Two more Bolivian provinces hold 'autonomy' referendums

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Agence France-Presse

Two more Bolivian provinces hold 'autonomy' referendums
11 hours ago

LA PAZ (AFP) — Two Bolivian provinces will take Santa Cruz's lead and vote Sunday for autonomy measures that President Evo Morales has branded illegal, amid rising tension between rich lowlands and poor highlands in this landlocked nation.

While small in population and economic clout, Beni and Pando in Bolivia's eastern Amazon basin on Friday defiantly set up polling stations for the plebiscites, as local politicians wound up their campaigns against Morales's socialist government.

~snip~
All four provinces from the eastern lowland region are resisting land and resource redistribution policies pushed by Morales that would benefit more the poorer, mostly indigenous Bolivians of the mountainous western regions.

~snip~
Both their governors belong to the right-wing Podemos party, the main opposition group to Evo Morales.

In Beni, there are 134,468 eligible voters; in Pando, 28,990.



Read more: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jyFJ-Jw7H3V-FP27P8tC-u0pZjag

[Judi Lynn]

1. Bolivian Racism Runs Amok in Sucre

Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Bolivian Racism Runs Amok in Sucre

Racism Run Amok

On Saturday May 24th President Evo Morales was scheduled to visit the city of Sucre on the commemoration of the 199th anniversary of Latin America’s first steps of independence from Spain, General Sucre's "first shout of liberty (May 25, 1809)." The President planned on delivering ambulances for Chuquisaca’s rural communities and to announce development projects for the region, all actions typical of what Presidents do here on such dates. The events were to take place in the “Patriotic” Stadium, surrounded by and under the protection of indigenous people from different parts of the province.

However, the night before the event, organized groups antagonistic to Morales began to provoke disturbances around the stadium and stoned a house where a fundraising dinner was taking place for a MAS candidate for Governor, Walter Valda.

Then on Saturday, the day of the anniversary, the anti-Morales violence went into racist overdrive. Mobs armed with sticks and dynamites confronted the police and military. The government retreated the public's armed forces, cancelled all scheduled parades (of the military and police), and President Morales’ visit.

With the police and military presence gone, the indigenous peasants who had come to see the President were left face-to-face with armed civilians from urban Sucre, among them university students of the public University of San Francisco Xavier. More than two dozen indigenous peasants were beaten and captured, their few possessions were taken away and they were forced to walk for three miles and then kneel shirtless in front of Sucre’s House of Liberty. Sucre mobs humiliated their indigenous captives in a repeat of a ritual from the most brutal pages of colonialism. Under threat of violence, and half naked in a public square the captives were forced to apologize for the offense of coming to the city to receive President Morales. "Llamas, ask forgiveness," the mob ordered. Among the captives was the mayor of the rural town of Mojocoya.

Video footage of the abuse can be seen here.*

*This is the link:
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=iDNRhLKQyzk

Journalists in Sucre who bore witness to the racism unleashed also became targets. Yesterday, Red Erbol, a prominent association of radios and various institutions of communication denounced the attack of Red Erbol affiliated journalist María Elena Paco Durán of ACLO. Ms. Durán was attacked and insulted, prevented from carrying out her work as a reporter. According to Ms. Durán, at one point, the aggressors threatened to drench her with alcohol and set her on fire.

The Campesino Federation of Chuquisaca demanded the resignation of Jaime Barrón, Vice-Chancellor of the University, and of the President of Sucre's Interinstitutional Committee, a civic group that has been a leading force in anti-Morales protests. Threatening to block roads and close off valves of gas pipelines (if Barrón didn't resign), the Campesino Federation accused Barrón of promoting violence and racism.

Leaders of the Inter-institutional Committee, though denying any role in the violence inflicted upon the campesinos, have pleaded forgiveness for the degrading act committed in front of the House of Liberty.

More:
http://www.democracyctr.org/blog/2008/05/bolivian-racism-runs-amok-in-sucre.html

[Judi Lynn]

2. US Manoeuvre to Carve up Bolivia with Autonomy Vote

US Manoeuvre to Carve up Bolivia with Autonomy Vote

The illegal referendum held on Sunday to declare autonomy in Santa Cruz, Bolivia's richest province, is backed by the Bush administration in an attempt to halt the leftward drift of South America.

~snip~
The US ambassador, Philip Goldberg, who was appointed by the Bush administration in September 2006, has maneuvered behind the scenes to support the political forces opposed to Morales and his governing party, the Movement Towards Socialism (MAS). It is notable that Goldberg came to Bolivia from Pristina, Kosovo, where as the US Chief of Mission, he played a central role in orchestrating Kosovo’s independence from Serbia, which it had been a province of for centuries.

Last year Goldberg was photographed in Santa Cruz with a leading right-wing business magnate and a well-known Colombian narco-trafficker who had been detained by the local police. Then in late January of this year, the Embassy was caught giving aid to a special intelligence unit of the Bolivian police force. The embassy rationalized its aid by saying “the US government has a long history of helping the National Police of Bolivia in diverse programs.” US-Bolivian relations were next roiled in February when it was revealed that Peace Corps volunteers and a Fulbright scholar had been pressured by an Embassy official to keep tabs on “Venezuelans and Cubans” in the country. Since Morales took office over two years ago, more than $4 million has been provided by the US Agency for International Development to the political opposition.

Bolivia’s neighbors are strongly opposed to the separatist movement and its destabilizing impact on the region. Brazil and Argentina are both dependent on natural gas from Bolivia and fear that an internal conflict would interrupt their supplies. Argentinean David Caputo came to Bolivia as head of a mission of the Organization of American States to try set up a dialogue between the government and the opposition. He found the government willing to engage in discussions, but the opposition vehemently opposed. The United States has provided no support to these regional diplomatic efforts to avoid civil strife in Bolivia.

More:
http://www.neww.org.pl/en.php/news/news/1.html?&nw=4316&re=1

[Judi Lynn]

3. Meet South America's New Secessionists

May 30, 2008
From a Texan-Venezuelan to an Ecuadorian Giuliani

Meet South America's New Secessionists
By NIKOLAS KOZLOFF

Having failed to halt the tide of South America’s Pink Tide, Washington is seeking to cultivate relationships with secessionist leaders in order to facilitate the breakup of countries which share left leaning governments. In Bolivia, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has explicitly supported demands of the political opposition for greater regional autonomy in the eastern section of the country and has funneled millions of dollars to the right.

~snip~
Who are these secession leaders who wish to derail South America’s Pink Tide?

A Texan Venezuelan

With the largest inland lake in Latin America, the most fertile land and 40 percent of Venezuela's oil production, the western state of Zulia and its capital Maracaibo may rightly claim to be the country's productive backbone. Zulia has always thought of itself as the Texas of Venezuela -- a land dominated by oil, cattle and predominantly conservative politicians. It is the country’s most affluent and populous state.

Local residents have long taken pride in zulianidad - a state identity based loosely on Caribbean food and hospitality, a local musical genre known as gaita, and the syncretic Christian practices that dominate local religious life, chief among them worship of the "Black Christ" housed in Maracaibo's cathedral.

In the twentieth century some “Zulianos” sought greater autonomy from the central government. Historical documents in the Public Records Office of Kew Gardens in London suggest that U.S. oil companies have been embroiled in secession plots (for more on this murky history, see my earlier Counterpunch articles on Zulia secession).

~snip~
“I Need to Urinate On You”

Venezuela is not the only country facing an internal secessionist movement. In Ecuador, the right opposition to President Rafael Correa is coalescing around Jaime Nebot, the mayor of the coastal city of Guayaquil. Affiliated to the country’s Social Christian Party, Nebot ran twice for the Presidency, in 1992 and 1996. During his second presidential bid, Nebot ran on a pro-business platform stressing privatization of public services.

Born into a prominent Guayaquil family, Nebot entered politics in 1984 when President Leon Febres-Cordero appointed the ambitious young man Governor of Guayas province, the district encompassing Guayaquil.

Nebot’s association with Febres-Cordero, a key ally of Ronald Reagan at the time, is not flattering. As I explain in my new book, Revolution! South America and the Rise of the New Left (Palgrave-Macmillan), torture and killing by the military as well as disappearances and arbitrary arrests multiplied in Ecuador during this unfortunate period of the country’s political history.

~snip~
Meet Rubén Costas: Bolivia’s Secessionist

Fair skinned and European looking, Rubén Costas hardly resembles Bolivia’s indigenous president Evo Morales. Elected Prefect of the western department of Santa Cruz in 2005, Costas has become a key advocate for greater regional autonomy and a thorn in the side of the government in La Paz.

Following Costas’ election, the right opposition escalated its pressure on the Morales government, organizing protests in the city of Sucre against the President’s proposed Constitution which would have given the country’s indigenous majority a greater say in political decision making. When clashes erupted which resulted in the deaths of three demonstrators and a policeman, Costas pounced by calling for a 24-hour business strike.

An advocate for powerful business interests, Costas was also one of the right wing politicians who called for a referendum on Santa Cruz autonomy earlier this month. Prior to the referendum, Costas remarked hopefully that the departments of Tarija, Pando and Benin would join Santa Cruz in its drive for autonomy and “a second Bolivia will be created.”

More:
http://www.counterpunch.org/kozloff05302008.html



Manuel Rosales, Zulia secessionist, Venezuela



Jaime Nebot, Ecuador



Rubén Costas, Bolivia

[Peace Patriot]

4. The Bushites are organizing, funding and probably arming WHITE SEPARATISTS!

While we dick around in the U.S. with absurd accusations that the women supporting Hillary Clinton are racists, or that Obama supporters hate women, the Bush Junta is actively engaged in the REAL THING: Racism, segregation, apartheid IN BOLIVIA!

And, goddamit, this Bush-instigated civil war is coming to your town SOON. They mean to stir up a hot war in South America THIS YEAR, involving U.S. forces--and throw that hand grenade at Obama in November. Or at least that's how I read it. It's not going to be Iran; it's going to be BOLIVIA (--or possibly Venezuela and Ecuador, where the Bushites are supporting, funding, organizing and, more than likely, arming more secessionists, right next door to the "armed madhouse" of Colombia, paid for with $5.5 BILLION in military aid out of our pockets).

It's POSSIBLE that this will be a long war of attrition, to be carried on by Donald Rumsfeld, Blackwater, Colombian paramilitaries, Exxon Mobil and other global corporate predators after Bush/Cheney leave office (if they do), with or without U.S. troops (depending on how stupid or corrupt Obama's foreign policy advisers are--if they let him into the White House). But I don't think so. I think Rumsfeld wants to accomplish destabilization of the (oil rich) Andes region fast, and get U.S. troops committed, and quickly create a chaotic quagmire just before Obama takes office, and get him stuck there, occupying oil-rich parts of South America, so it's difficult to get out, or, if McBush is Diebolded into office, then Rumsfeld has a guarantee that U.S. troops will take "swift action" in support of these fascists, as he urges in his Dec '07 WaPo op-ed.*

The U.S. won't win--and can't win--this second oil war. But when has that stopped these fuckwads?

Coming to your town soon. Our sons, our daughters in uniform shooting at little brown people in the Andes, and being shipped home dead or crippled for life.

For what? For outright, blatant racists! For the rich! For the oil! To END democracy in South America!

--------------------

*"The Smart Way to Beat Tyrants Like Chávez," by Donald Rumsfeld, 12/1/07
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/30/AR2007113001800.html

More discussion:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3333051

[Judi Lynn]

5. It should be interesting to see how Unasur will be able to unite for a common defense against

schemes to overthrow South American democratically elected governments in the forming mutual defense system Lula has initiated, to help keep the bloody past from reoccurring:

Image of an Infighting South America Is History, Says Brazil's Lula
Written by Paula Laboissière
Friday, 30 May 2008

Brazilian President, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, said May Monday, May 26, that the creation of the Unasur (Union of South American Nations) should change the geopolitics of South America, making its member countries "stronger and more sovereign." To Lula, the bloc's formation represents the realization of a dream.

"It seemed like something impossible to accomplish because here, in South America, we were made to believe that we wouldn't be successful in anything, that we are poor, that we fight amongst ourselves and must depend on the United States and the European Union," he asserted.

South American heads of state gathered last Friday, May 23, in the Brazilian capital Brasília for an extraordinary Unasur summit. The legal aspect had already been taken care of by diplomats from the countries involved, and the last details were defined in May.

In his weekly radio show "Breakfast with the President," Lula underscored the fact that the treaty establishing the Unasur is going to make it easier to negotiate with other blocs, as well as enable the construction of railways, highways, bridges, and transmission lines.

~snip~
Regarding the skepticism of some South American countries and the possibility of Unasur never coming to fruition, Lula showed optimism and stated that South America has gone through a process of "extraordinary evolution". To him, Brazil must invest in countries such as Paraguay, Uruguay and Bolivia - nations considered to be "economically weaker".

"We have an obligation to help them, because the stronger the South American countries are from an economic point of view, the more we will enjoy peace, calm, democracy, trade, companies, jobs, income and development."

With regard to the Brazilian proposal for the creation of a South American National Defense Council - which was overruled during the summit of heads of state -, Lula believes that, should Brazil be able to "better elaborate the proposal and eliminate some convergences" during the next 90 days, then the idea may be approved.

More:
http://www.brazzilmag.com/content/view/9368 /

[AlphaCentauri]

6. Thats how they pretend to keep Morales busy so he can fail to reform

the system that has not improve the Bolivian people living standards.

[Judi Lynn]

7. Did you know the indigenous Bolivians were not allowed to VOTE until 1952?

Just stumbled across this ugly fact:

Bolivia: Indigenous leaders beaten and publicly humiliated


Franz Chavez
31 May 2008


Bolivia may have its first-ever indigenous president, but racism is alive and well in this country, as demonstrated by the public humiliation of a group of around 50 indigenous mayors, town councillors and community leaders in the south-central city of Sucre.


The incident, which shook the country but received little attention from the international press, occurred on May 25, when President Evo Morales, an Aymara Indian, was to appear in a public ceremony in Sucre to deliver 50 ambulances for rural communities and announce funding for municipal projects.

But in the early hours of May 25, organised groups opposed to Morales began to surround the stadium where he was to appear. Confronting the police and soldiers with sticks, stones and dynamite, they managed to occupy the stadium.

The president cancelled his visit, and the security forces were withdrawn to avoid bloodshed.

Right-wing violence

But violent elements of the Interinstitutional Committee, a conservative pro-autonomy, anti-Morales civic group that is backed by the local university and other bodies, continued to harass and beat supporters of the governing Movement Towards Socialism (MAS) and anyone who appeared to be indigenous.

A mob of armed civilians, partially made up of university students, then surrounded several dozen indigenous Morales supporters, including local authorities who had come from other regions to attend the ceremony.

The terrified indigenous people, who had sought refuge in a poor neighbourhood on the outskirts of Sucre, were stripped of their few belongings and forced to walk seven kilometres to the House of Liberty, a symbol of the end of colonial rule in Bolivia that was declared there in 1825.

In the city’s main square, they were forced to kneel — shirtless — and apologise for coming to Sucre. They were also made to chant insults like “Die Evo!”

~snip~
Indigenous people in Bolivia have long suffered discrimination. They were not even allowed to vote until 1952, when the government of the Nationalist Revolutionary Movement (MNR) abolished pongaje — a system of forced labour for indigenous people in rural areas.

http://www.greenleft.org.au/2008/753/38930

Don't forget 1952 was a big year for the natural citizens of Bolivia, because it was also the same year the European descended occupants allowed them to WALK ON THE SIDEWALKS.

As always, the conquerors always bring enough power with them to subjugate the people they enslave. What a damned pity. They have a towering karmic debt rising above them.

[Rage for Order]

8. Self-determination is a wonderful thing...

Except when it isn't, apparently

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Rage for Order]

10. I have a question for you

If I bought, say, 10,000 acres of land out in the country, and a few years later I discovered a large natural gas deposit underneath my land, to whom would that natural gas belong?

[Judi Lynn]

11. The law in Bolivia indicates the COUNTRY owns the natural resources.

On edit:

For DU'ers who haven't had the time to learn how much of the land fell into the hands of foreign racists in Bolivia:

COLONEL HUGO BANZER
President of Bolivia

In 1970, in Bolivia, when then-President Juan Jose Torres nationalized Gulf Oil properties and tin mines owned by US interests, and tried to establish friendly relations with Cuba and the Soviet Union, he was playing with fire. The coup to overthrow Torres, led by US-trained officer and Gulf Oil beneficiary Hugo Banzer, had direct support from Washington. When Banzer's forces had a breakdown in radio communications, US Air Force radio was placed at their disposal. Once in power, Banzer began a reign of terror. Schools were shut down as hotbeds of political subversive activity. Within two years, 2,000 people were arrested and tortured without trial. in Paraguay, Argentina and Brazil, the native Indians were ordered off their land and deprived of tribal identity. Tens-of-thousands of white South Africans were enticed to immigrate with promises of the land stolen from the Indians, with a goal of creating a white Bolivia. When Catholic clergy tried to aid the Indians, the regime, with CIA help, launched terrorist attacks against them, and this "Banzer Plan" became a model for similar anti-Catholic actions throughout Latin America.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/dictators.html

[Rage for Order]

12. Okay, but what qualifies as a natural resource?

Not under Bolivian law, necessarily, but in your opinion? Timber? Land? Ore deposits? I'm not attempting to be snarky here, I'm asking an honest, philosophical question. Should everything that generates income be considered a natural resource? If not, how do you differentiate among things that are natural resources and things that are not?

[Judi Lynn]

13. My opinion is that it's wrong to take over someone's country, make slaves of those people,

treat them like dirt, slaughter them, torture them, humiliate them, steal their land, their world, then sell it back to them as they work, living from hand to mouth, while you mock them publicly, in the country which was THEIRS until the very recent past.

Don't care about your clumsy attempt to lead me out with a fool's invitation to "debate" you. I've got a busy night ahead. I'll check back later.

Principles are principles. No amount of right-wing spin, and reworking the conversation can alter right and wrong.

[Rage for Order]

14. So you're saying you have no answer?

You seem to be working from the assumption that everyone in Bolivia who favors voting on autonomy is a rich right-wing criminal. Further, you are also assuming that everyone who has accumulated any wealth in that country did so by lying, cheating, stealing, and killing, rather than from the fruits of their labor.

Yes, principles are principles. I'm just curious as to which principles you subscribe. My guess is that you're against all private property, save a very small amount that one can use to subsistence farm. Of course, even then, the food that is grown came about on a natural resource, i.e. arable land. That being the case, the grower of that small amount of food would also be stealing from the state. Arable land, after all, is a vital natural resource, wouldn't you agree?

[Judi Lynn]

15. I'm "saying?" I "seem?" You "guess" I'm "against all private property?"

Uh, huh.

What's your purpose here?

You're nearly beside yourself with delerium, hoping I'll say something you can use as a launchpad for a retarded fight about your claim I'm a communist.

How perverted.

The subject is Bolivia. The subject is NOT whether you can "trick" someone into "admitting" to being an "enemy of the state!"

Don't be juvenile. Anyone could see where you were headed a mile away, several posts back. This says far more about you than it does about me.

Take this crap outta my face. Grow up.

I'll check back to see if you've added anything which addresses the actual subject of the thread. You should remind yourself DU rules strongly suggest to you, that you don't attack the poster. Stick to the subject, or drop it.

[Rage for Order]

17. Yes, "saying", "seem", and "guess"

That's all I can do since you won't give a straight answer to any question posed to you. And, once again, you've managed to dodge the entire content of my post with a misplaced diatribe, claiming I'm trying to play a game of "gotcha". Personally, I don't care if you're a Marxist, Communist, Capitalist, or Socialist, I'm simply trying to understand where you're coming from on the heart of the issue. Bolivians can run their country as they see fit, under whichever economic system they deem to be best for them. However, you can't expect all Bolivians to just go along with drastic changes simply because a few people say they should.

[Peace Patriot]

16. It's an irrelevant question, Rage for Order, because things are so obviously UNFAIR

in Bolivia--and ARE unfair wherever there are vast populations of dirt poor people who are even deprived of little plots on which to grow food for their families.

Orders of wealth, and who owns (i.e., controls) what, are RELATIVE. If a society is greatly unjust, SOMETHING IS WRONG. Too few own too much. Too many are excluded from even the hope of mere subsistence, let alone wealth. That is NOT a healthy society. It is an extremely unbalanced, unhealthy, FRAGILE society, constantly imperiled by civil disorder, requiring fascist means to maintain its UNBALANCED state.

And it wouldn't matter to me if the poor and deprived were indigenous or not--although that they ARE indigenous adds bitter irony--and disgusting bigotry--to the situation.

You remind me of someone at DU a few months back (maybe it was you--I don't remember) who argued about Exxon Mobil's "right" to legal justice, when it went to court seeking to freeze $12 billion in Venezuela's assets, over a dispute about Venezuela's share in its own oil (nationalized long before the Chavez government--the dispute was about the split of the profits). Exxon Mobil lost that one, in a London court--which surprised me, actually, since the English people have lost so much their sovereignty to global corporate predators, as we have in this country.

The TRUTH of the matter is that Exxon Mobil has no "rights"--in Venezuela, or here. They have no right to exist, in the first place. They are chartered by a state, and PERMITTED to exist, and to do business, under certain conditions. Those conditions are dictated by the SOVEREIGN people who charter them. The whole premise of your argument is wrong--that individual ownership of land comes before the collective sovereignty of the people, and their collective SOVEREIGN right to dibby up the land or its resources for the common good. The sovereignty of the people comes first. Individual ownership is a right GRANTED BY THE PEOPLE--which the People can take away, for instance, when the government claims eminent domain for building a highway. A country collectively owns the resources that are vital to the existence of its SOVEREIGN people, and permits individual ownership to varying degrees, and sometimes PERMITS business cartels (corporations) to use, develop and exploit the land and resources AS THE SOVEREIGN PEOPLE of that country see fit. Democracy regulates how these decisions are made. Venezuela has a democracy capable of electing leaders who are a lot more protective of the interests of the SOVEREIGN people of Venezuela than our democracy is of us. We have lost sovereign power over most of our forests, for instance, and we struggle against corporate power to keep them from being totally decimated. And now we find out how vital old growth forests are to the stability of the planetary weather system and to clean air (not to mention clean water and biodiversity). If we had known this a century ago, would we have allowed private corporations to destroy our virgin forests, as they have? Is their wood more important than a stable planet, or than the survival of the human race?

Private property ownership is SUBSERVIENT to the vital interests of the People as a whole. So, yes, if someone owned a piece of property, and then found a resource on that property that was vital to the common welfare of the society that had GRANTED the owner the right to own that property in the first place, it would be perfectly rightful and just for a government of, by and for the people--a democratic government--to reclaim the property, or to claim its resources, or--the compromise we have so often made, in our society--to utilize the resource for profit in a way that serves the common good.

Let me give you another example. Say someone buys a piece of property that has a stream on it that provides a town with its only water supply--and the new owner dams up the stream and diverts it to water his vineyards. What would that town be entitled to do? Does a vital water source belong to the common weal, or to whoever sits on it, with a land title? We come up against this problem all the time, and the basic common law premise of even our highly capitalistic society is that the SOVEREIGN PEOPLE own the land and its resources, and through our government, regulate the use of land and resources for the COMMON GOOD. We environmentalists and democrats with a small d may lose a lot of these battles--because our system is so very corrupt with corporate power--but the premise remains. We, the SOVEREIGN PEOPLE, stand in lieu of the kings and monarchs of old who literally owned the land, and held all the rights to its resources, and dibbyed them up, according to royal decree--on the basis of the old mystical belief that the king literally WAS the land (his or her fertility was the land's fertility). Now we have the collective democratic wisdom of the People as the owner and regulator.

Your simplistic example--of an individual owner of land with a resource on it--leaves out that vital premise: Who GIVES him the right to own the land? The giver is the Sovereign People--whose commonality can be illustrated when the commonly paid for Fire Department saves his land from a fire, or the commonly paid for roads department builds a road so he can get to his land easily, or the commonly paid for building department REQUIRES certain kinds of wiring or certain roof types, etc., when he build his house, or when the commonly paid for health dept. or agriculture dept. permits or forbids certain activities. That land is part of a commons in so many ways. It is NOT a kingdom unto itself. And the ownership of the land is by no means sacrosanct. It can be take away FOR THE COMMON GOOD.

[Rage for Order]

18. Thank you for your reasoned reply, Peace Patriot

You and I aren't too far away from common ground, it would seem. I agree that certain natural resources are vital, depending on which country one is referring to. However, I don't agree that a government should be allowed to take such property except in the rarest of cases. I find it to be a slippery slope, and it can devolve rapidly once the process begins. A case in point: the US Supreme Court decision a couple of years ago that allowed Connecticut to take peoples' homes via eminent domain, not to build a road or mass transit rail line, but because the proposed new development would generate more tax revenue for the city and state than the current land usage was producing. It can certainly be extrapolated to be viewed as a public good - more tax revenue means more services that can be provided by the government - but I think most people can see how unfair this action was. I think it's also easy to see how this decision is ripe for abuse.

Regarding your last paragraph, yes, land is a commonality in many ways, but that's why people pay taxes. If the government levies a tax rate of 40% (income, property, sales, etc.), then the property owner is contributing to the fire dept, road maintenance, health dept, agricultural dept, police sept, etc. via the taxes he pays on the income earned. I believe taxes are a much better way to go than is government ownership of resources, with very few exceptions. The tax rate should be higher for those who benefit more from the society that makes it possible for them to succeed, but I think property should only be taken from people (with fair and just compensation) in the most extreme cases of need.

[mitchtv]

19. Bolivia : the Poland of South America, I call it

The first to rise up against Spain, the last to achieve independence
and has consistently grown smaller loosing land to all he neighbors Chile, peru, Brazil and even Paraguay. The poorest country in South America too and the most indigenous. The thrill I had there was to watch a militarty government fall. It took about 100 truckloads of armed Indigenous men and the militery folded.

[Judi Lynn]

20. The Landowners' Rebellion: Slavery and Saneamiento in Bolivia

THE LANDOWNERS’ REBELLION
Slavery and Saneamiento in Bolivia

by Alexander van Schaick, Upside Down World

In recent weeks, cattle ranchers and landowners in Bolivia's Cordillera province, located in the south of the department of Santa Cruz, resorted to blockades and violence in order to halt the work of Bolivia's National Institute for Agrarian Reform (INRA). As a referendum on departmental autonomy for Santa Cruz draws near, the conflict calls into question the central government‚s ability to enforce the law in the Bolivian lowlands.

The dispute centers on the region of Alto Parapetí, south of the provincial capital of Camiri, where INRA is currently trying to carry out land reform and create an indigenous territory for the Guaraní indigenous people. Additionally, it claims various communities of Guaraní live and work on white or mestizo-owned ranches in conditions of semi-slavery.

For nine days landowners and their supporters blockaded major highways and virtually sealed off Alto Parapetí. The blockades continued until Bolivia's vice minister of land, Alejandro Almaráz, left the region on April 18. At the end of February, Ronald Larsen, a major landowner in Santa Cruz, and other ranchers took Almaráz hostage at gunpoint for
several hours when he and other government officials tried to enter the region.

An Incomplete Land Reform
In the 1990s and up to the present, the Guaraní Nation and Bolivia's other lowland indigenous peoples mobilized to force the national government to recognize their right to their ancestral territories. In 1996, the first administration of Gonzalo "Goni" Sánchez de Lozada passed a land reform law that gave Bolivia's indigenous people the opportunity to claim their "communal territory of origin" (TCO).

The 1996 law—Ley No. 1715—reorganized the country's land law and agrarian reform institutions. It also established INRA to resolve land conflicts and issue titles through a process called saneamiento. In this process, INRA would establish property limits, to look into whether property owners had obtained land legally and to investigate whether they were putting their land to socially or economically productive use. (Latifundios, or huge tracks of idle land used to speculate on rising land prices or as liens to obtain loans, are banned by the Bolivian constitution.) Finally, INRA would resolve land conflicts through mediation and legal processes, title TCOs for indigenous people, and establish parcels of state-owned land for distribution. In the end, landowners would own land with clear title. INRA was to carry out saneamiento throughout all of Bolivia between 1996 and 2006.

But after ten years, INRA had only completely finished the saneamiento process for 10% of its goal. Over half of the land INRA sought to have titled had not even begun the process. According to critiques from indigenous and campesino (peasant farmer) organizations, saneamiento was characterized by corruption, a lack of transparency and participation, and a bias in favor of large landholders.

More:
http://www.ww4report.com/node/5580

[bemildred]

21. I've been wantinig to hold an "autonomy" referendum here in California for a long time. nt

[Judi Lynn]

22. Bolivia nationalizes fuel transport company

Bolivia nationalizes fuel transport company
Jun 2, 2008, 18:28 GMT

La Paz - The Bolivian government on Monday nationalized the fuel transport company Transredes, a subsidiary of British firm Ashmore and the Anglo-Dutch company Shell.

In the presence of his Cabinet Monday, President Evo Morales signed the decree that stipulated the handover of Transredes to the state company Yacimientos Petroliferos Fiscales Bolivianos (YPFB).

It was the latest in a series of expanding state takeovers of private sectors of the economy being carried out by Morales to finance the improvement of the lot of the country's empoverished indigenous majority.

The policies have provoked resistance in some of the wealthier provinces, as happened Sunday when two provinces passed non-binding referendums seeking more autonomy from the central government.

In the presence of his Cabinet Monday, Morales signed the decree that stipulated the handover of Transredes to the state company Yacimientos Petroliferos Fiscales Bolivianos (YPFB).

The ceremony took place in Santa Cruz de la Sierra, 900 kilometres east of La Paz. Transredes, headquartered in Santa Cruz and which has been operating in Bolivia for 12 years, was initially a subsidiary of US giant Enron.

'On May 1, 2006, we launched the historic decision of basing the sovereignty and independence of the country on our natural resources,' said Energy Minister Carlos Villegas.

More:
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/business/news/article_1408875.php/Bolivia_nationalizes_fuel_transport_company

[Judi Lynn]

23. POLARIZING BOLIVIA: Santa Cruz Votes for Autonomy

POLARIZING BOLIVIA
Santa Cruz Votes for Autonomy

by Ben Dangl, Upside Down World

A vote for autonomy in Santa Cruz, Bolivia, was passed by approximately 82% of voters on Sunday, May 4. The vote endorses a move by Santa Cruz to, among other things, gain more control of gas reserves in the area and resist the central government's break-up of large land holdings. Clashes during the vote in Santa Cruz left 35 injured. One man died from asphyxiation due to tear gas fired by police forces. The vote and conflict marks a new phase in the polarization of Bolivia, and a new challenge for the region.

However, various aspects of the autonomy vote weaken its legitimacy. The Bolivian Electoral Court, the Organization of American States, the European Union, Bolivian President Evo Morales and other South American leaders have stated that the vote is illegal. The national average for voter abstention in Bolivian elections is 20-22%. In the Santa Cruz referendum on May 4, the rate of abstention was 39%. This abstention percentage added to the number of "No" votes means that at least 50% of Santa Cruz voters did not support the autonomy statute, according to Bolpress. The organizers of the vote in Santa Cruz hired a private firm to count and collect the votes, and voters reported widespread fraud and intimidation across the department. In some cases, ballot boxes arrived in neighborhoods with the "Yes" ballot already marked.

The Santa Cruz autonomy movement's architects and leaders are right-wing politicians, wealthy business owners and large landholders. The autonomy statute voted on calls for increased departmental control of land, water and gas. This would potentially block Morales' plans to break up large land holdings and redistribute that land to small farmers. The application of the autonomy statute would also mean a redirection of gas wealth from the central government to the Santa Cruz government. Such a move would run counter to the new draft of the constitution passed in December of 2007, which states that the Bolivian people are the owners of the nation's natural resources, and that those resources should be managed under largely state control. This draft constitution is set to be voted on in a referendum sometime this year.

Morales announced a partial nationalization of gas reserves in Bolivia on May 1 of 2006. The subsequent renegotiated contracts have led to $2 billion a year in government revenues, an increase from $180 million in 2005, according to IPS journalist and political analyst Franz Chávez. This revenue for the Morales administration could be put at risk, particularly if autonomy referendums in the departments of Beni, Pando and Tarija pass in the coming weeks. Tarija is a department producing approximately 80% of Bolivian gas. Autonomy for these four departments is to include the ability to sign new gas exportation contracts with foreign entities. However, Brazil and Argentina, two of the biggest importers of Bolivian gas, continue to support the Morales government and do not officially recognize the autonomy referendums. This would likely cut off pro-autonomy departments from negotiating new gas exportation deals.

More:
http://www.ww4report.com/node/5579