I thought Christian Parenti's coverage was pretty good:
http://thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050613&s=parenti

"The basic question is this: Who will control the nation's massive natural gas reserves, which has jumped to 53.3 trillion cubic feet from just 5.6 trillion cubic feet in 1999? The deeper issue, of course, is the unwillingness of the highly organized and politicized majority indigenous population to suffer through another generation of brutal high-altitude poverty.

The rolling protests and road blockades around La Paz come a week after Congress passed a law raising taxes on the foreign oil companies that have controlled Bolivia's petroleum wealth since a sweeping privatization in 1996. The companies cast the new law as far too severe, while the largely indigenous left decry the law as too weak. "

Posted by steve at May 30, 2005 09:07 AM

Steve, I'm far from having sufficient knowledge of Bolivia to comment, but I do have a feel for the host of MABB, Miguel Buitrago who has been writing on the throes of revolution for some time now. Part of the problem with the 'rolling protests" and the road blockades is that it may very well bring Bolivian Society to it's collective knees.... who profits then?

Part of the problem, it seems to me, and Miguel can answer this better, is that Mesa's leadership seems to be sorely lacking and if not corrected, what will happen to the pesantry. The history of full nationalization of resources has not proven to be of benefit over the long haul.

Thanks for the link. I'll send an e-mail to Miguel and ask for his input.

Posted by GMRoper at May 30, 2005 01:55 PM

I'm not sure GM, but AMericans are pretty inconsistent. In 1989 they had no problem with such protests in Beijing, which brought the capital and much of the nation to near halts at times for almost 2 months. Poland's Soldarity certainly employed such a strategy. Our gov't encourages such tactics in countries it declares to be official 'enemies'. The re is an inconsitency there that is hard to deny.

Posted by steve at May 30, 2005 04:11 PM

I would tend to agree with you, Steve. Of course there are inconsistencies in American foreign policy. America, when formulating its foreign policy, has to have its own interests in mind. In other words it has to do what's best for its citizens first. The fact that there are inconsistencies (at times contradictions) reflects the complexity of the world. Each case considered has its own facets and thus implications for the US.

Overall, eventhough there are broader policies, i.e. broadening democracy in the world, pursuing these goals have different implications in Poland and in Bolivia, for example.

As far as Bolivia is concerned, the turmoil is, to say the least, complex at different levels. Among those levels we have poverty, ethnicity, exclusion, corruption, politization of issues, sectorial interests, decentralization, to cite just a few.

One things is clear though, roadblocking, dynamite explosions, taking over Congress are not forms of expression. They are just plain and simple criminal acts.

Posted by Miguel (MABB) at May 31, 2005 07:04 AM

In China there are roadblocks by peasants and workers quite often. They also block trains for short periods of times to win their demands. There is considerable poverty in China alongside consdierably rapid development. There's no concern from supporters of democracy in China or workers' rights in China that such strategies are 'counterproductive'.
For that matter, even more relevant, look at the recent support of the US for the attempts to shut down the country of Venezuela through a failed 'general strike'. And there was no concern that that 'general strike' was being endorsed by the major media organs of the country. A bit of a contradiction, no?

Posted by steve at May 31, 2005 11:37 AM

You are absolutely right. The Chinese protestors' actions are not counterproductive. As far as you describe them. At least I have not seen in any world press report that they are heading to Beijing with the intentions to take over the people's congress.

As far as what's going on in Venezuela, I have not seen, so far any evidence that the government of the US is actively trying to shut down the country. What I do know, I can tell you, is that Mr Bush and his administration are, to put it mildly, not happy with the current Venezuelan government. Now, that they are really acting on their intentions and foreign policy, I couldn't tell you. I guess we'll find that out after the fact.

Posted by Miguel (MABB) at May 31, 2005 03:22 PM

Not exactly Miguel, the US has been quite open in its support of both coup d'etats and the attempted general strike that failed. Thus the contradiction that doesn't seem to be apparent to you, which I find at this point kind of surprising because I thought it was shown with the examples above.
On China, I assure you if they did head to Beijing to commit such actions, they would be reported with considerable fanfare and sympathy in the American press, as they were during Tienanmen 1989 [and one need only compare the complete disinterest in the recent massacres against protestors in Uzbekistan to see even more contradictions in US stances toward such matters...].

Posted by steve at May 31, 2005 04:24 PM

I think we're missing eachother here Steve. I am saying "I agree with you" that American foreign policy has many contradictions. That is very clear. The point in which we might differ is, why?

But it's been fun to exchange opinions with you.

By the way, GM, do you read German? I have some info on Gardelegen if you are interested. Let me know.

Greetings.

Posted by Miguel (MABB) at June 1, 2005 08:25 AM

The why part seems clear to me. If a gov't in power doesn't threaten US interests in pushing privatization, US domination of foreign markets, geo-political stragegy,...they can do pretty much as they please and the US isn't going to have much issue with them. And if resistance to their governments occurs it will then express 'outrage' or 'concern' to the extent it perceives such goals as threatened. In the event the opposition is supportive of US foreign policy, then the US will express support for its tactics almost across the board.
If people's lives are being inconvenienced by protests and that's a bad thing, then we'd have to ask why our government tells us it's not such a bad thing in countries like Venezuela, China, Poland, Poland, or wherever else we support such strategies of protest.
Remember, also, Martin Luther King's goal in Montgomery, "To shut city hall down"...what's good for the goose...

Posted by steve at June 1, 2005 10:32 AM