|
Bolivia, Cuba and
Venezuela deal blow to U.S. imperialism
by Gerry Foley / May 2006 issue of Socialist Action newspaper
Coinciding with May Day, the
government of Evo Morales in Bolivia, who was elected in January on a the
back of a wave of radicalization, issued a decree calling for a state
takeover of the oil industry and sent troops to occupy the oil fields. The
decree requires the foreign oil companies to accept minority partnerships
with the state oil administration.
Preceding this,
Morales adhered to the Bolivian Alternative for Latin America (ALBA), a
economic cooperation treaty initiated by Cuba and Venezuela. The agreement
on which Bolivia’s adhesion to the pact was based includes pledges of
important financial and technical aid from Venezuela, as well as medical
and technical aid from Cuba.
ALBA calls for
trade relations based on solidarity and social development rather than
profit, which would require more radical economic transformations in both
Bolivia and Venezuela.
In fact, the
political promise of the Bolivian government’s moves far exceeded their
immediate economic importance. An article on the website of the Arab
network, Al Jazeera, pointed out May 2: “Even in producers such as Saudi
Arabia, where there is no legislation severely constraining oil firms,
foreign oil companies in general are obliged to form partnerships with
local enterprises….”
The French
newspaper of record, Le Monde, reported May 3: “The Bolivian expert Carlos
Miranda estimates that the May 1 presidential decree is in direct
continuity with the hydrocarbons law adopted in May 2005 before Evo
Morales’ election: ‘The main innovation is the taxes imposed on the natural
gas deposits in the San Alberto and San Antonio Sabalo fields, which will
go from 50 percent to 82 percent. These fields produce half of Bolivia’s
natural gas, but the new tax will apply only for a period of 180 days
during which new contracts will be
negotiated with the operators, after audits.’”
Morales’ minister
of hydrocarbons, Andres Soliz Rada, told El Mundo (May 4) the major paper
of the right-wing-dominated Santa Cruz province, “The government has
maintained the 50-50 ratio for fields that produce less than a hundred
million cubic feet, although there are smaller and marginal fields that may
not be able to afford a 50 percent tax, and the rate there may be set at 30
for the state and 70 percent for the companies.”
The right-wing
community organizations in Santa Cruz had called a general strike to
protest Morales’ actions. But they called it off, El Mundo of May 5
reported, after talks with government representatives. One of the demands
they presented was for the huge iron and manganese deposits at El Mutun to
be turned over to a private company, and the Morales government agreed.
The Bolivian
website Econoticias reported May 4: “Jaime Santa Cruz, vice president of
the Comite Civico pro Santa Cruz, described the [May 1] meeting that he had
with the president and vice president of the country as fruitful: ‘The
government has guaranteed that bids for El Mutun will go ahead and that the
winning enterprise will be announced before May 30. This leaves us and the
entire country content, given what this license can bring.’”
An article on
the oil industry takeover in the
Christian Science Monitor of May 5 noted: “ALBA promotes the principles of
social and economic justice, but so far is known more for its symbolism
than concrete action.” But as “symbolism” it appeals to the mounting
aspirations for independence and social development in Latin America, and
with the adherence of Bolivia, ALBA begins to assume the character of a
regional alliance against imperialism and a major breakthrough for Cuba out
of its isolation.
The economy of
Cuba is publicly controlled and devoted to building socialism. However, the
economies of Venezuela and Bolivia remain capitalist. In both countries,
the governments have compelled the oil companies to accept minority
partnerships with the state companies. But the private oil companies will
be allowed to continue to operate as capitalist enterprises.
The foreign oil
companies with the biggest stake in Bolivia are the Spanish Repsol, a
private company, and the Brazilian Petrobras, a state corporation in which
the state holds the majority of voting stock but private companies hold the
majority of the capital.
The Bolivian vice
president, Alvaro Garcia Linera, held a joint press conference with
representatives of the Spanish government. According to the Mexico City
daily La Jornada of May 6: “He [Linera] noted that between 1990 and 1997,
when the [state corporation] Yacimientos Petroliferos Fiscales Bolivianos
had control of the production of natural gas, the income for the general
treasury of the nation, with a smaller state enterprise, was between 370
and 380 million dollars.
“He explained
that when foreign investors came in, they claimed to have invested $3
billion. They then discovered new fields. A market was opened up in Brazil
and the volume of production was increased for the domestic market. And
between 1997 and 2003, the income for the state was $390 to $400 million, a
difference of a little less than 20 million.
“‘Does that seem
just to you?’ Garcia Linera answered a journalist. ‘That is why we adopted
a hydrocarbon law and why we nationalized, because we think that the
state’s income should be greater, without depriving foreign investors of
legitimate profits, which, on the basis of the studies we have, we intend
to guarantee.’”
The La Jornada
article continued: “The Bolivian minister of planning, Carlos Villegas,
told a Spanish radio station … that foreign oil companies ‘would maintain a
20 percent profit margin, as well as recovering their investments.” The
usual estimate of a normal profit in international dealings is 7 percent.
The Brazilian
company Petrobras controls 45 of Bolivian natural gas and part of a
pipeline that supplies 51 percent of the country’s consumption of natural
gas. Brazil’s president Ignacio Lula, himself lifted into office by a wave
of revolt against imperialist-dictated economic policies, announced that he
accepted the Bolivian move.
La Jornada
reported May 6: “In a rally held in Almores, in the state of Minas Gerais,
Lula expressed his confidence that ‘Bolivia is going to fulfill its
contracts with Brazil’ in the field of energy. He also said that he had no
doubt that “gas is not going to go up, and if it does Petrobras will absorb
the increase.”
However, given
the very low price at which Bolivia has been selling natural gas to
Petrobras, the Brazilian semi-state corporation is likely to have to absorb
some substantial cuts in its profits that it may not be so easy to get its
private investors to accept.
In the summit of
regional presidents, including Hugo Chavez, held in the Argentine city of
Puerto Iguazu on May 4, La Jornada of May 5 reported that Bolivia agreed to
guarantee supplies of oil and natural gas to Brazil and Argentina and to
negotiate the prices with them. Chavez announced that Bolivia has adhered
to the project of building a pipeline that would link his country to
Argentina. The various presidents pledged to further Latin American
economic integration.
Overall, the
Bolivian takeover of the petroleum industry has undoubtedly given a
significant boost to economic nationalism in Latin America. However,
experience has demonstrated that economic nationalism within the framework
of capitalism cannot long be sustained against the imperialist domination
of the world market. Thus, the main hope of these measures is that they
will help to inspire the oppressed and exploited masses to throw off the
yoke of capitalism, as the Cubans did in 1959-60.
There has been no
indication, however, that Morales is prepared to move in this direction. He
was elected as a result of the impact of mass uprisings in 2003 and 2005 in
which he and his party did not participate. After his election, he
temporized on the question of nationalizing the hydrocarbons.
An article in the
May 3 Le Monde quoted a Bolivian political analyst, Jorge Lazarte, who
explained that in March and April Morales’ approval rating in the polls
dropped precipitously by 12 percent, undoubtedly in response to his failure
to meet his campaign promises.
The British
Guardian’s correspondent in Santa Cruz tried to take a sampling of public
opinion. “‘It's been up and down,’ says José López, a Santa Cruz native.
‘For the first 100 days of his rule, Evo didn't do the things he said he
would. But this was much better. Now everyone is behind him again.’”
On the eve of his
decree, moreover, Morales faced a day of protest called by the national
labor confederation, the COB, to demand nationalization of the hydrocarbons
and a substantial increase in the minimal wage instead of the minor one
Morales had instituted. Morales’ initial response to the protest was
repressive, including using the state information agency to put out false
information and sending members of his party to break up the COB
demonstration in La Paz.
Moreover, radical
union spokespersons complained that Morales was mounting a campaign by his
party to capture the unions. That would be in line with the usual
strategies of populist politicians in Latin America who have balanced
between the bourgeoisie and capitalists. They need the support of the
workers, but they also need to control them.
One of the most
hopeful signs about Hugo Chavez, for example, is that he has not taken this
course. The radical union federation in Venezuela, the UNT, is not directly
controlled by Chavez or his party, although it supports him. Revolutionists
have a substantial influence in it.
At the moment,
Morales has clearly isolated his leftist critics. Their criticisms have
been drowned out by the joy of the Bolivian masses, especially the long
humiliated native people, at the recovery of some control over their
natural resources. It is a joy that all democratic-minded and progressive
people should share.
However, the fact
that Morales finally took the step of taking control of the oil industry
does not mean that his left critics in the COB and other mass organizations
were wrong in not giving him political confidence in the elections.
Indications are that the fact that they maintained their independence of
him and his party, and maintained the demand for the nationalization of the
hydrocarbons, was decisive in assuring that he took his step. If they had
given him confidence, the pressure on him would have been less.
The ability of
the revolutionary left in Bolivia to maintain and build up workers and mass
organizations independent of Morales and the MAS will almost certainly be
decisive for moving the break with imperialism forward. In this respect,
moreover, the experience of the Bolivian takeover demonstrates that the
growth of revolutionary movements in Argentina and Brazil in particular
will have a critical importance.
|
