Evo
Morales' Courageous Move
Now Makes Him A Us Target
Along With Hugo Chavez
By Stephen Lendman
05 May, 2006
Countercurrents.org
To get a good sense of where
US policy is heading, one need only read the front page of the New York
Times or Wall Street Journal - painful as that may be to do. I skip
the Times but do read the Journal daily because of the audience it reaches
- high level people in business and government who want real information
to guide them in their work. So despite the Journal being a voice for
US business and imperialism, knowing how to read it and doing it carefully
yields useful information and clues about what future US policy is likely
to be.
The Wall Street Journal
Signals Evo Morales
Is Now A US Target
The May 2 Journal was a good
example as they had a feature front page story headlined "Bolivia
Seizes Natural-Gas Fields In a Show of Energy Nationalism." That
alone signals a call to arms that's backed up strongly in the copy that
follows.
The Journal began its heated
rhetoric claiming Evo Morales has been "emboldened by Hugo Chavez's
moves against private oil companies" and on May 1 (symbolically
on May Day celebrating working people around the world including in
the US in a big way for the first time) nationalized the country's largest
natural gas field, San Alberto, and ordered the army to "take control
of it and the country's other fields." It went on to explain that
it ordered foreign oil companies to relinquish control of the fields,
accept "much tougher operating terms or leave the country."
Bolivian law is clear that
the state owns the resources in the country. Up to now it's allowed
foreign investors to operate the fields and take the majority share
of production from them to sell for their gain. Last year, however,
Bolivia raised the state's take to an effective 50% of production by
increasing taxes and royalties. Yesterday the government went further
by declaring the state owns the gas once it's been extracted and that
the companies operating in the two largest fields would only get 18%
of the production for themselves.
Translating the Journal's Message Including What They Failed
to Explain
A little translation is in
order. What the Journal didn't explain and never would is that those
"tougher operating terms" are simply Bolivia's right as an
independent nation (and all other nations as well) to get the majority
benefits from its own natural resources and that foreign investors are
there sharing in them only because the country allowed them to. But
instead of being grateful, the Journal makes clear, without stating
it, that the investors are greedy and want the lion's share and on their
terms.
What's also left unsaid or
unsatisfactorily explained is nationalization does not mean expropriation.
Evo Morales has made it clear that foreign investors will not lose the
rights to their investments. What they will lose once Morales' plan
is implemented (he's giving them six months to comply) is their unfair
share of the profits and benefits they never had a right to have in
the first place. Under the Morales plan, a new contract will be made
between the government and foreign investors guaranteeing that the people
of Bolivia will receive the majority of benefits from its own resources
while at the same time foreign investors will receive their fare share
but no more than that. It also means the government alone now will decide
the terms of revenue sharing and tax obligations due rather than Big
Oil dictating them with the long shadow of the US looming in the background,
which is still the case, of course.
The Journal then became more
inflammatory as it has in its past and recent railings against Hugo
Chavez. It claimed high energy prices have sparked a resurgent wave
of nationalism from Caracas to Moscow. Of course, it forgot to mention
the one country above all others where so-called nationalism and protectionism
is a national religion - the US. Here where I live, no outside investors
are allowed in (especially from developing nations) to profit except
on the ironclad rules we set, take it or leave it. So by US imperial
rules (the only ones, no others allowed), what's good for us is not
acceptable or allowed for anyone else because we said so.
The Journal went on to say
Morales is mimicking measures against Big Oil by "Mr. Chavez"
(he happens to be the President and should be addressed that way), and
that Morales and Chavez are "both playing a game of chicken with
foreign oil companies." It also couldn't resist raising the specter
of Fidel Castro and the fact that Chavez and Morales signed a free trade
accord over the past weekend with the man the imperial US hates most.
There's more to this story
as well which the Journal points out into their long article. The leading
Peruvian candidate, Ollanta Humala, in the upcoming presidential runoff
election against US choice by default Alan Garcia, has also called for
nationalization of the country's natural gas and mining resources. And
Evo Morales has made it clear he intends to nationalize Bolivia's other
natural resources likely beginning with its forests and mines.
Further, to cap off a growing US Latin American nightmare, last month
Equador passed a law designed to cut the windfall profits of foreign
crude producers (including US based Occidental Petroleum) by giving
the government (meaning the people) 50% of oil company profits whenever
the international oil market exceeds the prices established in existing
contracts.
What These Developments Mean for the US and How It's Likely
to Respond
There certainly is trouble
for the US in Latin America and in the oil patch there as well as in
Iraq, Iran, Nigeria and who knows where else it may spread. So what
can we make of all this, and what's most likely to happen going forward.
The US is now spending hundreds of billions of dollars trying to hold
on to the oil treasure it stole by invading Iraq. It's also made it
clear it has designs on those same resources in neighboring Iran and
may attack that country using nuclear weapons. And if that isn't enough
on one plate to digest, it faces a dilemma in Venezuela it's tried unsuccessfully
three times to solve.
Venezuela has even greater
hydrocarbon reserves than Iraq or Iran (possibly the largest in the
world even above Saudi Arabia's) and is led by a courageous man unwilling
to surrender his nation's sovereignty (or its resources) to its imperial
northern neighbor demanding it and them. And now the heavenly virus
of the desire to be truly independent is beginning to spread to Bolivia,
Peru if Hamala wins the runoff election, hopefully Equador and significant
opposition groups outside the governments in other countries as well
like Nigeria and Nepal. These nations, or opposition groups in them,
are demanding equity and justice for their people, and are beginning
to raise their heads and demand the rights they're entitled to. If they
all get them, that's bad news for the US and the dominant corporate
interests here that profit handsomely by exploiting the resources of
underdeveloped nations and its cheap labor as well. Hugo Chavez and
Evo Morales know this and have spoken out and acted courageously against
these longtime abuses in defense the rights of their own people. But
their doing so is intolerable to the US which will do everything in
its power to reverse the loss of its special privilege.
So what can we expect ahead.
I have no doubt whatever, and I've written about this several times.
When the heat is turned up against US interests, this country won't
go quietly into the night. The plans are well underway now for a fourth
attempt to oust Hugo Chavez that may include assassinations and possibly
an armed assault by US invading forces. Last Sunday I published a commentary/review
I wrote about Noam Chomsky's new book Failed States. In an email I received
from Chomsky on April 29 he updated the views he stated in his new book
and gave a blunt assessment of what may be in prospect which I'll quote
again here: he said he "wouldn't be surprised to see (US inspired)
secessionist movements in the oil producing areas in Iran, Venezuela
and Bolivia, all in areas that are accessible to US military force and
alienated from the governments, with the US then moving in to 'defend'
them and blasting the rest of the country if necessary."
I share that view although
I'm not privy to what hostile plans my government has in mind. I'll
only state my strong belief that something big is planned to oust President
Chavez (and now maybe Evo Morales as well) that will only become apparent
once the fireworks begin. Today's feature article in the Wall Street
Journal only strengthens my view.
Stephen Lendman
lives in Chicago and can be reached at [email protected].
Also visit his blog address at sjlendman.blogspot.com.