Registered user login:

Bolivian poppycock

Hugh O'Shaughnessy

Published 06 May 2008

A faux referendum in Bolivia demanding greater autonomy for the Santa Cruz province is nothing more than a modern version of Ian Smith's shortlived minority rule in Southern Rhodesia

There is a group of people in Bolivia trying to con us ignorant foreigners into believing that decent people in their country this weekend started their brave fight-back against the forces of darkness in general and against the evil left-wing monster Evo Morales their President in particular.

What poppycock!

On Sunday in Santa Cruz de la Sierra, a bustling city on the tropical eastern plains of Bolivia, a bunch of locals went through the motions of organising a “referendum” over the future of the department (or province) of the same name. If it was approved, the organisers said, they would take over decisions about who could be a citizen in Santa Cruz, how landownership would be organised and registered, how the flourishing natural gas and oil industry would be taxed and how much of the tax that they would henceforward collect would be sent to Morales and the central government in the administrative capital, La Paz, far away at the top of the Andes to the west.

In short the Cambas, as the locals are known, would go their own sweet way and take the money generated by their natural gas and oil deposits with them. These people, many of them white or near-white, would then be able to relax happy in the thought that they could virtually sever relations with the majority of Bolivians, the dark indigenous little men in the mountains whom they call the Collas.

Unlike the Collas the Cambas’ leaders each tend to have a few thousand rolling acres and good deal of spare cash. They have impeccably European names such as Branko Marinkovic or Rubén Costas and they think they have friends in the US capital who don’t like Morales.

The ideological ancestor of the Cambas is Ian Smith, the settlers’ leader who held out against majority rule in what was then Southern Rhodesia out as long as he could – which wasn’t very long.

A modern parallel to the weekend’s events in Santa Cruz would be a vote by the Rotary Club of Cheltenham in favour of home rule for their town and its secession – flowerbeds and all - from the European Union. Or the Shriners of Phoenix voting for Arizona to leave the US for fear of Obama and the Mexicans.

Bolivia’s Colla majority consists of the Aymaras like Evo, the Quechuas and the other indigenous peoples who are the descendants of the founders of the Inca empire and who were the power behind his smashing victory in the free and fair presidential elections in 2005 in the hope they would get a better deal from him than they have got in the 500 years since the Europeans first arrived.

Sadly for its organisers the shabby little exercise on Sunday was a failure. According to their own highly dubious statistics, they claim it produced a majority of 85 per cent in favour of “autonomy”. But it attracted only 60 per cent of possible voters. Morales’ supporters in understandable rage against an electoral farce destroyed some of the polling stations.

The elected reformist government in La Paz which wants a better deal for the majority of Bolivians understandably ruled the exercise out of order and the results null and void. Yet other tropical departments in Bolivia such as Beni and Pando are planning to follow Santa Cruz’s example, declare autonomy and rend Bolivia in half.

Their trouble is that few of Bolivia’s neighbours would recognise any new landlocked political unit in South America that might arise out of these machinations, if only for fear of the sort of irredentism they might find in their own back yards.

Morales has had specific and unequivocal messages of support from the leaders of Brazil, Argentina and Chile, his country’ immediate neighbours not to mention the Cubans and the Venezuelans who have invested millions in giving Bolivia its first real health service and literacy scheme. And Fernando Lugo, the former reformist bishop who is president-elect of Paraguay, is certainly not going to do anything to upset Morales’ apple cart.

Both Brazil and Argentina are for the moment too dependent on the natural gas that they buy from Bolivia to risk causing any new upsets which might condemn Brazilians and Argentinians to a very uncomfortable winter in the next few months.

In Washington the White House, no lover of Morales or Lugo and worried by the upsurge of feeling against US policies, has just announced the resurrection of its Fourth Fleet will take place on 1 July. It will charged with patrolling the coasts of Latin America and delivering warnings to uppity Latins. But the US Navy will have a difficult task. Its trouble is that neither Santa Cruz, nor Bolivia, nor even Paraguay has got a coast.

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

12 comments from readers

Ian Crause
06 May 2008 at 18:37

There you go, Mr O' Shaughnessy.

When you see it up close, it insults the intelligence and puts a shiver down the spine, does it not?

Good on you.

Istaquio
07 May 2008 at 04:14

Mr O' Shaughnessy, if the Santa Cruz leaders are equivalent to Ian Smith then Evo is Mugabe

Istaquio
07 May 2008 at 04:18

Ian Crause, How is the new Bolivian constitution different from south africas aparthied? Both selectively enforce priviledges based on race.

mostow
07 May 2008 at 07:10

This time its about equality and balance in wealth distribution , not selective priviledges. Its about that time the natives get a fair deal since the arrivals of the europeans.

elmejor
07 May 2008 at 07:58

Exactly its time to give to the community, anyways the incan are not like the mayan we have brains and collas are all different 89 % are overseas and dont have time to deal with cambas they like el slalvador like to talk too much and do nothing, anyways it cant get worse for the us with this credit crunch,

YOPERO
07 May 2008 at 13:11

I was born in Chuquisaca from a “colla” Mather and a “camba” father, but I have expended my whole life in Santa Cruz.

Mr O' Shaughnessy as Bolivian I would like to give you some facts which can help you to understand what is happening in Bolivia.

Before starting it is worth mentioning that a camba is not someone white nor someone who’s last name is Schneider or Paulovich, camba is everyone who lives and works for Santa Cruz.

Santa Cruz is a city that has bloomed thanks to its people, cambas and collas working together, during the last two decades Santa Cruz has received thousand of collas amongst them my mother.

I think you are picturing Mr. Evo Morales as something that he is not, a country must be ruled by some who does not make difference between races we have been living this situation since long ago as you know in the past white Presidents were giving support only to the white class forgetting the rest.

Bolivia is not about INCAS and Whites, then in the middle of this here we come the “mestizos” representing more than 45 % of the population, this part of Bolivian population is lost between the INCAS and the WESTENERS.

Santa Cruz and the north-east of Bolivia have been always forgotten a clear example of this is the lack of routes in the area, the most productive area of the country does not receive enough support a sad example of this is that regions of which enormous amounts of raw materials turned into wealth (money), does not mean anything for their inhabitants. Caranda, Santa Rosa or Camiri, are a clear and pathetic example of the results of a form of distribution of the wealth which benefits to some to the detriment of others. Then, the regional autonomies could be sustained with the production of their own regions; also the government should allocate more to the productive regions

.

Now the “land” problem is true a few families own a lot of acres lets remember that Bolivia has 108 million hectares, of which 72 million hectares are not to be used neither to agriculture nor to the cattle ranch, being 36 million apt hectares. However, 32 million hectares belong to 40 thousand enterprise units, and only 4 million hectares to 550 thousand farmers.

Bolivia is a difficult scenario containing a mix of everything; my opinion is that Bolivia should be divided if we want to stay together, good things come after a revolution that is what is happening in Bolivia, Bolivians are right now starting a process of symbiosis among the different cultures, Amerindians want back the land they own, metizos want to go forward and embrace the good things of the western world, whites do not want to loss their way of life.

The referendum held in Santa Cruz is only a starting point, 4 other referendums will be hold before July, be sure that Bolivians do not want to divide the nation they only want a better way of administrating our resources.

My ideal scenario will be:

Evo Morales building a new constitution with autonomic provinces and the governors of each province backing Evo, allowing him to make the Agrarian revolution which will give back the land to the Aymaras, Quechuas and Guarani.

Bolivian
07 May 2008 at 19:02

Mr. O'Shaughnessy,

I write to you as a Bolivian, born of a colla father and a camba mother. I read your article and was angered by what is an obvious lack of knowledge on your part about the history and culture of my country.

It is totally irresponsible of you to write and post an article so filled with inaccuracies and half truths. My only consolation is that your name is NOT associated with balanced and unbiased reporting. You, sir, report only with ONE SIDE of the story, wherever you chose to report from. You only show what you want YOUR truth to show. As such, you cannot expect intelligent people to trust your message. So…YOU LOSE!

In what world can you call almost 86% the “privileged” class? How can you call ANY vote that results in 86% approval an illegal vote? The people have spoken! When is this illegal? Actually, strike that last question! It IS illegal for the people to speak in many communist societies!!! Maybe that is why you call this an illegal vote! Maybe that is all you are used to, and hence, find it offensive when people express their desires to their government!!!

I suggest, Mr. O’Shaughnessy, you research a bit more before attempting another article on the topic. Please consult your history books, and pay attention to the Bolivian people…ALL of them, not only the descendants of the Incas, which are not the ONLY Bolivians in our country!!!

By the way, Morales is ALSO an impecabbly European name!!! It is as Spanish as my own!

Ian Crause
07 May 2008 at 19:24

Very nice.A veritable utopia.

Why, then, did the Crucenos assert that they would only recognise departmental autonomy and under no circumstances what the government called the 'autonomia del pueblo' - a more extensive range of community based autonomies?Why does any autonomy have to be configured so that the very same group of people hold the rein of power?

Wouldn't be a trick, would it?

Why did the Crucenos go up to Sucre and help other right wing gangs attack the parliament and the people in it to stop a constitution that itself contained government drafted autonomies?

Don't you lot want autonomy?

So why are you all so worried about Chavez, but not Bush?

Chavez has one about 9 free and fair, monitored elections, that'd be 8 more than Bush, then.

Chavez has never plotted to break up another country or assassinate it's leader to steal it's resources ( or for any other reason).Bush invaded Iraq.

Closer to home, Bush's dad helped organise rape and death squads to terrorise central America in the 1980s.He was the head of the CIA.It speaks volumes for the Crucenos that things like this figure very little in your perspective.I have seen what you call an education system and I am not surprised.You are an entire community I would describe as having been politically brainwashed.

Incidentally, why have your media never asked Costas publicly for a commitment to make sure he will not sell the gas reserves back to foreign powers at a cheap rate?

And why has he said he wants to get rid of the old age pension in Santa Cruz?

I thought he cared about the Crucenos.Many of them are old and poor.He obviously doesn't care about them.

I don't recall any of the Cruceno media ever raising the subject of the future of the gas reserves. I do remember watching a lot of outrageous lies about Morales on Unitel, though.That channel would not be allowed to broadcast in Britain.

Oh, and as for all this stuff about the people in the media luna being one loving rainbow nation and all that bollocks, how many of you knew about the guaranie families still living in slavery to their hacienda owners on the Chaco?

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=42210

What's Ruben doing about it?

Fuck all?

Iyambae, my arse.

Bolivian
07 May 2008 at 22:03

Mr. Crause,

Your vocabulary and manner of writing truly match your last name  (look up what craso means in Spanish).

First of all, autonomy does NOT mean the department of Santa Cruz will start negotiating with other countries to sell gas or any other “nationalized assets”. In Bolivia, all minerals belong to the state, and as such, the state decides where they go! If you read a bit beyond what lies the government spreads out, you would know this.

The “old age” pension you talk about was put in place first by Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada, and it was funded by the central government. What has angered the present prefectos outside La Paz and Oruro is that Evo took away that pension, instituted his own, made it more red-tape (it is to be distributed monthly instead of yearly, VERY long lines each month! You should come and see them!), causing it to be much more expensive to the state, AND…most of all, transferred the source of the moneys to the departmental funds, taking away much of their spending power. Again, please research this before speaking.

The autonomy fight is not a new one. Since it’s founding, more than 400 years ago, Santa Cruz has expressed its desires to govern itself. It was illegally annexed to Bolivia in 1825, after the independence of their cities. Bolivia did not exist until then, Mr. Crause, but Santa Cruz did, and it was NOT part of the Alto Peru, which claimed most of Bolivian Territory. Again early last century there were a few movements to form a federal government, lead by Santa Cruz. One of those, in which leaders from Santa Cruz fought side by side with La Paz, and helped La Paz become one of the Capitals of Bolivia (Sucre was the capital before then, and continues to be the seat for the judicial branch). Paceños later betrayed Santa Cruz, once they got what they wanted, and denied the requests for a change to a federal government, keeping all the power to themselves.

So you see, the problem is not a new one. It is not as Evo claims, collas against cambas, or Indians against Europeans, or even poor against rich. Of course, when you only have a 4rth grade education, you cannot understand the complicated issues fully, especially if you did not even study Bolivian History before becoming president!

And…about chavez….please remember that he has promised to make of Bolivia the new Vietnam! Already there are many more armed Venezuelan military members in Bolivia than there ever were American! Already there are many more Cuban “advisors” than we ever had of American DEA. So, you tell me whom shall we fear more?

There are rich and poor people everywhere, Mr. Crause. There have been rich and poor people since the beginning of the world, and that is not going to change, regardless of who becomes president. For you to say that someone does not care for the poor just because there are poor people is illogical and stupid. It appears YOU are the one who has been brainwashed. I urge you to read and think a bit more before voicing such unfounded opinions, without the backing of facts!

antileft
08 May 2008 at 08:26

"I write to you as a Bolivian, born of a colla father and a camba mother. I read your article and was angered by what is an obvious lack of knowledge on your part about the history and culture of my country."

This is EXACTLY what I would expect a bolivian to say. Hugh "I went to machu pichu during my gap year so I fancy myself as a bit of a revolutionary" O'Shaughnessy here doesnt know the first thing about latin america. I cringe whenever he writes about venezuela. So full of assumptions and blatant bias. Hugh here is from the far left and sees journalism as little more than an opportunity to back his side. That's why he's pro-chavez and pro-morales. Their policies, or the facts on the ground in the country is little more than a footnote to him. He couldnt care less, nor does he have the inclination to research the situation in independent, unbiased way. And, predictably, you get the usual "yes men" who post afterwards, with the predictable (if blatantly moronic) "yeah hugh, this article confirms all of my prejudices! Weve all been lied to in the media all the time so it's great youre finally confirming what we all knew!" The real thickies even then go on to talk about Iraq as though it's somehow all the same thing. And then when someone from the countries in question criticises it, those same yes men say "oh youre just believing the right wing media lies!!!!" Ironic how they all got their information from that same mass media as everyone else (in the form of the shamefully one-sided pilger and hugh here), while those who really know what theyre talking about are simply labelled "imperialists".

Ian Crause? Go ahead, you had something to say about Iraq? Or were you just going to tell "Bolivian" here that he's an imperialist/victim of the mass media, while conveniently neglecting to mention that you got ALL your information from the mass media yourself and DONT KNOW THE FIRST THING other than what youve read?

Good luck, bolivian, convincing the boneheads here about anything. They arent remotely interested in the facts. They only care about what side the facts are on.

antileft
08 May 2008 at 08:41

I love this by the way- hugh at his best:

"Sadly for its organisers the shabby little exercise on Sunday was a failure. According to their own highly dubious statistics, they claim it produced a majority of 85 per cent in favour of “autonomy”. But it attracted only 60 per cent of possible voters. Morales’ supporters in understandable rage against an electoral farce destroyed some of the polling stations."

So, 60 percent voting (more than most elections elsewhere), with a whopping 85 percent in favour. How is that a failure?! And of course, the predictable justifying whatever the left does (in this case vandalism), just because, ahem, theyre on the left. Pathetic, hugh.

stickkim
08 May 2008 at 20:33

I don't think that you have all your facts straight Mr. Crause, and clearly do not understand American government.

Sorry buddy, but you know, we can't all be right all the time.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

Read More

Vote!

Is this the worst economic situation for 60 years?