The United States and Bolivia

[saltwn]

The alleged support by the United States of wealthy landowners, business leaders, and their organizations tied to the violent uprising in eastern Bolivia has led U.S. Ambassador Philip Goldberg's expulsion from La Paz and the South American government's demands that the United States stop backing the illegitimate rebellion. Goldberg had met with some of these right-wing oppositionist leaders just a week before the most recent outbreak of violence against the democratically elected government of Evo Morales, who won a recall referendum in August with over 67% of the popular vote.

U.S. subversion has assumed several forms since the leftist indigenous leader became president in 2005. For example, the U.S. embassy -- in violation of American law -- repeatedly asked Peace Corps volunteers, as well as an American Fulbright scholar, to engage in espionage, according to news reports.

Bolivia gets approximately $120 million in aid annually from the United States. It's an important supplement for a country of nine million people with an annual per capita income of barely $1,000. Presidential Minister Juan Ramón Quintana has accused the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) of using some of this money to support a number of prominent conservative opposition leaders as part of a "democracy initiative" through the consulting firm Chemonics International. A cable from the U.S. Embassy in Bolivia last year revealed a USAID-sponsored "political party reform project" to "help build moderate, pro-democracy political parties that can serve as a counterweight to the radical MAS or its successors" (MAS stands for Movimiento al Socialismo, the party to which Morales belongs.). Despite numerous requests filed under the Freedom of Information Act, the Bush administration refuses to release a list of all the recipient organizations of USAID funds.

ZNet - US & Bolivia

What the hey? Is this where some of our money has been going? Do you wonder what will happen to the financing of all our espionage (the good the bad and the ugly ) in light of our present economic situation?

[cnredd]

This is dumb beyond belief on the part of Bolivia...

Biting the hand that lets them exist...I have a feeling Chavez's influence is abound...

[dga]

Originally Posted by cnredd

This is dumb beyond belief on the part of Bolivia...

Biting the hand that lets them exist...I have a feeling Chavez's influence is abound...

Oh come off it, the hand that lets them exist? The United States has made it its priority during the whole past century to keep South American countries in the third world - - then just offer aid to not keep them too far downtrodden and to invest in programs that will ensure they keep some measure of control. The Chavezes of South America only exist because the people are tired of being taken advantage of, and since our attention was diverted to the Middle East, we dropped the ball. I get it, it's just business, but PLEASE do not paint it as if they should be grateful, .

[cnredd]

Originally Posted by dga

Oh come off it, the hand that lets them exist? The United States has made it its priority during the whole past century to keep South American countries in the third world - - then just offer aid to not keep them too far downtrodden and to invest in programs that will ensure they keep some measure of control. The Chavezes of South America only exist because the people are tired of being taken advantage of, and since our attention was diverted to the Middle East, we dropped the ball. I get it, it's just business, but PLEASE do not paint it as if they should be grateful, .

Bolivia gets approximately $120 million in aid annually from the United States. It's an important supplement for a country of nine million people with an annual per capita income of barely $1,000.

In other words, the US gives enough money to Bolivia to pay the salaries of 120,000 people.

And you say our mission is to keep them in submission?...

[faithful_servant]

Originally Posted by dga

Oh come off it, the hand that lets them exist? The United States has made it its priority during the whole past century to keep South American countries in the third world - - then just offer aid to not keep them too far downtrodden and to invest in programs that will ensure they keep some measure of control. The Chavezes of South America only exist because the people are tired of being taken advantage of, and since our attention was diverted to the Middle East, we dropped the ball. I get it, it's just business, but PLEASE do not paint it as if they should be grateful, .

SA self-victimhood??? We have every reason to see SA and CA rise up become solid productive nations. Doing so would cut down on illegal immigration, solidify these places as good trading partners and cut down on the illegal drug trade. Why would we possibly want to keep them in the third world??? So we can control them??? Why would we want to control them??? What benefit is it to us to control these places? Natural resources??? If they weren't third world nations, they would be in a better place to provide these resources to us. Political position?? Developing nations have generally been our allies, while third world countries have generally been susceptible to nutballs of all colors (right, left, stupid, and crazy). So please explain to me just why it is that you think we want to keep SA and CA nations in the third world...

[dga]

Originally Posted by faithful_servant

SA self-victimhood??? We have every reason to see SA and CA rise up become solid productive nations. Doing so would cut down on illegal immigration, solidify these places as good trading partners and cut down on the illegal drug trade. Why would we possibly want to keep them in the third world??? So we can control them??? Why would we want to control them??? What benefit is it to us to control these places? Natural resources??? If they weren't third world nations, they would be in a better place to provide these resources to us. Political position?? Developing nations have generally been our allies, while third world countries have generally been susceptible to nutballs of all colors (right, left, stupid, and crazy). So please explain to me just why it is that you think we want to keep SA and CA nations in the third world...

Natural resources are one. US companies use SA countries as their own Farmers' Market. The US pays less for imports from South American countries than it does for comparable imports from European countries. Furthermore, until just a few years back American companies were charging upwards of 80% on revenues for refining oil. In Bolivia starting in 2005, the government applied a 32% tax to try to recoup some of those revenues - the decision is being arbitrated, but they are still refining ( I guess they must figure that 50% still isn't bad huh?). In Ecuador, they got sick and tired and simply threw the companies out, and now there is a project to build the largest refinery in SA by none other than Iran (!!!!). So, I can understand it from a business perspective - - why pay top dollar at the mall, when you can get it cheaper at the market? Furthermore, you seriously believe our country has been interested in cutting down on illegal immigration until job shortages brought about the anti-imigrant sentiments? Then you are delusional,

This ties nicely into the thread regarding Sarah Palin being "the salt of the Earth" and Obama's worldliness. There are certain perspectives you can only gain when you've been around a bit.

[faithful_servant]

Originally Posted by dga

Natural resources are one. US companies use SA countries as their own Farmers' Market. The US pays less for imports from South American countries than it does for comparable imports from European countries. Furthermore, until just a few years back American companies were charging upwards of 80% on revenues for refining oil. In Bolivia starting in 2005, the government applied a 32% tax to try to recoup some of those revenues - the decision is being arbitrated, but they are still refining ( I guess they must figure that 50% still isn't bad huh?). In Ecuador, they got sick and tired and simply threw the companies out, and now there is a project to build the largest refinery in SA by none other than Iran (!!!!). So, I can understand it from a business perspective - - why pay top dollar at the mall, when you can get it cheaper at the market? Furthermore, you seriously believe our country has been interested in cutting down on illegal immigration until job shortages brought about the anti-imigrant sentiments? Then you are delusional,

This ties nicely into the thread regarding Sarah Palin being "the salt of the Earth" and Obama's worldliness. There are certain perspectives you can only gain when you've been around a bit.

You make my point... If what we are interested in are natural resources, then it's in our best interest to raise the technology level and lower costs for those resources. As an example:
If we were buying trees from Columbian loggers who were cutting trees using a double-buck saw, wouldn't it be worth our while to introduce them to the chainsaw so that they could cut their costs and increase production, thereby lowering thier selling price and increasing their own profits??

[dga]

Originally Posted by faithful_servant

You make my point... If what we are interested in are natural resources, then it's in our best interest to raise the technology level and lower costs for those resources. As an example:
If we were buying trees from Columbian loggers who were cutting trees using a double-buck saw, wouldn't it be worth our while to introduce them to the chainsaw so that they could cut their costs and increase production, thereby lowering thier selling price and increasing their own profits??

You'd think huh? But that is not reality. In reality, we would offer to come in with chainsaws (the ones they don't have), do the job for them, give them 10% of the revenue and lock them into that contract for a good 50 years. That is what happened with Ecuadorean oil - since they weren't capable of refining better something than nothing right? And we expect you to be grateful, . So.... when they saw the chance, they severed the contract and turned to Venezuela to refine the oil, at a much lower percentage. When the US threatened to "punish" them by withdrawing the Free Trade Agreement (notice the contention was with oil companies, but they were threatened with government sanctions), with their newfound riches, they said "whatever, we'll sell to Europe". Now, a country whose population and government (like most SA countries until a few years back) were pro-American, who BTW loved Clinton, are turning towards Socialism and our enemies. Did you know that the US companies offered them 1 billion dollars to allow them to continue with the contract, and renew for another decade? If they turned it down, I'm assuming their deal with Venezuela was much more lucrative. Bolivia couldn't get out of its contract (with them it's natural gas), so they taxed it to the hilt. Traditionally, SA politicians have bent over for the US, the almighty patron, but some of our shine has worn off me thinks.

When you have employees, you treat them right, you give them fair wages and benefits, you keep them happy, and they will be loyal and stay with you forever. When you start taking advantage of the fact that they are under you, treating them poorly, not giving them pay raises... don't be surprised if they up and decide they are better off going into business with your competitor... maybe they might even take some of your clients with them. Again, it's just business and driven all by the almight dollar, but we certainly are in no position to play the saviour card here.

FYI: Colombia, the SA country is with two "o" and no "u"s,

[faithful_servant]

Originally Posted by dga

You'd think huh? But that is not reality. In reality, we would offer to come in with chainsaws (the ones they don't have), do the job for them, give them 10% of the revenue and lock them into that contract for a good 50 years. That is what happened with Ecuadorean oil - since they weren't capable of refining better something than nothing right? And we expect you to be grateful, . So.... when they saw the chance, they severed the contract and turned to Venezuela to refine the oil, at a much lower percentage. When the US threatened to "punish" them by withdrawing the Free Trade Agreement (notice the contention was with oil companies, but they were threatened with government sanctions), with their newfound riches, they said "whatever, we'll sell to Europe". Now, a country whose population and government (like most SA countries until a few years back) were pro-American, who BTW loved Clinton, are turning towards Socialism and our enemies. Did you know that the US companies offered them 1 billion dollars to allow them to continue with the contract, and renew for another decade? If they turned it down, I'm assuming their deal with Venezuela was much more lucrative. Bolivia couldn't get out of its contract (with them it's natural gas), so they taxed it to the hilt. Traditionally, SA politicians have bent over for the US, the almighty patron, but some of our shine has worn off me thinks.

When you have employees, you treat them right, you give them fair wages and benefits, you keep them happy, and they will be loyal and stay with you forever. When you start taking advantage of the fact that they are under you, treating them poorly, not giving them pay raises... don't be surprised if they up and decide they are better off going into business with your competitor... maybe they might even take some of your clients with them. Again, it's just business and driven all by the almight dollar, but we certainly are in no position to play the saviour card here.

So because they couldn't process thier own oil and we could process it, we should take a loss?? Now, they are supporting one of the worst gov'ts on the planet in order to make a profit - nice. Sounds like someone we should sever trade realtions with.

FYI: Colombia, the SA country is with two "o" and no "u"s,

Sorry, up here we have the Columbia River - 1 "o", 1 "u", so that's how I've grown used to spelling the word.

[dga]

Originally Posted by faithful_servant

So because they couldn't process thier own oil and we could process it, we should take a loss?? Now, they are supporting one of the worst gov'ts on the planet in order to make a profit - nice. Sounds like someone we should sever trade realtions with.

Certainly not, as I said it's business. A crap shot in my opinion, but business nonetheless. BUT, I was addressing redd's comment on "the hand that lets them exist", . So if I have a computer, but I have to get a programmer to operate it who charges me 90% of any profit "we" make, I should be grateful if he gives me a sandwich? How about we cut a "fair" deal, and with my half I can buy my own damn sandwich.

Originally Posted by faithful_servant

Now, they are supporting one of the worst gov'ts on the planet in order to make a profit - nice. Sounds like someone we should sever trade realtions with.

It saddens me to no degree that SA governments are going this route. But I lived there for many years and know for a fact that they would have remained loyal if they could just get a fair deal. You and your President's "my way or the highway", "screw you if you don't like it" policies are quite far reaching, . What will happen when everyone we've flipped the finger at gets together? It should be interesting (and by interesting I mean we're all in trouble). Again, American arrogance at its finest,

Two wrongs do not make a right. They are wrong to align themselves with Iran, we were wrong to exploit them. Who here can cast the first stone? I know who can't, NOT US.