|
But I don't know about "ideological affinity" with China. What IS China's ideology? I sure can't figure it out. Maybe something got lost in translation--or Morales was just being diplomatic, as happens often enough when trade deals are made and leaders say utterly meaningless things to be polite, to close the deal.
I understand this part...
"Morales said that his government is 'looking for allies from countries that aren't just interested in our natural resources...'".
I understand exactly what he is talking about. The Japan lithium deal with Bolivia may have fallen through because of Fukushina, which has devastated Japan in every way. But before that happened, there was a Japan/Bolivia deal whereby Japan would do the R&D on the lithium, up front, with no promise of a future contract to mine the lithium, purely on the spec that Japanese companies would be favored, once the R&D was completed. It also included opening a manufacturing plant of some kind in Bolivia, or a college or training school (can't remember the exact details). In summary, Bolivia, as part of the Leftist consensus that now dominates South America, has new clout to demand terms favorable for Bolivia, from foreign companies that want to access to Latin American natural resources.
This is a NEW DAY in Latin America, truly--or at least in South America. (Central America is still mired in U.S. "free trade for the rich.") Venezuela was the vanguard, in their negotiations with Exxon Mobil. Now everybody has more strength in these kind of negotiations. Morales, for instance, was able to double Bolivia's gas revenues by renegotiating the gas contracts with Brazilian and Argentine companies. Paraguay was able to increase its hydroelectric power revenues the same way. And Brazil took a page from Venezuela on the oil contracts, and insisted that a good portion of the profits from its new oil find will be used for social programs to help the poor. And they are all backing each other up in demanding a better deal for Latin America.
But I don't see any "political and ideological affinity" between Bolivia and China, except maybe a vague old sentimental attachment to the very earliest communist ideal (sharing), which China has long since abandoned--after a period of the most despicable "cultural revolution" imaginable--in its headlong pursuit of planet-destroying, western-style development, creating a class a super-rich, capitalist moguls, while greatly exploiting and greatly neglecting workers and small farmers.
EVERYTHING ABOUT THIS is contrary to EVERYTHING Morales has stood for, including rights for Mother Earth ("Pachamama") written into the Bolivian constitution, labor rights (he himself is a labor leader), protection and nurturing of small farmers, just wealth distribution and other items of social justice. Not to mention democracy. Bolivia and China couldn't be more different.
Diplomatic hypocrisy? Probably. It's understandable (especially if the lithium deal with Japan collapsed, and Morales had to be fast on his feet to rescue the lithium development project), but I hope Morales doesn't make a habit of uttering diplomatic blather. He has been such a touchstone of honesty.
I would also like to know what he got for Bolivia. This "affinity" remark likely means he got something but the article doesn't say what.
|