In the past several weeks, Evo’s government has become more aggressive towards Washington: In short order, the US ambassador, USAID, and the DEA were expelled from the country. The Peace Corps left on its own, but it too was a target of anti-US rhetoric. In response, the White House decertified Bolivia’s anti-narcotics efforts & threatened to end Bolivia’s favorable trade relationship (which threatens thousands of Bolivian jobs). Clearly, US-Bolivian relations are at a low point.
A few days ago, Evo Morales came to Washington, where he again spoke out against US meddling in Bolivian affairs. But he also expressed hope that the coming Obama administration could possibly lead to improved relations. After all, Obama has opposed the heavy-handed approach of the Bush administration & has expressed interest in rebuilding relationships & improving America’s image abroad.
But I’m skeptical. In part, because I suspect that Evo’s moves against the US have been driven in large part by short-term gains—primarily in terms of shoring up his domestic support for upcoming referendums—than based on sound long-term strategic interests. I say this despite the realization that Bolivia has good reason to reshape its relationship w/ the US into a more equitable partnership.
The DEA has been a sore spot in Bolivia since the late 1980s, and it has frequently acted in ways that only hurt America’s image as a “partner” & frequently oversteps its legitimate authority. Putting aside the merits of the broader US-led “war on drugs,” once can see some legitimate purpose to a US-supported anti-narcotics strategy in Bolivia. Bolivians have as much to gain from controlling (can one ever eliminate it?) the cocaine industry that breeds corruption, crime & violence, contributes to soil erosion & other environmental damages, drug addiction, and other social ills. But its clear by any objective standard that DEA efforts have made little progress in Bolivia (or elsewhere). In the meantime, they have simply contributed to cycles of violence in the Chapare & the erosion of America’s prestige in the region. Failing to prevent drugs from reaching the US, the insistence on continuing an aggressive, militarized policy has only damaged America’s image. In short, from a foreign policy perspective, it’s been a failure.
But USAID has been a significant source of economic & technical development assistant for countless Bolivians. Much of USAID’s efforts are aimed at grassroots, promoting tourism, fair trade organic coffee or artisan textile cooperatives, literacy programs, and other such ventures. Often, USAID has worked closely w/ indigenous communities throughout Bolivia helping to build social capital & grassroots political organization. The US could do more, of course; America’s foreign assistant abroad is smaller (either as per capita or percent of GDP) than the assistance of many other industrialized countries (and even some developing ones). But USAID was a promising sign of America’s long-term commitment to the Bolivian people. That it was expelled (under the somewhat dubious charge that it was helping to fund opposition movements) is a loss.
It’s tempting, of course, to cheer on Evo’s government as it stands up for national sovereignty against “the empire” of the North. But such a romantic vision ignores a stark political reality: Bolivia is a small country.
Certainly, the White House has overreacted to Evo’s government from day one. After two decades of friendly regimes, the US was shocked to see a former cocalero take the reigns of power in a country seen as “important” primarily for its role in the drug war. Little effort was made to understand the MAS phenomenon in the late 1990s, and many mistakes were made in the 2002 campaign (then the US ambassador to Bolivia suggested that the US would cut off all aid if Evo were elected). Through a number of mistakes, the Bush administration drove Evo ever closer into the arms of Hugo Chávez. That’s unfortunate.
Yet Evo will need to work to mend fences w/ the Obama administration, and he should start soon. Bolivia never came up in the recent US presidential campaign. To date, Obama hasn’t made a single statement regarding Bolivia. Further, Latin America as a whole barely registered in the campaign, beyond the mention of “Hispanic voters” and/or “immigration.” Once in a while, someone (usually McCain) would mention “Chávez.” That was it. And that was before the economic crisis hit.
Those of us who spend much of lives thinking about Bolivia often have to be reminded that the country just doesn’t really “matter” (certainly not as much as we think it does). Again: Bolivia is a small country. Bolivia has more to gain from amicable relations w/ the US than the US does. Once sees the frustration building as the effects of the economic crisis starting to be felt (among them, a decline in Chávez’s famous “checks” handed out across the country). Recently, the other Andean Community countries (including Ecuador, supposedly part of the new “left turn” in the region) are moving forward w/ trade negotiations w/ the US & Europe, excluding Bolivia. Last week, MAS sent a delegation to help organize protests in Lima (violating the principle of non-intervention, which MAS frequently uses to chastise US activities in the region). No doubt, after either the January 2009 referendum on the constitution or the December 2009 general elections to follow, Evo (if he wins reelection in December 2009) will seek rapprochement w/ Washington.
But by then it may be too little, too late. Because I don’t think Bolivia ranks highly, if at all, on Obama’s register. First, he’s focusing on the economic crisis & policies to combat it. He’ll be less likely to be interested in giving economic assistance to “unfriendly” or “uncooperative” regimes—especially since he won’t want to look weak in anticipation of tense negotiations w/ Iran, North Korea, or Russia. When Obama looks to foreign policy, he’s already made clear that his priorities will be Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and Russia. In other words: negotiation future threats to US interests abroad. Beyond that, he will probably turn to mend fences in Europe. Economically, he may pursue a broader G-20 economic strategy, building economic partnerships w/ China, India, Brazil, and other “emerging markets.” If he’s feeling generous, he may pursue an active strategy in Africa (where US prestige remains relatively high). Oh, and he may consider tackling the Arab-Israeli peace process. I’m not sure where Bolivia will fit on his busy schedule. Besides, one of Obama’s close advisors is also one of Goni’s lawyers.
Certainly, the US has not been (historically) a good friend to Bolivia. So one can sympathize w/ Evo’s recent behavior. But beyond the romantic admiration from the “left” (much of it living comfortable middle class lives in advanced industrial countries), one has to face the stark reality that the costs will be borne by Bolivians (primarily the poor), not by Americans.
I appreciate your calm exploration of this topic and your obvious goal of objectivity and balance. I agree that Bolivia gets short shrift and will probably continue to, and i lament the fact that our new president's advisor is working for Goni.
To say that the US has not been a good friend to bolivia is an understatement of massive proportion. Firstly, neo-colonial imperialism is simply a fact. Five hundred years ago, hernando desoto told the 'indians' he encountered in the 'new' world that god, via the pope, had given all this land and its inhabitants to the king and queen of spain, and so henceforth all their wealth and labor was to go to said monarchs, or torture and death would ensue. In fact, in those times spain multiplied its national wealth many times over under this arrangement. Well, in more recent times, the same game is played in a far less obvious way, through IMF loans that cannot be repaid, and then by "privatizing" the wealth and enlisting the locals to once again work for the outside owners. Its no prettier now than it was then. And the US supports only those leaders who will play nice with this arrangement.
USAID is not a merely a do-good bystander in all of this. After the US ambassador, actively campaigning for Goni and against Evo Morales, was ineffective, funding from USAID was funneled to "democracy building" organizations which was in fact just a different kind of intervention to build and develop opposition groups who went on to engage in illegal and grossly undemocratic activities in an attempt to block the new constitution and, indeed, undermine or overthrow the popularly elected morales government. This is but one example.
You also seem to regret that US policy has pushed Evo into the arms of Hugo Chavez. I went to venezuela myself this past year to see just how bad that was, or wasnt. A saint he is not, but chavez is actually using those petro dollars to benefit the previously underserved segments of society. By 2005, UNESCO declared venezuela to be free of illiteracy! Education is free and available, including university studies for those who could never before even consider such a thing. There are no entrance requirements for college. Instead, remedial courses and support such as healthcare and meals are available to those in need to give them a chance of real success. The press in venezuela is free, i assure you. Both in print and on air, there is an alive and active debate about chavez and his policies. He has indeed drawn a lot of power to himself, which bears watching, but the intention stated is to transfer it to the various levels of community councils who will be able to decide at more grass roots levels how the money can best be used to meet social needs. I am not only not worried about chavez right now, i am actually glad he has enough resources to provide help to bolivia and other countries to our south who are trying to find a new way forward and break this shameful legacy of 500 years.
A last point: The DEA was more than a "sore spot". When i was in bolivia last year i was able to meet women from the Chapare who recounted the violence and terror they lived through because of DEA policies. I can feel only shame for my country for this. This is about real people.
So yes, real bolivian people will be terribly affected by loss of favored trade agreements with the US. And Evo is not stupid, and i think he'll do what he can. But he has also shown that he stands for principle. It is for this that he, and the other emerging popular leaders in latin america are going to "matter". That is to say, to the extent that they start demonstrating viable alternative models...saying NO to the desoto deal....they will be painted increasingly as "threats to democracy". But for their sakes, I hope they can stay in the "don't matter" category.
Those of us in the comfort of our lives here who have some awareness of what is happening in the south have, I believe, a strong moral obligation to share that information. We must definitely speak out for Goni's extradition which has now been formally requested. Thank you for your Blog.
Miguel, This was a good exposition. I disagree with several points you raise in the course of your argument but concur with the conclusion you reach. Not a bad effort.
@GS: Thanks. Out of intellectual curiosity, which points did you disagree w/?
Out of curiosity - who is the Obama adviser that's also Goni's lawyer?
The Obama advisor who is also reportedly one of Goni's lawyers is Greg Craig. He'll be White House counsel for Obama's administration.
Miguel, not that I'm blowing you off, but it's hard to be deliberate when I have to steal minutes here and there from work. So, to answer your questions, however inadequately, I disagree with the following assertions, which had I more time I would really enjoy explaining my point of view better and hashing it out with you:
In the meantime, they have simply contributed to cycles of violence in the Chapare & the erosion of America’s prestige in the region. Failing to prevent drugs from reaching the US, the insistence on continuing an aggressive, militarized policy has only damaged America’s image.
Above seems simplistic and lacking nuance. Too one-sided. Does not account for Bolivian factors that contribute to violence. Also, don't agree that this one issue has damanged America's image in the region, unless by "region" you mean "Chapare."
But USAID was a promising sign of America’s long-term commitment to the Bolivian people.
Nothing long-term about USAID. Particularly now that is part of DoS, as some development-types friends never tire of reminding me.
Certainly, the White House has overreacted to Evo’s government from day one. ... Through a number of mistakes, the Bush administration drove Evo ever closer into the arms of Hugo Chávez.
USG has played a surprisingly moderate hand in dealing with Evo's gov't. You really think Evo was not "ever closer" to Chavez?
Certainly, the US has not been (historically) a good friend to Bolivia. So one can sympathize w/ Evo’s recent behavior.
How so? What's your definition of not a good friend? If not a good friend, has the US been a "bad friend?" What's a "bad friend" in international politics? An enemy? This is squishy.
I would propose that one can sympathise with Evo if one accounts for his political upbringing, not so much due to historical relations with the US.
That said, I found your 3rd and 4th to last paragraphs absolutely spot on.
Again, sorry for being short.
G.
@GS: I think I agree w/ your first criticism. I gave up nuance for the sake of brevity, which was perhaps unfortunate. Clearly the DEA presence increased violence, but so did the organization of cocaleros in defense of illicit coca crops. I also agree w/ you on USAID, though I merely meant that USAID had a long track record of American cooperation w/ Bolivia.
Not sure I agree w/ you entirely on the third criticism. My argument at the White House over-reacting to Evo goes back to the treatment of Evo in the 2002 presidential contest. I also don't think Evo was much interested in giving Chavez so much political influence in his country until he needed some political cover (and petrodollars). I also think the US has made a number of "unfriendly" moves towards Bolivia, historically. But we're free to disagree, of course.
As always, thanks for your insightful comments.