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.

@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

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!

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.