Jorge Capelán, Lizzie Phelan and Toni Solo Discuss USAID and Western NGOs in Latin America

“Plan Tipnis” Seeks to Further Destabilize & Create the Conditions for a Coup in Bolivia

GOBIERNO Denuncia Plan Tipnis Para Afectar Estado de Derecho

Cambio, LA PAZ 

MARTES, 26 DE JUNIO DE 2012

Política

El vicepresidente Álvaro García Linera dijo que la estrategia usa la demanda legítima de la tropa policial y la vincula con la llegada de la marcha de la Cidob.

El Gobierno, ante el desconocimiento del acuerdo por parte de un sector de policías de base y la proximidad a La Paz de la marcha de la Cidob, confirma la aplicación de una estrategia subversiva denominada Plan Tipnis, que busca desestabilizar y crear las condiciones de un golpe de Estado en el país.

Citando reportes de Inteligencia y de prensa, el Gobierno, a través de un boletín del Ministerio de Comunicación, señala que el plan arrancó el 21 de junio con el motín de la Asociación Nacional de Suboficiales, Sargentos, Clases y Policías (Anssclapol) por demanda salarial, la que no se desactivó con el acuerdo de nueve puntos firmado la madrugada del domingo.

“La estrategia continuaba bloqueando y boicoteando la solución del conflicto policial con la posición intransigente de exigir como salario básico Bs 3.000, para luego convocar a maestros, trabajadores afiliados a la COB y activistas que marchan a La Paz con el apoyo del Gobierno Municipal paceño y funcionarios ediles”, señala parte de la denuncia gubernamental.

En rueda de prensa, el vicepresidente Álvaro García Linera confirmó que el Plan Tipnis tiene dos fases golpistas.

“Está en la fase inicial de apresto golpista, y en la segunda etapa buscan muertos (…) Hay comunicaciones radiales que vinculan (el conflicto policial) con el Plan Tipnis. Eso no es reivindicación, uno dos, tres, cuatro, cinco, seis, diez veces hablan de bombas molotov, asesinar a militares, quemar unidades militares, de limpiar (matar) al ministro (de Gobierno) Carlos Romero y hacer golpe a Evo”, dijo García.

Los ideólogos del Plan Tipnis, a los que llamó “fuerzas oscuras”, se aprovechan de una demanda legítima de los policías y los manipulan. Denunció, por ejemplo, que el ex candidato político de Unidad Nacional, de Samuel Doria Medina, sacó armas de la UTOP el día del motín policial. El domingo, la ministra de Comunicación, Amanda Dávila, confirmó la circulación de comunicados públicos que señalan atacar con bombas molotov a ‘los plomos’ que custodian el Palacio de Gobierno.

La vinculación con el Tipnis tiene que ver con la coincidencia del arribo a La Paz, este miércoles, de la marcha de la Confederación de Indígenas del Oriente Boliviano (Cidob), liderada por el suspendido dirigente Adolfo Chávez. El domingo, el presidente Evo Morales, desde el centro minero Coro Coro, culpó a un grupo de policías de afanes de desestabilización que buscan su derrocamiento.

El dirigente de la Central Obrera Boliviana (COB) Simeón Jaliri denunció que el Plan Tipnis es la “sorpresa” de la que habló en pasados días Adolfo Chávez a su llegada a La Paz. “Este dirigente (Chávez), ha tenido varias reuniones con el ex asesor de Juan Del Granado, (Javier) Zárate y el ex candidato de UN Juan Carlos Soraide para coordinar”, dijo Jaliri.

Los analistas políticos Marcos Domich y Hugo Moldiz coinciden en que se trata de una estrategia de la derecha para gestar un golpe de Estado.

DATOS

• La opositora Unidad Nacional (UN), a través del diputado Jaime Navarro, según radio Fides, confirmó la estrategia de ese partido para llegar al Gobierno, pero “por votos y no un golpe”.

• El Gobierno denunció que en el motín de un sector de la tropa policial, que comenzó el jueves, se incrustaron actores políticos, como el ex mayor de policías David Vargas y el ex policía militante de Unidad Nacional Juan Carlos Soraide, entre otros.

Domich apunta a la derecha y al imperio

El analista político Marcos Domich considera que los aprestos subversivos contra el Gobierno y la democracia boliviana se gestan desde hace tiempo y detrás de éstos está el imperio a través de sus operadores de la derecha boliviana, como Unidad Nacional (UN) y el Movimiento Sin Miedo (MSM).

“Hemos afirmado antes el plan golpista que se liga con la marcha de la Cidob contra la consulta en el Tipnis”, dijo.  En su análisis, el objetivo final de estos afanes políticos es tomar el Palacio de Gobierno y en su opinión eso sería “grave”.

“Sin embargo, el pueblo no debe amedrentarse en salir a defender el proceso revolucionario que tuvo un elevado costo recuperarlo”, afirmó. “No hay duda de que es parte de la ofensiva imperialista de carácter global”, agregó. →

The Morales Government: Neoliberalism in Disguise?

International Socialism

27 March 12

Federico Fuentes

For more than a decade Bolivia has been rocked by mass upsurges and mobilisations that have posed the necessity and possibility of fundamental political and social transformation.¹ In 2005 the social movements that led the country’s water and gas wars managed to elect a government that since then has presided over a process of change that has brought major advances.

Among these are: the adoption of a plurinational state structure that for the first time recognises the country’s indigenous majority; regaining sovereign control over vital natural resources and initial steps towards endogenous industrialisation; an ongoing agrarian reform; and the development of social programmes that have substantially improved the lives of ordinary Bolivians. Democratic rights have been reinforced; forms of self-government by indigenous communities established; and electoral processes expanded to include popular election even of the judiciary. Not least in importance, Bolivia has also become a prime participant in the movement for Latin American anti-imperialist unification and sovereignty and emerged as a major leader in the international fight against capitalist-induced climate change.

In his recent article in this journal, “Revolution against ‘Progress’”,² Jeffery Webber offers a harsh critique of the MAS government, illustrating it by reference to recent conflicts between the government and some indigenous groups involving environmental and development issues. His conclusion: the government remains committed to a neoliberal programme based on “fiscal austerity”, “low inflationary growth”, “inconsequential agrarian reform”, “low social spending” and “alliances with transnational capital”, among other policies. As such, it shares “more continuity than change with the inherited neoliberal model”.

These are sweeping assertions, and many are questionable. Webber criticises the government’s supposed “fiscal austerity”, yet omits the fact that budget spending has increased almost fourfold between 2004 and 2012. He attacks the government for seeking “low inflation” and “macroeconomic stability”, but what is his alternative: high inflation and macroeconomic instability? These were certainly traits of previous neoliberal governments. Furthermore, is it “inconsequential” that in its first five years the Morales government presided over the redistribution or titling of 41 million hectares of land to over 900,000 members of indigenous peasant communities?³ And if the government’s policy can be simply defined as one of forming alliances to benefit foreign transnationals, why is the Bolivian state currently facing 12 legal challenges in international courts initiated by these same companies?

Profile of neoliberalism

Simply put, Webber ignores the real progress made by the Morales government in rolling back the neoliberal project in Bolivia. Neoliberalism is best understood as a class project that sought to reassert capital’s dominance internationally in the wake of the 1970s economic crisis. Neoliberalism, as Webber himself previously noted, was “set in motion on an international scale largely under the tutelage of the US imperial state” and had as its fundamental strategy not only the “privatisation of formerly state or public resources but their acquisition by transnational capital in the US and other core economies”.⁴

Furthermore, current Bolivian vice-president Álvaro García Linera has noted that neoliberalism rested on three additional “pillars”: “the fragmentation of the labouring sectors and worker organisations…the diminished state, and impediments to people’s decision making”.⁵

The impact of neoliberalism in Bolivia includes:⁶

l The sell-off or dismantling of Bolivia’s largest state-owned companies. In the hydrocarbon sector, which accounted for 50 percent of government revenue, privatisation was accompanied by a drop in royalties companies had to pay from 50 percent to 18 percent. The workforce of YPBF (Yacimientos Petrolíferos Fiscales Bolivianos) was reduced from more than 9,000 in 1985 to 600 by 2002.

l The state’s dependency on foreign imperialist governments, transnational corporations and their institutions was deepened. International loans and aid covered “roughly half of Bolivia’s public investment”, with each budget deficit bringing further IMF-imposed structural adjustment programmes.

l The removal of state subsidies sent Bolivia’s small industrial sector into crisis. Some 35,000 jobs disappeared in the manufacturing sector alone.

l By 1988 the informal sector had ballooned to 70 percent of Bolivia’s urban workforce, and the few jobs created in the formal sector were subject to labour flexibilisation practices.

l The establishment of power-sharing pacts among traditional parties and restrictions on electoral registration for alternative parties consolidated the grip that neoliberal politicians had on political decision making.

Compare this disastrous record with that of the Morales government. While Bolivia’s state continues to be capitalist, “and the government functions within the framework of deeply entrenched capitalist culture and social relations”, it is equally true that through a combination of successful electoral and insurrectional battles, indigenous-popular forces today are in control of important positions of power within the state.⁷ From these positions, they have used the increased state revenue, generated through nationalisations undertaken across various strategic sectors, to begin breaking its dependency on foreign governments. This strong economic position has allowed those running the Bolivian state to dictate their own domestic and foreign policy, free from any impositions placed by imperialist governments and international financial institutions in return for loans. Ties of the US military to the Bolivian army have been cut.

A constituent assembly wrote a new constitution that for the first time recognises the previously excluded indigenous majority and has recuperated
state control over natural resources. Since the referendum ratifying the new constitution the process of “decolonising” the state has continued, most recently in October 2010, with the holding of Bolivia’s first popular elections to elect judicial authorities. The result was a record number of women and indigenous people flooding into the judicial branch of the state.

The Morales government also initiated a significant shift in Bolivia’s foreign policy, leaving behind the traditional subservient stance towards the US. Instead Bolivia has spearheaded initiatives in the direction of seeking unity with anti-imperialist forces—both at the level of governments and social movements—within the context of the Bolivarian Alliance of the Peoples of Our America (Alba), and increasing regional collaboration, through institutions such as the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR). Another key focus has been the construction of an international alliance to fight for real solutions to the climate crisis, as evidenced by the World Peoples’ Summit on Climate Change held in Cochabamba in April 2010.

An alternative model

Webber ignores most of these achievements and instead focuses on the MAS industrial strategy and the social tensions that have been expressed around this. But he misrepresents the strategy. Let us look first, then, at what this strategy comprises, as it is a central component in the government’s economic vision. A succinct presentation may be found in a recent article on Bolivia’s economic model by Luis Alberto Arce Catacora, the minister of economy and public finance.

For Arce, “the New Economic, Social, Communitarian and Productive Model” that the government is implementing “does not pretend to immediately change the capitalist mode of production, but instead to lay the foundations for the transition towards a new socialist mode of production”.⁸

Unlike neoliberalism, in which surplus value and rents are appropriated by transnational capital, this new model, as the introduction to his article notes, has taken steps towards:

stimulating the internal market and reducing dependency on the external markets. Similarly, it has given the state a watching brief, endowing it with functions such as planning the economy, administering public enterprises, investing in the productive sector, taking on the role of a banker and regulator and, among other things, redistributing the surplus, with preference to those sectors that were not beneficiaries under previous governments.

The priority, Arce says, is promoting communitarian, cooperative and family-based enterprises (together with increasing social spending). Such a strategy is vital to rebuilding the strength of the working class and communitarian forces, pulverised by two decades of neoliberalism.

In summary: reassert state sovereignty in the economy and over natural resources; break out of Bolivia’s traditional position of primary materials exporter through industrialisation and promoting other productive sectors such as manufacturing and agriculture; redistribute the nation’s wealth in order to tackle poverty; and strengthen the organisational capacity of proletarian and communitarian forces as the two vital pillars of any possible transition to socialism in Bolivia today. Such a perspective, which seeks to advance the interest of Bolivia’s labouring classes at the expense of transnational capital, may be decried by some as mere reforms, but it is certainly not neoliberalism. →

Sostenere il governo USA senza saperlo: il grave esempio di “Avaaz”

Sinistra.ch | Blog di informazione e critica sociale della Svizzera Italiana

18 febbraio 2012

L’associazione non governativa “Avaaz” sta spopolando su internet e nei circoli della sinistra liberaloccidentale in nome della difesa dei diritti umani. Pochi conoscono però chi si cela dietro questa organizzazione che di umanitario ha solo l’apparenza e che è stata creata per “coprire a sinistra” gli interessi geopolitici ed economici dei poteri forti occidentali, soprattutto americani. La tattica è molto semplice: si promuovono decina se non centinaia di petizioni su temi umanitari, democratici, anti-corruzione che trovano immediato consenso fra il pubblico di sentimenti progressisti (ad esempio la lotta contro la censura su internet oppure il riconoscimento della Palestina). Fra di essi vi sono anche attacchi ai governi occidentali e contro lo strapotere delle banche,  così da convincere questo pubblico particolare della bontà della ONG. Fra tutti questi temi – che poi non sortiranno in gran parte comunque nessun risultato – si inseriscono invece questioni strategiche per i padroni nascosti di “Avaaz” (governi, multinazionali, eserciti) che così potranno più facilmente superare la diffidenza da parte della popolazione genericamente di “sinistra”, che non sospetterà mai che dietro a questi presunti critici degli USA è nascosto proprio il Partito Democratico del presidente Obama e dell’ex-presidente Cliton, attraverso l’organizzazione “MoveOn” che sta alla base di “Avaaz”, e che ha ricevuto un finanziamento di 1,46 millioni di dollari da George Soros per utilizzarla nella battaglia elettorale contro il Partito Repubblicano. →

The Ambiguous Avaaz

Originally published in Italian by il manifesto

TERRA TERRA – Marinella Correggia

2012.03.06

In 2011 the organization Avaaz, which calls itself the “global civic organization” and promotes activism on the Internet, has stood for two highly successful initiatives: the demand for international intervention “to protect civilians” in Libya and the ‘ support for the struggle of some indigenous groups in Bolivia against government plans to build a road in Tipnis (National Park Isidore Secure Indigenous Territory).

In the Libyan case, Avaaz has acted very quickly, good for taking the media lies about the “massacre of thousands of civilians by Gaddafi.” We have not seen subsequently make appeals to stop the war or NATO to protect civilians and Tawergha of Sirte. (It is now very active – even how to request funds – the demonization of the Syrian regime). →

The International Campaign Against Evo Morales

Published Feb 15, 2012 by Cambio, the official newspaper of the Plurinational State of Bolivia.

An extended version was originally published in English on Jan 23, 2012 by Political Context and Canadians for Action on Climate Change.

http://www.cambio.bo/opinion/20120215/la_campana_internacional_contra_evo_morales_64561.htm

The Leaders of the March Lied to Indigenous Grassroots | Especial – Los Dirigentes de la Marcha Mintieron a los In dígenas de Base

Google Translate (English Google translation below the original article in Spanish)

Los dirigentes de la marcha mintieron a los indígenas de base

Especial

2011-11-25

Las comunidades desconocieron a los dirigentes Adolfo Chávez, Pedro Nuni y Fernando Vargas. Revelaron que ellos dijeron que el presidente Morales no los quiso recibir en el Palacio de Gobierno para dialogar, entre otras mentiras.

Los dirigentes que representaron a los originarios del Territorio Indígena y Parque Nacional Isiboro Sécure (Tipnis), en la denominada VIII Gran Marcha Indígena, sólo desinformaron a las bases y velaron por sus propios intereses, por lo que ahora son desconocidos en sus regiones, afirmaron ayer, en declaraciones separadas, representantes de organizaciones sociales y corregidores del departamento del Beni.

Las declaraciones de los indígenas fueron vertidas durante una reunión que tuvieron con el presidente Evo Morales. En el encuentro reiteraron su pedido de realizar la carretera Villa Tunari-San Ignacio de Moxos.

“Los dirigentes nos dicen allá (en Beni) que el Gobierno es un cochino, que no sirve para nada, que no es un gobierno para ellos, para los dirigentes, y eso nos duele, que vayan con mentiras, que nos mientan”, señaló la presidenta del Club de Madres de la Comunidad Río Sécure, Clara Gutiérrez.

Aseguró que dichos dirigentes “siguen diciendo mentiras. Por eso ya no queremos creerles, ya no queremos que los dirigentes nos manejen; queremos despertar”.

Por su parte, el corregidor de la comunidad San Ignacio de la Curva, Ilario Canchi Credo, lamentó que los dirigentes indígenas no quieran el progreso de las comunidades y sólo busquen figurar ante los medios de información masiva

“Todo el tiempo los dirigentes nos dicen ‘que no haya carretera, que no haya carretera’. Nos están quitando el derecho de que tengamos carretera, porque ellos no viven en nuestras comunidades, viven en las ciudades. Ellos utilizan a la prensa, a los medios de comunicación para figurar. Dicen que tenemos desarrollo cuando no tenemos nada”, manifestó.

Llegada a La Paz

Los dirigentes indígenas llegaron a la ciudad de La Paz el 19 de octubre para dialogar con el presidente Evo Morales luego de 65 días de caminata.

Sin embargo, la reunión se dilató más de tres días debido a que los indígenas solicitaron insistentemente que la reunión se realice en instalaciones del Palacio de Gobierno, se negaron a reunirse en la Vicepresidencia, y la dirigencia marchista pidió algunos elementos como una pantalla gigante en la plaza Murillo —donde se instaló por días una vigilia indígena— para que se vea el diálogo, hecho que no era posible de atender.

Sin embargo, según Gutiérrez y el primer cacique de la comunidad de Natividad, Armando Nolvandi, los dirigentes decían que era el Presidente el que no los quería recibir para dialogar.

“Había sido mentira lo de aquellos dirigentes dijeron del Presidente (Morales), que no quería estar con nosotros, la gente indígena. Mire cómo ellos hablan, mire cómo ellos lo distorsionan”, dijo Nolvandi.

En ese sentido, los más de 30 representantes de las comunidades del Tipnis coincidieron en desconocer a los dirigentes indígenas como Pedro Nuni, Adolfo Chávez y Fernando Vargas.

También pidieron a esos dirigentes rendir cuentas económicas sobre las actividades con la madera y otros recursos provenientes directamente del Tipnis.

VOTO RESOLUTIVO

Varias organizaciones sociales y representantes de las comunidades del Tipnis realizaron un voto resolutivo que señala en sus puntos más importantes:

En reunión de coordinación de corregidores indígenas originarios de tres territorios, Tipnis, TIM y TIMI, organizaciones sociales, instituciones vivas de la provincia Moxos, realizada en fecha 23 de noviembre de 2011 en los salones de la Escuela de Música del municipio de San Ignacio de Moxos, determinamos lo siguiente:

1: Trasladarnos a la ciudad de La Paz a reunirnos con el señor Presidente en el Palacio de Gobierno, nosotros, los Corregidores y las bases de nuestras comunidades Tipnis, TIM y TIMI, y las autoridades de la provincia Moxos

2: Solicitamos al señor Presidente gestionar de manera inmediata la modificación de los párrafos de la ley en la que se prohíbe la construcción de la carretera y declara intangible el territorio del Tipnis. Modificar para que permita la construcción de la carretera entre Isinuta y Monte Grande (tramo II), y que permita que trabajemos nuestras tierras que están dentro del territorio Tipnis. Modificar el término de intangibilidad.

3: No permitiremos más el avasallamiento de Justa Cabrera y Adolfo Chávez, estamos viendo por la tele que estas personas, sin conocernos, están hablando a nuestro nombre, nosotros no los hemos elegido para que nos representen y peor aún no los conocemos. Estas personas no conocen nuestro territorio y pedimos al señor Presidente que de ahora en adelante nos consulte a nosotros, que somos los dueños del Tipnis, para decidir qué hacer con nuestro territorio. Pedimos a Fernando Vargas, Pedro Nuni, los dirigentes de la Subcentral Sécure Tipnis y al presidente de la Cepib y de la CPMB que, antes de hablar a la opinión pública sobre el Territorio Indígena y Parque Nacional Isiboro Sécure, bajen a nuestras comunidades a rendir cuentas económicas, venta de madera y otros, también sobre las acciones actuales. Asimismo, para consensuar las posiciones que se deben plantear de manera consensuada para que planteen cualquier posición a nombre de nuestros pueblos indígenas.

4. Pedimos a los señores de la prensa que nos visiten en el Tipnis y nos pregunten si queremos o no la carretera, no les den cobertura a esos dirigentes que no nos representan y que viven en las ciudades, que nos engañan, nos hacen firmar documentos que ni sabemos de qué se trata.

7. Rechazamos las declaraciones mal intencionadas de esos dirigentes de Santa Cruz, donde indican que los que quieren carretera son solamente los cocaleros y los gremialistas de San Ignacio. Dirigentes, no confundan, nosotros no somos cocaleros ni gremiales, somos gente humilde que necesita el desarrollo de nuestros pueblos indígenas, pero si estas organizaciones nos apoyan para que nuestro territorio, nuestra provincia de Moxos, tenga desarrollo, bienvenido; pero aquellos que le niegan el derecho al progreso, esos siempre serán malditos para esta tierra y no tendrán perdón y nunca contarán con nuestro apoyo.

8. Brindar todo el apoyo al señor Presidente Constitucional del Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia para que proceda con la construcción de la mencionada carretera como elemento fundamental para el desarrollo de la provincia de Moxos y el departamento del Beni en general.

Ver más temas relacionados Los dirigentes de la marcha mintieron a los indígenas de base Los dirigentes que representaron a los originarios del Territorio Indígena y Parque Nacional Isiboro Sécure (Tipnis), en la denominada VIII Gran Marcha Indígena, sólo desinformaron a las bases y Comunarios piden la carretera Más de 30 representantes de las comunidades del Territorio Indígena y Parque Nacional Isiboro Sécure (Tipnis) se reunieron ayer con el presidente Evo Morales para presentar un pedido común: Indígenas del Tipnis revelaron que la marcha se gestó para “tumbar al Presidente” Esa marcha que hicieron todos estaba totalmente politizada, porque marchaba una hermana que yo tenía ahí y otro hermano. Mi hermana marchaba porque ella vive en Trinidad, (…) No sé quién le dio Comunarios gastan Bs 3.000 para llegar a San Ignacio Para salir al centro poblado más próximo, en este caso San Ignacio de Moxos, los indígenas benianos Dirigentes del Tipnis avalan la depredación del parque Los corregidores de poblaciones del Territorio Indígena y Parque Nacional Isiboro Sécure (Tipnis) denunciaron ayer en la reunión que tuvieron con el presidente Evo Morales que continúa la Planificación informa que 12 oenegés operan en la reserva La ministra de Planificación del Desarrollo, Viviana Caro, señaló ayer que existen 12 oenegés que Indígenas del Tipnis van a la ALP y piden cambiar la ley La Asamblea Legislativa Plurinacional recibió ayer formalmente la solicitud de modificación de la Ley de Protección del Territorio Indígena y Parque Nacional Isiboro Sécure (Tipnis), que declara

The leaders of the march lied to indigenous grassroots
Special

Date: 25/11/2011

The unknown community leaders Adolfo Chavez, Pedro Nuni and Fernando Vargas. Revealed that they said that President Morales would not receive the Presidential Palace to discuss, among other lies.

The leaders who represented the Indian Territory and originating Isiboro Secure (Tipnis), the so-called Long March VIII Indigenous misled only to the bases and ensured their own interests, so that they are now strangers in their regions, said yesterday, in separate statements, representatives of social organizations and magistrates of the department of Beni.

The statements of the natives were made during a meeting he had with President Evo Morales. The meeting reiterated their request to make the road Villa Tunari-San Ignacio de Moxos.

“The leaders tell us there (in Beni) that the Government is a pig, which is good for nothing, which is not a government for themselves, leaders, and that hurts us, to be lies, we lie” said the president of the Mothers Club River Community Sécure, Clara Gutierrez.

He said that these leaders “are telling lies. Therefore we do not want to believe them, because leaders do not want us to handle, we want to wake up.”

For its part, the mayor of the San Ignacio de la Curva, Ilario Canchi Creed, lamented that the Indian leaders do not want the progress of communities and seek only appear to the mass media

“All the time the leaders tell us’ there is no road, no road.” They’re taking the right road that we have because they do not live in our communities, live in cities. They used the press, media to appear. They say that we develop when we have nothing, “he said.

Arrival in La Paz

Indigenous leaders came to the city of La Paz on October 19 for talks with President Evo Morales after 65 days of hiking.

However, the meeting took longer than three days because the Indians repeatedly requested that the meeting be held in facilities of the Government Palace, refused to meet in the vice presidency and the leadership walker asked some elements such as a giant screen Murillo Square where a vigil set up by Indian-days so you can see the dialogue, a fact that was not possible to attend.

However, according to Gutierrez and the first chief of the Nativity community, Armando Nolvandi, the leaders said it was the President who did not want to receive for dialogue.

“He was amazing what those leaders told the President (Morales), who would not be with us, the indigenous people. Look how they talk, look how they distort it,” said Nolvandi.

In that sense, more than 30 community representatives agreed Tipnis unaware of indigenous leaders like Pedro Nuni, Adolfo Chavez and Fernando Vargas.

They also called upon those leaders accountable economic activities on timber and other resources directly from the Tipnis.

RESOLUTE VOTE

Several social organizations and representatives of communities made a vow Tipnis resolution that states in its most important points:

In coordination meeting corregidores three original indigenous territories, Tipnis, TIM and TIMI, social organizations, institutions Moxos living in the province, held as of November 23, 2011 in the halls of the Music School in the municipality of San Ignacio de Moxos, we determined the following:

1: Transfer to the city of La Paz to meet with the President at the Palace of Government, we the Corregidores and the foundations of our communities Tipnis, TIM and TIMI, and the authorities of the province Moxos

2: We request the President to immediately manage the modification of the paragraphs of the law prohibiting the construction of the road and declared the territory of Tipnis intangible. Modified to allow the construction of the road between Isinuta and Monte Grande (section II), and allows us to work our lands are within the territory Tipnis. Modify the term of intangibility.

3: Do not allow any more the subjugation of Fair Cabrera and Adolfo Chavez, we are seeing on TV that these people, without knowing they are speaking on our behalf, we would not have chosen to represent us and do not know them worse. These people do not know our country and ask the President that from now on we will refer to us, that we own the Tipnis, to decide what to do with our territory. We ask Fernando Vargas, Pedro Nuni, the leaders of the Subcentral Sécure Tipnis and President of the CPMB Cepib and that, before talking to the public about Indigenous Territory and National Park Isiboro Secure, lower our communities to pay economic accounts, sale of timber and also on current actions. Also, to agree on the positions to be asked by consensus to raise any position on behalf of our peoples.

4. We ask the gentlemen of the press to visit us in the Tipnis and ask us whether we want the road, do not give coverage to those leaders who represent us and who live in cities, who deceive us, make us sign documents nor do we know what it is.

7. We reject the malicious statements of the leaders of Santa Cruz, where they want to indicate that road are only unions of coca growers and San Ignacio. Leaders, no mistake, we are not growers and unions, we are humble people who need to develop our indigenous people, but if these organizations that we support our country, our province Moxos, keep developing, welcome, but those who would deny the right to progress, these will always be cursed for this land and will not have forgiveness and never will have our support.

8. Provide full support to the President of the State of Bolivia to proceed with the construction of that road as a key to the development of the province of Moxos and the department of Beni in general.
See more topics

* Of the march leaders lied to indigenous grassroots

The leaders who represented the Indian Territory and originating Isiboro Secure (Tipnis), the so-called Long March VIII Indigenous misled only to the bases and

* Community members calling for the road

More than 30 representatives of the communities of Indian Territory and Isiboro Secure National Park (Tipnis) met yesterday with President Evo Morales to present a common request:

* Indigenous Tipnis revealed that the march was conceived to “overthrow the President”

This march was made by all totally politicized, because a sister going there and I had another brother. My sister was going because she lives in Trinidad, (…) I do not know who gave

* Bs spend 3,000 for community members to get to San Ignacio

To exit the nearest population center, in this case San Ignacio de Moxos, indigenous Beni

* Leaders Tipnis predation support the park

The magistrates of towns in the Indian Territory and Isiboro Secure National Park (Tipnis) reported yesterday in the meeting they had with President Evo Morales continues

* Planning reported that 12 oenegés operating in the reserve

The Minister for Development Planning, Viviana Caro, said yesterday that there are 12 oenegés

* Indigenous ALP Tipnis go to and ask to change the law

Plurinational Legislative Assembly yesterday received a formal application to amend the Law on the Protection of Indigenous Territory and Isiboro Secure (Tipnis), which states

http://www.cambio.bo/noticia.php?fecha=2011-11-25&idn=59115

U.S. Funded Democracy Centre Reveals It’s Real Reason for Supporting the TIPNIS Protest in Bolivia: REDD $$$

November 23rd, 2011

by Cory Morningstar

DI NO AL REDD – Rapido Enriquecimiento con Desalojos, usurpación de tierras y Destrucción de biodiversidad. SAY NO TO REDD – Reaping Profits from Evictions, Land Grabs, Deforestation and Destruction of Biodiversity

“Bolivia is and will remain a country who desperately struggles to resist Imperialism and fight for their autonomy – against all odds.”

The Democracy Centre, Avaaz and Amazon Watch are the main three NGOs, heavily funded by U.S. interests (Rockefellers, David and Lucile Packard Foundation, Ford Foundation and Soros to name a few), who led the recent International campaign in which they denounced and demonized Bolivian Indigenous leader Evo Morales and his government. This destabilization campaign focused on the TIPNIS protests. A violent confrontation between TIPNIS protestors (influenced/funded by U.S. NGOs/USAID/CIDOB) and the police was the vital opportunity needed in order to execute a destabilization campaign that the U.S. has been strategically planning for decades. (Declassified Documents Revealed More than $97 Million from USAID to Separatist Projects in Bolivia | Evo Morales Through the Prism of Wikileaks – Democracy in Danger).

A key demand put forward by the TIPNIS protestors were that Indigenous peoples would directly receive financial compensation for ‘offsetting’ carbon emissions. This policy, known as REDD/REDD+ (Reduction of Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation), has been denounced as the commodification and privatisation of the forests by many, including those within the climate justice movements. The ‘People’s Agreement’ created at the World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth (April 2010) clearly condemned REDD, stating that it violates “the sovereignty of our Peoples.” REDD has been promoted as a mechanism to allow developed countries to continue to pollute while undermining the right for underdeveloped countries to develop their economies. Tom Goldtooth of the Indigenous Environment Network stated unequivocally that “The carbon market solutions are not about mitigating climate, but are greenwashing policies that allow fossil fuel development to expand.”

Morales survived the orchestrated attempt to destabilize his government. No one’s fool, Morales did something completely unexpected that few if anyone had even considered: he granted the Indigenous peoples of the TIPNIS every single demand which the protestors, under foreign/outside influence had sought (although he made clear that on the issue of REDD, the ‘People’s Agreement’ adopted at the World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth would guide any future decision on this issue). Completely caught off guard by Morales response, and realizing, perhaps for the first time, whose lives would ultimately be affected by the outcomes of the demands, and how, one anxious protestor commented “we’re screwed“.

Video: Manipulation: Indigenous Peoples Alto Xingu-STOP pushing us for REDD (running time: 9:26)

Morales has been a world leader in his vocal opposition to REDD stating that “nature, forests and indigenous peoples are not for sale.” At the opposite end of the spectrum are the foundations (who serve as tax-exempt front groups for corporations and elites) who finance the NGOs who have led the campaign to discredit Morales are most all heavily promoting and investing in REDD. CIDOB is involved in pilot REDD projects funded by the NGO called FAN (Fundación Amigos de la Naturaleza) which is funded by a slew of foreign interest entities/states and corporate NGOs such as USAID, Conservation International, European Union, American Electric Power, BP-Amoco and Dow Chemical‘s partner, The Nature Conservancy. Indeed, when it comes to the world’s most powerful NGOs voicing any dissent to the false solution of REDD, the silence is deafening. (http://www.redd-monitor.org/2011/10/26/manufacturing-consent-on-carbon-trading/)

The money behind the REDD scheme is in the trillions.

Above: Indigenous Peoples Alto Xingu – Stop Pushing Us For REDD – Photo: Rebecca Sommer

It is revealing to note that while the corporate NGOs worked feverishly to shine an International spotlight on the tear-gassing of the TIPNIS protestors by Bolivian police, a slaughter of 100,000 Libyan civilians was underway in an Imperialist, NATO-led invasion under the guise of ‘humanitarian intervention’. This invasion was made possible by the fabrication of events and lies put forward by 78 NGOs. To this day, there is no evidence to back these lies. The NGOs were and remain silent on this latest atrocity as the U.S./Euro Imperialist destabilization campaigns escalate in the Middle East in a race towards global domination.

The Democracy Centre makes clear it’s opposition to the Bolivian Morales government’s position on REDD in its policy statement on REDD drafted by staffer Kylie Benton-Connell [1]

In this report, the Democracy Centre both denies/ignores the involvement of USAID in the CIDOB promoted REDD Amazonia project via its funding to FAN, and argues that “The REDD Amazonia project is important, because it keeps the possibility of these kind of projects alive in Bolivian institutions, in a context where the national government is swimming against the tide of international REDD politics.”

Furthermore, Benton-Connell reiterates the Democracy Centre’s opposition to the Bolivian Morales government’s position and the Centre’s support for REDD in her article published on November 21, 2011 (link below and also published on the Democracy Centre’s website):

” The decision linking forest conservation to carbon markets may well be finalized at the UN climate negotiations in Durban at the beginning of December, unless it is blocked by dissident countries.”

Moreover, Benton-Connell tells us:

“… if today’s Bolivian government or a future one drops its opposition to carbon markets, and an international agreement is reached on trading in forest carbon, revenue streams could become much larger.”

Benton-Connell continues that the problem is not REDD itself, but how REDD is organized. She states:

“The fates of many ordinary people in Bolivia — and of similar communities across the globe — will be in play as technocrats discuss plans for forest carbon trading at the upcoming UN climate negotiations in Durban. As Marcos Nordgren Ballivián, climate change analyst with Bolivian organization CIPCA told us last year: “tensions already exist, and with a new source of profits such as REDD could prove to be, it might cause problems … But we’ll have to see how REDD is organized, because that will define, of course, if these conflicts are worsened.”

The following text appears 8 March 2010 in an article titled Getting REDDy to Cross the Finish Line, Two Decades in the Making: “It’s hard to imagine with all the progress REDD has achieved, that it all started less than 20 years ago with the Rio Summit in ’92, when the makings of a global sustainability architecture in the form of a climate treaty began to take shape. But a forestry treaty had yet to happen … With over 20 years of experience in the forestry sector, Michael Northrup, Program Director of Sustainable Development at the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, was invited by the Pinchot Institute for Conservation to give a Distinguished Lecture, ‘After Copenhagen: Implications for U.S. Climate, Energy, and Forest Policy’ at the high brow, exclusive Cosmos Club. Northrup casually described to the 30 or so people in the room where we are with REDD today and how we got here. Plus he played the “name game” as he knew most of the people in the room.”

Of course, Rockefeller is not alone in its quest to lead and dominate on the promise of “green capitalism”; other members of the elites will not be left behind to feed on the breadcrumbs. For example, The Climate and Land Use Alliance, whose member foundations include the ClimateWorks Foundation (Avaaz partner), the Ford Foundation, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, and multi-million dollar corporate NGOs – Greenpeace International and Rockefeller’s WWF have joined forces to push forward the false solution of REDD.

“The big business conservationists and their professionals didn’t buy off the movement; they built it.” –Katherine Barkley and Steve Weissman, “The Eco-Establishment“, in: Ramparts (eds.), Eco-Catastrophe, Harper and Row, 1970

Video: President Morales Speaks to Imperialism (UN Gen Ass, Sept 21, 2011)(Running time: 8:02)

Let us close while we reflect upon the words of author Juan Carlos Zambrana Marchetti:

“In the recent conflict over the construction of a highway through the TIPNIS indigenous territory, history repeated itself once again: indigenous people renounced all possibility of progress and integration in favor of the hidden political objective of the US to boycott the projects of crop-substitution and development center in the Chapare, wherein lies the core of the anti-imperialist consciousness of the Bolivian people. Once again, foreign interests have ensured that the Indians act against their own interests. This shows that a priority issue for the new agenda of president Morales should be to continue deconstructing the control mechanisms of the Western powers. “Philanthropy” has always been one of the most dangerous mechanisms.”

The article: http://www.alternet.org/water/153161/will_programs_to_off-set_carbon_emissions_fuel_further_conflict_in_bolivia%27s_forests?page=entire

For further reading on the International Campaign to Destabilize Bolivia: http://wrongkindofgreen.org/category/the-international-campaign-to-destabilize-bolivia/

[1] Benton-Connell worked with the Democracy Center in Cochabamba, Bolivia from February 2010 to June 2011, where she authored the report “Off the Market: Bolivian forests and struggles over climate change.”

Bolivia: Rumble Over Jungle Far from Over

Sunday, November 20, 2011 | Green Left Weekly

By Federico Fuentes

March from TIPNIS arrives in La Paz.

Despite the government reaching an agreement with indigenous protesters on all 16 demands raised on their 10-week march onto the capital, La Paz, the underlying differences are far from resolved.

On October 24, Bolivia’s Plurinational Legislative Assembly approved a new law banning the building of any highway through the Isiboro Secure National Park and Indigenous Territory (TIPNIS).

Many groups supported the highway, which would have connected the departments of Beni and Cochabamba, and provide poor rural communities with greater access to markets and basic services.

However, it was opposed by 20 of the 64 indigenous communities in TIPNIS. It became the central rallying point of the march led by the Confederation of Indigenous Peoples of the Bolivian East (CIDOB).

The march gained much sympathy, particularly among urban middle class sectors, after police meted out brutal repression against protesters on September 24.

Bolivian President Evo Morales immediately denied giving any orders to repress the protest. Apologising for the terrible event, Morales ordered a full investigation into the police attack.

Nevertheless, some important mobilisations in solidarity with the marchers were held in the days afterwards.

In response, government supporters took to the streets on October 12. Hundreds of thousands of indigenous peoples, campesinos (peasants), miners and neighbourhood activists from El Alto flooded the capital.

Having reached La Paz on October 19, march leaders sat down with Morales and government ministers for two days to reach agreement on their demands.

These demands ranged from opposition to the highway to land reform and the right of indigenous peoples to receive funds in return for converting forests within their traditional lands into carbon offsets.

It did not take long for the dispute to reignite, this time over the word “untouchable”, which was inserted into the TIPNIS law at the request of march leaders.

According to the government, the term “untouchable” required the immediate expulsion of all logging and tourism companies operating within TIPNIS, in some cases illegally.

However, march leaders who opposed the highway defended the industrial-scale logging within TIPNIS.

This includes two logging companies who operate more than 70,000 hectares within the national park and have signed 20 year contracts with local communities.

The government denounced the presence of a tourist resort within TIPNIS, equipped with two private airstrips to fly foreigners willing to pay US$7600 to visit the park.

Of this money, only $200 remains with local communities that have signed the contract with the foreign company.

Rather than defending some kind of romanticised “communitarianism”, much of the motivation behind the march was an attempt by community leaders to defend their control over natural resources as a means to access wealth.

The same is true of many of those groups that have demanded the law be overturned and the highway go ahead. Campesinos and coca growers see the highway as an opportunity to gain access to land for cultivation.

These differences underpin the divergent views regarding the new land law being proposed by campesino groups, but opposed by groups such as CIDOB.

The CIDOB advocates large tracts of land be handed over to indigenous communities as protected areas. Campesino groups are demanding more land be distributed to campesino families.

These differences have led to a split in the Unity Pact, which united the five main campesino and indigenous organisations despite longstanding differences.

This is perhaps the most important divisipn to have opened up within the Morales government’s support base. But is far from being the only one.

The TIPNIS march served as a pretext for opposition parties based among the urban middle classes to break down government support in these sectors.

On October 16, Bolivians took part in a historic vote to elect judges to the Constitutional Tribunal, the Agro-environmental Tribunal and Magistrates Council.

The corporate media used exit poll figures to announce that most had nullified their votes as opposition parties had called for. But the final result showed a different picture.

As votes from rural areas began to be counted, the supposed crushing victory for null votes was whittled away. The final results showed valid and null votes tying at 42%.

The opposition tried to turn the vote into a referendum on Morales.

Despite attempts to portray the null vote as a “progressive” protest vote against Morales, the results clearly showed that opposition to the election of judges was strongest in the right-wing controlled departments of the east and in the urban middle and upper class sectors.

In rural and poor urban areas, such as El Alto, valid votes overwhelming won out.

The null votes came from the same middle class sectors that came out onto the streets of La Paz in support of the indigenous march, and who spat out racist epitaphs against Morales and indigenous government supporters when they marched through the capital.

Meanwhile, territorial conflicts between various departments and local councils scrambling for resources and access to central government funding continue to provide headaches for the government.

Morales called a national summit for December to bring together the country’s social movements to collectively come up with a new “national agenda”.

The likelihood, however, of achieving consensus for a national development plan among competing social organisations, all with their own sectoral interests and who have seen that it is possible to twist the government’s arm by protesting, will no doubt be a difficult task.

[Federico Fuentes edits Bolivia Rising.]

http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/49515

Bolivia: Solidarity Activists Need to Support Process

Sunday, November 20, 2011 | Green Left Weekly

By Federico Fuentes

Bolivia’s first indigenous president celebrates winning a recall referendum in August 2008.

The recent march in Bolivia by some indigenous organisations against the government’s proposed highway through the Isiboro Secure National Park and Indigenous Territory (TIPNIS) has raised much debate among international solidarity activists.

Such debates have occurred since the election of Bolivia’s first indigenous president, Evo Morales, in 2005 on the back of mass uprisings.

Overwhelmingly, solidarity activists uncritically supported the anti-highway march. Many argued that only social movements — not governments — can guarantee the success of the process of change.

However, such a viewpoint is not only simplistic; it can leave solidarity activists on the wrong side.

Kevin Young’s October 1 piece on Znet, “Bolivia Dilemmas: Turmoil, Transformation, and Solidarity”, tries to grapple with this issue by saying that “our first priority [as solidarity activists] must be to stop our governments, corporations and banks from seeking to control Bolivia’s destiny”.

Yet, as was the case with most articles written by solidarity activists, Young downplays the role of United States imperialism and argues the government was disingenuous in linking the protesters to it.

Others went further, denying any connection between the protesters and US imperialism.

The Confederation of Indigenous Peoples of the Bolivian East (CIDOB), the main organisation behind the march, has no such qualms. It boasted on its website that it received training programs from the US government aid agency USAID.

On the site, CIDOB president Adolfo Chavez, thanks the “information and training acquired via different programs financed by external collaborators, in this case USAID”.

Ignoring or denying clear evidence of US funding to such organisations is problematic. Attacking the Bolivian government for exposing this, as some did, disarms solidarity activists in their fight against imperialist intervention.

But biggest failure of the solidarity movement has been its silence on US and corporate responsibility for the conflict.

The TIPNIS dispute was not some romanticised, Avatar-like battle between indigenous defenders of Mother Earth and a money-hungry government intent on destroying the environment.

Underpinning the conflict was the difficult question of how Bolivia can overcome centuries of colonialism and underdevelopment to provide its people with access to basic services while trying to respect the environment. The main culprits are not Bolivian; they are imperialist governments and their corporations.

We must demand they pay their ecological debt and transfer the necessary technology for sustainable development to countries such as Bolivia (demands that almost no solidarity activists raised). Until this occurs, activists in rich nations have no right to tell Bolivians what they can and cannot do to satisfy the basic needs of their people.

Otherwise, telling Bolivian people that they have no right to a highway or to extract gas to fund social programs (as some NGOs demanded), means telling Bolivians they have no right to develop their economy or fight poverty.

Imperialism aims to keep Third World nations subordinate to the interests of rich nations. This is one reason foreign NGOs and USAID are trying to undermine the Morales government’s leading international role in opposing the grossly anti-environmental policies, such as Reduce Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD).

REDD uses poor nations for carbon offsets so corporations in rich countries can continue polluting. Support for REDD was one of the demands of the protest march.

Young says “our solidarity should be with grassroots revolutionaries, anti-imperialists and defenders of human rights, not with governments or parties”.

But, as the TIPNIS case shows, when governments are trying to grapple with lifting their country out of underdevelopment, the demands of social movements with competing sectoral interests may clash.

In fact, some of the most strident supporters of the highway were also the very same social movements that solidarity activists have supported in their struggles against neoliberal governments during the last decade.

In such scenarios, you can only choose between supporting some social movement demands by dismissing legitimate demands of others, as many did with the TIPNIS case.

Lasting change can only come about when social movements begin to take power into their own hands when social movements become governments.

It is this objective that Bolivia’s social movements set. They forged their own political instrument through struggle ? commonly known as the Movement Towards Socialism ? and won a government they see as their own.

Having gone from a position of “struggle from below” to taking government from the traditional elites as an instrument to achieve their goal of state power, these social movements have begun winning control over natural resources and enacted a new constitution.

Converting the constitution’s ideals into a new state power remains a task for the Bolivian revolution.

But its success depends on the ability of “grassroots revolutionaries, anti-imperialists and defenders of human rights” ? operating within and without the existing state ? to struggle in a united way.

Our solidarity must be based on the existing revolutionary struggle in Bolivia, not a romanticised one we would prefer.

A permanent state of protests may be attractive for solidarity activists, but ultimately can only translate into a permanent state of demoralisation unless social movements can go beyond opposing capitalist governments and create their own state power.

Refusing to support the struggles as they exist illustrates a lack of confidence in the Bolivian masses to determine their own destiny. It also displays an arrogance on the part of those who, having failed to hold back imperialist governments at home, believe they know better than the Bolivians how to develop their process of change.

Mistakes are made in any struggle. But such mistakes should not be used to try and pit one side against another. We should have confidence that these internal conflicts can be resolved by the social movements themselves.

[Federico Fuentes edits Bolivia Rising.]

http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/49516