Earlier I commented on the politics of development aid & suggested that Bolivia’s government is politicizing development aid. So far, the government is heavily attacking both USAID & the UN (particularly the various UNDP programs in the country), accusing them of fomenting anti-government activity. Today, that line of attack continues, but is taking interesting twists that international environmental & indigenous rights activists should take note.
Bolivia’s largest Andean indigenous organizations, CONAMAQ, is upset that Evo has instructed them that consulting indigenous communities isn’t possible when it comes to certain policies (primarily natural resource extraction) because it hinders government economic development plans. In other words, indigenous communities should not expect to participate in policies that deal w/ natural resource extraction. Despite the fact that the new 2009 constitution explicitly states that local/indigenous communities must be consulted on government policy that directly affects them.
The head of Bolivia’s national hydrocarbons company (YPFB) complained that indigenous communities were “obstacles” to exploration, drilling, and extraction projects—thus hindering foreign investment (for all the “nationalization” fanfare Bolivia’s oil companies are still 50/50 partnerships w/ foreign investors). So, the new hydrocarbons law will be modified to exclude indigenous community participation in future development projects. Two other indigenous organizations in the Amazon (TIPNIS & CIDOB) objected to government projects to build highways & oil/gas exploration in two national forests: Isiboro Sécure & Madidi.
Earlier this year, during the much-celebrated climate conference hosted by Evo in Cochabamba, such groups were excluded from the events & organized their own “Mesa 18” panel. Table 18 made the government “uncomfortable” & was not part of the official conference program (full disclosure: some of my relatives work for an environmentalist NGO that helped organize that panel).Table 18 criticized the environmental & indigenous rights record of ongoing natural resource extraction in Bolivia. Evo sought to present his government as environmentally friendly & pro-indigenous while also limiting the discussion to the ills of global capitalism run amok (as if non-capitalist countries had pristine ecological or indigenous rights records).
As evidence that USAID foments anti-government activity, government officials point to recent activity by FOBOMADE (an environmentalist group from the Amazonic regions of La Paz). USAID had development programs in the region, which included poverty reduction, health, and environmental protection. Recently, indigenous communities in the region objected to oil exploration plans, claiming that such activity destroyed the natural habitat, on which they were dependent. This was “proof” (according to the government) that USAID was infiltrating indigenous communities & encouraging them to oppose Evo.
But there’s a significant problem w/ these kinds of accusations. It implies indigenous communities and/or environmentalists wouldn’t object to oil exploration in natural parks & similar areas otherwise. In other words, if it wasn’t for American intervention, indigenous communities would welcome oil exploration in their territories & willingly sacrifice their lands & way of life for Bolivia’s revolution.
One wonders why Alán García (president of Peru) hasn’t thought of this. Of course! Why not blame the Bagua conflict on pesky NGOs that foment environmentalism & indigenous rights. Wait, isn’t that exactly what he did?
This kind of confrontation strips Bolivia’s government of a façade: How can the government claim to be defending indigenous rights when it frequently attacks indigenous organizations for daring to suggest that the government’s economic development plans go against their constitutionally recognized rights to their land? Where is Evo’s passionate defense of the Pachamama against oil drilling platforms? Similarly, how can a government claim to be on the vanguard of a global ecological movement when it dismisses environmentalists concerns about the negative consequences of natural resource extractions? Let’s face the reality: How is this an alternative to the kind of neocolonial, capitalist, dependent development of before?
But, back to the original point: The lesson seems clear: If you object to government policies, you will be branded as an agent of foreign interests. Therefore, if you want to accept NGO development aid, you should not object to government policies. How is that not politicizing development aid?
Leave a comment