Shifting the Balance: Obama and the Americas

U.S.-Bolivian Relations: Behind the Impasse

86 six U.S.-Bolivian Relations: Behind the Impasse George Gray Molina Bolivia is in the midst of rapid social and political change. Thirty years ago it was a predominantly rural society, based on Andean mining and the everpresent legacy of the 1952 national revolution—which had the close backing of the United States. Along with most of South America, it was at the end of a decade of repressive and reactionary military rule. Today Bolivia has a participatory, multi-ethnic, and left-leaning civilian government with a strong electoral mandate and a loosely “socialist” agenda. After waves of internal migration toward the eastern lowlands, it is also a predominantly urban country, with a growing mestizo and indigenous middle class. Despite these changes, it is still one of the poorest and most unequal countries of the hemisphere. In 2005, after a period of severe political polarization, the country elected Evo Morales, an indigenous and rural union leader, as president . In September 2008 the Bolivian government expelled U.S. ambassador Philip Goldberg, accusing him of meddling in internal affairs. A tit-for-tat expulsion of Bolivian ambassador Gustavo Guzman followed, as well as a diplomatic unraveling between the two countries. As of September 2010, the diplomatic impasse continues. Despite attempts to close the rift, distances have grown—on trade, anti-narcotics policy, and democracy and human rights promotion, among other key issues. The reelection of Evo Morales in December 2009 was expected to soothe tensions as Morales affirmed that he seeks a “partner, not a patron,” while the State Department reiterated its interest in working on “issues of mutual interest.” 06-0562-8 ch6.indd 86 11/2/10 11:11 AM U.S.-Bolivian Relations 87 Two years into the impasse, it is worth revisiting the state-to-state interests that lie beyond discursive polarization—the invocation of “Andean populisms ” and “Yankee imperialism”—and that threaten a longer-term divide. At the core of the diplomatic crisis lies a substantial gulf on the course of anti-narcotics policy and the realities of asymmetric power between the two countries. Although new initiatives both in the United States and in Bolivia suggest a gradual shift in drug policy, there is unlikely to be much room for overlapping interests to develop in the interim. Both countries appear to be trapped in a vicious circle of mismatched expectations on the issue. It is time for an alternative strategy, one based on a realistic modus vivendi that is less than a full-blown “partnership” but more than a chronic impasse. How would such a modus vivendi work? First, it would demand a more nuanced view of the political process in each country: for Bolivia, this means understanding the decisive weight that the U.S. Congress—and congressional committees—have over foreign policy; for the United States, it means being more attuned to the subtext of the political discourse that sustains foreign policymaking in the current Morales-led coalition. Second, a new approach also requires moving “beyond drugs” in the substantive policy arena. This is a long-held frustration for Bolivian policymakers, but a matter of lesser importance in Washington. Third, a realistic approach would require looking into alternative diplomatic channels—both bilateral and multilateral—to gain a measure of trust and set the stage for future changes on both sides. Before the Impasse: Fighting Words The week that Ambassador Philip Goldberg was expelled in September 2008, social and political conflict was raging in Bolivia. In one gruesome episode of violence, at least eleven civilian lives were lost. The civic committees of Santa Cruz, Tarija, Chuquisaca, Beni, and Pando had taken over government offices and initiated hunger strikes. President Morales was not allowed to land at regional airports across the east and south, and the threat of more violence was growing. Earlier that week, he had denounced an ongoing “civic coup.”1 Just before the expulsion, Morales declared Goldberg persona non grata for “conspiring against Bolivian democracy.”2 The action was received with dismay in Washington and led to a reciprocal expulsion of Bolivia’s ambassador , Gustavo Guzman. The U.S. assistant secretary for western hemisphere affairs, Thomas Shannon, termed Morales’s actions a “grave mistake.” In 06-0562-8 ch6.indd 87 11/2/10 11:11 AM 88 George Gray Molina response, in the following days and weeks the Bolivian government expelled the U.S. Peace Corps, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA...