USAID To Bolivia:The Good, The Bad,The Onion…
The good and the bad.
Scanning alternative news sources today I came across an Al-Jazeera interview with Bolivian President Evo Morales. Morales in my opinion represents something kind of special in South American politics. He unfortunately pisses me off with his allegiance to Hugo and his occasional anti American chatter. In the fullness of time I as an American want my nation to have an open and positive relation with the neighbors to the south. To that end I don’t get too pissy about aid payments even to nations that aren’t digging us too much. I will say this though. US foreign aid exists for reasons not necessarily of the highest motives. If you can’t reconcile that….DON’T CASH THE CHECK.
“The conspiracy against my government is headed by the US ambassador,” Morales said, referring to Philip Goldberg.
“USAID, with funds that come American tax payers, who think they are helping the Bolivian people, is using the money in a dirty campaign against my government and especially against me.” AJ
Now for the good and the onion…
WASHINGTON, D.C. – More than 150 tons of sweet onions are giving some Bolivian farmers a $340,000 harvest. The recent bountiful shipment to Los Angeles marked a three-year U.S. Agency for International Development effort to make Bolivian onion growers international competitors.
The onions are cultivated more than 12,000 feet above sea level on land once considered unsuitable for traditional agriculture, says USAID’s Jorge Calvo, the program’s manager who views the high elevation as an advantage. The onions, along with a dozen other crops, are part of a USAID training program to improve Bolivian agriculture.
Because the rarified atmosphere prevents pests and crop diseases from thriving, the onions are grown without chemical fertilizers and pesticides, earning a coveted organic label. Organic sweet onions are in big demand and command higher prices, he says.
The agricultural program strives to make farmers prosperous by matching niche crops such as chili peppers, grapes, peanuts, peaches, raspberries, garlic and fava beans to Bolivia’s diverse topography and climate. Growers also apply the latest farming methods such as soil management, irrigation and mechanization in achieving year-round harvests, says Calvo.
So far, it’s working. The agency’s $20 million investment in 2002 has generated more than $40 million in family earnings, boosting per capita income for the 40,000 participating households by almost 50 percent in a country where the average family exists on just $4,400 per year.
“We sit down with them, we work with them,” says Calvo, describing USAID’s personal approach in carrying out the program. “The farmers have been open to this.”
It’s not hard to help out an impoverished country like Bolivia. I hope that you don’t think, however, that US foreign policy is about programs like the onion thing you cite.
At the heart of the policy are: taking control of natural resources, getting a country to take on unpayable debts, forcing neoliberal policies on the country as a condition of rolling over the eternal debt (like privatizing resources so they can be taken over by US corporations), and, having put the country in that position, making it support the US in international forums.
When things don’t go as planned, the US moves to overthrow the uncooperative government and install a more subservient government. Constitutions and elections don’t count.
I2TF says Kivo. from my post
The other thing I’d point out specific to this post. The “onion people” in this post are Morales’ people.They are exactly the people his policies are suppose to help but he can’t get it done because he wants to overturn asunder his own nation,or at least that’s the perception chunks of the electorate gets.So back to this post and incident of aid specifically. The farmers have something they wouldn’t have without USAID it is however still up to them who they want for President and what direction they want to go. In answering questions ALL people have the freedom to answer NO. Thanks for stopping by.
’1 Kivo’ clearly knows what is going on in the world, and isn’t afraid to point out the problems clearly.
Bolivia is only one of many South and Central American nations the USA has controlled or attempted to control to USA advantage, not that of the Latino nations. Attempts to divide Bolivia by the Media Luna on behalf of the USA will only help to destroy Bolivia.
What is needed is a Bolivia for Bolivians, not the multi-nationalist elite which has systematically impoverished, pillaged and raped Bolivia of her natural resource wealth for the last 500 years.
Evo Morales should serve as a model for honest governance the USA would do well to follow. Instead we have Bush, or in 2009, John McCain (McInsane) or Bush ‘Lite’–a like-minded ‘kinder and gentler’ imperialist Democrat. Viva Evo Morales! Viva Bolivia!
It would be interesting to know the origin of whatever seed stock they’re using in these programs. If they’re GM seeds from any of the American corporations, the farmers will have to buy stock every planting season from the Americans if they want the same results. That puts the farmers in thrall to the corporations, and gives the American government leverage against Bolivia, or any country put in the same bind.
Morales has been involved in some questionable behaviors but thanks for your taking the time to comment. Ric the USAID program does indeed us GM products in it’s repertoire;however, I can only find two relative things to tell you pertaining to this post. Bolivia is actually ramping up to join the non GM countries and two the fact that the onions in question are deemed organic means by international and USDA standards they are GM free.
John,
How has the “multinational elite” impoverished Bolivia? Do you believe that Bolivians are poorer today than they would have otherwise been had globalization never reached the country’s boundaries?
That is not to say that foreign multinationals have not profited an immense amount off Bolivia while Bolivians themselves have wallowed in the worst poverty in South America. But let’s be careful. Do sweatshops impoverish the people they employ? Actually, they provide better opportunities than those people would otherwise have had. That’s why they choose to work in such places, despite the horrible conditions and meager wages.
I bring this up not because I want to absolve the capitalist center of any responsibility for the poverty of the periphery, but rather because I think the viewpoint you offer establishes a false foundation from which sprout hopeless development strategies. And I also think it is a detriment to the intellectual discourse of the left which, being a leftist myself, I care deeply about.
When I mention these hopeless development strategies, I am generally referring to the nationalization of industries. As problematic as the private sector is, government management of major industries–ESPECIALLY in Latin America–has a terrible record. Just take a look at Venezuela. It did nothing with the oil boom that followed the Suez Canal crisis. And the 74 oil boom, followed by the one in the early 80s only served to increase government spending to such an extent that the country was devastated when prices plummeted. By some estimates, more than 9 out of 10 Venezuelans were poor in the early 90s. And now that there is an apparently revolutionary government that is enjoying record oil prices, nothing is changing. There is no development.
I fully support and strongly encourage policies and economic relations that help develop countries and pull people out of poverty. And I think that we, as Americans, should exert a lot of pressure on our government to provide aid to countries in a manner that accomplishes these things (as opposed to the generally anti-democratic funding provided by groups like USAID).
But I think the blanket demonization of foreign capital is a mistake. The left MUST offer a more nuanced, compelling position. Otherwise, we just sound like a bunch of self-righteous conspiracy theorists.
In2thefray,
How do you see Morales as “something kind of special in South American politics”? I agree, but I’d like to hear your opinion.
@Eric hello hope all is well.
I honestly think the facts of where Morales came from and where he got to and what that represents is THE thing I like about democracy and hold out hope for it. He seems to have striven for his people and country more than himself. I’m all for the indigenous people (that sounds wrong but you know what I mean ?) getting into the society,being heard and not being screwed. They’re part of the country and shouldn’t be treated like shadows.
I think the water issues and some of the IMF history is way bad. For me I like more direct aid routes so although I disagree w/ USAID’s actions in the opposition areas I think something like this (in post) is good. I support aid that has to get together with the “host” nation but gets to be spent directly on the actual issues as opposed to pumping it into the local bureaucracy.
@Eric,,
Me thinks you protesteth too much…not to mention reading more than is claimed or even suggested into my writing. Nonetheless, you ask some questions which deserve to be answered, and then make some assertions which demand countering. First off, the questions you ask:
“How has the “multinational elite” impoverished Bolivia?” Take a look at Bolivia’s once-abundant natural resources–especially the ones remaining after the Spanish stole all they could. Look at who benefited and who did not. Answer your own question–honestly.
“Do you believe that Bolivians are poorer today than they would have otherwise been had globalization never reached the country’s boundaries?” My answer is obviously yes–the resources are gone, and the Bolivians have not benefited–what part of that do you not understand?
You then ask “Do sweatshops impoverish the people they employ?” My answer is although they might initially prevent starvation, the answer is absolutely yes. And here is the part you refuse to either see or acknowledge–that sweatshop job came from someplace else where it was done more expensively. The reason the job came to Bolivia (for example) was because it could be done cheaper there due to lesser pay or benefits or fewer labor/environmental restrictions. The people who used to do those jobs now have none, just as those now doing those jobs will have no jobs when some other place can be found to do it even cheaper. This is a race to the bottom, pitting the unfortunate against the less fortunate while the elite owners make ever-more in the process. If you see it any other way, please explain.
Then you claim “Actually, they provide better opportunities than those people would otherwise have had. That’s why they choose to work in such places, despite the horrible conditions and meager wages. To which I must respond–spoken like a true amoral free trader–see above.
You claim “I think the viewpoint you offer establishes a false foundation from which sprout hopeless development strategies” (to which I must ask–what hopeless foundation are you talking about? Was it something I wrote or something you imagined?)
Then: “And I also think it is a detriment to the intellectual discourse of the left which, being a leftist myself, I care deeply about.” My response: I’m sorry for my lack of intellectual prowess, but on the other hand, when you claim to be a leftist, please note that anyone to the left of Genghis Khan can claim to be a leftist, too. Intellectualize that!
You then go on to say “When I mention these hopeless development strategies, I am generally referring to the nationalization of industries.” Please tell me Eric specifically where has the privatization helped the general populace out of poverty? How about the privatization of water in Cbba and El Alto? Or the wells or mines? Do the profits stay in Bolivia or do they go elsewhere where Bolivians are not benefited?
You go on to say “As problematic as the private sector is, government management of major industries–ESPECIALLY in Latin America–has a terrible record.” To which I must reply, look at what they are up against–the entrenched ruling class–business/press/media ownership–the US and other elitist governments with their supposed NGOs–all working for the privatization of everything and the elimination of anything even close to socialism, where the resources of the nation benefit their citizenry.
And then: “And now that there is an apparently revolutionary government that is enjoying record oil prices, nothing is changing. There is no development.” My reply–you must not know what you are saying. I know for a fact and have the pictures to prove it from visits last year and earlier this year that there is indeed development going on in Bolivia right now, and at a far greater pace than has gone on in any administration prior to Evo’s, and your refusal to see it doesn’t make it untrue.
Then you claim “I fully support and strongly encourage policies and economic relations that help develop countries and pull people out of poverty.” (Thanks Eric,,,you have warmed my heart–at last we agree on something.)
Followed by “And I think that we, as Americans, should exert a lot of pressure on our government to provide aid to countries in a manner that accomplishes these things (as opposed to the generally anti-democratic funding provided by groups like USAID).” Ooops–isn’t that just a tad contradictory, Eric? You want our government to provide aid, not privatized help as the solution? As a freeper, you might want to rethink that one.
And lastly you suggest “But I think the blanket demonization of foreign capital is a mistake. (Eric–I made no blanket demonization of foreign capital–that is a ‘straw man’ argument you created out of whole cloth and bullsh*t.) Being against the multinational elite is not the same as being against foreign capital.
You close with “The left MUST offer a more nuanced, compelling position” (read wishy-washy). Otherwise, we just sound like a bunch of self-righteous conspiracy theorists,” to which I say that there are conspiracies, and those of us who do understand that are called realists by most, and conspiracy theorists by those who wish to demean us. Nice try.
Regards,,,John