Economic development is hard enough to achieve in Bolivia without the persistent destabilising forces that constantly undermine the President-of-the-day's attempt to steer the country down some sort of sustainable developmental path.
The recent political shenanigans in Bolivia only serve to underscore the perpetual political instability the country has had to deal with and how it's seriously destabilizing for the country in the long-run.
After last week's autonomy vote in Santa Cruz, Bolivia's President, Evo Morales, is seeking to tackle his opponents head-on in a nationwide referendum on his Presidency. I struggle to see what good this is going to do. Win-or-lose, this referendum is bound to cause yet more division throughout the country. It will further set in stone the gradual partition of the country along the geographic East and West divide, and perhaps more worryingly accentuate the increasing racial divide.
Morales's argument is, "if we politicians can't agree, it's best that the population decide our destiny."
I haven't followed Bolivian politics closely enough to comment objectively on whether Morales, his populist, and at times misguided nationalistic policies, and indigenista appeal are inherently the cause of this widening divide or whether this division is the natural knee-jerk reaction of the Bolivian elites (now increasingly settled in the Eastern provinces) given the inroads made into their long-held privileges.
Either way, the up shoot of all this can hardly be good for the long-term development of Bolivia. At least the country still remains determined to stick to democratic principles to sort out their differences.
7 comments:
To answer your first question first: "Where else?"
Here is a link to US overt military incursions into SA: http://www2.truman.edu/~marc/resources/interventions.html
And arguably the covert actions outnumber the overt ones.
And that does not take into consideration our actions throughout the rest of the world.
It is amazing to me that these considerations are not germane to the study of economics.
Regards,,,John
Personally I can't see why US overt/covert military incursions should be considered within the study of economics in Latin America
With the end of the Cold War, the demise of ideological tensions the US has now very few direct security concerns in Latin America that could ever be solved by overt/covert military actions.
The US can now exert its influence by other means. Tempting Latin American countries to sign-up to lucrative Free Trade Agreements or handing out significant aid packages for those that take on the "war on drugs". Such measures are far more succesful in keeping Latin American countries in line than brute force or covert operations ever will be.
Though with regards to leaders like Chavez, reminding the electorate of past US military interventions in Latin America is always a good tool to shore up nationalistic support.
Thomas,,,
You state "Personally I can't see why US overt/covert military incursions should be considered within the study of economics in Latin America."
Would you state the same regarding Spanish colonialism, and if not, why not?
Then you go on to say "....the US has now very few direct security concerns in Latin America that could ever be solved by overt/covert military actions." Can you honestly claim--with the possible exception of the Cuban missile crisis--that the US has, in the last 100 years, ever had any 'direct security concerns' from Latin America? If so, from who and when?
Next you state "The US can now exert its influence by other means" which implies that those other means have not been used all along. (For a first-person account, read John Perkins' "Economic Hitman", and perhaps you can see how overt and covert USA activities impact the LA economies.
Perhaps it was unintentional, but the tone of your article and later response suggests you don't have a problem with economic imperialism.
Is that a correct taking on your position, and do you still not see a cause and effect relationship and how US overt/covert military incursions effects LA economies?
I'm hoping your education is not yet finished.
Regards,,,John
In respone to your quieries:
I wouldn't state the same regarding Spanish colonialism. Any understanding of Latin American economic development must always be understood within the context of the region's colonial past. The colonial period had detrimental effects, not only for economic growth but through the institutionalisation of political institutions that have, for many centuries, consistently favoured local elites.
Whilst I don't think - aside from the Cuban Missile Crisis - that the US has ever had serious 'direct security concerns' steming from L.A. Military interventions in Guatemala (1956), Dominican Republic (1965), the overthrow of Allende (1973), the support of the Contras in Nicaragua have all be cast as security concerns under the larger Cold War struggle. 'Losing' any one of these countries to Communism may have not led to a direct security concern for the US, but the idea of the Domino effect meant that the US had to contain the spread of Communism (well in fact any form of goverment that was left-of-centre). Security concerns, by their vary nature are always subjective. So, yes I would peronally agree that the US never faced 'real' security threats from LA, but I appreciate how the Cold War stuggle blinded US policy makers to undertake irrational at foolhardy military incurions into LA
With regards to John Perkins' "Economic Hit Man": Thank you for bringing this to my attention. It was interesting to read up on the supposed assasination of Jaime Roldos and Omar Torrijos. Given they happend in the early 1980s and during the Reagan adminstration it wouldn't seem implausable to think that the US had something to do with their 'accidental' deaths. However, the times have changed, and thus I find it equally implausable to think that the US has anything to gain from such actions in Latin America.
And no, I'm not okay with economic imperialism. In fact throughout the degree which I'm taking I've been trying to understand how so many Latin American countries have been hindered in working their way up the development ladder and moving away from economic dependency.
Hope this wasn't too much of a long-winded response.
Thanks for your interest.
Thomas,,,
Thanks for your reasonable (not long-winded) response.
You say that "...the times have changed, and thus I find it equally implausable to think that the US has anything to gain from such actions in Latin America"; said in regard to my suggestions that USA overt and covert manipulations were still involved in determining the economics of LA nations. Question: what do you believe has changed in US governance to prevent the continuation of those policies?
And lastly, I suggest that the following link be read to better understand the economic machinations the US imposes upon other nations via the WB and IMF, which are widely seen as US government extensions meant to serve US interests, as opposed to the nations supposedly 'aided': http://www.ipsterraviva.net/Europe/article.aspx?id=6101
Although the article does not deal specifically with LA economics, the lessons are applicable as the policies which have been mandated by those same funding agencies were applied in almost every LA nation where neo-liberal economics were imposed on people desperately needing help.
The 'medicine' they received, instead of helping them, stunted their growth or killed them.
You say "I've been trying to understand how so many Latin American countries have been hindered in working their way up the development ladder and moving away from economic dependency."
The above-linked article ought to help in that better understanding.
Regards,,,John
Thomas,,,
Here is another source to help better understand why LA is so economically impoverished:
Liberty for Latin America: How to Undo Five Hundred Years of State Oppression, by Alvaro Vargas Llosa
He specifically writes about the economics of LA and the historical context which create the very conditions you are studying.
I hope it is helpful.
Regards,,,John
Thanks again for response.
I think we can agree on the idea of North American/Western economic imperialism being continued by means of the IMF and World Bank and the strict conditions they impose on borrowing countries. I would definitely recommend anything by Joseph Stiglitz or Ha-Joon Chang for good critiques of these organizations.
With regard to your question, “what do you believe has changed in US governance to prevent the continuation of those policies”, well I think a lot has changed. Most significantly the end of the Cold War and the rise of global terrorism post 9/11. For those reasons the US no has need for military interventions in Latin America. It’s not exactly as if Latin America is or ever will be a hot-bed for Islamic terrorism. In and in this age of pro-democratic reforms, it seem very unlikely that the US would be able to assert itself in Latin America, given that Latin America – Cuba aside – is led by relatively consolidated democratic governments. And as I think we both agree on, the US is able to protect its economic interests by other means: through unilateral FTA’s or through the big multilateral financial organizations.
Post a Comment