NationStates Jolt Archive

Seems like the logical response, right?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7609487.stm
Bolivia tells US envoy to leave

The US ambassador to Bolivia has been ordered to leave the country by President Evo Morales.

Mr Morales accused Philip Goldberg of "conspiring against democracy" and encouraging the country's break-up.

A US state department spokesman said it had received no formal word of the dismissal and described the accusations against Mr Goldberg as "baseless".

Now, some background: as in many South American countries, there are significant differences in the economic state, ethnic makeup and hence political leanings in different parts of Bolivia. Evo Morales is a student of the Bolivarian school of neo-statist socialism, and hence a fairly divisive figure.

His policies, much like those of Hugo Chávez, involve taking income from natural resource exports (in this case primarily gas) and using it to fund programs for the poor (tm), including lots of nationalisations and government control of stuff. The people from the provinces in which this gas is actually being produced aren't however the beneficiaries from these programs, and aren't fans of Morales. Hence they want more independence from the central government and more control over how the export money is being spent. They had a bit of a go at a referendum (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7382538.stm), but the results weren't binding, and so nothing much happened. Since Morales hasn't been willing to seriously compromise the Bolivarian program or methods, the tensions have been increasing eversince, with riots, attacks on pipelines and government ministries now occuring.

Morales seems to think the US has its fingers in this, or at least seems to think that using them as a scapegoat would help his political standing in the crisis.

What do you think about the situation? Is it some sort of CIA plot, a failure of Bolivarianism or a cause to debate more widely the merits of strong vs weak central governments?

What, us? Interfere in South American politics behind the scenes??? Pshaw! :rolleyes:

We may or may not be involved. I am leaning towards Morales being a paranoid douche bag.

We may or may not be involved. I am leaning towards Morales being a paranoid douche bag.

May I ask why?

If you make an accusation like that, it's incumbent on you to provide some evidence in support. Otherwise, especially when you have internal dissension over your policies, you just look like you're trying to divert attention from your own dumbass actions.

May I ask why?

His track record in Bolivia up to this point has made a few enemies within his own country. It is easy to deflect attention on ones actions if you create a bogeyman. Classic political ploy. Been used continously throughout history.

The other thing that has been used continuously throughout history is covert operations against the economic structure of other, weaker, nations.

In Latin America specifically, it has happened very often. The US has used foreign aid withdrawal as a threat to ensure that Bolivia lets US operatives operate in Bolivia as part of their War on Drugs. And it was only in February when Goldberg's assistant was accused by a Fulbright scholar of asking him to spy on Bolivians.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4273850

From a realpolitik perspective, would the US government have profitted by having an embassy full of spies in Bolivia?

The other thing that has been used continuously throughout history is covert operations against the economic structure of other, weaker, nations.

In Latin America specifically, it has happened very often. The US has used foreign aid withdrawal as a threat to ensure that Bolivia lets US operatives operate in Bolivia as part of their War on Drugs. And it was only in February when Goldberg's assistant was accused by a Fulbright scholar of asking him to spy on Bolivians.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4273850

From a realpolitik perspective, would the US government have profitted by having an embassy full of spies in Bolivia?
It is possible that it would -- or at least that certain parties within the US government, as well as certain corporate interests which traditionally have dealings in that part of the world would benefit from it. This is an old pattern in South and Central America, of elected leftist government leaders taking aggressive action to break the strong hold over power of the rich and landholding classes in their countries, and those rich, landholding classes fighting back by appealing to their politically connected US business partners for help in, 1st, undermining the reputation of the leftist leaders and stirring up public/international opposition to them with propaganda programs; 2nd, applying economic pressure; 3rd, if all else fails, financing armed coups.

Morales may be paranoid, but that doesn't mean they're not out to get him. Considering the history of the region, I say, where there's smoke, there may be fire. It's worth looking at.

From a realpolitik perspective, would the US government have profitted by having an embassy full of spies in Bolivia?From a personal experience perspective, US embassies generally have spies as part of the staff. Diplomatic immunity is a nifty way of keeping them out of some types of trouble.

Wait, this situation has been raging for months and just today there is a thread about it so...

Oh, they kicked the US ambassador. I see, that makes the entire thing relevant.

And yes, the US goverment influences and interfere all the time in Latin American politics. It's pretty bothersome, arrogant and imperialistic sometimes, and yes, before anyone asks about "source", "link", or "argument", I'll tell you I have witnessed said inteference and meddling with my own ears and eyes, during meetings of the venezuelan opposition with US officials that summon representatives of the parties.

And yes, Evo Morales is paranoid and tend to give US interference more weight than it really has.

Hope it doesn't turn into a civil war, is what I say...

Lies. The US would never ignore the results of an election or conspire against democracy, especially in South and Latin America.

Lies. The US would never ignore the results of an election or conspire against democracy, especially in South and Latin America.

Did you forgot the [/sarcasm] part?

Did you forgot the [/sarcasm] part?

I figured my sarcasm would be apperant;)

If anything's for sure, anyone accused of "conspiring against democracy" is usually doing the opposite...

The Bolivians kicked out the US ambassador!? Whatever shall we do now? Better batten down the hatches, who knows whats going to happen now that we've let slip our hold on that linch-pin to world affairs.

If anything's for sure, anyone accused of "conspiring against democracy" is usually doing the opposite...

When the person is accused by their own government, your observation is usually true, but when it is a representative of a foreign government with a history of interfering in the region's democracies......

during the Cold war I would have figured it was more likely then not that the US government was involved.
However post cold war The Us government has not really cared, unless large tracks of American(US) corporation's property were nationalized, if a country became left leaning.
We even warned Chavez about the coup plot against him and we still get blamed.

So I would say it is not likely that the US government is behind this. Now corporations maybe but hey it is their money to spend.

during the Cold war I would have figured it was more likely then not that the US government was involved.
However post cold war The Us government has not really cared, unless large tracks of American(US) corporation's property were nationalized, if a country became left leaning.
We even warned Chavez about the coup plot against him and we still get blamed.

So I would say it is not likely that the US government is behind this. Now corporations maybe but hey it is their money to spend.

Sorry to break it into you, buut the US administration did have involvement during the void of power of April 2002. Of course, not as deep as Chávez claims.