Friday, November 20, 2009

Violence and Protests in Nicaragua: Pro and Anti-Government Forces at Odds

  

FSLN militants evacuating a Managua site in advance of tomorrow's demonstrations
Source:  La Prensa


It appears that Nicarguan President Daniel Ortega's recent actions to remove presidential term limits and take his country down the path of Chavismo are meeting with ever-stiffening resistance from his countrymen, who are now organizing in a manner that portends for confrontation in the near future. That could happen as soon as tomorrow, when simultaneous mass demonstrations are scheduled to take place in the capital city of Managua that could bring over a hundred thousand protestors and pro-government supporters into the streets and at each other's throats if the pro-Ortega National Police do not keep the two separated from each other. While recent reports of the use of violence on both sides have appeared, it is clearly the attitude of the opponents of the Ortega regime that the Sandinistas are launching a terror campaign and the hitherto divided opposition appears to be uniting--finally--along lines not seen in Nicaragua since the 1980's, including a "re-uniting" of the former Contra rebels who eventually forced the Sandinistas to schedule elections that led to their removal from power.

Lying underneath the present situation is a recent history of Sandinista misrule under Ortega's minority government. An untimely legislative maneuver in the national congress that occurred just before the start of the Nicaraguan presidential campaign in 2006 prevented a runoff election from being held and, as a consequence, Ortega won the presidency in November that year with less than 40% of the national vote. Most opinion polls showed that he could never have beaten his potential challenger in a head-to-head matchup, but from there it has been all downhill. Ortega has used his presidential powers to full effect to pursue an agenda almost exclusively focused upon cementing the political control of his Sandinista Front for National Liberation (Spanish acronym: FSLN) over the national government and has cast aside almost all other considerations of efficient and capable governance, which has led to a significant debilitation of Nicaragua's economy. And according to the opposition, much of the political maneuvering Ortega has pursued, which includes a recent decision by the country's Supreme Court supporting the removal of presidential term limits, has been made possible by the infusion of enormous cash resources provided by--guess who?--Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

In the opinion of many Nicaraguans, a renewal of the violence that marked the FSLN-Contra clash of the 1980's appears imminent. Not least among those concerned is the Catholic Church, a very strong institution in an overwhelmingly-Catholic country. On Tuesday the Bishops Episcopal Conference issued a public statement directed to the national government which almost openly supports the opposition's accusation that Ortega and the FSLN were trampling on constitutional law and basic political freedoms. They directed their warning "to the executive branch and the political forces to reject and condemn all types of violence, above all that which has as its object to terrify and suppress the freedom of expression and mobility of our people." The lines of opposition to the government are being drawn forcefully and within an atmosphere that condemns their intentions.

To continue the point of expressing the fears Nicaraguans have that the present situation is deteriorating dangerously, the following is a translation of a brief comment made in the personal blog of La Prensa journalist Luciano Cuadra, who compares the current threat with that of the violent period of the 1980's:

. . . Now, almost thirty years later, it looms over our country again, the threat of renewed internal conflict. This time it is not foisted by the United States and the former Soviet Union, but it is rather fueled by the iron-willed policy of the Secretary General of the FSLN party. [Ortega] All this is happening within sight and patience of an opposition more preoccupied with assuring shares in power than in presenting a solid block which might contain and halt the reelectionist aspirations of Ortega and his uncompromising circle. . . .

The frank condemnatory tone of a La Prensa journalist should not surprise anyone. The paper, which is known for its opposition to the FSLN, has even reported recent sabotage of its printing presses, a problem they were able to overcome on their own. But they also made clear that they do not consider it a coincidence that the damage comes "at a time when the government (of Daniel Ortega) is pursuing more aggressive discourse against the independent communications media." Additional threats and harassment from the Ortega regime have also been reported elsewhere during the past few weeks.

For a change, U.S. policy with respect to the unraveling of Nicaraguan democracy seems to hold up rather well under scrutiny. Following the decision of the Nicaraguan Supreme Court to overturn the constitutional ban on presidential term limits last month, U.S. Ambassador Robert J. Callahan issued a frank criticism of the decision, which brought immediate calls from Sandinista leaders for his expulsion from the country. Callahan was chased from a university by pro-Sandinista students who hurled homemade fireworks at him and he left the country soon afterwards.

Analysis

It is a familiar pattern that began in Venezuela in 1999 and has been repeated in Bolivia, Ecuador, Honduras, and now Nicaragua. A president elected under a democratic process comes to power and immediately initiates a policy of undermining the strength and enforceability of constitutional restraints upon his authority while in office and limits upon his tenure. This process may have hit a high-water mark recently in Honduras, where Manuel Zelaya was removed from office for attempting to hold what he described as a "non-binding" national referendum on changing the country's constitutional restrictions on term limits. The Chavez-style model of destroying constitutional law is now very well understood in Latin America and there seems to be an emerging appreciation of the need for immediate and forceful action to protect national political institutions among the political center and right in Central America in particular.

But now the scene of conflict is in Nicaragua, where the burden of history looms large. The national divisions which emerged in the violent struggle between the Sandinistas and their opposition during the 1980's have not entirely dissipated after two decades of democratic rule. Add into the mix the influx of cash from petroleum-rich Venezuela and the vulnerability of a poor nation to outside manipulation of its internal political processes becomes evident. This situation could deteriorate significantly, given that the FSLN may expect that they will receive international political support from the Organization of American States, whose record of supporting the preservation of constitutional law and political freedoms elsewhere in Latin America of late has been frankly abysmal.

Apparently the Obama Administration is learning that the rhetorical support for Chavez-style "Socialism for the 21st Century" given by the hard left here in the United States has missed the mark. Ambassador Callahan's open criticism of a very suspicious alteration of constitutional prohibitions on presidential term limits may help to set the tone for international cooperation to preserve Nicaraguan democracy. That concerted action will be a necessity, but if it is to be a part of the solution, it must be made known now, before the situation unravels within Nicaragua. Clearly the OAS and the remainder of the international community in Latin America cannot be counted upon to ameliorate the deterioration of the situation, as recent events in Honduras have proven conclusively.

In the meantime, we will have to watch and simply pray that saner heads prevail.

StJacques
  

Read More. . . .

Saturday, November 7, 2009

That Special Place in Hell

   

Fidel CastroSean Penn


I just read a post put up at the Babalu Blog by Ziva Sahl which is occasioned by the news of the open and undeniably brutal repression of freedom of expression surfacing out of Cuba yesterday and today with respect to the regime's crackdown on bloggers. Ziva recounts in very brief form the numerous crimes of the Castro regime, both past and present, and then proceeds to point out that some of the most prominent in Hollywood continued to be enamored of these thugs.

Here is a quote:

. . . Equally shocking is the fact that these mass-murdering thugs remain the darlings of the left. Just this past week Hollywood’s roving reporter Sean Penn made pilgrimage to Cuba in search of spike for his kool-aid. Surely, there must be a special place in hell for them all.

My sentiments exactly Ziva.

The childish and very dangerous attitudes put forth by those within the artistic community who see something worthy of admiration in Castroite Cuba are beyond reproach. They are quite simply, and without any qualification, opponents of human rights and proponents of slavery.

Let us continue to strive for the realization of genuine human rights for all and an end to slavery.

And may we remain confident that Satan will have that very special room ready for those who laud slavery, like Sean Penn and his Hollywood compatriots.

StJacques


   

Read More. . . .

Brutal Arrest and Detention of Cuban Bloggers in Havana on Friday (Translation)

 
Friday afternoon a number of Cuban bloggers, including the well-known Yoani Sanchez, were briefly detained and brutally assaulted by state security personnel in Havana when they were intercepted on their way to attend a "performance march," that was billed as a peaceful gathering to support non-violence.

I ran across the news of this when I visited the Babalu Blog this evening and I have decided that, since almost all of the "primary source" news is in Spanish, maybe I ought to help out and post a full translation of what is known so that the story can be circulated among English-language readers. The Spanish-language blog Penultimos Dias has done an excellent job of keeping as much of the evidence in the first person as is possible, so props go out there.

I am going to post a full translation of the entry put up at Penultimos Dias:

TRANSLATION

State Security detains Yoani Sanchez and other bloggers on their way to participate in a demonstration-performance on 23rd Street (Updated)
November 6th, 2009

The plan was [that] today at 5:30 in the afternoon: a group of youths should make a peaceful (not a protest nor a demanding political) performance-march from 23 and G up to 23 and L, crossing the corner of the Yara cinema and returning by the other sidwalk back to 23 and G. The idea was to add joyful people, without belligerent, only festive spirit. The performance-march was coordinated by Luis Eligio, of the Zona Franca OMNI group, and Amaury and Aldo, the rapper from Los Aldeanos. Also invited were the musician Ciro Diaz of the band Porno Para Ricardo and the photographer Claudio Fuentes, who formed part of the plan. The "demonstrators" were carrying cardboard placards with the words: Join us, No more violence, For the future of our children, etc. (some of the participants even thought about bringing their children to the march).

There was a prior rehearsal in the Dimitrov Park at Paseo and 23, which included fraternization excercises (several of the participants calling each other brothers) and group theater. They are very new and astonishingly naive faces.

A few minutes ago, when they were preparing to participate in the march, a group of bloggers (Yoani Sanchez, Orlando Luis Pardo, among others) were arrested by State Security and right now their whereabouts are unknown.

Yoani's arrest was at the entrance to the Calixto García hospital: they put her by force into a State Security car, with a private license plate.

Claudia Cadelo, with whom I spoke a few minutes ago, was also arrested, put into a patrol car and released somewhere near Nuevo Vedado, far from the scene of the march, of which I am unaware as to whether it finally took place.

Penultimos Dias Update: From Claudia Cadelo's Twitter a few minutes ago:

They took me by force in a patrol car and released me in Nuevo Vedado.
2 minutes ago from txt

Yoani was arrested with olpl and put in a security car
5 minutes ago from txt

I don't know where Yoani, olpl, nor Ciro are
9 minutes ago from txt

They have now released me
15 minutes ago from txt

[unintelligible shorthand]kicks me[?], Yoani, olpl, ci
30 minutes ago from txt

I am detained
36 minutes ago from txt


Penultimos Dias Update 2: From Claudia Cadelo's Twitter a few minutes ago:

Apparently Orlando, Silvia and Yoani are somewhere near the Vedado, after being victims of a [State] Security ambush. They let Claudia go somewhere in Nuevo Vedado, but I couldn't say much more because I had no mobile phone credit, the same with Yoani. Orlando called me about five minutes ago: they applied arm locks to him and he was dizzy with neck pain. This was happening in the line at the P-11 stop at 29th and G, in sight of several acquaintances, including the young narrator Ketty Blanco. Orlando managed to drop the phone out the window and I do not know if anyone was able to pick it up. The girls also seem to have been abused. They split up in two cars: Yoani and Orlando on one side and Silvia and Claudia on the other. They wanted to go to a performance of the OMNI in Mariana Grajales park, 23 and C. I do not know much more. Orlando was so dazed, I could not speak with Yoani. They released her over by Loma and Paseo, somewhere near the Plaza.

Penultimos Dias Update 3: The performance-march against violence and for freedom took place in the park at 23 and G. Some 200 people participated. Ciro Diaz and Claudio Fuentes began to arrive and they took photos of what happened. Now they are trying to go to the house of Yoani, whose mobile phone has been disconnected.

Penultimos Dias Update 4: Acknowledgment of the message received from Veronica Cervera

Ernesto, I just spoke with Yoani. She is at home now. She has a bruise on one eye. They physically and verbally assaulted her. Orlando too. They shouted at them [i.e. Yoani and Orlando] in the patrol car until they arrived there, they put her head down and feet up and they applied karate chops. She was very nervous. Me too.

Penultimos Dias Update 5: A detailed account of the beatings in Yoani's statements to El Nuevo Herald (Miami)

There is no blood. [There are] bruises, bumps, pulled hair, punches to the head, kidneys, knee and chest. In the end, professional violence. "I, who am a person of spoken pacifism, I am shaken by the violence, because violence mutes anyone," Sanchez said by telephone after the incident which lasted about 20 minutes.
[...]

"We were almost there when we were intercepted by three men in a car with private plates who ordered us to get in," Sanchez said. "We refused. I did not know if they were kidnappers or what. And it raised the tone of violence on their part."

Sanchez said they were near the Calixto Garcia hospital, in Vedado, when she was "dragged into the vehicle and pulled inside by the head."

"They applied judo or karate chops and continued raining blows and punches," she said.

During the attack, Sanchez added, she managed to take a piece of paper one of the men had in his pocket, and put it in her mouth.

"I don't know, it was as if to say: 'I have something of yours,'" she said. "The paper contained a name of a person and a telephone number."

"It made him even more furious, and [he threw] more blows" she said.
After about 20 minutes en route, the vehicle stopped in an area far from where they had been intercepted.

"And we were thrown violently into the street" she said.



I encourage everyone to circulate this news. Forget copyrights, etc. Take the translation and run with it.

StJacques


   

Read More. . . .

Thursday, November 5, 2009

Is Alice Leaving Wonderland? Taking a Step Away from Chavez in Honduras

   

Deposed Honduran President Manuel ZelayaU.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton


An Agreement to End the Honduran Crisis Reached?

Over the past few weeks the eyes of Latin America watchers around the world have fixated upon Honduras, where U.S.-backed negotiations between representatives of deposed Honduran President Manuel Zelaya and the interim government which came to office after his ouster strove to achieve a resolution to the constitutional crisis in the small Central American nation. The talks proceeded slowly, with fits and turns which frequently made their outcome uncertain, but negotiators finally produced an agreement the U.S. State Department hailed last Friday as paving the way for international recognition of the results of Honduras' pending presidential elections scheduled for the 29th of this month.

The Honduran Congress first must approve the negotiated settlement, a point Zelaya insisted upon rather than permitting the question to be put to the country's Supreme Court, which he blames for legitimizing his ouster in the eyes of his fellow countrymen. Once the congress ratifies Zelaya's return he then would reassume his office with only limited authority. A national unity government would be created containing both Zelaya supporters and others who have backed the interim regime of President Roberto Micheletti. And finally, a special committee to guarantee the fairness and transparency of the upcoming elections also would be formed; all of which would secure the international community's recognition of the legitimacy of the Honduran electoral process and a return to normal governance early next year, when the newly-elected president will assume the duties of his office.

Continued Honduran Resistance to U.S. Pressure

However; events over the past few days suggest that the Hondurans will attempt to delay Zelaya's reinstatement long enough to make the event an inconsequential footnote to obtaining international recognition of the validity of their presidential elections, which has been the common goal of all major parties and presidential candidates in the country from the onset of the crisis last summer, a fact largely unreported in the American news media. But even if Honduras should put the terms of the accord into effect quickly, other unforeseen problems could yet arise.

Wall Street Journal editorialist Mary Anastasia O'Grady has argued that there is more than one possible scenario under which the fulfillment of the negotiated agreement could be carried out which could create an altogether different kind of constitutional crisis for Honduras. Up until now, and contrary to the reporting developed in most of the international press, Hondurans have largely accepted Micheletti's interim government as legitimate. Only Zelaya's firmest supporters have opposed it, but their numbers are so small that they really constitute only a fringe element in Honduran politics. Micheletti himself is a member of the same Liberal Party as Zelaya, another fact not often made clear to Americans, who have been inundated with the interpretation that Zelaya's ouster was a "military coup" that overthrew civilian rule--it did not--and was therefore blatantly unconstitutional. According to O'Grady it is possible that various institutions of the Honduran state could find themselves at odds with each other over the legality of the accord and the procedural steps required for its implementation. This could create something which has not existed in Honduras since Zelaya's removal--real divisions beyond the leftist fringe as to the legitimacy of the government in power in Tegucigalpa.

Last Tuesday, November 3, the Honduran legislative committee empowered to call the Congress into special session to act upon the accord voted to wait until the country's Supreme Court, Attorney General, and others weigh in with their own legal opinions on the agreement, and without setting a deadline. The American response has been muddled, to say the least. U.S. Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis has been dispatched to the country to help the Hondurans in the formation of a unity government, a move some interpreted as indicating increased U.S. pressure on the interim leadership to move quickly. But Secretary Solis has stated since her arrival that she is more involved with working on the formation of a new cabinet, saying that she knows things move slowly in Honduras but she is at the moment "focused on bringing different groups together to create a new cabinet," a comment that does not place Zelaya's reinstatement at the top of the agenda for the U.S.

Has the Obama Administration Policy Changed?

Apparently, the U.S. now believes that the negotiated agreement binds both parties to its terms; however they may be carried out. Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Shannon told CNN en Español that both Zelaya and Micheletti "took a risk and put their trust in [the Honduran] Congress, but at the end of the day the accord requires that both leaders accept its decision." Zelaya has requested Secretary of State Clinton to clarify the State Department's position, pointedly asking whether its earlier stance that his ouster was a coup still holds true. But Shannon's statement makes clear the U.S. intention to get past the Honduran elections later this month, sacrificing Zelaya if necessary. To quote Blas Padrino of the Orlando Republican Examiner "the Obama Administration has now thrown Mr. Zelaya under the bus." The evidence is mounting daily to support Padrino's analysis. So perhaps it may be worthwhile to ask why the change has occurred.

Analysis:  The Absurdities of Aligning U.S. Latin American Policy with Chavismo

There are complexities to the Honduran constitutional crisis, which the Obama Administration does not feel comfortable explaining when asked for clarification. The U.S. State Department has arrogantly refused to produce its own legal analysis of the perplexing problems surrounding the ouster of former President Manuel Zelaya last June 28, yet the assessment of the Congressional Research Service has been available for several weeks. Senior Foreign Law Specialist Norma C. Gutierrez prepared and submitted the CRS report last August and its findings reveal much about the facts of Zelaya's ouster as judged under Honduran constitutional law.

Ms. Gutierrez gives a thorough examination of the intricacies of the Honduran Constitution, the facts of the case against Zelaya, and the manner in which the country's two main institutions, the Congress and the Supreme Court, interpreted and handled the matter. Her conclusions are strikingly at odds with the public policy stance the Obama administration has pursued from the outset:

   V. Was the removal of Honduran President Zelaya legal, in accordance with Honduran constitutional and statutory law?

      Available sources indicate that the judicial and legislative branches applied constitutional and statutory law in the case against President Zelaya in a manner that was judged by the Honduran authorities from both branches of the government to be in accordance with the Honduran legal system.

      However, removal of President Zelaya from the country by the military is in direct violation of the Article 102 of the Constitution, and apparently this action is currently under investigation by the Honduran authorities.


Norma C. Gutierrez
Senior Foreign Law Specialist
Congressional Research Service



The above analysis presents the problem we have confronted with Honduras in a nutshell. Honduran institutions acted properly under their own laws right up to the point when they sent Zelaya into exile, which they were forbidden from doing by their constitution's prohibition against extraditing or expatriating Honduran citizens. Their removal of Zelaya was legal, but sending him out of the country was not, a mistake Micheletti admitted this past August.

Norma Gutierrez's clear thinking has not been part of the Obama Administration's approach towards the handling of the crisis however, and it may be that some of the responsibility for this lies with lower level diplomats, including Ambassador Hugo Llorens in Tegucigalpa and others in Washington, who set the tone for U.S. policy almost immediately. But the tact of treating Zelaya's ouster as a military coup, while simultaneously refusing to permit any discussion of the facts on the ground in Honduras, has aligned the Obama Administration with some of the worst players in Latin America--Chavez and his leftist allies in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, and Ecuador. And the dangers inherent in this realignment were not lost on Hondurans, who only fortified themselves further to preserve a democratic way of life they have come to treasure since 1982, when they adopted their new constitution. The widespread support from all major factions within the country for preventing Zelaya from returning to power speaks volumes, but until very recently the words have not been heard in Washington.

Rather than pursuing a calming of the situation through an open diplomatic dialogue, which would involve not only all parties in Honduras but also inform the American people of the progress of events and the formulation their foreign policy, the Obama administration instead adopted the very worst tactics of the Latin American Left to force Honduras to bend its knee to power. The administration has controlled public debate over the controversy through its manipulation of the press, silenced any discussion of Honduran constitutional law and the facts which led to Zelaya's removal, misrepresented the political situation within the country after the installation of an interim government, and worst of all threatened the Honduran people with their own immiseration and internal political disintegration so long as they continued to insist upon ... wait for it America! ... the rule of law fairly interpreted in an open hearing and a resolution of the crisis through free and fair elections.

By the time the final step of denying international recognition of the validity of regularly-scheduled elections approached, the Obama administration's policy was defeated by its own absurdity. America, the rule of constitutional law, and free elections remain inseparable. That maxim was greeted with jeers when afternoon mate de coca was served at Mad Hatter Hugo Chavez's party with los nuevos invitados Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in attendance. But the jeering will stop soon. The Hondurans have put the lie to the taunts.

The Hondurans have spoken truth to power.

StJacques

   
  

Read More. . . .

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

I'm Back!

Sorry for my absence everyone, but I have been busy overcoming the ill effects of last year's economic difficulties, which impacted the software company with which I work in a most negative manner.

I have survived.

And now, back on with the show.

StJacques

   
  

Read More. . . .

Friday, October 17, 2008

Venezuelan Blogger Martha Colmenares Threatened by Basque Terrorist Supporter

   

The Six Most Wanted ETA Terrorists, Left to Right, Top to Bottom:
Aitzol Etxaburu, Ander Múgica, Eneko Zarrabeitia,
Joseba Mikel Olza, Leire López and Saoia Sánchez.


It is with considerable anger that I must report that my very good friend and fellow Freedom Blogger Martha Colmenares has been threatened at her web site by an individual claiming to support the Basque terrorist group known as the ETA.

The threat, which was sent as a commentary response to Martha's post "Photos of the Most Sought-After ETA Terrorists," stated "walk carefully, the gun may be pointing towards you one day."

Intimidation is ugly under any circumstances, but especially so when it occurs in full view of the public.  Martha Colmenares has contacted French authorities, given that the IP address of the user who made the threat was traced to France, and she has forwarded all necessary information.

If anything should develop from this, I will post more.

In the meantime, I express my full support for and solidarity with Martha Colmenares, a true Freedom Blogger.

StJacques
   

Read More. . . .

Sunday, October 12, 2008

Anti-Israeli Censorship in Spain:  El Pais Closes "Stop Islamisation" Blog


I have not written much about the causes of freedom outside of Latin America, given that so much of my focus is fixated upon the threat I see closest to home, but I am going to take this moment to show my support for the preservation of Israel as a Jewish state and to dedicate this brief space within my blog to express my outrage at the closure of a pro-Israeli blog in Spain as an act of censorship by the daily newspaper El Pais.  I have only just learned of this development at the Martha Colmenares site and I am responding to her request for a show of support among bloggers everywhere to stand up and express their righteous outrage at the marginalization of pro-Israeli speech within a modern western European nation.

The issue at hand is the closure of the "Stop Islamisation" blog at the El Pais online community after the blog accepted a prize for showing "Solidarity with Israel."  It is an act of censorship which I regard as wholly unwarranted, given that there was no hateful speech, incitement to immoral conduct, or what could in any way be construed as a violation of the norms of conduct El Pais posts on its community site.  No; this was an act of silencing pro-Israeli speech within Spain and on the web.  That is an outrage.

By way of a personal note I wish to add, the "Stop Islamisation" movement in Europe represents a multi-national effort to oppose actions among Muslims residing on the continent to take advantage of the tolerant attitudes of a multi-cultural Europe to implement Sharia law within their communities, which frequently results in gross and overt violations of national law, constitutional rights, and what can only be described as human dignity.  Just check out the Google search returns on "Stop Islamisation" if you want an idea as to the extent of this popular response among Europeans.  It is widely-expressed speech that deserves its place within the popular consciousness.

I will choose another moment to make my own statement of my desire for continued American support for Israel, a cause I advocate wholeheartedly, whenever I have sufficient time to address the delicate points with the level of sensitivity the topic merits.

For now I stand by Israel and its supporters and I demand that their voices be heard.

StJacques
   

********************** UPDATE, Monday, October 13, 8:15 p.m. **********************

El Pais has closed a second blog on its site for showing solidarity with the "Stop Islamisation" blog.  According to a new entry up at the Martha Colmenares site, a second site for Pinceladas de Cuba (I have the blogspot.com site linked in my sidebar at the right) posted an entry with a show of support for "Stop Islamisation" and was also pulled down by El Pais.

I think it is time to state the obvious.  Since El Pais will not give an explanation for its conduct -- not that there is a sensible explanation that can be given -- and it takes further action against a second blog which only raises the issue of censorship, there are but three possible conclusions we can draw upon as explaining the conduct of El Pais:

1.  El Pais is Anti-Semitic.

2.  El Pais is Anti-Israeli.

3.  Both 1 and 2 are true.

The hatred of Anti-Semitism is returning to Europe and El Pais is at the forefront of this terrible new development for western civilization.

StJacques
   

Read More. . . .

Friday, October 10, 2008

Human Rights Foundation Blasts Evo Morales for Promoting 'War' and 'Racial Hatred'

   


On numerous occasions over the past few years I have watched as many so-called "Human Rights Organizations" active in Latin America acted with near complicity to provide cover for leftist regimes, political movements, and even narco-guerrilla bands who repeatedly violated international human rights standards.  In order to diminish international public pressure to curtail the excesses of these leftist agitators, and therefore to provide a breathing space for the fulfillment of their political aims, many of these Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) have betrayed the cause for which they ostensibly stand and have instead carried out a veiled program of concealment that places real support for human rights below that of a leftist-oriented political and cultural agenda.  Some of the best examples of this complicity can be seen in the actions and attitudes of NGOs towards the FARC in Colombia, though there are others.  In light of all this, I take pleasure in stating that the work of the Human Rights Foundation this year with respect to Latin America is a genuine breath of fresh air.

Ladies and gentlemen, the Human Rights Foundation is the real thing.

On August 9, I posted on the HRF's Tell Chavez campaign for the freedom of Venezuela's political prisoners, which is a worthwhile cause deserving of the support of lovers of freedom and democracy everywhere.  In that effort the HRF set themselves apart from many other NGOs in their decision to cut Chavez no slack for his repeated human rights abuses and political skullduggery.  The HRF also has been on top of recent events in Bolivia.  In January they released an almost-forgotten critique of the inclusion of clauses establishing the constitutional legitimacy of what is referred to as "communitarian justice" within the Oruro Draft of the proposed constitution Evo Morales and the MAS are promoting as I write.  If adopted, mob rule within some of the indigenous communities in Bolivia's west would become legal and we could expect to see crucifixions, lashing, corporal punishment, stoning and live burial of women for adultery, lynchings, and more become established constitutional practice under Bolivian law.  And the HRF can proudly take credit for assuming the lead role in publicizing the case of Ecuadoran dissident Guadalupe Llori, recently released from prison for false charges of terrorism, sabotage, and embezzlement.

With respect to other NGOs active in Latin America, even though there have been indications that Human Rights Watch has been undergoing a change of heart with respect to Chavez recently -- two of their representatives were expelled from Venezuela last month -- the HRF has stood nearly alone among foreign NGOs monitoring the cause of human rights in Latin America in its consistent condemnation of the widespread abuses of the Bolivarian regimes in Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia.  It is worth pointing out here that the organization's efforts in Venezuela have been especially dangerous.  In January, Venezuelan jurist and HRF activist Monica Fernandez survived an assassination attempt that left her fiancé severely wounded with three gunshot wounds, one day after the Chavez regime declared her an enemy of the state.  Not surprisingly, the Venezuelan government dropped the investigation into the attack.

When you put it all together, the Human Rights Foundation's record of true human rights advocacy, achieved at the cost of facing down intimidation and violence, marks the organization as an exemplary undertaking of the human spirit that gives us hope that there may be a liveable future for humanity.

The Bolivia Report

Yesterday the HRF published its Informe sobre la situación de los Derechos Humanos en Bolivia (Report on the Human Rights Situation in Bolivia).  The text of the report was released only in Spanish, and it was sent to Bolivian President Evo Morales along with an accompanying letter, which I intend to excerpt in part, as it provides a brief overview of the highlights of the report itself.

Translated Excerpts from Letter of Human Rights Foundation
to Bolivian President Evo Morales.
Accompanies "Report on the Human Rights Situation in Bolivia,"
08 October 2008


From the Human Rights Foundation (HRF) we respectfully address ourselves to you, in your capacity as head of state, to express to you our profound preoccupation for the growing wave of killings for political motives that is occurring in your country and for the continuous pronouncements emitted by you and by high functionaries of your government, whose content advertises war, defends racial hatred, threatens freedom of the press and tends to worsen the human rights situation in Bolivia.
It is widely known that a great political polarization exists in Bolivia which was evidenced by the results of the referendums carried out over the last few months . . .
. . . This political polarization in Bolivia has heightened over the last weeks, bringing as a consequence manifestations of violence which up to now have left at least 21 dead and hundreds injured.  Facing this situation, we view with preoccupation that the response of the government comes in the form of speech that incites more violence and which openly defends groups of civilians armed against persons and cities of the opposition.  This speech continues fully charged with degrading adjectives such as "racists," "fascists," "separatists," "sellers of the country," "anti-patriots," "oligarchs," and "rightists."
First, your constant verbal attacks are generating aggressions against the press on the part of your followers.  During the protests for the devolution of the [revenues from the] Direct Hydrocarbons Tax, several journalists who covered the events were assaulted.  Instead of condemning these aggressions, you and the spokesman of your government, Ivan Canelas, accused the PAT and Unitel television networks and the El Mundo newspaper of being "dirty" and "irresponsible."
Second, President Morales, your consistent speech calling upon your political supporters "to die" so as "to defend the revolution" from the actions of the "coup supporters" constitutes propaganda in favor of war and incites political violence and puts the life of every person in Bolivia in danger.  Finally, the official speech with which you disqualify those persons who are not in agreement with the policies of your government seeks to silence the political leaders of the opposing departments, threatening the right of political participation. . . .
. . . the use your government makes of the language in your speech gives rise to a much more serious connotation than the merely political.  In effect, President Morales, the HRF also wishes to express its preoccupation because your political speech disqualifying the opponents of your government would also promote racial hatred on the part of the national majority of Bolivia's west, namely, persons of "Aymara" or "Quechua" origin, against the national minorities of Bolivia's east and south, namely, "Cambas" (Indians or Mestizos of Bolivia's east) or "Chapacos" (of the Department of Tarija) who live in the majority in the departments opposed to the government . . . We have seen the signs of racial hatred against the "Cambas," such as in the city of El Alto in the Department of La Paz (http://www.laprensa.com.bo/noticias/12-09-08/12_09_08_poli5.php), as in Internet sites which support your government (http://bolivia.indymedia.org/search/node/cambas), and we fear that this is reflected in your speech. . . .

The report itself presents the evidence substantiating the charges made above in much greater detail.  It is sixteen pages long and is divided into five main parts: "Antecedents," which gives an overview of the recent background to the political polarization that now exists in the country, primarily related to the autonomy referendums, the proposed constitution, and the results of the revocatory referendum votes; "Passing Events Between August and September, 2008," which examines the inter-departmental strike of the five eastern departments to force the devolution of the revenues of the Direct Hydrocarbons Tax, coupled with Morales's failed attempt to convene a national referendum on his constitution by executive decree, including the manner in which the protests degenerated into the forcible takeover of government offices, actions which the HRF disapproved of in its own statements; "Violations of the Right of Freedom of Expression," in which the HRF reviews the numerous attacks against the press, including the encitement to violence against the media on the part of the government, as well as the official promotion of racial hatred; "Deaths in Confrontations for Political Motives and the Danger of Larger Violence," where the HRF presents the story of the violence of September 11-13 in Pando, especially with reference to Porvenir, as well as the armed march of Morales supporters against Santa Cruz de la Sierra, which came to a head between the 23rd and 25th of September.  And finally, a concluding section containing the HRF's recommendations for a restoration of the observance of human rights in Bolivia, which are largely reflected in the excerpts quoted above.

Results?

There has not been any official reaction as of yet coming from the Morales regime, and I expect they will chose simply to ignore the report.  Its major impact may be that some discussion will ensue within Bolivia and the region.  The La Paz daily newspaper La Razón did publish news of the report, which does make its overall content known to the Bolivian people, but without a public discussion of its particulars it may not go very far.  But what may be most important is that there is a documented version of the events in Porvenir and the armed march against Santa Cruz that can now be cited as a credible source of information.  This may not seem like very much, but some of the most important work human rights organizations perform lies within the documentation they provide of significant events which are not always covered in the major media to the full extent they deserve.  Reports such as this one are circulated among many international organizations and the list one can see attached to the cover letter sent to Evo Morales makes this clear.  It is at least one small step out of the darkness.

Within the blogosphere there is a little reaction.  The MABB blog has posted news of the report with the unusual comment that the report is "amusing," which I take to be a reference to the unlikelihood that it will have any effect upon Evo Morales, who is not known for responsible conduct.  MABB has also pointed to Morales's desire to rid himself of international contacts as a necessary step towards the achievement of his program, so this would seem to fit.  Bolivia Confidencial merely published the cover letter I excerpted above with the comment, as I translate, that it is "an important document" that "was not wasted."  And Martha Colmenares presents the HRF's own case to Spanish language readers on her site, which has followed recent events in Bolivia much more closely than many others and which I must recognize as presenting me with the very best coverage I have found thus far.

StJacques
   

*********************** Update: October 10, 12:00 p.m. ************************

I have one new item to add on the HRF, which I would like to include here as important information by way of an update.

One very important part of the HRF's work is their attempt to remain apolitical when engaging in human rights advocacy and I have two examples to hold in comparison which make the point.  The case of Guadalupe Llori, which I cite and link above is an instance in which the HRF stood up on behalf of a political activist one would place within the left of the political spectrum.  In contrast, their advocacy on behalf of the Caracas Nine -- who are a group of nine Venezuelan dissidents from various walks of life who have suffered persecution at the hands of the Chavez regime in numerous ways, from imprisonment to torture to public intimidation -- might generally be considered advocacy on behalf of activists one would place on the political right.

I really ought to do an entry on the Caracas Nine.

I think this point is significant enough to require an update.

StJacques
   

Read More. . . .

Friday, September 26, 2008

Bolivia Takes a Step Back from the Brink:  Victory and Defeat for Both Sides

   

President Evo Morales and the Eastern Department Prefects Begin Dialog in Cochabamba
Source:  TribunaLatina.com

A Calming Situation?

The news out of Bolivia seems to indicate an improvement of the situation as conflicts between pro-autonomy activists and supporters of the government have moved away from a civil disobedience campaign that morphed into violent resistance in the eastern departments of the so-called Media Luna and towards a negotiated solution through dialog.  The talks, which largely resulted from apparent international pressure on Morales from other Latin American leaders at the recent UNASUR (Union of South American Nations) summit, are being mediated by a group of international observers that includes official representatives from the UN, the OAS, and UNASUR; as well as the Catholic Church.

As of last Friday, September 19, those brief talks in the Bolivian city of Cochabamba produced no tangible results, though a framework for pursuing a lasting agreement to stabilize the country was reached.  A future road map for the process has been laid out in which the two sides agreed to joint participation in three commissions: one to deal with the distribution of the Direct Hydrocarbons Tax revenues to the departments and the support for old age pensions those departments will distribute -- rather than the national government, which was the original complaint of the Media Luna that produced the Paro (general stoppage) protests; a second to legitimize the constitutional validity of the autonomous status of the eastern departments; and a third to reestablish the nomination and approval process to fill vacancies in the judicial branch of the government, especially with reference to the National Electoral Court.  Direct talks between the Morales government and the Prefects have ended for the moment, and attention will now turn to the work of the commissions, which is where any agreement that is acceptable to both sides will have to be negotiated.

Bodies of Some of the Victims of the September 11 Violence in Pando
Source:  El Deber

Behind the International Pressure:  Violence, Refugees, and Gas Exports

The Paro civil disobedience campaign that began in the third week of August in the five departments of Bolivia's east continued unabated, albeit with steadily-escalating tensions, until the second week of September, when very serious violence erupted in the Department of Pando on Thursday, September 11.  According to the first reports from the Santa Cruz, Bolivia newspaper El Deber, at least eight persons died and 39 were injured in what appeared to be something of a scheduled clash between autonomists and MAS activists, though differing versions were offered as to how the violence erupted.  President Evo Morales then responded by declaring a state of siege in Pando, which is the Bolivian equivalent of martial law, and ordered in troops from the army, who retook the airport in the departmental capital of Cobija.  Control was reasserted in a manner that cannot be described as entirely "peaceful," though again details as to the particulars are difficult to grasp given the conflicting reports circulating from government and pro-autonomy sources.  It is known that others died in the violence in Pando, perhaps bringing the total to as many as thirty, and that a refugee problem began to develop as frightened locals fled to Brazil for safety, most fearing retaliation from the MAS, who began to take out their frustrations against many Pandinos after the arrival of the army, according to first-hand accounts taken from refugees in Brazil.

Edgar Balcazar, a Pandino Refugee in Brazil, Shows Evidence of Torture by the MAS
Source:  El Deber

The Pando situation was only the worst example of what went wrong with the Paro protest.  Before the violence began, numerous recognizable instances of a degenerating situation already indicated events were spinning out of control.  Confrontations between protest supporters and MAS activists became increasingly tense everywhere.  Pro-autonomy leaders of the civic committees throughout the Gran Chaco region of Bolivia's southeast acted to shut down the country's gas production and exports -- important to Brazil and absolutely vital to Argentina -- when they seized producing fields and closed pipelines and at least one bombing attack on a pipeline caused serious damage.  The pro-autonomy seizures of national government offices throughout the Media Luna continued in an ever-escalating upward spiral of confrontation with both police and military units.  MAS activists began to undertake their own "counter-encirclements" of several key cities in Bolivia's east, creating what we might describe as a "Paro within a Paro" and which was exactly the kind of confrontation that produced the violence in Pando.

There was also evidence that the protest succeeded in creating food and gasoline shortages in Bolivia's western departments, which was the Media Luna's goal from the beginning.  La Paz's La Razón newspaper reported meat shortages in the city, where some markets closed altogether and rising prices for meat exemplified the economic effect of scarcity.  Gasoline shortages forced the closure of some filling stations there as well, though the shortfall was experienced throughout the country.  It would go too far to claim that the Paro achieved its goal through economic pressure, but it cannot be denied that its effects had an impact.

UNASUR Presses for a Settlement through Dialog

With the eruption of violence in Pando making the humanitarian case for action self-evident, though perhaps also influenced by Brazilian anxiety over a developing refugee exodus and larger regional concerns over the possible cessation of Bolivian exports of natural gas, UNASUR President Pro-Tempore Michelle Bachelet of Chile called for an emergency summit to address the crisis on September 13.  Ostensibly coming together to show continental support for Morales, which the conferees demonstrated in their public utterances, UNASUR nonetheless produced a result on the ground not in keeping with the entirety of the public posture Morales had maintained within his own country. 

Though in their public statements the UNASUR members voiced their support for Evo Morales's "plan" for a dialog process to end the Paro, return national institutions to the control of the government in La Paz, and restore domestic tranquility, the real impetus for the proposals may have originated with Tarija Prefect Mario Cossio.  After seeking approval within the CONALDE group -- Spanish acronym for the National Democratic Council, an organizational entity dominated by the Media Luna departments -- Cossio met with Bolivian Vice President Alvaro Garcia Linares in La Paz and negotiated an agreement to end the protest and begin a dialog with the Morales government by the early a.m. hours of Saturday, September 13.  UNASUR's announcement of the agreement later in the day represented a major success for the group and offered Evo Morales an opportunity to save face with the Bolivian people given some of the details which the plan included.

The Dialog Process Agreement

On Tuesday, September 16 representatives of the CONALDE signed an agreement with the Morales government setting terms for the dialog process, one might more accurately describe these as "parameters" given that the specifics are not spelled out very clearly, but which began an end-game for the Paro, calmed tensions, and invariably moved popular attention towards negotiation.  The details of the agreement were published as follows:

Details of National Agreement to End the Paro and Begin Dialog
IDH and royalties.  The Government recognizes the right of the departments to receive the IDH [revenue shares]; payment of the Dignity Pension [renta Dignidad] and its sustainability from established funding sources provided by law must be guaranteed.  The government also expressed its decision to respect and maintain the current distribution of [oil and gas] royalties to the departments.
Autonomies and statutes.  The government expresses its respect for the right to autonomy of [the departments of] Pando, Beni, Tarija and Santa Cruz.  It also dealt with the new Political Constitution of the State and there will be an institutional settlement for the appointment of vacant congressional seats, the [examination of the] electoral roll, the program of national identity cards and the Civil Registry; [all] the electoral processes will be covered.
Dialog.  Facilitators and witnesses will be relied upon; those invited are: UNASUR, the Church, the European Union, the OAS, and the UN.
Pacification.  There is an agreement to the lifting of all blockades and the handing over of public institutions that were taken, moreover there will be a halt to the violence all over the country.
Truce.  The government will suspend the summoning of a referendum for the text of the constitution for one month; at that time, the deadline could be extended, in accordance with the progress of dialog.  There will be no political persecution of the regional leaders and they will investigate the events of Pando.
Source:  El Deber:  17 September 2008


Cardinal Julio Terrazas (seated with Evo Morales), at the Dialog Talks
Securing the participation of Catholic Church observers was a key demand of the opposition.

The particulars of the above agreement appear at first glance to pronounce a near-complete victory for the Media Luna, but a closer examination of the terms coupled with an expanded knowledge of recent events associated with the Morales presidency makes clear that Evo retained the one thing that is still paramount in his political program; an opportunity to pursue approval of the MAS-authored Oruro Draft of a new constitution for Bolivia.  By no means has he received the certain guarantee of a national vote in a constitutionally-legitimate referendum on the document, but he is given the opportunity to put it on the table and there is the larger implication that a meaningful dialog must address the issues associated with the new framework for the Bolivian state, a process that cuts both ways, in light of the specific language in the final clause which mentions "progress" in dialog.

From the perspective of the Media Luna, their protest has been justified by the specific statement in the agreement that the Direct Hydrocarbons Tax revenues (IDH in its Spanish acronym) will be distributed to the departments.  There is no mention as to the origin of the "right" of the departments to individual shares of the IDH revenues, they derive from a popular referendum passed in a national vote, which now gives it constitutional support; language one must suspect the departments wished to see included.  There is instead a general statement from the government that the revenues must be paid to the departments.  But even here Morales gets to save face because there is specific language requiring the use of at least some portion of the funds for the payment of the renta Dignidad, which is a pension for seniors Morales wanted to disburse from the national treasury funded by his seizure of the IDH revenues.  And furthermore, there is additional language promising the departments their receipt of royalties on oil and gas production, which is a separate matter from the IDH revenues, though this is not recognized as a "right," but rather as the result of a government "decision" instead.  There is more than enough real financial gain for the departmental governments in this document to permit them to claim a victory, though by no means can they consider it complete.

The "right" of the Media Luna departments to "autonomy" is recognized, but there is no clear identification as to what autonomy means, which leaves the inclusion of the autonomic statutes -- the Media Luna at least got that term in the document -- in doubt, at least in so far as it might entail including them in their current form.  For those who have not followed Bolivia closely, be advised that this leaves open the possibility of a redefinition of autonomy that would look very different from what the Media Luna referenda have pursued.  Morales has pushed for the restructuring of the internal political processes of departments throughout the country, in his own proposal for "decentralization," which would strip the departmental prefects of their power to appoint numerous provincial "sub-prefects" and thus open the way for a rewriting of local laws within those few areas of the eastern departments where the MAS can gain control.  The real purpose of this objective for the MAS is to gain such local control where possible and then open Bolivia's east to "colonization" by western Bolivians in need of land who would receive such grants under Morales's land redistribution proposals.  On the surface this sounds quite democratic and socially just, but in practice it means giving land to coca farmers who will expand production of the narcotic-producing crop, bringing all sorts of attendant difficulties along in trail.  The Media Luna departments have fought this plan by writing their own laws to prohibit the cultivation of coca -- this was very much at the root of the violent confrontation in Pando, since the MAS activists involved were colonizadores cocaleros -- and Morales intends to use land redistribution to effect a restructuring of political power along with it.

"Decentralization" as Morales uses the term only refers to decentralizing the power of the departmental prefects; its actual result would be a much more centralized Bolivian national state, since the prefects have been the only effective check upon the power of the national government.

The agreement thus can be viewed as offering both victory and defeat for both sides and its significance for the future remains very much in doubt, given that no final settlement of the outstanding issues has been reached.

Some Analytical Comments

I think the word "Truce" contained within the published text of the agreement gives us an accurate description of where things stand at present.  The IDH revenues must be distributed among the eastern departments, as they demanded, but that only removes an initial obstacle that has prevented Bolivians from getting to the real work of making the political peace.  There has been no settlement of the major underlying issues in Bolivian political life, but a breathing space has been created within which the dialog participants might construct one.  They still must address Evo Morales's constitutional project and that will not be an easy matter.

I have written before that I believe that unless the Oruro Draft for a new constitution is either reworked significantly or scrapped altogether that there will be no internal political peace in Bolivia.  I remain convinced this is so today, though I do think something positive has emerged from the conclusion of the Paro, which is quite simply that Evo Morales and the MAS can no longer do their dirty work in the dark.  The presence of the international observers at the dialog is in my opinion significant because, especially with respect to UNASUR, they are exercising a public relations role in their pronouncements and media releases on the process that makes it impossible for Evo Morales to present a distorted interpretation of events to the Bolivian people and the world while discounting the differing version coming from the opposition as reflecting some selfish, obstructionist, or vile intent on their part to prevent the realization of the MAS program.

The recent public stance UNASUR has taken towards a solution of Bolivia's internal difficulties reflects a dichotomy between an outward expression of support for Evo Morales as the legitimate President of Bolivia and what appears to be a subtle, but noticeable, effort to use dialog to reestablish the institutions of Bolivian democracy within the negotiating process, as the Media Luna desires, rather than as a consequence of negotiations, as Morales has intended with his persistent attempts to force the adoption of the MAS-authored constitution.  In its public pronouncements UNASUR has emphasized institucionalidad (institutionality) in Bolivian political life and, in the Latin American political context, this represents a significant change for the country.  Institucionalidad means observation of and adherence to the Neoliberal goals of achieving the orderly preservation of domestic political and social stability through laws enforced by competent and legitimate institutions of the state, rather than overthrowing them by popular revolutionary agitation or illegally substituting the rule of a simple majority (popular referenda or single-party legislative sessions) where an absolute majority (two-thirds of the Congress) is required.  Morales has repeatedly and contemptuously referred to the "Neoliberal Model" as a failure in speeches to his supporters and public utterances, which goes a long way towards explaining his undermining of the Bolivian Senate and the National Electoral Court, among other institutions, which have stood in the way of his attempts to impose the Oruro Draft document outside the precepts of Bolivian constitutional law.  The terms of the agreement to begin dialog specifically state that a means will be negotiated to reestablish the legitimacy of the National Electoral Court and to fill other judicial and legislative vacancies, which obviously was a key opposition demand.

It is also worth noting that the role UNASUR has played in reestablishing internal political dialog in Bolivia qualifies the previous effort of Jose Miguel Insulza and the Organization of American States to provide international leadership and support as a failure.  The OAS is now only one of several observers to the process, whereas they previously had been considered the principal option for international mediation of the Bolivian political crisis going back to at least last November, when the violence in Sucre associated with the constituent assembly began the downward slide into what eventually became the near civil war of the Paro.  Insulza has been criticized for the failure of his organization to provide leadership in the Bolivian crisis, and justifiably so, in my opinion.  I have written earlier that he and his organization have undermined the primacy of constitutional law in Bolivia by supporting the settlement of all questions in Bolivia at the ballot box, where the MAS would only need a simple majority to pass its constitution.  This would have rubber-stamped their de facto disinstitutionalization of Bolivia's Congress and National Electoral Court, which Morales and the MAS have either ignored or delegitimized over the course of their handling of and participation in the constituent assembly through the end of February of this year.  Later, in the late spring and early summer, Insulza attempted to start a dialog process with the Media Luna prefects, but the effort came to naught, as they openly stated that Insulza was in their opinion too close to Morales and Hugo Chavez to earn their trust.  Obviously the autonomists paid attention to the OAS's handling of the Colombian incursion across the Ecuadoran border on March 1 to get FARC leader Raul Reyes, as well as Insulza's refusal to open an investigation into the contents of the Reyes laptops after the release of the Interpol report weeks later.  The OAS has been a debilitating factor in the Bolivian dialog process to date.  And Insulza's tenure as Secretary General has been nothing less than an unmitigated disaster and we can at least in part lay the responsibility for the downward slide into violence in the second week of this month at his feet.  Sí -- ¡Yo acuso!

Finally; there is the matter of who is not participating in the negotiations, by which I refer to the Bolivian Congress, which is especially important with reference to the Senate, where the opposition holds majority control.  In their history of dealing with Morales, the opposition in the Bolivian Congress has shown itself to be inept, incompetent, and perhaps even at times cowardly.  The prefects of the eastern departments have been far more politically acute and successful, as they are the ones who led the Paro that has forced Morales to come to the table.  If the terms of the agreement are completed in full, then a reconstituted National Electoral Court, coupled with a new and legitimate judiciary capable of enforcing the electoral court's decisions, should emerge from the process.  In that event Morales will then have to initiate a dialog with the Congress he has delegitimized because, under current Bolivian constitutional law, he cannot get a national referendum for his constitution unless the Congress calls for one, and opposition leaders in the Senate have recently made clear they will not call for a vote on the Oruro Draft unless changes are made to the document.  Morales, and especially his Vice President Alvaro Garcia Linera, have made public statements to the effect that once the dialog with the prefects is completed, the constitution will come up for a vote.  If there is anything that can bring the whole process crashing down, it will be a possible attempt by Morales to ignore the role of the Bolivian Congress.  And it will be up to the observers in the UNASUR process to guarantee that he does not get away with it if and when he attempts it.

StJacques

Read More. . . .