Riz Khan - Evo Morales vs US - 24 July Part 2

[deadshepherd666]

Unfortunately, in a world with few friends, Morales' Bolivia is facing a hard road ahead. Like the ambassador said, Brazil is actually the largest stakeholder in Bolivia's resources. I still think that the worldwide far left revolution is beginning and relies on the third world,but first world countries also need to start coming to their senses to help these insecure countries. Americans: I know a leftist US change seems impossible but we have to try to change our country to be a force of good

[CoonAndFriends2]

@deadshepherd666 A hard road ahead indeed. However I think Evo Morales should face responsibility for his own actions. On one hand he has been asking the US to relieve Bolivian exports from paying import duties and tariffs, and on another he has been blaming the US for everything that went wrong during his mandate. After nationalizing the gas industry, he has used all the revenues for social programs and didn't reinvest to keep the revenues coming. Now the gas reserves have fallen by almost 2/3.

[deadshepherd666]

@CoonAndFriends2 Yes, unfortunately in terms of raw economic decision nationalization was not the best decision. However, the alternative would be what, cut oil subsidies, social programs and bring back oppressive foreign economic intervention? Thats what Bolivia was doing for the last 50 years. Hopefully, in the next years other Latin American countries will strive for equitable economies so maybe instead of just the rise of Brazil. maybe the next 20 years will see the rise of Latin America.

[CoonAndFriends2]

@deadshepherd666 Actually I don't disagree with his decision to nationalize, only the way he spent the revenues of nationalization. If he would've done what he said he would (investing in YPFB instead of seeking foreign investors willing to do that for him) then the gas industry would still be sustainable. Yes, that would mean less money for social programs, but at least his economic model would be sustainable instead of facing a possible shutdown and massive inflation (10% today).

[deadshepherd666]

@CoonAndFriends2 Yes you're right, as it is difficult to sustain a largely nationalized economy in an competitive environment it would have been better decision making for Morales to have immediately reinvested profits into YPFB. You can see why he spent it on social programs though and has to resort on foreign investment, just because of popular demand and keeping his critical support base happy. It does certainly mean a longer road to equity for Bolivia though :/

[CoonAndFriends2]

@deadshepherd666 Yes, unfortunately it's really hard to keep political stability. The current situation proves this, as several unions are protesting against Morales with irresponsible demands (15% wage increase for the PRIVATE sector, and not just the minimum!! The 10% Morales offered is irresponsible as it is). I think the only solution for Bolivia's social issues is to have a big government, but a responsible big government, which unfortunately is really hard to find, even in the First world.

[CoonAndFriends2]

@deadshepherd666 Brazil has a state-run oil and gas company as well (Petrobras), the big difference with YPFB is the responsibility of the people in charge of its management and the willingness of the Brazilian government to sacrifice short-term political gains for economic independence and sustainability.

[Lexman00]

I am willing to bet that the only people who oppose Evo Morales are the rich white minority that like being in power and think that they are the most important people in Latin America, when in fact they are the worst people of us all. Because they are racist and discriminatory towards their own brothers, the whites always think they are better and deserve more than others. Not anymore, we have Evo Morales now, the symbol of democratic social justice in Bolivia.

[adamthelover10]

that embassador's English is terrible, what a horrible accent, why is that Spanish (from Spain obviously) descendants can not speak a proper English. Long live Evo Morales and Bolivia.

[llactaruna40]

the usa media is shame is a lafe. it is incradible i personaly in the past belived tha usa people wre civilise an clever. what a disapintment. now i have onother pinion. the mayoriti of usa people are blind as the butts. pore people are manipulated by btheir media their neuw are cpmplity censure and the education is of the third worl ofcoorse not oll people.exist still alot that have critical analises and is my which you still recist an multiply. long live the truth. peru 2011 ollanta

[erby1kabogey]

Al Jazeera has some great interviews/discussions! The U.S. media should take notes! Oh that's right the government tells the media what and how to report news, I forgot!

[deone20008]

Please do not talk about Bolivia unless you are curently living there! It's easy to talk when you live outside, you have to live in Bolivia to understand the problems.

Ambassador Aparicio has an interesting way to understand the current situation. He wasn't ambassador only in Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada governement, he was also in Carlos Mesa's government and in Rodrigo Veltzé's government.

[Ginae4]

Yeah, but those presidents contributed to the chaos that exists in Bolivia.

[stopthatnoise]

deone20008: it is not true, the presidents you mentioneted were stealing the people

[NWKBricks1]

Good guests, especially John Pilger. His book. "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" is great. Thanks, AJE.

[euclidxxx]

You meant 'John Perkins' - an easy mistake to make. I agree that Perkins was a good choice as guest (but maybe not so the former ambassador).

[NWKBricks1]

I realized I'd made that mistake after I hit "Post Comment". LOL Thanks for the correction.

[divinejudge1]

I'm against Coca eradication (FUCK AMERICA'S WAR ON DRUGS).

[Camba007]

AParicio is part of the conspiracy that United States, has created against Evo Morales.

Right now the CIA, are giving money to the opposition, to overtrown Evo Morales.

The mayority of the people in Bolivia in Santa Cruz, Pando, Beni, Cochabamba, Tarija supports Evo morales, The opposition lie every time to the international news channels, saying that the half of the country support morales, that's a lie. The Mayority supports Evo Morales.

[victoria4me]

What is this fucker doing there? (former ambassador) He was part of the worst governments of Bolivia Gonzalo Sanchez ex president sold all the natural resources to the transnationals, then he escaped to the US and Bush government won't send him back. VIVA EVO MORALES CARAJO!! HE IS THE ONLY BOLIVIAN PRESIDENT THAT EVER CARE FOR HIS OWN PEOPLE.

[manwiththecalicobag]

my guess ,"ploy" means bald faced lie meant to mislead the parliament and the people , and is highly illegal , (what a wonderful world it could be )

[dswynne]

America is not an imperialistic power. There are not American colonies. America is not a Neo-Imperialistic power. That WAS the case during the Cold War, when America sponsored a slew of dictatorships in Latin America FOR American companies. Now, America is a hegemonic power. The US is influencing the economic development and direct FOR the US. I have no problem w/ critiquing US foreign policy, but I like to be accurate about it. That's all.

[Camba007]

First to all, AMERICA is not a country!!!

America is a continent named by the Spanish conquestors. Bolivia is part of AMERICA, so we are Americans, like Argentinians, Brazilians, Canadian, also Statetians from United States are Americans, like Us. So if you refer to united States, don't use AMERICA. BECAUSE America start in Argentina, and ends in CANADA.

[ijosdeputisima]

true turue¡¡¡¡¡

[mengwise36]

In politics and in history, a colony is a territory under the immediate political control of a state. What do you call American Samoa, Guam and Puerto Rico? They are not states. They are territories. So the US is an imperialistic power.

The US still sponsor a slew of dictatorship around the world, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan come to mind. So by your own definition, we are a Neo-Imperialistic power.

Who said imperialism, neo-imperialism and hegemony are mutually exclusive. We can be all three.

[dswynne]

This guy thinks that the transnational corporation phenomenon is a form of imperialism? Feh.

[sheikds]

Of course it is, idiot, its plundering the raw materials of one country for the plunderers gain

[dswynne]

Terminology is important. Let me school you how it works:

Imperialism: colonies, protectorates.

Neo-Imperialism: Sponsorship of dictatorial regimes:

Hegemony: economic and culture domination.

Ergo, THERE ARE NO EMPIRES. The author is mixing up the terminology in order to maximize an emotional response. The ambassador said that American influence and companies are waning in Bolivia, so how CAN there be imperialism? THAT is what I am talking about. It's all about MONEY, period.

[hamshow]

How about this: Imperialism-Lite is that better???

[adeart7]

america is culturally dominating and economically dominating many countries in the third world. america is indeed an empire. perhaps not in the traditional sense, but an empire nevertheless.

[mengwise36]

Wiki:

Imperialism has two meanings, one describing an action and the other describing an attitude.

Most commonly it is understood in relation to Empire building, as the expansion of a nation's authority by territorial conquest establishing economic and political powers in other territories or nations, and when such encompasses non-contiguous "colonies" or "protectorates" then the term also subsumes Colonialism.

[mengwise36]

Wiki (conitued)

In its second meaning the term describes the imperialistic attitude of superiority, subordination and dominion over foreign people— a chauvinism and comportment relegating foreign people to a lesser social and or political status.

[mengwise36]

Read his resume and then his book. School yourself before you school others.