The Dominion - Bolivia

Canadian Reflections on the Cochabamba Climate Summit

Cameron Fenton — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 05:06:25 +0000

TORONTO—Last month, representatives from around the globe gathered in Cochabamba, Bolivia for the first World Peoples Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth. Called by Bolivian President Evo Morales in the wake of last winter’s Copenhagen United Nations Summit, he called “the peoples of the world, social movements and Mother Earth's defenders,” to gather for a People’s Summit. The conference captured popular sentiment, ballooning from an expected 5,000 participants to well over 30,000 from over 140 countries. This compares with around 40,000 participants to the Copenhagen summit, although "civil society" only made up half that number—making it the largest gathering of non-governmental voices on climate change.

High-level delegations also came from Ecuador, Venezuela, Peru and Cuba, with representatives of 40 other governments present. Crucially, however, talks were led by those in attendance, not by governments. This was a sharp distinction from any UN processes, where civil society and Indigenous Peoples must often fight to be heard, let alone have their input respected. This meant that those voices had not only the opportunity to talk climate justice; they had the ability to challenge the terms of the traditional climate debate and put forth radically different solutions.

These are reflections from Canadians who attended the summit in various capacities.

****

I was invited to sit as Secretary of the Indigenous Peoples Working Group, one of 17 distinct working groups. In all of the working groups, we built upon an online discussion process that had started weeks before, and involved people who couldn’t make it to the conference. In all the working groups, Indigenous peoples from South America were prominent, which gave a particular flavour to the documents and discussions.

This was evident in the discussions that pushed for a return to principles of "living well," granting rights to nature, and building upon long-ranging debates about interculturalism—beyond laissez-faire liberal multiculturalism—while ensuring that these ideas found a receptive audience in the global climate justice community.

After prolonged debate on the various issues, our job as secretaries was to come up with a final text from each working group. Eventually, the results of each working group were consolidated into one final text, which was presented to a crowd of tens of thousands on the final day of the conference.

Indigenous peoples called for transnational corporations to be banned from Indigenous lands, while calling for the universal application of the United Nations (UN) Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, not only as a protective measure for the climate, but also against the negative impacts of any climate "mitigation" projects, such as biofuels or mega-dams, which have already devastated many Indigenous communities. Indigenous groups also made a call for people to "live well" instead of seeking unimpeded economic growth.

 In the end, the participants made a call to developed countries to reduce emissions by 50 per cent within the next decade, while paying off the ecological debt owed to the countries and peoples most impacted by climate change.

Also noteworthy was the development of the Universal Declaration on the Rights of Mother Earth, which attempts to articulate a new class of rights towards the non-human world. This compliments the proposal to form an International Climate Justice Tribunal that would be empowered to prosecute countries and companies who violate environmental agreements.

Key ideas articulated in this Universal Declaration, already forwarded to the UN by the Bolivian government, include granting Mother Earth and her dependent beings the rights to life, to water, to be free of contamination and genetic modification, while laying out complimentary obligations for humanity.

Participants also issued a rejection of carbon markets as a neo-liberal means of avoiding real emissions cuts, while privatizing the planet. Understanding these projects as a way to impose devastating mega-projects on many local communities, they soundly condemned the UN proposals on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) as another mechanism that threatens to privatize and rob Indigenous peoples of their land, while letting developed countries off the hook.  

Despite all the powerful words, the conference still faced a number of challenges, starting with an unruly volcano in Europe that kept many participants from attending. Timelines were short, resources were sparse, and sufficiently large meeting rooms far too uncommon. Three presidents even had to stay home because of domestic issues, leaving only Morales, Hugo Chavez and Esteban Lazo Hernandez, vice-president of Cuba, to attend.

The challenges internationally stemmed from the lack of attention paid to the conference by the international press, except to an out-of-context statement by Morales on the potential effects of growth hormones in poultry on male sexuality, for which he was ridiculed to no end. Otherwise, the conference was a media black hole outside of South America, with Canadian press not even showing up to a joint press conference organized in Ottawa during the conference.

In the long term, the challenge will be to use the momentum and strategies fostered at this conference to build and strengthen local movements worldwide, and force real change in government and non-governmental institutions. The other challenge is to translate and communicate the conclusions of this historic conference into local contexts and strategies. Here in Canada, reports have taken place and are planned for different communities. But it will not be enough—movements and organizations in Canada and abroad must make the space for the voices from the South to inform and lead.

The mobilization towards the G8/G20 in Toronto and the US Social Forum in Detroit cannot miss this important opportunity to advance the case for climate justice and build the connections between peoples and movements to challenge Canadian governments and corporations. With only six months remaining until the Cancun Climate Conference, we have a chance to see if we’ve learned anything since Copenhagen.

—Ben Powless

When I think back to Cochabamba, there’s one afternoon I remember. Surrounded by Indigenous families, it was very different from any conference I’d been to before, where the only "civil society" present are representatives from NGOs, civil servants and union leaders. The vast majority of people in Cochabamba were community members—individuals and families whose livelihoods are deeply threatened by the climate crisis. They weren’t speaking about someone else’s struggle, but their own—a vast contrast from the typical climate conference, and this influenced the type of discussions that were had. What I learned in those few hours was far more valuable than anything a scientific report could tell me.

In Cochabamba, I heard story after story of people’s direct knowledge and experience with climate change—droughts have ruined harvests for poor farmers; floods have displaced families; melting glaciers have led to extreme water shortages in major cities—it was all right in their backyards. People were telling their own stories as evidence of how climate change has exacerbated poverty, illness and displacement for their communities. As I listened to people’s interventions, I realized how different the discourse in Canada is. Our arguments for climate action are mostly based on science and scary predictions about a looming future, because many of us are not personally impacted by the climate crisis yet. We use numbers and statistics as evidence that we have an unprecedented crisis on our hands, but we just end up confusing Canadians along the way.

There was also a common thread in people’s stories that afternoon—of the extreme air, land and water pollution, health impacts, and military presence of mining industries forcefully setting up shop in their communities. The connection between the extractive industries and the creation of the climate crisis was seamless, as were the links to the global capitalist system, which has allowed unregulated resource extraction to ravage the people's land, their health, their way of life and their self-determination as Indigenous peoples—all this in the name of unfettered profit for the global North.

That afternoon I realized, maybe we—the Canadian climate movement—have been asking ourselves the wrong questions. We have been so focused on how to "fix" climate change that we haven’t spent enough time asking ourselves, what caused such an unprecedented catastrophe to begin with? Is the way that we frame the issues and solutions in Canada only validating the existing capitalist system that has caused the climate crisis? Are we even educated enough to know the difference between false solutions that perpetuate human inequality and ecological destruction, and the real, just solutions expressed in the People’s Declaration from Cochabamba? How often do we talk about the depth of systematic change that is needed to overcome this crisis?

It is time that the climate movement in Canada better aligns itself with the demands of the growing resistance in the global South.

The Climate Change Accountability Act has passed its third reading—an amazing victory—but the hard work comes as we determine how Canada will achieve these targets. Moving forward, we have to question how each of our actions and strategies fit into a larger struggle—restructuring our relationships, our jobs, our economy and our production and consumption of goods. Each small victory should be one step closer to transforming the overarching systems we wish to change. Each victory should bring us one step closer to the paradigm shift that we envision as a movement. If we are committed to climate justice, then we are committing ourselves to challenging current global systems that continue to exploit, oppress and kill. We are committed to standing in solidarity with communities on the front lines of this struggle. We are committed to spreading the real solutions articulated in the People’s Declaration with our families, our peers, our communities and our politicians. The world has spoken in Cochabamba and it’s time to heed the call.

As we mobilize toward the Toronto G20 this month, followed by the UN climate conference in Cancun, Mexico, in November, we will see if the voices of the global civil society, so beautifully articulated in the People’s Declaration, will be heard by the world’s biggest powers and polluters.

—Kimia Ghomeshi

Kimia Ghomeshi is an Iranian-Canadian based in Toronto. She works as the G20 Campaign Co-ordinator for the Canadian Youth Climate Coalition.

Ben Powless is a student at Carleton University in Ottawa, and works as a climate justice campaigner with the Indigenous Environmental Network in Ottawa.

Cochabamba, Evo and Hugo

Cochabamba, Closing

Toronto vs. Cochabamba

Martin Lukacs — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 05:11:27 +0000

G20 to consolidate control over climate negotiations

MONTREAL—A small group of the wealthiest and largest carbon-polluting nations will use this summer’s G8 and G20 summits to advance an unjust global climate deal through unrepresentative, anti-democratic channels, say climate campaigners, Indigenous groups and representatives of nations in the global South.

According to documents released in February by the G20 Research Group—associated with the Munk Centre for International Studies—the European Union (EU) wants to “pursue a new deal on global warming through the G20, since the December 2009 Copenhagen conference of nearly 200 countries led to unwieldy negotiations that accomplished little.”

“This speaks to the inability of rich countries to recognize [their] climate debt, and speaks to their rejection of the UNFCCC process and a move to a much more undemocratic process,” said Andrea Harden, Climate and Energy Campaigner for the Council of Canadians.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was established in 1992 and has met regularly since 1995 to create solutions to climate change. With 192 countries now party to the Convention, it is considered by many nations and civil society groups as the most democratic international forum for reaching an effective global climate treaty.

In Copenhagen, the “Circle of Commitment”—a group of wealthy nations, including the US and the UK—secretly circulated a document known as the Danish Text. It recommended consolidating climate negotiating power in wealthy nations, and placing control of climate financing under the purview of the World Bank. The result of the summit was the Copenhagen Accord, a US-backed, non-binding agreement that was similar in scope to the Danish Text. While supporting the UNFCCC as a forum for international negotiations, many nations and climate campaigners are reluctant to support the Accord.

“The Copenhagen Accord is a weak document that is not going to address the issue of climate change in any meaningful way,” said Harden. “The lack of any mandatory emissions targets means that whole countries will be facing dire consequences thanks to our government’s inaction.”

Pablo Solon, Bolivia’s chief envoy to the United Nations, told The Dominion such big power manoeuvring would undermine a just global response to climate change.

“Bolivia believes that on an issue that affects the whole of humanity, we cannot make decisions in small unrepresentative forums, whether it is a group of 20 nations or in secret dinners behind the UN facade as we saw in Copenhagen,” said Solon. “That is why we are calling for climate change to be brought back into the full UNFCCC process, and are supporting just, effective proposals put on the table by civil society organizations.”

While Canada and US politicians have refused to publicly acknowledge their policy shift, critics argue their statements about the UNFCCC processes indicate as much.

In the weeks after Copenhagen, head US climate negotiator Jonathan Pershing stated “it is...impossible to imagine a negotiation of enormous complexity where you have a table of 192 countries involved in all the detail.”

Critics’ speculation that the Copenhagen Accord would be used to undermine the UNFCCC was confirmed in early April 2010 at the Bonn intersessional meeting. The United States announced that nations refusing to sign the Accord would be ineligible for financial aid to developing nations to mitigate climate change.

“The US is acting like a bully, strong-arming the most vulnerable countries to get them to sign onto an ineffective and unfair deal that will not move the world closer to a just climate agreement,” said Kate Horner of Friends of the Earth in a statement to the media.

“This is in their rights, but unfair and clearly an attempt to punish Bolivia,” said Solon. “What kind of negotiation is it where you lose money if you disagree?” He said Bolivia’s negotiating positions would not change because of such threats. “We are a country with dignity and sovereignty and will maintain our position.”

Canada’s Environment Minister Jim Prentice denied rich countries would prefer to work outside the UNFCCC. When asked by The Dominion, he also pledged support for the Copenhagen Accord.

“Close to 90 per cent of the world’s emissions are now governed under the Copenhagen Accord,” Prentice said. “The [government’s] intent is to proceed through a multilateral process to turn that accord into a treaty. It may be discussed but the focus will be the multilateral process to turn this into a binding treaty, and that is not the role of the G8 or G20.”

For representatives of Indigenous communities, drowning island nations and nations of the global South, the Copenhagen Accord represents a step in the wrong direction.

“The Copenhagen Accord has no legal standing—it is a declaration of defeat by nations determined to avoid their responsibilities for climate change,” said Solon.

Canada has come under fire as a major destabilizing force in international climate politics, and recently lowered its emissions targets to meet those of the United States.

“Our economies are integrated to the point where it makes absolutely no sense to proceed without harmonizing and aligning a range of principles, policies, regulations and standards with respect to combating climate change,” said Tracy Lacroix-Wilson of Environment Canada.

Under the self-regulation measures of the Copenhagen Accord, the Conservative government has decided to harmonize its emissions targets with the United States at 17 per cent below 2006 levels by 2020.

When measured against the Kyoto Protocol’s 1990 base year, the Copenhagen Accord will only reduce emissions by three per cent. This is half of Canada’s legally binding targets under the Kyoto Implementation Act, and far below what climate scientists are calling for.

Critics point out that the Accord leaves 75 countries involved in the UNFCCC negotiations out of future climate plans, adding weight to speculations that Canada and other major polluting economies aim to undermine the UNFCCC.

“It is essentially the G20 that is holding back the international process to achieve a fair, ambitious and legally binding climate treaty,” said Kimia Ghomeshi, G8/20 Campaign Co-ordinator for the Canadian Youth Climate Coalition. “It is these industrialized, wealthy countries that are historically responsible for causing climate change and therefore have the greatest responsibility to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.”

Gomeshi argues that without comprehensive, science-based targets enshrined in a global treaty, 76 nations “representing approximately 80 per cent of global emissions” will need to make cuts internally. Without enforcement measures, there are no forums for the most adversely affected nations to hold polluters accountable.

To address the Copenhagen Accord’s inadequacies, Bolivian Prime Minister Evo Morales convened the first World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth in Cochabamba, Bolivia, in late April.

“The People’s Summit on Climate Change aimed to bring democracy and people back into decisions on climate change and our future,” said Solon.

The Council of Canadians was one of the organizations which sent civil society representatives to the Cochabamba conference. “We are excited to hear about and discuss some of the projects on the table, including the creation of a climate justice tribunal and an international referendum on a global climate treaty,” Harden told The Dominion. in the lead up to the summit.

Meanwhile, critics accuse wealthy nations of delaying innovative responses to climate change. At the G8 Foreign Minister’s meeting in Gatineau, Quebec in March, Japan’s was the only delegate to address the media on the subject of climate change.

“As we all know, the global community must address the issue of rising sea levels and rising temperatures. In order to address [climate change] there seems to be a consensus today,” said Kazuo Kodama, Japan’s Foreign Affairs press secretary. “We have to transform our society from a carbon intensive one to a low carbon society.”

According to documents obtained from the International Energy Agency (IEA), G8 and G20 leaders will likely table Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technologies as their main effort towards this transformation. The IEA’s 2009 CCS report to the G8 notes that “most of the major economies have announced ambitious plans (and associated funding) for large-scale CCS demonstration projects,” including a $3.5 billion investment from the Canadian government.

But a 2008 report released by Greenpeace called CCS technology a “false hope” solution that has yet to be effectively implemented by any large-scale coal-fired power plant or in the Canadian tar sands.

“Carbon Capture and Storage amounts to an expensive distraction from more meaningful actions addressing the climate crisis, like keeping fossil fuels in the ground, significant improvements in conservation and energy efficiency,” said Harden. “Even worse, emphasizing the proposed ‘potential’ of CCS masks the immediate impacts of ongoing expansion of destructive fossil fuel-based energy production, which the climate crisis demands we transition away from.”

The Toronto Community Mobilization’s G20 call-to-action included an invitation to Copenhagen to bring “climate justice” to the streets of Toronto.

“Following the collapse of the Copenhagen Climate Summit, [the G8/G20] will be discussing the global economy, development and climate change,” read the invitation. “These gatherings are about trying to fix capitalism, a system that cannot be fixed; about creating unsustainable market responses to ecological catastrophe that reinforce systems of oppression... The so-called leaders at these gatherings do not represent us.”

Organizers are looking to examples and proposals from the global South, such as those coming out of the World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth.

“We imagine the beginnings of a people’s accord, a summary of proposals led by groups who have worked many years on these issues, which can be implemented at local, regional, national and international levels,” said Bolivia’s Solon. “And it could provide a road map for saving people and our planet.”

Cameron Fenton is an intern at The Dominion and an anthropology student at Concordia University in Montreal.

This story was published in The Dominion's special issue on the G8 and G20 summits in Ontario. We will continue to publish independent, investigative news about the G8 and G20 throughout the month of June.

For up-to-the-minute G8/G20 news from the streets of Toronto, visit the Toronto Media Co-op.

Under water

Picking up the Copenhagen pieces

Bolivia is popular, Bolivia is strong!

dawn — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 16:29:14 +0000

37936590.paley60277.JPG

Bolivia on edge after martial law declared screams a headline in today's Toronto Star. The Reuters piece blasts President Evo Morales for "banning protests," obscuring the cause of the violence inside of Bolivia almost completely.

Manuel Rozental, Colombian surgeon and activist, stated this morning that right wing groups [led by opposition regional governors] in Bolivia are hoping to pull off a "mediatic coup."

"Bolivia is popular, Bolivia is strong, the truth, the official truth will only come from the Government and popular organizations and their guidance must be sought," he wrote.

In a separate story, Reuters reported today that "Officials said at least 15 people -- mostly pro-government peasant farmers -- had been killed in clashes on Thursday with backers of the opposition regional governor."

Olivia Burlingame Goumbri wrote in Alternet that "Despite the fact that [Morales] represents the majority of Bolivians, refusals to recognize President Morales and his legitimate policy initiatives since he was first elected in 2005 have been a growing problem, and one that reflects racism."

Refusals to recognize Morales don't stop with the Bolivian elite, but reverberate through western government policies and the media.

All Eyes On Bolivia

hillarybain — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 13:40:22 +0000

US espionage and aid

Since the election of Evo Morales, an indigenous peasant of the Movement Towards Socialism (MAS) party, US involvement in Bolivia’s political sphere has come out of the shadows – if ever there were any idyllic illusions about US intervention in South American politics.

Recent allegations of spies at the American Embassy have the Bolivian media abuzz, and civil society and government alike enraged. Just last week, while strolling with my friend Ramiro in Cochabamba, we ran into an acquaintance of his who took notice of my fair complexion and blue eyes and warned him to be careful around North Americans. Ramiro organizes with Red Tinku, an autonomous group that is heavily involved with grassroots politics.

Ramiro laughed and said I wasn't "one of those gringas," but the woman took a while to be convinced - and rightly so. During the course of her life she has seen perpetual provocation from North American foreign policy that has recently come to a head.

At the end of January, Fulbright scholar Alex van Schaick and Peace Corps volunteers declared publicly that Vincent Cooper, a US diplomat, encouraged them to keep an eye on Cubans and Venezuelans while in Bolivia.

In mid-February, the Bolivian Vice Minister of Government Ruben Gamarra filed criminal charges against Cooper, who has since left Bolivia and may or may not be protected under diplomatic immunity. According to an agreement made February 13 between Philip Goldberg, the US ambassador to Bolivia, and Bolivian Foreign Relations Minister David Choquehuanca, Cooper will not be returning. Investigations against the US will continue, though, and will help determine the next steps to be taken.

On February 15, Alfredo Rada, Interior Minister of the Bolivian government, met with Goldberg to discuss the accusations of espionage. After three-and-a-half hours deemed "difficult" by employees of the government ministry, Rada and Goldberg confirmed the dissolution of the Development of Police Studies (ODEP), formerly known as the Special Operations Command (COPES).

ODEP was an intelligence organization working in parallel with the National Police, and received funding from the US. ODEP received approximately $350,000 per year for ´intelligence´ work. To date, there have been five intelligence organizations ostensibly protecting state security in Bolivia. In light of these allegations their activities will also be scrutinized.

Rada would not speak publicly at the meeting locale, but dramatically rushed journalists in state SUVs with sirens wailing to the now defunct ODEP headquarters, in the wealthy Zona Sur of La Paz.

"After this meeting with Philip Goldberg I am confident that the decision to dissolve COPES is the right one," said Rada once within the walled compound. He added that the dissolution of ODEP had to do with the "structural reorganization of the intelligence section of the National Police.”

"It's the first time as minister I've had to take such a step, and it is to ensure effective work of the National Police concerning crimes, and state security," Rada said.

When pressed for an explanation of how the dissolution of ODEP is related to charges of espionage against the US, Rada said that the matter of espionage is still under investigation and refused to elaborate. He did, however, stress the importance of maintaining good relations with the US, a statement which, in light of such serious allegations, may come as a surprise for MAS supporters who back the government's anti-imperialist agenda

Goldberg was even more reticent than Rada. In Spanish, heavily clad with an American accent, he said slowly and repeatedly, "Neither the embassy nor the United States government is involved with spying […] The majority of our help is against narco-trafficking and terrorism."

Goldberg's statement comes at a time of tense political relations between the US and Bolivia. On the same morning Rada and Goldberg met to discuss accusations of espionage, Morales publicly denounced the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), accusing the agency of supporting Bolivian opposition NGOs.

"The US agency offers money to NGOs on one condition – that they work and mobilize against the Bolivian government," said Morales.

Through both governmental and non-governmental avenues, North American interference in Bolivia is eerily reminiscent of the Cold War era, when the United States sought to undermine Southern governments who rejected the doctrine of free market capitalism.

The Human Rights Foundation, based in New York, recently wrote a letter to the Bolivian government stating that the country's new constitution is contrary to human rights, an accusation the Bolivian government refuted. The HRF website describes the organization's devotion "to defending human rights in the American hemisphere," but focuses almost exclusively on Venezuela, Bolivia, and Cuba, with brief mention of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).

And despite this Fifth Ave, New York City, based organization's statement of commitment to human rights, they make no mention of Guantanamo Bay, of impunity in Guatemala, or of the treatment of indigenous peoples across the Americas.

Contrary to criticisms from the North, Morales did not design the new constitution-- a constitutional assembly comprised of a cross-section of Bolivian society developed it. In addition, two years into his term Morales still has widespread popular support, especially among the poor majority. However, Morales’ "decolonization" project has drawn the attention of US intelligence and aid to right-wing opposition like bees to nectar. As a taxi driver recently told me, "It's like a baby used to getting everything he wants. He is sucking on a candy, and then someone takes it away - of course he is going to kick and scream and cry."

For more information on the US undermining democracy in Bolivia, see Ben Dangl's Undermining Bolivia: A Landscape of Washington Intervention.

Mural In La Paz

Evo Morales on the Daily Show

dru — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 00:28:56 +0000

His delivery of the closing line is pretty great.

Firestorm

hillarybain — Mon, 07 May 2007 23:31:04 +0000

A review of <em>The Price of Fire: Resource Wars and Social Movements in Bolivia</em>

Across Bolivia, fireworks and blockade fires illuminate a resistance that has been sustained for years, and which is gaining momentum across the South American continent.

Benjamin Dangl’s The Price of Fire: Resource Wars and Social Movements in Bolivia, recently published by AK Press, is a compilation of anecdotes and political analyses that spans Bolivia’s history of resource-based mobilizations. Written over five years, often from the fray of mass mobilizations or boisterous fiestas, this book offers a glimpse into the rich fabric of Bolivian social movements.

Dangl’s writing also frames his analysis of Bolivia in the broader context of Latin American politics. By drawing on creative and functional examples of community-based, socialist-minded initiatives from across the continent, such as factory takeover co-operatives in Argentina and comedor libres (community-operated soup kitchens) in Caracas, he shows that alternatives to neoliberalism are indeed possible.

In The Price of Fire, Dangl asserts that colonialism of the past has been replaced with economic policies of the present. Since colonization, “the wealth in the rest of the world [has] depended on poverty in Latin America,” he writes.

Despite being a country rich in natural resources, Bolivia is, economically, the poorest country in South America. The dearth of social services and basic infrastructure is crystalline in Dangl’s depictions -- especially of the hyper-urbanized city El Alto on the fringe of La Paz -- but Bolivia’s potent social movements and community organizations are filling these chasms with pro-active articulations for change.

Throughout successive dictatorships and a long stretch of Cold War interventionism in Bolivia, people were not able to express their needs through the political system, and were driven to the streets. In a phone interview, Dangl explains that the impetus for the Bolivian people to mobilize so effectively stems from absolute necessity. “Economic and political policies affect their living rooms, their stomachs.”

Bolivian social movements have become extremely cohesive. In El Alto, “the city that contains a nation,” even the street vendors are unionized -- they attend community meetings and shut down during strikes.

Perhaps The Price of Fire’s most endearing attribute is the conversations Dangl shares with people he meets on his travels, from elderly coca growers and government officials, to street-youth theatre performers and graffiti artists. Abraham Bojorquez, a political hip- hop artist based in El Alto, tells of being in the military during a 2003 uprising in response to IMF-imposed income tax hikes. Thirty-one people -- protestors as well as bystanders -- were killed during the violent repression carried out by the Bolivian military. Bojorquez quickly left the military and joined the other side. He now rhymes in Spanish, English, Portuguese, Quechua and Aymara (two of the principle indigenous languages in Bolivia) and sees this politically charged music as an “instrument of struggle, an instrument of the people.”

The election of Evo Morales to presidency in December 2005 was a victory for Bolivian social movements and marks a stark shift in Bolivian politics. Morales, the former leader of the Six Federations Coca Growers’ Union, made the transition to the Movement Towards Socialism Party (MAS) and was elected on an explicit anti-imperialist, anti-neoliberal platform. He is the first indigenous president Bolivia has had, despite the fact that the country’s population is 60 per cent indigenous.

“Morales and Lula [the working class president of Brazil] are two amazing examples of really important social advances that can push Latin America, Bolivia and Brazil out of the intense divisions between rich and poor, indigenous and mestizo [part Spanish descent],” says Dangl on the phone from Minnesota, a stop on his recent book tour. In The Price of Fire, however, Dangl does not idealize Bolivia’s precarious position, situated in a “continent on a tightrope.”

When elected, Morales promised nationalization of gas, improvement of coca policies and a new constitution. However, his promises have not been entirely fulfilled. Morales swiftly introduced a legal quota arrangement for coca growers, but previous contentious laws are still in place; he has improved gas policies immensely, but a full expropriation of the resource has yet to be seen. Finally, the new constitution is still in the works.

Since Morales’ election, Bolivian social movements have shifted from antagonism to collaboration with the new government, explains Dangl, but the cohesive relationship is a delicate one. “I think the danger or the challenge among many of these movements now is to work with their new allies in the government without jeopardizing their own independence or autonomy -- the same independence that empowered them from the beginning, outside of the political sphere…There’s a danger that all the momentum that has built up, particularly over the past six years, could be dispersed and weakened because of this centralization of power with Evo in the government.”

In addition to a healthy criticism of the Morales administration, Dangl does not allow the positive attributes of the MAS to eclipse the salient racism, classism and sexism in Bolivia. He interviews Julieta Ojeda and Maria Galindo of the La Paz-based collective Mujeres Creando, a “small influential group of anarcho-feminists not very well-liked in Bolivian society.” This aversion to progressive feminist groups, Dangl says, is indicative of prevalent sexism throughout the country.

In a corner of the Mujeres Creando’s multi-purpose centre, crowded with pamphlets and books, Galindo tells Dangl that the sexism and repression in Bolivia is not much different from anywhere else in the world. In fact, neither is the colonial history, the impact of structural adjustment policies, or the foreign ownership of resources. What is unique is the Bolivian people’s response and their ability to instigate and implement fundamental paradigm shifts, whether in the streets, the coca fields, or the congress. And, as Mujeres Creando demonstrates, repressive structures within these movements will also be held to the flames.

The Price of Fire is available through AK Press

For further reading, check out UpsideDownWorld and Mujeres Creando

The Price of Fire

Cochabamba Unrest

dylan — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 03:24:38 +0000

The Andean Information Network, once its website is up and running again, has a few more articles about the current developments in Cochabamba, Bolivia. As well, this blog offers a good conglomeration of news stories, including translations from local press, on a variety of topics related to the country's politics.

Minerals, Gas and Spin-offs

Tue, 24 Oct 2006 18:07:49 +0000

CIDA's resource regulation projects in Bolivia

Tin miner from Siglo XX, Department of Potosi, Bolivia. photo: Dawn Paley

With the election of Evo Morales and his party to parliament in late 2005, the political landscape in Bolivia shifted drastically. The move to nationalize hydrocarbon resources on May 1, 2006, took many by surprise, representing a clean break from the way politics had traditionally been done in the Andean country.

Bolivia is part of a new trend in Latin America today, where governments are making links with each other and trying to make the exploitation of their resources work for their citizens rather than for large corporations. This new context is vital for those wishing to understand the Canadian government's role in Bolivia, particularly through the work of the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA).

Bolivia is one of nine "countries of focus" identified by CIDA, and a recipient of one of their largest bilateral country programs. CIDA's Programming Framework for Bolivia (FCP) includes a minimum bilateral budget of $50 million, plus an additional $14 million to be shared between counterpart funds and multilateral partners including the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank.

From the bilateral budget, 50 per cent is shared between healthcare, gender, environment, project management, and water and sanitation. The remaining $25 million is devoted to "the modernization of the state," which is further divided into three branches: civil service and public sector reform, funding of the human rights Ombudsman's office, and "the third and most established component… the formulation and effective enforcement of regulatory frameworks in the energy and mineral resources sectors."

Looking through the lens of regulation in the mineral and energy sectors is one way (albeit limited) of analyzing CIDA's work in Bolivia, a lens that is crucial to understanding an important element of Canada's taxpayer-funded 'development' happening in Bolivia.

Mining and Development

From the outset, CIDA's development assistance to Bolivia has been closely linked with resource extraction. The very first Canadian aid to Bolivia was in 1967, when the government granted $1,620,000 in loans to the Bolivian government for the purchase of mining equipment.

It is difficult to know exactly how CIDA funds aimed towards the mining sector have affected policy in Bolivia. Not only would it be nearly impossible to trace the outcome of CIDA donations to multilateral partners involved in mining regulation, but accessing information from Bolivia is also difficult. As doctoral candidate Alejandra Roncallo noted at a 2002 conference sponsored by York University, because of Bolivia's secrecy laws, which were adopted in 1996, no information regarding the role of the Canadian government in designing Bolivia's new mining regulations is available.

What is clear, however, is that the policy changes that brought COMIBOL (formerly the state-owned mining corporation) to its knees in 1985 ushered in waves of foreign investment that have often had severe economic and social repercussions for Bolivians.

One example of this is the "Christmas Massacre." Seven Bolivians were killed and 30 wounded in 1996 when 800 to 900 members of Bolivian police and military forces intervened in a conflict between Canadian-owned Da Capo Resources/ Vista Gold Corporation and community members in Amayapampa, Bolivia.

Referencing the Christmas Massacre, Pedro Gomez Rocabado, a former miner now working with mining communities, noted in 2002 that the Bolivian government had "an unwillingness to uphold the law or enforce agreements that might infringe on investors' interests, thereby maintaining a development model that prioritizes corporate accumulation of wealth while abandoning Bolivians to their continuing impoverishment."

Hydrocarbons and Development

According to the 1996 Report of the Auditor General of Canada, Canada has been affecting hydrocarbon policy in Bolivia since 1989, when CIDA, Petro-Canada and the Bolivian government began working together to "modernize [Bolivia's] public oil and gas industry through the Bolivia Oil and Gas Project." The same report goes on to explain benefits of the project that included the following: "22 Canadian firms received spin-off benefits from the Bolivian Oil and Gas Project; [and] approximately $20 million in related commercial spin-offs in South America for Canadian firms since April 1995."

In their recent book Impasse in Bolivia: Neoliberal Hegemony And Popular Resistance, authors Linda Farthing and Benjamin Kohl explain that, "an increasingly important component of development assistance includes 'institutional capacity building' -- creating the environment needed for markets to operate." One concrete example of 'institutional capacity building' sponsored by CIDA is the ongoing $8.25 million Hydrocarbon Regulatory Assistance Project, initially granted to PriceWaterhouseCoopers, and recently reassigned to IBM.

Referencing the Hydrocarbon Regulatory Assistance Project, Farthing and Kohl state that, "rather than working for the interests of Bolivia, 'assistance' was designed by the international agency (in this case bilateral) to serve the interests of either international corporations or those based in their own countries." They go on to quote a now-unavailable CIDA report from 2004 that "clearly demonstrates that the generosity of the Canadian government provided about an 800 per cent return to Canadian businesses."

As the Bolivian government moves forward with a new energy agenda, breaking with the privatization-centred energy policies of the last 20 years, CIDA continues to finance energy sector projects that many argue have questionable value to most Bolivians.

Dawn Paley investigates how CIDA's 'development work' is influencing resource extraction in Bolivia.

Evo Morales, president-elect of Bolivia, inaugurated.

Mon, 30 Jan 2006 18:09:16 +0000

On January 22, Evo Morales, leader of MAS (Movimiento al Socialismo, or, "Movement Toward Socialism"), and Bolivia's president-elect was inaugurated, and his cabinet sworn in. Morales won 53.7% of the vote in the December 18 2005 election, in which an unprecedented 84% of the electorate participated. Morales' unambiguous victory represents the largest show of popular support for a presidential candidate in the last 30 years, and came despite the strong opposition of Bolivia's mainstream press and despite allegations of electoral fraud in areas where MAS' platform has currency. One such area is the city of El Alto, where the vast majority of residents are indigenous people, and which has been an epicenter of popular resistance to 15 years of neoliberal privatization (1985-2000). Morales is riding the country's latest wave of broad-based struggle against what they call imperialist exploitation. Bolivia's Indigenous previously made headlines with the Cochacamba "Water War" in 2000, in which a popular uprising ousted the Bechtel corporation and decisively halted the IMF-sponsored plan to privatize water in Bolivia. The plan included a ban on collecting rainwater without a permit and drastic price increases.

Morales, a militant cocalero (coca-leaf farmer) of the Aymara nation, campaigned on a platform emphasizing nationalization of Bolivia's natural resources. In particular, gas reserves and reform – or, as Morales calls it, "decolonization" – of the constitution. These strategies are aspects of a broader program of indigenous self-determination: "[t]he moment has come for the original nations to take power in our own hands," Morales declares on his website. In Bolivia the Aymara and Quechua nations constitute the majority of the population, but only now, for the first time since the Spanish colonial invasion in 1532, are they being politically represented by an indigenous President. Despite the Bolivia's abundance of valuable natural resources like copper, tin, and silver, 64% of Bolivians live under the poverty line. Morales has promised to transform this state of affairs, but some observers have reservations about his intent to make good on these promises.

Morales has been criticized for having no clear plan to completely nationalize Bolivia's natural resources. Writer Jorge Martin quoted Morales as saying that "We will nationalize the natural resources, gas and hydrocarbons…We are not going to nationalize the assets of the multinationals. Any state has the right to use its natural resources. We must establish new contracts with the oil companies based on equilibrium. We are going to guarantee the returns on their investment and their profits, but not looting and stealing." According to some critics, this distinction – and the economic policy it implies – is a tenuous one.

Under intense pressure from private interests, the U.S. government and the IMF, many say Morales will be hard-pressed to follow through even with moderate nationalization plans. Arguing that Bolivia will not ready to transition into socialism for at least another half-century, vice-president Álvaro García Linera has characterized MAS' economic policy as promoting what he calls "Andean capitalism," the backbone of which is a combination of "community-based," "family-based," and "'modern industrial'" modes of production.

It remains to be seen whether, now that it has won the mandate, MAS will forget its left-indigenous origins and its popular foundations in social movements. Morales' administration faces a difficult choice: it can submit to pressure from the U.S., private interests, and the IMF, and lose popular support and the mandate; or it can nationalize hydrocarbons and risk losing IMF loans and promised debt relief, or being deposed through U.S. military intervention.

Reading:

» Monthly Review: Left-Indigenous Struggles in Bolivia: Searching for Revolutionary Democracy

» UpsideDownWorld.org: Bolivia's Trial by Fire

» Green Left Weekly: Bolivia: Bush's new nightmare?

» International Viewpoint The MAS is of the Centre-Left

» In Defense of Marxism: Bolivia after the election victory of the MAS - Morales cannot serve two masters

» Official site: Evo Morales

Bolivia on a Tightrope

Fri, 10 Jun 2005 17:51:38 +0000

The struggle for control of resources and the current crisis

Social movements mobilize in La Paz to demand the nationalization of natural gas. Photo: Bolivia Indymedia

On June 6th 2005, after months of steady road blockades and protests demanding the nationalization of the country's natural gas reserves, President Carlos Mesa offered his resignation to congress, explaining he was incapable of presiding over such a tumultuous country. This was one of many climactic points in a series of popular uprisings over the destiny of the second largest gas reserves in South America. At this writing, the fate of the gas, and the geopolitical future of the country, is still very much in question.

A Recent History of Division

Bolivia's reserves constitute an estimated 1.5 trillion cubic meters of gas, which at current market prices, are worth more than US$1.5 billion. The unpopular ex-President Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada, commonly referred to as "Goni" in Bolivia, pushed to privatize the nation's gas reserves in a deal with foreign companies such as British Gas, Exxon-Mobil and Spain's Repsol in 2003. Under the deal, the Bolivian government was to receive a meager 18% of revenues. This percentage struck a raw chord with many Bolivians. For centuries, foreign companies had been exploiting the nation's natural resources such as coal, copper and tin, making enormous profits while Latin America's second poorest country struggled on. In recent gas-related uprisings, many Bolivians have been trying to make sure history didn't repeat itself.

Outraged by Goni's privatization plan, activists took to the streets in what has been called Bolivia's first "Gas War." From September to October of 2003, protests, road blockades and strikes paralyzed the country. Often without sufficient political representation, protest groups have become adept at directing political and media attention to their demands by shutting down the economy with road blockades and strikes. Protesters demanded that the natural gas reserves be nationalized, and run by the government so that profits from the business could go to poorer sectors of society, helping to build much-needed hospitals, roads and schools.

In 2003, protesters also demanded the resignation of President Sanchez de Lozada, who had continually channeled state resources toward foreign investors and international donors instead of social programs to address the needs of Bolivian people. Sanchez de Lozada's heavy-handed protest control tactics also left nearly sixty dead in the month long Gas War, the large majority of them protesters. At the end of the conflict, Sanchez de Lozada fled the country, leaving the administration in the hands of Vice-president Carlos Mesa.

Mesa knew that if he was to survive the political climate, he would have to concede to some of the diverse demands of the protesting sectors. Among his promises were plans for a national referendum on the gas exportation issue and justice for the victims of the 2003 Gas War.

On July 18th, 2004 the referendum took place. Voters were to choose yes or no to five questions including whether to repeal Sanchez de Lozada's gas exportation plan, increase revenue with a new plan, use the gas as a strategic way to gain access to the sea from Chile, and use most of the profits from the exportation plan for the development of schools, hospitals, roads and jobs. Unfortunately for Bolivian protest groups, the referendum did not include the nationalization of the gas as an option.

Many voters did not understand the convoluted wording of the questions, which were not only pointed towards a "yes" vote, but also left open opportunities for corporate exploitation of the gas. Citizens were also reportedly forced into voting by a harsh new law which called for the imprisonment of any person who refused to participate in the referendum.

The controversial referendum led to divisions among activist leaders in Bolivia. Jamie Solares from the Bolivian Worker's Union and Felipe Quispe, the director of the Bolivian Farm Workers Federation, led blockades and protests against the referendum, but were not able to generate enough grassroots support to stop or impede the voting. Congressman Evo Morales, leader of the Movement Toward Socialism Party (MAS) and a major coca farmers' union, supported the referendum. Some viewed Morales' endorsement as a strategic move to gain urban middle support for a presidential bid in the next election.

After the polls closed on July 18th, it was announced that seventy five percent of the voters said "yes" to all five questions. Yet for months, gridlock in congress, pressure from foreign investors and protesting groups postponed any major decisions on what to do with the gas.

The violence of the 2003 conflict still hasn't been fully investigated, and members of Bolivia's security forces have not been charged. However, Mesa has differed from his predecessor in one significant way: he has refused to call upon the use of lethal security force to break up the many protests and road blockades. In the year and half that Mesa has been in office, though confrontations between protesters and security forces have resulted in injuries, no deaths have been reported.

Gas War: 2005

In March of 2005, protest groups made up of unions, farmers, civil society organizations and students, were tired of waiting for the government to nationalize the gas. Through both independent and coordinated efforts, protesters marched, blockaded vital highways and shut down four oilfields near the central city of Cochabamba.

On March 6, after facing an estimated 800 protests during his term in office, Mesa stated that the country had become "ungovernable" and offered his resignation. He blamed Evo Morales for the chaos in the country and used the resignation announcement as a threat to hand power over to the President of the Parliament, Hormando Vaca Diez. Due to his ties to foreign investors and the main right-wing party in government, Vaca Diez was highly unpopular with Bolivian leftists and was likely to respond more violently to protests than Mesa.

Mesa was hoping the gesture, which many called a plea for sympathy, would force the left to back off. Yet not only was Mesa's resignation rejected by congress, but his announcement backfired. During Mesa's show of weakness, diverse protest groups led by Morales, Quispe and Solares came together to re-launch a past protest front known as the People's General Staff. The group, formed to unite the country's social movements, called for continued strikes and demanded that governmental royalties from the sale of the gas be raised to a minimum of 50%.

On May 17th 2005, the Bolivian Congress passed a gas law which imposed a new 32% tax on production on top of the existing royalties of 18%. However, it fell short of the protesters' demands as they said it would be easy for the oil companies to evade the 32% tax. This set off another round of marches and road blockades. The legislation also agitated foreign investors, who claimed it gave far too much control to the government. The law increased taxes for foreign companies and stated that indigenous groups would have to be consulted about further use of gas in their areas and would receive compensation for the use of their land. Many foreign investors had been pumping money into Bolivia's gas industry since 1996 and felt that the new law was confiscating their investments. Some threatened to sue the Bolivian government in international courts.

Jefferey Webber published an article in ZNet, which quoted US Treasury Department's Assistant Secretary of International Affairs Randal Quarles as saying that, if the new gas law were to go into effect, it would be a "sure thing that the first measure would be the suspension of investments, at minimum while Bolivia continues this uncertainty." Quarles also suggested that the law might influence the amount of financial support that organizations such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank offer to the Bolivian government.

The day before the law was passed, 100,000 protesters, primarily from El Alto, a working class community near La Paz, the country's capital, rallied outside parliament demanding Mesa's resignation. In the proceeding days, other sectors joined the El Alto protesters. The La Paz teachers' union called a strike, peasant unions across the country organized road blockades, and the National Congress of the Miners' Union also began marching in La Paz. The MAS party organized a massive march from the city of Cochabamba to La Paz, a distance of 190 kilometers.

In an article on ZNet, Nick Buxton quotes a miner named Iriaro who had traveled six hours to join protests in La Paz as saying, "People are suffering to get here as they have so little money. But I decided to come because we need to reclaim our natural resources. We have been robbed for centuries and our government is robbing us again."

Not all protesters shared the same goals. Evo Morales said that Bolivia should receive 50% of the royalties from the sale of the gas, a demand which had been previously supported by protesters but by this point was viewed by many as too moderate. As the perhaps strongest leftist presidential candidate, Morales and his positions are often highly scrutinized. In an article in CounterPunch, Forrest Hylton explained that "Morales poses as the defender of democracy in hopes of winning over the urban middle class... Though the U.S. Embassy, the weak and divided Bolivian elite, and the London Economist see Morales as a wolf in sheep's clothing, a strategic radical disguised as a tactical moderate, in rhetoric and fact Morales is the strongest defender of Bolivian democracy as presently configured. Neither he nor MAS want to see the constitutional order unravel, as both have had their sights set on the 2007 elections since 2002, when Morales nearly won the presidential race."

By May 24, tens of thousands of protesters had again descended into La Paz from El Alto. They were met with rubber bullets and tear gas from security forces. Six protesters were reportedly injured in the clashes. Road blockades were set up on main roads across the country, shutting down routes to La Paz, the nearby international airport, and roads to the borders with Peru and Chile.

On June 2nd, as a last ditch effort, Mesa announced plans to re-write the constitution in a national assembly. With such an assembly, Mesa hoped to calm the protests by offering marginalized indigenous people a larger voice in the government. Under his decree, members to the constitutional assembly would be elected on October 16, 2005. According to a June 3rd report by the AFP News Service, Evo Morales, stating that Mesa's proposal could easily be rejected by congress, said it had "good intentions, but is unconstitutional... a new show put on by the government [to demobilize the protests]."

Photo: Bolivia Indymedia

Protesters were not satisfied with Mesa's proposal, as it didn't offer an immediate response to their demands for nationalization of the country's gas. Protest groups pledged to continue road blockades and marches until the gas was nationalized and plans for the constitutional assembly were passed by congress.

Mesa also proposed a referendum on the autonomy of resource-rich areas in Bolivia, such as the province of Santa Cruz, where much of Bolivian gas is located. There is a strong drive in this region to privatize the gas. Protest groups are deeply against right-wing demands for such autonomy, as it would thwart any plans for full nationalization.

On June 6th, after another full day of protest and road blockades, Mesa again offered his resignation to congress. "This is as far as I can go," Mesa stated in a televised address. The Andean Information Network reported that Mesa also said that he had done his best, and that he asked Bolivians for forgiveness if he shared responsibility for the profound political crisis that was gripping the nation. Although the MAS party demanded Mesa's resignation, it was not a key demand of many groups; most primarily advocated for the nationalization of the gas. For many protesters, the issue wasn't who was President; it was who was in control of the nation's gas. As such, Mesa's resignation is unlikely to offer a solution to Bolivia's crisis.

Promising not to repeat the mistakes of his predecessor, Mesa did not call upon the use of lethal force by police to quell protests. However, should Mesa's resignation be accepted, the presidency would then go to Vaca Diez, who has often advocated the use of force to stop the protests. During the Sanchez de Lozada administration such crackdowns only fueled national discontent.

Even before Mesa offered his resignation, Vaca Diez said that the idea of having early elections is "gaining momentum as a way out of the problem". Morales also told reporters that holding early elections "is the only way we will find a political solution." If early presidential elections do take place, Morales may have a solid chance of winning. He lost to Sanchez de Lozada in 2002 by less than 2% of the vote. Whoever ends up becoming president will continue to face similar pressure from foreign investors, international donors and a largely discontented majority of citizens.

As the conflict has proven so far, only full nationalization of the gas is likely to satisfy protesters. Marches, blockades and strikes are expected to continue across the country. Meanwhile, the second largest natural gas reserves on the continent remain in the ground.

Benjamin Dangl worked at the Andean Information Network in Bolivia in 2003. He is the editor of Upside Down World, an online magazine about activism and politics in South America. Contact: Ben@upsidedownworld.org. Thanks to April Howard for editorial help with this article.

» Jeffery Webber: Nationalization! The first two Days of Bolivia's Second Gas War

» Jeffery Webber: Bolivia Erupts

» Bolivia Back to the Streets? Natural Gas and Popular Struggle

» Forrest Hylton: A Radical Democracy Movement Mobilizes

» BBC: Bolivian protesters reject offer

» BBC: Bolivian president offers to quit

» Agence France-Presse Bolivian president sets date for votes in bid to quell unrest

» Federico Fuentes: Bolivia: A nation holds its breath

Benjamin Dangl explains the ongoing struggle for control of Bolivia's natural resources and the current uprising.

International News for October

Tue, 21 Oct 2003 03:44:07 +0000

160,000 Climate Change Deaths Annually: Study

A study conducted by the World Health Organization and London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine estimated that climate change is responsible for 160,000 deaths per year, mostly as a result of side effects like malaria to malnutrition. Floods, droughts, and warmer weather are among the destructive forces that lead to increased sickness and lack of food. Researchers said that the climate change causes the most damage to children in developing countries in Asia, Africa, and Central America.

The report noted that the estimate could double as soon as 2020.

Most scientists have long agreed that average global temperatures are rising, leading to more extreme weather patterns. Recently, research has increasingly determined that natural cycles of warming cannot account for increases in this century, and that humanity's contribution plays a major role.

» Reuters: 160,000 Said Dying Yearly from Global Warming

* * *

Bolivian Farmers and Poor Stage Blockades, Protests

A Bolivian soldier fires at a crowd in El Alto, Bolivia. Over 70 civilians have been killed during the nationwide revolt. Indymedia Bolivia

A plan eliminate cocaine production, conflicts over natural resources and widespread poverty have sparked nationwide protests and blockades in Bolivia. The Bolivian government has responded with military force to break up blockades, using tear gas and snipers. Over 70 civilians were killed, and hundreds injured.

"These bases were never debated in the Bolivian Congress or by the Bolivian people," said one human rights observer. Also at issue is a government plan to sell natural gas to the US, which protesters say would benefit foreigners instead of being used to address the country's crippling poverty.

Bolivian farmers say they grow coca because they cannot compete with subsidized agriculture from the US and richer neighbours. Previous Bolivian governments have used the military to destroy the majority of the country's coca plantations.

Over 70 per cent of Bolivia's population lives in poverty.

» The Democracy Center: US Drug War At Center Stage In Renewed Bolivian Violence (2000)

» Reuters: Bolivia Sends Troops to Quell Protests, 5 Dead

» Reuters: Tanks shield Bolivia president from growing revolt

» InterPress: Poverty in Bolivia to Stay for Generations

» Americas.org: Bolivia, the Drug War, and a Leaf

» Media Awareness Project: Bolivia: Drug War Casualties

» Common Dreams: Bolivia in Crisis over Plan to Export Natural Gas to US

* * *

Israeli Opposition, Arafat Agree on Unofficial Peace Plan

In a conference sponsored by the Swiss government, several members of the Israeli opposition Labour party and the Palestinian authority have agreed to a peace plan known as the Geneva Accord. The plan includes the dismantling of most Israeli settlements in the West Bank, the creation of a Palestinian State roughly within pre-1967 borders. The agreement also gives Israel control over which Palestinian refugees can return to their former homes in what is now Israel.

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon dismissed the agreement as illegitimate. "By what right are left-wing people proposing moves that Israel can never do, nor will ever do?" The US State Department was not involved, but emphasized that its own road map as the way to achieve peace.

» Independent: After three years of carnage, does this secret plan provide a new road to peace in the Middle East?

» Ha'aretz: US Not Involved in Geneva Accords

» AP: Arafat, Peres support unofficial Israeli-Palestinian peace treaty

* * *

Small Arms End a Life Every Minute: Amnesty Int'l

Armed with facts, a group led by Amnesty International, Oxfam, and others is making the case for an international treaty regulating international trade in small arms. In a recent press conference, the group aimed to show that widespread availability of inexpensive guns in developing countries has transformed daily life and made brutal repression and pointless civil wars possible in developing countries.

While an estimated 639 million small arms exist, two thirds of which are privately owned, an additional eight million are sold each year. In 2001, 16 billion units of ammunition were produced: more than enough to shoot the world's population twice.

Since September 11, US arms exports and military aid to other countries has rapidly increased. Foreign military financing rose from $3.56 billion in 2001 to $4.1 billion in 2003, while economic support fell by $20 million. Amnesty and other groups have expressed concern over military aid to countries like Pakistan and Uzbekistan, known for poor human rights records.

"There is a compelling legal basis for this treaty and the moral case is overwhelming," an Amnesty International representative said.

» Independent: One death a minute: toll of the booming arms trade

» Foreign Policy in Focus: Post-9/11 Economic Windfalls for Arms Manufacturers

» Federation of American Scientists: U.S. Policy on Small/Light Arms Exports

» Arms Trade Resource Center: Increases in Military Spending and Security Assistance Since 9/11