Bolivia, Overlooked
By Kavin Paulraj
Staff Writer

Mainstream media has failed once again, this time by a total lack of coverage of one of the most newsworthy issue. In Bolivia on February 12, 2003, nothing less than a civil war erupted. The repressive policies of the Fondo Monetario Internacional (FMI), known in English as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), have caused the latest uprising in Bolivia, GDP-wise the poorest country of South America.

In 1985 the IMF entered Bolivia in order to bail out the banks and investors whose money was in serious trouble due to high national debt and hyperinflation. These twin evils of a 21-year military dictatorship, which suppressed all political alternatives, and the economic policies of the military government that saw a huge increase in poverty and decrease in workers' conditions, had finally ended. After abetting all along with the military dictatorship, the IMF immediately jumped on the back of the new reformist government and demanded huge debt payments.

The government was then forced to accept IMF bailout loans along with neoliberal reforms and rabid privatization, as costs of living skyrocketed. The price of water tripled, and people found themselves unable to pay for basic necessities. Unions began to strike in March 1985, and everyone in the country (except the rich and the owners of capital) was up in arms against the 'shock' treatment that the IMF was forcing on the poor people.

The working public fought for better socio-economic conditions, and to do so they had to battle the big, powerful IMF. The IMF today acknowledges Bolivia as its biggest mistake, but in the words of economist Jeffrey Sachs, "though the IMF had initially opposed the whole approach, Bolivia's success was later trumpeted as an IMF success story."

Market reforms continued, and history repeated itself on February 12, 2002. The government of Sanchez de Lozada passed an IMF directive to tax an extra 4-10% of workers' salaries under the IMF's infamous belt-tightening Structural Adjustment programs. There was an instantaneous revolt by workers and students in La Paz, Bolivia's capital and El Alto, a nearby city. Since then, the insurrection has spread to Cochabamba and Santa Cruz. The protest turned violent because the civil police, who were one of the main groups affected by the tax laws (lower-level police employees were only making $105 U.S. a month before the tax laws), confronted the military police who opened fire on the rally.

This time, the urban Bolivians have support from the countryside, where a recent increase in organization has brought the coca farmers' plight to the foreground. Not only did Evo Morales representing the coca farmers win 20% of the presidential vote, but the demands of the farmers to stop the U.S.-backed War on Drugs from destroying their coca crops is gaining political power in Bolivia. Claiming that growing coca is centuries old and that the farmers have nothing to do with the supply and demand of the drug cocaine, the indigenous-dominated countryside is mobilizing for long-denied rights.

There is split in global and academic opinion regarding IMF policies. Many sociologists, economists, politicians and historians are pointing to the repressive nature of the IMF and its apparent benefit of only the wealthy, as well as the huge burden of increasing debt looming over third world governments and their budgets. Other economists claim that all the economic and structural problems in Bolivia, just like those of other countries, require stringent reform and often governments cannot be trusted to carry out the right policies of privatization and streamlining the economy.

This issue is not really being debated. In some classes students learn about how to implement streamlining policies, while in other classes students examine all the social troubles those same policies have caused. Worldwide, some students protest the IMF while others dream of joining it after graduation. Well, someone must be wrong and someone must be right, right?

The answer is to listen to the people, not to theories and tables of statistics. If the Bolivian people rise up time and time again something must be wrong with IMF policies. And it's the same complaint every time. People in the Third World are tired of listening to the First World dictate its laws.

Colonialism is over, and capital owners need to recognize that they cannot exploit third world markets anymore. In Argentina, President Duhalde blames the IMF for the new civil war in Bolivia. He should know; as a result of the same IMF policies, the Argentinian economy has been on a two-year roller coaster ride, leaving a large percentage of the population starving.

The people of Brazil and Ecuador are also tired. They both recently elected leftist presidents, Lula da Silva and Lucio Gutierrez respectively. Their claims to fame are decades of socialist-oriented union organizing in the case of Lula and a popular indigenous revolt in 2000 in the case of Lucio Gutierrez.

A list of people's demonstrations since 1980 in Latin America shows 7 such sustained periods of marching in Argentina, 5 in Bolivia, and numerous others in Chile, Ecuador, Brazil, Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, Venezuela, Paraguay, the list goes on.

Can the people really be wrong? Economists often claim that they are protesting a repressive government - but in the last two decades, the governments have been repressive only because they implement IMF policies. It is the people who ultimately the judges of economic policies; they are the ones who feel either the improvement or the deterioration of life.

We can talk all we want about theories and smart formulae in our classes, but if we ignore the voice of the people then we are shutting off the real world and focusing on academics with its rewards and comforts alone.

So when you think of IMF protests, remember that the U.S. and European marches are only solidarity marches. The real marches taking place across Latin America cannot be ignored. The people of Bolivia are taking a stand. As academics we can either support them or end up in useless debates.