“Încă un guvern patriotic ales democratic autentic distrus prin violență de falșii democrați. In Bolivia au actionat identic cu modul de actiune din Romania in 1989, dar pe față, nu s-au mai complicat cu nemultumirea populatiei ca sa poata crea o aparență de legitimitate printr-o rascoala populară. Bandele de criminali si tradatorii din armată au actionat pe față știind ca au acceptul si suportul SUA controlat tiranic de jidani.”
Bolivian President “Resigned” at Gunpoint Last Week, After Taking Back Control from the Rothschild-Controlled IMF & World Bank in 2017
Back in 2017, the alt media was glad to report that Bolivia managed to kick out the Rothschild’s banks out of the country and reclaim its financial independence, by not responding to financial pressure from the U.S government or Rothschild owned banking entities.
Before Evo Morales assumed the office of president, Bolivia was suffering from the effects of IMF/ World Bank-imposed austerity and privatization that exploited its people and resources. It was also South America’s poorest nation.
Though the Bolivian people, through strong showings of popular resistance over a period of years, were able to stop some of the worst privatization efforts – particularly the privatization of the nation’s water supply, many of the shackles imposed by these Rothschild-controlled institutions remained.
Since 2006, a year after Morales came to power, social spending on health, education, and poverty programs has increased by over 45 percent.
During a visit to Tarija in Southern Bolivia, Morales said:
“Before, in order to obtain credit from the IMF, we were forced to give up a part of our country, but we have liberated ourselves economically and politically and we are no longer dependent on other countries or institutions.”
Bolivia’s President Evo Morales has been highlighting his government’s independence from international money lending organizations and their detrimental impact the nation.
“A day like today in 1944 ended Bretton Woods Economic Conference (USA), in which the IMF and WB were established,” Morales tweeted.
“These organizations dictated the economic fate of Bolivia and the world. Today we can say that we have total independence of them.”
This was back in 2017. Unfortunately, it was not meant to last.
Bolivia Is the Latest Successful US-Backed Coup in Latin America
According to MintPressNews,
“Bolivian President Evo Morales “resigned” at gunpoint Sunday, after army generals publicly demanded his resignation, despite convincingly winning re-election just three weeks ago.
The preceding 21 days were filled with fractious demonstrations and counter-protests from Morales’ supporters and opponents. On October 20, Morales had secured enough votes to win the election outright in the first round without the need for a run-off against his closest challenger, Carlos Mesa.
However, Mesa cried fraud, citing supposed irregularities in the vote-counting procedure, claiming Morales did not receive the requisite vote share to ensure his victory. The Organization of American States (OAS) and the U.S. government repeated this claim, although neither group provided evidence of fraud.
Morales invited the OAS to audit the election as he was confident of its veracity. Indeed, a report by the Washington-based Center for Economic Policy Research found that the vote totals were “consistent” with those announced, finding no irregularities whatsoever. Despite this, the local U.S.-backed opposition went on the attack.
On Saturday, veteran political scientists Noam Chomsky and Vijay Prashad warned that “a coup is brewing against the elected government” of Bolivia, expressing their concern at the “fascistic” violence percolating throughout the country.
In Santa Cruz, a stronghold of the wealthy white elite who oppose Morales, the office of the electoral authority was burned down.
Meanwhile, in Vinto, opposition groups kidnapped local mayor Patricia Arce, cut her hair off and painted her body red, publicly dragging her through the streets and abusing her, forcing her to commit to leaving office.
Victor Borda, President of Bolivia’s Chamber of Deputies, was also forced to resign after coup forces attacked his house and kidnapped his brother.
As soon as Morales stepped down, the police, who had refused to serve his government, ordered his arrest and vandals ransacked his house.
Meanwhile, the conservative opposition joyously burned the flag of Bolivia’s indigenous people (a majority of the country’s population), in the clear hopes that the coup would mark a return to rule by the white elite who had been in power since the time of the Conquistadors.
The United States Applauds the Coup
The Trump administration released an official communication Monday, not just endorsing the coup, but all but stating “we did it.”
“The resignation yesterday of Bolivian President Evo Morales is a significant moment for democracy in the Western Hemisphere,” it read, claiming the events constituted the “preservation of democracy.” It also sent a clear threat that more regime change operations were to come, and they already knew who the targets were:
“These events send a strong signal to the illegitimate regimes in Venezuela and Nicaragua that democracy and the will of the people will always prevail. We are now one step closer to a completely democratic, prosperous, and free Western Hemisphere.”
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo also welcomed the events, claiming that Bolivia could now be “ensured free and fair elections.” Michael McFaul, Professor of Political Science at Stanford University and former U.S. Ambassador to Russia, was even more pleased.
“Morales has fled. Excellent!” he exclaimed on Twitter.
The U.S. government has long opposed Morales and his Movement for Socialism party’s agenda of nationalizing Bolivia’s resources to help its people.
However, it inadvertently helped him get elected in the first place. Shortly before the 2006 election, the U.S. embassy in La Paz put out a public statement saying it could, under no circumstances, accept a Morales presidency. This enormous election meddling backfired, however, as his polling numbers surged as a result.
While the Trump administration intimates that this will not be the last, the Bolivia case is merely the latest in a long line of U.S.-backed coups in the region. Historian and former State Department employee William Blum calculated that the U.S. has overthrown over 50 governments since 1945, many of them in the region it considers its “backyard.”
For example, in 2009, the U.S. supported a coup against the leftist government of Manuel Zelaya, blocking any regional or international response. Hillary Clinton later boasted that, in her role as Secretary of State, she had “rendered the question of Zelaya moot.”
Since 2009 the country has been ruled by a right-wing military dictatorship that brutalizes its population, leading to a mass exodus of refugees northward, one of the principal (but unspoken) drivers of the so-called refugee caravan crisis on the U.S./Mexico border.
In 2002, the U.S. sponsored and took part in a briefly successful coup against Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, only for it to be reversed by a massive display of collective solidarity from Venezuela’s people who refused to accept the situation and inspired loyal units to retake the presidential palace and rescue Chavez.
Haiti was not so lucky. President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, leader of a grassroots people’s movement, was overthrown in U.S.-backed coups in 1991 and 2004, leaving the nation with a corrupt puppet government that turned the country into the huge, impoverished sweatshop for Western corporations it is today.
This continual interference gave rise to the wry comment in Latin America that the safest place in the world is the U.S. because it is the only nation without an American embassy.
In 13 years in office, the Movement for Socialism has revolutionized Bolivia, nationalizing the country’s key resources and putting the proceeds towards social programs tackling the population’s most pressing concerns.
Poverty was reduced by 42%, and extreme poverty by 60%, with unemployment halving. School enrollment and the provision of electricity has greatly increased, and the government has built over 150,000 social houses and has instituted a free state pension for all those over 60 years old.
However, Morales courted controversy when he lost a national referendum that proposed to end term limits. Despite the result, the Supreme Court ruled that he could stand anyway. He had also drawn criticism from environmentalists for continuing Bolivia’s extractive economic model.
Corporate Media Obscuring Reality
There is a perfect word in the English language for when army generals appear on television demanding the resignation of an elected head of state while their allies detain and torture government officials. Yet corporate media are steadfastly refusing to frame events as a coup, instead uniformly describing Morales as “resigning.” Many did not even mention the actions of the army generals.
CBS News, for example, claimed that Morales was “resigning” due to “election fraud and protests.” The New York Times asserted he “stepped down” amid “weeks of mass protests by an infuriated population that accused him of undermining democracy.” It expressed relief that his “grip on power” had finally been weakened, giving space to one commenter to claim that this marked “the end of tyranny.”
Thus, the media presented the military overthrow of a democratically-elected leader as the welcome demise of a “full-blown dictatorship” and the “restoration of democracy,” rather than just the opposite, highlighting their remarkable skill with language.
The CIA Has Interfered With Over 81 Foreign Elections in the Past Century (I Guess It’s 82 Now).
Denunciations of the Coup
On the other hand, there has been a forthright rejection of the events from much of the Western left. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), for example, who recently expressed her pride in endorsing Bernie Sanders, who, she said, promises to fight Western imperialism, stated via Twitter:
Sanders himself was “very concerned” about the coup against the leader who he met at the Vatican and who had praised him deeply. UK Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn was more forthright, claiming he was “appalled” by what happened:
Noam Chomsky and Vijay Prashad described what they saw as another U.S.-backed Latin American coup.
“The coup is driven by the Bolivian oligarchy, who are angered by the fourth election loss by their parties to the Movement for Socialism. The oligarchy is fully supported by the United States government, which has long been eager to remove Morales and his movement from power.
“For over a decade, the US embassy’s Center of Operations in La Paz has articulated the fact that it has two plans – Plan A, the coup; Plan B, assassination of Morales. This is a serious breach of the UN Charter and of all international obligations. We stand against the coup, and with the Bolivian people.”
Morales has been offered asylum by the Mexican government. It is far from clear whether the Bolivian people will accept the new events, but what is clear is that the Trump administration is pursuing a much more aggressive line than Obama with regards to regime change. Those who follow Latin America will hope this is not a return to the days of the dark days of dirty wars and coups d’etat.
Source: MintpressNews.com / References: MintpressNews.com; HumansAreFree.com; HumansAreFree.com
Despite what the mainstream media headlines would have you believe, a coup is underway in Bolivia.
The United States is currently backing a military coup against Bolivia’s first indigenous president, Evo Morales, who recently won re-election. Bolivia has enjoyed relative calm during the length of Morales’ presidency which began in January 2006. In 2008, Morales expelled the U.S. ambassador and counter-narcotics agents. The two countries have not had an ambassadorial relationship since 2009.
Despite what the mainstream media headlines would have you believe, a military coup is underway in Bolivia. Morales was forced to step down in an attempt to avert further violence and destruction at the ends of the violent right-wing opposition.
Sunday night’s headlines read:
“Bolivian Leader Evo Morales Steps Down”
“Bolivian President Evo Morales steps down following accusations of election fraud“
“President of Bolivia steps down amid allegations of election rigging”
“Bolivia’s Morales resigns amid scathing election report, rising protests”
“Bolivian President Evo Morales resigns amid fraud poll protests”
Nowhere in these headlines do we see the word “coup” or any mention of the history or the violence at the hands of the opposition that includes the burning of a governor’s home, the dragging of a mayor through the streets after her hair was cut off and her body painted red, and most recently the destruction of Evo Morales’ home.
Here’s what you need to know:
1. Evo Morales won re-election on October 20th
A Bolivian court gave Morales the “green light” to run for a fourth term as president after opponents said doing so would be unconstitutional. Bolivians went to the polls on October 20, only weeks ago, to select their president. When all was said and done, Morales walked away with 47.1 percent of the vote while his main opponent, who came in second place, had 36.5 percent of the vote. Because Morales secured more than 40 percent and had higher than a 10-point margin over the runner up, in accordance with the rules, a first-round win was declared with no need for a runoff.
2. Reports of election fraud are unfounded
Even before the election was concluded, Mesa declared that he would not accept the results if Morales were declared the winner.
#Urgente| No vamos a permitir que se manipule un resultado que obviamente nos lleva a segunda vuelta. pic.twitter.com/mAWa4JlTud — Carlos D. Mesa Gisbert (@carlosdmesag) October 21, 2019
The following day, after much outrage from the opposition, the Organization of American States (OAS) released a statement. While the statement did say that the elections took place in a “peaceful and orderly manner,” the OAS expressed “its deep concern and surprise at the drastic and hard-to-explain change in the trend of the preliminary results revealed after the closing of the polls.”
The statement failed to include any actual evidence or data.
Prior to that statement, Senator Marco Rubio tweeted the following false information:
In #Bolivia all credible indications are Evo Morales failed to secure necessary margin to avoid second round in Presidential election. However some concern he will tamper with the results or process to avoid this. Both @OAS_official & @EU_Commission have observers in the country. — Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) October 21, 2019
The main criticism of the OAS is the significant increase in votes for Morales that came in near the end of the count. While this can sometimes be a red flag, simply looking at the voting records shows that it is a result of the geography of Bolivia. Morales has more support in poor and rural areas, areas whose votes often come in later.
The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) said in a statement on Friday:
Statistical analysis of election returns and tally sheets from Bolivia’s October 20 elections shows no evidence that irregularities or fraud affected the official result that gave President Evo Morales a first-round victory.”
It should be noted that the OAS was created by a U.S. official and anti-communist leaders from South America in 1948 with the sole purpose of disputing democratic elections in which a communist or socialist candidate wins. In effect, the OAS is an agent of regime change, often driven by US imperialism.
In 2000, the OAS flip-flopped on Haiti’s national election, first declaring it “a great success” before changing their position, paving the way for Washington’s regime change efforts of 2000-04 that resulted in the murder of thousands of people. The OAS then interfered in Haiti’s 2010 election by literally reversing the results.
Secretary General of the OAS, Luis Almagro, recognized the U.S.-backed opposition leader and self declared “interim president” of Venezuela in January, just prior to the failed coup attempt.
3. Carlos Mesa has a cozy relationship with the U.S.
Morales’ main opponent, Carlos Mesa, served as president of Bolivia from 2003-2005. U.S. hostilities against Bolivia have increased steadily since Mesa left office and he is Washington’s preferred candidate.
Government cables released by WikiLeaks reveal communications between Mesa and U.S. officials.
US government cables released by WikiLeaks show that Bolivia’s opposition presidential candidate Carlos Mesa, who lost to Evo Morales in the election, was regularly in correspondence with US officials
For years the US was using him to try to undermine Evo https://t.co/V2swoJy6e8 pic.twitter.com/YvQAflvQfb — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) November 10, 2019
4. 50-70% of the world’s lithium reserves are found in Bolivia
Some have called Bolivia the “Saudi Arabia of lithium.” The global demand for the alkali metal has steadily increased as technology such as cell phones, laptops, and hybrid cars have become woven into the fabric of our everyday lives. And the demand for it isn’t expected to slow anytime soon.
Bolivia has invested significantly in lithium mining in the country with Morales having once said:
With the exploitation of lithium in a 400 sq km area, we’ll have enough to maintain ourselves for a century.”
But those same salt flats are also a major nature reserve that includes flamingos, cacti, geysers, and hot springs. Thousands of tourists visit the area each year to enjoy the hot springs.
Foreign companies have repeatedly expressed interest in Bolivia’s mining operations, but Morales has been understandably wary of foreign intervention. Bolivia has been left one of the poorest countries in Latin America despite possessing large reserves of oil and gas as well as the world’s largest silver mine.
As the world attempts to transition to greener fuels, it should come as no surprise that eyes are on Bolivia and its massive lithium supply.
5. Evo Morales opposes U.S. imperialism in Latin America
And most importantly, Evo Morales has been in direct opposition of U.S. imperialism throughout his entire presidency. In 2016, Morales opened an “anti-imperialist” military academy in direct opposition to U.S. policies and military involvement throughout Latin America, to counter the influence of the School of the Americas. Morales said:
If the empire teaches domination of the world from its military schools, we will learn from this school to free ourselves from imperial oppression.
We want to build anti-colonial and anti-capitalist thinking with this school that binds the armed forces to social movements and counteracts the influence of the School of the Americas that always saw the indigenous as internal enemies.”
At a United Nations Security Council meeting, he explained:
I would like to say to you, frankly and openly here, that in no way is the United States interested in upholding democracy. If such were the case it would not have financed coups d’etat and supported dictators. It would not have threatened with military intervention democratically elected governments as it has done with Venezuela. The United States could not care less about human rights or justice. If this were the case, it would have signed the international conventions and treaties that have protected human rights.It would not have threatened the investigation mechanism of the International Criminal Court, nor would it promote the use of torture, nor would it have walked away from the Human Rights Council. And nor would it have separated migrant children from their families, nor put them in cages.”
Morales went on to say, “Each time that the United States invades nations, launches missiles, or finances regime change, it does so behind a propaganda campaign which incessantly repeats the message that it is acting in the course of justice, freedom and democracy, in the cause of human rights or for humanitarian reasons.”
And in 2017, Morales declared that Bolivia had “total independence” from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank.
Estos organismos dictaron el destino económico de Bolivia y del mundo. Hoy podemos decir que tenemos total independencia de ellos.
— Evo Morales Ayma (@evoespueblo) July 22, 2017
Such a move automatically makes a country a potential target for regime change efforts.
Emilian, 18 nov 2019, ceicunoi.wordpress.com