The cultural battle between lowlands and highlands in Bolivia is slowly moving along but making waves. The pro-capitalism, center-right departments of Santa Cruz, Beni, and Pando have voted for autonomy and other eastern provinces are weighing the pluses and minuses of a vote.
This is an effort by the culturally Spanish Bolivians to preserve their economic freedoms against the currently more culturally Indian and socialist federal government. The eastern departments due not want independence, they claim they just want to protect themselves in a time of concern.
President Morales has declared the referendums and illegal and vows to preserve the government's rights to rule the departments. For their part the eastern provinces are vowing to push a recall of Morales but any effort will fail due lack of support in the mountainous west.
While their is potential for low level violence with gangs on both sides the military will probably keep order. The military's background is mixed, some have American training in democratic government, and all of the officer's view themselves as protectors of the just constitution. The army will preserve the peace and not interfere unless it feels one side has over stepped the constitution. If that happens, there will be a winner in this cultural battle real quick.
6 comments:
That's about right. To understand why, this quote from James Petras' article explaining the mechanisms and workings of US imperialism: Consistent with traditional empire building principles, Washington only supports separatists in countries that refuse to submit to imperial domination and opposes separatists who resist the empire and its allies. In other words, imperial ideologues are neither 'hypocrites’ nor resort to 'double standards’ (as they are accused by liberal critics) – they publicly uphold the 'Empire first’ principle as their defining criteria for evaluating separatist movements and granting or denying support." The link to the article containing the above quote is: http://www.uruknet.de/?p=44693 It not only concerns Bolivia, but other attempts at US hegemony around the world, and is well worth reading.
Regards,,,John
Whoah, slow down there John. I don't really follow. Plus, your talk of imperalism, your blog dedicated to "investigating" 9/11, and the fact you link to THE website of Baathist terrorists in Iraq is pushing you a little far off the edge there.
Catholicgauze,,,
The intent of my previous post was to agree with your concluding statement, and to add to it some additional understanding. What did I get for my efforts? No substantive response, but rather an attack.
First: You say that you don't really follow. Did you read the article, or did you not due to where the article was posted? (I liken that to a scenario of you enjoying a beautiful day, yet dismissing the fact of the sun shining, due to who happened to mention that it in fact was…..am I close there?)
The quote of Petras (somehow the opening quotation mark after the colon got left off,,,my apology) opens and defines the topic quite well, particularly our history of involvement in other nations (or not) and why. Plenty of examples were given in support of his thesis. What part did you not understand?
Second: Part of my website does indeed pose questions and make assertions concerning 9-11 (as a result of 48 years of personal experience cutting and welding steel) but what does that have to do with the topic under discussion in your blog that I replied to? Why bring that into the discussion? Did you think it might invalidate unrelated issues? Please be specific.
Third: if you read and understood the Petras article, you might have realized that the present-day division between the Baathist and the Shiite Islamic sects, as well as the Kurds, is an artificial construct by those who covet control of Iraqi resources, using one of the most proven concepts of empire: divide and conquer. Any open-eyed reading and understanding of history should make Petras' argument abundantly clear. The way it relates to Bolivia today, is Petras pointing out that the same tactics are being used by the same power, to achieve the same ends, for many of the same rewards--in this case, one of them being control of Bolivia's natural gas, by the means of using vast amounts of US dollars to create divisiveness within Bolivia.
Forth: in logic, when you intentionally use what you consider to be a derogatory term against your opposite debater, it is called 'poisoning the well', and regardless of other considerations, it means you lose the argument.
If you'd care to further discuss my posts in an intelligent and civilized way, I ask that you please do so in a manner which addresses the facts and issues at hand, (as I have tried to do) rather than to obfuscate by bringing in irrelevant side issues (like my website)or insulting insinuations (like your over-the-edge comment). Stick to the facts, and I will gladly debate you--as a matter of fact, I look forward to it and await your reply.
With lesser regards,,,John
PS…I don’t understand the Catholicgauze name you have chosen. I know that one meaning of catholic is universal and gauze is a bandage—are you implying that you are entirely wrapped in gauze? Perhaps an honest debate will at least remove some of that from your eyes, to help you see better. Just a thought.
What a bunch of Hypocrisy. Democracy! The U.S. preaches democracy only if it is in their economic interests. Just one of the many examples would be Saudi Arabia. This country is far worse than most countries when it comes to freedom and human rights abuses, yet we support them unconditionally as long as we keep getting their oil.
I would like to see regime change in Saudi Arabia and the great U.S. bring freedom to the people of Saudi Arabia just like in Iraq. The U.S. is not the only country doing this. France, U.K., Germany, Spain, and many former colonial powers support dictatorial regimes, especially in Africa as long as we keep getting their resources. We like preaching about democracy, but only where we find convenient for us. When a country does have a democratic government and if they take socialist or anti-capitalistic policies, then we have a problem and as in the case of the DRC and so many more countries, we simply terrorize and remove democratically elected governments and prop us dictators who serve our interests. Western governments truly need to practice what they preach, not in places they see convenient, but in every place, unconditionally. I am not sure if the U.S. has anything to do with anti-Morales propaganda in Bolivia, but I would not be one bit surprised if that was the case. For truth, just look at history and just look at present day policies.
I do not understand where any of these point of views are coming from. I never mentioned U.S. involvment once (this fight clearly has supporters in the usual suspect countries but this is an internal Bolivian affair!)
This is definitely an internal affair for Bolivia and most parties involved are Bolivian. However, like I stated earlier, if you look at history and present day policies of many countries, their objective is to support policies that promote their businesses and not necessarily good ideals. So my point is that although it is a Bolivian affair, it is very possible and probable that certain outside powers will fund and influence different groups in Bolivia, be it the government or the opposition. Just making a point and it might not necessarily be completely relevant to this particular post. Cheers.
Post a Comment