U.S. Tax Dollars in Bolivia

I am not sure what you mean by self-determination, in other words anything the US does to support people that want a democracy is bad. How about shipment of fertilizer from Chavez to Nicaragua to support Ortega, suitcases of money to Argentina and Mexico to support socialist candidates, lining troops on the Colombian border for a dispute between Colombia and Ecuador? Is that self-determination???

How about the majority of Nicas that do not want CPC's, how about the laws passed contra CPC's that are ignored, is that self-determination of the majority of Nicaraguan people. How come there is no worry of self-determination as long as it is Castro or Chavez doing the meddling?

Our brand is Crisis

James Carver Tad Devine and Stan Greenburg ya the same people who shape what politicians in the states say to the public.

Watch this documentary then tell me Americans or institutions acting for Americans on our behelf or any way you slice it this documentary is all about shaping influences before elections to gain results. And it specificaly applies to this country Bolivia and the previous defeat of Morales and the election of Lozano including his fall. It interesting and it will make you ask the question do we our country interfere with free elections around the world? I think so.

The rather dated evidence (from 2002 after all), just like so many remarkably similar other claims on the web, uses ellipses ( ... ) to separate the most significant claim made, from what appears to be evidence for that claim. If you cut a major clause or claim from the message (I used, "project aims at implementing an existing Bolivian law that would"), and paste it into a Google search, what do you find? Not the entire declassified USAID message (maybe I missed it, but I did not find anything useful). All I found were dozens of articles using the same alleged declassified brief, and the same canned political conclusions. In fact, most results are the same article, word for word.

For one second, ignore politics, and focus on journalism: Why is that - why is it that they edited the crucial all-important declassified statement? Was the declassified brief so long or so boring they needed to edit that data out (briefs of this type tend to be very focused)? Was the data they edited out completely irrelevant to the point they were making? But, if so, how could that be unless the USAID message was more or less rambling and incoherent (though sometimes quite misguided, they are not often babbling)? Perhaps nothing suspicious is at play. I don't know (how could I, or anyone - since they elected to remove what might be crucial facts?). It -it being using ellipses- is often a curious thing to do, though especially so in a very lengthy article. For example, would it matter that much if the quotation in question was another 10 or 20 words longer? It is already a long piece, and need not be a direct copy online of what is in print form, so why do this? It mattered? Maybe, maybe not (who knows?). Even left as is, is the quote from the article damning, or even interesting?

A great deal depends on one's definition of "apolitical". Apolitical, as used by USAID (and many governmental organizations, certainly not just U.S. ones) does not rule out aid and grants to pro-democracy movements (promoting democracy is viewed as promoting a political goal, but this remains, legally, apolitical if, ultimately, monies expended strengthen democracy within that country). In fact, arguably one of the fundamental goals of USAID is the promotion of Democracy - and I say this as someone who rarely favors much of the actual work of USAID (they are a lot better in theory than practice). Once one views democracy as a decision procedure and a goal, and not as pro support of any one political party, what sorts of aid do and do not violate any apolitical claims are more understandable - though granted there is a lot of grey area.

In the end though, USAID programs all fall under the rubric of the Organization of American States, a rubric the States have adopted and promised to utilize to defend and promote democracy, collectively (http://www.oas.org/OASpage/eng/Documents/Democractic_Charter.htm). There is virtually no news in any of the stories on the web regarding the declassified USAID document. If USAID is violating the OAS Charter, then journalists should document the violation and link it to the Charter claim that is violated. Take away ellipses, and anonymous experts and scholars, etc., and there isn't much left.

The sub-heading for the article in question is: "Documents show that Washington is backing Right-wing opposition to Bolivia's democratic reforms." Is that what the article shows or proves? They are opposing democratic reforms, or democracy? Not sure where the article proved that - I must have missed it. It seems a rather different thing is claimed within the text, where the major goal as stated in the declassified brief is simply, "help build moderate, pro-democracy political parties". But, who would have thought that to be so wildly controversial. Is the author of the article anti-moderate or anti-democracy or anti-U.S.? I don't know - and don't pretend to. But, there is no shortage of idiotic and meddling activities in which the U.S. Government is happy to partake, but USAID in Bolivia really should not be the subject of this much attention. While at times just a piece of propaganda, obviously, what USAID does in Bolivia is rarely concealed. If one wants to really "hit" them, then some decent journalism is in order. Self-determination need not be undermined by what USAID is doing in Bolivia. What they do and what is (or isn't) apolitical, can be gathered in outline form from their website - which, interestingly, is never quoted by the opposition: http://bolivia.usaid.gov/US/7Faq.htm