[Marxism] indigenous autonomies and the bolivia's two armies (was: The Battle over Bolivia's Constituent Assembly etc)

["Fred Fuentes" <fred.fuentes@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thank you very much to Richard for this thoughful and stimulating
comment, it certainly got my brain juices flowing and have begun to
write a follow up email i will post as i get more to work on my
article for the next green left weekly [and Richard - makes me feel
ashamed it has taken me so long to get back to you on the issue of
similarities/differencies in the development of Canada, Australia and
Argentina, promise i will get time to write something]

Just a quick response to a few points (written in a rush) and a
comment about another issue that has now arisen in the CA and Bolivian
politics more generally.

Also check out the article for this weeks GLW at
http://www.greenleft.org.au/2007/714/37072

Whilst far from having the same positions that Soliz Rada has on many
issues (for a good short summary of ASR's views see
http://boliviarising.blogspot.com/2006/11/bolivia-indomestizo-victory-andres.html)
i have translated an interview with independent CA delegate (elected
on the centre-right National Unity ticket) which more closely takes up
some of ASR's concerns regarding some of the ideas on a plurinational
state. Essentially it is that in the context of a real threat of
disintegration of Bolivia (this is another interesting debate - are
the right wing first and foremost interested in carving up Bolivia, or
is this more a pretext for regaining ground to capture national
control once again, with seccession a final option, ASR i think
believes the first is more likely), a proposal that opens up the
possibility or atleast idea that Bolivia could be carved up into 36
small indigenous republics gives fuel to the argument of the right
wing that it is MAS' fundamentalism that is causing the fracture of
Bolivia, allow them to look like defenders of the nation. by doing so
the right wing can wing across middle class sections as well as win
support amongst the military where territorial integrity weighs
heavily on the minds of soldiers.

In the interview Lazarte who both aims his discourse at the mestizo
and white middle classes and at the same time reflects a real
sentiment amongst these Bolivia's says:

Q- What does it mean to recognise indigenous cultures as nations?

A - If they are nations, not only is their autonomy recognised, but
also their right to self-determination. In terms of international law,
this right involves territory. Those who say nation say territory, and
territory is state sovereignty over that territory. Therefore, the
right to independence and the right to secede are recognised. Morales
opened a Pandora's box. To indigenise the state structures with ethnic
nationalism will create problems in a country that is weakly
integrated. It raises the possibility that small indigenous groups
could declare themselves nations and reclaim their independence and
make the non-indigenous a minority group.

(whole interview at
http://boliviarising.blogspot.com/2007/06/constitution-which-president-evo.html)

Meanwhile, responding to the question "Why do they fear indigenous
autonomy?" Carlos Cuasase Surubi, an indigenous MAS senator argues
that:

"The historic agenda of the originario, indigenous peoples of Bolivia
is self-determination WITHIN THE ALREADY CONSTITUTED Bolivian state."
my CAPITALISATION

He outlines his what he thinks the right to self-determination for
indigenous peoples means:

"Elect our authorities according to our traditions and customs. To
promote our own judicial systems, our own mechanisms of conflict
resolution.

We have the right to be obligatorily consulted prior to, and freely,
in all the economic, social, administrative and legal projects that
affect the lives of our communities and our cultures in our
territories.

We have the right to express our free consent before plans and
projects that affect us. That is to say, we have the right so that
policies regarding land and territory, education, healthcare,
productive projects, roadways, exploration and exploitation of
hydrocarbons and minerals, exploitation of our forest resources, be
previously socialised, discussed in all their aspects and regarding
their environmental, social, economic and cultural impacts. From this
widely informed and public process will emerge the collective decision
of our communities expressed in consenting to these policies and
projects or in the right to express our objections.

Not only do we have the right to compensation and indemnification, for
the damages previous inflicted, but we also have the right to
participate in the benefits of projects of extraction of all natural
resources that are carried out in our territories. In case you did not
already know, this right is already part of Bolivian law in the
Indigenous Chapter of the Hydrocarbon Law, currently in force.

That is, we have the right to be taken into consideration,
obligatorily, and not silenced, ignored or made invisible, as has
occurred under all the republican governments. "

(full article here
http://boliviarising.blogspot.com/2007/06/mas-senator-why-do-they-fear-indigenous.html)

You can get an idea of what MAS' proposal regard autonomy,
aprticularly indigenous autonomy is here
http://boliviarising.blogspot.com/2007/06/we-are-going-to-defend-indigenous.html

But what is clear is that rather than a homogenous party structure,
MAS more closely resembles a loose confederation of indigenous and
campesino organisations, who retain their autonomy and in some cases
diverge from each other.

One example is the debate over who should control natural resources,
and which help further explain the difference between the (majority)
nationalist wing and more (minority) indigenist wing in MAS. Or the
difference between the indigenous people as best defenders and
articulators of a necessary new Bolivia or those that call for a
return to the Qollasuyu and for whom Bolivia as an entity means
nothing more than continued oppression.

The proposal of the indigenous groups that are part of the Unity Pact
- made up of five or more of the biggest indigenous, campesino and
cocalero organisations - have been pushing that the new constitution
state that property of land and renewable natural resources
corresponds to the indigenous people and in the case of non-renewable
resources, when they need to be exploited on their lands, they should
have the final say on any projects.

Meanwhile MAS, and the majority of the Unity Pact state that propoerty
of renewable and non-renewable resources should correspond to all
Bolivians, and that their adminstration should correspond to the
state, and that their is recognition of indigenous lands for them to
make use of renewable resources..

That is should it be the indigenous people or the Bolivian people who
control Bolivia's resources. More than a manuever against the right
wing the supposed majority and minority reports coming out the
comissions in the CA reflect some of these differences.

more on this later but one other issue to note which i think reflects
the why even though the indigenous question is central to MAS, it
falls more into the  national-popular rather indigenist box (although
obvious it incorporates both) is possibly the recent decision to
introduce a former Army General into the position of President of
National Customs of Bolivia (ANB). the person involved is Cesar Lopes
Saavedra and who was Army general during the Gar War of 2003, where
the military, under direction of the government of former president
Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada, were responsible for 67 deaths and many
more injuries.

Whilst some on the left - and right - have come out and condemned this
talking of the final betray [again] of the social movements and a
secret deal with Sanchez de Lozada's party MNR to exchange votes in
the CA for his immunity, there seems like there maybe another possible
explanation.

An article from La Razon raises some interesting issues. La Razon, the
main daily in La Paz and probably national and linked to business
interests with Spain and Repsol ie no friend of Morales and the
movements, notes that Saavedra attended MAS pre-election rallies in
September 2005, when no longer a general. It also notes that he has
only been called as a witness and other article point out that he was
not in a commanding role during this military attack.

A few days later La Razon reported on statements by the Bolivian army
warning the commision regarding military affairs oin the constituent
assembly of their position on article 208 which it seems the comission
want to change. The armed sources aid they would not tolerate 3
things:
1)stop being the protectors of the constitution
2) the break up of the nation and
3) getting rid of complusory military service

current article 208 sayd the millitry defends national independence,
security and stability of the republic and the honor and sovereignty
of the nation. The new article wants to reduce the role of the
military to pure external security.

This source, criticising the police, who under this possible new
article would be entrusted with defending the constitution, saying
they are corrupt, broken up nad inept.

The source then says:

"in the third world, national security signifies the sovereign right
to do use natural resources, primary materials and the aquisition of
financial and technological capacity to reach an integral development
of the nation, via the exercising of an  national politics which is
independent of the centres of world power"

they add

"the struggle against any form of pressure including neocolonialism,
represents the defense of economic interests, national dignity and
opposition to ideologies foreign to our reality"

The same issues La Razon notes that last december the ministry of
defence, the armed forces and the supreme council of national defense
put their proposal forward to strengthen the article 208 to explicit
say that the role of the army also included defense of natural
resources. This is supported by the MAS leadership.

In a speech given by one of the most well-known writers on Bolivian
history and with an immense knowledge on the history and reality of
the Bolivian army, James Dunkerley, refering to the very important
writings of Rene Zavaleta Mercado, an extremely important figure in
Bolivia national history, he says (video of speech and crap
transcription available at
http://boliviarising.blogspot.com/2007/06/james-dunkerley-evo-morales-and-third.html:

".....Bolivia has two armies. You might want to say as one army that
is schizophrenic but it has two armies. And I'm going to quote in the
first army is the army that must feel and much emphasis those aspects
of the nation that existed before nation itself overly behind its
particulars such as the properties of the earth and the corporatist
vision of the world. It is really mental very telluric that is - all
this theories about nationhood and nationalism that relates to this
you know. This is the army; I put it to you that took the San Alberto
oil – gas field in first of May of last year of nationalizing. Right,
properties of that subsoil you know hydrocarbons and they did so to
the of course Wall Street was aghast, the city was aghast, it was all
seeing to be infantile even by all of these nice liberal think tanks
of Washington don't rock the boat, yeah. This army though I think had
to make some kind of move like that. It may have been symbolic and it
may have been theatrical, and it had to be unwound eventually because
of – at least in technical terms business it was too complicated to
raise the money to do the job that the theatre proposed. But the
theatre itself was necessary. Now that's all well and good, we have
seen that army from time to time, you know. The Commander of the
troops Colonel (Rodie) Rodriguez, it's a lovely name - has been
embargoed (Concord) to Washington has his visa withdrawn everything
like that and is currently training his special troops in Venezuela
and that army is now much closer to the Venezuelan army than – perhaps
some of its members would even like – feel as a good for him, but they
are definitely behind Evo Morales and don't represent in my view at
the moment that the threat of a coup that I mentioned or over counter
revolution cannot be discounted. I might just add that Juan Ramon
Quintana who is the minister of presidency who has been behind this
radical set of moves the last 15 or months is – was an army officer,
was a colonel and has written a if you – if you Google and then you'll
find a really fine oral history of – of the conscripts in his
regiments in (indiscernible). So he is a kind of intellectual officer
of that type. You don't find very often when you do find they are most
– they are most impressive. So the later though has a second army.
This is the army what he calls as a (indiscernible). This is the army
that we are much more familiar with the dictatorships of the last 30
years in the southern part. And this is the army I put it to you this
afternoon shot down 79 people on - in October 2003, when they were
having a bloqueo in El Alto. So the same troops can do two very
different things according to circumstances and that is the challenge
you know faces us even though we are now moving forward with the
elected government."

Perhaps this new appoint rather than being one more betray, is a
further step in strengthening the first of the "two" armies in
Bolivia, which is expressing itself in regards to the constitution and
its role in national life? i think so

In solidarity

Fred

On 6/16/07, Richard Fidler <rfidler_8@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Federico Fuentes wrote (SV-Circle, Marxmail, GLW Discussion):
>
> «. . . But this doesn't full[y] answer the question of what position
> socialists should take [...] in regards to some calls for the reconstitution
> of pre-colonial indigenous "nations", or the argument against the call for a
> plurinational state which says that by establishing a plurinational state,
> as opposed to a pluricultural state, you are opening the door to the break
> up of Bolivia, as the acceptance of nations also means the acceptance of
> their rights to form their own nation-state (one which Soliz Rada agrees
> with) .
>
> «It seems to me the position that MAS advocates – indigenous autonomy,
> within the framework of the unity of Bolivia – is the correct one. It is
> also true that this is the majority sentiment amongst Bolivians (both
> indigenous and non-indigenous) who want to see the various national and
> ethnic groups inserted into the international community through a diverse
> but united Bolivia, and who above all else identify as Bolivians. There are
> some trends who maintain a firmer indigenist vision of the return to
> Qullasuyu and the reconstitution of the original indigenous territories
> (which have been expressed in difference within MAS over certain positions
> such as whether land and natural resources should be under state or
> indigenous control) but they are a minority. Anyways, I would appreciate any
> comments on this.»
>
> Comment:
>
> Given that the indigenous peoples inhabiting Bolivia have achieved their
> greatest success politically within the existing Bolivian state, they would
> be ill-advised to abandon that foothold in favour of some hypothetical, less
> realizable state form that would have to be hewed in part out of one or more
> other states.
>
> As an indigenous majority within Bolivia, they have every interest in using
> the control of the government they have gained through the MAS and its
> allies to refashion the Bolivian state. And that appears to be what they are
> now doing.
>
> The "Vision of the country commission majority report", posted by Federico
> on his Bolivia Rising blog, is an extremely important statement which, if
> incorporated in some form into the new Constitution, will mark an historic
> advance not only for the indigenous peoples of Bolivia but for all "original
> [or aboriginal] nations". For example, it will be very relevant to some
> current debates in Canada, and particularly in Quebec, as I will indicate
> below.
>
> The preamble makes clear that the proposed constitution is to "reconstruct
> the identities of the indigenous nations", which have suffered permanent
> exclusion through a colonial and republican system that has overridden their
> "ancestral territories, institutions, judicial systems, politics, languages
> and culture".
>
> The document redefines Bolivia as a "united, plurinational, communitarian
> state". It recognizes some three dozen "official languages", all but Spanish
> being languages of the indigenous peoples, and pledges state protection and
> development of those languages "in each of the regions where they are
> spoken".
>
> It indicates clearly the meaning of each of the defining terms.
>
> "United" means a common territory of all Bolivians; the explicit rejection
> of federalism is a constitutional check on the "autonomist" aspirations of
> the Spanish and mestizo elite in Santa Cruz, strengthened by the statement
> that this state is "indivisible and inviolable" while respecting "economic,
> political, social and cultural diversity".
>
> "Plurinational" means the state is "diverse and not mono-cultural" and
> "guarantees and promotes the identity, government, judicial pluralism and
> intercultural integration of each of the nations" within Bolivia.
>
> "Communitarian" means that the state "promotes communitarian, cooperative
> and associative forms and strategies of organization of society under the
> principles of solidarity, reciprocity, democracy, complementarity and
> equitable distribution of the social product in order to 'live well'."
>
> These provisions — and there is much more in this statement, which should be
> studied closely by all of us — open the door wide for the adoption of
> affirmative action measures and programs to enhance the status and
> development of the indigenous majority in Bolivia. And they yield nothing to
> regional separatism.
>
> The argument (advanced by Soliz Rada, apparently) that a plurinational state
> will lead to the break-up of Bolivia by giving the white-skinned,
> pro-imperialist economic and commercial elite a constitutional pretext to
> establish an "autonomous" or independent national state of their own can
> only be true if each "nation" within this "plurinational" state is seen as
> an exclusive category with a right of national self-determination that
> trumps the right of self-determination of every other nation sharing all or
> part of the territory of Bolivia. It identifies nation with distinct
> territory, and presumes that more than one nation cannot share a common
> territory.
>
> Historically, the concept of the right of national self-determination
> originated in the epoch of the rising bourgeoisie, which had a class
> interest in asserting its control over territory to the exclusion of the
> feudal aristocracy and absolute monarchs. Nation became identified with
> territory and, where possible, a common public language, to facilitate
> transport, communications, a common tariff, and all the other attributes of
> the bourgeois state. Marxists initially developed their thinking on the
> national question on the basis of this reasoning, and early discussions
> (even as late as Stalin's in 1913) tend to remain within that framework of
> viewing the national question as fundamentally a problem of completing the
> bourgeois-democratic revolution in the advanced capitalist countries.
>
> As Marxists began to study the phenomenon of imperialism, however, they soon
> realized that in most of the world the national question was more complex
> and took other forms than it did in Europe. The colonial structures rode
> roughshod over the languages, cultures and traditions of the indigenous
> peoples, whose anti-imperialist revolt in turn unfolded within the framework
> of a struggle for national identity and national liberation that could, with
> proletarian leadership, go beyond capitalism and move toward socialism while
> attempting to preserve and enhance national identities rooted in
> precapitalist conditions. In the colonies and semicolonies, local
> capitalism, to the degree it developed at all, was integrally bound up with
> the interests of imperialism and offered nothing to the indigenous peoples
> but assimilation and further oppression.
>
> And even within the advanced capitalist countries, indigenous and once
> precapitalist peoples are now organizing themselves under the banner of
> "nation" and cultural, linguistic and territorial expressions of national
> sovereignty. This is true in the majority of European countries, including
> Spain, Britain, and even France — the classic countries of predatory
> imperialism. Their struggles destabilize capitalist rule and can create
> important openings for anticapitalist advance.
>
> These new nations and nationalisms, unfolding within existing state
> frameworks established by imperialism or the triumphant bourgeoisie, are
> primarily concerned with achieving sovereignty over all matters of concern
> to their national identity: language and culture, of course, but not
> necessarily exclusive control of their own state. In some instances, they
> may coexist within a given state with a particular minority nation or a
> broader movement asserting its own national demands in the form of a
> struggle for its own independent, territorial state. Most Bolivians, for
> example, have a common interest in defending and promoting control and
> development by Bolivians over their natural resources. Their success in
> achieving this goal will help provide a basis for state promotion of the
> national identities (language, culture, customs, etc.) of the indigenous
> peoples within Bolivia.
>
> In Quebec we have a further example of how indigenous struggles intersect
> with the national struggle of the French-speaking Québécois, a minority
> within Canada (24%) but the overwhelming majority (83%) of the population of
> the province of Quebec. The Québécois national struggle is one for control
> of the territory of that province, exclusive of control by the Canadian
> state over jurisdictions integral to the national identity of the Québécois.
> This is generally defined as a struggle for Quebec "sovereignty". For
> decades now, polls and a referendum have shown that a majority of
> Francophone Quebeckers support the formation of a sovereign state, although
> opinions differ among them as to possible forms of association that might be
> established with the rest of Canada following a declaration of sovereignty
> or independence. (Only a minority support full independence without some
> formal association.)
>
> But the Quebec nationalist movement came up against a problem almost from
> the time it began to develop its modern expressions, in the 1960s. Most of
> the territory of the province of Quebec itself is inhabited primarily by
> indigenous peoples, and these peoples have asserted their "sovereign" rights
> over the northern regions and territories they inhabit, in opposition to the
> hydro-electric and other development projects that are crucial to the
> economic prosperity of Quebec industries and cities in the south.
>
>
> In Canada, the indigenous peoples now refer to themselves as "First
> Nations"; many assert their right to constitutional recognition and status
> on a par with the English and French colonizers and their descendants. In
> Quebec, this has resulted in conflicts of respective sovereignty aspirations
> of native and non-native peoples.
>
> In the mid-1970s, the pro-federalist Liberal government was forced by Cree
> Indian opposition to hydro-electric dam development to sign a wide-ranging
> agreement promising autonomous Indian and Inuit development of wide areas of
> northern Quebec; this was the first of the modern "treaties" signed by a
> white government in Canada. It has been followed by other, similar treaty
> agreements between the Quebec government and native nations. In the
> mid-1980s, Quebec's National Assembly, on the impetus of the pro-sovereignty
> Parti Québécois government, formally recognized the existence within Quebec
> of a dozen indigenous "nations" with certain rights to the use of their
> language, control of schools, exclusive hunting and fishing rights, the
> formation of development corporations owned and controlled by natives, etc.
> Quebec is the only province to have recognized the indigenous peoples as
> nations in this way. In recent years, some native leaders have begun to
> identify with the goal of a sovereign or independent Quebec, in the belief
> that one will be created and it is best to participate in that development
> in order to provide indigenous input in defining the respective rights and
> obligations of the nations within the nation.
>
> This is not to say that relations between First Nations and Quebec
> nationalists are smooth; on the contrary. (At Oka, near Montreal, a struggle
> in 1990 by a native community to prevent illegal development by whites of a
> golf course on their land became a military-type standoff between native
> militants and Quebec police supported by federal troops.) But to the degree
> that Quebec nationalists manage to win the indigenous peoples as their
> allies, through meaningful recognition of indigenous nationhood, they will
> strengthen their struggle and weaken Ottawa's attempts to use its
> constitutional jurisdiction over "Indians and Indian affairs" to further
> divide the inhabitants of Quebec and use indigenous issues as a tool for
> mobilizing public opinion against the Québécois national struggle.
>
> Quebec's indigenous peoples are oppressed by both the federal regime and
> Quebec's. Their struggle for self-determination is directed against both,
> albeit in different ways. What is emerging, however, is a concept of
> overlapping sovereignties, each respectful of the others' need for cultural
> and linguistic, etc. expression. Depending on the situation of each
> particular indigenous nation, this may or may not primarily take the form of
> a struggle for territorial sovereignty, although where the indigenous
> peoples have managed to retain some partial control over territory
> (reserves, occupation, etc.) they naturally seek to enhance that control.
> But probably half of Quebec's indigenous population are now city-dwellers,
> often far from their native communities. They are severely discriminated
> against as non-whites, of course, and any recognition of indigenous nations
> must find ways to encompass this urban and off-reserve population.
>
> The parallels with the situation in Bolivia are obvious, notwithstanding
> many differences. But it seems to me that indigenous militants in Quebec and
> Canada, as elsewhere, can find much to ponder and to inspire them in current
> developments in Evo Morales' Bolivia.
>
> Richard
>
>
> ________________________________________________
> YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
> Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism
>

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism