Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

OAS envoy arrives in Bolivia to mediate in political crisis

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Places » Latin America Donate to DU
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-01-08 04:17 AM
Original message
OAS envoy arrives in Bolivia to mediate in political crisis
OAS envoy arrives in Bolivia to mediate in political crisis


www.chinaview.cn 2008-05-01 10:46:41

LIMA, April 30 (Xinhua) -- The Organization of American States (OAS) sent an envoy to Bolivia Wednesday to try to defuse tensions between the South American country's central government and the opposition.

OAS Secretary for political affairs, Argentine Dante Caputo met with Bolivian President Evo Morales on the current political crisis in the country, said a news reaching here from La Paz, Bolivia's administrative capital.

The political crisis stemmed from Morales' plans to revise Bolivia's constitution to redistribute much of the wealth of the eastern provinces to the poorer Andean highlands.

Caputo, who arrived Wednesday in Bolivia, seeks to mediate a dialogue between the government and the opposition governors.

"I am going to make all efforts possible to help them establish dialogue, it is difficult but that is why we are here," said Caputo.

More:
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-05/01/content_8085645.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-01-08 07:47 AM
Response to Original message
1. A very, VERY important development! The Bushites are stoking this civil war--
like they have been stoking the civil war in Colombia. They must be stopped. This is "School of the Americas" 101: divide and conquer.

The white separatists in Bolivia are much like the rightwing opposition in Venezuela--greedy, selfish bastards who care nothing for their country or the welfare of its people. Like the Venezuelan rightwing, they have enriched themselves and neglected every social decency for the poor--schools, medical care, basic workers' rights--as well as basic infrastructure development, economic diversification and national security issues like food self-sufficiency. The Bushites--who are funding, arming and organizing them--have geopolitical goals, beyond greed. They want power over Bolivia and its allies, to steal the resources, and to dominate the continent. Therefore it might be possible to bribe the white separatists with, say, an unfair share of gas, oil and other profits, as a temporary measure to prevent a hot civil war, which the Bushites very much want. In short, my judgment of them is that they can be bought. It is also important to deny the Bushites any secure strategic ground, such as they have established in Colombia with $5.5 BILLION in U.S. (taxpayer) military aid, which enables them to use Colombia as any easy tool for Bushite policy, including harrying Venezuela's and Ecuador's borders, trying to instigate a war, organizing assassination plots against leftist leaders in these countries, drugs/weapons profiteering and other awfulness. The Bushites are LOSING strategic ground. Paraguay went leftist with the election last weekend. So much for their plan to create a fascist enclave at the southern end of the Bolivarian revolution, by combining eastern Bolivia with the portion of Paraguay that borders it (and that includes a U.S. air base, and possibly a Bush Cartel 100,000 acre land purchase on Paraguay's important aquifer). The new president of Paraguay, Fernando Lugo, will oppose Buhiste interference with Paraguay's neighbor, Bolivia, and has said that he wants the U.S. air base out of Paraguay.

The Bushites are on the run. That is WHY they are supporting these white separatists. But a Bushite state in eastern Bolivia will have NO friendly neighbors--Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, and now, Paraguay as well, and, of course, the central Bolivian government of Evo Morales, are all leftists, all oppose U.S. interference, all despise Bushites. No one will trade with them. They are land-locked. They will be pariahs throughout the continent. And because of this, and because of their innate character, they probably can be bought off, so that, as time goes on, the Morales government and future governments can work on better integrating the eastern provinces (including racial integration).

But a hot war must be avoided in the meantime. And it will be a major test of the OAS--which is now dominated by the left and by pro-democracy progressives--whether it can prevent one. The Rio Group (which includes all Latin American countries, but excludes the U.S.) was good at resolving the mess that the Bushites created by the U.S./Colombia bombing/incursion against Ecuador, but I don't think it has the institutional diplomatic capability of the OAS (which has to work around the Bush Junta/U.S.). It is more a talking group--for disputes between Latin American countries (but not within them). The OAS is also the chief monitor and arbiter of elections in Latin America, and a lot hinges on that, in this case. The white separatists are holding an illegal referendum, one that was forbidden by the Bolivian Electoral Court. The OAS election monitors will not be participating in it--nor any other election monitors that I know of. I don't imagine that any election monitoring group would want to be tainted with this. The white separatists have no authority to hold this vote, no authority to invite election monitors into the country, and probably have no interest in doing so, because they want to bully and suppress the indigenous voters.

I read somewhere that the Catholic bishops were trying to mediate the dispute. I imagine that Fernando Lugo (who is a former bishop) has a great interest in seeing it resolved. His new administration doesn't need the split-up of neighbor Bolivia as a headache, and Paraguayan security would be gravely threatened by a Bushite-supported, rogue fascist state right next door. He has enough to worry about. He does not have a strong leftist mandate (such as those that the governments of Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia and Argentina have received). He ran for president in a multi-candidate race, and won about 40% of the vote--a good win, but not overwhelming. He has first of all to hold his coalition together (a fractious group of small parties), and get reform started in Paraguay. He needs PEACE. He is not the socialist firebrand that the other leftist leaders in the region are. So many he can talk to the white separatists, and ease them away from their ill-intentioned Bushite mentors.

The Bushites plan for Oil War II: South America is hanging in the balance. If they fail to get this war going in Bolivia, it's pretty much all over for them (except for biofuel production--the next phase of the oil wars). Their main ally, Colombia, is already isolated and despised. Their half-ally Peru, where corrupt "free traders" are in charge, could easily go leftist in the next election cycle. Then the Bushites and their global corporate predator puppetmasters will have nobody to play with, except for the mass murderers and drugs/weapons traffickers running Colombia. Chile and Brazil have made some "free trade" compromises, but generally they are anti-Bush, and line up with the Bolivarians on important issues like the sovereignty of South American countries, and the need for South American self-determination. Brazil's president is a particular friend and defender of Hugo Chavez. Chile's president was tortured during the U.S.-supported Pinochet junta, and lost family members to that CIA-installed shit-head, and wouldn't want to see all that happen again, anywhere in South America.

The issue of biofuel production is a big one. Brazil's president made a deal with Bush about that--to the consternation and outrage of many leftist groups, including the massive campesino movement (small peasant farmers), environmental groups and the Bolivarians. One of the Bushites' interests in their client state of Colombia is biofuel production. The military aid they've given to Colombia is in part to drive peasant farmers and unionized workers from the land--to clear it for Monsanto and other big agricultural predators. They want the last of the oil in the western hempishere--which is almost all in Venezuela and Ecuador (both members of OPEC, and both with leftist governments), with some reserves in Bolivia, and new finds in Argentina and Brazil. And after that they want other resources (water, gas, minerals, forests), the land and political domination.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bacchus39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-01-08 09:23 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. internet war monger
so why are you referring to this as a civil war? the Bolivian government should just ignore the vote, you aren't advocating a military response to prevent the expression of the people I hope. seems that some here wouldn't mind that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-01-08 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. No doubt the clown who stole our Presidency carries a grudge over the Bolivian population's
throwing out his father's predatory Bechtel company when it attempted to steal Bolivia's water, and force Bolivians to pay Bechtel even for water falling from the sky, if they could be lucky enough to catch it in rainbarrels.

Too bad it took the loss of human life just to get rid of the pathetic pieces of ####. One honest life is worth more than their whole company.

The white separatists have utilized a very hefty mob of local scum for violent chores for a long time, as in intimidation, even murder to keep the opposition afraid of them. I doubt any of them are personally at risk, with the exception of some assholes like the American "Peace Corps" volunteer, Ronald Larsen, who just happened to come out only a year after he arrived in Bolivia owning multiple ranches over multiple prefects. He and his sonny boy, little Duston Larsen, the 2004 "Mr. Bolivia," kidnapped a government employee who came to one of their ranch having heard they were keeping Guarani Indians there forcibly, as servants, and kept him hostage for a day before allowing him to leave. His high-handed remark to the Separatist-owned local newspaper was that "He was drunk, so I shot out his tires, end of story," or something close to it. Colossal asshole.

Yep, the era of the "Great White Hunter" has never closed in Bolivia. It's time it went out with a bang. It will be a cancer in Bolivia if they continue to live on land which was illegally taken from the indigenous people when they were driven out of their age-old homeland by Hugo Banzer in the 1960's and handed off to imported settlers in Banzer's plan to create his new "White Bolivia."

They are violent squatters. If justice finally prevails they will get their talons trimmed back sufficiently. What a shame it is when a filthy handful of criminals can hold an entire country hostage just because they have powerful allies in Washington who have found ways to coerce and intimidate the population.

South American integration will solve these problems in the end.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bacchus39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-01-08 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. so you are advocating suppression of the vote by force?
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-01-08 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. What ARE you gibbering about? Please don't waste people's time.
Get yourself up to speed on these subjects first, then attempt an adult conversation, and that doesn't include trying to bait posters.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bacchus39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-01-08 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. sorry, I know you're busy with your Google translator
so what do you think of the popular referendum to be held in Santa Cruz on May 4th? did you know 3 other departments plan to hold their own referendum?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-01-08 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. How could one avoid knowing other departments are also involved? That's always mentioned.
Here's a link which may be more useful to you as you attempt to while away your long, empty hours:

http://www.planetdan.net/pics/misc/georgie.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bacchus39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-01-08 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. so what do you think of that?
should the Bolivan government not allow the vote to occur?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-01-08 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. Bolivia's highest electoral court ruled that neither these white separatists' referendum
nor the main referendum on the re-written constitution can go forward. End of story. The white separatists' referendum is illegal. No election monitoring group will participate in this circumstance--they have all refused. The referendum is proceeding without any authority to hold it. Among other things, this means that these racist landowners will be free to intimidate their workers and other indigenous voters, and fiddle the election. The tally cannot be trusted without the participation of Bolivian election authorities, and international monitors. Feelings are running too high. The referendum itself will have no legal force, but the white separatists INTEND TO ENFORCE IT WITH THEIR SELF-DEPUTIZED MILITIAS. This means a state of "old west" lawlessness will be created--or, more aptly, conditions similar to the southern states of the U.S. seceding from the union in order to protect their slave economy. It is very similar to the latter. The white separatists and their enforcers will refuse to obey federal authorities on any matter, will more than likely harass and bully any federal officers who try to asset federal authority, or even imprison them or worse. They have already acted lawlessly with regard to federal inspectors, and made statements to the effect that they do will not recognize the authority of the elected government of the country.

And the Bush-U.S. is supporting this lawlessness, or it would have no viability at all. The white separatists would be obliged to settle matters with the Morales government. They have no legitimacy, no authority, and no sympathetic governments among their neighbors; they cannot engage in trade; they cannot issue passports; no government in South America will recognize them or have dealings with them (with the possible exception of Colombia, a Bush Cartel client state). They are land-locked; they must send Bolivia's resources somewhere, along some route of travel, in order to satisfy basic needs as well as their greed. The Morales government, and neighbor governments, can shut them down without firing a shot. But it will take martial law. The Bolivian military will have to enter the eastern provinces and take charge of them. And if the white separatists shoot at them, the civil war has begun--Donald Rumsfeld's heart's desire, to create war where there was none.

Your question, "should the Bolivian government not allow the vote to occur?," is not up to you, me or Judi Lynn. We have no say in the matter. According to the RULE OF LAW in Bolivia, the referendum is illegal. Further, the OAS election monitoring group and other such groups will have nothing to do with it. It is not an open question any more. The Bolivian government likely does not have sufficient personnel in the eastern provinces to stop this illegal vote from taking place. If they did, then of course they should stop it. The Morales government is the elected government of the country, obliged to uphold its constitution, its laws and its court rulings. But the Morales government is likely holding out for mediation, for some way to avoid the use of force. So the illegal vote itself will likely go forwards. THEN the government will have to deal with what happens next--the lawless actions of this unlawful secessionist government.

Now I have some questions for you: Do you want a civil war in Bolivia? And why do you keep harping on this illegal referendum? Do you think a referendum should go forward that the Bolivia's highest electoral court forbade? And if you do approve of this, is this not leading straight to a civil war? What would you have the only legitimate government of Bolivia--a country that includes the four eastern provinces--do? Sit back and allow the country to be split up, with the eastern provinces taking all the gas, oil and other natural wealth of the country with them?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bacchus39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-01-08 11:03 AM
Response to Original message
3. seems there was no "solution" as a result of the OAS meeting
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bacchus39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-01-08 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. no dialogue achieved by OAS
http://www.la-razon.com/versiones/20080501_006259/nota_244_588470.htm




• El prefecto de Cochabamba, Manfred Reyes Villa; el delegado de la OEA, Dante Caputo, y el prefecto de Santa Cruz, Rubén Costas, durante una conferencia de prensa en Santa Cruz. El encuentro se produjo ayer en instalaciones de la Prefectura cruceña.

El secretario de Asuntos Políticos de la Organización de Estados Americanos (OEA), Dante Caputo, concluyó ayer su tercera visita a Bolivia en menos de un mes, sin haber logrado instalar el diálogo entre las partes en conflicto, pero con el compromiso de ambas, de evitar la violencia el domingo 4 de mayo, cuando se realice en Santa Cruz el referéndum de aprobación de estatutos autonómicos departamentales.
El delegado de la OEA comenzó su jornada en el Palacio de Gobierno, donde a las 7.00 de la mañana se reunió con el presidente Evo Morales. Luego se trasladó a Santa Cruz y, después de poco más de tres horas, retornó a La Paz para otra reunión relámpago con el Jefe de Estado.

(The secretary of political affairs of the OAS, Dante Caputo, concluded his third visit to Bolivia in less than a month, without achieving a dialogue between the parties involved in the conflict, although a promise from both to avoid violence on Sunday May 4, for the autonomy vote in Santa Cruz)

Concluyó su jornada con la admisión de que, hasta el momento, el diálogo no pasa de ser un deseo de las partes en conflicto, aunque paralelamente asumieron el compromiso de evitar la confrontación y respetar la institucionalidad en el país.

“Hemos dado algún paso. Hablamos un idioma que es un idioma común: afuera la violencia”, señaló Caputo, que hoy en Estados Unidos comenzará a preparar el terreno para que el Consejo Permanente de la OEA se reúna este viernes y analice por segunda vez el caso boliviano.

“La cuestión humanitaria debe ser prioritaria para todos y ojalá que ésta sea la que mande, es la decisión de todas las partes”, afirmó al salir de la segunda reunión con Morales. No obstante, evitó mencionar detalles de las conversaciones con ambas partes, aunque destacó que reiteraron su voluntad de dialogar.

Sin embargo, lamentó la lentitud del proceso. “Vamos lento, deberíamos ir más rápido, porque hay un motivo: no tenemos que dejar ningún espacio ni ninguna posibilidad de que hayan hechos de violencia”, señaló.

Cuando en Santa Cruz los periodistas le preguntaron si la OEA reconocerá los resultados de la consulta de mayo, respondió que “la OEA jamás se pronuncia de los resultados ni los procesos electorales sobre candidatos u otras cosas. Cuando es invitada o llamada por los gobiernos a presenciar elecciones —explicó—, se pronuncia sobre cómo fue el proceso mismo del día de la elección, sobre la base de los preceptos democráticos. Nada más”.

Sin embargo, dijo que “hay que sacar del escenario” la idea del secesionismo en Bolivia, peligro que, según el Gobierno, se cierne sobre Bolivia con procesos como el referéndum de Santa Cruz.

“A veces se maneja con cierta superficialidad (la idea del) secesionismo y escandalizan y dramatizan (..), esas son ideas que hay que sacar del escenario”.

Finalmente, dijo que informará sobre su visita a la OEA.

“Voy a informar al pleno del Consejo Permanente de la OEA que se reúne este 2 de mayo, justamente para analizar la situación de Bolivia. Seguramente en esa reunión se emitirá un pronunciamiento de la institución”.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-01-08 11:35 AM
Response to Original message
7. Bolivia poll sparks crisis fears
Bolivia poll sparks crisis fears
By James Painter
Latin America analyst, BBC News


Bolivia's Santa Cruz department is about to push the country towards the brink of a crisis when it holds a referendum on further autonomy from the central government.

If approved on 4 May, the statutes of autonomy could give the eastern department more control over land and taxes and more local decision-making.

The government has declared the referendum illegal as it lacks the authorisation of the National Electoral Court.

When the Organisation of American States' (OAS) secretary for international affairs, Dante Caputo, warned recently of possible violence surrounding the 4 May referendum in Santa Cruz, no-one seemed to disagree.

The government, the opposition, international diplomats and the Catholic Church all said they shared his fears.

Typical was the statement by Bolivia's Catholic bishops, who have been trying unsuccessfully to mediate between the left-wing government of President Evo Morales and at least four of Bolivia's nine departments, who want more autonomy.

They said they were very worried by the "growing distance between the regions, social classes and ethnic groups," and they warned of "unpredictable consequences of pain and death".

More:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7375983.stm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-01-08 12:41 PM
Response to Original message
12. May 01, 2008 07:00 ETHumanists Call on Bernier to Declare Canadian Support for Bolivian Unity
May 01, 2008 07:00 ETHumanists Call on Bernier to Declare Canadian Support for Bolivian Unity
MONTREAL, QUEBEC--(Marketwire - May 1, 2008) - In a letter sent to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, humanists in Canada have asked Minister Maxime Bernier to make a public statement in favour of Bolivian unity at a critical time in that country's process of democratic transformation.

Powerful economic interests in the resource-rich Santa Cruz department of Bolivia are provoking a division of the country through a fraudulent Referendum for "Autonomy" to be held this Sunday May 4, 2008. While the Bolivian Constitution allows for the organizing of referenda, the National Electoral Court has ruled that the Santa Cruz referendum is totally illegal. Nonetheless, the "referendum" is going ahead.

While the EU, the USA and the Organization of American States have all made statements on the referendum and the crisis it is provoking, Canada has been silent.

"More than a call for 'autonomy', the event on May 4 is is essentially a call for secession - a transparent attempt to retain sole control over the resources that exist to benefit all Bolivians," notes Roberto Verdecchia, Spokesperson for New Humanism in Canada.

"We feel that by speaking out, Canada can make a positive contribution towards a peaceful and constitutional resolution to the current crisis. Canada can certainly speak with some authority on matters of referenda for autonomy and separation."

In spite of Bolivian President Evo Morales having called for dialogue and asking the Church to facilitate, civic leaders in Santa Cruz have refused, preferring to push the country towards confrontation and breakup. With threats, media disinformation and even physical violence, they are circumventing democracy and all legal process.

Faced with these challenges, President Morales has been an inspiring example of non-violence, insisting on dialogue, and adhering to Bolivia's democratic laws.

http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release.do?id=850781
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 16th 2024, 09:31 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Places » Latin America Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC