The bottom line is that >Evo has no interest in making friends w/ the US >government, regardless of who the ambassador is. >Why should he? He’s counting on Venezuelan and >Iranian (and possibly Chinese and Russian) >economic and political support. The days when >poor countries “needed” the US (or Europe) are >dwindling as oil wealth becomes the new currency >of international politics. The age of “Pax >Americana” may be coming to an end, but we >(Western progressives) may not like the >alternative.”
Posted by
Eduardo Lamas
September 15, 2008 2:19 PM
Eduardo: First, I don't present the news as "fact" in the way you think I do. I rely on media accounts to give a sense of what is being reported in Bolivia, not to suggest thats things are "facts". I also try to limit my links to things that I know are in fact happening (e.g. the declaration of a state of siege in Pando) and make a clear distinction from things that are merely "reported" (e.g. journalist censorship in Pando). You're also right that I'm not running a garage Bolivia news service, which is why I selectively report on things of interest to me (either because of my research interests or personal ones). For a broader sense of all that is covered in Bolivia, there are many blogs out there (which I encourage people to read) & alternative news sources.
I also think you have a different interpretation of what a political scientist (at least in Western academia) is "supposed" to do. We tend to like "nuance" and "objectivity". I also don't have a side. I don't support Evo 100% because I worry about the populist personalism his government could become. I don't support the autonomistas 100% either because I don't like their tactics, as well as the populist personalism of its leaders. What I support is representative democracy, rooted in legitimate institutions, w/ as much self-determination (for all regions, ethnic groups, classes, and genders) as possible. And I'm sorry you dislike my efforts to be "agreeable"--I think mutual respect is important if one is to have a real exchange of ideas.
I'd also wonder what you see as objectionable about the quote of mine you posted. Do you think Evo has genuine interests or need to "make nice" to the US? Do you think Pax Americana (US hegemony) is not in decline? Do you think oil wealth is not the new global currency of international relations? Do you think Westerners welcome growing Russian influence in the region?
