
On Monday the New York Times reported on protests and violence in Bolivia, following from Sunday’s referendum which would give Santa Cruz greater autonomy and allow it to have control over the natural resources located in the region, which currently accounts for 30% of Bolivia’s GDP.
The move for greater autonomy, however, should be seen in the context of the new draft constitution that would limit large land holdings. The Santa Cruz vote, which was passed by 80% although voter turnout was low, would mean the region might be able to bypass the new constitutional arrangements and control land distribution itself, as well as retain rights to negotiate royalty agreements for oil and gas reserves with energy companies.
As the New York Times reports:
The statute would give Santa Cruz the ability to elect its own legislature, create its own police force and raise new taxes for public works. It is expected to allow the province to negotiate its own royalty agreements with energy companies.
Or from BoRev’s perspective:
If you haven’t been paying attention, the rich white folk in the rich white state of Santa Cruz are holding a referendum on Sunday to declare “autonomy” from the majority redskins. And while the sponsors are a bunch of scary racists, they wrap their arguments up with declarations of economic efficiency and “states rights.” Sound familiar?
Morales is trying to redress the balance a little and use some of the cash from the country’s natural resources to provide better living conditions for the majority who happen to be impoverished Indians and not the elite Santa Cruz minority, who still use impoverished Indians as indentured slaves.
But such moves by a region for greater automomy from central government are often couched in the language of secession; calling for the freedom of a people to control their own destiny etc etc. However, as Nikolas Kozloff points out in a Counter Punch article published yesterday such moves in South America by a region rich in natural resources is often supported by US Oil and Gas interests.
“In an effort to rollback social and political change in Bolivia, the U.S has funneled millions of dollars to opposition groups through USAID and The National Endowment for Democracy. What’s more, USAID explicitly supports demands of the right wing for greater regional autonomy in the east.
It’s not the first time, however, that the U.S. has sought to encourage secessionist sentiment within South American regions possessing rich natural resources.”
Kozloff describes in some detail what happened in Venezuela in the early part of the 20th Century, when the US, who were beginning to aggressively tap all available oil resources, encouraged the State of Zulia to cede from the strong, centralized government controlled by the dictator by Juan Vicente Gómez. The irony of it is that Gómez came to power in 1908 as a result of a successful coup d’etat, which was supported by the US.
It’s a very interesting historical perspective, but the point being that if US oil interests conspired against Gómez, a stolid anti-communist dictator who they helped to bring to power in the first place, what do those interests think of Morales and his efforts to redistribute some of his countries wealth?
Update:
The Real News Network has a good report on this. Pepe Escobar mentions that 85% of the Santa Cruz electorate were in favour but that the turn out was only 45%, which is considerably lower than usual. This suggests that many of those who were against autonomy boycotted the polls.
Share This