Bolivia

[blindpig]

Bolivia’s Evo Morales: President Arce Lied About the Coup, Arce Responds
JUNE 30, 2024


From left to right: Former Bolivian President Evo Morales, President Luis Arce, and now jailed General Juan José Zúñiga. Photo: La Tercera.

June 30, 2024 (OrinocoTribune.com)—Indigenous leader and former president of Bolivia, Evo Morales, said that current President Luis Arce “deceived and lied” to the people and the world about the recent coup attempt in the South American country.

A few hours after the incident, some analysts noted that the failed coup, people mobilizing, and the infighting between the forces of Arce and Morales put Arce in solid position amidst the 2025 presidential elections and in turn raised his popularity.

Arce and Morales have been estranged since late 2021 and their differences deepened last year due to the holding of a national party congress in which, in the absence of President Arce and his loyal sectors, the former president was ratified as leader of the Movement towards Socialism (MAS) and named “ sole candidate ” for the 2025 elections.

The self-coup hypothesis gained traction after the release of a video of the alleged coup leader, General Juan José Zuñiga, during his arrest stating that the incident was in reality a self-coup ordered by President Arce. For some analysts this may be considered a natural response by a criminal that is trying to evade responsibility, but for others it is extremely beneficial for Luis Arce’s re-election aspirations.

On Sunday, June 30, Evo Morales denounced Arce’s self-coup through his social media accounts, where he regretted “that such a sensitive topic as the denunciation of a coup is used.”

El presidente Luis Arce engañó y mintió al pueblo boliviano y al mundo. Es lamentable que se use un tema tan sensible como la denuncia de un golpe.

Frente a esa realidad, debo pedir disculpas a la comunidad internacional por la alarma generada y agradecer por su solidaridad con…

— Evo Morales Ayma (@evoespueblo) June 30, 2024

Morales continued on his social media post, “Faced with this reality, I must apologize to the international community for the alarm generated and thank them for their solidarity with our country.” He also called for a full and independent investigation to prove the truth of the incident.

Additionally, on Sunday, during his radio program on Radio Kawsachún Coca, Morales made the same statement,“Lucho (Arce) deceived the Bolivian people and the entire world with this coup or self-coup.”

The leader of the ruling party MAS said that he has doubts about the military action that the government called an “attempted coup d’état,” and that the call that President Arce made to him on Wednesday during the military uprising was “fake solidarity.”

“Beginning Wednesday night, and through Thursday morning, I thought it was a coup, but now I am confused by these details, it seems like a self-coup,” stated Morales, adding that the now imprisoned Zuñiga “will be released in six months.”



Last Wednesday, June 26, the dismissed military chief of the Bolivian Army, Juan José Zúñiga, mobilized several units of the military force towards the government Palace in La Paz in an attempted coup against President Luis Arce.

The images of the event immediately spread around the world, and in a few hours the outcome culminated in the arrest of General Zúñiga and the ratification of the Bolivian president’s power, as well as the international solidarity of many world leaders.

Evo Morales, ¡no te equivoques una vez más! Claramente lo que ocurrió el 26 de junio fue un #GolpeMilitarFallido en #Bolivia. ¡No te pongas del lado del fascismo que niega lo ocurrido! Los responsables que buscaron tomar el poder por las armas, están siendo procesados y serán… pic.twitter.com/a64IOXZ4nt

— Luis Alberto Arce Catacora (Lucho Arce) (@LuchoXBolivia) June 30, 2024

President Arce responds
For his part, President Arce told Morales later on Sunday to “make no mistake” about the military coup. “Evo Morales, don’t make a mistake once again! Clearly what happened on June 26 was a failed military coup in Bolivia,” the Bolivian president wrote on social media in response to Morales’ comments.

“Don’t take the side of fascism that denies what happened! Those responsible who sought to take power by force of arms are being prosecuted and will be judged, as was the case of the 2019 coup plotters,” Arce added.

MAS infighting
In the dispute between Evo Morales and President Luis Arce, the former vice-president of Bolivia (2006-2019), Álvaro García Linera, during a radio interview last Thursday, repudiated the coup attempt against Arce’s government, adding that the powers that be are always on the lookout and “stick their heads out” when progressive projects are weak, in reference to the internal infight within MAS to decide who will run for president in 2025.

“All over the world, in all democracies, there are de facto powers outside the vote, such as the big business oligarchies, the armed forces, and, in the case of the American continent, the US Embassy,” said García Linera just hours after the attempted coup d’état in Bolivia. Linera voices the calls of many Latin American leaders and analysts about the United States hands that are common to be behind many coup d’etats in the region.

Venezuela’s PSUV leader, Diosdado Cabello, said last Wednesday, that all revolutionary forces in the continent should be on alert as he believes the United States might has not resign to the idea of taking control of the Bolivian natural resources with the fail Wednesday coup. He believes that Washington might be playing a long run destabilization plan and the worst is about to be seen.

https://orinocotribune.com/bolivias-evo ... -responds/

*******

Evo Morales & Javier Milei Make Strange Bedfellows In The Bolivian Coup Drama

ANDREW KORYBKO
JUL 01, 2024



Morales and Milei represent the far-left and far-right respectively, yet they each independently concluded that former Bolivian General Zuniga was telling the truth last week when he claimed that President Arce asked him to stage a fake coup.

Former Bolivian President Evo Morales and incumbent Argentine President Javier Milei, who represent the far-left and far-right respectively, have both come out to officially accuse current Bolivian President Luis Arce of faking last week’s failed coup attempt. General Juan Jose Zuniga had earlier claimed that Arce asked him to stage some political drama in order to boost his popularity amidst intra-leftist tensions with Morales and a rapidly worsening economic-financial crisis, but it wasn’t initially deemed credible.

Considering that two popular figures on polar opposite sides of the political spectrum have just become strange bedfellows, however, there are now grounds for reconsidering what Zuniga claimed and wondering whether Arce did indeed orchestrate this bizarre coup attempt which had none of the usual CIA traces. After all, Morales and Milei have completely different worldviews, yet each has independently arrived at the conclusion that Zuniga was indeed telling the truth.

There might also be some political opportunism at play though seeing as how Morales has an interest in discrediting Arce as he vies for becoming the ruling leftist party’s candidate during next year’s election in spite of the legal obstacles while Milei hates all socialists no matter how moderate they may be. Nevertheless, the optics of these two both coming out and accusing Arce of staging a “self-coup” are powerful, and they’ll certainly get observers to think more deeply about this theory.

In the event that there’s any truth to it, Arce might have indeed thought that it would boost his popularity vis-à-vis Morales while also distracting from the ongoing economic-financial crisis, the latter of which he might then have thought he could spin as related to the alleged coup. The CIA has a lengthy history of meddling in Bolivia so the basis would been built after that failed regime change to accuse it of having supposedly waging economic-financial warfare on Bolivia ahead of time.

At this point, it’s impossible to tell what really happened since each side of the debate has compelling arguments in their support, though that doesn’t mean that a general forecast can’t be put forth. The consequences of Morales accusing Arce of cooking up a fake coup will exacerbate those two’s rivalry and further widen the intra-leftist divide ahead of next year’s presidential election. It’s unforeseeable that they’ll reconcile after this and their supporters will now likely become fierce foes of one another.

Depending on how tensions between them unfold in the coming future, Arce might rely on the military to crack down on Morales’ supporters, especially if they stage nationwide protests that shut down major roads and worsen the country’s already difficult economic-financial crisis. That said, it can’t be taken for granted that the historically US-aligned military would remain loyal to Arce, with the possibility existing that some senior members feel deeply offended at him allegedly orchestrating a fake coup with Zuniga.

Their institution appears weaker than ever and was humiliated after Zuniga obeyed Arce’s demands to leave the presidential palace. If they sense that he’s become more vulnerable than before in the aftermath of what just happened, largely due to the widening intra-leftist divide, then they might stage an actual coup to depose him. In that case, they might very well collude with the CIA, and it couldn’t be ruled out that they might seek Milei’s support too due to their anti-socialist ideological alignment.

As for the Argentine leader, he wants neither Arce nor Morales in power next door, plus he also has self-interested political reasons in supporting any coup against them (even if only in the aftermath by keeping trade corridors open if leftist Brazil blockades them as punishment) to distract from domestic troubles. Milei might also calculate that he’d be doing the West a major favor that they could then repay in some way that helps alleviate Argentina’s own economic-financial crisis.

With these variables in mind, there are reasons to expect that Bolivia will remain mired in a multisided crisis that’s poised to intensify as the country approaches next year’s presidential election. Arce will have to deal with an almost literally rebellious Morales together with managing the military’s mistrust, not to mention ensuring that the economic-financial crisis doesn’t spiral out of control. Each of these tasks is extremely difficult on their own, let alone all together, and he might not be able to pull it off.

https://korybko.substack.com/p/evo-mora ... milei-make

[blindpig]

The Bolivian “Tanquetazo”
Posted by INTERNATIONALIST 360° on JULY 2, 2024
Kevin Anibarro



On June 26, 2024, the Bolivian government suffered an attempted military coup d’état organized and orchestrated by dissident members of the Army, who, using tanks and other combat vehicles, forcibly entered the Palacio Quemado, positioning themselves in strategic places in the Plaza Murillo, in a clear coup against the democratic government of Luis Arce Catacora.

A failed coup attempt with strikingly similar characteristics was experienced in Chile in 1973, just three months before General Augusto Pinochet took power by force at the cost of the life of President Salvador Allende.

On an almost analogous date, June 29, 1973, the Popular Unity (UP) government, headed by Allende, suffered an attack that was immediately named “Tanquetazo”, due to the use of tanks and other vehicles in its execution. What is the significance of this similarity? In that, only three months after that failed attempt, Augusto Pinochet’s successful coup d’état took place.

The narrative installed at that time was that the “Tanquetazo” had been carried out by military men who were not in their right mind and that the real danger were the workers who were armed with the consent of the Government.

In the Bolivian case, the narrative that both Evo Morales and the opposition seek to install is that it was a “self-coup” organized to increase President Arce’s popularity, a dangerous statement that would lead to ignoring the multiple threats to democracy in the country.

Two were the protagonists of the same role at different times: Lieutenant Colonel Roberto Souper, in the Chilean case; and General Juan José Zúñiga, in the Bolivian case. Both would have been inclined to a coup d’état when they saw that they would be relieved of their posts: the former for being part of a conspiracy, and the latter for controversial statements, some of them directed against former President Morales.

Both events took place in a context in which the Military High Command had lost confidence in its government and vice versa; something that can be clearly observed, in our case, in the fact that Luis Arce changed the High Command six times during his administration.

Another common element is the participation of the United States in Chile in 1973, led by President Richard Nixon and his Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, who had a decisive influence on groups opposed to Allende, and whose support and financing of the coup d’état is widely documented, according to files declassified by the United States itself.

In Bolivia, this participation would have a name: Debra Hevia, US Chargé d’Affaires who arrived in the country, generating susceptibility for her support to the opposition and her eventual contribution to the gestation of a coup d’état. Further supporting this idea is the fact that the attack on democracy took place shortly after a meeting held between Luis Arce and his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, in which issues related to international cooperation and Bolivian lithium -a resource much sought after by the country of the North- among others, were discussed.

Bolivia has warned on several occasions of Washington’s intentions to take over the exploitation and industrialization of lithium. Along these lines, in July 2022, the commander of the U.S. Southern Command, Laura Richardson, publicly expressed her concern about an alleged interference of China and Russia in Latin America, particularly in what is known as the “Lithium Triangle”.

One of the most questioned aspects of the frustrated Bolivian coup was the fact that both Luis Arce and the Minister of Government, Eduardo Del Castillo, dared to speak out and confront General Zúñiga, something that, however, General Carlos Prats, the protagonist who managed to placate the Chilean “Tanquetazo”, did just the same. On that occasion Prats went out to talk to the tank commanders in a courageous act that almost cost him his life (although years later Pinochet’s coup plotters would take revenge).

In 1973, after midday, the coup had been put down and Salvador Allende went out to thank the population and the loyal troops for their fierce defense; something that Luis Arce also did at the end of the afternoon.

But, beyond the similarities, it is worth mentioning serious differences, such as the fact that nowadays communication is instantaneous and this made it possible that, in a matter of minutes, the attempt was known worldwide and that the Murillo square was filled with people indignant at the possibility of the establishment of a military dictatorship. The same happens with the decision to use pellets and not bullets, something that they knew would cause general indignation and the repudiation of public opinion. In the 70’s this was “easily” solved: the Chilean military killed the journalists, an issue that was patented with the outrageous image of a military officer shooting a cameraman who was recording the events and who ended up immortalizing his own murder.

After all these events, Pinochet embraced Prats and congratulated him for his work; the same Pinochet who three months later would take power by force and cause the death of Salvador Allende.

After these reflections we are left to wonder: will there be a Pinochet in the Bolivian coup? Only time will tell.

Translation by Resumen Latinoamericano – English

https://libya360.wordpress.com/2024/07/ ... anquetazo/

******

Bolivia Summons Argentina’s Ambassador for Milei’s Interference in Internal Affairs
JULY 2, 2024


Argentina's far-right President Javier Milei. Photo: EFE/file photo.

The Bolivian government summoned Argentina’s ambassador in La Paz, Marcelo Massoni, on Monday to express a “strong rejection” of the statements made by the Office of the President of the Republic of Argentina, Javier Milei, who repudiated what he calls a “false denunciation of a coup d’état made” by the government of Luis Arce.

The Bolivian Minister of the Presidency Maria Nela Prada, who is also acting as interim foreign minister, reported at a press conference that she had also summoned the Bolivian ambassador to Argentina, Ramiro Tapia, “for consultation” to “appear at the Bolivian government headquarters.”

The Office of the President of the Republic of Argentina published a statement on Sunday night in which it repudiated “the false accusation of a coup d’état made by the government” of Bolivia, a clear violation of basic principles of non-interference in the diplomatic affairs of other its host nation.

In the statement, Milei also accused the government of President Luis Arce of controlling the three branches of government and of holding more than “200 political prisoners,” including former interim president Jeanine Áñez and opposition governor Luis Fernando Camacho, both prosecuted for the 2019 coup d’état that ousted the then president Evo Morales.



Earlier, the Arce government strongly rejected “the unfriendly and reckless statements made by the Office of the President of the Argentine Republic” regarding the military insurrection last Wednesday which the Bolivian president, as well as world and regional leaders, denounced as an “attempted coup d’état,” where 14 people were injured.

Last Wednesday, a group of heavily armed soldiers with tanks led by the dismissed military chief General Juan José Zuñiga carried out an armed uprising against the headquarters of Luis Arce’s government. Hours later, after a popular mobilization and executive decisions taken by Arce’s government, the then commander retreated and was imprisoned along with other military officials participating in the coup.

https://orinocotribune.com/bolivia-summ ... l-affairs/

[blindpig]

Bolivia: Political Self-Immolation by MAS
Posted by Internationalist 360° on October 6, 2024
Rafael Bautista S.



While the indispensable ones died or are dying
and only the scavengers remain,
one wonders:
who has the power to make us believe that such scum is all there is?

The MAS conflict was never only an internal conflict. It is what “movimientismo” drags along as a political culture; and the MAS, being heir to it, never knew how to solve this aporia that characterizes the national left[1]. Born as a popular expression, but always leaning towards the repositioning of the State it intended to transform, it inevitably distances itself from the popular horizon that gave rise to it; then, when there is no longer any way to disguise it and its right-wingization becomes evident, its decomposition and fracture inevitably happens. When power becomes the substitute faith, then everything is reduced to pure political calculation (both sides yield the little faith they have left to those who accumulate power, which is the only thing that serves in that scenario, thus confirming their own betrayal, reaffirming the creeds and dogmas of the politics they once believed they could transform).

In this way, the left is witnessing a fatality that it drags in its wake like a historical curse. For this reason, we are witnessing an overkill, to the point of personalization, which is exposed in the crudest ways and demonstrates the immature Manichaeism of a political project that demonstrates that it no longer has renewed points of rapprochement with the indigenous-popular political horizon that gave rise to it. The improbability of its permanence as a political reference (beyond its hard vote), awakens a logic that, for pure survival, opts for the only thing it has left: the threat of collective suicide.

All those involved in this trifecta lose sight of the fact that political actors worth is not in themselves but the projects they represent. The exacerbation of personalism only expresses corporate interests that, almost always, shield their purposes behind some charismatic power. In this sense, both sides are the continuity of the subsumption of the popular project by a dispute of elites that need the traditional State, that is, the liberal-oligarchic-colonial one, to become continuous political power.

It is worth remembering that, those now in dispute, never questioned the soft coup that took place at the 2009 negotiation tables, with the complicity of the MAS government, when the instituted order (the liberal-colonial State that should be subordinated, by constitutional logic, to the new constituent power) neutralized the revolutionary character of the new plurinational State and, in this way, modeled it, in the image and likeness of the liberal oligarchic nation-State.

The present conflict does not even portray a polemic of legitimization of leadership (which Evo’s myopia believes), but rather of political mastery. That is why neither side, “evistas” nor “arcistas”, propose anything new, only to comply obediently with the liberal rules of the manorial State. Those who previously believed to have the power of inclusion, are now “included” in the colonial order that they are replacing in all respects. Therefore, on the one hand, in its political inertia, the government submits to the technocracy of state decisions that no longer outline any strategic horizon and, on the other hand, the other side believes that the boycott and the attrition it is unleashing, can catapult its leader messianically and regain the longed-for power.

Both sides renounce the essence of the political, since their quarrel manifests a pure calculation of interests, where the real absentee is the people as a constituent power, that is, as a historical-political subject. Without this transcendental reference, politics is reduced to the mere dispute of power for power. Then, when there is only a struggle of empowered elites, only a new state cycle appears, of the same state that was to be overcome. The conflict then is summarized, now, to the unconscious dispute of who ends up dissolving the remaining plurinational State. Which new empowered elite will assume the leadership of this conclusion?

Before the coup of 2019 and, subsequently, in the hasty attrition of the current government administration, we were warning of the risks of a state inertia that betrayed not only its exhaustion but also the loss, on both sides, of any strategic perspective[2]. This is what is inevitably leading not only to the implosion of the MAS itself but, what is worse, to the fracture of the popular bloc. The current Manichaeism, exacerbated by certain spokespersons who express the recipe of “divide and rule”, only paves the fateful path of political self-immolation. But this self-immolation of the MAS, as something premeditated, suspiciously follows a script that operates the scenography of the failed State, with the consequent imperial intervention.

In that sense, it would not be a question of who is more revolutionary but of who claims the definitive conclusion of something that had already been lost, even before the coup of 2019.

It must be said, it was the masista government apparatus itself that, in 14 years, undermined the bases of legitimization of the popular organizations. What the “evistas” criticize the government for is what they themselves did, prebendalizing the parent organizations of the popular camp. Here we are able to discern a kind of consented imperial penetration that did its job very well, corrupting the decisive levels of the popular organizations, to do what the autochthonous right wing does not know and cannot do: decompose the people in order to dismantle its own political project.

Before this year’s coup attempt, we proposed, both to “arcistas” and “evistas”, a necessary and urgent approach to the geopolitical consequences of the MAS crisis. But all of them are more interested in their agendas than in our own country. Now, if the new “evista” mobilization, announced with a march to La Paz (which could turn into a strike of several strategic sectors. In addition to the road blockade, confrontation with leaders and parallel bases of parent organizations), this hinders and complicates Bolivia’s chances of joining BRICS+ in October. Then we will know what script is unfolding.

In addition to this scenario, the promotion of social and economic disaster in Bolivia from Peru, which would produce a massive exodus of Bolivians to the neighboring country, inevitably provoking border conflicts. All this constitutes the elaboration of a major plan, to which “evismo” suspiciously lends itself.

The improvised governmental management can hardly read and discern the scenarios and even its own bets; for example, regarding the economic crisis that has been inflaming (also due to the constant harassment of “evismo”), without the government having structural and strategic answers, it is nothing more than the confirmation that the “social-community-productive economic model” was far from being an authentic model, besides being too dependent on a favorable economic situation, especially a regional one. Confidence is not a good tactic. This only proves that the current government only dedicated itself to grant automatic continuity to what had been done before.

When state decisions, which should always be political and geopolitical (especially when we are witnessing the end of globalization, of the unipolar order and the expansion of the emerging powers gathered in the BRICS+), are not confronted and only rely on the bureaucratic administration of state inertia, the political aspect of the state is subsumed in favor of a legal-administrative bureaucratic power that responds “technically” to the oligarchic-liberal ideology made state creed.

For this reason, the negligence of belittling the geopolitical approach to this crisis (because we are playing the permanence of the plurinational State in the new geopolitical chessboard), will be the full responsibility of those involved in a trifecta that, to the delight of the media morbid, will provoke a state assault, even “democratically”, much more forceful than the coup of 2019. In that case, the Bolivian State will have renounced to be the new geopolitical heart of the South American arc, leaving alone a Venezuela threatened even by the pro-green and woke left of the region.

A digression: On March 7 of this year, the “Report on Living Well” was presented at the Vice-Presidency. This was an unprecedented event in our country, because it is the first time that what constitutes a “Report to the Nation” of what is supposedly proposed as a new State doctrine, which is what later becomes a State policy, is presented. It is the first time that a Report of this nature has been presented in the entire political history of Bolivia. The “Living Well Report” was presented by Vice President David Choquehuanca. But the absence of the highest authority of the State, the government ministers and the legislative body was striking. Even more so considering that the self-styled “government of change”, in its second version, presents itself as the governmental expression of the plurinational State, whose political horizon of reference is precisely “living well”.

This shows, among other things, the conjuncturalist myopia of reducing all political attention to circumstantial disputes which, ultimately, end up defining the concentration of power; but precisely, if it is about power, the generation of popular power and the clarification of its political horizon, is what is decisive, both in the support of legitimacy and in the amplification of hegemony. However, in the current trifecta, both components of the political are conceived only from the calculation of interests, that is to say, from the demagogic idiosyncrasy of the usual politics.Thus we can describe a loss of horizon that was already recurrent in the management of the 14 years of the previous “government of change”.

Its current version reveals that, not only they did not understand the reasons and the way the coup d’état of 2019 took place and succeeded, but it seems that the abandonment of the initial and legitimate banners of the “process of change”, are being reduced to a mere administration of the bets that had already been generated in the past administration, when the “living well”, the “decolonization” and the “plurinational” were gradually abandoned.

We are witnessing, with the support of the very sectors protagonists of change, the abandonment of the horizon that the plurinational subject had originated as a democratic-cultural revolution. That is why we are also noticing that, in the contest between Evo and Arce, an excluded third party appears, which, curiously, is the only voice that still insists, solitarily and unsuccessfully, on the original banners of change. This leads us to consider that it is the Indian and what the Indian believes in, what is really excluded in this dispute.The “linerista” youth, before the coup of 2019, already said before the coup of 2019, and now in political and legislative power: “the subject of change is now the middle class”.Well, that middle class, which they wanted to empower, was the same that mobilized in favor of and applauded the coup d’état.

All the criticisms that can be made by both sides (because they degenerated into that) of the MAS, are partly true, even those exaggerated by the growing bellicosity, but they are of no use when none of the poles of the confrontation shows political prudence, when what is at stake is not their leadership but the very viability of the plurinational State. This happens when the political horizon is lost and everything is reduced to the maintenance of power at all costs. Both are playing, unknowingly or without caring, not only to their mutual political annulment but also to the mutilation of the indigenous-popular horizon.

While the government is once again losing itself in occasional works, as in the previous administration, sinning from political naivety, believing that works generate, by themselves, revolutionary consciousness or ideological fidelity, it does not realize that it is falling into the progressive illusion. The previous government, faithful to the socialist creed of fulfilling the pending tasks of the bourgeoisie, did not realize that this could mean the reinstatement of the subjective conditions to restore the belief system of capitalism.

They never learned that, without cultural revolution, social ascent only produces the gentrification of the people.This is also the failure of the current government: objectivity alone, the works (especially those that promote the myths of development and progress), do not produce the social optimum of change, that is, revolutionary consciousness.

In this sense, if at least the productive ministries and those in charge of financing were aware of the necessary decolonial factor in the geopolitical reading of the current regional and global context, this would provide them with an updated lucidity of the national and regional possibilities opened up by the inevitable civilizational transition. In this way we could propose, instead of the slogan of “industrialization with import substitution” (which also responded to and confronted a geopolitical design that has collapsed), the more suggestive one of “industrialization with paradigm substitution” (since even China proposes, in the following decades, the transition to a post-capitalist paradigm and the Russian Federation points to a new post-Western order).

But what is being promoted by the government is, once again, the developmentalist paradigm that is no longer possible in the new reality and the new and more complex conditions and scenarios that are rethinking everything related to energy patterns and bases, sustainable industrialization processes in the midst of the post-industrial paradigm crossed by AI, new modes and processes of integration in correspondence with the new geostrategic corridors and the global supply chain, etc.

New explanatory models and change of paradigms become urgent, but this can only come from a new political horizon that projects a people made popular power; and that the State must promote. But, as in the previous administration, the people are once again confined to mere obedience or called to accompany, in an instrumentalized way, the decisions made in spheres divorced from the popular camp.And this happens on both sides. Because in both it is noticeable that the idiosyncrasy is the same. They all fight only for their political survival.

It is in this context that the figure of Evo himself is already anachronistic. And those who surround him and pamper his aspirations are precisely those who did not know how to read what was coming and what it meant for the people. Now they are irresponsibly making the best arrangements for the right wing to rearticulate itself and make the chenko (the mess) produced, the breeding ground for the defenestration of the plurinational project, which was the most genuine thing that could be proposed to overcome the nation-state concept.

The figure of Evo is so worn out that the continuous conflict with a government that, it must be said, he himself organized, at his own convenience (from Buenos Aires), only generates the growing erosion of his political possibilities. His electoral presence alone will only serve to unite the right wing as a bloc.In such case, even if he hypothetically triumphs, it will be by such a meager margin that he will be forced to make a pact and thus repeat the opprobrious end of those who “crossed rivers of blood”.

If the curse of the right wing is that it does not act even for itself, now it seems that the leadership of change has assumed the same fate. Those mobilized in the coup of 2019, the naive “pititas”, in their marches and strikes, served power on a silver platter, to an oligarchic insurrection sponsored by imperial interests. Now those mobilized are from the “evismo”, who did not learn anything from the coup. For in the worrying geopolitical dispute we are facing regionally, stirring up a crisis from within only favors the gringo interference which, after failing again in Venezuela, can accelerate the scenario (with the complicity of neighboring countries) of a failed State.

The purpose has always been the same and that is what they intended with the hybrid-geopolitical coup of 2019: to annul the subject in order to, in this way, annul the project.That is why their intelligence agencies work to penetrate even the popular camp and, from within, undermine any possibility of the subject made political horizon. But today we are witnessing a much more tragic paradox, which we announced in 2018[3]: to end up destroying a recomposition of the popular camp, the enthronement of the Indian would only serve to conclude in this warning: “with an Indian they wanted to dream of changing everything, with the same Indian we will teach them that nothing can be changed”.

Notes:

[1] https://www.nodal.am/2023/03/bolivia-cr ... autista-s/

[2] The Angel of History.Volume I. Genealogy, execution and defeat of the coup d’état. 2018-2020, yo soy si Tú eres ediciones, La Paz, 2021. The Angel of History. Volume II. The dispute of the South American arc and the geopolitics of the global reset. 2020-2024, yo soy si Tú eres ediciones, La Paz, 2024.

[3] https://rebelion.org/como-se-produce-un ... e-colores/

rafaelcorso@yahoo.com

https://libya360.wordpress.com/2024/10/ ... on-by-mas/

[blindpig]

Evo Will Overcome Persecution While Arce Buries His Political Future
Posted by Internationalist 360° on October 20, 2024
Rupa


Supporters of Bolivia’s President Luis Arce light flares as they stand guard in Plaza Murillo, in La Paz, Bolivia on September 23, 2024 [Claudia Morales/Reuters]

The latest events have diametrically opposite meanings for Evo and for Arce. In the case of Evo, it is a new smear campaign, which he will overcome as he did on previous occasions; in the case of Arce, it is a step into the void, with the attempt to arrest Evo, he has made it clear that he has the same objectives as the most rancid right wing and the US embassy, that is, to destroy the leadership of the national popular bloc.

Survivalist bias and the ignorance of the ruling masters

In the Second World War, the war planes that were attacked and managed to return to their bases with shots in several places, needed a treatment to guarantee their resistance in new battles. The immediate reaction of the engineers was to think that they should reinforce only the affected places so that the warplanes would continue to resist. This was called “survivability bias,” thinking that it was a matter of riveting only the places where damage was evident to ensure the aircraft’s success in new battles. The reasoning was false, since if the planes returned, in spite of the shots, it really meant that it was the vital places of the planes that had not been affected, therefore, it was those places that had to be reinforced to guarantee their resistance.

We will use this analogy to understand what is perhaps one of the latest blunders of the government in its attempt to destroy Evo.

If Evo represents a war plane that has already been shot at for decades and is still alive as a political expression, then it seems that his opponents have never targeted the vital places where his strength lies. The “class bias” of the opposition to Evo puts a veil of ignorance to understand and see that vital core.

That is why it is not by chance that Arce and his gentrified and pititas advisors end up carrying out the same smear actions against Evo, literally dusting off the cases of Murillo and Añez to imprison him; that is to say, they shoot at the same places where all the rancid and traditional right wing has already shot before.The accusations of links with drug trafficking, terrorism, economic damages to the State, rape and others, are part of the repertoire of accusations that Goni, Mesa, Banzer, Tuto, Añez and all the most anti-patriotic right wing already used against him, which, although they managed to hurt him, they were never able to defeat him.

This is the constitutive limit of Arce and his group, they reason like the most rancid right wing when confronting Evo and follow their same recipes, because they are ignorant of the place where Evo’s vital force resides; which is none other than the memory of exclusion that the majority of the country has lived through, which has centuries of humiliation by the Colonial State inscribed on its skin, and which finds in Evo the image of someone who, apart from having lived through the same pains and vicissitudes, besides having a face in which the people recognize themselves, has managed to demonstrate that it is possible to pierce the obstacles that the Colonial State has placed on the Indians; And, what no opportunist lord like Arce or his people will ever achieve, Evo has left the mark on the people of the best years of prosperity and welfare.

That is why his ferocious attack, which involves a millionaire expense in the payment of the media to exploit the people’s morbid curiosity, will only cause a new wound in the places where other enemies of the popular sectors have already shot against Evo; while the core of the vital energy that articulates Evo with the people remains intact.

The end of Arceism

Arce lives a mixture of hatred and fear of Evo.

He hates Evo because the humblest people do not stop loving him.Arce falsely believed that he won the elections for himself, for his image, for his trajectory; that is why he believes that the people should love him; since this does not happen, his impotence makes him crash against the person he believes is to blame for this not happening. He does not understand that he would never have been president without Evo’s patronage. That is why his deepest hatred is against himself, because his power always depended on the Indian before whom he was submissive and whom he now despises; he hates himself because what he is does not mean anything to the people. The people do not want him.

But Arce also trembles at the possibility of Evo becoming president again, because he will have to give an account to the country for all his mismanagement of the State and the economic crisis he has provoked. His actions as president showed that he was the best minister of economy when there were resources thanks to Evo’s political decisions, but now that he has no money to spend, he shows that he is a failed ruler, a cashier incapable of making transcendental decisions.

During his time in government, Arce not only left the State in a literal bankruptcy; he also left social organizations eroded by the division he promoted; a weakening and deinstitutionalization of all State organs, especially the justice system, and worst of all, the whole plan to strengthen strategic companies outlined by Evo was paralyzed, such as the lithium project.

His passage through the government translates into a dismantling of the State and of the social base organization that sustains it. Is it a planned demolition of the Plurinational State?

Hatred and fear have now made it cross all limits. By deciding to imprison Evo with a case sown by Añez and Murillo, he has decided to make explicit his betrayal to the popular bloc and place himself in the space of the anti-patriotic and colonial right wing. From now on he is a political orphan, since the people of the popular sectors that voted for him, will never do so again, for attacking with such viciousness against the leadership they defend (the memory of the people is plagued with cases in which the colonial state detained, mounting cases, indigenous leaders to silence them).But also, the middle class sectors (pititas) and the classic right wing, with whom he currently governs, also detest him as a masista and will never support him in an election.

That is why it is the end of the arcism and the failure of the gentlemen who usurped the power of the State, who proved to be ignorant of the reality of the country and of what the people feel.

https://libya360.wordpress.com/2024/10/ ... al-future/

[blindpig]

Three Women, Three Perspectives on the Division in Bolivia’s MAS
November 20, 2024


Evo Morales, Photo: EFE.

By Javier Larraín – Nov 16, 2024

In “the street,” in friends’ meetings, in the press… Everywhere, the population wonders about the veracity, depth, and state of the division within the Movement Towards Socialism (MAS).

There are those who wish it were a bad dream and that when they wake up everything would be as before; others are determined to stir the ashes of hatred.

We wanted to know the point of view of three influential women, two of them former MAS government officials. The first is Susana Bejarano, a well-known journalist who is a supporter of the Process of Change. The second is Ariana Campero, former minister of health and former diplomat in the administration of Evo Morales. The third is Verónica Navia, until a few months ago responsible for the Labor, Employment and Social Welfare portfolio. They have the floor.

The good, the bad, and the ugly of the fight in the “masismo” party
We began by asking them for an evaluation of the current state of the fight between the Evo and arcista factions: the good, the bad, and the ugly…

Bejarano: “I do not know how much good can be taken out of such a cruel fight. Perhaps what I would say is that it moved the masista structure and that is something that would happen sooner or later, the natural desire of the militancy to rise politically without the need to be close to Evo or to someone close to him. That was an existing tension even before the 2019 coup.”

Regarding the bad, she identifies that “not having had internal institutional mechanisms to improve the management of this conflict, you find that the strongest and most representative political institution in the political history of the country is about to be banned.”

And the ugly? She points out: “the ugly and tragic thing is the lack of understanding of what this fight, without quarter, means for the popular movement that found in the MAS an instrument of political representation, the possibility of managing sectorial interests that had not been attended to historically and, of course, the transformation of national politics with the indigenous presence in the whole political chain without the need of intermediation. The indigenous people were the protagonists for the first time. All this could be lost.”

Moral decomposition of one of the largest movements in the history of Bolivia
Campero’s diagnosis is conclusive: “we are in a state of moral decomposition of one of the largest movements in the history of Bolivia.”

With this starting point, she does not identify anything “good” in the present moment, expressing her concern for the future: “the unpleasant aspect of this situation is the bad example left to the new generations about the way of doing politics.”

Meanwhile, the former Minister of Labor chooses to dive into history before falling back on the distinctive feature of the struggle that summons us: “first, we must refer to how the MAS arose and its relationship with the political instrument. Between 1995, 1996, and 1997, the First, Second and Third Congress for Land, Territory and Political Instrument were held in Santa Cruz, Potosí, and Santa Cruz, respectively, all convened by the Single Confederation of Bolivian Peasant Workers (CSUTCB), as the consolidation of a debate that the sector had been holding since the 1980s. The meeting was attended by all departmental and regional organizations, including the Special Federation of the Tropic of Cochabamba (cocaleros) headed by Evo Morales.

“The conclusions revolved around the creation of the Political Instrument – Assembly for the Sovereignty of the Peoples (IP-ASP) as a first attempt, although without the basic requirement to participate in electoral processes… In view of this, another of the most debated conclusions of the congress meetings was, precisely, participation in elections.”

Navia continues: “since obtaining the legal personality became an impossible task, in spite of the great efforts made for two years to achieve it, the Electoral Court (now Supreme Electoral Tribunal) always found some defect not to grant it.

“For this reason, it was decided to participate in municipal and national elections under the (borrowed) acronym of the United Left (IU). Thus, from 1997 onwards, they were represented in some Municipal Councils, and the best known, Evo Morales and three other comrades, were elected national deputies (not with their own political instrument, but the door was opened to parliamentary debate on an “equal footing”). By 2004 (I am not sure of the year), the possibility of acquiring an acronym that would allow the social organizations to participate with their own political instrument appeared; however, it was not the social organizations that acquired this acronym but Evo Morales, who was a deputy and also a coca growers’ leader. Since then, Evo Morales has been the president of MAS and the only candidate with this acronym. Therefore, the internal dispute between arcistas and evistas is not, from my point of view, for personal factors of who and for how long, but for the democratization or not of the Political Instrument, for recovering or not the origin of this: the social organizations.”

Origin and escalation of the conflict
Wishing to get to the root of the impasse between evismo and arcismo, we asked our interviewees to identify the points of disagreement and how they escalated over time.

Bejarano does not identify a particular incident but points to organic issues in the MAS: “The dispute has its origin in the lack of mechanisms for internal democracy. The differences were noticed at the beginning of Luis Arce’s administration, I would even say since the campaign. After a few months of government, there were—from what today is referred to as the pro-evista wing—requests for changes of ministers precipitating the conflict. Likewise, many cadres that today we would call evistas were inexplicably left out of Arce’s scheme, who focused on promoting very second-line people; and if you look back and evaluate things, it was not a great team for the president either, as there have been many people without leadership who built nothing to help Luis Arce’s management.”

The journalist continued with a key issue, the road to the presidential elections: “the other issue is the candidacy for 2025. Since his return from Argentina, Evo was convinced that he would be the candidate for these elections, without taking into account that things had changed within the political party.

“There were and there are aspirations of power for groups that in other circumstances would not have had access to power; although this situation was not sincere from the beginning, it happened this way from the beginning.”

The former minister of health travels to the past to address our concern: “Lenin talked about the importance of criticism and self-criticism within the party. In this case, the non-existence of a consolidated party and, in addition, the intentional absence of criticism and self-criticism within the MAS-IPSP have deprived its bases of the possibility of exposing their thoughts on the 2016 referendum, the constitutional sentence that enabled Evo as a candidate in 2019, and the coup d’état experienced the same year.”

Campero stressed the lack of spaces in which to channel opinions and learn how to manage them. For her, “we were wrong to ignore the 2016 referendum and insist on the repostulation through a constitutional sentence, which became the perfect pretext to consummate the coup.”

Likewise, she questions the fact that those errors continue: “We continue making the same mistake: insisting on the same candidacy.”

Verónica Navia, in response to this question, notes that “Evo Morales [is] willing to defend, even with the lives of his comrades, the ownership of the MAS-IPSP acronym.”

I will explain, referring to some elements of recent history. After the constitutional referendum of 2016, claimed by the right wing as its 21F, the internal search for a new candidate (not leader, only candidate) began, given the disqualification of Morales for a new term. Obviously, those who tried to profile themselves were branded as “Lenín Moreno” in allusion to the betrayal of Rafael Correa in a succession in the government of Ecuador. Not even García Linera was spared from the new title, in view of the possibility of Evo’s resignation to the presidency to run for a new mandate. From that moment on, Morales’s fixation (promoted by the fearful environment) on the presidency of the state led to his committing one mistake after another that ended in the weakening of the government administration—not of the political instrument, which in 2020 demonstrated its strength in the electoral process—that since 2010 abandoned the transformations proposed in the October Agenda and in the Government Plan itself.

Navia used the word “usurpation” to explain what is happening. For her, “anyone who pretends to ‘usurp’ the position of candidate is considered a traitor. Positions that are analyzed and promoted from the Tropic of Cochabamba by different actors that made of that region the necessary political refuge to launch slogans. This confirms that the MAS does not belong to the social organizations but seems to have private property, with the right of decision over the popular will.”

“The escalation, which is the second part of the question, is due to the proximity of the national elections [and] to the need to pose as an eligible counter to whoever has the greatest power and can be considered in the next list of candidates. For this, they are using threats, transferring people from the Tropic to different blockade points and, unfortunately, violence,” she concludes.



Consummation of the division
Few words are so much the order of the day in the MAS as “division.” Some dream of an unforeseen turn that would make unity viable. Others are entrenched in their positions and devote themselves body and soul to “division” instead of to trying to understand those who, until a few years ago, were their comrades.

We asked about the cost that the consummation of the division would mean for the Process of Change. Bejarano did not hesitate: “The electoral cost will be known next year; however, it is the first time that a door has been opened for the right wing to govern the country again in a democratic way”.

Then she explains the responsibilities of the leaders in this fight: “The opposition is dedicated to dusting off neoliberal recipes ‘to save Bolivia’, and this is the responsibility of the political leadership that was unable to offer, even in the midst of dispute, ideas on how to manage the state and the necessary adjustments to the masista economic and political model that today are resented…”

Campero clarifies that “the cost would be the return of the pro-imperialist right wing to power through the ballot box and, with this, the implementation of neoliberal policies, the concentration of wealth in few hands, and the increase of poverty.”

For her part, Navia agrees that “it would be a very high cost. Faced with the disappearance of the left in Bolivia, subsumed by the hope of a Process of Change ‘towards socialism’, there are no other options left.”

Here, Navia cannot but evoke decades of struggles: “Since the congresses I mentioned to you, the conviction was to participate in elections for the seizure of power that could carry forward the Democratic and Cultural Revolution. At the beginning of the administration, it was carried with a lot of impulse to comply with the October Agenda (raised by those mobilized in the so-called Gas War in 2003), which demanded the nationalization of hydrocarbons [and] the Constituent Assembly, among other points that Carlos Mesa had the opportunity to materialize but not the courage or the conviction to listen to the will of the people.

“Once the Agenda had been fulfilled, it remained to rethink a new one that would deepen the Process of Change, but with all the actors of the political party.

“This vacuum is now taking a heavy toll that makes us think that, internally, there are two projects: the first one, the mobilized one, that of Evo, which is a strictly electoralist position and has the elections of 2025 as its horizon; and the second one, that of Lucho Arce’s government, which seeks to project our process for the next 50 years. If you analyze them, they are not mutually exclusive because in order to continue with the deepening of the Process of Change, the triumph in the elections must be guaranteed.”

Delving into this nuance, the ex-authority illustrates that “the dispute of evismo is with arcismo, and the answer is “let the social organizations decide.”

Just around the corner: the right wing
With the end of the year and barely 10 months to go before the presidential elections, and with the MAS in the embarrassing situation described above, we cannot help but share with the interviewees the figures of some pollsters and the thoughts of a few analysts who predict that a victory by the opposition is more than possible. But, what would have to happen to prevent the right wing from returning to power?

Bejarano does not see many alternatives in this respect: “A third way is the only option for MAS. One that dispenses with the opposing fronts. Due to the levels of pettiness shown, this will not happen; but, ideally speaking, it would be a way out.”

She ventures into the weaknesses of the opposition that may play in favor of the ruling party: “The right wing has against it that it does not understand the country, that it is either unaware of or abhors what has been done by the MAS.”

Campero expresses a desire that she sees as possible: “Unity. But to achieve it, we must look at ourselves in the mirror, recognize our mistakes, transform ourselves into better revolutionaries, and provide an opportunity to those who can really win an election.”

In other countries, they are experiencing the continuity and evolution of their processes and revolutions, why couldn’t Bolivia do so?

Navia also appeals to “unity,” but confirms her difficulty in not knowing “how to heal the deep wounds we have made among our comrades.”

Finally, she emphasizes the importance of prioritizing the collective political project at all costs: “we must once again convince the bases, the militancy, that we have the power through the social organizations, that the political instrument has no owner, but that neither can we ignore a leadership that we have built in more than a decade. The issue is who will take that step.”

https://orinocotribune.com/three-women- ... ivias-mas/

[blindpig]

Evo Morales Speaks to The Grayzone, Blames US For Assassination Attempt
November 25, 2024



After an attempt on his life, former President Evo Morales, who leads the polls for the upcoming presidential elections, accuses the Bolivian State and the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) of orchestrating the paramilitary operation.

Due to popular intervention and surveillance footage, enough evidence has been produced to sustain such accusations.

Morales blames the business and geopolitical interest around Lithium, for what he calls a grab for power by former partner and now rival, Bolivian President Luis Arce.

A full transcript of Oscar Leon’s interview with Evo Morales follows the video below.



Óscar León: We were at the press conference yesterday and you said there that it was the DEA and the Armed Forces and the police who had tried to attempt on your life. Can you give us a little more indications or details?

Evo Morales: Let’s see, one. After the coup d’état in 2019, the DEA and USAID have returned to Bolivia.

Before [Arce’s election], with Minister Murillo [under Jeanine Añez, after the 2019 Coup]. And when [the U.S. agencies] returned, about a year after the coup, those United States agencies never left and stayed here. Well, [the DEA] is operating publicly inBolivia. It is no longer a secret.

I have papers at hand, which show how some members of the National Bolivian Police were arrested in Colombia, and the [Bolivian] Minister of Government said that they were going to consult with the DEA, for a report [on how to resolve the case]. That is governing with the DEA.

When a minister says he is going to consult with a foreign agency, that is clear proof of their involvement. Secondly, there is official information indicating coordination with the DEA. In the operation shown in the video, we see a helicopter, and it’s clear that paramilitaries boarded it.

That same helicopter was intended to take me away. When their plan failed, they fled due to the reaction of the peasant movement against those who opened fire.

In the video, those who carried out the attack appear to be foreigners—judging by their attire: shorts, tennis shoes, and backpacks—as they boarded the helicopter. When the Armed Forces were questioned, they refused to provide any clear information. Their response was, “I don’t know”—neither confirming nor denying involvement.

If they were certain of their innocence, they would simply say, “No, it didn’t happen.” Sooner or later, the truth will come out. Their silence is the best evidence of a tacit admission. I repeat: if there was nothing, they could have denied it outright. But instead, they refuse to release footage from surveillance cameras.

The commander stated that the videos would only be released upon orders from higher authorities. Naturally, as soldiers, they won’t act without orders. If the presidency gave the command, the situation would be different. Those surveillance tapes must come to light.

One thing, here it is, Coronel Rojas, He has been arrested. Let me show you. You can see it here. Because he will ask the DEA for a report on the Bolivian Pablo Escobar. I have several newspaper cuts like this. Look, here it says Minister Montaño. Could it be that Santa Cruz is worse than Venezuela and Cuba? He is a leftist president. How can he say that Santa Cruz is worse than Cuba and Venezuela? Page 7 of this newspaper.

So, it is clear proof that the government is with the right. Well, it is all there. There are so many newspaper clippings

Voiceover: Lithium is vital to U.S. national security due to its critical role in military and industrial applications. It powers advanced technologies like drones, weapon systems, and energy storage, supporting both defense operations and renewable energy goals. With limited domestic production, securing reliable lithium supplies is essential for maintaining technological superiority and safeguarding infrastructure from geopolitical risks.

Óscar León: At the press conference on Monday, I took the second question and asked which interests he believed were behind the coup and the current political crisis. I mentioned Elon’s Musk infamous tweet, in which he replied to a comment about the Bolivian Coup by saying:

“We’ll coup whoever we want, deal with it”.

Morales’ immediate response began with one word: “Lithium”.

I asked him to expand on that.

Evo Morales: “Yes, the coup was fundamentally about lithium, as I mentioned yesterday in the press conference.

We had a plan through the Ministry of Energy to prioritize lithium investment, with 41 plants, mostly in Potosí, Oruro, and other departments. Over half of these were dedicated to lithium production, including lithium hydroxide, lithium carbonate, and lithium batteries, along with by-products and inputs.

It was set up as a Public-Private Partnership (PPP) alliance. Imagine—this industry wouldn’t just rely on imports of inputs and by-products. Instead, we would produce things like potassium chloride for fertilizers and medicines domestically. In fact, we’re already exporting some. During my previous term, we established a small processing plant with a capacity of 350,000 tons per year, operating at only 30% capacity. The government is not taking advantage of that facility for Brazil’s market.

[Ever since my administration nationalized hydrocarbons in 2006], transnationals were excluded from the extractive processes. They could only participate in the industrial phases. Natural resources like lithium and hydrocarbons belong to the Bolivian people and are managed by the state. When we began adding value to lithium, the coup d’état occurred—driven by those wanting control over our lithium.

And you know what Elon Musk said? “We’ll carry out a coup wherever we want.” That’s his mindset, even as people resist. It’s been claimed that he financed the coup, with support from Donald Trump.

It’s unbelievable to hear President Lucho [Luis Arce] now congratulating Trump. Even if it’s for protocol, how can he align with those behind the coup? During the self-coup of 2024, there were even tweets from the U.S. chargé d’affaires defending Lucho. When has the U.S. ever supported a left-wing leader? Never. Lucho is not left-wing.

Even the coup-plotting OAS (Organization of American States), which supported the 2019 coup, defended Luis Arce in the 2024 Coup. This is a class struggle, an ideological and principled fight.

Unfortunately, Luis Arce has had a hand in this. He halted the lithium project under the pretense of focusing on direct lithium extraction. In four years, he achieved nothing and now blames me? When? How? He was part of my government. Everything is paralyzed under his administration.

The real goal is to destroy the MAS (Movement for Socialism) and disable Evo Morales, while allowing the U.S. to regain control over Bolivia’s lithium. Their actions align with the U.S. national security doctrine, which seeks to dominate our natural resources under the guise of national security.

When I nationalized hydrocarbons, which are a key energy resource, I directly challenged the U.S. national security doctrine.

These are the programmatic and ideological differences between the United States, Luis Arce, and me.”

Voiceover: In a controversial move, Bolivia’s Supreme Electoral Tribunal recognized Glover Garcias—Arce’s candidate—as the party’s leader, ignoring a popular assembly that had nominated Morales not only to lead the party, but to run for a fourth presidential term.

Morales has accused Arce of orchestrating the constitutional ruling that bars re-election for more than two terms, effectively disqualifying Morales.

Óscar León: This reminds me, we have been doing several reports in Latin America, for example in Argentina, in Ecuador, quite a lot, also in Brazil, lawfare or war, using the law. And yesterday you mentioned this and showed these documents that illustrated some instances of how Lawfare is carried out in Bolivia.

Can you tell us a little about lawfare in Bolivia?

Evo Morales: So in 2021 the government made the Black Plan. In January 2002, the communications team of the Ministry of Government gave me a copy.

The plan is to destroy Evo politically, Armando Rodriguez, Loza, the deputy, an enlightened one, a young deputy called Alberto Arizpe. Initially, I didn’t believe it, but time went by, and in 2022, in July 2022, I said “now”, and in a meeting with Lucho Arce. I said to him: “Lucho, what is this? A Black Plan to destroy Evo?” The Minister of the Presidency was there, the Vice President, there were leaders of the Peace Party of Unity, there was also the President of the Chambers and the head of the caucus who was also at that meeting, where I showed his plan “25 – 30 Lucho President”.

At a previous national meeting. We had agreed that the candidates would be defined on the year right before the elections. And in any case, Arce is within his rights to run for re-election even by himself, if he wants to.

But on a sheet of that plan, “Lucho 25 – 30” it said: Evo on the left, Camacho, and Mesa on the right and in the middle is him, Luis Arce. This is the document. I have it in my hand. It is the rightward shift, I told everyone at the meeting. He got scared, he said I will investigate and up to now he has not told me anything.

It has already begun. That fight, the war of the media. But when they started saying, on social networks: “Evo, king of cocaine”, I started defending myself.

Time is passing, there are also plans to finish off the MAS and Lucho Arce, in 2021 – 2022, He did not accept that the MAS-IPSP colors would be shown at official events. President Luis Arce was with the Socialist Party, he no longer believed in the MAS, but at the end of 2022 in a survey it became evident.

Without the MAS, how much % would [President Luis Arce] get? Barely 6%



In 2020 Arce won saying “we are from the MAS”, “we are from the MAS”. And now in the survey that I showed yesterday. How much % does Arce have? 2.2% his positive image is worse [than that of former president Yanine Añez]. A week ago [President Arce] had 4%.

So, the issue. The issue is, I repeat, ideological, with the government of Lucho Arce.

So yes, this is persecution, and the U.S. government is involved. At this moment, the indigenous movement and its worldview, rooted in history and heritage, are inherently anti-colonial—you know this well.

During colonial times, we were threatened with extermination. In the Republican era, we were the most hated. Today, [us indigenous], we represent the only true left-wing party. Our movement came to power, fundamentally transforming the Republic.

The MNR (Nationalist Revolutionary Movement) led the so-called Bolivian Revolution of 1952, overthrowing the military junta and establishing a new government. But for me, that wasn’t a revolution; it was an insurrection of the people. The UDP (Democratic and Popular Union) temporarily joined forces with the MNR in this insurrection to restore democracy. But their time in power was short-lived and unfinished.

At this political moment, being at the forefront of the indigenous movement for 14 years is a historic record. Since 1825, no president has governed for 14 years. Winning over the people is no small feat—it requires tangible results in economic, social, political, and cultural spheres.

That’s where the support and votes come from. It was as a collective movement that we achieved such enduring power.

What did the United States say during the coup? “MAS is not returning to government, and Evo Morales is not returning to Bolivia.”

Lucho Arce ran for president—I suggested his candidacy, but I did not impose it. There were four candidates: Lucho, David, Diego Pari, and Rodríguez. In exile in Argentina, we voted, and Lucho Arce won. When MAS returned to power and I, Evo Morales, returned alive to Bolivia, it was thanks to the Bolivian people’s vote.

What did the empire say to the coup plotters after the coup? That MAS had to be banned. From Argentina, I spoke with some members of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, and they told me there were “internal and external pressures” to eliminate MAS-IPSP. Now, President Lucho Arce is doing exactly that—finishing off MAS-IPSP.

The United States doesn’t want Evo Morales to return, yet here I am. And now, Lucho wants to do more—here’s some critical information for you. It’s not just about trying to kill Evo. If they catch me, they want to extradite me to the United States. Minister César Siles and Minister of Government Eduardo Castillo are involved in this plan.

A month and a half ago, during a meeting with the Plurinational Constitutional Court, what did Lucho Arce say? “We have a common enemy—his name is Evo Morales.” Arce went on to say: “Evo Morales, detained in Bolivia? No, he’s dangerous. It’s better to send him abroad.” The magistrates informed me of this.

You should know that history repeats itself. Back in 1994-95, during Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada’s government, I was detained. I spent about a month and a half in a cell. I was then called to the Ministry of Government, where Sánchez de Lozada and his minister were present. What did they say to me?

“Evo, eradicate coca. If you don’t, you have three paths: the cemetery, [the prison at] Chonchocoro, or the United States.” I replied, “Minister, I am in your hands. I am in your hands.” And now, history is repeating itself.

Óscar León: This reminds me of a case, for example, in Ecuador, and something I witnessed when Rafael Correa was in office. I had the opportunity to be a cameraman that day, and I remember observing what was happening. It made me feel that the presidents of that era in Latin America—those emerging as part of a new left—were challenging the empire, so to speak.

There was a movement among several presidents, who stood together with bold initiatives. They proposed creating a South-South Bank and establishing development entities within the Global South. There was an entire plan in the works, as I understand it.

If we reflect on what happened to those involved in that historic moment, it’s remarkable. Many faced coups or persecution. Cristina Kirchner, Rafael Correa, Lula, yourself—all have endured some form of targeting.

It seems to me that this is a response to the challenge they posed back then. What do you think about this so-called “new Condor Plan” that people are discussing in Latin America these days?”

Evo Morales: Mmm, that era was something else—with Lula, Chávez, Néstor Kirchner, Correa. The first blow, for me, started with Fernando Lugo, then Dilma Rousseff, and Cristina. What happened to Correa was devastating.

In 2021, I read an article predicting that Lucho Arce would become the new Lenín Moreno. I didn’t believe it at the time and even defended Lucho. But as time has passed, it seems worse than Lenín Moreno. Fascism has returned here under Lucho Arce. For me, fascism involves using violent civilian groups to intimidate, attack, and oppress humble people—all with the backing of the police. Neoliberal governments never did that.

Now, it’s no longer the military targeting public and political life—it’s judges and prosecutors. That’s where we are now. For me, this is the new Plan Condor disguised under the banner of justice. Here in Bolivia, we have what I call “legal thugs,” operating through the judicial system.

Lucho Arce and David Choquehuanca no longer rely on the Assembly. Instead, they use two self-extended magistrates. All their rulings, sentences, and resolutions are null and void because no article of the Constitution allows for extensions or self-extensions of judicial terms.

The Constitution is clear—no authority or state body can issue a resolution that benefits itself. Yet these magistrates extended their terms to remain in power.

If constitutional rules were followed, I would still qualify as president of MAS-IPSP, constitutionally, legally, and legitimately. Now, the government uses these self-extended judges to strip the Assembly of its powers, governing through court rulings and injunctions.

For me, this is the second Plan Condor. Leftists, humanists, progressives, and anti-imperialists are now at the mercy of judges and prosecutors.”

Óscar León: Another issue we have discussed extensively here is the mining conflict in Ecuador. At this particular moment, it is a very serious matter. The peasants are quite defenseless, facing enormous corporate power. Imagine—President Noboa is the very embodiment of corporate interests, and the president’s aunt is the one managing the mining companies.

I wanted to ask for your opinion on nature, Pachamama. Right now, we’re witnessing an unprecedented global shift. There’s snow in Arabia, but none at the North Pole. What do you think about the moment we’re living in, on a global scale?”

Evo Morales: Today, as the G20 meets in Brazil, it would be worthwhile for the G20 to conduct a deep evaluation—a profound reflection on life and social justice. The only way to guarantee social peace is through a degree of equality, identity, and wealth redistribution.

Programs must emerge to defend democratic life but also, and fundamentally, to care for Mother Earth. I am convinced that Mother Earth can exist without humankind—perhaps even better without us—but humanity cannot exist without Mother Earth. That’s why I proposed to the United Nations the need to debate the rights of Mother Earth.

For me, the rights of Mother Earth are more important than the rights of humanity. If we do not respect her right to regenerate, if we fail to care for her, humanity’s survival is not guaranteed—not just for men or women, but for all life.

This is a tremendous responsibility, and collectively, we have not assumed it.

Additionally, this ties to the issue of exploitation. We cannot accept an extractivist policy. If extraction must occur, it must respect Mother Earth.

We have a policy for Mother Earth that, I repeat, is fundamentally based on respecting her rights. The indigenous worldview is one of complementarity with nature, deeply rooted in history. In native communities, there is no private property—the land is communal. We rotate, care for it, and rehabilitate it.

Mechanization is acceptable, but it must align with our way of life: complementarity with Mother Earth, collectivity, and harmony with humanity.”

Óscar León: In many places where I’ve been, and perhaps across much of the world, there is growing fear and concern about the possibility of a Third World War, which is already being fought in Europe and the Middle East. Such a conflict could undoubtedly threaten all life on the planet.

Do you think that Latin American politicians are capable of uniting once again, of raising a single voice as a bloc to confront the third world war, global warming, and all these immense challenges we’re facing?

Evo Morales: Let’s see. As human beings, we need to identify and confront the projects and plans of the North American empire. We must challenge the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 and the Manifest Destiny ideology of 1845.

The Monroe Doctrine claims that America is for the Americans, meaning that Latin American countries are considered U.S. colonies. But they are losing ground. To me, the United States is no longer an economic power, though it remains a military one. NATO, however, has essentially become the U.S. Department of Defense. I don’t understand what the Europeans are doing, aligning themselves with this.

Manifest Destiny—the belief that the U.S. is blessed by God and destined to rule the world and its natural resources—is equally incomprehensible. It has fueled militarization across the globe.

More recently, the U.S. National Security Doctrine has faced serious challenges. I place a lot of confidence in BRICS and the emergence of a New World Order—a multipolar world.

This gives me hope. I sense a rebellion is underway, but it needs to accelerate. Change isn’t possible without the support of the people. Only when leaders stand alongside their people can policies for the people be guaranteed—not policies for the empire.

Unipolarity does not ensure life—not for today, not for future generations, and certainly not for Mother Earth.”

Óscar León: Thank you very much for your time, Mr. Former President. We express our solidarity regarding the attack you experienced and wish you the best of luck moving forward. Thank you.

Evo Morales: Thank you very much. To conclude, let me say that the government of Lucho Arce has stolen the people’s money. Corruption is rampant. I have the moral authority to speak about this. I came to the presidency without academic credentials, thanks to truth and honesty—you know me.

The Bolivian judges may have taken away our MAS acronym, but they will never strip us of our revolutionary principles. A revolutionary never retires or abandons the battlefield. I will not leave Bolivia. I will stand with the people, even if persecuted. They tried to kill me, and I survived.

Now, we are more united than ever, committed to recovering our democratic and cultural revolution, and saving Bolivia again, just as we did during our 14 years in government.

https://orinocotribune.com/evo-morales- ... n-attempt/