Archives

Tagged ‘Corporate Media‘

Fourth Generation War against Evo | La Guerra de Cuarta Generación contra Evo

We are in the process of having the Spanish commentary translated properly. In the meantime, the following article has been translated to English using Google translator. We apologize for the inconvenience. The original version in Spanish follows. -admin

Fourth Generation War against Evo

La epoca

2011-10-04
by: Hugo Moldiz Mercado

One strategy that has media and social networking instruments of execution, has sought since 2006 to build social collective imaginations and sensibilities contrary to the process of change and to wear the leadership of President Evo Morales at the prospect of violent overthrow or political and electoral defeat. Taking advantage of unwarranted repression of indigenous September 24, the Fourth Generation War again showed his face.

The September 24th afternoon, a violent police intervention in the indigenous march Yucumo, opened up to unleash a variant while a new phase of Fourth Generation War against the government of President Evo Morales, who the national and international law has been proposed to defeat, as with other similar processes in Latin America.

And this Fourth Generation war is the dispute of the senses from the apprehension of objective reality to subjective unstructured and then set up another reality, radically different, but that our senses observe and feel it as true.

The media construction of a false reality of a fact left real: the repression that about five hundred police against indigenous developed since August 15 began a march to the seat of national government to demand prior consultation by the intention of building a road from Villa Tunari (Cochabamba) and San Ignacio de Moxos (Beni).

The violence of the soldiers there. There’s no doubt. But this gross error of the government policy was accompanied by the dissemination of news that amplified the extent of repression and, therefore, caused quite violent emotional reactions against the first indigenous president of Bolivia and Latin America, which coincided, deliberately or not- with the construction of a matrix of opinion that the national and international law is responsible for activating several months ago: “Evo, enemy of the Indians.”

The front-page headlines and news agencies, print media and national and international information as well as repeated images of repression permanently TV networks spoke of the death of a baby and other adults as well as the disappearance of several indigenous. Some said he had died three, seven and was not mentioned that the figure had increased to nine. It is evident that there were no casualties.

The wide dissemination of this news, never tested or exposed by the media on the nature of “alleged” or “transcended” but rather presented in a way that left no room for doubt, created an atmosphere of social rejection as adopted by the government, even in broad sectors of society committed to the process of change.

The media hype was not the same when a group of Indians held by the space of an hour over Chancellor David Choquehuanca, who was forced to march as a sort of shield to break the police cordon that separated the indigenous cultural communities to reject some items in the list of the Central Peoples of Eastern Bolivia (CIDOB). Most of the media have not been worked hard to emphasize the proposal prior consultation and installation of working groups that the government proposed on September 13 through the head of the Foreign Policy of the multinational state.

A leisurely look at the origins and behavior of the media leads us to think that some gross errors incurred in such information for negligence, but that others did as part of a sustained communications policy since Evo Morales took over the leadership of the country January 2006. However, even those not “misled” intentionally, it is obvious that became part of a new era of Fourth Generation War that has raged for nearly 6 years against the Indian government and the process of change.

In fact, in about a year and a half of the second mandate of President Morales, is about five matrices of opinion that have been built systematically “enemy of indigenous Evo”, “Evo, enemy of Mother Earth” “Evo, permissible activities of drug trafficking”, “Evo, a friend of terrorist governments” and “Evo, totalitarian and authoritarian.”

These matrices of opinion, easily traceable and identifiable in the media, as well as Social Networking has been joined in recent days, from Sunday 24 September, the strong charge of “Evo, massacre,” he which constitutes a very favorable scenario for the imperial strategy designed for the Indian leader’s second term: the strategy of attrition to defeat political and institutional change process and Evo Morales, the highest conductor.

Moreover, this subversive strategy materialized through the media war was also part of the components of the strategy for the overthrow by undemocratic methods that triggered national and international law in the period 2006-2009, with a maximum peak occurred between August -October 2008, when paramilitary groups were taking repressed state facilities and authorities and militants of the change process, and the attempt to divide the country and assassinate Evo Morales.

This active role of the media apparatus has been strengthened in Bolivia almost similar to that recorded in other Latin American countries where the right has no political parties and leaders with roots in society, so many scholars agree that in the media communication are part of “unofficial” political system.

Therefore, The Fourth Generation War serves to advance several objectives: systematic wear governments and political leaders, the induction of partial forms of violence against governments, the overthrow of the revolutionary process of change or non-democratic means and preparation objective and subjective conditions internal to foreign military intervention, the most important.

One of the cornerstones of this type of war is “winning the hearts and minds of people”, as defined by the general Summers, one of the ideologists of the so-called low intensity warfare and whose difference from the classic doctrine of Homeland Security is that the objective is not primarily the physical elimination of opponents, but especially the disappearance of the social base that makes possible the emergence and development of projects and political leaders opposed to U.S. interests and capital.

If one takes into account the above, you will find enough to identify which elements to President Morales has sought to specify whether construction of subjective conditions for his overthrow by undemocratic means and political wear an electoral defeat. Most of the media legitimized paramilitary violence in the first term of the change and now de-legitimize the right of the state’s monopoly on the use of force. Sure, the latter do so on the basis of the gross political errors as committed against the indigenous march.

In the plans of the more conservative right-wing sectors of the country not ruled out the division of the country to encourage foreign military intervention as an “appeasement” and is now threatening Latin America undisguised enthusiasm of some Obama advisers to use the “Libyan model” in other parts of the world.

Moreover, there is no doubt that the Fourth Generation Warfare is found in young people, to whom it is easier to manipulate by a series of objective conditions, the most important social force for the deployment of this strategy and that is fertile ground not both their greater identification with social networking but by the political neglect of which are subject to change part of the process.

La Guerra de Cuarta Generación contra Evo

2011-10-04

por: Hugo Moldiz Mercado

Una estrategia que tiene en los medios de comunicación y las redes

sociales sus instrumentos de ejecución, ha buscado desde 2006

construir imaginarios colectivos y sensibilidades sociales contrarios

al proceso de cambio y para desgastar el liderazgo del presidente Evo

Morales en la perspectiva de su derrocamiento violento o su derrota

político-electoral. Aprovechando la injustificada represión a los

indígenas el 24 de septiembre, esta Guerra de Cuarta Generación volvió

a mostrar la cara.

El 24 de septiembre en la tarde, una violenta intervención policial a

la marcha indígena en Yucumo, abrió pasó para que se desatara una

variante y al mismo tiempo una nueva fase de La Guerra de Cuarta

Generación contra el gobierno del presidente Evo Morales, a quien la

derecha nacional e internacional se ha propuesto derrotar, como ocurre

con otros procesos similares en América Latina.

Y esta Guerra de Cuarta Generación es la disputa de sentidos a partir

de la aprehensión de la realidad objetiva para subjetivamente

desestructurarla y luego armar otra realidad, radicalmente diferente,

pero que nuestros sentidos la observan y la sienten como verdad.

La construcción mediática de una realidad falseada partió de un hecho

real: la represión que cerca de medio millar de policías desarrolló

contra los indígenas que desde el 15 de agosto comenzaron una marcha

hacia la sede del gobierno nacional en demanda de la consulta previa

por la intención de construir una carretera entre Villa Tunari

(Cochabamba) y San Ignacio de Moxos (Beni).

La violencia de los uniformados existió. De eso no hay la menor duda.

Pero este grueso error político del gobierno fue acompañado de la

difusión de noticias que amplificaban el alcance de la represión y,

por tanto, provocaban reacciones emocionales bastante violentas contra

el primer presidente indígena de Bolivia y América Latina, lo cual

coincidía —premeditadamente o no— con la construcción de una matriz de

opinión que la derecha nacional e internacional se ha encargado de

activar hace varios meses: “Evo, enemigo de los indígenas”.

Los titulares de portada y de las noticias de medios impresos y

agencias nacionales e internacionales de información, así como las

imágenes de la represión reiteradas permanentemente por las redes de

televisión hablaban de la muerte de un bebé y de otros adultos, así

como la desaparición de varios indígenas. Unos decían que habían

fallecido tres, otros siete y no se dejó de mencionar que la cifra

llegaba a nueve. Lo evidente es que no se registraron bajas.

La amplia difusión de estas noticias, jamás comprobadas por los medios

ni expuestas bajo la naturaleza de “presuntas” o “trascendidos”, sino

más bien presentadas de tal manera que no dejaba espacio para la duda,

generó un ambiente de rechazo social a la medida adoptada por el

gobierno, incluso en amplios sectores sociales comprometidos con el

proceso de cambio.

Este despliegue mediático no fue el mismo cuando un grupo de indígenas

retuvo por el espacio de más de una hora al Canciller David

Choquehuanca, quien fue obligado a marchar como una suerte de escudo

para romper el cerco policial que separaba a los indígenas de las

comunidades interculturales que rechazan algunos puntos del pliego de

la Central de Pueblos Indígenas del Oriente Boliviano (CIDOB). La

mayor parte de los medios tampoco se han esforzado mucho por hacer

énfasis en la propuesta de Consulta Previa y la instalación de mesas

de trabajo que el gobierno propuso el 13 de septiembre a través del

responsable de la Política Exterior del Estado plurinacional.

Una mirada pausada a los orígenes y comportamiento de los medios de

comunicación conduce a pensar que unos incurrieron en esos gruesos

errores informativos por negligencia, pero que otros lo hicieron en el

marco de una política comunicacional sostenida desde que Evo Morales

asumió la conducción del país en enero de 2006. Sin embargo, aún los

que no “desinformaron” intencionalmente, es evidente que llegaron a

formar parte de una nueva etapa de La Guerra de Cuarta Generación que

se ha desatado durante casi de 6 años contra el gobierno indígena y el

proceso de cambio.

De hecho, en cerca de un año y medio de este segundo mandato del

presidente Morales, hay cerca de cinco matrices de opinión que

sistemáticamente se han ido construyendo: “Evo enemigo de los

indígenas”, “Evo, enemigo de la Madre Tierra”, “Evo, permisible con

las actividades del narcotráfico”, “Evo, amigo de los gobiernos

terroristas” y “Evo, totalitario y autoritario”.

A estas matrices de opinión, fácilmente rastreables e identificables

en los medios de comunicación, así como en las Redes Sociales, se ha

sumado en los últimos días, a partir del domingo 24 de septiembre, la

fuerte acusación de “Evo, masacrador”, lo cual configura un escenario

bastante favorable para la estrategia imperial diseñada para este

segundo mandato del líder indígena: la estrategia del desgaste para la

derrota político-institucional del proceso de cambio y de Evo Morales,

su máximo conductor.

Es más, esta estrategia subversiva materializada a través de la guerra

mediática también formó parte de los componentes de la estrategia para

el derrocamiento mediante métodos no democráticos que la derecha

nacional e internacional activó en el periodo 2006-2009, cuyo máximo

pico se dio entre agosto-octubre de 2008, cuando grupos paramilitares

tomaban instalaciones estatales y reprimían a autoridades y militantes

del proceso de cambio, así como el intento de dividir el país y

asesinar a Evo Morales.

Este activo papel del aparato mediático se ha ido fortaleciendo en

Bolivia casi de manera similar a la registrada en otros países de

América Latina donde la derecha carece de partidos políticos y líderes

con arraigo social, por lo que no pocos estudiosos coinciden que en

los medios de comunicación forman parte “no oficial” del sistema

político.

Por tanto, La Guerra de Cuarta Generación sirve para avanzar hacia

varios objetivos: el desgaste sistemáticos de gobiernos y líderes

políticos, el desencadenamiento de formas parciales de violencia

contra los gobiernos, el derrocamiento de procesos revolucionarios o

de cambio por medios no democráticos y la preparación de condiciones

objetivas y subjetivas internas para una intervención militar

extranjera, entre los más importantes.

Uno de los ejes centrales de este tipo de guerra es “conquistar los

corazones y las mentes de la gente”, como bien lo definiera el general

Summers, uno de los ideólogos de la denominada Guerra de Baja

Intensidad y cuya diferencia con la clásica Doctrina de Seguridad

Nacional es que el objetivo no es principalmente la eliminación física

del adversario, sino sobre todo la desaparición de la base social que

hace posible el surgimiento y el desarrollo de proyectos y liderazgos

políticos contrarios a los intereses de Estados Unidos y el capital.

Si uno toma en cuenta lo anteriormente señalado, encontrará bastantes

elementos como para identificar que ante el presidente Morales se ha

buscado concretar ya sea construcción de condiciones subjetivas para

su derrocamiento por medios no democráticos y su desgaste político

para una derrota electoral. La mayor parte de los medios de

comunicación legitimaron la violencia paramilitar en el primer mandato

del gobierno de cambio y ahora deslegitiman el derecho del estado al

uso del monopolio de la fuerza. Claro, esto último lo hacen sobre la

base de los gruesos errores políticos como el cometido contra la

marcha indígena.

En los planes de los sectores de derecha más conservadores del país

tampoco se descartó la división del país para alentar la intervención

militar extranjera a título de “pacificación” y que ahora es una

amenaza para América Latina por el entusiasmo no disimulado de algunos

consejeros de Obama para utilizar el “modelo libio” en otras partes

del mundo.

Por lo demás, no hay duda que La Guerra de Cuarta Generación está

encontrando en los jóvenes, a quienes es más fácil manipular por una

serie de condiciones objetivas, a la fuerza social más importante para

el despliegue de esta estrategia y que encuentra terreno fértil no

tanto por su mayor identificación con las Redes Sociales sino por el

abandono político del que son objeto de parte del proceso de cambio.

http://www.la-epoca.com.bo/index.php?opt=front&mod=detalle&id=932

Is It Police Brutality in Bolivia or Is It Something Much More Insidious to the International Media Coverage?

WATCH: Media is manipulating info on indigenous conflict in Bolivia | September 30th, 2011

Bolivian president Evo Morales reject the coverage of the media on indigenous protests, he asserts that press has been manipulating the situation, seeking and invented dead people, evo said this is a strategy of the far right who can’t accept that a peasant became president of Bolivia. teleSUR

” … and these days they are reporting 9 dead, six dead, a child, a dead child, I ask the media where is the dead child? There isn’t a dead child … they didn’t find dead people so they invented dead people … this is a strategy of the far-right and our enemies who can’t accept that a peasant, a union leader became president of Bolivia …

http://multimedia.telesurtv.net/en/30/9/2011/51897/media-is-manipulating-info-on-indigenous-conflict-in-bolivia/

Is It Police Brutality in Bolivia or Is It Something Much More Insidious?

By Lynette Yetter, Sep 30, 2011

Bolivia is in the news. Petitions are zipping through cyberspace. What is going on? Last Sunday police brutally attacked indigenous people peacefully marching in protest of a road being built through their territory known as the TIPNIS (El Territorio Indígena y Parque Nacional Isiboro Sécure). Everyone seems to agree on the fact that marchers were horribly injured and killed. But soon the situation gets very murky.

No one is claiming responsibility for ordering the police to attack the marchers. The quickest finger pointing seems to belong to the US press (both mainstream and activist). They say that President Evo is the one responsible.

But I’m not sure that this is true.

As everyone who has read Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States knows, the mainstream press historically has supported US business interests under a cloak of populist sentiment, and sometimes has manipulated the activist press to follow suit.

What do I mean by that?

The cloak of populist sentiment changes with the topic and the times; jargon such as “God’s will” has been replaced with “protect indigenous people and the rain forest.” Of course we want to protect indigenous people and the rain forest. This is vital to our survival as a species. But, is that what we are really doing when we sign one of the petitions that are going around the Internet?

Let’s pause a moment, and look at one of the many historical examples of the press manipulating people to support US business interests: the Spanish American War. This war ostensibly was to help the oppressed Cuban people gain liberty from Spain: That was the rallying cry to get well-meaning people of the US emotionally charged so they would join the military and become cannon fodder.

After the war the Cuban people were not part of the decision-making process for their own new Constitution. The US-mandated constitution basically made Cuba a possession of US businesses. Soon about 80% of the island was owned and controlled by US businesses, such as United Fruit. The people of the US were angry and disillusioned at this outcome, but their voices were not heeded.

With that in mind, let’s look at what is happening in the press nowadays. Sunday a group of policemen brutally attacked peaceful marchers in Bolivia. Starting Monday and Tuesday the US and UK press ran articles denouncing Evo Morales, the president of Bolivia. But, in a far more extreme incident in 2009 militarized Peruvian police massacred hundreds of protesting indigenous people, and the US press was comparatively silent.

Why the difference in reaction?

Could the silence in the US press about the massacre in Peru be because the then-president of Peru, Alan Garcia, was friendly to US business interests, and the road building also benefited US businesses? And could the immediate outcry in the US press over the police attack on the marchers be because president Evo Morales supports the interests of the Bolivian people over the interests of US businesses?

And I have not even mentioned the police brutality that occurs on a regular basis in US cities. No news agency that I have seen has demanded that president Obama be held accountable for the brutal actions of local police.

Police brutality should never be tolerated. I urge that we continue questioning until we reveal the truth of who incited the police to attack the indigenous marchers in Bolivia last Sunday. And I urge that we use the same care in investigating human rights abuses commited, overtly or by ommission, by US business interests.

In the meanwhile, are well-meaning Americans being bamboozled into creating and signing petitions against Evo Morales — the first indigenous president in the Americas, when the real motive is for US business interests to oust President Evo so transnational corporations can control Bolivia’s natural resources and indigenous labor like they have in the past?

I don’t know. But I do know that I am not signing any petitions while these questions linger.

http://blogcritics.org/politics/article/is-it-police-brutality-in-bolivia/

International Communiqué Wednesday September 28th, 2011 Regarding letter to Morales on TIPNIS dispute

The following communiqué was issued on Wednesday September 28th, 2011 in response to a post sent to an International Climate Justice list on Sunday, September 24th, 2011 and another (below) on Tuesday September 27th, 2011. Where no authorization by contributors has been approved, names and list identities have been removed. Where contributors have authorized their views be made public, names are identified. -admin

From: Cory Morningstar
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 10:31 AM
To: (removed)
Cc: (removed); (removed)

Subject: RE: FW: [removed] FW: Regarding letter to Morales on TIPNIS dispute

This will be my last response to this communication.

You stated previously:

"To not hold him to the same standard we hold elected officials to everywhere is to do him and our climate justice movement a disservice."

Of course. Yet there are observations to be made in regards to this statement. Questions that arise include: where was the Avaaz campaign/petition against Harper after the massive violence/mass arrests against the G20 protesters in Toronto by the state police – under the Harper regime? This state violence represented the greatest violation of civil rights in recent Canadian history. Where is the Avaaz petition against the Obama regime for the violence by state police happening right now on Wall Street? The cops are gassing the shit out of them too. The list goes on & on & on. If Avaaz campaigned on these – I did not see it being circulated.

You stated:

"However, it appears that, as a result of the letters–those signed by groups inside and outside of Bolivia, who knew that violence by the police against the marchers was pending–Morales has suspended his support for the project. I wish the letters had had this affect before the violence played itself out, but one of the reasons for the letters was to try to prevent this from escalating the way it did, which only Morales could do"

Was Morales’ about-face on the project a result of the Avaaz and Amazon Watch petitions? Was it a result of media coverage of the violence that ensued? Was it a result of his own government officials protesting and resigning? Was it a result of letters like the attached, clearly demarcating appropriate places to build roads, couching their criticism in cautious frames?

We may never know. But it seems all of these voices in support of the protesters are having an effect."

Yet, before this violence on the protesters occurred, it was reported that the issue was going to the Bolivian people to decide by way of a referendum. (I wish we had these in Canada)

Also:

"As protesters began to make their way to La Paz, at least nine attempts at dialogue were made by the government to try and resolve the demands of the marchers." (http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/48959)

Morales has been painted as an evil villain to the world, along with most other leaders who ever attempted / attempt to keep their resources for their own people such as Chavez, Castro, – and many more who have been toppled or assassinated by the US.

Much damage has been done in many ways. Divisions have been created which will no doubt be preyed upon and capitalized upon by US interests/influences. Perhaps it stopped escalating not because of letters, but only because Morales is completely familiar with how liberating countries are successfully toppled by US power/interference. Perhaps he stopped everything in its tracks because he recognized what was happening and recognized that his people – and outside people – were successfully being manipulated. I’m not saying this is what happened – I’m saying we cannot underestimate US interference.

Let us not fall into a trap that will only serve to further hurt and destroy the very people we wish to support.

How many times do we see this happening: The crazy dictator is carrying out violence on his own people! The people must be saved from the tyrant! Don’t worry good citizens – the west will save you! Democracy and liberation are coming your way! The colonizers will save you! (only if you have resources we can steal). It’s the same story over and over again. And why not? The world seems to fall for it over & over again. Weeks or months later the truth will slowly begin to reveal itself. Who was involved. When it was planned, how people were coerced or manipulated, etc. etc. And of course this information is rarely/never put out by corporate media – an integral part of the Imperialist death machine. Of course by then it is too late, while the bombs are being dropped on the civilians, everyone goes back to catching up on facebook and drinking their lattes.

(removed)’s message this morning, confirms once again, – we must be so incredibly cautious with countries the Imperialist powers have set their sights on.

Important questions arise regarding the Bolivian Indigenous groups demanding REDD. Who/what organizations specifically, are teaching/convincing these Indigenous groups that REDD would be good for them? This is a critical question that needs an answer. http://climate-connections.org/2011/09/23/blog-post-from-the-belly-of-the-beast-in-the-bowels-of-the-world-bank/

You state:

"Destabilization by US AID or other foreign actors is, in my mind, a separate and equally important issue. We all must hold our own governments to account for efforts to destabilize other governments.

But silence is, in my mind, unacceptable in the face of violence. And if destabilization is a concern, as it should be, then violence against one’s own citizens should be condemned."

I strongly disagree that destabilization by US AID, etc. is a separate issue. It is very possible – if not likely – that this was the very root of what has just transpired. To believe that funding of NGOs and institutions are separate to such crises is, in my opinion, both naive and very dangerous. History shows us clearly that the forces we seek to resist constantly absorb opposition, through compromised NGOs and other means. All means. Every means. If we are not understanding by now how Imperialism and Colonialism conquer, we are not doing our homework. To simply dismiss the funding ties and the partnerships with powerful foreign interests, REDD advocates, etc. is dangerous denial.

The author is suggesting that destabilization (by US powers) must be considered a likely possibility in what just happened. No one was suggesting silence on the issue. Rather – urgent mediation. People were urging dialogue with all groups involved and the government rather than infusing the crisis which could have easily resulted in aiding and abetting an internal war, which, as we see repeatedly, gives Imperialist states the excuse to go in and overthrow countries rich in resources. Surely silence in this respect, on this very possibility, must be considered offensive and insulting to all Indigenous Peoples.

Regarding the need to necessity to condemn violence. Ultimately, the individuals and organizations on this list (& those who signed the petitions) need to come to recognize, once and for all, that the violence is all around us.

Ironically, we condemn violence as we participate in it daily.

The violence everyone claims to be against is inherently built into the global industrialized economic system. Until we dismantle this system, the violence upon our Earth and against those most vulnerable will never stop. We all have blood on our hands. If you support the industrialized capitalist system / or ‘green’ capitalism, then you actually do support such violence. The global economic system is violence that must be condemned rather than celebrated and worshipped. The imperative to dismantle the unjust violent economic system should be the key element within the platform/mandate of [removed].

Instead we talk about ‘green’ capitalism, fair-trade diamonds, electric cars, etc. ignoring the massive inequalities we no longer even seem to see. The wealthy 15% creating 85% of the emissions expects to live this way – while everyone else is expected to clamour for the scraps. Does anyone really believe there is anyone on this planet who actually wants to mine or the other horrible jobs that kill you by the time you are 40 – all to supply the wealthy with their wants?

And now, upon reflection over the past few days, I would like to point out some major hypocrisies that I find very unsettling. Is it right that privileged people feel they can tell people with no road – that they should not have a road (or anything else for that matter) when they themselves drive & fly anywhere they want, anytime they want with full access to anything they need or want.

We have approximately 12 of the 64 groups opposed to the road – 52 in favour (from what I have read). Many Indigenous people in support of the road were quoted as saying they wished for access to basic essential services like medicine/hospitals and that the road would provide this.

It feels like this: "Don’t touch any of that rainforest because I have a reality tour booked there for my next annual vacation!" or "Since we’ve destroyed that majority of the world’s forests through our own insatiable consumption and an economic model that destroys most everything (while exploiting your people and our shared planet) don’t touch the forests that we cannot personally access – especially if it is for your gain and not ours."

Then the Avaaz signers & all the others who are outraged run out to Home Depot and buy a new FSC (scam) picnic table on sale for 99.00 because last year’s doesn’t really look that good anymore.

Question: Why have all the organizations that have never had anything to do with the People’s Agreement, all of a sudden become so interested in the rights of the Indigenous of Bolivia? If they are so interested – would they not endorse the People’s agreement and work like mad promoting it? Will they do this now?

And let’s not forget – it’s ok to cut down your Amazon in order to provide meat to the rich countries – but don’t worry – we won’t bring that up. And even if we do bring it up, we still won’t work towards ending the industrial livestock industry. (because we are not prepared to educate nor campaign on the necessity to slow down meat consumption in wealthy countries – we polled on this question and the public did not like it! – bad for the brand! Bad for funding!)

Who does everyone think is eating all the soybeans grown in Bolivia? Of course it all for the wealthy countries. But the soybeans are not enough. We are taking all the quinoa too. (Tough luck if the Bolivian people no longer have their staple food.)

So, wealthy countries won’t slow down on our own consumption/growth but we expect/demand struggling countries like Bolivia to stop production/export – when they are made purposely poor at the hands of the industrialized global capitalist system.

A final note – Sandy states (message inserted below): "As an indigenous man who was in Cochabamba I have to say I did not that there was accusations that some indigenous voices were excluded and noted it with concern but then I also noted that all the big NGOs were there were more concerned with getting their own advocates (usually non indigenos0 to the meeting than in funding any indigenous voices from around the world to attend. The Pacific in particular fdared really badly in this respect."

This has been brought up many times on the list. Why is there never any response? Why is it always the same people (usually those who have access to funding) that attend these meetings?

Lastly – yes – it was absolutely shitty and unjust that the group in Cochabamba was excluded.

%d bloggers like this: