With Chavez gone, globalists train sights on Bolivia’s Evo Morales

[Judi Lynn]

With Chavez gone, globalists train sights on Bolivia’s Evo Morales
by Vicky Pelaez at 05/04/2013 10:45

It's so easy to urge people. It's so difficult to lead them. (Rabindranath Tagore, 1861- 1941)


The so-called "illuminati" globalists, whose ambition is to gain control of all the Earth's natural resources, take no respite in their preemptive wars against national leaders who dare defy the neoliberal agenda. The war is permanent, irreversible and ruthless.

To achieve their ends, the globalists use all means available, from the simplest to the most sophisticated. They spent more than 14 years waging a covert war against Hugo Chavez's government, and they have not changed their designs for Venezuela even now that the Bolivarian leader is gone. But the focus of their campaign has shifted to Evo Morales, the first indigenous president of Bolivia, running an anti-imperialist agenda. Morales seeks to turn Bolivia into a socialist welfare state. And he has been initiating dramatic changes to deliver on his commitments to improve living standards and environmental protection.

A media war against Morales and his government has been going on for quite a while now, and has intensified in recent months. He has been denounced as a "communist", "dictator," "Fidel epigone," "egocentric individualist," "narcissistic," and "anti-clerical." But there is a new element to that war, which consists of corrupting, confusing and diverting the president's traditional base of support through non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

The origins of NGOs can be traced to William A. Douglas's theory of "controlled democracy," which the US academic set forth in his 1972 book "Developing Democracy." Douglas argued that the surest way to maintain US hegemony across the Third World was to create international agencies that could, through grassroots organizations on the ground, promote Washington's geopolitical and economic interests in countries seen as important to US national security.

More:
http://themoscownews.com/international/20130405/191411669.html

[ocpagu]

1. Very nice article!

It's about time we start shedding some light on these "NGOs".

"These NGOs are now working with the TIPNIS nature park's 64 indigenous communities, including the Yuracaré, Mojeno, Trinitario, and Tsimane, to try to convince them to demand government compensation for the project's carbon footprint on their territories."

The same is happening in Brazil and other countries in South America with large indigenous communities. But in Bolivia, it is a perfect plan. What better way of discrediting Bolivia's first indigenous president than a media spectacle claiming indigenous oppose his government? Divide and conquer all the way.

Thank you a lot for sharing!

[naaman fletcher]

2. "The so-called "illuminati" globalists,"

why would anyone bother reading after that opening? The illuminati? Jeez, next thing you know it's going to be the freemasons out to get morales.

[joshcryer]

5. TOS material right there.

[Judi Lynn]

3. The United States vs. Bolivian democracy: Part 1; Terrorists, fascists, and the US embassy

The United States vs. Bolivian democracy: Part 1; Terrorists, fascists, and the US embassy
By Matt Kennard on Monday, March 11th, 2013 - 9,257 words.

In the middle of the night on 16 April 2009, an elite Bolivian police unit entered the four-star Hotel Las Americas situated in the eastern city of Santa Cruz, a hotbed of opposition to the President Evo Morales’s government. Flown in from the capital, La Paz, the commandos planned to raid a group of men staying in the upscale lodgings. What happened in the early hours of that morning is still disputed, but at the end of the operation, three men who had been asleep in their bed just minutes earlier, lay dead, killed in cold blood. Some say they were executed, while the Bolivian government claims its officers won out in a 20 minute fire-fight.

In the aftermath, the story gained international attention when it was revealed that two of the dead were not even Bolivian. One was Michael Dwyer, a 26-year-old Irishman from county Cork, where he had been a bouncer and security guard before moving to Santa Cruz just six months earlier. Another Arpad Magyarosi was Hungarian-Romanian, and had been a teacher and musician before relocating to Bolivia at the same time.

The third killed in the operation was the ringleader of the group, Eduardo Rozsa-Flores, an eccentric Bolivian-Hungarian who had been born in Santa Cruz before fleeing the country during the US-backed dictatorship of Hugo Banzer in the 1970s. His family moved to Chile before the ascent of another US-backed dictator in that country, General Augusto Pinochet, meant they resettled finally in Hungary. Rozsa was a supporter of Opus Dei, the rightwing Christian sect and fought in the Croatian independence war in the early 1990s, founding the paramilitary International Platoon which many believed was aligned with fascistic elements. Two journalists, including a British photographer, died suspiciously while investigating the platoon.

Two others, Mario Tadic, a Croatian, and Elod Toaso, also from Hungary, were arrested and remain in a high-security La Paz prison to this day. Another two other suspects, both with eastern European connections as well, were not at the scene and are still missing.

More:
http://www.thecommentfactory.com/the-united-states-vs-bolivian-democracy-the-full-evidence-27550/

[center]~~~~~~[/center]
The United States vs. Bolivian democracy: Part 2; the USAID-NED-Opposition Nexus
By Matt Kennard on Wednesday, March 13th, 2013 - 10,079 words.

WE’LL TAKE CARE OF HIM’

The most active of the many US agencies working in Bolivia is the United States Agency for International Development, or USAID, the main foreign aid arm of the US government, USAID, poured money into the country. Between 1964 and 1979, it contributed more than $1.5bn, trying to build a citizenry and investor climate conducive to US corporate needs. For nearly half a century it has carried out its ostensible goal of providing “economic and humanitarian assistance”, ostensibly a gift “from the American people”. The agency operates around the world in a similar capacity, and invests billions of dollars annually on projects which span from “democracy promotion” to “judicial reform”.

Its operations are controversial. The Morales administration has continually said that it uses its money to push the strategic goals of the US government under the cloak of “development”, claims denied by the US government. The Bolivian government also derides the lack of transparency, in comparison to EU aid money, for its programs. Mark Feierstein, USAID assistant administrator for Latin America and the Caribbean, put its raison d’être bluntly in December 2010 when he said, “USAID’s programs are not charity [...] they are not only from the American people, as the agency’s motto says, they are for the American people.” As an aside, Mr Feierstein was a key campaign consultant to the former President Lozada who fled to the US in 2005 to avoid facing trial for the massacre of protestors in La Paz. There is now an attempt to prosecute him under the Aliens Tort Act for his role in the murders. (Feierstein has never expressed regret about the campaign; in fact, the same firm did polling for Morales opponent, Manfred Reyes Villa, in 2009.)

Like other methods of control of democracies in Latin America and around the world, it is hard to pin down the USAID. But on-the-ground interviews, FOIA’ed documents and the Wikileaks cables have made it possible to unearth the strategies this agency uses to keep its stranglehold on Bolivia, at the same time providing an illustrative template for how it is used across the region to undermine left-wing democratic governments.

There is no doubt how USAID personnel felt about Morales before he came into power, and one young American student heard first-hand their plans for him. In the summer of 2005, he found himself in La Paz learning Spanish on a break from university when the powder keg of political resistance in the city blew up. President Carlos Mesa – who had taken over from Goni in 2003 after the massacre of protestors in La Paz – had just stepped down and the student decided to go on a bike trip. “Basically I went down the ‘Death Road’, the world’s most dangerous road, with some other gringos,” he says, not wanting to be named. “There were some folks from the US embassy and USAID on the trip. I remember them having a discussion on the road down to [the city of] Coroico, talking about not wanting Evo to get into power. They said something along the lines of, ‘We can’t let Evo get into power’”.

More:
http://www.thecommentfactory.com/the-united-states-vs-bolivian-democracy-part-2-the-usaid-ned-opposition-nexus-27657/

[Judi Lynn]

4. Useful information from Part II, posted above:

A series of emails from USAID functionaries in Bolivia also detailed attempts to form relationships between the US government and indigenous groups in the coca growing region of the Chapare (the sector from which Morales emerged) and the eastern departments, aiming, as Bigwood explained, to “create a common USAID-guided front against … the MAS”. A few years into the MAS government, USAID made itself so unpopular in the Chapare region of Bolivia that its local leaders in 2008 suspended all projects funded by the agency. They said they would replace the funding with money from Chavez’s Venezuela. In Pando, the mayors signed a declaration in 2008 also expelling USAID. “No foreign program, least of all those from USAID, will solve our problems of poverty, physical integration, family prosperity and human development while we ourselves don’t decide the future,” it said.

I managed to procure documents that relate to the operations of projects since 2005, and they show a similar effort to weaken the power and popularity of the MAS government. The USAID tactic is not the overthrow of the government, but the slow transformation of Bolivian society, from its participatory democracy, to a type of democracy it had before: controlled by the US and good for investors. The Bolivian example is important because it provides a template of how USAID tries to control Latin American democracies that have “got out of control” and make them work “for the American people”, or American business interests.

Of course, USAID pitches itself as something completely different. In one cable from La Paz, the ambassador writes, “We will continue to counter misunderstandings about USAID’s transparency and apolitical nature with reality.” But the reality is that the agency is not transparent or apolitical. And its own internal documents reveal as much.

USAID maintains it is transparent with the money it invests in the country, but the Bolivian government claims large sums are being handed out without its knowledge, in contravention of usual aid etiquette. In the Wikileaks cables, Morales tells the US he wants to start an “open registry to monitor aid”, but it was not supported by the US. The Bolivian government’s estimate that 70 per cent of aid money is unaccounted for appears overstated, but there is clear evidence that money was being spent without the knowledge of the government.

More:
http://www.thecommentfactory.com/the-united-states-vs-bolivian-democracy-part-2-the-usaid-ned-opposition-nexus-27657/

[joshcryer]

6. An indigenous struggle against Morales

An indigenous struggle against Morales
BOLIVIA'S PRESIDENT Evo Morales bills himself as the president of the country's indigenous peoples and social movements, and even Mother Earth herself. Indeed, Morales, who came to power on the back of powerful social movements that defeated water and gas privatization and brought down two neoliberal presidents, is the country's first indigenous president in a country with an overwhelming indigenous majority. He has made radical statements in defense of the environment at international forums.

Yet the road in question is a project and major priority of the Morales government--and not one it is prepared to compromise on.

Notwithstanding his defense of Mother Earth on the world stage, at home, Morales is ready to bulldoze through national parks, indigenous territory and diverse ecosystems, as well as protesters. He dismisses environmentalism as at best naïve--and at worst the veil of sinister operations by outsider NGOs and other imperialist forces that "manipulate" indigenous people. Members of Morales' Movement for Socialism (MAS) party have even confronted the demonstrators physically.

Perhaps these are not the same indigenous peoples--or the same Mother Earth--to whom Morales referred in a speech at the United Nations in September 2009 when he said: For the indigenous movement, the planet Earth is something sacred...I want to tell you that if we talk, if we fight and if we work for the wellbeing of our peoples, first we have to guarantee the wellbeing of Mother Earth. If we don't guarantee the wellbeing of Mother Earth it is impossible to guarantee the wellbeing of our people who live on this planet.