CounterPunch - Feb 11/12, 2006 http://www.counterpunch.org/burbach02112006.html
Evo Morales: the Early Days Pushing Reforms While Under Fire By ROGER BURBACH [Is] Evo Morales just an inspirational symbol for his people? Think again. Bolivia's first Indian president has shown political acuity in his early days in office, skillfully maneuvering and sticking to his radical program for transforming the country while keeping adversaries at home and abroad at bay. On Feb. 6, just 15 days after his inauguration, Morales called for the mobilization of the country's peasant organizations to shield his government against efforts by "some transnational corporations" to destabilize the country to stop the "nationalization" of energy resources. The plot, he said, had been detected by the armed forces. A day after swearing in, Morales shook up the Bolivian high command by choosing a low-ranking general to head the military, effectively forcing higher-ranking generals to resign. The move was a key move, as the Bolivian armed forces have a long history of intervening in Bolivian politics. Morales also called on peasant and other popular organizations to rally behind his call for the election of a constituent assembly in early July, to draft a new constituent for Bolivia. "The oligarchs," he said, "should not be given time to breathe" as the country tries to reshape its basic institutions. The election of the assembly must be approved by a two-thirds vote of the Bolivian Congress. Morales' political party, MAS, the Movement for Socialism, controls just over half of the seats, and there are signs that the opposition is trying to block the two-thirds vote. In an ultimatum, Morales told Congress it had "until the end of February, maximum the first week of March," to give its seal of approval for the constituent assembly. Five days earlier, before the leading labor federation in the city of Los Altos, Morales declared that "the force of the people" would be used to impose an assembly if Congress failed to act. For this, and to nationalize Bolivia's energy resources, he suggested the formation of a "high command" comprised of government leaders and representatives of the country's popular organizations "to undertake rapid and urgent decisions." "I know that sectors of the oligarchy and some transnationals are not going to accept our plans, but I am convinced the people want change," he added. While keeping the initiative, Morales is also holding out the olive branch to his opponents. Last week he went to Santa Cruz, the richest state, where many of the business and political leaders have called for regional independence. Speaking before business leaders, he declared: "This government guarantees the right to private investment. Everyone has the right to recuperate their investments and a profit. We only ask that these profits benefit the entrepreneurs and the Bolivian State." He also called for "national development" to reduce poverty and achieve faster economic and social growth. Morales pointed to ample export markets for the private sector that he had encountered in his trip abroad just before his inauguration. Japan wants sugar; China, soybeans; Venezuela, chicken meat and soybeans; Cuba, powered milk and soy oil; while African countries are interested in sugar. At about the same time, Morales received a surprise call from U.S. President George Bush, who offered to help "bring a better life to Bolivians." Morales responded by asking Bush to reduce U.S. trade barriers for Bolivian products and suggested that Bush come for a visit. Bush did not reply. The White House may be speaking with a "forked tongue," hoping to woo Morales with platitudinous comments while preparing to take a hard line if he adopts policies like those of another hemispheric leader, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. The U.S. ambassador to Bolivia, David Greenlee has expressed his "preoccupation" with Bolivia's government policies, while Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and others at the Pentagon are talking about "security concerns" in Bolivia. According to Kathryn Ledebur, director of the Andean Information Network based in Cochabamba, Bolivia, "We have heard that State Department representatives are looking unfavorably at Morales." The immediate flashpoint in U.S.- Bolivian relations is coca leaf production, as the United States has no major investments in Bolivian natural gas, the country's principal energy export. Resigning just this past weekend as head of six federations of coca leaf growers, a position he held for more than a decade and a half, Morales made clear his opposition to narco-trafficking in cocaine. But he refused to back off from the right of Bolivian peasants to grow coca for domestic consumption, medicinal uses and even for export as an herb in tea and other products. Nor will he support "forced eradication," the U.S. policy that has harassed Bolivia's small growers for years. A national commission, formed before Morales election, is preparing a report on how Bolivia should produce and administer coca leaf production. The U.S. at the end of February will issue its official report on countries that it believes don't do enough to control the export of cocaine and other narcotics. Based on the report Washington can cut off bilateral aid and pressure other international agencies to end their support. On Feb. 8, the White House announced it would seek to cut military aid to Bolivia by 96 percent. "This report," says Ledebur "will determine the U.S. line, if it immediately becomes an implacable foe of Morales, or tries to pursue an accommodation with him. [Roger Burbach is director of the Center for the Study of the Americas, based in Berkeley, Calif. An updated Spanish edition of Burbach's book, "The Pinochet Affair: State Terrorism and Global Justice," has just been released in Santiago, Chile. Matthew Burbach helped prepare this report.] *** The Independent - Feb 11, 2006 http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article344690.ece Global warming: passing the 'tipping point' Our special investigation reveals that critical rise in world temperatures is now unavoidable By Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor A crucial global warming "tipping point" for the Earth, highlighted only last week by the British Government, has already been passed, with devastating consequences. Research commissioned by The Independent reveals that the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has now crossed a threshold, set down by scientists from around the world at a conference in Britain last year, beyond which really dangerous climate change is likely to be unstoppable. The implication is that some of global warming's worst predicted effects, from destruction of ecosystems to increased hunger and water shortages for billions of people, cannot now be avoided, whatever we do. It gives considerable force to the contention by the green guru Professor James Lovelock, put forward last month in The Independent, that climate change is now past the point of no return. The danger point we are now firmly on course for is a rise in global mean temperatures to 2 degrees [Celsius, or almost 4 degrees F for the entire planet] above the level before the Industrial Revolution in the late 18th century. At the moment, global mean temperatures have risen to about 0.6 degrees above the pre-industrial era - and worrying signs of climate change, such as the rapid melting of the Arctic ice in summer, are already increasingly evident. But a rise to 2 degrees would be far more serious. By that point it is likely that the Greenland ice sheet will already have begun irreversible melting, threatening the world with a sea-level rise of several metres [some 20 feet! -HB] Agricultural yields will have started to fall, not only in Africa but also in Europe, the US and Russia, putting up to 200 million more people at risk from hunger, and up to 2.8 billion additional people at risk of water shortages for both drinking and irrigation. The Government's conference on Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, held at the UK Met Office in Exeter a year ago, highlighted a clear threshold in the accumulation of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, which should not be surpassed if the 2 degree point was to be avoided with "relatively high certainty". This was for the concentration of CO2 and other gases such as methane and nitrous oxide, taken together in their global warming effect, to stay below 400ppm (parts per million) in CO2 terms - or in the jargon, the "equivalent concentration" of CO2 should remain below that level. The warning was highlighted in the official report of the Exeter conference, published last week. However, an investigation by The Independent has established that the CO2 equivalent concentration, largely unnoticed by the scientific and political communities, has now risen beyond this threshold. This number is not a familiar one even among climate researchers, and is not readily available. For example, when we put the question to a very senior climate scientist, he said: "I would think it's definitely over 400 - probably about 420." So we asked one of the world's leading experts on the effects of greenhouse gases on climate, Professor Keith Shine, head of the meteorology department at the University of Reading, to calculate it precisely. Using the latest available figures (for 2004), his calculations show the equivalent concentration of C02, taking in the effects of methane and nitrous oxide at 2004 levels, is now 425ppm. This is made up of CO2 itself, at 379ppm; the global warming effect of the methane in the atmosphere, equivalent to another 40ppm of CO2; and the effect of nitrous oxide, equivalent to another 6ppm of CO2. The tipping point warned about last week by the Government is already behind us. "The passing of this threshold is of the most enormous significance," said Tom Burke, a former government adviser on the green issues, now visiting professor at Imperial College London. "It means we have actually entered a new era - the era of dangerous climate change. We have passed the point where we can be confident of staying below the 2 degree rise set as the threshold for danger. What this tells us is that we have already reached the point where our children can no longer count on a safe climate." The scientist who chaired the Exeter conference, Dennis Tirpak, head of the climate change unit of the OECD in Paris, was even more direct. He said: "This means we will hit 2 degrees [as a global mean temperature rise]." Professor Burke added: "We have very little time to act now. Governments must stop talking and start spending. We already have the technology to allow us to meet our growing need for energy while keeping a stable climate. We must deploy it now. Doing so will cost less than the Iraq war so we know we can afford it." The 400ppm threshold is based on a paper given at Exeter by Malte Meinhausen of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Dr Meinhausen reviewed a dozen studies of the probability of exceeding the 2 degrees threshold at different CO2 equivalent levels. Taken together they show that only by remaining [under] 400 is there a very high chance of not doing so. Some scientists have been reluctant to talk about the overall global warming effect of all the greenhouses gases taken together, because there is another consideration - the fact that the "aerosol", or band of dust in the atmosphere from industrial pollution, actually reduces the warming. As Professor Shine stresses, there is enormous uncertainty about the degree to which this is happening, so making calculation of the overall warming effect problematic. However, as James Lovelock points out - and Professor Shine and other scientists accept - in the event of an industrial downturn, the aerosol could fall out of the atmosphere in a matter of weeks, and then the effect of all the greenhouse gases taken together would suddenly be fully felt. [And no, "inevitable" does not mean we have an excuse to do nothing; it's now a matter of whether things get seriously bad, on the one hand, or far worse, on the other hand. Time for damage control to avoid "far worse" for us and our children -HB] --------------------------------------------------------------------------- LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Digest: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
