The Freezing of US-Bolivian Relations

Before the world financial crisis enveloped the world's news media and when news from Latin American actually made it across the Atlantic, there was the episode of diplomatic tit-for-tat tussling that involved the expulsion of US ambassadors from Bolivia, Venezuela and Honduras. Media outlets jumping naturally at the chance to picture yet another fiery anti-imperialist outburst by demagogue Hugo Chávez.

That the flurry of departing ambassadors had its origin in Bolivia is now long forgotten. With the US having retaliated by expelling Bolivia’s ambassador to Washington I would have that would have been that…just let the simmering US-Bolivian hostilities be. Let's just wait until a new US administration can come into the White House and proclaim their ‘good neighbourliness’ towards the region it sort out the mess – but that’s a topic to be discussed in another post further down the line.

But no... George Bush has taken it upon himself to ensure that Bolivia realizes the errors of their ways. Since 1991, Bolivia has benefited from the Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPDEA) that allowed certain Bolivian exporters favourable access to the US market. This in exchange for Bolivian cooperation in tackling illegal coca production. Overriding Congress and their decision two weeks ago to extend the agreement, Bush has chosen in a single stroke threaten the livelihood of thousands of Bolivians, by suspending the agreement. A possible 20,000 Bolivians may lose their jobs as companies face closure without access to the lucrative US market.

Here is a video the Bolivian-based NGO, The Democracy Center posted showing the plight of a number of workers face in light of this decision by the Bush administration.



As much as I can sympathise with those who point to Morales' lack of diplomatic finesse in throwing out the US ambassador, I find it hard to agree that this justifies the decision by Bush to, in a single stroke, threaten the livelihood of thousands of Bolivians, especially in the midst of world financial crisis where it will be the Bolivias of the world that will face the direst of consequences. Besides, won't this only legitimise his anti-American stance and worsen legitimate US attempts to tackle coca production?

Anti-Americanism Alive and Well in Latin America

An e-mail in my inbox asked me to part with a few hours of my time last Wednesday, standing outside in the Autumn cold and picketing the US embassy here in London. US ambassadors to Bolivia and Venezuela were in the space of a couple of days sent packing amidst accusations of fomenting regional violence in Bolivia and plotting to overthrow Chávez. According to the protesters:

US President George W Bush has made it his top priority to overthrow the new left-wing governments in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and others before he leaves office at the end of the year (www.handsoffvenezuela.org)

Whilst I have no doubt that the US would shed no tears if either Evo Morales or Hugo Chávez were finally toppled, the recent expulsions of the respective US ambassadors has far more to do with Morales' and Chávez's populist support to a large extent consolidated by their anti-US positions.

With Russian battleships on course for Venezuelan waters for joint exercises, US may indeed have cause for concern regarding Chávez's strategic alliances - "Russian navy sails to Venezuela." Is this yet more evidence of yesteryear's Cold War battle lines being redrawn as Russia strengthens its ties in and increases its presence in Latin America - just as it did in Cuba in the 1960s? And then there are continuing anti-democratic measures taken by Chávez; the most recent being the expelling of human rights activists after having accused Chávez's government of "openly endors[ing] acts of discrimination" - "Venezuela expels two human rights activist" But are these legitimate causes for concern enough for the US to reattempt its misguided foray into overthrowing democratically elected leaders?

And what does the US gain from further destabilising Bolivia? Aside from the issue of Morales' government not doing enough to cut down on coca production, there is very little his government can be accused of that directly goes against US interests. The US has little interest in Bolivian gas reserves and their recent nationalisation. And surely they must realise that the toppling of a President that only weeks was strengthened his mandate with 67% of the popular vote in the recall referendum.

The history of US interventionism etched into the Latin American psyche, the extent to which it imbues populist rhetoric, ultimately renders the need for sound reasoning behind these anti-US conspiracies completely unnecessary. Even with George Bush at the helm, this mode of politics should not play a central role in any Latin American nations' foreign policy. Yes, the USA is by no means the 'Good Neighbour' it had once set itself up to be. But far more stands to be lost in the long-term by doing your utmost to strain relations with USA, merely for the purpose of short-term populist/nationalist gains.

This is not to say that the US are wholeheartedly innocent either. Failing to show strong enough support for the democratically-elected leaders of both countries is seen as a green light for opposition movements in Venezuela and Bolivia to challenge their Presidents in any way they see fit - as was the case with the failed coup in Venezuela in 2002 and with the violence in Bolivia right now.

Needless to say I did not spend last Wednesday afternoon picketing the US embassy.

What Would Obama do for Latin America?

Unfortunately I've been so caught up in the US primary season of late, that my daily browsing of Latin American news topics online has been undone by reading countless Obama vs. Clinton news stories. Hopefully the good people of Texas and Ohio will now put us out our misery and make sure that the dynastic politics of the Bush/Clinton rule of the White House can finally come to an end. Whilst I don't think I'm still any clearer as to whether Obama really will bring about the change that he and his supporters go on about (and am I the only one to think that his "Yes We Can" theme tune riff is a rip off our very own Bob The Builder "Can we fix it? Yes We Can!" theme song?).



Could Obama really fix the mess the US finds itself it?? Well with regard to US-Latin American relations one can only hope that he really does learn from the George Bush's mistakes. There are those that have lamented US disregard toward Latin America in favour of the Middle East and the more pressing issues of terrorism and fighting wars here and there. But perhaps with the US taking its eye off Latin America has given Latin American governments the breathing space they've needed to etch out their own way. Perhaps it is no coincidence that it had been George Bush that the 'New Left' governments have risen to power and been so successful in promoting Latin American autonomy. That said Latin America can not detach itself from the US, it has never been able to and it never will, so therefore any US administration that chooses to reconstitute their foreign policy priorities by focusing on Latin Americas rather than other far-flung corners of the world can only be a good thing for Latin America. Well that is if the Administration in power at the time is one that treats Latin America as an equal partner rahter than some subregion full of wild, unruly Latinos as many Presidents have done before (think Nixon & Reagan).



So returning to the possible idea of an Obama presidency how would he treat Latin America? There is some mileage in the criticisms posted by his opponents that his campaign is more about rhetoric than actual policy, so it still isn't clear to me what he might do in office. Here is a US article a did come across that points out how a democratic presidency would be far more beneficial for Latin America than say a Republican one. Though with regard to trade matters this may not be the case. Obama: Pluses, minuses on Latin America issues. Question is how would he solve a problem like Chavez and Castro, or perhaps more interestingly what would they do without resource to their persistent anti-Bush rhetoric.