Bolivia nationalizes and seizes control of natural gas fields and refineries.

[{nF}remix]

What do you guys think of this move? Was it influenced by Venezuela's nationalistic policy? Keep in mind that 70+% of Bolivia's population live in poverty and they are a country with the most oil next to Venezuela.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/BUSINESS/05/...eut/index.html

[trackjacket]

I'd find it hard to believe that the Bolivian government would redistribute the earnings from oil freely amongst it's people.

[Elu Barcino]

I'd find it hard to believe that the Bolivian government would redistribute the earnings from oil freely amongst it's people.

They'd do a better job than the oil companies.

[trackjacket]

They'd do a better job than the oil companies.

Not if the companies were owned by private Bolivians.

But how good it wil be for Bolivia wil of course depend on how good their government wil be.
Wil they spend the natural gas income on projects that benefit the people?
Or wil it disappear into corruption and military spending?

That I believe is the ultimate question. I hesitate to believe Castro will be a good "mentor" to Morales on how to effectively run any nationalized industry.

Considering my country's encroachment into other countries for industrial resource reasons (Iraq), Bolivia's decision to nationalize was a good one, protecting thier country's resources from other nations.

Or "protecting" it from its people, just like Saddam-era Iraq. :wink:

[Elu Barcino]

Not if the companies were owned by private Bolivians.

Maybe, but they're not, are they? They're almost all, if not completely, TNCs.

That I believe is the ultimate question. I hesitate to believe Castro will be a good "mentor" to Morales on how to effectively run any nationalized industry.

Good point. What about Da Silva, or whatever he's called, in Brazil? He's pretty socialistic. Not sure if he's nationalised much though.

Plus, he's probably annoyed with Morales because Brazil had some interest in the gas, I believe.

[removeduser_487563287433]

He's right. It is probably a very good move from the perspective of your average Bolivian.

[Garbarsardar]

I stated my opinion earlier:

"I think we have to start by recognizing that this is a region that has come a long way from the period of the '80s, when it was wracked with civil wars and juntas and when nobody thought about ... democracy,"

For a historian as lady Rice often claims to be, there is a suspicious dearth of context in the previous statement,

"There are 34 democracies in Latin America -- a fact that speaks for itself,” Rice said. Those democracies are worth defending, she said, especially since some of them are still fragile and must resist the encroachments of would-be autocrats from both the left and the right of the political spectrum.

Contrary to what some may believe, the United States does not oppose the emergence of left-of-center governments in the hemisphere, said Rice, adding that the United States has strong alliances with many such governments.

"We have very good relations with Chile," she said. "We have excellent relations with Brazil. We have good relations with Argentina. Governments of the left, as long as they govern democratically and are committed to prosperity for their people through free trade and increasingly open economies, [are] not a problem."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4872522.stm

However, difficulties arise when leaders -- of whatever political persuasion -- resort to autocratic measures and abandon government transparency and accountability in favor of corruption and intimidation, Rice said. "Governments ... that come to power and don't govern democratically, and that put pressure on civil society or on the church or on free-trade unions, some of which is happening in Venezuela, or [that] meddle in the affairs of neighbors: that's a problem," she said. "And it's not just a problem for the United States. It's a problem for the region."

http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/di...wf-latest.html

When President Bush came into office he declared that Latin America was a priority. that was the opinion of every American president since James Monroe in 1823 whose "Monroe Doctrine" told European nations to keep out of Latin American affairs.

In Monroe's message to Congress on December 2, 1823, he delivered what we have always called the Monroe Doctrine, although in truth it should have been called the Adams Doctrine. Essentially, the United States was informing the powers of the Old World that the American continents were no longer open to European colonization, and that any effort to extend European political influence into the New World would be considered by the United States "as dangerous to our peace and safety." The United States would not interfere in European wars or internal affairs, and expected Europe to stay out of American affairs.
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/...emocrac/50.htm

In pursuit of American interests, the US has overthrown or undermined around 40 Latin American governments in the 20th Century either by direct intervention or subversion via CIA. It is also true that the US provided support, tolerance or a meaningful silence to some of the most brutal regimes in this part of the world:

After twenty-seven years of withholding details about covert activities following the 1973 military coup in Chile, the CIA released a report yesterday acknowledging its close relations with General Augusto Pinochet’s violent regime. The report, “CIA Activities in Chile,” revealed for the first time that the head of the Chile’s feared secret police, DINA, was a paid CIA asset in 1975, and that CIA contacts continued with him long after he dispatched his agents to Washington D.C. to assassinate former Chilean Ambassador Orlando Letelier and his 25-year old American associate, Ronni Karpen Moffitt.

“CIA actively supported the military Junta after the overthrow of Allende,” the report states. “Many of Pinochet’s officers were involved in systematic and widespread human rights abuses....Some of these were contacts or agents of the CIA or US military.”

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20000919/index.html

Venezuela, Bolivia and Peru have elected leftists-natonalist candidates and there is a worrying Chinese influence over the continent:

The flurry of China-Brazil business began less than two years ago after an exchange of visits between Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and Chinese President Hu Jintao. Since then China's influence can be seen everywhere in Latin America: oil, gas, railways, ports, steel and - worryingly for the US - defence. In Sao Paulo, Chinese language classes are packed. Not only are students taught how to speak Mandarin, but they are also guided in cultural habits such as attending banquets and singing Chinese folk songs.
"Everything I do is with China now," says one student Priscila Marques, who runs a freight forwarding company. "It's Brazil-China; nowhere else."

"As a nation we need to understand that this Communist dictatorship is a government without a conscience," says Senator Lindsey Graham who has recently been to China."The status quo cannot be accepted and tolerated by this country any more than the Soviet Union's practices were tolerated by Ronald Reagan."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4872522.stm

Well, you reap what you sow...

[Caelius]

Anyway, getting back on subject...

[MoROmeTe]

Nationalization of companies as long as done properly with compensation and a fair deal is not a threat to bunsiness...

And Evo Morales is likely to really channel the money he can get out of gas and oil to the native and poverty striken citizens...

[Garbarsardar]

You cannot treat it as an isolated event. Well, you can at the peril of loosing the forest.

[Carach]

He's right. It is probably a very good move from the perspective of your average Bolivian.

we will see if that stands a year down the road.

[gigagaia]

we will see if that stands a year down the road.

I think you will have to look further than that.

[Zenith Darksea]

Well done for Bolivia and Venezuala, I say! This nationalisation programme was in the Bolivian President's election manifesto (in other words the Bolivians did actually elect him to do this), and if we see South American countries deciding their future without America's interference (which can be anything from the usual trade sanctions to funding right-wing military coups), then all the better for them!

[Pertinax]

W Morales :laughing:

[Sidmen]

It however should be noted that bolivia has signed anti-USA trade deals with Venezuela and Cuba. It should also be noted that they don't exactly have much oil, its natural gas that they have HUGE quantities of.

[removeduser_487563287433]

It however should be noted that bolivia has signed anti-USA trade deals with Venezuela and Cuba. It should also be noted that they don't exactly have much oil, its natural gas that they have HUGE quantities of.

Which is pretty damn irrelevant to the thread.

[Last Roman]

Which is pretty damn irrelevant to the thread.

hardly. that move heavily influences how well the nationalization will work, since the US is such a big consumer of oil. This is not to say that they wont be able to sell any oil, but I think it might not be as profitable as if they didn't sign that anti-US trade agreement

[Red Harvest]

What do you guys think of this move? Was it influenced by Venezuela's nationalistic policy? Keep in mind that 70+% of Bolivia's population live in poverty and they are a country with the most oil next to Venezuela.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/BUSINESS/05/...eut/index.html

As stated early it is natural gas, not oil that is mostly at stake. This, like Venezuela's actions with regard to nationalization, is understandable. It is a backlash against the wealthy and foreign companies getting too much of the profit for too long, and not finding away to adequately share the benefits with the average voter in the nation (who happens to be dirt poor.) While nationalization is not a good thing, I have little trouble understanding why this has happened.

One thing I've picked up from business guru's: be careful about getting too good of a deal from the other party. If you set up a deal so that it is too good for you, and not good enough (or harmful) for your partner, then it is in going to give you trouble later on and you will end up regretting it. It's basic business common sense...and dare I say 'ethics.'

As for Venezuela, I don't think much of Chavez, he's a typical populist strongman who is concentrating power in his own hands while attempting to make dissent illegal. However, spreading the oil wealth was needed. Has he gone too far with it? Probably/Possibly, but considerable redistribution was needed. On the surface, the same appears true for Bolivia (action needed...but taken too far.)

[danzig]

As for Venezuela, I don't think much of Chavez, he's a typical populist strongman who is concentrating power in his own hands while attempting to make dissent illegal. However, spreading the oil wealth was needed. Has he gone too far with it? Probably/Possibly, but considerable redistribution was needed. On the surface, the same appears true for Bolivia (action needed...but taken too far.)

True test for Chavez will be election time and see how fair elections are...I would say its a good bet its going to repress opposition and use the excuse of any opposition being American based. Really though all Chavez and now Morales are doing is 'buying' the assurence of their future rule.

[Sidmen]

I disagree Ferrets, it is very relevant. Pointing out that it is Natural gas instead of oil will change the topic dramaticly, and leting people know that they are anti american will tell you generally the fate of the nation.

However, this shouldn't drive natural gas prices up too much for the US, the gas companies that had a major presence there and have been removed are French and british If i remember right.