Bolivia: Rumble Over Jungle Far From Over
By Federico Fuentes
21 November, 2011
Greenleft.org.au
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 is a member of Australia’s Socialist Alliance and
is based in Venezuela as part of Green Left Weekly’s Caracas bureau.]
Comments are not moderated. Please be responsible and civil in your postings and stay within the topic discussed in the article too. If you find inappropriate comments, just Flag (Report) them and they will move into moderation que.
