|
Bolivia Remains a Powder Keg Following the Election of Morales
by Gerry Foley / February 2006 issue of Socialist Action
newspaper
The
election of Evo Morales to the presidency of Bolivia on Dec. 18 aroused a
flurry of disquiet in the international capitalist press. It was described
as a “new step to the left in Latin America,” or even a “new step toward
socialism.”
It
is true that Morales’ first moves after his victory included a visit to
Fidel Castro and an embrace of Venezuela’s president Hugo Chavez, the two
regional bogeymen of the U.S. government and press. Moreover, Morales’
victory came in the wake of two vast upsurges
that
went to the brink of insurrection and in which the leading mass organizations
in the country called for the formation of a revolutionary government based
on the mobilized working people.
Morales’
vote came predominately from the communities that played the leading role
in the upsurges. Obviously, these
voters hoped that the candidate they supported would strike blows against
the imperialist powers and corporations against which their rebellion had
been directed. In fact, the mobilizations were focused against the sell-out
of Bolivian natural
resources,
in particular oil and natural gas, to foreign capitalist trusts.
Morales
did make nationalistic statements after his victory, including a pledge to
end the subordination of the indigenous majority in Bolivia to the white minority.
The fact that he is the first Bolivian president of indigenous ancestry is
no small part of his radical image. However, the rise to high positions by
politicians of indigenous backgrounds is not so new or so rare in Latin America
as the capitalist press suggested. In itself, such changes in the color of
the
faces
of the leading politicians have never brought any substantial alteration in
the tradition pattern of racial domination.
While
Morales identified himself with the opposition to the imperialist offensive
(neoliberalism) in Latin America, he was also quick to reassure the
national and foreign capitalists. His trip to Cuba was followed quickly by
a tour of Europe, including a meeting with the Spanish president, Jose Luis
Rodriguez Zapatero, which had a special importance.
One
of the largest, if not the largest, petroleum trust operating in Bolivia is
the Spanish corporation Repsol, which absorbed the privatized Argentinian state
oil company YPF. Repsol by itself is estimated to control about a fourth of
Bolivia’s oil and natural gas resources. It is a company with a
particularly bad reputation. Its “downsizing” of the workforce in the Argentine
oil industry and its “upsizing” of the prices for petroleum products were
at the origin of the massive rebellion against neoliberal policies that led
ultimately to the flight of the Argentinian president in 2001.
The
Bolivian radical website Econoticias reported Jan. 4: “Morales said during
his meeting with the president of Spain, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, and
the managements of companies such as Repsol, Iberdrola, and others that
have investments in the country that
‘the
Bolivian government is going to exercise its right of ownership but this
does not mean
expropriating
or confiscating.’ His interlocutors indicated their satisfaction with his
promises.
“Morales’
promise is to carry out a symbolic nationalization, which amounts to
applying with minor adjustments the present hydrocarbon law [imposed by his
predecessor Carlos Mesa, who was forced to resign in June 2005 by a mass
rebellion], which retains the ownership of the hydrocarbons for the
Bolivian state while they remain in the ground or as they come to the surface.
Once
they come one meter above the ground, into the so-called mouth of the well,
all the hydrocarbons become the property of the transnationals that operate
in Bolivia, which will continue to be in charge of exploration, production,
sales, exports, and refining of the hydrocarbons.”
In
an article dated Jan. 26, the British Economist, one of the world’s
principal capitalist business publications, stressed the threat of
radicalism in the Morales regime, while at the same time noting his reassurances
to the capitalists: “He also called for private investment, for an
‘alliance’ against the drug trade with the United States, and hinted that
he might
support
an Americas free-trade accord if it helped small business.”
The
Economist article focused on some ministers in Morales’ cabinet with
radical backgrounds, such as the minister of hydrocarbons and water. For
some reason, it overlooked ministers as important as those holding the
portfolios of mining and defense, who are hardly radicals.
Morales’
appointment of Walter Villarroel as the minister of mining provoked outraged
protests from the workers in the industry. Econoticias reported: “The strongest
protest came from the Miners’ Federation, which organizes the wage workers
in the industry. It decreed a state of emergency and a mobilization opposing
the nomination. It accused Villarroel of
promoting
the destruction of the state mining company (COMIBOL) and privatizing one
of the world’s biggest iron deposits.
“Villarroel
is a former member of the right-wing UCS. … He is the president of the
Federation of Cooperative Miners [that is, miners who work as individual entrepreneurs],
an organization that supported the ex-president Carlos Mesa and today is
trying to cooperativize the ore deposits instead of supporting state
companies and nationalizing the centers that are in the hands of the big
mining companies.
“The
new minister, who gained office through an electoral agreement that his
sector signed with Morales, assured that during his term of office he would
give priority to giving out a license for exploitation of the huge iron
deposit at El Mutun, which is in the process of being handed over to the transnational
companies.”
Morales’
appointment of Walker San Miguel as minister of defense, encharged with
controlling the military that has repeatedly established right-wing
military dictatorships, immediately touched off a scandal, forcing the
president to publicly demand explanations
from
his appointee.
Agence
France-Presse reported Jan. 31: “Bolivian President Evo Morales today asked
his minister of defense, Walter San Miguel, to clear up a series of accusations
about his role in the privatization of the Bolivian state airline, the
Linea Lloyd Aereo Boliviano, during the government of Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada
between 1993 and 1997.”
Sanchez
de Lozada was forced to flee in 2003 by a mass uprising against his plans
to sell off Bolivian natural gas to foreign trusts. He took refuge in the United
States. The labor movement is demanding his extradiction and trial.
Even
Morales’ water minister, Abel Mamani, a leader of the Federation of Neighborhood
Councils in El Alto, was particularly decried by The Economist article. But
Econoticias reported
that
Mamani’s acceptance of the job was regarded as a betrayal by the working
people of El Alto who he is supposed to represent:
“One
of the appointments that drew the most criticism was that of the leader of
the Federacion de Juntas Vecinales of El Alto (Fejuve), Abel Mamani,
appointed minister of water. An El Alto council member, Roberto de la Cruz,
said that in naming him they had spared him from being thrown out of the
organization that led the popular uprising of 2003:
“‘Abel
Mamani should have asked permission from the neighborhood councils to take
the portfolio for water. But he didn’t, and there is discontent among the people
of El Alto because of this.’
“In
the same vein, Fejuve leader Jorge Chura said that Evo Morales had made a mistake
in appointing Mamani as minister of water. ‘Mamani is being very much questioned;
what is more, he has been disavowed by six districts. We are not against
having somebody from El
Alto
being named minister, but this appointment should have been discussed in an
expanded meeting of the councils. Mamani used Fejuve for his personal objectives.’”
In
fact, despite the fact that Fejuve formally took a position in support of
forming a revolutionary government based on the mass organizations, Mamani tried
to get a place on the slate of Morales’ party in the parliamentary
elections.
Other
ministers were rejected by various unions. The fact that The Economist
ignored Morales’ right-wing appointees and the rejection of them by the
mass organizations probably reflects the briefings the capitalist press is
getting from imperialist government officials.
And
this in turn probably reflects the pressures these governments are bringing
to bear on Morales and their lack of confidence that he can control the
mass movement in his country.
In
fact, following his election, the COB union federation announced that it
was “besieging” the new government, campaigning for it to meet demands for
a real nationalization of the country’s natural resources, a breakup of the
big landed estates, and an immediate increase in the minimum wage. On Jan.
27, Econoticias reported that the Morales government denied it had ever
promised an increase in the minimum wage but that there was documentary
evidence that his party had.
It
is clear that Morales is just another populist politician in a long Latin
American tradition. His objective is to keep the mass revolt against imperialist
and capitalist exploitation within the bounds of the existing economic and
parliamentary system. But he is facing a more dynamic and conscious mass
movement than similar populist leaders in the past.
Thus
Bolivia remains a powder keg, and the imperialists have good reason to be
worried.
Supporters
of the right of self-determination and the rights of labor have to remain
alert to oppose imperialist threats to Bolivia and attempts by the capitalist
press to project an image of the developments in the country designed to
justify imperialist pressures and even eventually intervention.
|
