President Bush's New Choice to Lead the World Bank

Readers:

Last week’s news brought the long-awaited resignation of World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz, following conflict of interest revelations involving the job promotion of his romantic partner.

In choosing Mr. Wolfowitz to head the Bank in January 2005, President Bush selected a man who had been one of his government’s most vocal cheerleaders pushing the U.S. into its Iraqi quagmire. As Deputy Secretary of Defense, Wolfowitz was arguing for an Iraq invasion even before 9/11. His declarations about how easy it all would be included this now-famous prediction beforehand:

“I think what you’re going to find, and this is very important, you’re going to find Iraqis out cheering American troops.” He added, “I think the ethnic differences in Iraq are there but they’re exaggerated.”

On the basis of this gift of foresight and analytic ability, President Bush put Mr. Wolfowitz in charge of one of the world’s most important lending institutions, raising the question – exactly how bad do you have to screw up in the Bush Administration to be held accountable?

Based on the astuteness of Mr. Bush’s last nomination, it is reasonable to ask if he has taken any more care in replacing Mr. Wolfowitz. This week the President nominated his former trade representative, Robert B. Zoellick. Mr. Zoellick has an advantage people in politics like, a remarkably easy act to follow. Initial reports in the standard press have been favorable.

But who is Mr. Zoellick and what philosophies and policies is he likely to bring to the World Bank (assuming, as is likely, that his nomination is approved by the Bank board)?

In this post we want to share some useful insight from a close colleague of ours, Sarah Anderson of the Institute for Policy Studies. Below is a brief article by Sarah on the appointment of a man who once suggested that the attacks on September 11, 2001 were inspired, in part, by Americans who took to the streets to challenge conservative World Bank economic policies.

Jim Shultz


Mr. Hardball Goes to the World Bank
By Sarah Anderson, Institute for Policy Studies

Nine days after the September 11 terrorist attacks, I opened up The Washington Post and stared right into the flinty mind of one Robert B. Zoellick, the Bush administration’s pick for new World Bank president.

While the rest of the country was still in a haze of horror and confusion, Zoellick had seized the moment to advance his agenda as U.S. trade representative. In a commentary titled “Fighting Terror with Trade,” he argued that Congress needed to pass fast track trade negotiating authority as part of their support for the “War on Terror.”

Having failed to sell the legislation on its merits, Zoellick had moved with breathtaking speed to take advantage of public fears and pressure on lawmakers to stand with the president during a national crisis.

In a speech at the Institute for International Economics four days later, Zoellick really let loose by insinuating that there were links between the September 11 terrorists and anti-globalization protestors.

“In the wake of the shock of 13 days ago, many people will struggle to understand why terrorists hate the ideas America has championed around the world,” Zoellick said. “It is inevitable that people will wonder if there are intellectual connections with others who have turned to violence to attack international finance, globalization, and the United States.”

Zoellick’s hardball tactics worked. President George W. Bush, and President Bill Clinton before him, had tried in vain to renew fast track (now re-branded Trade Promotion Authority), which allows the Executive Branch to negotiate new deals that Congress must vote up or down. Anger over the negative impacts of existing pacts, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), on jobs and the environment had prevented both presidents from obtaining this authority.

But the new “fight terrorism with trade” sales pitch helped turn the controversial trade bill into a test of wartime patriotism. It passed by one vote in the House of Representatives.

By fueling paranoia about free trade critics, Zoellick helped secure Department of Homeland Security funds to deploy 2,500 law enforcement personnel in Miami during trade talks in the fall of 2003. Police fired rubber bullets and tear gas at peaceful demonstrators, causing scores of injuries.

That same fall, Zoellick had aimed verbal bullets at developing country leaders who refused to embrace his trade agenda. In a Financial Times commentary, Zoellick accused Brazil, India and other key middle-income nations of employing the “rhetoric of resistance” and the “politics of protest.” These countries had formed a bloc to persuade the United States to reduce its multi-billion dollar per year agricultural subsidies in exchange for other concessions.
Casting all pretense of diplomacy aside, Zoellick accused Brazil of being the leader of the “won’t do” nations that were to blame for the collapse of World Trade Organization negotiations.

This time, the hardball approach didn’t work as well. During his remaining year and a half as chief trade negotiator, Zoellick was unable to revive the WTO talks, which remain stalled today. His jabs at Brazil no doubt also contributed to the death of the hemispheric Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). Zoellick left his trade post for the State Department the same week that now-forgotten deal was due to be concluded.

Critics of corporate-driven trade agendas celebrated Zoellick’s failures as a trade negotiator. Since he was deaf not only to the concerns of many developing country governments, but also to those of civil society groups in the United States and abroad, it was certainly preferable to have no deals than bad ones.

But is a tone-deaf, name-calling steely opportunist a good choice to lead the World Bank? The Bank’s official mission, after all, is to fight global poverty, not promote U.S. corporate interests. And after the Wolfowitz uproar, one might have expected the Bush administration to pick a more genteel and broad-minded successor to lead this global institution.

For more than 60 years, however, the United States has enjoyed the unwritten privilege of crowning the Bank’s leader. And unfortunately, despite the wreckage of the Wolfowitz debacle, there appears to be little resistance from the rest of the world to the imposition of yet another Bush administration insider. Even the Brazilian government has decided to adopt a “can-do” attitude on the Zoellick nomination.

Sarah Anderson directs the Global Economy Project at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, DC, and was a staff member of the Congressionally appointed International Financial Institutions Advisory Commission (the Meltzer Commission).

The original version of this article, published by Foreign Policy In Focus can be found here.

The Venezuelan Government Shuts Down a TV Network

Readers:

One of the important stories making news in Latin America this week is the decision by the Venezuelan government to not renew the license for a TV network (RCTV) that has been critical of President Hugo Chavez and which played a role in the unsuccessful coup against him in April 2002. The government plans to hand over the broadcast channel to a station that is allied with the government.

As I have noted in this Blog before, I have never been to Venezuela, have no first hand knowledge of the issues there and at The Democracy Center we try to stick to topics we have researched and know something about. However, because we know this topic is of interest to our readers, below are excerpts from and links to two different commentaries on this issue from U.S. groups following the story. The first is a news release from the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA) that is critical of the government’s move. The second is from an article by the Venezuelan Solidarity Network defending the action.

Opinions on this topic are more numerous that facts and first hand knowledge. We encourage those who have some of the latter to share that information here if they wish.

Jim Shultz

WOLA Criticizes as Arbitrary and as a Violation of Due Process the Venezuelan Government’s Handling of RCTV License Non-Renewal

Washington, D.C., May 30, 2007 – The Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA) criticizes the Venezuelan government for the arbitrariness and violation of the right to due process that marked its decision not to renew the broadcast license that was held by Radio Caracas Television (RCTV). In addition, WOLA is concerned that if the public-service station that will now broadcast over the frequencies that had been licensed to RCTV proves to be nothing more than an outlet for government positions, with little or no room for dissenting views or for critical reporting about the government, then the non-renewal of the RCTV license could also constitute a threat to the right to freedom of expression.

Read the entire WOLA news release here.

Venezuela, RCTV, And Media Freedom: Just The Facts, Please

The general situation is this: In April of 2002, there was a two-day, illegal coup carried out against Venezuela’s electoral government, which involved the kidnapping and jailing of President Hugo Chavez. There were four major media outlets, along with others, who actively aided and abetted this coup (more later). In the intervening five years, none of them were closed, nor were any of their journalists incarcerated. Rather, the Chavez administration met with them, not to change their editorial slant, but to reach agreements preventing a repeat of such anti-democratic measure and the hyperbolic misrepresentation of facts, and also to discourage such continued infractions as the airing of pornography and cigarette commercials.

Read the entire commentary from the Venezuelan Solidarity Network here.

Democracy in Bolivia: A View from Visiting Students from the U.S.

Readers:

Twice a year a group of undergraduate students from the U.S. come to Bolivia as part of the semester abroad program sponsored by the School for International Training (SIT). Each semester I am invited by SIT to teach a half-day session and I get a chance to know some of these students. I always find them to be bright and wickedly inquisitive. They come to Bolivia for four months out of a desire to learn more about how people live here. They also come with a lot of questions about what they have heard about Bolivia before they came.

A few weeks ago a group of these students came to see me to share their observations after watching Bolivia’s Constituent Assembly in action, the elected body currently at work to draft a new national constitution. Before they came, they told me, they had heard dire warnings from the U.S. government about the deteriorating state of democracy in Bolivia. Watching that democracy in action in the city of Sucre, they told me, didn’t match what they heard. I invited them to write about that because I thought readers of this Blog might find their observations of interest. Here is what they wrote, unedited

Jim Shultz

Democracy in Bolivia

On February 27th, 2007, US State Department Director of National Intelligence, Michael McConnell, announced that democracy in Bolivia was “eroding” and “in danger.” As American university students studying culture and development in Cochabamba, Bolivia, we were compelled to react. Having arrived in January from 20 universities, each of us brought a sense of apprehension about the stability of the Bolivian state. Since then, we have been shocked to realize how our experiences have contrasted sharply with the potent rhetoric of US treatment of Bolivia.

As just one example, on January 22nd, 2007, Monte Reel of the Washington Post reported, ¨The new year nevertheless has begun with attention focused on a handful of countries where democracy is dead, dying, or in danger. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez began his term this month with a flurry of authoritarianism…..Bolivia’s Evo Morales and an ailing Fidel Castro are already in Mr. Chavez’s orbit.¨

Driven primarily by fear of the burgeoning regional power of populist president, Hugo Chavez, the US State Department and press undermine Evo Morales’ administration. Now is a time of intense political and social transformation in Bolivia; change, however, does not indicate a democracy in danger, and we have witnessed this truth firsthand.

Having recently traveled to the state capital, Sucre, we observed the proceedings of the Constituent Assembly, an electorate mandated to write the nation’s new constitution. As a result of longstanding pressure from indigenous social movements, Evo championed constitutional reform throughout his 2005 campaign trail. Shortly after his election, the Congress approved the Assembly and on July 2nd, 2006 the Bolivian people elected 255 representatives from 25 different political parties, citizen groups, and social organizations. The demographics of the Assembly’s 173 men and 82 women reflect the diverse socioeconomic makeup of South America’s most indigenous and impoverished nation. Though it would have been unthinkable just decades ago, many of Bolivia’s 32 indigenous groups are represented by constituents today.

During the first months of the Assembly’s existence, very little constructive work was accomplished due to ideological conflict and lingering prejudices. Realizing that progress was stalemated, on October 4th, Roman Loayza, a majority-party constituent, called for un abrazo de paz, an embrace of peace. Representatives who had never before cooperated in the political arena, who were raised to disrespect and mistrust one another, shared a symbolic embrace and vowed to move forward. Today, twenty-one commissions discuss the Constitution’s central themes, topics ranging from land reform to departmental autonomy to natural gas, in an effort to find common ground between diverse populations.

Many of our experiences witnessing the Assembly at work indicated the accessibility of this fundamentally democratic process. On the door of the Vision of the Country committee, an unpretentious and welcoming sign read "Estamos trabajando. Pasen por favor." (“We are working. Please come in.¨) Our group of 24 students was graciously ushered into the room, and we huddled in the back amongst others who had come to observe the discussion. Soon thereafter, the constituents distributed their personal contact information to further encourage dialogue and participation.

As they debated their conceptions of Bolivia’s future, the representatives sat at a round table. A woman clad in a traditional Quechuan pollera skirt voiced her opinion, the energy of her words bolstered by vibrant blue and purple cloth. Her ebony hair in long, thick plaits draped over the back of her chair. A mestizo man on her right, in suit and tie, listened attentively. His neatly shaven face, a much paler color, was furrowed in concentration. Their visual differences spoke volumes of the racial and class cleavages that have define the historical struggle of democracy in Bolivia. Given that just over 50 years ago, women and the indigenous majority were forbidden to vote, this political collaboration of the social hierarchy’s two extremes impressed us greatly.

Today, the Assembly continues to argue, sweat, stall, and creep towards a new democratic course for this nation. Its passionate, conflicted conversation is echoed in every level of Bolivian society. Bolivians are talking—discussing their deep disillusionment with past governments and the potential for realization of Bolivian democracy. Cities across the nation are open forums. Political graffiti of every opinion is splattered on buildings and public demonstrations commonly occur to contest political ideas. On our daily walk to school in Cochabamba, we observe graffiti both hailing Evo and saluting the notoriously bloody dictatorship of Garcia Mesa on the same brick wall.

To be clear, we understand that the Bolivian state continuously experiences distinct growing pains. This democracy is not a flawless apparatus, but many Bolivians are quick to tell you that the present moment is the most democratic in their nation's history. Today’s government faces the looming obstacles of reconstructing the constitutional foundation, navigating a regional political atmosphere wrought with tension, and improving its people’s daily lives. As it operates in a clear window of opportunity, the nation may be guided toward a stable, democratic future.

As always, the possibility exists that this window will steadily close or abruptly slam shut. Even so, given our firsthand observations, we strongly believe that the diagnosis of Bolivian democracy as “in danger” and “eroding” is preemptive and unfounded.

Written by Sydney Boling, Maggie Emmott, Shira Gordon, Katie O´Neill, Ella Scott, Destry Sibley, and Tarn Udall

Too High to Play Soccer?

I heard a saying once about soccer (futbol): "The ball is round, the game lasts 90 minutes, and the rest is undetermined." The rules aren't quite that simple, but compared to U.S. football (which, according to the untrained observer, involves the players holding an endless series of meetings interrupted by short periods of occasional play), they are quite clean.

This week Bolivia is at the center of a heated debate over a new rule that international soccer officials are seeking to impose – a limit on the elevation at which teams will be allowed to compete. This week the International Football Federation (FIFA) announced a new regulation that would prohibit international soccer matches from taking place above 2,500 meters (8,200 feet). The home teams in La Paz play at 3,600 meters (11,800 feet).

Visiting players to Las Paz have long complained about play at high altitude. And let's be honest, not every international airport offers oxygen to arriving passengers (free by the way). I tried going running once on a visit to La Paz. Big mistake, really, big mistake. On the other hand, the altitude does give a good margarita an extra kick if you can find one.

The dispute over how high international soccer can be played is the lead story in most all the morning papers here, easily replacing more mundane matters such as President Morales' battle with the Supreme Court and five of the country's regional governors; the efforts to write a new constitution; and Hugo Chavez de-licensing a TV station that backed the coup against him.

This is after all 'futbol' we are talking about.

President Morales took up the cause immediately. "We cannot allow discrimination in soccer, we cannot allow... exclusion in the world of sport," Morales said after an emergency meeting with his cabinet and soccer chiefs. He pledged to send a diplomatic delegation to Switzerland (FIFA's headquarters, which we will presume is in the country's lowlands) to appeal the rule. Evo has finally found an issue that rises above ideological squabbles and unifies the nation, albeit one that involves grown men running around a field after a round ball. But you take national unty where you can find it.

The politics of the high altitude ruling also goes well beyond Morales. The FIFA ruling may reactivate a 1996 commission created to respond to just such a threat, a member of which is former Presdent Carlos Mesa. If he rises to defend and protect the nation's soccer rights, the historian-turned-President may be remembered for little else.

International relations are also at stake. Bolivian press reports suggest that it was Brazil that pushed the new reuling behind the scenes. Players who train at the glorious sea levels of Sao Paulo and Rio de Janiero are not so keen to play in stadiums two miles high. If you thought negotiations over gas and oil prices brought tension to the two neighboring nations, just watch this.

Ecuador, which likes to fight its international competitors at 2,800 meters (9,200 feet). joined the fray as well. ""We'll defend to the death our right to play football at altitudes above 2,500 meters, and the right to play in Quito," one Ecuadoran soccer official told the local media. "As far as I can remember, no one's ever died during a soccer match at high altitude," said another.

Bolivia and others have pointed out that no rules exist limiting how hot or cold a place can be for playing the sport. Granted it might be hard for some players to breath at elevations that rival the peak of Mt. Whitney, but are international 'futbol' players really less macho than those guys who play U.S. football in Detroit in December. I am not really a sports guy but if given the choice between running around in pleasant temperatures at 11,000 feet versus having 300 pound men trying to whack me hard in subzero snows, I am pretty clear on which I'd pick.

We will do our best to keep you posted on this story as it develops.

An International Diplomacy Quiz

Readers:

I am back in Bolivia and catching up on local news.

Here is a small quiz about international diplomacy. Below are two scenarios (note: one is true the other is not) and following those is a set of questions. Please offer your answers and thoughts, if you like, as comments to this post.

Jim Shultz

Scenario #1:

Last week the Bolivian Ambassador to the U.S., Gustavo Guzman, paid an official visit to leaders of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives to discuss the recent political confrontations between the Democratic Congress and the Bush administration over setting a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. The two houses of Congress passed a resolution earlier this month conditioning continued funding for the War to a timetable for withdrawal.

Following his meeting with Congress, Ambassador Guzman met with U.S. journalists and proclaimed the Bolivia government’s support for the right of the Congress to assert itself in U.S. decision making about the War. “Bolivia considers that no democracy can be strong if the powers of all branches of government are not respected. We are convinced that democracy is only strengthened when the views of all branches of government are respected.”

A year ago, following President Bush’s declaration that he would not commit to any date by which U.S. troops might be brought home, Bolivia President Evo Morales publicly declared his concern about “the erosion of U.S. democracy.”

Bush administration officials reacted quickly and unhappily to the Bolivian government’s declarations. The President himself told reporters, “I regret that Guzman, on the pretext of respect for the powers of the various branches of government, has sought to defend a policy of surrender to terrorists.”

Scenario #2:

Last week the U.S. Ambassador to Bolivia, Phillip Goldberg, paid an official visit to members of Bolivia’s Supreme Court to discuss the recent political confrontations between the country’s judiciary and President Evo Morales over judicial opposition to the some of the government’s proposed policies. President Morales has accused some members of the Court of corruption and demanded their resignation.

Following his meeting with the Court, Ambassador Goldberg met with journalists and proclaimed the U.S. government’s support for judicial independence. “The U.S. considers that no democracy can be strong without respect for the independence of those powers. We are convinced that democracy is only strengthened when there is respect for its institutions.”

A year ago, following President Morales’ decree nationalizing Bolivia’s gas and oil, President Bush publicly declared his concern about “the erosion of Bolivian democracy.”

Morales administration officials reacted quickly and unhappily to the Bolivian government’s declarations. The President himself told reporters, “I really regretted that Goldberg, on the pretext of respect to powers independence, tries to defend corruption and injustice."

And now the quiz:

1. Which of the two scenarios above is true and which is false.

2. In the two cases above, was the action of the foreign diplomat appropriate or not appropriate and why?

3. Do some nations have more of a right to intervene in the domestic politics of others, and if so, why?

Your answers may be offered as comments to this post.

May the Force be With You

Okay, blame it on a bad case of six-hour jet lag and eight hours to kill in the Miami airport as I head slowly home to Bolivia. But I have decided to write a Blog about Star Wars. That is “Star Wars the Movie”, not “Star Wars the Weapons System.” CNN reports that tomorrow, May 25th is the 30th anniversary of the release of George Lucas space epic.

The CNN Web site also invites readers to share their Star Wars “memories” which, I admit, is a little hokey. But since I happen to have two really good ones, what the heck.

My “first time” (CNN’s words, not mine) came during that summer of 1977. It was, by the way, the same summer that Elvis died (a fact some still dispute) but we’ll save Elvis for another Blog on another day when I am stranded in another airport. That summer I took a break from my undergraduate studies at Berkeley to do a stint as an intern at the California State Capitol. One weekend I snuck down to Los Angeles to see my girlfriend at the time, who had become a quick convert to, “A long time ago in a galaxy…” Within hours of my arrival she whisked me to a West LA cinema to see Wookies. Yes it was cool.

Unfortunately a few days later I checked into Sacramento Mercy Hospital to have my tonsils out (at age 19, I was a late tonsil bloomer). To knock me out they first gave me a couple of strange pills that made my world more than a little blurry. Blurry enough so that when the masked anesthesiologist bent over me in pre-op I told him he was Darth Vader. The last thing I remember before blacking out entirely was his deep voice resonating through the mask, telling me, “May the force be with you.” Funny doc. Real funny.

By the way, I don’t think they should say morning prayers over the loud speaker in Catholic hospitals. When I was coming out of anesthesia to the sound of a priest’s broadcast voice I pondered the possibility for a few moments that I had not only died but had been sent to a heaven of the wrong denomination.

My second Star Wars tale worth repeating was a few weeks later, in Sacramento. The governor of California at the time was a wild-minded 37-year-old named Jerry Brown and Jerry Brown liked Star Wars a lot, a real lot. So much so that he did two things. The first was to propose that the state launch its own satellite and the other was to book a downtown theater for a special screening of Star Wars for the entire state legislature and all the other state elected officials. I got tickets as a staff member to the Assembly Speaker.

Imagine it, the entire political leadership of the state – Republicans and Democrats alike – all went to the movies together. Men and women who otherwise could not agree on anything sat together in darkened rows munching on popcorn and Rasinettes, and booing Darth Vader. And some of them actually were Darth Vader!

All of which gives me a good idea. In the name of bipartisanship I think that George Bush should invite the cabinet and the entire US Congress to hunker down together at a cinema in Washington for a move night. Now granted, the choice of movie would be difficult. Pirates of the Caribbean 19 might seem like it was mocking Bush “adventurism” in Iraq, so that is probably out. Spiderman 27 is probably out too. The Super Hero’s humility might also be seen as mocking out the President. So I’m thinking Shrek 34. Yes, I think that is just what the nation needs as a Memorial Day boost, for the entire elected leadership of the nation to sit down together and watch Shrek and Fiona. History might well record it as a turning point in the national mood.

To add your voice to this call send out leaders a message at the Web site:

www.heypoliticiansgoseeshrektogethernow.com

And that is why one should never Blog running on no sleep, six hours of jet lag, and nothing much to do in the Miami airport. See you for more serious business next week.

Mind the Gap

Anyone who has ridden the Underground, London´s subway, knows the message. ¨Mind the gap,¨ says the soft recording of a woman´s voice. In ¨The Tube¨ that means mind the gap between the train and the platform (to not get your foot caught).

For the past two and a half weeks I have darted back and forth across the other gap, one that traps even more than a stray foot. It is the gap between poverty and affluence. Cochabamba and California. The Balkans and London. This gap blows me away every time I cross it.

So often in Bolivia I hear how people from the U.S. are blown away by that gap. People who have never before left the world´s bubble of affluence gasp, ¨My God, people are so poor.¨ They are shocked by houses with metal roofs held down by rocks. They can´t believe the fleet of 1980s vintage Toyotas that populate the streets. They are stunned by the site of people washing their laundry in a river and by Cochabamba´s version of Wal-Mart, a 25 square block open market, ¨la cancha.¨ Even their shopping realities are sent reeling (trying on clothes is done behind a held-up sheet).

My ¨wealth shock¨ runs the other way. After ten years in Bolivia I am well-accustomed to the man outside my office who spends his day selling ten varieties of nuts from a cart (try the sweetened almonds) and probably makes $5 on a good day. The children who sell gum on the street are my small friends (and seek me out to buy extra mint Beldent). I accept the fact that some of the buses that take me to work in the morning come complete with a hole in the floor so I can watch the rock paved street go by underneath.

I am not trying to romanticize poverty by any means. I am saying that after living in its midst for so long I see the life and joys that reside even in poverty´s midst. No, what takes my breath away and leaves me reeling is affluence, the avalanche of it in the U.S. and Western Europe.

Maybe it was paying a price for a tuna sandwich in London that would have fed seven people nicely in Cochabamba. Maybe it was the news piece on CNN about the new Rolls Royce convertible which costs $450,000 and can be finished with wood from the buyer´s favorite tree (If I win the lottery, does that include a Molle from Cochabamba?). Rolls Royce says the car is targeted to buyers with ´disposable incomes´ of at least $15 million per year. Don´t get me into what that would buy in Bolivia (you could take the entire country out to lunch, twice). Maybe it was the other rolling fortunes on four wheels that line up on the streets of London and West Los Angeles.

I guess it comes down to this. How should we feel about these twin facts? On the one hand there a boatload of people living on this Earth who have so much money that it is mind boggling -- so much that there are whole industries dedicated to conjuring up viciously expensive new toys to give them something to spend it on. On the other hand there are guys in Cochabamba working seven day shifts as tax drivers that barely keep the families they don´t get to see much of fed.

There is global charity, to be sure. On the subway in London (the Rolls drivers will have missed this) there is billboard for a charity that proclaims it has been feeding hungry children for 70 years. If you give them money one of these kids will send you a cartoon drawing of an animal like the one on the billboard. But charity doesn´t cut it. What cuts it is justice.

Here are the words I read from an Irish priest once. I think they were carved into a wall in a church in Dublin. ¨When I said we should help people who are poor they called me a saint. When I asked why the people are poor they called me a Communist.¨

There have been politicians, Huey Long for one, that called for confiscating all fortunes over a certain amount and taxing all high incomes in a similarly confiscatory way. I am not suggesting that. I think what I am suggesting is this as a start: Mind the gap.

It is a radical idea really. It is about putting out there the fact that while wealthy rock stars beckon us to ¨Make poverty history!¨ we might also need to talk about wealth and how fairly it is or isn´t earned. I sat for a long hour yesterday in Madrid´s Plaza Mayor. Much of the wealth of Spain´s golden age of empire came from the silver stolen from Bolivia´s ¨Cerro Rico¨ in Potosi. A few centuries later the theft is obvious, though unatoned, unless you count Spain´s recent import of Bolivian nannies, house cleaners and construction workers.

A few decades or centuries hence, when the gap between the rich and poor is likely to be even wider and guarded widely with new weapons, what robberies and injustices from this time will the world be willing to confess to?

Be a radical. Mind the gap. Notice it. Cross it. Object to it. Get your foot stuck in it. Do something about it.

Notes from the Democracy-Building 2007 World Tour

Montenegro, the Balkans

In some ways two places and two groups could hardly be more different.

A week ago I was in Santa Fe, leading an advocacy training for a group that included, among many others: a young Pueblo tribal leader who told me about his nation’s efforts to keep from losing its language; Latino immigrant activists who have been part of the nationwide surge in the demand for immigrant rights; a young political reformer from the New Mexico chapter of Common Cause; and an environmental activist who helped stop a polluting coal plant. Outside the windows of the rooms where we met the scenery was southwest dry plains.

Today I am in the heart of the Balkans leading a similar training program in Montenegro, a country that only became an independent nation a year ago this month. Here the participants include: a woman who helps manage UN assistance to some of the 20,000 refugees who fled here during the Balkan wars; another woman bent on protecting the new country’s environment from the encroachment of Russian-owned energy companies; and a doctor who works on HIV/AIDS prevention in a country where the closet door on gays is shut tight. Outside the windows here is a rain-soaked European sky.

But as different and far away as they are from one another, these two gatherings are most striking in how they are the same – collections of good people working hard at the nuts and bolts of building democracy, the real kind.

“Democracy-building,” sadly, has become a dirty word of late in much of the word, a noble idea co-opted as one of the ever-changing justifications for the U.S. War in Iraq. That particular experiment in building democracy hasn’t gone well.

What do I see the same in these two groups, each forty strong?

First, all of them, from widely different cultures (including different cultures within the U.S.) have made that noble leap of faith that democracy is real and that it matters. Not everyone is willing to make that leap in the world. The excuses for not getting involved in public issues can be stacked high in any country – from ‘work keeps me too busy’ to ‘it won’t make a difference anyway.’ From protecting the environment to making government more honest, these folks are all giving it a shot.

Second, on continents separated by a wide ocean and more, they are all dealing with political systems that are deeply flawed, where power remains in the hands of those willing and able secure it with wealth and hidden dealings. They are trying to organize citizen power as a counterweight. Many times, but certainly not all, they are able to do just that.

Third, they want to get better at the “tricks of the trade”. That’s where I come in. I have been doing this work a long time and have learned a few of those tricks, enough to know that none work everywhere or every time. Nevertheless they have value. How do you speak about complicated issues publicly in a way that makes sense to your grandmother, or to a stranger on a bus? How do you get into the head of the authorities you are trying to influence? How do you organize citizen pressure and action in a way that is strategic and not misdirected?

People like learning these things. That’s good. But I also try to help them see something larger, something I have the good fortune to see by working with people like these, in the U.S., Africa, Latin America, Europe, and Asia. I tell them this:

You are not just ‘advocates.’ You are something more than that. You are agents of democracy, part of a movement that can be found in every small corner of the world and that still believes in the basic principle that regular people have the right and the ability to help shape the public decisions that in turn shape their lives. And that is more than any one issue, any one cause, or any one country.

That is how I see it from New Mexico to Montenegro, and farther still.

Airplanes and Airports

Podgorica, Montenegro

I suppose this is what happens when you pass through nine airports in seven days. You start to think about airplanes and airports. Here are some random observations from someone who has spent approximately 24 hours on airplanes recently, and almost that waiting in airports:

1. In the U.S. you can wear your belt when you go through security but you have to take off your shoes. In Europe they let you keep your shoes on but the belt has to come off. Maybe the various global intelligence services have figured out that terrorists are plotting different attacks depending on the continent, alternatively using belts and shoes. You can carry toothpaste in all countries, but it has to be small.

2. In the Dallas airport the restaurant selling bagels was closed while on layover. The sign read, We apologize but this ‘concept’ is closed. In Dallas they call selling a small mound of tuna on a bagel for $7, ‘a concept.’ The concept is called overpricing.

3. Other airport highlights: Miami has a small outdoor park and an indoor smoking room that looks like an aquarium. An aquarium for people who smoke. In the Phoenix airport you can buy a miniature cactus. In the Burbank airport there is not a single Starbucks. Someone told me it is a Starbucks-free zone, but they might have been joking. You can also take Amtrak to Simi Valley where they have many Starbucks. The train cost $10, enough for three small-sized cappuccinos (which at Starbucks are called ‘tall’). In Cochabamba $10 will keep you in capuchins for two weeks. But there aren’t any bagels.

4. Airline highlights: On American airlines they have free in-flight entertainment, but it is really just commercials. If you don’t bring a headset they will sell you one for $2. This means that some people must actually pay $2 to watch commercials. I’d like to meet them. Call me. In Europe they have a new concept. That concept is called feeding passengers. I think this might catch on. They also sometimes serve wine and beer for free. This is also good.

5. The best thing about being on an airplane is that most likely no one will bother you for many hours. The worst thing about being on an airplane for many hours is being on an airplane for many hours. Also, don’t believe them when they tell you that the emergency row seat by the window is a good seat. If it were a Disneyland ride they would call it Antarctica. People would go on it but that is because it would last 10 minutes instead of 9 hours and 40 minutes.

6. If you buy tuna on a bagel at the Miami airport at the bagel place (still open there) tell the young bearded guy from Jamaica that John Kerry says hi. For years he has thought I am John Kerry. I let him think that. It makes a nice story for both of us.

Greetings to all from ‘on the road’.

Jim

A Comment about Comments

Dear Commenters:

I am getting complaints again about the overly personalized tone of comments posted here. Let me just repeat what I have said before:

1. I very much hope that people, of all perspectives, will limit their Blog comments to substantive discussion of the issues and not personal attacks against others who choose to comment.

2. I have been asked again, as I have before, to moderate the comments or selectively delete them. I won't do either. I think The Democracy Center already contributes enough time to make this Blog available to all and to allow all to comment. I am not willing on to take on the additional task of moderating comments. Also, if we do so then people will accuse us of censoring comments critical of our work, which we obviously do not.

3. I don't generally read the comments posted here. I do scan them once in a while. It seems like just a few people post 90% of the comments. They might want to start their own Blogs and post their thoughts there. Then those people interested can read them. Readers who do that are welcome to post a link to their Blogs here.

Again, let's make an effort to keep things civil and focused on the issues.

Thank you,

Jim Shultz
The Democracy Center

Report Excerpt: The Administration of President Evo Morales

Readers:

I am still traveling, en route Monday from the US to Europe. Here is another excerpt from The Democracy Center’s new report, “Interpreting Bolivia’s Political Transformation.” This one looks at the debate over the administration of President Evo Morales.

Jim Shultz

The Administration of President Evo Morales

Bolivia on the Brink, for good reason, devotes significant attention to the character, policies, and actions of the government of President Evo Morales. Bolivia on the Brink is substantially critical of the Morales government, and to be clear, there is ample reason for much of that criticism. However, it is also important that this criticism be based on facts and not unsubstantiated generalizations and accusations.

Unfortunately, it is with unsubstantiated generalizations that Bolivia on the Brink opens its criticism of the Morales government. The author writes on the first page, “Most people who follow Bolivian politics agree that the MAS’ aggressive policies … have polarized Bolivians more than ever before.” Nowhere, however, does the paper tell us who those “most people” are, why their views are representative, or how they were measured. We are also left to wonder why those observers believe that Bolivia is more polarized now than it was under previous governments that had to declare national suspensions of constitutional rights in order to quell protest.

More seriously, the author openly accuses the Bolivian President of murder, again without evidence or substantiation. Referring to an “unsolved incident” involving the kidnapping and murder of four police officers in 2000, the author declares that the killings took place, “presumably under [Morales’] orders,” despite the fact that Morales has never been formally charged or convicted of such a crime.

The report does, however, raise a set of issues about the Morales government that are worth closer examination.

Questions of Competence

Bolivia on the Brink challenges the Morales administration on its basic competence to govern. Citing recent violence between two rival groups of miners, the paper charges that the government “responded clumsily” to the violence. It describes the administration’s announcement of its trade policy as an “unrehearsed response.” It says that Morales has ignored any “level-headed attempts” to listen to opposition groups. It also notes, with good reason, the problems that the administration has had implementing its ambitious gas nationalization program.

On the one hand, we agree that the Morales administration has demonstrated real difficulty in assembling the expertise and resources it needs to govern competently. One clear example is in the administration’s ongoing and serious problems implementing its gas plans, including contract errors and ongoing turnover of high-level administration officials. While these problems need to be taken seriously, they also need to be understood in the Bolivian context.

First, Morales and his MAS party have sought to build a government from among segments of the population that have long been excluded from the process of governance. Bolivia’s indigenous and impoverished majority has not had the same access to higher education (often abroad) or governing opportunities that members of the nation’s wealthier elite have had. This has left the government with a significant and problematic deficit of experience.

Second, the performance of the Morales Administration should be measured by the competence of prior governments that enjoyed more standard credentials. The administration of the U.S.-educated Sánchez de Lozada, for example, was presumed by outsiders to be particularly competent. However, its privatization policies ceded control of a vital resource, oil and gas, into the hands of foreign interests and left oil and gas revenue essentially flat. On the other hand, the reforms enacted under pressure from social movements, under Morales and prior administrations, have led to a revenue increase of almost $1 billion per year.

The issue of competence deserves a more careful and balanced analysis than Bolivia on the Brink provides.

Questions of Rhetoric

Over and over again Bolivia on the Brink criticizes Morales for his use of unhelpful rhetoric, particularly against the U.S. and the Bush Administration. These references include:

• “Morales’s [sic] incendiary anti-U.S. rhetoric… (p. 26)”
• “…antitrade rhetoric was a significant component of [Morales’] campaign platform (p. 26)”
• “The implications of Morales’s [sic] anti-U.S. rhetoric…(p. 27)”
• “…whatever the domestic political gains of incendiary anti-U.S. rhetoric…(p. 36)”
• “…toning down its anti-American rhetoric… (p. 36)”
• “…the anti-imperialist rhetoric of the Morales government. (p. 36)”

The report is correct in its observation that Morales has inflated Bolivian-U.S. tensions unnecessarily with combative and overblown rhetoric aimed at the U.S. However, President Morales has toned down his rhetoric more recently, and some of Bolivia on the Brink’s characterization of that rhetoric seems, itself, overblown. In one example, the paper calls Morales’ speech before the United Nations in September 2006 so “incendiary” that it undermined Bolivia’s efforts to win extension of U.S. trade preferences. In fact, Morales’ UN speech made substantial effort to strike a diplomatic tone.

He pledged to respect private property, rejected any policies of confiscation, endorsed the need for private investment in his country, and declared, “I don’t come here to tell you how to govern or to threaten a country…I only want you as international organizations…as nations with principals of reciprocity, of brotherhood, to participate in this process of democratic change.”
The paper’s claim of Morales’ “antitrade rhetoric” is similarly misleading. Morales has spoken clearly and often about his support for foreign trade, including in his UN speech, but with an emphasis on agreements that serve the economic interests of his country rather than those of other foreign trading powers.

It is also important to note that the rhetorical tension between the Bush Administration and Morales did not begin with the latter’s inauguration in January 2006. As Bolivia on the Brink notes, the U.S.’ own rhetorical attacks against Morales helped elevate his political status in Bolivia. When he was leader of Bolivia’s coca grower unions, U.S. officials labeled Morales and his union as “a mafia” and “narco-terrorists.” The week before Bolivia’s 2002 Presidential election, in which Morales was a leading candidate, President Bush’s Ambassador to Bolivia, Manuel Rocha, issued a warning to voters. “As a representative of the United States, I want to remind the Bolivian electorate that if you elect those who want Bolivia to become a major cocaine exporter again, this will endanger the future of U.S. assistance to Bolivia.”

In fact, after a cordial start to Morales-U.S. relations following his January 2006 inauguration, it was the Bush Administration that ignited the renewed rhetoric war, not Bolivia. In February of 2006, just weeks into Morales’ term, then-U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld spoke of Morales in a speech before the National Press Club in Washington. After likening Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to Adolph Hitler he turned to Morales. “We’ve seen some populist leadership appealing to masses of people in those countries. And elections like Evo Morales in Bolivia take place that clearly are worrisome.” Following Morales’ gas nationalization decree in May 2006, an act aimed at implementing a demand endorsed by more than 90% of Bolivian voters in a national referendum two years before, President Bush followed Rumsfeld’s lead, expressing concern about “the erosion of democracy” in Bolivia.

The exchange of rhetoric between Washington and La Paz since Morales assumed the presidency has clearly been a two-way street, a point essential to evaluating Bolivia-U.S. relations. As Bolivia on the Brink notes, “If the United States maintains a cooperative tone, then, ideally, the Bolivian government should reciprocate by assuming a less publicly hostile posture toward the United States.” We agree with the author that toning down rhetoric on both sides of the U.S.-Bolivia relationship will serve the diplomatic interests of both nations and their peoples.

Report Excerpt: Bolivia – The Historical Context

Readers,

As promised, we are going to begin posting excerpts here on the Blog from The Democracy Center’s new report, Interpreting Bolivia’s Political Transformation. We wrote the report as a response to Bolivia on the Brink by Professor Eduardo Gamarra, published by the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations. Links to both reports can be found here.

We are posting these excerpts to create a forum for informed dialogue and discussion on current events in Bolivia. Our report will also be translated to Spanish and posted here in a few weeks. We have encouraged the Council to publish a translated version of its report as well, because obviously Bolivians have a right to see what is being written about events in their country.

One last note, as visitors to this Blog know, there are some people who believe that the best form of analysis is not actually analysis but insult, and certainly doing that takes less time and thought. To be clear, our paper is no way an attack on Professor Gamarra or the Council, both of whom we consider colleagues and both of whom we respect. They certainly understand that and we gave both Professor Gamarra and the Council an advance draft of our report and invited them to comment and point out anything that either considered to be unfair. We would certainly hope that our readers would treat both Professor Gamarra and the Council with similar respect in their comments here.

Jim Shultz

Report Excerpt: Bolivia – The Historical Context

No country can be separated from its history and no analysis of current events in Bolivia would be complete without a solid understanding of the historical context that has brought Bolivia to the moment of important change where it finds itself today.

Bolivia is the most impoverished country in South America and the most economically unequal. It is also the most indigenous country in all of the Americas. Its roots, going back five centuries, have been shaped by interventions from abroad, most of which have produced exploitation and hardship. In the 1500s and 1600s the Spanish mined Bolivia’s famous Cerro Rico in Potosí, the single hill that was so filled with silver that it virtually bankrolled the Spanish Empire for two centuries. The fact that Bolivia sat atop one of the largest sources of mineral wealth on the planet and ended up the poorest nation on the continent is a well-remembered injustice here and an unfortunate precursor for much of its history since.

The Dominant Role of the “Washington Consensus” in Bolivia

While Bolivia on the Brink devotes a good deal of attention to the new role of Venezuela and Cuba in Bolivia, strikingly absent from the report is any substantial analysis of the outside forces that have most shaped Bolivia’s path for the past two decades: international financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank.

For twenty years, Bolivia was one of Latin America’s main testing grounds for a package of market-driven economic reforms known as the Washington Consensus. John Williamson, the U.S. economist who coined that phrase in testimony before the U.S. Senate, has called Bolivia “the big bang” of implementation of the IMF and World Bank economic model in Latin America. Understanding that history is essential to understanding the dynamics of current Bolivian politics.

Under direct IMF and World Bank pressure, conservative Bolivian governments throughout the 1980s and 1990s engineered a radical change of direction in national economic policy. Often in order to comply with conditionalities that those institutions tied to essential aid, Bolivia privatized most of its key national industries and resources, from its gas and oil to its public water systems. Bolivia undertook those reforms based on predictions and promises that the results would help lift the nation from poverty. The new jobs and substantial boost in revenues from gas and oil privatization never materialized, a topic we discuss in more detail below. The water privatizations coerced by the World Bank as loan conditions in 1997 led to substantial rate hikes and the now-famous Cochabamba Water Revolt in 2000.

Bolivia on the Brink is correct when it attributes the political rise of President Evo Morales as due, in part, to the country’s “efforts to follow a market-oriented development model.” However, by failing to mention the central role that U.S.-dominated institutions played in pressuring Bolivia to adopt that model, the report misleads readers into thinking that Bolivians set out on that course strictly by their own choice. Pressure from international financial institutions was pivotal in that policy shift, a fact that still casts an important shadow over the nation’s politics.

Repressive Governments

All Bolivians over the age of forty have vivid memories of living under brutal dictatorships, marked by torture, disappearances, and the suspension of key civil liberties. Many of these authoritarian regimes during the 1970s enjoyed the support of the U.S. governments of the time and were propped up by loans from foreign financial institutions. That repression reappeared as well under elected governments after democracy was restored in Bolivia in 1981. During the Cochabamba Water Revolt in 2000, for example, a dictator who returned as an elected president, Hugo Banzer, turned armed troops on protesters and imposed a suspension of civil liberties. The role of political repression in Bolivia’s history, despite its importance in understanding current events, is absent from Bolivia on the Brink.

More important, however, is the paper’s direct misrepresentation of the events in September and October 2003 that led to the resignation of President Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada. The author writes, “To many observers, Sánchez de Lozada’s resistance to the demand for a new Constituent Assembly was the main factor responsible for his fall.” The actual events leading to President Sánchez de Lozada’s resignation and subsequent fleeing to the U.S. are well documented and dramatically at odds with the author’s representation.

The protests that spread across Bolivia in October 2003 were clearly not about the proposal for a Constituent Assembly to rewrite the nation’s constitution. They were directly in opposition to a plan by Sánchez de Lozada to export under-priced Bolivian gas through Chile to the U.S. That opposition, which led tens of thousands of Bolivians into the streets, was an expression of both mistrust of Sánchez de Lozada’s economic plans and Bolivians’ historic and deep resentment of Chile’s seizure of their nation’s last access to the sea more than a century ago.

More importantly, the protests were transformed into a broad public call for Sánchez de Lozada’s resignation only after troops dispatched by Sánchez de Lozada to break-up the protests engaged in a wave of repression that left more than sixty people dead. Even Mr. Sánchez de Lozada’s own Vice President, Carlos Mesa, broke with him over the repression. The author’s failure to mention these events surrounding Mr. Sánchez de Lozada’s resignation – the killings in particular – leaves readers with a woefully incomplete understanding and damages the paper’s credibility.

Where the Battle of Bolivia is Being Fought Now -- On TV

A short post from the Miami Airport, en route.

I don’t own a TV and haven’t in a very long time. So it took a few minutes (and only a few minutes) of watching TV in Santa Cruz this morning to see where the Battle of Bolivia has moved since it exploded in the streets of Cochabamba last January. It is now on TV.

There are a lot of commercials now (I presume paid for by the government, but that is only a guess) promoting Evo. Some tout how much new federal spending is being poured into Tarija. Another touts Bolivia’s national development bank. They each end with a screen of a smiling, definitely not radical Evo, with the slogan: Bolivia Advances, Evo Delivers.

In between those, in Santa Cruz at least, one can view much less slick ads attacking Evo. This morning I watched one presented by the Santa Cruz Civic Committee (paid for by who?) warning of the dire neglect that Santa Cruz has received from the national government for its desired educational reforms. The ad ended in an appeal for viewers to join in a march today in Santa Cruz.

Both ads are basic propaganda pieces, though, as noted, the government’s was slicker by a good measure. What can we say about this? I am sure we can say a lot of negative things that will vary depending on your perspective of things. I’ll say this, it is a hell of a lot better than the battle over the nation’s direction being played out with rocks, guns, sticks and machetes on the streets. But that is just an opinion.

Interpreting Bolivia's Political Transformation: A New Report from The Democracy Center

Dear Readers:

Today we have two important announcements from The Democracy Center.

Our first is that today The Democracy Center is releasing a major new report on the state of Bolivian politics: Interpreting Bolivia’s Political Transformation. The Democracy Center wrote the paper as a response to a new report on Bolivia published by the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations, that one titled, Bolivia on the Brink.

For those readers interested in current events in Bolivia, the two reports, from The Democracy Center and the Council, are good tools for understanding the transformation under way today in Bolivia. They also shed light on the important debate underway in Washington over how the U.S. should deal with a changing Bolivia.

The Council on Foreign Relations and The Democracy Center have agreed to post links to each other’s papers on our respective Web sites. To read a short summary of The Democracy Center report, and for links to both papers, visit here.

Below is a brief summary of our new report. Over the next two weeks, during which I will be traveling abroad again for work, we will excerpt major sections of Interpreting Bolivia’s Political Transformation. Those excerpts will include analyses on issues ranging from gas nationalization to coca to trade, as well as the current state of the Morales administration. We know that each of these issues is of interest to Blog readers, from all perspectives, and we invite and expect an interesting debate by our commenters.

Our second announcement is that after months of design work by our team in Bolivia and the U.S. we are proud to unveil our brand new Web site. Simpler to use, yet more comprehensive than our previous site, you will find everything from a library of free advocacy resources to multimedia presentations on Bolivia. You will also find constantly updated links to the latest versions of our newsletter and this popular Blog from Bolivia, now read by 2,500 to 3,000 people daily. Have a look at the new site this week!

Visit our new Web site here.

Thank you to all our readers,

Jim Shultz

Interpreting Bolivia's Political Transformation: Key Points

** The report sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations includes some valuable analysis and recommendations for U.S. policy makers, particularly with regard to the need for new flexibility on the issues of coca and trade. Unfortunately, it also includes some significant misrepresentations and bases its analysis, at times, on unsubstantiated generalizations.

** The report wisely encourages U.S. policy makers to positively engage the Bolivian government, despite differences between the Morales and Bush administrations. It is important to note, however, that its suggestions for doing so are aimed primarily at advancing what it calls "U.S. interests in Bolivia and the Andean Rim," not Bolivia's national interests.

** While Bolivia does continue to face significant social tensions and political conflict, the country is not "on the brink" of the kind of national crisis projected by the report. In fact, Bolivia today is generally more politically and economically stable than it has been under most of its recent governments.

** While the administration of President Evo Morales does struggle with assembling a competent and effective government, an assessment of that challenge requires a far deeper analysis than the one offered in Bolivia on the Brink.

** On a range of key issues, from the "nationalization" of gas to constitutional reform, the Bolivian government's actions are actually a good deal less extreme than they are portrayed in the report.

** Bolivia on the Brink calls on U.S. policy makers to "convince" Bolivia's neighbors to assume a role in helping resolve Bolivia's domestic political divisions, despite the fact that such foreign involvement has not been invited and would present a clear conflict of interests.

The Democracy Center on New Internationalist Radio

The New Internationalist magazine is an excellent publication out of the U.K. that has been reporting on global issues in a deep and accessible way for more than thirty years. It also has – researchers should note – a phenomenal searchable, and free, data base of articles on almost every global topic imaginable from every region of the world. Its photography is also about the best you will see in any magazine. You can visit The New Internationalist magazine here.

The New Internationalist has also recently launched a global radio network, accessible on-line. Last month, NI Radio invited me to join in as a guest in a program it titled, "The Arrogance." The program looked at the role of international financial institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, and specifically looking at the experiences of Bolivia, Indonesia and Iraq.

You can listen to the program, produced in Australia, by clicking here. Scroll down to the bottom of the page and click on the "play" button for "The Arrogance."

Bolivia Pulls Out of World Bank Trade Court

It is an institution little known outside the world of international corporate attorneys, but it can assert power greater than national governments. It is called the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ISCID), a secretive trade court operated by the World Bank in Washington.

This week three Latin Governments began the process of unraveling its powers. At a summit meeting the governments of Bolivia, Venezuela, and Nicaragua announced that they were ending their participation in ICSID. They are pulling out. The move is an important event in the evolving politics of global trade.

ICSID is the same trade court handpicked by the U.S. Bechtel Corporation, in its unsuccessful effort to sue Bolivians for $50 million in the aftermath of the Cochabamba Water Revolt that ousted the company. The ICSID process is highly secretive. The public and the media aren't allowed to know when or where case tribunals meet, who testifies or what they say. An international pressure campaign waged by more than 300 groups in 43 countries eventually led Bechtel officials to drop their case in January 2006, for a token payment equal to thirty cents. Read more about the case here.

The three Latin American governments declared at a summit in Merida, Venezuela, "[We] emphatically reject the legal, media and diplomatic pressure of some multinationals that ... resist the sovereign rulings of countries, making threats and initiating suits in international arbitration."

The Washington-based Institute for Policy Studies and Food & Water Watch just released a report analyzing how the World Bank/ICSID dispute resolution process "has given global companies unprecedented power to undermine governments’ authority to protect human rights and natural resources and pursue national development strategies." That report can be read here.

The ability of Bolivia and the other countries to completely disengage from ICSID still remains in some doubt. What binds Bolivia to the World Bank trade court is not Bolivian law but a whole set of bilateral trade agreements with other countries that invoke ICSID as the agreed to mechanism for arbitration. According to one attorney familiar with the process, many of those agreements allow for dispute resolution to take place through other mechanisms that are less secretive and more balanced in terms of national rights. However, other agreements only invoke ICSID as the arbiter and in those cases Bolivia will have to negotiate new arrangements.

In a world of tightening global economic rules, most written to favor corporations just like Bechtel, ICSID has become a major policeman. To be sure, governments and investors will not always see eye to eye on things after contracts are signed and disputes will need to be settled fairly. But that should not be a license to do so in secret, hidden even from those who will bear the cost, in cash, or in the repeal of important environmental and consumer protections.

Saying "hasta la vista" to ICSID is a step toward reclaiming sovereignty and it should not come us a surprise if other countries start to follow Bolivia's lead.