But the larger question will be whether Morales follows Silva's example of shedding his leftist rhetoric in favor of market friendly reforms and fiscal conservatism or joins the likes of Cuba's Fidel Castro and Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez, leading South America further to the left.For the past month it seems like the media have waited for Morales to step out of a meeting, walk up to the microphone and say in a big booming voice: "I HAVE CHOSEN [CHAVEZ/LULA]!" They act like Latin American politics is a big pickup kickball game where everyone stands in a line on the playground, chooses a side and then runs over to their team leader. Reality doesn't work like that.
Morales isn't choosing geopolitical sides right now. He is focusing on his domestic policy. He is trying to find a balance between foreign investors, domestic constituencies and economic development. He needs to match his campaign rhetoric that the nation's resource wealth will be used to lift Bolivians out of poverty (which is a noble goal) with the reality that extreme nationalization would drive foreign companies out and leave Bolivia with nothing. The decisions he makes may be interpreted internationally as moving towards Venezuela or Brazil or China or the EU or the US. However, Morales' domestic politics are going to trump the international kickball game 99 out of 100 times, no matter how much the media wish it to be otherwise.
This is why I disagreed with Adam Isacson's post asking about "Washington's counter-offer". If the administration understands this correctly (not often, but it happens), we should not be making foreign aid offers for Morales to join our's or Lula's kickball team against Chavez, but rather focus on Bolivia's domestic issues.
We should be asking how we can use our aid to help Bolivia beat poverty while improving its democratic institutions, encouraging a market economy and tackling corruption. All domestic goals. Yes, US aid often comes with conditions that influence domestic policy and sometimes those conditions are wrong. The Miami Herald reports this morning that we will use grants from the Millennium Challenge Account to offer to build roads in Bolivia in exchange for certain adherence to market economics. Whether that domestic condition is right or wrong, Bolivia is free to choose to take our aid and the constraints that come with it or look elsewhere.
However, seeing our foreign aid as a bribe or payoff or a bid in the international relations kickball game is a step down the wrong path. That's a Cold War mentality and one that both the right and the left need to move beyond.
4 comments:
Of course it's not cold-war kickball. Evo can be on _both_ teams if he can manage it (and he might have to find a way to do so in order to hold together his domestic coalition).
The question isn't necessarily whose aid offer is bigger or less conditioned. The problem is that while Venezuela's offers are in the "plus" column - new offers of additional assistance - everything that the US is offering is in the "minus" column: cuts in aid, freezes in aid, playing hardball on trade, etc.
It's as though even before the game begins, we've picked up our ball and gone home.
My point is that in spite of the media coverage, we shouldn't try to treat this as if there are two teams in the hemisphere. It's not about the US vs Venezuela, nor is it a decision of Lula vs Chavez.
If you want to argue for more or less aid to Bolivia, that's fine. However, we shouldn't be using our aid to compete with other countries or bring countries to our side. We should simply be trying to help Bolivia.
It shouldn’t be about one side of the other, you’re right. But you can go blue in the face trying to tell that to the Bush administration, the majority in the U.S. Congress, the “Bolivarians” in South America - and the media.
After Mar de Plata and the December Bolivian elections, too many people are very convinced otherwise, that three “blocs” are forming (Bush-Uribe-Saca, Castro-Chavez, Lula-Kirchner-Bachelet). You hear it over and over. It’s wrong and hideously oversimplified, but a very powerful “frame” has been imposed on the debate. You are right to oppose it.
My post was less ambitious. I stayed within the current “frame” because I’m trying to make the case for treating Morales differently _now_, before serious damage is done. I’ve had several conversations about Morales lately with people in the administration, and I’ve heard several accounts of others’ conversations. While their official stance is “wait and see,” they say, positions are hardening very quickly. Meanwhile congressional staff are already contemplating moving aid for Bolivia into programs in other countries. Time is of the essence, and if I get more mileage by making the argument in the “us versus them” frame, I’ll do it.
I agree completely with your argument about the paramount importance of helping Bolivia with its domestic problems, whether through aid - traditionally one of the main tools of foreign policy toward developing countries - or some other means. (In a 2002 exchange with Bush reported in the New York Times, former President Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada unsuccessfully made the same argument.) But that’s a longer-term project.
Fair enough. I can understand using someone else's frame to make an argument because I try to do that myself at times.
When I've talked to people within the government, I find most are willing to listen and think about the more nuanced view of Latin American politics. Yes, unfortunately there are a few who will only listen to views on their terms, but I think in the case of Bolivia the people who understand the nuance (granted, still conservative) are winning right this moment.
The other thing I've found in government (probably due to how frequently they change jobs), is that they view Latin America in the very short term (two year time frame). They rarely realize that every country swings back and forth politically (even the US). The same way every country in the region has changed over the past 5-10 years, we'll likely see a completely different political landscape in another ten years. Sometimes you just have to let these things play out.
Post a Comment