Price Of Fire In Latin America:
An Interview with Ben Dangl
By Joshua Frank
08 May, 2007
Dangl is the author of The Price of Fire: Resource Wars and Social Movements
in Bolivia (AK Press 2007) and the editor of Upside Down World, an online
magazine that covers Latin American politics, and Toward Freedom, a
progressive perspective on world events. Recently Dangl, who won a 2007
Project Censored Award for his coverage of US military operations in
Paraguay, spoke with Joshua Frank about the emerging social movements
in South America and how they are threatening Washington’s power
in the region.
Joshua Frank: Ben,
before we talk about the situation in Bolivia, I think it is important
to discuss the history leading up to the current state of affairs in
the country. Could you explain to us how and why Bolivia has been fighting
the neoliberal agenda, and when this resistance began to gain strength?
Resistance to neoliberalism isn’t anything new for Bolivia. Most
Bolivians live under the poverty line, earning less than $2 dollars
a day. Over the course of history, from Spanish colonization to today,
this poor majority has risen up against such exploitation. In 1936,
Bolivia was one of the first countries in the world to kick out a foreign
corporation and expropriate its assets. That corporation was New Jersey-based
Standard Oil. They were kicked out of Bolivia for corruption, illegally
exporting the country’s gas to Argentina and playing a heavy hand
in initiating a war against Paraguay. In 1952, a revolution took place
in Bolivia which put much of the mining industry under state control,
redistributed land and expanded the right to vote to most citizens.
More recently, movements
have developed against corporate privatization of water and gas. In
2000, citizens of Cochabamba, Bolivia united in protest against the
Bechtel Corporation, which worked with the Bolivian government to increase
water fees, privatize the city’s water system, communally built
wells and irrigation systems. In 2003 a large movement emerged against
a plan to export Bolivian gas to the US for a low price. Many protestors
demanded that the gas be put under state control, and used in Bolivia
for national development, instead of enriching foreign corporations.
Bolivia’s landless movement has fought against the concentration
of unused land in the hands of a few. In the same way unemployed workers
in Argentina occupied bankrupt factories in the 2001-2002 economic crisis,
these Bolivian farmers occupy unused land and work it with their families.
JF: Do you
think that the growing trend in Bolivia against neoliberalism led to
the victory of Evo Morales for president?
is definitely the case. Neoliberal policies have wrecked Bolivia’s
economy. The election of Evo Morales is in many ways a response to this
economic failure. People see in Evo Morales an alternative to neoliberal
business as usual. There are two specific conflicts which paved the
way to his election.
One was the drug war in Bolivia,
which has been a kind of military arm of neoliberalism. The coca leaf
is a popular crop in Bolivia. Many farmers grow the leaf to survive.
There is a vast, legal market for this leaf. It has been used for centuries
by Andean people, and is an important part of indigenous cultures. It
is used for medicine, is chewed or used in tea. Even the US embassy
recommends using coca leaves as a cure for altitude sickness. Coca is
also an ingredient in cocaine, and thus a target in the US funded drug
war. Many poor coca growers have been repressed or killed in this war
on coca, meanwhile the amount of cocaine available in the US and Europe
remains the same or increases. Coca farmers organized unions to defend
their right to grow coca, and resist military and police violence. Evo
Morales came into politics through these coca unions. He was a coca
farmer himself, and helped create the Movement Toward Socialism political
party, which is an extension of these coca unions. The coca leaf came
to be a key symbol in this party’s campaigns. The leaf represents
anti-imperialism, indigenous coca, mining history (miners chew the leaf)
and campesino struggles. The leaf united these diverse sectors. To a
certain extent, this explains some of the popularity of Evo Morales,
who has been able to unite different groups through this common symbol,
this common struggle.
The 2003 Gas War also helped paved the way to the election of Evo Morales.
In this protest movement, in which citizens rejected a plan to privatize
and export Bolivian gas to the US, the president Gonzalo Sanchez de
Lozada was ousted from office. This created a space for the 2005 elections,
as did the departure of president Carlos Mesa amidst similar protests.
When Morales ran in 2005 he was in many ways riding the momentum of
the 2003 and 2005 protest movement for gas nationalization. In his campaign
he promised to put the country’s gas reserves under state control
– a clear alternative to neoliberalism. This promise significantly
contributed to his electoral victory.
has the U.S. government responded to this new emerging pattern in Bolivia?
And how is the country's fight against the neoliberal agenda reflective
of a larger struggle in the region? I'm thinking of President Chavez's
Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela. In what ways has this movement impacted
or influenced Morales and Bolivia's politics?
US government has always been concerned with coca production in Bolivia,
and that remains a controversial issue with Evo Morales, a former coca-grower,
in office. Most of Bolivia’s gas goes to Brazil, Argentina and
Chile, so partial gas nationalization in Bolivia doesn’t impact
US markets as much as the state-run oil industry in Venezuela. Washington
doesn’t like to see Bolivia as a leftist example to other governments
in the region, and it is doesn’t like to see the very strong relationship
between Evo Morales and Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. What’s
going on Bolivia politically and economically is happening with the
help of funds, expertise and solidarity with Venezuela, and that worries
It’s important to point
out that the political and social changes in Bolivia are very homegrown
and grassroots, and not happening because of Venezuela’s example
or lead. Bolivian land re-distribution, gas nationalization, the re-writing
of the country’s constitution, redirecting government spending
into more social programs and public services, these are all policies
that have been demanded from below in Bolivia for decades. They are
taking place now in part because of the victories forged in street mobilizations
in recent years, and because of the administration of Evo Morales. However,
Venezuelan advisors and money are helping with these projects.
Whereas US officials used
to be all over Bolivia advising Bolivian politicians, now Venezuelans
have filled their place. Venezuela is also lending money to Bolivia,
replacing the International Monetary Fund and World Bank in certain
ways. This new lending and advising lacks a neoliberal agenda and is
directed at more of a socialistic method of political and economic changes.
For example, the IMF or US embassy would give money and advice, but
with neoliberal or imperialistic strings attached such as privatization
of public water systems or increased militarization of coca growing
areas. That isn’t happening with Venezuelan advice. This is all
part of a growing integration and solidarity between left-leaning leaders
in South America that isn’t based on bowing down to US government
or US corporate interests. This is a historic shift that is powered
by the failure of neoliberalism in South America, Venezuelan oil wealth
and a need among the majority of Latin Americans for a viable economic
and social alternative.
other nations in the region do you think are shifting against the US
in terms of our economic and military policies in the region? Do you
think this is more of a grassroots or a state led movement?
country’s dynamics are different. I’ll speak of a few examples
and projects. Trade and economic alliances outside the sphere of the
US such as the Banco del Sur are limiting the possibility of a US dominated
economic bloc in the region. Bolivia recently became a part of a People’s
Trade Agreement (PTA), a progressive alternative to standard free trade
agreements. It is based on collaborations between countries, increased
public ownership of the economy, and sustainable trade relationships,
rather than exploitative practices standard in other agreements—such
as NAFTA and the FTAA. In April, 2006, Venezuela, Cuba, and Bolivia
signed a PTA in a move toward creating a “Bolivarian Alternative
for the Americas,” a sustainable trade project to eliminate poverty
throughout the region. In the PTA, Venezuela eliminated tariffs and
opened its state buyers to Bolivian producers, policies which are not
usually applied to Bolivia’s smaller economy. Through the PTA,
both Venezuela and Cuba will send doctors and technicians to Bolivia,
as well as provide health care and college scholarships for Bolivians.
The PTA gives states more power over economic decisions and regulates
the economy to help the poorest sectors of society instead of corporations.
As far as military and political
shifts away from the US, some of the biggest advances in Argentina and
Chile with their new leaders are in the area of human rights and investigations
and justice regarding disappearances and torture under dictatorships.
Ecuador’s new president Rafael Correa has also led the charge
to rewrite the constitution, following in the recent footsteps of Venezuela
and Bolivia. Other important shifts are happening in the area of military
alliances. Venezuela has stopped sending its military to the School
of the Americas (SOA) in the US. In Bolivia, however, the number of
military officials sent to the SOA has risen under the Morales presidency.
This could possibly be a strategy on the part of the Morales administration
to keep the military on his side, rather than with the right wing civic
groups and political parties based in Santa Cruz. In Ecuador, Rafael
Correa has pushed the US military out of its base in Manta, Ecuador.
In December, 2006 the Paraguayan Senate voted against the immunity previously
granted to US troops operating in the country.
Where the political and social
power is concentrated varies widely in each country. In Argentina, for
example, the middle class plays a very key role in the way politics
are done in the country. One of the reasons why the 2001-2002 economic
crisis was so tumultuous for Argentina was because the middle class
was directly impacted and hit the streets in solidarity with other economic
classes. Now the middle class is content for the most part with administration
of Nestor Kirchner, so he (or his wife) may very well win the next elections.
In Venezuela, many of the
political and social changes that have happened since Chavez came into
office in 1998 are based on more of a “top-down” organization
of power. What’s happening in Venezuela is very much centralized
around Chavez as a key and charismatic figure. In some cases the diversity
of social programs and social spending are being applied to the country
from above, from this centralized political environment. This is not
the case in Bolivia, where the political power is still very much outside
the realm of the state, of the government of Evo Morales. The grassroots
power of social movements in Bolivia is perhaps stronger than anywhere
else in the region. Much of the success under the Morales administration
depends on the social movements to either radicalize his policies, or
to create change outside the political sphere or reforms.
JF: So what
do you think the future holds for Bolivia and how can they be successful
at implementing these changes?
depends on the success of Bolivia’s constitutional assembly. If
the infighting and gridlock continues in the assembly, there is risk
that conflicts over these divisive issues - such as land distribution,
gas nationalization, coca, autonomy - could spill out into bloody conflicts
in the streets rather than be solved at the negotiating table.
The Morales administration
is up against a lot of challenges, both institutionally and economically.
It’s no small task to reverse 500 years of looting and injustice.
In order to navigate through the rough waters ahead, Morales and his
government need to stay true to the radical course set for them by social
movements in recent grassroots victories.
Bolivian social movements
- unions, neighborhood councils, students, coca farmers, miners and
landless movements - need to hold the administration’s feet to
the flames, while remaining independent and avoiding political cooptation.
is the co-editor of DissidentVoice.org, and author
of Left Out! How Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush. He can be reached
through his website, BrickBurner.org.
it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands
of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page
of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an
vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So,
as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.
here to comment
on this article