Clare Sammells
Miguel Centellas
Maria Bruno
Sara Simon
Chris Exner
Kate McGurn Centellas
Claudine Vallières
Jonathan
Andres Vaughan
Donna Yates
kylepiispanen
dpacificoReuters and the BBC are reporting that U.S. Ambassador Philip Goldberg has been asked to leave Bolivia by President Evo Morales. This comes on the same day that a gas pipeline explosion in Tarija was blamed on protesters.
Goldberg’s tenure as ambassador has been marked with scandals. Relatives of embassy employees have been accused of attempting to smuggle ammunitions through airport customs in La Paz, and an embassy staff member supposedly asked a Fulbright scholar to provide intelligence on Cubans and Venezuelans in Bolivia. The latter case was discussed here at length, in three different posts (Feb 9, Feb 14, and Feb 18, 2008).
While Goldberg’s involvement in these two cases is indirect and he has apologized for both situations, this nevertheless reflect poorly on the Embassy as a whole, and more generally on the U.S. government’s respect for the Bolivian government and its laws. This affects all of us from the U.S., given the new visa regulations.
There are those who feel that Goldberg is deliberately working to cut Bolivia in half by supporting separatists. Jim Schultz of the Democracy Center (Cochabamba) believes that’s not Goldberg’s goal, but that he’s causing quite a bit of damage regardless. Schultz also believes that the separatists do not need U.S. help. I agree with Schultz on this point. Claiming that foreigners are instigating, involved in, or funding local movements is a common way to discredit them; President Morales himself has been the target of such rumors.
But unfortunately, the fact remains that Goldberg does not seem to be a good Ambassador for the U.S. to Bolivia. The U.S. government should take this opportunity to consider finding someone who can build new bridges with the Bolivian government.
Filed under: International Connections, Politics, U.S.-Latin American relations
Thanks for posting this Clare. I want to add that in addition to the gas line in Tarija the situation in Santa Cruz is terrible. Yesterday and last night young men and women sacked several government offices in Santa Cruz. See Pronto* and Democracy Center for more details and links.
The situation is VERY bad and Evo has yet to make any kind of statement or action in response to this violence. I commented at Pronto* that he is probably holding off on military force to avoid any deaths and further violent conflict, but I find it extremely annoying and irresponsible of him to immediately blame the US Embassy for this situation. It is quite possible money from the US (but perhaps not the embassy itself) is supporting the Autonomista movement, but to blame the Ambassador is just skirting around the real issue that these parties need to sit down and talk! Blaming the US is not going to solve this problem and the bridges that need to be built right now are between the central government and the media luna. It would be nice, however, if the US were doing something positive towards this end.
On a personal note, things are very calm in La Paz although watching the TV is giving me some flashbacks to 2003.
I’m not so sure we can put all the blame on Goldberg. I’m guessing Evo would’ve expelled any US ambassador, since I think this is mostly an attempt to rally support for his “anti-imperialism” in the face of his lack of action in dealing w/ the problems in the media luna. The bottom line is that Evo has no interest in making friends w/ the US government, regardless of who the ambassador is. Why should he? He’s counting on Venezuelan and Iranian (and possibly Chinese and Russian) economic and political support. The days when poor countries “needed” the US (or Europe) are dwindling as oil wealth becomes the new currency of international politics. The age of “Pax Americana” may be coming to an end, but we (Western progressives) may not like the alternative.
Also … am I the only one who’s concerned that attacks on Goldberg’s role in “fomenting” the disintegration of Yugoslavia are both exaggerated and troubling? Troubling because this paints Milosevic regime as a “victim” of mean old US/Europe plots to break up a country that was already in civil war … and from a regime that perpetrated the worst genocide in Europe’s postwar history. Such attacks either come from people who clearly didn’t understand the Balkan conflict (and bought into the Serb/Russian propaganda) or merely support any anti-US regime (Milosevic certainly was no friend to Washington). Ironically, Santa Cruz leaders have recently made similar claims: arguing that their call for autonomy is no different from that of Bosnia or Kosovo.
No, Miguel, you are not the only one. And yes, I feel that Goldberg is being accused of things that he has not done. The entire situation is not of his making. At the same time, I think he is “torpe” — clumsy. Any U.S. Ambassador is going to be walking on eggshells in Bolivia right now, and we need one who can do that gracefully.
The Yugoslavia comparison is quite troubling, yes, in part because of how that situation turned out.
Miguel, you may have already seen Jim Schultz’s piece on the Goldberg-Balkan-Bolivia conspiracy theory (Clare mentions it and links to it). He pretty much discounts it as ridiculous. It is troubling that Evo would buy into it for the reasons you mention. Even if the US is meddling, I think that is the least of Evo’s problems right now and he needs to address the situation in the “media luna” or he is going to loose support on all sides. Even people in the highlands are getting antsy about it. People want a response, but not a violent one.
Also, glad to hear things are calmer in SC.
Clare, Miquel, mcbruno et al,,,
Of course the historically empowered elite want to remain in power–no one denies that. And would they fight to remain in power? Undoubtedly so.
But to believe that Goldberg’s fingerprints are not all over Bolivia’s current seditious dissent and violence is to defy reason, logic and the history of his (and the USA’s) undeniable past.
One can look to the wreckage of Yugoslavia and see his latent prints all over the crime scene, but why stop there? Look at the US actions in Haiti, in Iraq, Afghanistan, and most recently Pakistan–and those are just for starters.
What one can not deny, is the role the USA has played in the destabilization of all of those sovereign nations, and many more.
Yet you seem to deny that we are doing the same in Bolivia.
This leads me to wonder: are you in denial of the role of the USA in pursuit of empire, or are you being paid to provide them cover? (Because being stupid, you are not.)
Viva Bolivia for ALL Bolivians!!! (instead of just the elite)
Yeah, I’ve noticed that Schultz has recently tried to be more “objective” lately, though he still selectively reports things as they fit his NGO agenda (but I guess that’s normal).
I also don’t think the US is meddling in Bolivia. From what I can tell, the DEA is pretty much writing off Bolivia and focusing on Peru/Colombia. Bolivia also has (let’s be honest) nothing of value to the US. In the list of Latin American priorities (which have been almost ignored since 9/11) Bolivia ranks near the bottom. I’m sure someone somewhere at the State Department cares, but I doubt there’s any cohesive plan to do anything. Note the level of incompetence in the embassy lately.
I think Evo has spent too much time fighting DEA agents in the past and listening to a retrograde Maoist (AGL) in the present to really see the Santa Cruz autonomy movement for what it is: a long-simmering conflict between regions that’s not dissimilar from the Liberal-Conservative struggles of the late 1800s (which ended in a civil war that moved the capital to La Paz). The economic center of Bolivia has long shifted to Santa Cruz. Those elites want political power to shift there as well, and resist the recent resurgence of political power from La Paz (after October 2003). The conflict has little, if anything, to do with US interests.
Hi Locojhon, welcome to the GT! We’re always happy to see new people and perspectives here.
I suspect that no one here (certainly not me) will deny the role of the US in Bolivia. Over the past century the U.S. has leveraged money, political power, military might, and many other things in ways that have not been beneficial to most Bolivians. The War on Drugs is just one of those, and something we have discussed here before.
At the same time, the question here is — is Goldberg involved in supporting separatists? That I am less convinced of. I wouldn’t rule it out, of course, if the evidence were to surface. But for starters, I don’t think the separatists need him.
As I mentioned, claiming that foreigners are behind local movements is a common way to discredit them. I heard rumors of that sort about Evo — that he was funded by FARC, by Chavez, by Castro, etc etc etc. Some of those countries are Bolivia’s allies, but that doesn’t mean they can claim credit for Bolivian movements either. They certainly didn’t elect Evo; the people of Bolivia did that. Likewise, I think it is insulting to protesters in Bolivia to claim that they are acting on behalf of the US. It is a way of ignoring them.
The historical relationships of imperialism between the US and Bolivia is all the more reason for the US ambassador to tread carefully. I feel that Goldberg (and previous ambassadors) have acted as if they don’t care about Bolivian law or public opinion, and I feel that is a great mistake. It’s also very difficult for those of us who spend a lot of time in Bolivia, and have a great deal of respect for people there, to see our country’s representatives doing such things.
So no, we are not in denial about the power of the US. (Nor are we being paid by the US. Or Bolivia, for that matter. In fact, the GT has no funding at all!)
On your last point, however, you and I definitely agree. Jallalla Bolivia!
Locojohn:
Are you suggesting that Goldberg (or the US) instigated the Balkan crisis? Or are you supporting Milosevic’s claims that US/NATO interference in defense of the Bosnian and Kosovar genocides were illegitimate?
I’d rather keep the Balkan analogy out of it. The analogy is not a good one. Unless we want to argue that Evo is Milosevic and Santa Cruz is Bosnia/Kosovo.
No one on this site denies the history of US interference in Latin American (including Bolivia). But it’s dangerously reductionist to argue that *ALL* ills in the region are American handiwork. First, because it blinds us to other possibilities. Second, because it assumes American omnipotence. One thing I like to tell my students, who only read American news and can only understand world news through a prism that puts US at the center of all world events: “It’s not always about you.”
A third reason why we can’t use the “you did bad things in the past” as proof that “you’re doing bad things now.”
Imagine if we used that logic in criminal trials in the US. No evidence needs to be presented, so long as the suspect was previously known to have committed some crime. Let’s toss out rules evidence, reasonable doubt, and presumption of evidence. And … let’s retroactively apply that to families. If your father was a thief, and you’re arrested for theft, you’re guilty. Done, and done.
Is that the kind of logic we want to use when assessing foreign policy?
Because if so, then the invasion of Iraq was justified. We suspected Saddam had a WMD program. He had one in the past. Therefore we need no more evidence. Done, and done.
Really. Let’s try to be level headed.
Locojohn,
Bienvenido! Like I I mentioned, I don’t deny there might be US money flowing behind what is happening in the lowlands, but I don’t think that is what Evo should be focusing on at the moment. There is news that two people died in Pando in violent conflicts between pro- and anti-Mas groups. As President he needs to take some actions to ask that people stop fighting each other and move towards a peaceful resolution.
On a personal note, I am not paid by anyone and I actually am a bit offended that you would even suggest it. This is an open community of people who love Bolivia and want to see it a better place for everyone.
Clare, Miguel, mcbruno et al,,,
Thanks for your warm/cordial welcome–it is appreciated. It is also comforting that all of you acknowledge some of the US history in destroying some other nations—a confirmation of what I was saying. What is mind-boggling is the refusal to admit such action is occurring in Bolivia today.
@Clare–Goldberg/Costas denied that a secret 1.5 hr meeting occurred between them just before the seditionist-led riots started–that is until the photos proving otherwise surfaced. Not iron-clad proof of the US role in sedition, but when you say that “I wouldn’t rule it out, of course, if the evidence were to surface,” aside from a confession from one of them, what would it take to convince you?
I agree that there would be dissatisfied protesters even without the US’s help/instigation. Just look at the slanted news in Bolivia. Look at the radio and t-v stations that were attacked—all pro Morales—to insure the seditionists had the ‘waves’ and public opinion shapers all to themselves.
@Miguel–I mentioned 5 nations that are disintegrating while supposedly being ‘helped’ by the US. I mentioned them as being a small part of a pattern. You seem to deny we had anything to do with the breakup of Yugoslavia. Do you deny that the US supported al-CIA-duh in creating divisions/atrocities there? Long story short–Forty years ago, when I was in the Navy, I was told twice by two different people at two different places that the official story about the Gulf of Tonkin was a cover story fed to and swallowed by the US public to hide a false flag operation and enable our war on Vietnam. (I didn’t believe it possible at the time….silly me!) You can start in the 50′s with the golpe de estada of Arbenz in Guatemala, and look almost wherever you want, and see a similar history.
Does it always work? No, it obviously does not–but that does not mean it wasn’t tried. Some times a success might be destroying a nation going socialist to try stopping it from occurring. A success always occurs when we use/blow-up our toys because jobs are created to replace them.
Is any of it iron-clad proof? Nope. But that, like what is now proven to have happened in Viet Nam–as I was told so long ago–doesn’t mean that the proof won’t surface later. Does Pinochet ring a bell?
John Perkins in his book “Economic Hit Man” describes the workings of the US ‘black ops’ from his perspective as a CIA insider, and his story is only one of many similar revelations–all from credible sources. Believe them or not—your choice. I certainly do, and history bears me out.
Two old saws are appropriate here: if it looks, walks and quacks like a duck,,,one can be pretty darned certain that it is a duck; and this: a leopard cannot change its spots.
Empire is a bipartisan US political sport for dominance, political, economic or military–and has been for 100 years or more. The US has around 750 bases world-wide now. One does not have to be all that sharp to connect the dots, no matter how distasteful the picture might be.
Also, for the record, I never suggested that “*ALL* ills in the region are American handiwork,” as you (in straw-man fashion) suggested I did. I know that it is not all about the US, but that knowledge doesn’t blind me to the fact that it usually is (and factual history sides with me on this part, too.)
Relative to your other straw men: I never suggested a parental connection relative to innocence or guilt, but come to think of it (given 3 successive generations of war criminality in the Bush family) perhaps your suggestion might have some merit after all. To knock down your last straw man relative to SH and WMD’s, we knew he had them, because the US had previously furnished WMD’s to him when he warred as our proxy against Iran. You can see a photo of young Rumsfeld shaking SH’s hand at the time.) You have no idea how comforting it is to know that you teach (math—not history–I hope).
@mcbruno–I agree that this (the US) should not be the main focus of Evo in dealing with the fascist insurrectionists. I apologize if you were a bit offended when I asked “are you in denial of the role of the USA in pursuit of empire, or are you being paid to provide them cover?” You deny being paid, and I accept that–but unless there is another possibility I didn’t list and you neglected to mention, that leaves only the first part standing—the denial of the US in pursuit of empire. What I believe Evo should do is the following:
*Bring charges of treason against the leaders of those seeking to destroy Bolivia, and to then do whatever it takes to arrest them and bring them to trial.
*Make a public announcement of intent prior to taking any action, to give the criminals a chance to turn themselves in and submit to trial.
*Start at the top with Branko Marinkovic , Reuben Costas et al and any of the other prefects who have incited and supported violence against the people and government of Bolivia.
*Work from the top on down the ranks of the leaders until the violence stops.
*Use restrained but overwhelming force, and only use violence to react to resistant violence–never as the instigator.
*Imbed the press to record it all, making certain that the press includes friends and foes alike, and that they are prevented from issuing warnings–under penalty of sedition.
*The force used would ideally be the most professional available to avoid any unintentional collateral damages.
*Use existing news footage, recordings and photos as evidence, and hold the perpetrators until trials can determine their fate.
*Get them in custody or force them back into their hidey-holes, or force them to leave.
*Those fomenting violence should be charged for any damages they cause, with a premium charged them for loss of lives, injuries and property they caused/incited. If the current nationalization process is applied to their appropriated property, deduct those charges from any settlement.
*Any of the above not currently in Bolivian law, should be declared as law by decree until Congress or appropriate referendum codifies it. I believe that Bolivian law allows that, with precedents having been set by previous presidents.
I believe that Evo has to take charge and act to reduce the destructive violence in Bolivia being fomented by a US-advised/supported/financed relatively few, and he must act soon, before it is too late.
Lastly, I am glad that we all seem to be in agreement relative to my last point: “Viva Bolivia for ALL Bolivians!!! (instead of just the elite)”
Locojohn:
I appreciate the fact that you are engaged and seem to read about these issues. Congratulations (few people do). But things like US involvement in pre-1980s Iraq, the Gulf of Tonkin, and our role in Pinochet are (in my opinion) widely known. I actually just taught a section on the Gulf of Tonkin (and the Vietnam war era more generally) yesterday in my US Foreign Policy Class.
My SH argument wasn’t a straw man. See, it turns out he didn’t have any WMDs. We thought he had them, for various reasons, and we assumed these were true because he had a *pattern* of using them in the past. We were wrong. Our assumptions about other people based on old intelligence or their previous behaviors often are. To assume someone is guilty (which is different from having a suspicion) based on past acts violates presumption of innocence, which is a value I hold very dear.
As for the US being involved in Yugoslavia … Yes, there are some conspiracy theories out there (and I do mean “out there”). But you give the CIA/US far too much credit. The Balkan civil war began because of centuries-old hatred between Serbs, Croats, and Muslims. Unfortunately, democracy often leads to violence (I recommend a great book by a Jack Snyder, “From Voting to Violence”) in multiethnic societies, if not managed properly. After several years of US/Europe doing nothing, NATO intervened in Bosnia to save thousands of lives. You see, because the US is a superpower, it is often “involved” in world crises. Of course, we’re not involved in Darfur today. Are you suggesting that we shouldn’t be? If not, what role (if any) should the US play in a places like Darfur? Are you suggesting that the US should play no role in the world (that we should return to 1920s-30s isolationism)?
It’s important to also read more broadly and not rely on single accounts. “Economic Hitman” is interesting, but it’s not *solid* evidence (it’s also not entirely a non-fiction account). For example, Arturo Valenzuela has an interesting book on Chile’s Pinochet coup. It was written in the mid 1970s, shortly after Valenzuela was forced to flee Chile (he and his brother were victims of the coup). He places the blame not on the US, but on internal Chilean social, political, and economic dynamics — including a flawed electoral system. The point isn’t that ills in Latin America aren’t always caused by the US, it’s that events have multiple causes. No doubt the US contributed to Pinochet’s coup. But military coups have happened in Latin America since the 1820s (and the US was a pathetic minor power back then). Like in Yugoslavia, there are complicated histories that have to be understood.
Let me also ask a similar question about history and other “empires”. You seem to suggest that a leopard can’t change it’s spots. So … should we never trust Germany, Italy, or Japan in world affairs? How about other former empires: Spain, Britain, Portugal, France? And how about these: Turkey, India, China, Russia? And then there’s even the Aztec, Inca, and Zulu. And others, of course. I’d like to think that we can use history as a guide, but not judge one generation guilty on the basis of the crimes of their forefathers. Because that’s how the Yugoslav wars started: After nearly 50 years of civil understanding, the Serbs in 1990 decided to punish the Croats and Muslims for the crimes of their grandfathers and the Muslims for the crimes of their great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfathers. I hope 20 years from now the Bosnian Muslims will understand that the next generation of Serbians had nothing to do w/ the crimes of their fathers.
This is sounding like the conversation I had with Machi (my Bolivian boyfriend) over lunch yesterday! I think we can’t deny there is probably US involvement in some way. If anything, there must be money from the large agro-industry companies (Dow, Monsanto, etc.) that have huge financial interest in maintaining the current land distribution in the lowlands. (For those who many not know…. Evo proposes to redistribute large areas of land in the lowlands that are currently owned by only a handful of people).
Two years ago, in a drive from Trinidad to Santa Cruz, Machi and I were shocked to see the impact of agro-business in the department of Santa Cruz. Not only have the large expanses of corn, soy bean, and sunflower fields turned the Bolivian Amazon into the Midwest US, but the roadside is filled with advertisements for Dow Chemical pesticides, fertilizers, and seed. Although the current discussion has focused on the loss of the gas tax (IDH), land reform is a major worry for the political elite in the “media luna”.
To end this reply, I REALLY appreciate the civilized and intellectual argument taking place on the GT!!! I think this is an important discussion and I appreciate all of the information locojohn and Miguel are presenting while making their well-thought out points. I love to read Jim Schultz’s blog for his commentary, but the responses are juvenile and unproductive (not his fault of course!) I hope we can keep GT as a place for this type of debate about Bolivia.
And finally, locojohn, I like your plan. I think keeping it in the legal realm is the right thing to do. Thanks for your insightful comments!
[Note - this comment has been edited. Omissions are marked with ellipses. -Cas.]
@mcbruno and Clare: The “Dude” says it better than I can right here:
http://casa-del-duderino.blogspot.com/2008/09/goldbergs-last-hurrah_13.html
(Don’t forget the links—you too, Miguel.)
Read it and be outraged–very outraged–for what has to be apparent to even the most in denial–that the US has its bloody fingerprints all over the seditious violence wracking Bolivia today, regardless of how much Miguel wants us to look into the roots of Bolivia’s past when he mentions even the Incas and Aztecs. We’re talking about modern history here, not the distant past and the faults of forefathers. …
How Miguel can remain convinced that the USA has nothing to do with the breakup of Bolivia stretches the bounds of credulity. It’s all just a coincidence, right Miguel? …
I’m trying to keep this civil–really I am. It is just so difficult to do so given the fact that people I love are in danger now in Bolivia, and I know without a shadow of a doubt that a big reason is because of what my country is doing there despite the protestations of Miguel to the contrary.
Peace,,,John
Locojhon,
This is a great conversation, and I feel like you and I agree on a great deal. No one would deny the role of the US (and its neoliberal policies) in disrupting specific governments and economies in Latin America. Thank you for the links: I found this piece by Benjamin Dangl to be interesting. He is the author of The Price of Fire, which I’ve actually been reading recently. I’ll try to post some thoughts on that; it is an interesting but somewhat problematic book, IMHO.
What bothers me about this particular article is that he relies on MAS officials to tell him that the US is supporting the opposition, but in the end can only find evidence that they are trying to encourage free trade. He mentioned a declassified document, which sounds promising for your case, but doesn’t mention which Bolivian law they are talking about.
Now, I’m not a proponent of free trade. And it’s no secret that the US government doesn’t like Evo or the MAS and would like to see them out of power. At the same time, this isn’t exactly smuggling weapons.
Is it possible there’s more to it? Sure! And maybe we won’t know for years, which is frustrating. You are right that this secret meeting is… well… questionable.
I think we are all willing to acknowledge that we don’t know as much as we would like about this situation. At the same time, we are trying to stick to the data we have, and not overstate the case.
Out of curiosity, Locojhon, assuming you are right, what do you think the motive of the US government is, exactly? Topple Evo and install a military dictator, a la Pinochet? Get a new president elected? Divide Bolivia in two? Cause enough chaos to invade?
P.S. Miguel is definitely not suggesting that we look to the Inca (and certainly not the Aztecs, who were in Mexico anyway) for the roots of the current problem in Bolivia. He is asking when an “empire” ceases to be an empire, and when do descendants cease to be accountable for the crimes of their ancestors.
Clare et al,,,
Muchas gracias for your warm and considerate welcoming of me and my comments to this blog. It means a lot to me.
The motives of the USG relative to Bolivia I believe, might be all of the suggestions you listed and perhaps more. Each nation has action plans devised and ready to be applied by the USG, and they vary according to further future developments in country. The plans are on the shelf, periodically revised and ready to be implemented when needed.
It was suggested above that Bolivia has nothing needed by US empire, and that therefore the USG has no need to interfere. The evidence is otherwise.
Is the US trying to control petroleum resources around the world? Obviously. Bolivia has lots of gas.
Is lithium potentially important to corporate interests? Also obviously yes.
Evo wants the benefits of Bolivia’s natural resources going to the people as opposed to the corporate interests that have raped Bolivia since the Spanish were kicked out.
One word–socialism–is the key. If any nation votes in a leader who espouses the “S” word in practice, that nation becomes the new ‘whack-a-mole’ for the US to overthrow or at least to try. The Monroe Doctrine is still the undeniable basis for US hemispheric policy–and that does not include socialism–in any nation.
Look at Zeyala in Honduras–whack–by US-trained Honduran military at WHINSEC! Why??? He was going toward ‘socialism’, where the resources benefit the people.
Look at how long the US has been trying to install a compliant government in Colombia–and what the eventual gains have been–7 new US bases–and NO accountability whatsoever for any US military or contractors for ANY violations of law. Uribe is a puppet–nothing more or less–bought and paid for with US tax dollars.
Look at Pres. Two-Breakfasts in Peru??? –same kind of deal–not yet completed. Once a compliant government is installed, no armed attack need take place–the leaders will do what is asked of them.
It is a very difficult and expensive task to try to impose US hegemony over the rest of the planet–but that doesn’t stop the US from trying (now bankrupting itself in the process).
Socialism vs. capitalism–that is the real underlying conflict–and if Evo or other socialists demonstrate to the rest of the world and especially the US sheeple that most people are better off with socialism than with neoliberal capitalism, then the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.
And the rest of the world will have Evo to thank for his courageous role in making it happen.
Viva Bolivia!