Radio La Plata - 26th July 2000

I missed an anniversary at the end of last year, and only found out about it by reading the Correo del Sur website – the local newspaper in Sucre.

I didn’t realise that the station had been going so long!  The reason I am particulary interested is that this is the radio station that I gave an interview at when I was in Sucre many years ago.

At the time I had been learning Spanish for about 18 Months and the interviewer asked me about my trip with the Scouts to Bolivia.  I am pleased to say that I was able to understand most of what he was asking, but he professionalism showed through when he asked me something that I didn’t understand and was able to read in my eyes that was having trouble with the question.  Before I even had a chance to say anything, he rephrased it and hopefully the listeners did not even notice.  I was so proud to have given my first Spanish press interview!

So, even if it is a bit late: ¡Feliz cumpleaños, Radio La Plata!

Recently U.S. President Bush has been pushing for free trade.  I have heard him talk about it, at least.  And, of course, I’ve been reading about it online.

However, as El Paso Times reports, this does not extend to trade with Bolivia.  To put it bluntly: the U.S. will impose import tariffs on Bolivian goods, because the Bolivians won’t play ball on drug erradication.

Now, of course there is a cultural element here and I could talk about the different views to growing coca, but at the end of the day the U.S.A. is flexing its muscles and using its position on the world market to try and influence the internal politics of another country.  Or have I got this wrong somehow?

Bolivian President Morales doesn’t seem to be too worried about losing one of his main export markets, and is quoted as saying he won’t accept conditions for trading with the U.S.  This is an interesting position for him to take.  If he gave in to Bush’s demands, he may appear weak to he own people.  But by remaining determined, he may cause those very same people to lose they jobs.

Which is the lesser evil?

Bolivia has not really got on too well with President Bush’s administration.

Over the past year they have expelled each other’s ambassadors.  Bolivia has accused U.S. officials of supporting anti-government demonstrations, whilst the U.S. has withdrawn trade benefits because it says Bolivia is not co-operating as much as they would like on the battle against illegal drugs.

So this morning I was fascinated by a headline in my inbox this morning: “Bolivia wants better ties with next U.S. government.”

What does Bolivia expect from the new administration?  I’m not so sure that either candidate in the U.S. would change much in the relationship with Bolivia.  A new U.S. President cannot be seen to be soft on drugs, and unfortunately for many people the local uses of the coca leaf in Bolivia are ignored – for them it is the basis for cocaine and nothing else.

President Morales, on the other hand, will not want to make concessions to a new U.S. President and disadvantage his own people.

So whatever the outcome of today’s election, I think the stalemate will continue.  But perhaps with the right result, it may be a case of laissez-faire, with each side leaving the other to get on with their policies.  In the long run this could help both countries more than applying unwanted pressure.

President Morales has announced that the people of Bolivia are to get the chance to vote in a referendum on the future constitution of the country.  The referendum is due to take place on 7th December.

The big question is: will this be the final decision on a number of policitcal issues?

One of the changes concerns the re-election of the Bolivian President.  If he wins the vote, President Morales could be re-elected a number of times more than is currently allowed.  I for one am wondering why such a step is necessary.  After all, other countries have rules to stop a President from ruling ad infinitum, and it probably does them good to have a change very few years.  Removing this rule in Bolivia would surely be a step backwards?

The other major issue is that of autonomy for some of Bolivia’s wealther regions – something that was partially voted on back in May of this year, although the result was not recognised a national level.

So will it be different this time around?  Will the people get to chose more autonomy for their regions, as long as they agree to an indefinite number of terms for the President?