Yet, where is the coverage for Bolivia's Blue Revolution that we saw for Ukraine's Orange revolution. Why isn't the CBC falling over themselves to uncritically report on the people power movement that is occuring in Bolivia like they were in the Ukraine?

Why aren't western leaders praising the historic, courage of the Bolivian people as they strive for a representative democracy?

Are Bolivians not as worthy as Ukrainians for self-determination and democracy? Or are they embracing the wrong sort of politics for Western media? Only Western funded, neo-liberal people power rebellions are welcome?

Edited to add: The outgoing president of Bolivia warned of civil war despite that the ruling oligarchs have a near monopoly on deadly force. His warning was a veiled threat of yet another dirty war, and yet nary a peep from our media.

[ 10 June 2005: Message edited by: WingNut ]

There is something spectacular happening in Bolivia. It is entirely spontaneous, people based, and without links to any internationl bank accounts. And it is being entirely ignored.

And we didn't see nearly as much in the media about the Philipines as we did the Ukraine ... at least not in these parts. Though perhaps the coverage of the Ukraine was much stronger out west than it was in the rest of Canada.

Edited to fix spelling ... Fridays are hard.

[ 10 June 2005: Message edited by: GJJ ]

Neither Mesa nor Vaca

A Decision to Make

quote:

---

The people here now have a decision to make. Rodriguez is constitutionally obligated to call new elections for Presidency, which he has said he will set for the coming months. Over the past two weeks, as Mesa and Congress proved unresponsive to the people's demands for nationalization and a Constitutional Assembly, protesters had begun demanding a new government. With this victory, the social movements must make a choice of how to proceed in the immediate future: postpone the fights for their main demands or continue the battle right now?

---

Gawd. Wouldn't it be great if the social movements in this country could make governments run and hide and resign as they've done in Bolivia?

la lucha continúa
Long live the spirit of Bolivar!

[ 10 June 2005: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by GJJ:
Not that I disagree with the political analysis, but I suspect part of if it is also just that there are a lot of Canadian's whose family immigrated from the Ukraine - its certainly true in the west. There are probably more Ukes in Saskachuck than English and French combined, and quite a few in Alberta, at least near Edmonchuck. I think half of my class in school were Ukrainians.

---

Where are the big leaders running around calling for democracy? Where are the big leaders promissing aid for democracy? Oh wait, George Bush did try that a week ago at the OAS with a motion to "interfere" in falturing democracies to "strengthen" their weak foundations. Appropriately with the failure to elect their chosen OAS president, they also failed to get this motion passed. But they cited Bolivia as one of the places where they needed to strengthen democracy. Just like they did a few years back in Cochabomba where they donated teargas to protect the private water company owned by Bechtel.

It is a dangerous time I think in Latin America, they have made some miniscule gains while the Americans weren't looking... But they could be gone very quickly.

We have already seen some returned attention surrounding CAFTA. 3 protestors were shot and killed in Guatemala when CAFTA was ratified by that country's government. They have already mettled around in Venezuela, though failed attempts, they likely aren't pleased. Columbia is getting even more attention as of late. And Bush is back to pushing the free trade of the Americas (did he ever really stop?).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawkins:
I would not speak so quickly about them losing grip, it may just cause them to clamp down on the region.

---

Then they will have to let up somewhere else.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

Latin American's are the 7th largest "visible minority" in Canada.

---

How many of them are particularly interested in Bolivia though? Its not a rhetorical question ... most European and Asian immigrants I know are still interested in the politics of their home country, but not particularly interested in the politics of other European or Asian countries.

[ 10 June 2005: Message edited by: GJJ ]

I have a lot of hopes for Latin America if they make it over this hurdle, but I would not underestimate the size of the hurdle because of recent successes. Nor is the US really uninvolved in these countries. Latin American countries do have an opportunity that they never had before, but the truth is that even recently American power structures have had significant impact upon the region, the IMF infused collapses of the Mercosur countries was not long ago. Nor have those countries clearly broken free from the IMF policies, despite "leftist" governments.

Besides Bolivia, a lot of focus is given to American influence over the better off Latin American countries. But what of the influence over the Central American countries? All of the central American governments have ratified CAFTA. If you thought NAFTA was bad for Mexico, CAFTA is much more of the same.

We also can speak of China, but the US remains the main market in Latin America. Above that many Latin American families are inpart dependent upon an American relative. The interregional connections are still there.

Being realistic, the Americans are still in Latin America and still have the ability to influence things. Yes they are overstretched in many ways, but it does have the bonus of deflecting attention away from the region. They overthrew a government in Haiti. The continue to support the government in Columbia and have created a situation in which the public is stuck between two horrible options, the FARC rebels on one side and the government on the other both using the drugwar to finance terror on the people. Nor should we forget to the extent the government in the US has been willing to interfere.

quote:

---

Originally posted by GJJ:

How many of them are particularly interested in Bolivia though? Its not a rhetorical question ... most European and Asian immigrants I know are still interested in the politics of their home country, but not particularly interested in the politics of other European or Asian countries.

[ 10 June 2005: Message edited by: GJJ ]

---

When you talk about Boliva, you must remember that you are talking about a country named after Simon Bolivar, the Latin American natioinalist hero who actually managed to unify for a short tim Colombia, Venuzuela and Bolivia. His attempt was to make a united republic along the lines of the USA. He is considered a hero throughout Latin America.

quote:

---

Originally posted by trevor j.:
Also, there's the fact that it's, well, Bolivia.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rufus Polson:

As opposed to WhereverthefukStan, which also got quite a bit more mainstream coverage even though nobody had a clue what was going on?

---

Fair enough. Perhaps what I really meant to say, now that I've read some of the arguments in this thread, is: even independent of any outside manipulation of the populace/the media, Bolivia is kind of a known quantity, in a news-gathering sense - just another troublesome South American republic of a particular vintage, as it were. Whereas "Whereverthefuckistan" and all those other former Soviet republics - well, anything could be happening there. You/we can project any kind of agenda onto news stories coming out of those places - we're witnessing "a new dawn of democracy & freedom", or "honest citizens acting as unwitting dupes of Western imperialists" - whatever. I'd guess some of that kind of thinking, as much as any other consideration, is behind the (non-)coverage of this story.

[Edited to make it clear I know my geography.]

[ 10 June 2005: Message edited by: trevor j. ]

That's a good reflection on the coverage on the Ukraine. Much of CBC radio programming this morning came to the country out of Saskatchewan. Saskatchewa was called trilingual: English, Native and Ukrainian. (also big Ukrainian influence in Alberta).

quote:

---

Originally posted by fossilnut:
I'd also like to get more coverage of Bolivia but I'm not as much an expert as others here on the happenings in that country. I'm always a bit leary of armchair analyzing of the internal affairs of a country I've never been to. How would someone in Bolivia view Quebec Independence or federal-provincial realtions?

---

Err, yeah, well ... its just that our set up is much more complex than everyone elses .

Bolivia has been for a long time a country run by the elites. Bolivia should be one of the richest countries on the planet had it not been for the Spanish sucking the wealth out and killing millions of indigenous labourers in the process. The mining city Potosi was at one point one of the largest cityies and most wealthly in all of Latin America. Now it is a shanty town (granted a shanty town recognized as a world heritage site with a lot of rundown beautiful buildings) with the reminence of a mining culture trying to scrape what little bits they can out of the mountain for their survival.

Bolivia has a history or rule by elites. Now we are hopefully seeing the last vestage of that. If you noticed all the government officials have been predominately white - or of European decent. In a country with a population of 60% indegenous population, don't you find that odd from your arm chair? And that those who are making the big money decisions are still white Europeans?

What we see is a poor people's rebellion. I think that more than anything makes it unnews worthy. Poor people all over the world all the time are trying to rise up. There is nothing "new"s about it, atleast when we have floods in Alberta and Barrie to worry about. People get tired of seeing "another" president in these countries since the last one quit. Well guess why that happens? Where are the election observers? Why is Global North money flowing in against democracy? When does democracy get to say "no" to global north economic policies. Why do the elites in Santa Cruz get treated as an equally legitimate "party" compared to the millions of poor indeginous?

I've just learned not to assume too much about what is happening in countries or societies I have no first-hand experience in. Their issues are every bit as mulit-faceted and complex as those in Canada and in Canada you'll never get a consensus in Canada as to what's 'right or wrong'.

So sure. It's great to learn about Bolivia but I agree that without a lot of info from all perspectives that I'd be hard pressed to know what the reality on the ground is. We gravitate towards the info that supports our already conceived views and just keep reinforcing what we 'think' we already know.

[ 10 June 2005: Message edited by: fossilnut ]

quote:

---

I've just learned not to assume too much about what is happening in countries or societies I have no first-hand experience in.

---

Back to the topic at hand.

quote:

---

Originally posted by trevor j.:

Fair enough. Perhaps what I really meant to say, now that I've read some of the arguments in this thread, is: even independent of any outside manipulation of the populace/the media, Bolivia is kind of a known quantity, in a news-gathering sense - just another troublesome South American republic of a particular vintage, as it were.

---

Human settlement in the region of the Kazakh, Kirghiz, Tajik, Turkmen and Uzbek (KKTTU?)peoples goes back a long way in human history. The Kirghiz, for example, claimed on the basis of anthropological evidence that they were the first people on planet Earth to domesticate horses. One could go on. All of these five former Soviet Republics went through a cultural revolution in the last century in addition to the upheaval since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

While Arabic had been available in religious schools, such as they were, the written languages of the Kazakh, Kirghiz, Tajik, Turkmen and Uzbek peoples are less than a hundred years old. Their indigenous written literatures, therefore, are very young and some of the early founders of their national literatures are still alive today. Imagine, in comparison, if an English speaking person could meet Geoffrey Chaucer today. These literatures bear the imprint of a rich oral tradition similar to the indigenous peoples of Canada. Much of the early work in the last century involved the putting down onto paper, for the first time, of the great oral literature of their peoples. The Tale of Manas, a founding heroic figure in the history of the Kirghiz people, is an example.

Such peoples deserve our kindly sympathy that they might extricate themselves from underdevelopment and preserve and nurture their cultures that are both young and old at the same time.

quote:

---

Also, Ukraine plays a big role in Russia's life. Russia is still a big guy on the international stage.

---

Very true. It may impact the democratic (or lack of it) movement in Russia.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
I understand the lack of familiarity with Central Asia but, really, could people refrain from "What-the-fuck-istan" and similar expressions?

---

And culturally they are much more similar in some respects than Ireland or Malta ever will be, because unlike your examples of colonization the Spanish left behind an elite that is very much tied to European culture. And what we are discussing is the connections of poverty and access to democracy - we are not talking about the different clothing styles and colours. The analogy was to draw possible was of improving democracy in poverty striken countries with a minority white elite and mixed/indigenous/black poor majority.

30% of the population in Bolivia speak Quechua, the decendents of the Incas. They stretch across the Andean countries, with large populations in Peru and Ecuador as well as Bolivia. Aymara is the other large language group, they have large populations in Peru as well, but also in smaller numbers in other countries. However each village has its own customs and clothing styles - often varied in colour patterns but also in physical shapes. Bolivia has much more in common with Peru and Ecuador, however indeed their dominating indigenous population is a different dynamic. But that does not change the dynamic of poverty and access to democracy - which is what the Bolivarian communities in Venezuela are trying to change.

I think there are a lot of interesting social democratic options that have the possibility to come out of Latin America. And they will be shared between the countries. Nor do I think drawing links to Venezuela is incorrect, as a lot of left figures are becoming interconnected and Hugo Chavez certainly has become a central figure. He certainly has a pressence in the Mercosur countries, he was there in Uruguay when the president was elected. And I trust the BBC in that the main left opposition leader in Bolivia is a friend of Chavez.

Chavez is a growing interest in Latin America. And he is tied to a movement to have a national natural gas company - and other political inciatives that would stretch public power and ownership over the industry across South America. His defient stance against the Americans and big business has made him a popular character amongst the poor who have seen their countries sold away, have seen American military and political influence prop up oppressive dictatorships, and generally have a similar view of international politics as him. There is a lot of potential in Latin America right now to really make a region of true democracy and improve other areas of social equality.

But there are lots of large problems in the way of what I see as a path to success for the region. A new brand of social democracy is being planted in some Latin American countries, it remains to be seen whether it can grow and spread.

Central America, however, remains a very damaged region. It is quite sad to see what 45 years of American influence brought upon those countries. When they were experimenting with early socialist policies with democratic governments they got crushed and now they are left in severe ruins.

Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, and Nicaragua are forgotten except when they can be exploited by free trade agreements.

quote:

---

Originally posted by fossilnut:
As for your friend's view on Bolivia. That's a first hand view which is always helpful. Important, however, to guard against analogies such as 'in Bolivia as in Venezuela'. We often just paint these countries with a big brush even though we'd have a hard time pointing out some of them on a map of South America. It's a bit like someone in Brazil looking to Europe and saying 'in Ireland as in Malta'...they were both colonized by the English but the underlying cultures and issues are very unique to each.[/QB]

---

Yeah, she also lived in Venezuela for 4 years.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
I understand the lack of familiarity with Central Asia but, really, could people refrain from "What-the-fuck-istan" and similar expressions?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

Then they will have to let up somewhere else.

Don't be so doom and gloom. They are over-extended. This is a good thing. They like it when we help propogate the myth of their invincibility, it helps their cause.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by swallow:
Mm, quite. By the way, fossilnut, i've been meaning to ask: do a lot of people in Saskatchewan speak Native? Is ther anywhere i can buy a Native phrase book? My Native is pretty rusty.

---

I think he meant we're mainly bilingual ... about 70% speak European, 25% speak Native

As for living in a country making one an expert? I've lived in the US twice for short periods of time and I'm by no means an expert on the USA. Countries are too complicated to analyse them as one would cake recipes. An American living in Canada for 6 months should be deferred to on issues of federal-provincial affairs or the role of the Wheat Board?

quote:

---

In this relentless revolution, media matters
The Bolivian people did it. With one death – a terrible cost, but among the best lives-to-change ratios of any mass uprising – the powerful Bolivian movements for social justice removed two more would-be presidents, thwarted plots to begin brutal repression and perhaps even U.S. military intervention, and set the stage for their demands to be addressed at last.

Such success doesn't come from luck or two weeks' work. Epitomized by the ERBOL radio network, the Bolivian social movements have constructed a media that reflects the people's needs.
Benjamin Melancol

---

Chavez was from the military. In Bolivia there was two high ranking officers making comments about the military prepared to overthrow the government (though this was dismissed by higher ranking generals it did indicate an unwillingness in the military to wage war against people). Similar moves by the military I think in Ecuador got their last president to step down amidst large protests.

Of course not even to suggest that the military is the protestors friend or even close. But there seems to be a new dynamic in the military that in the countries that is not as quick to jump at any opportunity to install a rightwing elite dictator.

How shall violence be reduced to its absolute minimum? What can be expected from the state and the para-military bodies? What counter-measures are available to defuse such violence?

I imagine more people died in Cochabamba (I may be getting mixed up with another protest) when a single city protested. This was nation wide.

While Latin America has had many instances of betrayal of the movements for social justice by the military and fascistic para-militaries, there is also a lesser known tradition of social movement leaders that combine military and political skills in one person. Fidel Castro, Augusto Sandino and others would belong, I think, to such a list. Babblers who are more familiar than I am with the specific national histories could probably name a few more. (Please do!}

To address Hawkins question directly, I would observe that the low casualty numbers recently is very encouraging and points to a Phillipino-style movement of the overwhelming masses in their "Yellow" revolution. The military in such circumstances is simply outnumbered.

I've also read over the last number of years that the installation of military juntas and such no longer ensures the stability of countries in the neo-liberal neo-global mould. It's too expensive, perhaps, the way that the former GDR was too expensive with its Orwellian police apparatus that drained the treasury. As a matter of fact, the G-8 in the news today has written off a gigantic amount of "third world" debt and I can't help but wonder if they are not simply recognizing the inevitable. Maybe the military in certain situations does the same thing. Edited to add: But the military, like the G-8, may not want to admit the inexorable power and strength of united social movements.

They have a wonderful expression in Spanish that, in English, goes like this:

The People, united, will never be defeated! A sacred truth if ever there was one.

Here is the expression in Spanish:
¡el pueblo, unido, jamas será vencido!

[ 11 June 2005: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

That was the Bolivian Revolution of 1953, though.

It slowly degenerated from its isolation, and its inability to attack the real sources of power, which mostly resided outside of the country.

The command leadership (at the national level) realize that if they fought against the people they would most likely have the rank and file turn against them. Thus they would be out of a job, because they did not have control of the military.

The situation in Bolivia may not being covered in the media because more important news items are being covered.

Lets face it, the news coverage in the last few years have covered many news stories more than they should have, for example the "Run away bride" and "wacko jacko".

quote:

---

There is much to admire about the conduct of former Bolivian president Carlos Mesa, who resigned this week rather than submit to demands from a rabble in the street for the nationalization of the country's oil and gas industry...

...However, none of this was sufficient to appease the rabble - a coalition of Indians and miners behind the protests, blockades, and occupation of foreign-owned oil and gas installations...

...if mobs can force the government to seize private assets, the situation will have become truly hopeless.

---

Note the two references to 'rabble'.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tape_342:

I disagree. The US is arguably at its most dangerous-- especially in this hemisphere-- when its options are limited. In such instances, we tend to happily jump into bed with all manner of nasty, nasty folks (even nastier proxies than those we might otherwise schmooze) to affect local politics... and we end up hating ourselves in the morning.

---

Surely you are not saying that the US has infinite resources with which to influence political process at any time throughout the world without restriction?

My point was that since the end of the cold war the US has expanded the reach of its influence, (including direct military commitments) to include large segements of Asia and the Middle East. Has it at the same time aquired equal benefit in return? I doubt it, as much of the newly aquired areas are in states of politcal turmoil.

The ability of the US to influence the internal politcal landscape of many countries is dependent not only on its economic might but also its ability to project military force. For that force to be seen as a "credible threat," it must be applied every once in a while with effect.

I think the ongoing resistance to the US in Afghanistan, and Iraq, and the dilution of US power throughout the world, is recognized by many people in Latin America as an opportunity to forward new agendas, in contrast to the ones the State department would be comfortable with. They are taking advantage of the political wiggle room.

Much of the changes going in Latin America seem to be taking their inspiration from the regieme of Hugo Chavez. If the United State were not so burdened with its new military commitments there is every likelyhood that the United States might have intervened directly during the recent aborted coup attempt, in my view.

This is not the only important factor, but one that I think is relevant.

Of course the US is still dangerous, and is likely to apply what preassure it can in Bolivia, but it does not have infinite ability to project power.

[ 12 June 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

A Communiqué from the Coordinator for the Defense of the Gas
By Gissel Gonzales,
Posted on Fri Jun 10th, 2005 at 10:10:39 PM EST
The Coordinating Committee for the Defense of Water and Gas sends a communiqué from Cochabamba to the people of Bolivia and the international community.

To our mobilized comrades in Cochabamba and in Bolivia:
To the national and international public:

The Coordinating Committee for the Defense of Water and Gas releases our view of the current moment:

* With the enormous mobilziation of the Bolivian people and the indigneous people throughout the country we have temporarily avoided the greatest maneuver of the transnational corporations, the U.S. government, the Santa Cruz oligarchy and the traditional Bolivian political parties.

* Yesterday, the efforts of thousands of men and women, and with the life of the miners’ cooperative leader Juán Coro, we stopped the return of Vaca Diez’s mega-coalition to the government, which would have meant a bloodbath for the Bolivian people and the continued sacking of our natural resources.

* This, comrades, is nothing small: all the power of global capital was brought down against us yesterday, and we have managed to stop it. For that reason, we have achieved much more, although we have not gotten exactly what we proposed as strategic objectives for the whole of the simple and hard-working Bolivian people.

* These objectives continue to be 1) NATIONALIZATION, the social expropriation of Bolivian hydrocarbons, today, in fact, from the hands of the transnationals, and 2) the realization of a sovereign CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY with the majority presence of the Bolivian population – and not of the political parties – to design a new form of internal coexistence and social regulation for all of us, constructed by a new collective will from below.

* In the coming days we should begin a massive discussion on how to go forward in these two objectives.

* We feel that after three weeks of confrontations and mobilization it would be a good time to declare a period of rest so that the population can replentish its supplies of food and fuel; and also to see what position the new president, Mr. Rodríguez, will assume toward the peo0ple of Bolivia. To Mr. Rodríguez we say clearly that he must understand that objectives of the people are the two points outlined previously, and that he is now in the Palace of Government because his predecessors did not listen to us, did not take our opinions and proposals into account, did not command by obeying the people. We will not accept it if he tries any new tricks, because he has seen the force we are capable of unleashing.

* It is important, also, to reflect upon the following. In this May-June mobilization we have seen two things. On one hand, the great force that we are capable of deploying: we, the diverse social movements, are capable of paralyzing the entire country, and of avoiding the maneuvers of the businessmen and bad politicians. On the other hand, we have not been capable of imposing our own decisions and objectives on these same politicians, who today are in the worst crisis they could possibly confront. Based on these two considerations, we have opened a wide debate in all the neighborhoods and communities of Cochabamba and the country, about the need to build, little by little, our own capacity for SELF GOVERNMENT, to push for that in the next mobilization.

* Our immense strength that enables us to shut down the entire country should correspond to a great and creative capacity to carry out our own decisions beyond the official institutions and traditional political parties, which always drive us to the edge of the precipice. On this occasion, this has begun to happen with the occupation of hydrocarbon wells, gas plants, and refineries, and on the next occasion we must be capable of operating them ourselves for our own good.

* We will continue, unwavering and irreversible, on this collective goal that the people have been putting together for years, to build a country for us, for our children, and for our children’s children.

LONG LIVE THE UNITED BOLIVIAN PEOPLE!!!
DEATH TO THE TRANSNATIONAL CORPORATIONS!!!

Cochabamba, June 10, 2005

---

quote:

---

Chavez: The President of the United States came to the OAS meeting to give a slovenly speech and, his face pale, he proposed a medicine of death: He said that the salvation of Latin America is in a free market.… It is this capitalism that is generating exclusion, misery and, as a consequence, destabilization. He’s like a doctor that knows that a medicine is poisoned, that it is killing people, but who keeps prescribing that medicine. That is what is killing the people of Latin America. That is what has been crushing the people, what has generated the largest inequalities we have ever known.

---

quote:

---

What is the cause of what happened in Bolivia? Fidel? Chávez? No. It’s Bush. It is all that he represents. It is capitalism. Fortunately, the Bolivian people were able to open the door to a peaceful solution, but we were at the point of civil war.

---

Victory in Bolivia