Two days ago @arpiel posted a link to an interesting (and provocative) piece of independent journalism about USAID’s links to Bolivia’s anti-Evo opposition.
No doubt the US government uses USAID to pursue various strategic goals (it is, after all, an organ of the State Department). Just as other governments (Russia, Venezuela, the EU & its member countries individually, Saudi Arabia, Japan, etc.) offer assistance (as is every country’s prerogative) to pursue their strategic goals. USAID is not the only state-sponsored/affiliated NGO agency operating in Bolivia.
But the frequent criticisms of the USAID programs on decentralization & strengthening political parties (two programs USAID has significant investments in since the early 1990s) often come under somewhat unfair criticism. As the above link does, these are often meant to draw the (conspiratorial) link between USAID & “secessionist” groups, then jumping to imply that the US is plotting to overthrow Evo’s government. While I’ve no doubt that both the Bush & Obama administrations would be happy to see Evo go, this doesn’t automatically mean that the US is actively working to that goal.
(Please note: I’m not denying that the US could be working towards such ends. Certainly, the history of US “intervention” in Latin America gives many reasons to consider that possibility. But the evidence unearthed so far doesn’t prove such a conspiracy actually exists.)
What is missing in these discussions is a great deal of context. Yes, USAID has given funds to local NGOs & civil society organizations since 2005 (the year Evo was elected). And, yes, many of these groups either have links to (or themselves are openly) anti-Evo sympathizers. But three key questions should be asked in these reports, to fill in the gaps. Doing so would contribute to the evidence against USAID—depending on the answers.
First, one should differentiate between pro-autonomy groups and “secessionist” groups. Not all groups seeking autonomy are secessionists. After all, MAS itself has endorsed autonomy for indigenous communities. There is too frequently a tendency to brand all those who favor some flavor of political devolution of power as secessionists, which is grossly unfair. It also weakens efforts at political decentralization, which only strengthens the ability of political parties and/or powerful individuals to justify the continued (or increasing) centralization of power.
But this is a qualitative question. The next to are purely empirical questions, which only require a bit more research.
Have USAID’s programs to support for decentralization and strengthening political parties & civil society changed since 2005? For example: Is more money being spent on such programs today than in the 1990s (when MAS was not in power, but when cocaleros & other MAS constituents actually benefited from USAID programs to strengthen municipal governments & indigenous autonomy)? Is such money being spent differently (favoring certain groups/regions more than others)? These kinds of questions are important. If, on the other hand USAID programs are little different from what they were in the 1990s—or if they have declined—this might suggest a very different kind of conclusion.
How do USAID programs compare to similar programs from other (non-US) NGOs? For example: Are USAID decentralization programs on par w/ similar programs, such as Germany’s FES? Are USAID political party strengthening programs on par w/ similar programs, such as Sweden’s IDEA (which is hosting a seminar in Santa Cruz this weekend)? If the USAID programs are on par w/ such other programs, this would suggest that the US is pursuing a broad multilateral strategic goal shared by other OECD countries. One might not like such programs, of course, but then the guilt is shared by a broader range of countries. (Frankly, from my experience, no NGO has spent more on decentralization than Germany’s FES, which is an organ of the Social Democratic Party.) On other hand, if USAID efforts have increased more quickly than other similar programs or are targeted differently, this might support the “conspiratorial” claims. But what if USAID’s efforts are dwarfed by those of FES, GTZ, and other organizations?
My point here is not to give a broad defense of USAID. I’m not entirely familiar w/ its programs (most of my work in Bolivia has been through contacts at FES). But I have met some of its decentralization researchers in the late 1990s (some of whom, btw, are now MAS supporters) & they seemed little different from the folks at FES-ILDIS (in fact, many later moved to FES-ILDIS).
I only want to underscore that these kinds of claims against USAID are problematic. First, because they seem based on the implicit assumption that the US is interfering negatively in Bolivia and that any evidence linking US agencies w/ Bolivia’s opposition is proof of such negative interference. That kind of argumentation—devoid of any supporting context—crosses the line into tautology. Similarly, these kinds of arguments also tend to over-fixate on the US (ironically, they are US-centric!). As if the US where the only country involved in Bolivia (or other countries) or the only country that might have an agenda. It’s important to remember that the US gives less economic assistance (such as through USAID) than almost every other OECD country (when looking at per capita expenditures). The influence of an American NGO on Bolivian politics is minimal, when compared to the influence of German, Japanese, Spanish, and other OECD countries.
Knowing where USAID stands in relation to the vast network of NGOs in Bolivia would help provide a clearer picture. Particularly in the highly globalized reality of international NGO proliferation.
-----
CORRECTION: I accidentally implied that USAID is an NGO (non-governmental organization). It is not. Thanks to Ivan (see first comment below) for making sure that was clear. USAID is a federal organization (as I also mentioned, attached to the US State Department), not a non-governmental organization.
Some corrections,
USAID is a US federal government organization, not an NGO.
USAID may overall invest in Bolivia less than other cooperating organizations, but is the organization that proportionately expends the most in private groups and regional governments.
Additionally, other governments mainly support Bolivia through bilaterally expended aid in the framework of the National Development Plan.
But USAID and the US embassy devotes almost 70% of its budget to discretionary and unilateral aid.
Good points, Ivan. Yes, USAID is not an NGO (I apologize for implying it was). But it's exactly that kind of context that is lacking in the article I linked to. USAID is not like FES-ILDIS (which I think I clearly stated). But to really damn USAID such a comparison is necessary.
Dear Miguel,,,
Really Miguel; you don't have to be either a denier of, or an apologist for US foreign policy as it relates to Bolivia.
Or perhaps, given your employment, maybe you do....??
After awhile, given the known factual history of the US relating to the Monroe Doctrine and nearly every president's offensive wet dream since, it is not necessary to know all of the facts and all of the players and who did what when, to know very precisely what is going on. Deny it or not, it is the attempted expansion of US empire by every means available, legal or not.
Current US wars on Iraq, Afghanistan and now Pakistan should be ample proof--we are no longer even attempting to hide our offenses behind any charade or cloak of legitimacy. And lest one concludes this is a partisan rant, Obama is unfortunately proving to be little different from Bush in anything but calming rhetoric and minor social tweaking.
Just one small example--when the US Ambassador to Bolivia was charged with meeting secretly with secessionist and/or traitorous leaders in Santa Cruz--was it admitted to or did the US bald-faced lie about it? You know the answer--the US lied that the meeting ever took place, that is until photos surfaced proving that it did. That is only one example of many that I know of--and I'd bet you know of a few, too.
What I'd like to know is--how much proof do you need, to know as I and much of the world knows, that the only thing the US wants in Bolivia is the control it once had there before President Morales was elected into office?
Regards,,,John
@Locojhon: I think the kind of evidence I would like to see was clearly spelled out in the post. Ivan's comment went in that direction, contributing to the legitimate evidence (keep in mind that "evidence" and "claim" mean and are different things altogether) I think is needed to go beyond conspiratorial claims (which actually make such claims less credible).
Miguel,
I see the problem as one of transparency. The main problem the U.S. has in Latin America is that, because there has been so little honesty, there is little trust. USAID has done things it says it hasn't in Bolivia and other countries. I'm not saying there is a conspiracy, but US foreign policy throughout the world has been at least disingenuous and at most intentionally destabilizing.
One other point: my wife received a request from one of the NGO's that we've donated money through in the past that included an offer that USAID would multiply the donation 4 fold. Because of the lack on transparency and honesty on the part of USAID, I didn't feel that ethically I could donate to the program. It's not an issue of conspiracy. It's an issue of trust. USAID and other State Department programs haven't earned that trust in the developing world.
@Mike: Let me see if I understand this: You didn't give money to an NGO you trust & believe in simply because USAID would increase your donation 4x. I'm sorry, but that seems rather odd. I'm glad it satisfied your personal ethics. But what about the people that NGO helped? Did satisfying your ethics feed/clothe/employ them?
Look, I completely agree that US foreign policy in Latin America has been (w/ rare exceptions) a dismal disappointment (and at times much worse). And I agree that more transparency would be good (though this is a charge that should be leveled at all governments equally).
But I'd be cautious about USAID. As far as I've known, you can download country reports (and budgets) from the website (http://bolivia.usaid.gov). So they may not trumpet all of what they do all the time, but it's not like one really need a freedom of information act to get such info.
I also object to a blanket accusation against all USAID programs just because they are funded by the US. Some of the programs are essential to the lives of many people in Bolivia (and other developing countries). Look, I dislike Bill Gates immensely & believe Microsoft is an evil empire. But I wouldn't turn down his money for malaria relief in Africa just because of the source.
How is the US to improve its image abroad w/o giving aid & assistance to developing countries? Instead of burning USAID just for being USAID, why not push it to be better?
mcentellas, at your peril, you've thrown yourselves to the leftist wolves with your mostly impartial article. For that, you should be commended (your impartiality, not that you're listed as a dish).
PS What's up with the Bill Gates hatred? I think he's one of the great heroes of our time. Give him the Nobel Peace prize!
Governmental foreign aid is so different from private foundation aid (like the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation) I'm kind of surprised you used that analogy. Gates' "personal" interest in Africa is very limited (although maybe he hopes more will buy his Microsoft software because he donates money to malaria research and prevention). "National" interest in the developed world is a whole different ball game and the strings that are attached to, and the force that is behind, governmental aid cannot be disregarded.
It seems that a more appropriate analogy would be for a university to be offered funding if they are willing to promote a certain ideology. The money will only continue to flow if the desired end is pursued. I don't see how you think that's okay, especially when sovereignty and self-determination are at stake. It is the wrong means to accomplish the end of growth, freedom and prosperity.
@Mike: The point of my Gates analogy was that I thought it rather callous to stop donating to an org just because someone else I didn't like did. Using guilt by association to association to assuage one's guilt w/o thinking of real consequences to those in need is callous.
As for the analogy angle: a few problems. A better analogy might be ROTC. Public universities are required to have ROTC. But that doesn't mean they're required to endorse a specific ideology (though Chomsky might say otherwise). But the idea that state's shouldn't give aid because it would violate sovereignt is odd.
USAID doesn't give money to governments, but to locakl NGOs. We may disagree w/ the ulterior motives of USAID. But it's not explicitly a violation of sovereignty to give such funds. If so, then Save Darfur is violating Sudan's sovereignty.
"If so, then Save Darfur is violating Sudan's sovereignty."
I understand where you are coming from, that to not assist a foreign people is callous, and I agree. I believe that I can find a better way to give and assist without increasing the influence of a foreign power in a developing country.
However, I don't think you are understanding my point. As long as that money is channelled through a governmental agency, it is loaded with agenda and stipulations which violate dignity and sovereignty.
The assistance is much better and more free with respect to the receiving people's sovereignty if it is done without the involvement of another state. Maybe we're just talking past each other on this. I just think that state aid is the wrong way to development, just as is IMF and World Bank aid. Easterly's article in Foreign Policy a couple of years ago was excellent.
@Mike: We may have to agree to disagree on this one. I understand your point, I think, but I'm more cautious about sweeping condemnations. Yes, state funds often come w/ strings attached. But I'm not convinced they alwats do or that such strings are always bad (e.g. we will give food to your village but you must give equally to all members of village). I also caution against expecting that all aid should come from individuals (as if they don't have agendas!).
Miguel,,,
I'm sorry--but your needing some kind of take-it-to-the-judge type proof--seems something on the order of wanting proof of gravity, or that the sun is hot or (relating to Catholic history)--that the earth is round. This is not to state that USAID and other US government-funded/controlled entities don't manage to do some 'good' with their funds. They have to, if only to maintain the illusion among good-hearted US taxpayers, that their dollars are going toward doing 'good', as opposed to merely increasing the reach of US empire.
You ironically state that "what is missing in these discussions is a great deal of context"--in my view, the same context you seem unable to recognize as being one and the same as US history--even while you state that the US has done dastardly deeds in the past—a point at which we both agree.
I believe I understand the context of USAID as it relates not only to Bolivia, but to the rest of the Americas south of the border (fence), and also much of the rest of the world. It is the reason why the USA has something in the neighborhood of 700 military installations on other peoples' soil throughout the world. A good question to discuss would be how many Caribbean, Central and South American nations has the US NOT interfered with? My goodness; even tiny Grenada’s governance was unilaterally changed by the US, yet you seem to find it difficult to imagine that the USA would try to topple Morales. In the article “USAID in Bolivia and Venezuela:the Silent Subversion” by Eva Golinger there are some of the figures you were wondering about, not only concerning Bolivia, but Venezuela as well, here: http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/2600
The context you claim is necessary for understanding is called US history, and US interference (if not outright control) has been the hallmark of US policy toward most other nations (especially those to the south) right from the get-go, and you’d have to be drugged not to be aware of it. Does Arbenz (the first of many SA “CIA’d leaders”) ring a bell? Have you read Perkins’ account of how it works in “Economic Hit Man”?
Now please allow me to address your ‘smokescreen-like ‘questions”. First off, you suggest confusion between secessionist and autonomist movements, and I have to admit there is a difference between them--meant to confuse—that you add to by using the term “political devolution” when traitorous divisiveness would be more accurate. You then link the powers wanting Bolivia to remain united with a “continued (or increasing) centralization of power”—a scare tactic of impending tyranny if ever there was one.
Secondly, as if transparency was part of the CIA modus operandi, you suggest we follow the money to find true US purposes in dispensing it. Good luck with that, Miguel. It would be as difficult as finding a comprehensive list of professors being paid by the CIA or other agencies, even after proof that such entanglements have existed. For example, going back to the proven Plame affair, please tell us how you could account for her activities, with her real employment hidden behind the skirts of Brewster Jennings, would you please?
The third smoke screen is when you suggest the actions of the US government/CIA be compared to other OECD nations’ actions before claiming any subversive intent, when in fact, the leaders’ efforts of both are in many ways the same—the establishment or maintenance of free-market domination of the powerful over the weak. It is akin to trying to judge the differences between premium brands of vanilla ice cream, then claiming that they are fundamentally different (as opposed to marginally different). It is a classic rhetorical tactic, and suggests naïve duplicity if not outright academic dishonesty.
Is any of the above ‘indisputable proof’ that the USA is trying to destroy the present-day government of Evo Morales? Probably not--but when all of the information is taken as a whole, one would have to be totally blind to the realities of the US government not to believe that the US government is doing everything it can to destroy Morales’ governance so that he can be replaced with a (US-asylum protected) puppet like Goni, or many of his predecessors.
Meanwhile, just consider the outrage, if Morales were to make any similar efforts to similarly divide the republic of the USA.
I respectfully await your reply.
Regards,,,John
@Locojohn: First, I'm going to ignore most of the rant-style part of your comments which suggest that I'm unfamiliar w/ Latin America's political history (funny, since I teach that at the university level) or US foreign relations (ditto). I'm also going to avoid pointing out the tortured logic used.
Instead, I want to comment on your dismissal of terms that are widely used in political science & cary specific meaning. One such term is devolution. Devolution (or "state devolution") is merely the process by which central governments hand over authority to local governments. In the US, we have significant state devolution (any US citizen probably responsive to a number of autonomous bodies: a town/village/city council, a county board, a local school board, a state government, and a federal government, but there may be many, many more). But some countries are highly centralized. One such case is Bolivia.
Let me provide some context. Prior to 1994, Bolivians went to the polls once every four years. And when they did, they voted for president. That was it. The only name that appeared on the ballot was the name of each party's presidential candidate (and v.p. running mate). There were no votes for legislators. And there were no votes for *any* local authorities.
Prior to 1994, when the Law of Popular Participation (LPP) was passed (during Goni's first term, and w/ the support of many state/non-state organizations, such as USAID), Bolivians had little say in their day-to-day politics. Mayors were elected only in the department capitals (so the vast majority or rural, poor, and indigenous Bolivians had no "local" government), but these municipal governments had little more than ceremonial powers.
The LPP changed that, along w/ reforms to the electoral system. Since 1994, Bolivians have been able to vote in more than 300 (the number is now 327) municipal council elections. These municipalities now also have real powers (20% of the national budget is pre-destined to the municipalities on a per capita basis). Since 1995 (the year of the first municipal elections), must rural municipalities have been controlled by indigenous/leftist parties. MAS first rose as a movement (same w/ MIP) because of this. MAS gained political experience through winning control of municipal governments throughout the Chapare (and USAID was one of many state/non-state organizations supporting these municipalities w/ technical expertise, seminars, etc.).
Along w/ municipal elections, the reforms also introduced a new German-style electoral system (the influence of ILDIS, which hosted a number of seminars on the subject). Since 1997 (the next election year), Bolivians could now vote for president, but also for a local district representative to the lower house elected directly from a constituency.
But the country remained remarkably centralized. All prefects (the equivalent of the governor of a US state) were appointed by the president. Since prefects were in charge of coordinating development projects, this constrained what many municipalities could do. Only in 2005 were Bolivians for the first time allowed to directly elect their prefects. Of course, this is not enough. A prefect w/o a legislative body to answer to is little more than an elected tyrant. So the next phase (introduced in the 2009 constitution) is for each department to also elect its own legislature. In essence, as I've argued before, Bolivia is slowly becoming a federacy (like the UK & Spain), and perhaps even a federal state (like Germany, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina).
Additionally, the new 2009 constitution grants political/economic/cultural autonomy to indigenous communities throughout Bolivia, including Afro-Bolivians. Moreover, local regions *within* departments now also have the ability to seek autonomy from departments (there will be such an election for the Chaco regions of Tarija coming up soon).
The point of this brief history lesson is that Bolivia has historically been a highly centralized state, w/ almost all power resting in the capital (first Sucre, then La Paz), and in which voters had little ability to "fine tune" their preferences in the voting booth or to have a chance to elect local leaders. This has been changing since 1994. While there are some who may speak of secession, most Bolivians who favor some form(s) of regional/local autonomy (and this includes many indigenous leaders, including Evo in his 2005 campaign!) are speaking instead of looking for ways to break the hierarchical control of a centralized, elite-dominated state apparatus to give more control to local people in their own communities.
And that, my friend, is state devolution. If you want to look it up at Wikipedia (which includes a number of examples), here is the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devolution
Here is a much longer article on decentralization:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralisation
Sorry, Miguel, to keep this going. Just one more comment on my end: The difference between the agendas and stipulations of state and non-state actors is the force and weaponry behind the state agendas. My small NGO has its agenda, but there is no force. It is freely given without any thing expected in return.
Additionally, if we look at the war on terrorism, this battle will not be won by nation-state intervention. The situation will only be remedied by individuals like Greg Mortenson and groups like CAI and the people in Muslim countries that are affected, directly and indirectly, by the freely-given, non-force backed motives of these and similar groups and individuals.
@Mike: I empathize w/ your position. But I think you don't give enough credit to how states continue to be relevant & useful forces for good. I also think you give too much credit to non-state actors. Even ignoring the fact that non-state military forces (like Blackwater) play a role, the money strings from non-state actors can be just as strong. And, unlike democratic states, there is no requirement for their own transparency.
But even you NGO (even not knowing what it is) doesn't give money freely. Right? There are conditions to qualify. There are conditions that might end aid. Those conditions will influence the behavior of recipients. But if they're unhappy, they may have few legal recourses. If we're unhappy w/ how states carry out their business, we can hold them accountable. Who holds NGOs accountable? There is a growing academic literature (especially on sociology & anthropology) about the power dynamics of NGOs & how they can have negative consequences, particularly because they are private & often lack the kind of accountability & oversight that comes w/ state organizations.
Part of the problem could be ideological. USAID democratization support hinges on, obviously, the US view of democratization--which clashes with Evo’s and Hugo’s view of democratization. Support to a multi-party processes is antagonistic to an ideology that rejects parties in favor of mass movements. Support to opposition makes sense in the liberal democratic context that relies on a two party or multiparty system with independent judiciary, but in a regionally and ethnically charged and fractured environment like Bolivia’s, with a head of state that has a skewed view of the world, and historical baggage of US intervention, it is having bad unintended consequences (the conspiracies that this post questions).
If Greg Mortenson is the key to the war on terror, we might as well all start learning Arabic. The calliphate is upon us.
Our small NGO doesn't give money, we build medical and educational infrastructure, assisted by municipal governmental employees in identifying needs and opportunities, mostly in Bolivia.
I agree that it is difficult to check non-governmental entities. But the point is (and Blackwater is a red herring here) that without being an extension of the state (which is what Blackwater essentially has been) these NGOs have no force backing them. If an NGO takes funding from the state and serves as an extension of that state, then it no longer operates free of force and exercises undue influence and control (however soft that influence and control may be) on the recipients of the aid.
And I don't know all the details of state-based aid, but how is USAID checked? Who assures that it is doing what it says it is doing? If the positive aspect of it being a state-based aid agency is that it is more transparent, why is it not? Why is there always a question of its intentions and operations? Where is the transparency?
I'm not arguing. I truly want to know how this works to prevent abuses and covert uses of this and other State Department appendages, because I see the great potential for good of these agencies, it's just that their history is so fraught with shady operations, I have a difficult time trusting their stated goals.
@GS: I think you're right. Those who sneer at liberalism/pluralism & prefer absolute majoritarianism (whether in Rousseauian, Leninist, or mere populist expressions) will no doubt dismiss all such efforts to foster multiparty democracy around the world (especially when it comes from the US, if the critic is pre-disposed to anti-Americanism as a foundational principle).
@Mike W: I'm not sure Blackwater is a red herring. Not only is Blackwater not an agency of the US (though the US government does sometimes contract them), it is not unusual. Multinational corporations frequently hire out their own security personnel (from Blackwater or other similar companies), who are sometimes better armed/trained than the army/police of the countries where the corporate assets are located. Often, the company is rich enough to simply hire the local police/army directly. I appreciate your understanding that at heart all states are based on force (as Max Weber pointed out long ago). But it's also obvious that states have a monopoly on *legitimate* force; in the absence of strong states, that kind of force monopoly falls to the strongest non-state actor in the room. Look at Africa. If weak states & NGO proliferation were a solution to problems, Africa should be a developmental paradise. But NGOs that don't have states (whether unilaterally, bilaterally, or multilaterally) supporting them by providing a security blanket get little done. It's nice to send food to starving people in Sudan. But w/o a state to enforce that the food gets to where it should, it's just wasted effort (though we might feel self-gratifyingly good about doing our bit to help & not getting our own hands dirty in the process).
My experience has been that most people who despise USAID will never be satisfied by any level of transparency. They will always assume that any transparently provided information is false, or a ruse, or a cover for something more sinister. W/ people who have already made up their mind & for whom no refutational evidence could ever exist, there is really no solution. USAID is a branch of the US government. But not everything the US government does is "bad" (I'm not going to move to Idaho & start my own survivalist camp). And not everything USAID does is for "sinister" motives. Often, like w/ the charity of corporations, it is meant to build goodwill about the donor (in this case, the US government). But I doubt a poor family in Bolivia cares whether their local school was built by a church organization (historically agents of imperialism), a corporation, or USAID. I think they'd like to see their school built. I've seen USAID build lots of schools & hand them over to municipal authorities. I've *never* seen USAID interfere in curriculum or the inner workings of the school. But for many, just the fact that USAID built it is bad. For such people, they'd rather see a school *NOT* built, than have to share the credit w/ the US government.
Here's an earlier post on the USAID accusations:
http://www.mcentellas.com/archives/2007/08/bolivian_govt_attacks_usaid.html
Many of the comments are in Spanish, including from some of the people specifically named (and listed) by the government.
...but how is USAID checked? Who assures that it is doing what it says it is doing?
Congress--specifically the foreign affairs committees, more specifically Sen. John Kerry and Rep. Howard Berman--has oversight of USAID and US foreign operations (non-military, non-intelligence).
If the positive aspect of it being a state-based aid agency is that it is more transparent, why is it not?....where is the transparency?
Budgets are released to the public on a yearly basis. Hearings to debate those budgets and programs are open to the public and often televised (thanks, C-Span). Oversight hearings are open to the public and often televised (thanks again, C-Span). All sorts of congressional reports and congressionally mandated assessments are regularly released. USAID web site publishes very detailed information on all their programs in
any given country. USAID web site publishes detailed information of its implementing partners and the work they are doing. Seems pretty darn transparent to me.
Why is there always a question of its intentions and operations?
To be flip (but honest): general defecit in understanding, if not common sense and critical thinking. People who continuously question USAID intentions have little clue about how that agency works.
To be fair: I heard say by people I trust to know these things that back in the day (1960s-early '70s) USAID was complicit in many questionable actions such as direct support for/cover to military/intelligence operations. This resulted in blowback (due to Congressional oversight) that hurt the agency (it is now nothing but a glorified contracts shop). Currently there are significant firewalls preventing a recurrence (bureaucratic culture being a major one).
Also, I am told that other countries, such as France, are supposedly much less scroupulous about how they use their aid agencies and NGOs. This tarnishes the whole enterprise.
Private aid/charity is much more effective and desirable than state aid. My 2 bolivan cents.
I'd like to re-emphasize that USAID is a multi-faceted organization. While its decentralization and democratization programs may be aiding opposition groups, its health and education units are doing some important work that likely would not get done without US funding. I'm not fond of (some of) USAID's political agenda but those who want to expell ALL of USAID would be throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Thanks, Brooke. That was more or less part of my point. Also, it seems that USAID (and US policy more generally) is often singled out for criticisms that aren't leveled at that of other countries. For example, few critics of USAID's lack of "transparency" level the same criticisms as Hugo Chavez's checkbook diplomacy in the region.
@Miguel,,,
First off, let me acknowledge that my postings above are not the best examples of my writing, as I expect some of the above are not yours, either.
Thanks for devoting your response to my multi-faceted critique of June 4th (or rant--no offense) almost entirely to a history lesson on 'state devolution' and why it was not "traitorous divisiveness" as I claimed it was. I did not deny that "state devolution" exists--just that it was a convenient excuse for--not the reason for--the divisiveness in Bolivia--and therefore a convenient red-herring.
Another good rhetorical tactic is to ignore that which you can not defend--and you obviously know that lesson well. As such, instead of commenting on the wished-for context I provided you with (in my rant)--you suggest I need a logic lesson. I sincerely invite you to provide it. As a starter in the process of doing so, please explain why USAID officials lied about their activities in Bolivia if those actions were above-board, transparent and honorable. My tortured logic tells me liars lie to hide truths, but then again perhaps that is just my strange sense of logic again. Silly me….
While you are at it (knowing I understand the difference between USAID and DEA as well as the sameness too) please explain why the DEA force numbering less than 50, had possession of (and left to/in Bolivia) some 1000 automatic weapons and other tools of war in non-DEA-titled/owned buildings--and all of it unreported to Bolivian authorities. Color me a skeptic, but I sense some secretive devolution being promoted USA-style.
Do you think there is not coordination between the various USG-funded entities, and that somehow most of them are not parts of some kind of a comprehensive plan?
Do you think it a coincidence that virtually all left-leaning/socialist Western Hemispheric nations have been subjected to US destructive efforts, and that (as far as I can tell) each one that was not preceded by an assassination was preceded by US-inspired divisiveness? If so, please name me just one.
Does your vast knowledge of Bolivian history include US involvement in determining Bolivia's leadership, including getting in power those educated at the SOA/WHINSEC? I reiterate that ignoring the context in which USAID operated not only in Bolivia but in many other nations, also ignores the pattern of US control/domination. USAID is only one of many US-funded entities that have been implicated if not proven in dividing other nations. Deny it at the risk of your diminishing credibility.
Lastly, regarding your thinly-veiled conspiracy-theorist jibe earlier in the thread: Please know that I am a self-described conspiracy realist--one who knows conspiracies have been proved and do exist, and believes that those who do not believe in conspiracies should not call themselves historians. The invitation for you to disabuse me of my tortured logic still stands.
Regards,,,John
@Locojohn: Just some very brief answers/comments because of time constraints:
1) USAID is not DEA. Don't confuse agencies. They rarely cooperate. If anything, government bureaucracy is such a confused tangled mess that most agencies don't know what each other are doing at any given time.
2) The US government is neither ominipotent nor omniscient. If anything, it's typically a bungling mess, particularly when it comes to foreign policy.
3) Using a claim as proof for another claim is the definition of faulty reasoning. You can't prove a vast US conspiracy by pointing to your belief that there is a vast US conspiracy. If you did so, then every event would constitute evidence.
4) Connecting dots can be very useful for collecting evidence. But sometimes dots are just dots, and connecting them is an exercise in creative expression.
One can easily point to US toppling of left leaning governments. But also to support of several (e.g. Lula, Bachelet, Lagos, Vasquez -- and that's just in South America!). And most of the worst offenses happened before the 1990s. Pointing to such a history of abuses in the past is not by itself proof of abuses in the present/future.
Look, if you are starting from the position that one *must* agree w/ your claims or risk "losing credibility" then you are arguing from a position in which you are so self-certain of your beliefs that no evidence will convince you otherwise. Everything is wrapped in a web of conspiracies. If so, then we are at an impasse & continued discourse is impossible. I'm not defending USAID en toto, but neither am I going to agree that the USAID (or even the US in general) never does anything good. The world is more nuanced, and arguments should be open to some flexibility. If not, then I suggest you vent your frustrations at America's "evil empire" elsewhere. I've no influence on US policy, so bludgeoning me w/ your conspiracy stick is fruitless.
Missing you at LASA... I was looking forward to your session of blogging and inevitable complaints about people like me :) I imagine you had too many things going on to make it. Maybe next year.
Missing you at LASA... I was looking forward to your session on blogging and inevitable complaints about people like me :) I imagine you had too many things going on to make it. Maybe next year.