Inca Kola News does a detailed, department by department, province by province, analysis of the official election numbers (99.99% reporting) in last Sunday's referendum on Evo Moralas' presidency of Bolivia, and dismantles the Santa Cruz rebels' claim to be leading a large movement that wants to split off from the central government (and take Bolivia's gas/oil reserves with them). The analysis is complete with charts, analyzing the vote in various ways, and presents a very convincing case that the Santa Cruz blowhards are just that--with the help of the corporate media, as here, rightwing views are blown way out of proportion to their numbers.
Here are Inca Kola's conclusions:
"The press is quick to describe Bolivia as "a country divided". This is obviously far from the case. In fact, President Evo Morales enjoys popular support in six of the nine departments that make up his country. Two out of every three Bolivians voted for him to continue as their President. And as for the autonomy rebel movement, once you leave the city of Santa Cruz (not the larger department that actually voted for Morales), those who oppose Morales are few and far between.
"Last Sunday's vote was called 'exemplary' by the overseeing international neutral observers, and very few if any serious incidents were reported. It was undoubtedly an overwhelming victory for President Morales. However it also showed that the much talked about autonomy movement is not a nationwide curse, but in fact centred very much on one single city. Ruben Costas is now being shown as the Emperor With No Clothes (though perhaps we can leave him his underpants).
"Once these figures are looked at closely, it becomes difficult to understand the ostensible claim of Santa Cruz and its push for autonomy. It cannot claim the backing of the wider department, because without the regional capital Evo Morales won the popular vote. By demanding some sort of breakaway from the country of Bolivia, a single city would be trying to usurp a geographical area many times larger than itself. The city of Santa Cruz has, of course, the right to vote the way it prefers. But if it pushed for the autonomy it demands, it would have to leave behind the greater region and become a sort of Bolivian Vatican City!
"This is, of course, ridiculous. We should therefore see the call for autonomy for what it is; a single city's complaint against its national government, something that is common worldwide and not any reason to continue ignoring national laws. The time has come to recognize Santa Cruz for what it is, namely a city bent on anti-democratic behaviour and not the centre of some oppressed nation that deserves the world's attention."http://incakolanews.blogspot.com/2008/08/bolivia-recall-referendum-final-numbers.html(I got there from www.BoRev.net)
-------------
I think that two important things are happening: 1) The reality that Brazil and Argentina will not recognize separatist states in Bolivia and will not trade with them (they are Bolivia's chief gas customers) has settled in. The separatist project is simply not viable. 2) The solidity of leftist gains in South America--exemplified by Fernando Lugo's great victory in Paraguay (next door to Bolivia, and, indeed, adjacent to the very departments where separatist sentiment is strongest)--is becoming apparent, and this means that, to be prosperous and influential, and to get along well, in South America, you can't be seen as fascist, racist and/or as troublemakers.
Overall, of course, the vote shows a more than 10% INCREASE in support for Evo Morales' government. He won the presidency, originally, with 54% of the vote (what would be called a landslide in the U.S.), and that was considered an amazing feat in fractious Bolivia. He won
this vote--a referendum on his presidency--with 67.5% of the vote, a jump of 13.5 points! And he showed surprising strength in most of the provinces where rebellion was said to be afoot.
Finally, it is my opinion that Bolivia was a test case for a Bushite strategy of fomenting civil war in two other countries--oil rich Venezuela and Ecuador--supporting rebels whose plan is to split off the oil rich provinces into fascist mini-states in control of the oil. The Bushites' goal, of course, is to regain global corporate predator control of the oil, and getting it out of the hands of leftist governments that are spending the oil profits on the poor. To this end, the Bushites have not only supported, organized, trained, funded--and possibly armed--the Santa Cruz fascists, they have also reconstituted the U.S. 4th Fleet which is now roaming off the coast of Venezuela, and off the very province where most of Venezuela's oil is--Zulia (a province of Venezuela that is adjacent to Colombia--the chief troublemaker in the region, funded by $6 BILLION in U.S. military aid through Bushite fingers). Rafael Correa, president of Ecuador, has stated that the Bushites have a three-country strategy, including Ecuador, for splitting off the resources into fascist mini-states. He said there were meetings about it in Ecuador, and I know of one meeting (re Venezuela) in Colombia.
Morales' grand victory in Bolivia last Sunday, this analysis showing how weak the separatist movement actually is among Bolivians, and Fernando Lugo's remarkable win next door in Paraguay (which, under a rightwing government, might have been a U.S. staging area for U.S. military support of the Bolivian rebels in the adjacent Bolivian provinces) are all serious blows to Bush junta war plans.
The meetings among South America's leftist presidents, at Lugo's inauguration yesterday--including Venezuela's Chavez, Ecuador's Correa, Bolivia's Morales, Brazil's Lula da Silva, Argentina's Cristina Fernandez, and Chile's Michele Batchelet*--must surely have been a joyous celebration, and indications are that it was. One corporate 'news' article--in an appalled tone of betrayal--reported that Lugo embraced the three Bolivarian leaders--Chavez, Correa and Morales--and seemed to be in alliance with them. This article asserted the lie that Lugo had described himself as a "moderate." (What do you think "moderate" means at Reuters? Do they think that putting food in the mouths of the hungry is radical? Jeez.) Lugo has consistently stated that he favors the social justice policies of Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador. The only thing he has said that could have produced the epithet "moderate"--and Reuters' offended reaction that he isn't--is that he wants good relations with Washington DC, but then Lugo is a former bishop (the beloved "bishop of the poor") and he wants to be friends with everybody. (--to save the Bushites' souls, I guess. Good luck with that, Fernando!).
You gotta wonder at these corporate reporters, and their infusion of their bosses' dinner table gossip into 'news' stories, paraded as 'news.' Lugo is not a "moderate." He wants to feed the poor. It's kind of a slander on "moderates." ("Moderates" don't want to feed the poor? Lift all boats? Give everyone a chance? Support universal education? You have to be a leftist to be decent?) Of course, what they meant was that he should have shunned Chavez, like he was told. Put him at a table of his own, maybe. Let him eat scraps. Serve him the watered down wine. Assholes.
Nope, he embraced these guys--a bishopy sort of "fuck you" to the global corporate predators and their media.
Viva la revolución!
-----------
*(I don't know if Uruguay's Tabare Vasquez or Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega were present--but they are part of the leftist alliance. Uruguay is just a narrow piece of Brazil away from Paraguay. Lugo's inauguration was quite a meeting, even without these two.)
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
