The Ambassador Has No Clothes: WikiLeaks Cable Lays Bare Washington’s Stance Toward Bolivia

[Judi Lynn]

The Ambassador Has No Clothes: WikiLeaks Cable Lays Bare Washington’s Stance Toward Bolivia
Written by Benjamin Dangl
Wednesday, 01 December 2010 17:25

A classified cable from the US embassy in La Paz, Bolivia released by WikiLeaks lays bare an embassy that is biased against the Evo Morales government, underestimates the sophistication of the governing party’s grassroots base, and out of touch with the political reality of the country.

The recently released January 23, 2009 cable, entitled “Bolivia’s Referendum: Margin of Victory Matters,” analyzes the political landscape of the country in the lead up to the January 2009 referendum on the country’s new constitution, and was sent to all US embassies in South America and various offices in Washington.

In 2006, the leftist union leader and politician Evo Morales was inaugurated as Bolivia’s first indigenous president. Since his election he and members of his party, the Movement Toward Socialism (MAS), have partially nationalized gas reserves, enacted land reform and convoked an assembly to rewrite the country’s constitution. Following years of debates among assembly members, this constitution was passed in a national referendum on January 25, 2009.

The US embassy cable released by WikiLeaks that was written during the politically-charged days leading up to this vote shows a mischaracterization on the part of embassy officials of the MAS government and its supporters.

The cable cites Bolivian newspaper reports that many community leaders and their supporters in the Altiplano, the high plains of western Bolivia, where much of the MAS support lies, had not even read the constitution, and instead would simply “take their marching orders from the MAS, and vote for the constitution.” Many had not read the document out of, according to the US embassy, “disinterest, blind faith in Evo Morales' political project, and illiteracy.” The cable describes one meeting between members of the US embassy and Bolivian political officials who “lamented the way the MAS had ‘cheated’ and ‘fooled’ campesinos into believing Morales was himself truly indigenous or cared about indigenous issues.” The officials said the MAS popularity was due to “‘vertical control’ in the countryside...”

More:
http://upsidedownworld.org/main/bolivia-archives-31/2806-the-embassy-has-no-clothes-wikileaks-cable-clarifies-washingtons-stance-toward-bolivia

[Bacchus39]

1. interesting, the US cable cites Bolivian newspapers and quotes a conversation

from an apparent opposition source and seemingly makes it clear what sources they are citing yet the author of the article extrapolates that to some sort of policy position of the US government.

[Peace Patriot]

2. Well, since who the U.S. amb. talked to--as cited IN THE CABLE-- the Santa Cruz Civic Committee

which is NOTORIOUS for being the hotbed of the white separatist/rightwing violent COUP ATTEMPT in September 2008, and since that coup was being funded/organized right out of the U.S. embassy--the reason that Evo Morales threw the U.S. ambassador out of Bolivia--it is quite right for reasonable people to assume that the U.S. ambassador's and the Bush Junta's views were identical, i.e., get rid of Morales by any means possible, including lies, slander and colluding with coupsters.

Reasonable people. Not rightwingers, who tend to think like the Red Queen in "Alice in Wonderland. Just imagine the Red Queen pondering the good reports on Bolivia's elections from the Carter Center, the OAS, the United Nations and the European Union. "Off with their heads!" she would cry, "And get me the report of the Santa Cruz Civic Committee!" That's what the Bush Junta's' ambassador to Bolivia was reporting to the Bush Junta--not only what they wanted to hear, not only the latest "talking points" for overthrowing leftist governments in Latin America, but also what many of them believed despite voluminous facts to the contrary. Some of them want to believe that the Left fiddles votes because that's what THEY do. How can Morales get 60% of the vote without cheating?! The worst of the fascists in power in Washington at the time were cynical fucks who knew very well that the people's interests--and not theirs-- will be served in honest elections. That's why they never held an honest Bush Junta election. These higher ups just needed "talking points" to pass along to their State Department and other flaks--and to the Associated Pukes. But many U.S. government workers in the bowels of the Bush Junta, promoted because they graduated from a Bible college, were just dumbfucks who would believe anything their Bushite benefactors told them because Jesus is their Lord. This cable was also for them.

I think you underestimate what whackos the Bushites were/are. This cable is from their upside down, inside out, backwards "Alice in Wonderland" world. If you consult with the Santa Cruz Civic Committee, this is what you're going to hear because this is what you WANT to hear, because this crap is what your USAID funds are paying for, and you know that this is what the people on the other end of your cable, a) believe, b) want to hear, c) need as "talking points" and/or d) arranged for the USAID appropriations to generate.

It is NOT straight reporting, and anyone who thinks so is either a Bushite flunky or a Bushite operative--or just plain dense.

As for the cable citing "Bolivian newspapers," Bolivia's and Latin America's news media are as bad as--and often even worse than-- our own--run by fascist, fatcat media moguls who routinely berate leftist leaders and foster coups. The USAID was probably funneling money to them--another scandal that has come out--creating a perfect loop of Bushwhack opinion. The U.S. ambassador funnels money to the rags that he then cites in low security cables to Washington. Does he talk to the Carter Center, the OAS, the UN or the EU election monitors to get their opinion on the election? No! Does he talk to Morales supporters? No! He ONLY CITES NEGATIVE, anti-Morales sources--because that's all that the Bushites want to hear--how successful is their propaganda? what has their money (our money) bought? how well will this fit it in with their coup plan? and how do they use it to fool the uninformed?

The U.S. ambassador (the one who was about to be kicked out of Bolivia for colluding with/funding rightwing groups) provides an equally upside down, inside out, backwards account of the rightwing Pando massacre, from an anonymous political operative. Since he was in collusion with the coupsters--as per his Bush Junta mission in Bolivia--the ambassador is not about to say what really happened. And, of course, he doesn't report what the relatives or witnesses of the murdered campesinos have to say, nor does he consult with anyone in the Morales government--those dealing with this violent insurrection. This account is NOT what the ambassador believes nor is it what the higher up Bushites will believe. They knew perfectly well what they were doing in Bolivia. This is also a report on the success/failure of their bought-and-paid-for spin--and "talking points" for the untutored and the credulous.

[Bacchus39]

4. you really don't know what wikileaks is about do you???

these are cables sent among diplomats, supposedly classified info, not intended for public viewing. unless of course you believe the State Department is in on a conspiracy with Wikileaks and the cables were sent on purpose. and I agree its not straight reporting, the author simply cites some cables from diplomats on conversations with different political sectors documenting conversations and the author then goes on to claim that is the US policy.

[Peace Patriot]

5. "conversations with different political sectors"? He ONLY TALKED TO MORALES OPPONENTS!

Morales' opinion poll numbers run in the 60% to 70% range. So, how is talking ONLY to people who oppose Morales and who think--contrary to the opinion of every reputable election monitoring group on earth--that Morales fiddled the Bolivian election, simply reporting "conversations with different political sectors"? More precisely, how does this iN ANY WAY reflect the REAL situation in Bolivia? It doesn't. It reads like "Alice in Wonderland."

You are mistaking the cart for the horse. U.S. ambassador Philip Goldberg was NOY neutrally soliciting and reporting opinion, he was FORMING opinion, PAYING FOR opinion--SELECTIVELY CONSULTING those who agreed with the Bushwhacks because the Bushwhacks were FUNDING THEM with OUR money. So, when he "reports" on opinions that he paid for and helped form, he is reporting on the SUCCESS of Bushwhack-designed propaganda. He's giving Washington "TALKING POINTS" that they can pass along to reinforce what they want to make true by LYING ABOUT IT.

Upside down, inside out and backwards.

These were low security cables, and any ambassador with any savvy at all KNOWS how easily they can be leaked. That's why they are difficult to parse. There are many agendas at work in these cables. One of them is ass covering, which I believe that Barbara Stephenson was doing in the Panama cable in which she states that no way will "we" approve using spying intel for political ends. I mean, that is just laughable. It is written for leaking . Part of the job of understanding the cables is knowing the context--who Goldberg is, what he did in Bolivia, why he got thrown out, etc. These cables are often NOT straightforward "reporting" at all. And this one is especially NOT straightforward.

Let me repeat: GOLDBERG WAS THROWN OUT OF BOLIVIA FOR COLLUDING ON A VIOLENT, WHITE SEPARATIST, RIGHTWING COUP WITH THE VERY PEOPLE HE IS REPORTING THE OPINIONS OF! He oversaw the formation of their opinions in USAID "training" sessions. These are his SPIES and political OPERATIVES. He is talking to HIMSELF and to those who funneled the millions of our tax dollars TO the Santa Cruz Civic Committee and other such groups THROUGH HIM.

The key is that he says NOTHING positive about Morales. NOTHING! Morales is hugely popular. He is conveying an opinion, FORMED INTO A "TALKING POINT" WITH HIS (our) FUNDING, that Morales is popular because his supporters are stupid peasants!

That is an "Alice in Wonderland" loop, with no reality to it.

[Bacchus39]

6. embassies coordinate with host country government each and every day

that is there job. while we are not actually seeing the cables in question, it appears the author's opinion peace was based on two cables. I wonder how many cables about Bolivia are written each day.

again, every single day the embassy is working with the host goverment. we are talking about two cables here documenting conversations with a couple of Bolivian political players. big deal.

[Downwinder]

7. Brings to mind, "What is the purpose of an Embassy or Diplomatic Mission?"

Are they representatives to the Government or to the Country?

[Bacchus39]

8. they are representatives of the government where they originate

they work with host country governments everyday, as well as citizens of the host country. Visa application reviews being the most common interaction with host citizens I would imagine.

[Downwinder]

9. Does not answer the question.

Are they Government to Government representatives or Government to population representatives?

[Bacchus39]

10. they are representatives of the government that sends them

its not an either /or question. they represent their sending goverment to the host goverment, and also are the sending goverments representatives to host citizens and organizations who seek that nations services.

[Downwinder]

11. Perhaps you have Embassy and Consulate confused.

[Bacchus39]

12. consular duties are one function of the embassy

so no, I'm not confused. consular duties are one of the functions under direction of the embassy. it seems to me that diplomats are government representatives to the host country government AND host country citizens. whats your take?

[Downwinder]

13. I have to defer to Wilipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consul_%28representative%29

The title Consul is used for the official representatives through the hearing of the government of one state and in the territory of another, normally acting to assist and protect the citizens of the consul's own country, and to facilitate trade and friendship between the people of the country to whom he or she is accredited and the country of which he or she is a representative. Consuls are not ambassadors, as the nature of their work greatly differ from each other. This distinguishes the consul from the ambassador, who is, technically, a representative from one head of state to another.

[Bacchus39]

14. well, glad thats is settled. in the case of the ambassador then, Palmer is Obama's

designated representative to the Chavez administration.

[Downwinder]

15. By International Protocol, only if he is accepted into the presence.

Until then he is just like any other tourist and beholden to the same laws. (No Diplomatic Immunity)

[Bacchus39]

16. I'm sure he won't be accepted, and Obama won't nominate another

I suspect the Senate will confirm Palmer, and Chavez will soil his pants again. you don't want Palmer to be the ambassador do you? it looks like he won't be.

[Downwinder]

18. I have no wants or not wants, it is not my decision.

Back to the OP, I find these cables, like most of the WikiLeaks cables that I have read, to be no better than Cocktail Party gossip. What is informative is what gossip is passed on. Of course, I would not expect the Ambassador to be partying with working farmers or anybody of the lower pay scales. I must say that I am disappointed at the high salary for a gossip conduit, but I guess with direct dial and global news, Ambassadors are pretty passé.

[naaman fletcher]

20. an interesting point

Personally I have found some of the information and analysis interesting, but one lesson of all this is to me the vast amounts of money we spend on this little inside state department club, much of which serves no purpose. It seems the vast majority of the state department effort is not directed towards servicing americans overseas, but rather to just giving jobs to this little club. Let's save some money and cut state department staffs.

[social_critic]

17. Chavez could refuse to accept Mr Palmer

But it's much ado about nothing. I bet Chavez won't cut off relations with the US, it would slow down commerce.

[Judi Lynn]

21. He refused to accept him some time ago. n/t

[Peace Patriot]

19. Oh, believe me, Philip Goldberg was not coordinating ANYTHING with the Morales government.

Why do you think Morales threw him out of Bolivia? He was not an ambassador. He was a COUP-MONGER.

But apparently you live down the "rabbit hole" in "Wonderland."

[EFerrari]

3. We already know the State Department was funding the opposition. n/t