"Interior Minister Alfredo Rada said it was unclear who had fired the shot."
------------------------
Since we don't know who did it, we can use it as a rorschach test for north Americans, as to our knowledge and understanding of South American history, and of current conditions and politics, with Bush in the White House. Which answer do you think will turn out to be correct?
Why would anybody shoot a rightwing student in a demo?
A. Evo Morales is a "dictator." Evo Morales is a "dictator." Evo Morales is a "dictator."
B. The rightwing in Santa Cruz is notoriously violent. The person who got shot was threatening or inflicting violence; some young cop got nervous and scared, and pulled the trigger.
C. The rightwing in Santa Cruz is allied with the Bush Junta and with rightwing paramilitary death squads from Colombia. They shot someone at random as a destabilization tactic, and to get headlines in local and U.S. corporate news monopoly press, in a campaign to make it appear that the disorder is caused by the poor majority in Bolivia, who want to seize the property of the rich, guillotine them all and impose a "dictatorship of the proletariat." A re-write of the Constitution, to repair decades and centuries of minority rightwing rule and brutal oppression-- including massive theft of Bolivia's resources by global corporate predators--is thus made to seem a violent act, rather than a normal, peaceful, democratic process, and the best way to achieve social justice.
D. The Bush-CIA did it for them. They often write corporate news monopoly headlines. They also often create the subject matter that they write the headlines about.
--------------------
I favor C and D. It was probably the Bush-CIA providing the funds to purchase gunman, weapon, and disappearance of the gunman, probably in league with a local rightwing drugs/weapons trafficking network connected to the rightwing political establishment in Santa Cruz.
Who benefits?--is the question to ask. And Deep Throat's famous advice, "Follow the money," is as relevant now as it ever was. The Bushites and their local colluders want to create anger and disorder, to destabilize the leftist government, and blockade its plans, so that they can continue looting and impoverishing Bolivia, as before.
Ever see that old '60s cartoon "Bambi Meets Godzilla"? It's about ten seconds long. Squish! That's how Bushites and their local fascist allies in South America see things in their dreams. They want to squish all the "little people" as quickly as possible and restore fascist/corporate rule.
The real story--and the reality they viscerally hate and want to change--is more like "David and Goliath." The Davids in Bolivia won the last election, after they threw Bechtel out of their country. (Bechtel had privatized the water in one Bolivian city, in collusion with the corrupt rightwing minority, and jacked up the prices to the poorest of the poor, even charging poor people for collecting rainwater. The grass roots rebellion against that oppression spurred the political organization that elected Morales as president.) Now the Goliaths--U.S. global corporate predators, Bechtel, Exxon Mobile, the World Bank et al--also the U.S. "war on drugs" war profiteers--and the local rich who collude with these entities--want to split off the rural provinces that contain all the oil, gas, mineral and other rich Bolivian resources, so that only the rich will profit from them.
Evo Morales, with a mandate from the people, is leading a process of constitutional re-writing, that is trying to hold peaceful meetings all over Bolivia, with maximum participation, to better balance the power in Bolivia, so that every citizen has a say, and all benefit from the country's resources. The rightwing in Santa Cruz is trying to sabotage this process with violent protests and disruption. They don't want a balance of power in Bolivia. They want all the power.
Over the years, this rightwing elite has grabbed all the land in Bolivia, and has driven millions of poor peasant farmers off their land and into urban squalor in the cities. Now they don't want to pay for that theft (and its associated brutality) by sharing the country's resources with the impoverished population that they created. Like the rich elite in Venezuela, they have failed to provide even the decencies to the exploited poor--schools, training, medical care, water and sanitation infrastructure, dignified housing, hope for upward mobility. Nor have they protected the country's resources and environment, and its work force, from savage exploitation by multi-national corporations. Nor have they developed the country's manufacturing base, and protected its nascent industries, and taken other good government measures, such as encouraging and protecting food self-sufficiency.
The poor have had it. The poor in Bolivia. The poor throughout South America. Remarkably, they are NOT guillotining this greedy, thuggish elite--with its traitorous alliances with the likes of Bush. They are peacefully pursuing FAIRNESS.
And this has the Bushites stymied. The poor pursuing FAIRNESS are winning elections all over South America. And in three countries--Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador--they are re-writing the rules, in order to achieve a fair and rightful voice for the majority, widespread benefit from rich natural resources, and better planning for the future (homegrown "fair trade" industries, regional cooperation, rejection of U.S. control of their governments and economies). This is what these constitutional rewrites are about--FAIRNESS. Bolivia's rich elite is trying to twist the process around into UNFAIRNESS, by insisting that the political center of the country be moved from La Paz--where most of the poor are located--to Santa Cruz (Sucre), a sparsely populated rural area, where the rich own all the land, and where they can better bribe and corrupt the government. (It reminds me of early California history, when the capital of California was moved from urban San Francisco to rural Sacramento. Same reason, too--so the rich landowners could control the government.)
But there is a lot more at stake than just this. The movement of the capitol is just a tactic in a much bigger picture of U.S.-dominated global trade and finance, in which South America's poor have been among the biggest losers.
At stake is World Bank/IMF financing (first world loan sharks in poor countries), and World Bank/IMF policy which inflicts destruction of social programs (education, medical care, etc.), sweatshop labor (no labor protection), easing of environmental regulation, and all sorts of other dreadful conditions for World Bank loans, which enrich FIRST WORLD investors at the expense of the poor.
At stake is the multi-billion dollar U.S. "war on drugs" boondoggle (and rightwing militarization in these countries).
At stake is the fate of the dollar. (The Bolivarians want a South American "Common Market," and common currency, to compete with the behemoth to the north, and stop the bleeding of South American riches into U.S. and other first world hands.)
At stake, ultimately, is control over South American governments, resources, money policy, labor, the environment, you name it. And the poor are fighting back, in the best way possible, peacefully and democratically.
Here is a very interesting article on the things our corporate press never tells us. It's about Venezuela's economy--but you can extrapolate to Bolivia. Similar conditions and needs, and the impacts of U.S. policy, are true throughout the Andes region, and, in a variety of ways, throughout Latin America.
The Struggle to Industrialize Venezuela
October 5th 2007, by Chris Carlson – Venezuelanalysis.com
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/2689Find out WHY Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales and Rafael Correa (Ecuador) are so popular. It's a very enlightening article. It's not just because they believe in providing immediate assistance to the poor. There is another component to it.
It's about the neglect of the country's infrastructure and manufacturing capability by the fascist elites who have ruled for so long, under Washington DC's thumb, and what the Bolivarian Revolution is doing to reverse this economic damage in Venezuela (and, by extension, what Morales and Correa are trying to do).
This is really what is at issue. Will these countries be making their own stuff, or importing U.S. stuff and killing their own economies and continuing to impoverish 90% of their own people?
How can this long history of exploitation and neglect be reversed peacefully and democratically--but also QUICKLY and without major trauma to anyone (say, like that which occurred in Russia, where they did "guillotine" the rich)?
And, as these countries determine to make their own stuff, and create their own economic networks and alliances, what kind of economic structure, laws and rules will be best for the most people--the workers, small business?
-----------------------------------
To get back to my question: Why would anybody shoot a rightwing student in a demo? If it wasn't a random thing--a lone nut, or a nervous policeman, or some private matter--who benefits?
Also, the exact same tactic--shooting people and setting it up to look like the leftist government did it--was used in Venezuela in 2002, in the U.S.-supported rightwing military coup. It's on tape--the whole thing--and the exposure of what was really going down. See "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" (Irish filmmakers documentary of the Venezuelan coup attempt, available at YouTube and axisoflogic.com.)
It was also used RECENTLY in Venezuela--when our corporate press reported that Chavista students were shooting rightwing student protesters--but the exact opposite was happening. They got their headline. And the truth was then dropped out of the news.
The same forces are at work, and the same things are at stake (billions and billions and billions of dollars), in Bolivia. You think the Bush-CIA wouldn't set this up? That's the question that needs asking. Was it set up? Who set it up? But it will never be asked here. Cuz the shooting--whoever did it--suits the Bushites' and the fascists purposes. Democracy is violent. Fairness is violent. The people writing and voting on their Constitution is violent. The poor seeking their rightful place in the political life of their countries is violent. Public control of a country's natural resources is violent. And democratically elected leftwing leaders are "dictators."
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
