America's Dark Past Intrudes on Bolivian Elections

The thinking that motivated the United States throughout its history is alive and well today, which is why, according to this op-ed article from Bolivia's Bol Press, political candidates that align themselves with the United States are suspect, and those that favor the policies of Hugo Chavez can reap electoral rewards.

By Andres Soliz Rada

Translated By Richard Hauenstein

December 14, 2005

Original Article (Spanish)    

"Only fools speak of establishing permanent relations, without the use of force, between the pure American race, such as exists in the United States, and the half-breed Hispano-Indian race, such as is found in Mexico and Central America."

 William Walker, "Autobiography," 1855, Quoted in "Guide to the Third World," Editorial Bodoni, Mexico, 1979. Pg. 315

In election campaigns the world over, there are exaggerations and falsehoods. Nonetheless, it was simply too much when Hernán Terrazas, representative of the presidential campaign of Jorge Quiroga, indicated to Juan Ramón Quintana, delegate of Evo Morales [another candidate], that the latter supported the "Venezuelan Imperialism" of Hugo Chávez, in response to criticism that Quiroga favored the policies of the United States.

The quote by the North American pirate [William Walker] cited at the beginning of this article, anticipates the difference between countries that are oppressors and oppressed, established by classical Marxism since Lenin, and characterized by the draining of economic resources that more-or-less all colonies and semi-colonies have suffered from the imperialists, including during invasions and territorial mutilations. (Walker, with the support of Washington, was proclaimed president of Nicaragua in 1856 in order to spread slavery, which was at the point of being abolished in his own country).

[Editor's Note: President of Lower California, Emperor of Nicaragua, doctor, lawyer, writer - these were some of the titles claimed by William Walker, the American "filibuster." In the mid-nineteenth century, adventurers known as "filibusters" participated in military actions to annex Latin American nations for the United States - an expression of Manifest Destiny, the idea that the U.S. was destined to control the continent. Had he been successful, he might have brought several Central American countries into the United States as pro-southern states, altering the balance in Congress and postponing The Civil War [READ MORE].

In particular, Carlos Montenegro, in his book "Foreign Investment in Latin America," lays bare the brutality with which the U.S. annexed half of Mexico and divided Colombia to create the Republic of Panama, the landing of the Marines in Central America, the overwhelming force with which the CIA toppled Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala, or the slaughters perpetrated by the United Fruit Co. in the "banana republics" which were disobedient to the North American colossus.

The above is not merely history. It is also going on today. Not so many years have passed since the bombardment of Panama, the invasions of Granada or the Dominican Republic, the imposition of inhuman dictatorships in the region, or the genocides in Iraq or Afghanistan, not to mention the unnecessary atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the U.S. prisons in Baghdad or Guantánamo, or the actual CIA torture centers in Eastern Europe.

Venezuela, on the other hand, is one more of the balkanized provinces of the Great Fatherland. It suffered all the consequences of that disintegration, from the suction of the oil companies and "mono-production," recorded by Sergio Almaraz in his "Petroleum in Bolivia." Near the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, Venezuela suffered bombardment of its ports by English, German and Italian ships because it didn't pay its foreign debt.

All attempts by the semi-colonies to stop such humiliation have been reviled by the metropolitans [supporters if the colonial powers] and their internal agents. Perón [Argentina] was branded a fascist, Villaroel [Bolivia] a Nazi, and the NRM as Communist, as was the government of General Alfredo Ovando y Marcelo Quiroga Santa Cruz [Bolivia] for nationalizing their petroleum industry.

No matter what defects one may wish to find in the Venezuelan president, Hugo Chávez is one of the leaders of national liberation in Latin America, above all for seeking to bring together the state enterprises of South America and Central America. This is intolerable to the European and North American transnational producers of "black gold."

In day-to-day politics, the national visions of Venezuela and Bolivia do not always coincide, and even less if they are seen to be governed by the heirs to the politics of [Bolivian President] Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada.

[Editor's Note: He is credited for "shock therapy" (with Jeffrey Sachs) - the extreme measures taken by Bolivia in 1985 to cut down on rampant hyperinflation caused by excessive government spending. READ MORE]

Of course it pleased us that Chávez supported the maritime interests of Bolivia, and we didn't share his support of José Miguel Insulza for the post of Secretary General of the OAS. We would have preferred that he continue to buy Bolivian soybeans and not those from the United States. We could wish for him to break up the energy cartel that seeks to extract Bolivian natural gas.

Nevertheless, one of the political essentials for Chávez is that he must look for ways to stop the attempts by the CIA to overthrow or assassinate him, and another is to use subtle means by which to distinguish his regime from the real "imperialists" - like those presided over by Bush, Cheney, or by Tony Blair.