The country of Bolivia is in a critical state right now.
Bolivians approved a referendum on Jan. 26 to expand governmental power to nationalize all privately held land not put to social use.’
Bolivian President Evo Morales has also seized control of the country’s oil and natural gas reserves.
Though Bolivia has a majority of indigenous peoples within 36 different tribes, the European minority controls significantly more wealth through oil and gas reserves, located in the eastern provinces of the country.
Morales, who is of Aymara Indian descent, has thumbed his nose toward the U.S. and its attempts to curb narcotics traffic and the scourge of drug abuse domestically.
As the former head of Bolivia’s coca leaf grower’s union, Morales published an op-ed piece March 14 in the New York Times defending his and his people’s rights to chew coca, which is basically cocaine in its natural leaf state.’
He defends coca’s purity and its properties, both of which have the same effects as cocaine, without the addiction.
What Morales does not defend, and fails to mention altogether, is how in the last four years since his election and his loosening of coca leaf regulations, the rise of cocaine use in this country has contributed to drug wars on our borders with Mexico.
There is also an increase in the alternative drug called ‘paco,’ which its usage has been ravaging the poorer portions of Argentina and Brazil.’
Paco is comparable to crack; it is smoked, highly addictive and is polluted with some of the harshest chemicals found.’
When a professor of mine asked whether socialism is really that bad, my reaction was immediate.
As the son of a Cuban exile mother and a Bolivian father, my instincts were to raise ole glory in the classroom, and to capitalism, recite the Pledge of Allegiance.’
However, I decided to let the question stew in my brain over the weekend, simmering with some other tasty ingredients: my upbringing, the Red Scare, runaway consumerism and failed drug policies.
I drove the streets of Santa Cruz, Bolivia, and spoke with the locals.’ They told me how in two years’ time there has been an influx of crime and drug dealing, something that was previously scarce in one of the nation’s wealthiest provinces.
Is socialism that bad?’ Inherently, in the tenets of group ownership and equality, one could say no.
While capitalism favors freedom, socialism strives for equality.’ In Bolivia, European whites tend to look down on the poor Aymari and Guarani indigenous peoples.
Certainly a sense of equality for both European and native should be a goal.’ But the elimination of racism cannot come through the government-it has to come through the people.’
Morales’ nationalization of private wealth for redistribution among the poor will not cure social problems affecting Bolivia.
Hatred is displayed by having both races against the other, and while it is easy to blame descendents of the settlers, it truly is difficult to define who fired the first bullet.
Morales’ socialist agenda also alienates Bolivia from much of the rest of the world.
His refusal to work with foreign states to make the world a better place, and addressing the problems of drug abuse does nothing except hurt ties with potential allies.’
The U.S. cannot assume a country, merely for having socialist leanings or tendencies, is automatically a threat, an enemy or a failed state. The Reagan Doctrine of persecuting socialist leaning states is out of date.’ Still, the U.S. can assume a nation that uses political ideology counterproductively is a threat.
The U.S. involvement in Bolivia has to be diplomatic, and it should tread carefully.
Carlos Giambi is a communication senior and may be reached at [email protected].
