Bolivia is on edge after more than 80% of voters in the resource-rich Santa Cruz region approved a referendum for greater autonomy. President Evo Morales, who has met with stiff opposition in his attempt to more evenly distribute Bolivia's wealth, dismissed the referendum as illegal. Nevertheless, he has promised to open dialogue with the opposition. Class issues are at the heart of the tension.

The BBC reports:

Mr Morales has promised radical reforms that he hopes will lead Bolivia, the poorest country in South America, out of poverty.
Leaders in Santa Cruz - home to about 25% of Bolivia's population - have demanded more local control over their resources. They feel threatened by a draft constitution that proposes to limit large land holdings.
The proposals voted on in Sunday's poll include giving Santa Cruz more control over land distribution - and rich oil and gas reserves. They also provide for the creation of a local police force.

Clearly Morales is in a tight spot. The wealth generated by the southern regions is vital to his ambitions as president, but his attempts at reform are swelling the enthusiasm for autonomy proportionally.

As the situation develops, Morales will be forced to cede greater autonomy to the regions; a refusal to do so would push Boliva over the brink. Less certain is the amount of autonomy Morales is willing to grant as he attempts to appease dissidents in Santa Cruz, and how his espoused vision of autonomy will reconcile with that proposed in the referendum:

"Let's work together tomorrow for a true autonomy," he [Morales] added. "For the people, and not just certain groups - an autonomy that permits the people to decide their destiny."

It remains to be seen if Morales' version will approach what is desired by the wealthy southern regions. If their politicians are resolute, Morales' vision for Bolivia's future may be irreparably compromised.
 

Raul Castro announced today that he is commuting all death sentences in Cuba (with the exception of 3 individuals charged with terrorism) to lesser sentences, citing humanitarian reasons. Cuba has faced pressure from human-rights activists to abolish its death penalty, which is still administered via firing squad.

The commutations are the latest in a wave of populist reforms introduced by Raul Castro since his older brother Fidel Castro retired and handed him power. Over the weekend he announced he's raising pensions for retirees as well as salaries for some government employees, while earlier this month he lifted long-time bans on Cubans owning cell phones and staying in hotels reserved for foreigners. From the Miami Herald:

The pay increases — which will affect almost one in five Cubans — were the first since 2005 and the first since Raúl Castro replaced his ailing brother Fidel as president. Since taking office in February, he has done away with some of Cuba's most-despised restrictions on daily life, bolstering his popularity and sparking rumors that more changes are coming.

A month ago Castro lifted a ban on owning personal computers. Despite strict government control of Internet access, the Miami Herald also reports the move has accompanied an increase in secretive, uncensored blogs about life on the island. For those of you Spanish speakers, here are a few to check out:

Mi Isla al Mediodio

Generación Y

Potro Salvaje

Seminal readers, what's your take on Raul Castro's reforms in Cuba?

When I called my father in near hysterics about the Paraguayan election on Sunday, he did not truly grasp what had taken place. He turned to CNN and they had this brief, unfeeling article about the historic election. So I started to explain.

Fernando Lugo, an ex-bishop, had won the presidency in Paraguay as a liberal. For the first time in 60 years, Paraguay was to have a leader not from the Colorado Party. Up until now, elections were simply a passing of the torch. This time, Blanca Ovelar gracefully conceded the victory, ending years of what many saw as a dictatorship.

Paraguayans no longer scared to show their support flooded the streets chanting, "Paraguay! Paraguay! Paraguay!" Fireworks went off throughout the night. Many missed work on Monday. I was lucky enough to be inside the country at the time and to understand a bit better why there was so much joy.

Trouble was brewing in Bolivia long before Evo Morales came into office. The stove was lit soon as the Spanish read the Requerimiento. Morales' election simply upped the burner.

Not long after he came to office, wealthy Bolivians in Santa Cruz and the resource-rich southern regions have been looking for the exit, pushing for autonomy from the central government. Now, with a May 4 referendum on the issue approaching, Morales and his closest allies — Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega and Cuban vice-president Carlos Lage — got together to denounce the vote, and highlight the economic motive behind it;

If we look at history, we see that there have always been demands for federalism when the rich minority have lost control of central government, but when they get it back again, they forget all about autonomy.

Indeed, this move should be interpreted as fearful Bolivian power-brokers trying to shore up their power, nothing more. While it's still too early to know how this will play out, it does raise interesting questions regarding secession.

In the case of Kosovo, Chechnya, or Darfur, most individuals on the Left enthusiastically support autonomy. I've even heard declarations that any group desiring autonomy should be granted it. But cases like this (as well as the American civil war) work against that argument. It's clear that secession can be used to either promote or undermine justice.

So where do we draw the line? As Alex previously noted, "somewhere between the stance of 'no border changes' and 'every ethnic/national/religious group should form their own country if they want' is some middle ground." This case is clear cut–Bolivia should remain intact. The overriding question, however, remains the same; where is that middle ground?

In Paraguay's recent presidential election Fernando Lugo, an ordained Bishop, wrested power from the heretofore immutable Colorado Party. Lugo campaigned as a champion of the poor and disenfranchised, and abandoned his bishopric in order to do so; the Vatican opposes clergy in political office.

From Reuters:

Lugo abandoned his role as a Catholic bishop three years ago saying he felt powerless to help Paraguay's poor. He asked the Vatican to accept his resignation. The Vatican responded last year by suspending him from his priestly duties, like saying Mass. But it argued he remains a bishop because his ordination was a lifelong sacrament.

Now faced with the prospect of a bishop in the presidency upon inauguration in August, the Vatican says Lugo's unique case is under review. The personal situation of Monsignor (Fernando) Lugo will be examined, calmly," Father Federico Lombardi, chief Vatican spokesman, told one Italian newspaper this week. The head of Paraguay's bishops' conference said the decision may ultimately fall to Pope Benedict.

At a time when people lament both religion's influence over politics and the lack of morality in their politicians, Lugo presents an interesting case – in Paraguay, the religious/political alloy isn't pushing a conservative agenda (see sharia law, evangelicals in the US). Instead, Lugo is a product of liberation theology, a revolutionary. In our fucked up world, that means advocating on behalf of the poor and excluded.

There are justified reasons to be apprehensive about a former bishop as president, but, for Paraguay, this is a step in the right direction.

From the Miami Herald:

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said his government is working to create a NATO-like South America defense council along with Brazil and other countries…

"I once said that if NATO exists - the North Atlantic Treaty Organization - why couldn't SATO exist? The South Atlantic Treaty Organization," Chavez said. "We've placed it on the table for Latin America once again."

I think the answer to his "why not?" question would be "there is no unifying enemy, like the Soviet Union, to motivate a defense pact." Then again, perhaps Chavez doesn't feel that way. After all, he made these comments in a speech marking the sixth anniversary of his attempted ousting, in a coup some believe was backed by the U.S.

Thoughts to share, Seminal readers?

Since Raul Castro took the reins in Cuba, the government has announced a succession of reforms; first went restrictions on Cubans staying in hotels, then restrictions on the purchase of mobile phones, DVD players, microwaves and other sundry goods. Now it's taken aim at the agricultural industry. As the BBC reports,

It will now be easier for state workers to own their homes and pass them on to their children. Wage limits are to be removed to allow more incentives.

As the more unjust policies of the Cuban government fall out, so too should the belligerent sentiments in D.C. Though the Cuban-American lobby is virulently pro-embargo, our legislators shouldn't be so adamant.

The U.N. has condemned our embargo 16 years running and, despite the Bush administrations increased hostility towards Cuba, U.S. public opinion seems to be trending towards the world consensus. If good sense prevails, it will soon fall in line.

I believe that the embargo is a work of arbitrary cruelty, and should've been trashed years ago. But, from a combination of mulishness and acquiescence to a small but vocal lobby, it remains in place. Admitting a mistake is not one of the US government's virtues, but the current reforms allow us an opportunity to drop the embargo without an admission of guilt. We should seize it.

Reports that Clinton's chief strategist Mark Penn met with Colombia's ambassador to the United States over the pending U.S.-Colombia free trade agreement have prompted Penn's resignation.

Any one paying attention will no doubt see a symmetry here; a month ago criticism was levied against Barack Obama's campaign for an adviser's comments regarding Obama's rhetorical stance against NAFTA.

Although Penn arranged and conducted the meeting in his capacity as CEO of Burston Marsteller, and not in connection with the Clinton campaign, the ties call into doubt Clinton's stated opposition to the trade agreement.

Penn's resignation is meant to lend credence to Clinton's opposition, but its efficacy is doubtful; though no long chief strategist, he will continue advising the campaign. Nevertheless, at present we have no reason to question Clinton's word (other than her documented propensity for lying). We can only hope that, this time, she's as good as it.

Hugo Chavez announced plans to nationalize Venezuela's cement industry. As justification, he accused the companies of polluting, and restricting local supply to boost prices while at the same time increasing foreign exports to boost profits. He said the state would pay "whatever it costs" to nationalize the industry, which join the telephone, oil and electricity industries under the Venezuelan government's thumb.

The French government is becoming more and more active in their fight for the release of Ingrid Betancourt, a FARC hostage who has dual Colombian / French citizenship. Making good on the importance placed Sarkozy placed on Betancourt's release, his government offered to freed FARC prisoners refuge in France. The prime minister, Franocis Fillon, said "France is ready to do everything necessary to permit the liberation of Ingrid Betancourt and taking in FARC militants is part of that effort." Fillon also referred to them as political prisoners, contradicting the terrorist tag that Colombia, the U.S., and many others justifiably place on the group.

Another small but significant change in Cuba; they can have cell phones. Previously, only foreigners, Cuban government officials, and Cubans working for foreign companies, were allowed a mobile phone. Nevertheless, a phone and phone service will remain out of reach of the large majority of Cubans; bills come in convertible pesos, an impossibility for those living on an average salary of $20.

It seems the still simmering dispute between Colombia and Ecuador has boosted Ecuadorean president Rafael Correa's approval ratings, which had been-a-tumbling. Though the dispute was seemingly resolved after the Latin American Summit in early March, the revelation that an Ecuadorean was killed in Colombia's cross border strike resulted in more strong rhetoric from Correa. Adding to the tension, Ecuador is suing in an international court, alleging that Colombia anti-drug aerial fumigation is damaging the health of Ecuadorean farmers near the border.

What're you reading today?

The Colombian government confirmed that an Ecuadorean citizen was killed in the airstrike they conducted earlier this month. That strike resulted in the death of more than 20 individuals believed to be associated with the rebel group FARC, and sparked the region's most hostile diplomatic exchange in decades.

Ecuador's President Rafael Correa has yet to comment, but when the family of the victim, Franklin Aisalia, reported him amongst the dead, Correa vowed that "Ecuador would not forgive the killing" if it were confirmed.

It's reported that Aisalia worked with the FARC, facilitating movement across the Colombian-Ecuador border. In a perfect world, that information would temper Ecuador's reaction. In our actual world, it seems to matter very little.

Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, who has continually butted heads with Colombian president Alvaro Uribe, exacerbated tensions immediately following the raid by ordering ten battalions of 600 soldiers each to the Colombian border. The move was ostensibly a show of support for Chavez' ally Correa, but logic and evidence suggest it was more a means of shoring up dipping support at home, and overshadowing alleged ties between his government and the FARC.

The confirmation of Aisalia's death will likely further poison the relationship between Ecuador and Colombia, and may spark a similarly outlandish move from Chavez. Both scenarios, if realized, would be regrettable.

After the Rio Group Summit, which followed on the heels of the incident, and ended in handshakes and smiles between the three leaders, it appeared all tensions were resolved. Let's hope that cordiality prevails. With Chavez involved, however, all bets are off.