|
They wanted to split off Bolivia's gas and oil rich eastern provinces (where rich white landowners prevail) into a fascist mini-state in control of Bolivia's main resources. They were being funded and organized right out of the U.S. embassy. They rioted, sacked and destroyed government and NGO buildings, beat up Morales supporters, blew up a gas pipeline and machine-gunned some thirty unarmed peasants. At that point, Morales through the U.S. ambassador and the DEA (also colluding with the fascists) out of the country, and South American's new 'common market'--UNASUR--intervened, brokered a peace with the saner elements of the minority rightwing opposition, and set up a commission to investigate the murders. It was a great and unanimous show of South American strength against U.S. interference, and a good omen for the future.
This vote on a new Constitution is part of that peace process. Bolivia has a long, nasty history of white enslavement of the majority indigenous. The new Constitution establishes indigenous civil and human rights--and the equality of every citizen--as the law of the land. They did not, however, include equal rights for women and gays, as Ecuador recently did (passed with nearly 70% of the votes), probably because they already had enough trouble with the Catholic Church, which is being edited out of the Bolivian Constitution (--like ours, it will be secular--not permit a state religion), and also possibly because inclusion of women/gay equality likely sank a package 69 badly needed amendments to the Venezuelan Constitution, back in Dec '07. That was a very close vote (50.9% vs 49.3%). Venezuela has a particularly rightwing and political Catholic clergy. Not sure if Bolivia does, but I suspect so, since they didn't include it. And I'm sure Morales would have liked to. He is as progressive as they come--campaigned with a wreath of coca leaves around his neck, sacred plant of the indigenous; opposes the U.S. "war on drugs"--that farce--but also opposes cocaine traffic, drug lords and crime (but, like many of the new Latin American leaders, does not believe in militaristic solutions, and sees poverty alleviation as the main strength against criminal drug activity).
Morales is the "Martin Luther King" of South America. The Bushwhacks hate him, and tried to topple his government with violence and vast bribery (our tax dollars at work) aimed at willing fascists. And I'm not sure that Hillary Clinton and other DLC/corpo Obama appointees will be much better than Bushwhacks on this and other leftist democracy issues in South America. I'm pretty sure that Obama wants peace, but he could be dragged into his own "Bay of Pigs" in South America (as the CIA tried to do to JFK). Venezuela would be the likely main target, also Ecuador is on the list, and a renewed effort to topple Morales, a strong Chavez ally, could also occur. I have the feeling that Bolivia was the test run of a civil war/secessionist strategy--a strategy identified by Rafael Correa, president of Ecuador about a year ago. He named these three targets--his own country (lots of oil, member of OPEC), Venezuela (ditto) and Bolivia, and said it was a coordinated strategy (--the fascists in these countries have all met with the Bushwhacks and are working together). The Bolivia coup failed, by dint of Morales' popularity, and unified UNASUR action. But Venezuela and Ecuador--which also have very popular leaders--are bigger oil prizes, are more vulnerable in some ways (especially Venezuela).
Venezuela has a one-issue referendum coming up in mid-February, on terms limits for president and other elected officials. If the voters lift the term limits, Chavez will be able to run again in 2012 for a third term, which he would more than likely win. Those planning more violence and attempted resource grabs (and I strongly suspect that Donald Rumsfeld is involved in this) are likely strategizing around this issue. If Chavez is a lameduck in 2011-2012, their civil war plan (splitting off the northern, oil rich province of Zulia, Venezuela, on the Caribbean--the primary target) would be easier in that time period. If the referendum succeeds, they may try it sooner, before Chavez gets re-elected. If the insurrection goes well, they may try to rope Ecuador's northern oil province at the same time. Venezuela and Ecuador both border Colombia (to the north and south, respectively), where the Bushwhacks have a ready supply of military forces--Colombian military, rightwing paramilitary death squads, Blackwater, U.S. military--all paid for by you and me ($6 BILLION in U.S./Bushwhack military aid to the fascist narco-traffickers running Colombia)--and eager to jump over the border and slay leftists.
This week, Chavez renewed friendly relations with Colombia, with a rash of new joint economic initiatives between his government and the Uribe government. Smart man, Chavez. Only fools underestimate him. He is hugely popular throughout the region, and has numerous strong and friendly allies in Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Ecuador, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Honduras, Cuba, and soon in El Salvador (upcoming election, leftist way ahead); also, to some extent in Chile (on some issues). Obama would be smart to foil hostile activity or war plans against Chavez, not only because these criminal interferences are wrong, but also because it would be a disaster for him, his administration and the U.S. The South Americans can take care of themselves, from what I've seen. And they have no reason to want "U.S. leadership," as Obama asserts. It has been toxic in the past. They have their own leadership and ideas now, and are moving in a very positive direction.
|