...about Bolivia's access to the sea.
The events that would oust a sitting President and alter the course of Bolivian politics in deep and lasting ways began in September 2003 as news spread of Sánchez de Lozada’s plans to export Bolivia’s gas and oil at bargain prices through Chile to the U.S. --from the OP (my emphasis)
The sea access that Bolivia is currently seeking--in settlement of a very old grievance, concerning a war that took place a hundred years or so ago, during which Bolivia lost all access to the sea--is a tiny spit of land on Chile's coast where Bolivia hopes to export, among other things, its natural gas. Chile's leftist president, Michele Batchelet, settled this dispute easily and quickly, in 2008, granting Bolivia access to the sea, as part of a general South American plan to end the U.S.-supported, violent, white separatist coup attempt in Bolivia and to help Bolivia recover from that mayhem. Then Chile elected a rightwing president, Sebastian Pinera, who couldn't wait to overturn that peaceful Batchelet policy, and nixed it, with the stroke of his pen, on the day of his inauguration! He has since caused nothing but trouble for Bolivia, no doubt hoping the white separatists will make a comeback. (THEIR plan was to split Bolivia into two countries, taking Bolivia's rich gas reserves with them.)
Pinera's popularity in Chile is now in the toilet (25%, last time I saw), and Batchelet--who, by Chilean law, can now run for president again, and is running this year--left office with an 80% approval rating and is way ahead in the current pre-election polls. She will very likely win, and I hope we see a return of her peaceful policy on Bolivia's sea access, and this time arranges an ironclad agreement that some lousy future president cannot simply unwrite.
So-o-o, the issue THEN--when Sánchez de Lozada tried to give Bolivia's gas away
through Chile, in a typical "neo-liberal" LOOTING--was Bolivia's sovereignty and independence, just as it was in 2008, and just as it is NOW. Its sovereignty over its own resources. Its independence as to the use of its resource--including price, exportation and use of the revenues. And DEMOCRATIC control of its resources, for the benefit of all.
Da Lozada would have lined his own pockets and those of his cronies with the gas revenues, just as Venezuela's rightwing oil elite did, with the people seeing no benefit at all. Evo Morales, Bolivia's Nelson Mandela-like president, uses the revenues for education, health care, pensions and other benefits for the poor majority--much like Chavez and Maduro in Venezuela. Morales has already renegotiated the gas contracts--much like Chavez did with Venezuela's oil contracts--greatly increasing the benefit to Bolivia. Under Morales' government, gas revenues have DOUBLED, from $1 billion to $2 billion per year. And, with access to the sea, those revenues--and those benefits to the poor--will only get bigger.
Another, and vitally important, issue--then, as now--is COOPERATION among South American countries, for the benefit of all, rather than the typical collusion among rich elites for their own benefit and that of transglobal corporations. This matter has seen vast change for the better in South America. Along with the internal improvements of the leftist democracy revolution that has swept the region has come a new realization of the need for economic/political cooperation among these countries, to bolster their power and to achieve common goals, such as social justice. Bolivia is the type case for this new era of cooperation. Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, Chile and others--Chile in the lead at that time--acted immediately and strongly to stop the U.S.-supported white separatist coup in Bolivia, and to help Bolivia and the Morales government in the aftermath.
Morales was/is very popular in Bolivia, and won several elections in a row by big margins (his first election, the vote for the new constitution, his second term election, etc.) He was/is clearly the choice of most Bolivians--yet, as we've seen in other countries (and here), the wealthy elite has the notion that its money and power entitles it to rule over others and to grab more wealth, while utterly neglecting their country and the poor majority. In both Venezuela and Bolivia, this led to attempted coup d'etats--to arrogance and violence, with U.S. support, of course. This is the story of Latin America for the last half century. But, astonishingly, the Venezuelan people rose up against the U.S./coup syndrome and successfully resisted it, and then Bolivia resisted it as well, six years later. Venezuela was the avant garde and did it without help. Bolivia had help.
Part of the help that was offered--sea access--is an issue that has come back round in a complete circle, from the de Lozada massacre, to Bolivia's current effort to regain that agreement with Chile, and with its new purpose: social justice. And the U.S. is right in the middle of it all--on the wrong side as always--harboring that killer, and no doubt colluding with Pinera in causing as much trouble as possible for an honestly elected, social justice government!
I'm just shaking my head. When--WHEN?--will I be able to be proud of my government's behavior in Latin America? Ever?
= new reply since forum marked as read