What do USAID & the UN have in common? Apparently, they’re both financing anti-government activities in efforts to destabilize Evo’s government. Fidel Soruco, a MAS senator, accused the UN of fomenting the recent protests in Caranavi, which left two dead & scores injured.
Pagina Siete (which has no website) reports that the UN has decided to suspend activities in Bolivia (the UNDP is very active here). I haven’t seen that report in any other paper today, but La Razón reports two related items: 1) Bolivia’s government is preparing a law to regulate NGO activity & 2) Bolivia is continuing negotiations w/ the US to improve relations. It’s unclear how Soruco’s accusations against the UN (which also included accusations against USAID & a number of other aid organizations, including Save the Children) will help facilitate a rapprochement w/ the US.
The presence of NGOs in Bolivia (you can’t walk in Sopocachi/San Jorge half a block w/o passing some organization’s building) is complicated, of course. On the one hand, NGOs bring much-needed expertise & money for a wide variety of development projects. This is helpful, but it can also cause problems. The first, is that it retains a form of “aid dependence” that perpetuates the idea that Bolivians need “others” (Europeans) to help them away from “backwardness.” This isn’t the explicit intent of modern aid organizations, of course. But let’s be honest: It’s an implicit relationship based on past neocolonial patterns (think of NGO work as the secular, modern equivalent of mission work). The second problem is that because NGOs don’t work in all areas, there are clearly winners & losers. Say the Danish cooperation builds a drinking water facility in town X. This is great for the residents, who have access to clean water, which improves their health & well-being. But neighboring towns Y & Z are now comparatively “worse off” & resentful. Which can lead to inter-community tensions & conflicts. Of course, the same is true of government projects (this is exactly what happened in Caranavi, as protesters objected to the government’s decision to build a fruit processing plant in a neighboring town).
There’s no easy solution to this problem. And perhaps its an unavoidable one. The government has announced plans to craft laws that would sanction NGOs if they foment division or conflict. This would include raising “unrealistic” expectations. Of course, the government will decide what are “realistic” expectations. But NGOs are, by nature, in the business of raising expectations, whether it’s demands for clean water, education, human rights, gender equity, etc. So this will likely be a political move to sanction NGOs that support communities that aren’t aligned w/ the government, and steer NGO agencies to government-friendly communities. Which, ironically, would similarly politicize development & create divisions.
Miguel,,,
I was waiting after ‘on the one hand’, for a balanced description of ‘on the other hand’—but unfortunately I never found it. Allow me to help:
“On the other hand, the purposes of the USG-supported NGOs are rarely to benefit the recipient nation as much as the donor nation—whether by political or economic means—and some NGOs have proven to be de-stabilizing not only in Bolivia, but many other nations as well”. Or something similar to that—you know—sort of an attempt at balancing. (Remember when the US-SD/Embassy tried recruiting PC volunteers to spy on Bolivians for them? And the 1000 undeclared automatic weapons found when the DEA was forced to leave them on the way out? And the secret meetings with MAS opposition and with people later linked to support of insurrection in Pando and SC???) There are NGOs and pseudo-NGOs—government workings in disguise. Having said that, there are NGOs that do help in Bolivia—for example Rotary International—that does nothing but foster international understandings and brotherhood; or the many medical volunteers treating Bolivians for free—not only from the US, but from Cuba especially. Some do help.
In the last two sentences, with no citations for support, you speculate that the laws yet-to-be-written (!) would be used to the benefit of MAS as opposed to all Bolivia.
What's up with that for a conclusion?
Do you have reasons—other than the actions of previous administrations--to back up your concerns?
Why wouldn't it be equally plausible for MAS to expand their support to areas not yet firmly behind them, to create even more of a widespread mandate, and to prevent precisely that which concerns you?
Haven't elections proved that MAS is generally increasing their national (EVO/MAS) support throughout all of the states?
And that MAS opposition is alive in both the left and right regionally and locally?
What is the intent of your claims, sir?
Why the seemingly condescendingly-critical view?
To stir up trouble, or (hopefully) to prescriptively/warningly prevent it?
locoto
There's a lot to respond to. First, let me acknowledge what I think is obvious: NGOs that are funded by governments (any governments, including the US) have as one of their principle goals the advancing of their state's interests. I think this should be obvious & therefore doesn't need constant restating.
Beyond that there are some issues to clear up. The US didn't deliberately try to recruit Peace Corps volunteers to spy for it. This was an error (a gross one, clearly!) in their orientation that was corrected on the spot when a PC volunteer pointed that out to the briefer. The issue was blown out of proportion (in my opinion) by a Fulbright scholar. Thanks to him, the PC & student Fulbright program are now ended in Bolivia.
But I'm not sure I understand the rest of your objections. ANY development policy (whether from an NGO or a government) creates winners & losers. I think that was my "balanced" part. And, if anything, I was pointing out that NGOs shouldn't be viewed romantically. But you have to know that ANY politician/government builds projects w/ electoral considerations in mind. In the US we call it pork.
No, I'm not trying to stir up trouble. But I find it interesting that you seem to miss the gist of my joke: In at least one MAS senator's mind, USAID & the UNITED NATIONS are interchangeable as entities of empire. Surely there's some irony in that!