“What I have here is the map of the imperial occupation of Bolivia,” said a high official of Evo Morales’s government, speaking at a conference in which I participated last week in La Paz. He held up a map of Bolivia depicting the country’s hundreds of municipalities (counties), which the majority of them shaded in. “The few white parts of the map are all that are left to us.”
Was he showing us a map of U.S. military deployments, or security-force units that get U.S. aid? No. It turned out to be a map of locations in Bolivia where the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has recently funded projects.
USAID has come under heavy fire from the Morales government for allegedly channeling resources to the political opposition, and even to separatist movements in eastern Bolivia. Last week, Morales urged leaders of coca-growing communities to reject USAID funding: “It is not possible that some of our compañeros, former and current leaders are behind USAID when they have carried out a permanent campaign against Evo, against the government and against change.”
Yesterday, leaders of the coca-growers’ federations in the central region of Chapare – where USAID has spent over US$100 million on alternative-development projects – took Morales’s advice. They announced that they would no longer participate in USAID programs, and set about taking down signs bearing the agency’s logo posted near development projects’ sites. (USAID was already drawing down its projects in the Chapare region anyway, while increasing its alternative-development expenditure in the Yungas coca-growing region, near La Paz.)
The U.S. government has been generally restrained, but still has given the Morales government few incentives to moderate its tone. USAID programs in Bolivia do suffer from a lack of transparency about their final recipients, which has opened them to accusations that may or may not be unfounded. (Are these potable water projects, or “technical assistance” for opposition movements?) The agency’s handling of assistance to municipal governments in the Chapare, whose mayors are members of the ruling MAS party, has been ham-handed: projects begun with the mayors in 2004 had their funding abruptly frozen in 2006. Washington’s granting of asylum to former President Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada, who ordered a violent crackdown on protesters in 2003, is a key anti-U.S. rallying point for the Morales government.
Even Condoleezza Rice’s recent words to the Wall Street Journal editorial board – “The Bolivian regime is the problem” – were a gift to the hard-liners in the pro-government ranks. None of this does anything to encourage or embolden moderates in the MAS who would support dialogue and cooperation with the U.S. government. Instead, it isolates them.
From energy policy to Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada to the drug war, there will be many issues distancing Washington and La Paz. Even against this contentious backdrop, though, Bolivia’s prioritization of USAID projects is still puzzling.
Seen from Washington, it is an odd choice of target.
If Bolivia wanted to break ties with the U.S. military and stop the flow of military and police aid, it would require a years-long struggle against stiff opposition from the Bolivian security forces and the U.S. defense establishment (among other U.S. agencies that carry out the war on drugs).
By contrast, funding from USAID is far more fragile. With a little pushback, it could be zeroed out in little more than an instant as those monies are reassigned elsewhere in the developing world. Is this truly the outcome that the Bolivian government seeks?
June 26th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
But we have seen the problems associated with USAID when the US administration doesn’t like a particular government. Take the 2002 coup in Venezuela as an example and the funding and support which USAID provided (Eva Golinger provides a good account of this). The threat from USAID is real and, with the ever growing volatility of Bolivia’s political situation, Mr Morales has every right to be worried. And should there be regime change, the development plans initiated by the Bolivia’s ruling MAS party would simply be reversed. So, in the long run, Bolivia’s poorest will definitely lose out if the US government (via USAID) gets its way and ousts Morales.
June 26th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Put yourself in Morales’ shoes and try telling your military officers that they have to completely break-off the little “gold nuggets” in aide they recieve from the U.S. military…. won’t happen. Like many other countries around the world, they might not agree with U.S. policy or with the stipulations that accompanies the aide, but they’ll take it none-the-less because they like it. For example, going to the School of America’s is a prestigious check in the box. Besides, what’s the alternative… it’s not like their government is going to fund new military technologies or weapons etc…
Which is why Morales is targeting USAID…. the handful of campesinos will not complain, at least not out loud.
June 26th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
This is straight from the USAID statement on their mission objectives:
“U.S. foreign assistance has always had the twofold purpose of furthering America’s foreign policy interests in expanding democracy and free markets while improving the lives of the citizens of the developing world.”
You might not agree with it; however, before we beat-up on USAID, let’s remember that they are purposefuly objective and serve at the behest of the ruling administration. So, they are political in nature.
Understanding the latter, it makes sense that they would act they way they are.
June 26th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
alibi –
America’s Foreign Policy Interests are for the most part determined by its President.
June 26th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
The behaviour of USAID undermines the sovereignty of a particular country, plain and simple. The majority of Bolivians democratically elected government of MAS. By channeling large sums of money to an opposition group (especially during times of heightened political tension) is very dangerous. Again, one has to draw a comparison with Venezuela where an illegal coup occurred. And Chris, you say that USAID is “purposefully objective” while its mission statement stipulates its purpose of “furthering America’s foreign policy interests”. USAID is definitely not an objective organisation.
And believe me when I say, that in Bolivia if the campesinos want to complain they will. Almost everyday in Bolivia there are marches in the centre of town, mostly organised by the countries largely disenfanchised campesinos.
June 26th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
USAID’s action will be consistent with the current administrations policies and priorities…that’s what I am trying to say.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Which are to lie, cheat, steal, and murder for oil, gas and whatever else gets them off
June 26th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
An article by the Colombian weekly magazine Cambio suggests the U.S. military base in Manta, Ecuador, will be moved to a new location in Colombia after the U.S. military’s contract with Ecuador expires in 2009. The likely new host for the U.S. base is Colombia’s Palanquero air force base in Puerto Salgar, 120 miles north of Bogotá.
Cambio cites an April 22 meeting between U.S. Ambassador to Colombia William Brownfield and Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos in which the U.S. diplomat delivered some unexpected news. Brownfield told the minister the State Department had decided the Palanquero base was being “recertified.†Cambio mentions “military and diplomatic circles†interpreted the decision as the first step toward establishing the new U.S. base in Palanquero.
wonderful news /irony
Brownfield said the State Department’s recent recertification was in response to supposed gains by the Colombian Armed Forces in respect for human rights and in the planning and execution of Air Force operations.
yep, nothing to do with Manta
Former Colombian Defense Minister Rafael Pardo Rueda (1991–94) has already stated his opposition to the possibility of a new base. “A decision of this caliber would have serious repercussions for our foreign relations,†said Pardo, Colombia’s first civilian defense minister. “The possible base would reinforce the opinion that the decisions of Colombia are subordinated to the North. . . . Cooperation is better under sovereign conditions, rather than having a base acting with autonomy within our borders.â€
couldn’t have said it better myself
June 27th, 2008 at 1:33 am
Uribe wants to schedule a re-vote for his second term:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7476752.stm
Think he’ll lose? Anyone?
June 27th, 2008 at 4:01 am
The hillbilly from Salgar (Mr. Alvaro Uribe) knows that if he steps down from power willfully he will have to face charges for crimes against the humanity not to mention racketeering, money laundering and drug trafficking.
This guy has no moral left and no principles at all. All he has left is a big egomaniac lust for power. Even if he spends millions of dollars vindicating his vicious reelection from the Colombian budget, this time he will have to confront millions of non-voters who already know the kind of wretched petty guy that represents the Colombian government.
No death threats by his paramilitary squads will save him this time.
June 27th, 2008 at 10:18 am
One does wonder why it may be easier to gang up against USAID than other forms of U.S. resources, but this article gives away an interesting hint as far as Bolivia’s case go.
maremoto: Then again, there have been denials, before and after that CAMBIO articl,e which would be a bit hard to explain if that ever comes to pass . But, of course, it’s not impossible.
Jaime Bustos: Without having to make personal attacks, implied or otherwise…I’ve never held him in high moral regard and, on the surface, his latest proposal does appear to be quite illegal, if the speech is taken literally. I’m obviously against such things, as a matter of principle, and against Uribe as a matter of personal preference.
However, it may be that this latest proposal ends up mutating into something else, not just formally but substantially, so who knows how the situation will end up looking like. It could even be judicially challenged, in fact.
In the worst case scenario, I wouldn’t vote. But still, romanticizing not voting as a concept is a bit of a double-edged sword, so forgive me for not joining in that rhetorical statement.
Many, many people don’t vote for reasons which probably don’t have anything to do with politics or with how they view the current president or any presidential candidates. It may be a matter or either distrusting the political system in general, being indifferent, lazy, or just tired of going through some necessary red tape (voter registration and so forth), to briefly address the subject. That doesn’t mean that not voting can’t be used, even by a certain number of Colombians, in a more conscious manner, politically speaking, but the whole concept isn’t so romantic.
As for what charges Uribe will face, in or out of power, it all comes back to the same thing: due process. It’s easy to raise charges conceptually, it’s another thing to take them for granted, their outcome included.
Finally, as ironic as this may sound in light of everything else, which I’m painfully aware of…you know, I’d really wish it was all a matter of paramilitary death threats “saving” Uribe or not.
June 27th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jun/27/us-helps-ransom-reyes-kin/
WOW!!! If I were the families of the 3 x contractors in Colombia I would be screaming my head-off.
June 28th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
USAID empire biulding tactics at the expense of the poor people of Bolivia.