Bolivia Is High in the Andes - Essay Example

Teacher Bolivia is High in the Andes Democratic leanings in Bolivia offer some hope to proponents of democratic ideals throughout the democratized world. Those ‘hopes’ seem to come from outsiders of Bolivian politics rather from the population inside of Bolivia. Yes, the populace inside of Bolivia can vote qualifying Bolivia as a democratic-type of political structure. Exporting a form of democracy (Constitutional Republic) by outsiders is considered by some as a risky and maybe only a temporary measure for intensifying democratic reforms inside of Bolivia, “Bolivia’s attempted democratic reshaping is proving to be a contradictory, uncertain, and conflict-ridden process, one that has provoked sharp debates both within Bolivia and among observers of Bolivia abroad” (Wolff 3). The problems inside and outside of Bolivia with respect to democratic reforms are certainly not easily definable. Most would also agree a move towards socialism by the current Evo Morales regime is troubling for democratic proponents. Though most would agree that democratic change in Bolivia could be sincerely philanthropic venture by democratic proponents, economic vitalization of Bolivia is usually the anticipated motivation and priority assisting any efforts for ‘changing’ governments, “…creating order is a central task for establishing the foundations of long term economic growth” (North, 1999). It is reasonable then to consider the perceived ‘value’ of Bolivia post-change in light of simple economic potential. The future does not look bright for Bolivian democracy with change as a constant drumbeat from Bolivia’s past. The geography of Bolivia suggests that independence, whether democratic or socialist, is always going to be a matter of dependence upon others. Bolivia is one of two ‘land-locked’ countries in the Western Hemisphere (Paraguay the other) and relies on neighboring countries for exporting its mineral resources (Bolivia’s primary export) throughout the world. This dependence upon neighbors, specifically Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Peru and Paraguay, is more significant than some may think. Bolivia once had access to the sea but lost this territory to Chile in the War of the Pacific in the late 1800’s. Bolivia has suffered poverty and government instability ever since the War of the Pacific. Bolivia’s main obstacle to ‘independence’ is Bolivia’s land-locked juxtaposition. The easiest and cheapest route for one of Bolivia’s chief exports, Bolivian crude oil, is directly through Brazil via a pipeline. Brazil also happens to be South America’s largest producer of crude oil. Essentially, Bolivia is competing with Brazil for the same dollars. It isn’t much of stretch to consider how willing Brazil might be ‘allowing’ Bolivia fair and impartial passage of her oil through Brazil when times get tough. Brazil is a fellow competitor and might be more concerned with her own economic ability at any given time. Bolivia does have an extensive and substantial natural gas deposit in the ground that she could use as political/economic leverage. The summary of this ‘natural gas flow’ crosses into the realm, once again, of Bolivia’s ability to transport her major natural gas deposits effectively among competing nation’s borders while, at the same time, competing with these countries for the same dollars. Today, Brazil has massive natural gas deposits of her own but Brazil is being prudent with her resources as she purchases close to 50% of Brazil’s natural gas needs from Bolivia. Bolivia, on the other hand, needs money now and is more than willing to exhaust her supply perhaps mortgaging her future in the process. The effect of infighting among Bolivians harboring ancient vendettas has crippled Bolivian prosperity using natural gas as a vehicle to escape poverty. According to the US Energy Information Agency: “The development and disposition of Bolivias natural gas has been a source of considerable controversy. Violent unrest and government crackdowns in late 2003 became known as the "Gas Wars" because they were precipitated by opposition to a plan to export liquefied natural gas (LNG) via Chile, with which Bolivia has had troubled relations since it lost its sovereign access to the sea during the nineteenth-century War of the Pacific.” (EIA, 2012) It is understandable that Bolivians are still ‘hurting’ from the 1879 War in the Pacific, but coupling this sort of ‘Nationalistic Fervor’ with the indigenous people of Bolivia’s claim of autonomy with respect to natural resources suggests the end of political change is not over in Bolivia. According to the BBC, “Indigenous groups say the country should not relinquish control of the reserves [natural gas], which they see as Bolivias sole remaining natural resource.” This statement by the BBC may be absolutely true. The indigenous people of Bolivia, though, have the right to claim autonomy with whatever they wish inside of their own national borders. The problems begin for Bolivia in relation to what is ‘lawful’ both nationally and internationally with protecting this resource for posterity. Memories from outsiders, politically and economically, do not fade quickly. Bolivia has committed and is committing, time-and-time again; ‘contrary to law’ claims costing hundreds of millions of dollars to companies wishing to do business inside of Bolivia. Standard Oil, based in the U.K. and operating out of New Jersey, helped the impoverished Bolivians (and themselves) in an economic thrust in Bolivia around 1924 when Standard Oil brought in equipment, built roads, railways and cities in an effort to make money for Standard Oil and make money for the Bolivian people. Standard Oil contracted with Bolivian companies for transportation needs and supplies pouring millions into Bolivia hoping to find a trading partner for the long-term goal of economic profit. That completely changed 13 years later when, “Bolivias state oil company [YPFB] took over the oil wells and refining operations of Standard Oil Company after the nationalization in 1937” (Cote, 2011) effectively stealing all of Standard Oil’s facilities, land, technology, telegraph lines, equipment and everything else Standard Oil owned or controlled. Standard was out and YPFB was in as far as Bolivia was concerned. What Bolivia did to Standard Oil was use ‘autonomy’ to circumvent or pour over the ‘Law’ to obtain a foreign company’s assets. Bolivia has the right to do as she sees fit inside her borders, but impressions linger, given the right set of circumstances, Bolivia will do the same type of confiscation to another foreign company. This practice of expropriating assets from foreign countries obviously hinders Bolivia’s prospects for Bolivian investment by foreign companies placing Bolivia in the crosshairs of economic stagnation and/or decline. Political stability may results from economic success or vice versa but both, political stability and economic success, walk hand-in-hand towards long term socio-economic establishment. It may be convenient to assume Bolivia’s state sponsored takeover of Standard Oil’s assets happened 75 years ago and must be pushed to the past; forgive and forget because it’s in the past. Or, one could assume that the Spanish led Government of 1937 (Villarroel) would be much different from the government of today; that of the Evo Morales’s government. Evo Morales became the very first indigenous person (Indian) or non-Euro to ever become President of Bolivia. As a young boy, Evo saw the plight of indigenous people under the ruling arms of European Spaniards. Since the Spanish conquest of Latin America, starting around 1520, indigenous people in Bolivia were comprised of a loose collection of Incas and Aztecs that settled into the high plains (called altiplano) of the Andes Mountains. Though the Spaniards that conquered the South American were never quite more than “…semi-professional mercenaries” (MIT 2004) who used brutality and any sort of horrific torture to sway the indigenous people into subjugation. The Spaniards also brought smallpox to the continent and effectively destroyed Latin American dignity, culture and autonomy. The Incas and Mayan people were also fond of fighting among themselves in various wars but the Spaniards, although not by any stretch of the imagination representative of the crown’s full intentions or nobility, sucked every ounce of gold, silver and artifacts from Latin America for their own accounts leaving behind a humiliated and defeated indigenous populace. One could speculate that in-fighting among ‘family’ (Mayan and Incas) is incredibly more acceptable than fighting with ‘outsiders’. The Spaniards (outsiders) left a garrison of governments over much of Latin America intent on siphoning resources and delivering them into European hands. Those wounds from the past have never healed with the indigenous population. Recently, as Bolivia moved forward in educating both the remnants of European lineage that controlled the government and most sectors of business and the indigenous population (for centuries exploited and virtually dehumanized), the ‘Truth’ about the nature of the ruling ‘Elite’ and their rise to, and consumption of, power historically was mostly left to fable and folklore for the indigenous people. Education of the indigenous has been a slow assault on the extreme poverty of the indigenous people but the efforts have seen an effect. According to the World Bank, the effort for educating the indigenous population is on the increase; “by 2001, nearly 2,400 schools (mainly in rural areas) provided bilingual education — more than twice the number in 1997” (WB, 2013). The indigenous population makes up 62% of the total population of Bolivia and nearly 82% of rural regions. Perhaps this increase in the care for the indigenous people of Bolivia from a mostly indifferent ruling ‘Elite’ (mostly European Spaniards) comes directly from the Bolivian constitutional changes in 1994. “To the extent covered by the Law the social, economic, and cultural rights of indigenous peoples are respected and protected, especially those rights relating to their communal territories of origin, guaranteeing the sustainable use of natural resources, and their identities, values ,languages, customs and institutions… (Article 171, 1994 Bolivian Constitution). Maybe an ‘enlightenment period’ concerning indigenous people of Bolivia by the formerly ruling ‘Elite’, though catastrophic to the ‘Elite’s’ future stranglehold of power, was etched in the myriad strikes, protests and clashes with authorities from indigenous groups and leaders like Evo Morales paving the way, finally, towards a more ‘representative’ type of government. Whether the government of Bolivia becomes a socialist dictatorship, a representative democracy or an Oligarchy is the issue for outside influencers. But inside Bolivia, since the election of a President from the majority of the population (indigenous people) Evo Morales, the people of Bolivia will have their say in the direction they wish their country to move in. The net result in Bolivia from outsiders has been strife, instability and abject poverty for the people of Bolivia. It might be time, and the time has come, to see what the net result in Bolivia will be when Bolivia is ruled by one of her own. Certainly there will be mistakes made by the ‘Nuevo’ government, but after approximately 500 years of subjugation and exploitation by others that are understandable. As a point of reference: The exact amount of harshness or severity instituted upon the indigenous people of Bolivia is without a definite answer. The ‘appearance’ of subjugation and exploitation on the indigenous people is strictly from an outside observer’s parallax (this author). It needs to be emphasized that a certain percentage of the indigenous people may want to be ‘exiled’ from politics and have a complete disinterest about who/whom runs governmental affairs and how this is accomplished. It is very easy for those tuned into politics and political structures to believe others possess the same zeal. With that being said; the efforts to educate the indigenous people have resulted in change inside Bolivia. If this change is parallel to democratic forms then those proponents of democratic forms should be elated. If the changes in Bolivian politics lead away from democratic forms, long-term, then a ‘Hands-Off’ approach should be welcomed. Since governments now seem to be “of the people and by the people” then it becomes necessary for ‘outsiders’ to allow those people to determine how and by who/whom they are led. Changing the character of political representation forwarding the majority (indigenous Indians) to legislate and lead the ‘elitist’ minority (European Spaniards) has never happened before in Bolivian history. Evo Morales brought hope of a ‘different way’, a democratized way, for Bolivians of all races, colors and creeds. The hope that Bolivians would cease expropriating assets from foreign companies doing business in Bolivia was quickly extinguished around 2006. According to the Wall Street Journal, “Since taking office in 2006, Mr. Morales has nationalized the oil and gas industry and expropriated firms owned by foreign investors in the telecommunications, mining and electric sectors” (Romig, 2013), and on February 18, 2013 The Wall Street Journal goes further and reports, “Bolivian President Evo Morales nationalized the foreign-owned company that operates the countrys three largest airports, in his latest move to widen government control over the economy of the impoverished South American nation” (Romig, 2013). Instead of wondering if democracy can survive in Bolivia one is pressed to find a semblance of democracy in the first place. Beyond voting rights one might conclude that Bolivia doesn’t understand the ‘rule of law’ and, if Bolivia does understand the ‘rule of law’, doesn’t much care for International Law. Evo Morales makes his point very clear, “"The looting by the foreign companies has ended,"( North 1999 ) wearing a YPFB helmet; the same YPFB that took Standard Oil’s assets in 1937. Lawrence Goldstein, head of PIRA Energy Group based in New York suggests dire consequences for Bolivia in the future because of Morales’ move, ““They’ve [Bolivia has] been conned by Castro and Chávez…They’ve been sold a bill of goods that’s going to come back and bite them and bite them hard.” (Luoma, 2006). By connecting Venezuela’s Chavez and Cuba’s Castro the result might find an ‘Egalitarian’ government or a ‘Dictatorship’ living under a new constitution etched in 2009 sympathetic to Bolivian expropriation of foreign investments and assets. Whatever the final conclusion might be, for the form of government that Bolivia now owns, the ‘fruit’ of this Bolivian government resembles a repetition of the past; “Bring ‘em in and take ‘em over.” On the other hand, specific examples of “Bring ‘em in and take ‘em over” has existed since the Spanish conquest of South America starting around the early 1500’s. Perhaps the Europeans (and Americans) are getting a taste of what they served the Bolivian people for about 500 years and don’t like that taste very much. Of course, the ancestral happenings of other’s could never be seen in light of modern day actions; or can it? The fact is that until Evo Morales was elected from the majority population for the first time in since the 1500’s speaks volumes about the nature of ancestral traditions being passed down from generation-to-generation. In Bolivian politics until Evo Morales, the ‘sins’ of the ruling elite passed through generations until a ‘crackdown’ was instituted snuffing out resistance. Perhaps the measure of people can be forecasted since Bolivian politics, for at least 200 years, has been ruled by everyone but indigenous Bolivians. After Bolivia’s state expropriation of Standard Oil’s assets in 1937, Bolivia found itself supporting Nazi Germany by declaring war against the USA and the Allies in 1943. In 1946, the leader of the Bolivian government Villarroel was assassinated after a major mine worker uprising. The socialists took over in the 1950’s and, once again, redistributed the wealth throughout Bolivia from wealthy Bolivians without cause. Assorted military coups, elected but ineffective governments and various uprisings in the 1960’s led eventually to another state take-over of a foreign company, this time Gulf Oil’s assets. The 1970’s and 1980’s saw minor periods of stabilization which ultimately led to the government headed by Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada in 1993. De Lozada oversaw a massive economic increase in the eastern areas (lowlands; Santa Cruz) as natural gas deposits were discovered and infrastructures such as, airports and transportation, were further developed in the east. In 1997, Hugo Benzer, a former Dictator of Bolivia, was elected President and continued on with de Lozada’s economic revival. Benzer’s fall from grace with indigenous Indians came when Benzer promised to eradicate all coca plants; used as the primary agent in cocaine. Indigenous Indians of Bolivia were livid at the suggestions and revolts occurred(North 40). Shortly after, Morales, leader of a major indigenous coca leaf growers union, came to power with MAS (Movement Towards Socialism) and the expropriations began (Flintoff, 2008). Today, Bolivia is under a rewritten constitution and repeating the process of commandeering foreign company’s assets. It is difficult to see any sort of stability in Bolivia in the near future. Perhaps the geography has offered Bolivia a ‘personality’ of being isolated and dependent on others for assistance solving interior problems. Bolivia’s problems do not coincide with the proper landscape to cultivate a vibrant democracy and any semblance of democracy seems to be, using Bolivia’s past an indicator, the calm before the storm. The object of concern in this paper is for long term viability of current democratic rule with respect to Bolivia and the Bolivian people. The substance of this change seems to be a repetition of the past and is therefore doomed to failure. Perhaps expropriating assets from foreign companies is the only way a ‘land-locked’ country can compete on the global stage when a poor country needs to be ‘fed’. The great Catholic Philosopher Thomas Aquinas tells us that a man stealing a loaf of bread for his family is not sinful or wrong (Summa, Article 7). The intention of the Bolivian government with regard to ‘repossessing’ their own natural resources is the question and most probably cannot be answered. It is not wrong for a country in a ‘vacuum’ to be isolated from a certain amount of prosperity simply because of a country’s geography. It is wrong to misunderstand the dire straits of such a country and to aim at ‘exploitation’ of the country and her resources. The intent of the foreign owners of the aforementioned companies that faced state sanctioned takeovers is also a question that probably cannot be answered. To democracy: Is the proper and singular motivation of democracy to assist individuals in the ‘pursuit of happiness’ or to expropriate individuals for capitalistic consumption? If the United States doesn’t enjoy the fact that Evo Morales seems to not be ‘following the rules’ with respect to codes of conduct of dignitaries then the USA might need to peek back at her own history where she expropriated everything provided by King George, including the ride across the ocean, for her own and waged a war to overthrow a lawful and sovereign government (England) effectively doing what United States Code prohibits (U.S.C. 18, 2385). Hopefully, as Bolivia is assessed for contemplation, predetermined ideas of, what is justice and what is not justice, becomes more of a blurred line than a mantra. If ‘socialism’ is the order of the day for Bolivian people then forms of democracies all over the world should applaud Bolivia’s decision. It is doubtful that Standard Oil, Gulf Oil, or Spanish-owned Airports and their leadership could move beyond their “bottom line” to take an objective, formal look into Bolivian life, society and politics. Can Bolivia sustain democracy in the long term? That question is highly unlikely given the course of current events in Bolivia. What is known about Bolivian political leadership is this: There has never been one single, ordinary, indigenous person ever to lead his or her country implementing his or her direction. For those who enjoy watching the ‘Underdog’ win when all odds are against them, Bolivia should be your focus. It doesn’t matter what type of political direction Bolivia takes; Bolivia’s indigenous people are now fully in-charge of their own future. Yes, Bolivia is repeated her past…with one exception. She learned from the USA how to incorporate a political ideal, implement it for the majority (indigenous people) and wrest power from the elite. In this sense, Bolivia might become the new ‘Ideal’, 200 years from now, when most thought she was finished. Bolivia is in the midst of another revolution and hope remains that she follows Robert Frost’s words: “I advocate a semi-revolution. The trouble with a total revolution (Ask any reputable Rosicrucian) Is that it brings the same class up on top. Executives of skillful execution Will therefore plan to go halfway and stop. Yes, revolutions are the only salves, But they’re one thing that should be done by halves.” (Frost, 1942) Works Cited Aquinas, Thomas. “The Summa Theologiae.” Trans./Ed. Timothy McDermott. South Bend, Indiana: Christian Classics, 1989. Print. Cote, S. “Drilling for Oil and Constructing Difference in Eastern Bolivia.” University of Illinois: World History Connected. 2011. Web. March 30, 2013 http://worldhistoryconnected.press.illinois.edu/8.2/forum_cote.html Bolivian Constitution. Article 171. (1994) EIA, US Energy Information Administration. “Bolivia: Analysis.” August 2012. Washington D.C. Web. March 29, 2013. http://www.eia.gov/countries/cab.cfm?fips=BL Flintoff, C. “Bolivian President’s Career Tied to Coca Leaf.” NPR. September 2008. Web. March 30, 2013. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94575665 Frost, Robert. “A Witness Tree”. New York: Holt. 1942. Print Luoma, A. “Bolivia Briefing Series: Reaction to Nationalization.” (taken from section) “From Dire Warnings to Solid Support.” Lawrence J. Goldstein (quote). 2006. Web. April 3, 2013. http://democracyctr.org/bolivia/investigations/bolivia-investigations-gas/bolivia-briefing-series-gas-and-oil-nationalization-2/ MIT Notes. “Ideology and Discourse About Indigenous People” 2004. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Web. Anthropology. April 3, 2013. http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/anthropology/21a-441-the-conquest-of-america-spring-2004/lecture-notes/21a4411.PDF North, B., Summerhill, W., Weingast, B. “Order, Disorder and Economic Change: Latin America vs. North America.” 1999. Web. April 3, 2013. http://www.international.ucla.edu/cms/files/weinga.pdf Ronig, S. “Bolivia Nationalizes Its Three Largest Airports.” The Wall Street Journal. February, 2013. Web. April 2, 2013. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323949404578312640857437314.html U.S. Code 18, Number 2385. Advocating the Overthrow of the US Government. Wolff, J. “Challenges to Democracy Promotion.” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Washington D.C. 33 pages. Web. April 1, 2013. http://carnegieendowment.org/files/democracy_bolivia.pdf World Bank. “Latin America and Caribbean.” Unknown. Web. April 1, 2013. http://go.worldbank.org/ZX284CZC80 Read More