EVO MORALES’ COURAGEOUS MOVE NOW MAKES HIM A US TARGET
ALONG WITH HUGO CHAVEZ - by Stephen Lendman

To get a good sense of where US policy is heading, one
need only read the front page of the New York Times or
Wall Street Journal - painful as that may be to do.  I
skip the Times but do read the Journal daily because
of the audience it reaches - high level people in
business and government who want real information to
guide them in their work.  So despite the Journal
being a voice for US business and imperialism, knowing
how to read it and doing it carefully yields useful
information and clues about what future US policy is
likely to be.

The Wall Street Journal Signals Evo Morales Is Now A
US Target

The May 2 Journal was a good example as they had a
feature front page story headlined “Bolivia Seizes
Natural-Gas Fields In a Show of Energy Nationalism.”
That alone signals a call to arms that’s backed up
strongly in the copy that follows. 

The Journal began its heated rhetoric claiming Evo
Morales has been “emboldened by Hugo Chavez’s moves
against private oil companies” and on May 1
(symbolically on May Day celebrating working people
around the world including in the US in a big way for
the first time) nationalized the country’s largest
natural gas field, San Alberto, and ordered the army
to “take control of it and the country’s other
fields.” It went on to explain that it ordered foreign
oil companies to relinquish control of the fields,
accept “much tougher operating terms or leave the
country.” 

Bolivian law is clear that the state owns the
resources in the country.  Up to now it’s allowed
foreign investors to operate the fields and take the
majority share of production from them to sell for
their gain.  Last year, however, Bolivia raised the
state’s take to an effective 50% of production by
increasing taxes and royalties.  Yesterday the
government went further by declaring the state owns
the gas once it’s been extracted and that the
companies operating in the two largest fields would
only get 18% of the production for themselves.

Translating the Journal’s Message Including What They
Failed to Explain

A little translation is in order.  What the Journal
didn’t explain and never would is that those “tougher
operating terms” are simply Bolivia’s right as an
independent nation (and all other nations as well) to
get the majority benefits from its own natural
resources and that foreign investors are there sharing
in them only because the country allowed them to.  But
instead of being grateful, the Journal makes clear,
without stating it, that the investors are greedy and
want the lion’s share and on their terms. 

What’s also left unsaid or unsatisfactorily explained
is nationalization does not mean expropriation.  Evo
Morales has made it clear that foreign investors will
not lose the rights to their investments.  What they
will lose once Morales’ plan is implemented (he’s
giving them six months to comply) is their unfair
share of the profits and benefits they never had a
right to have in the first place.  Under the Morales
plan, a new contract will be made between the
government and foreign investors guaranteeing that the
people of Bolivia will receive the majority of
benefits from its own resources while at the same time
foreign investors will receive their fare share but no
more than that.  It also means the government alone
now will decide the terms of revenue sharing and tax
obligations due rather than Big Oil dictating them
with the long shadow of the US looming in the
background, which is still the case, of course.

The Journal then became more inflammatory as it has in
its past and recent railings against Hugo Chavez.  It
claimed high energy prices have sparked a resurgent
wave of nationalism from Caracas to Moscow.  Of
course, it forgot to mention the one country above all
others where so-called nationalism and protectionism
is a national religion - the US.  Here where I live,
no outside investors are allowed in (especially from
developing nations) to profit except on the ironclad
rules we set, take it or leave it.  So by US imperial
rules (the only ones, no others allowed), what’s good
for us is not acceptable or allowed for anyone else
because we said so.

The Journal went on to say Morales is mimicking
measures against Big Oil by “Mr. Chavez” (he happens
to be the President and should be addressed that way),
and that Morales and Chavez are “both playing a game
of chicken with foreign oil companies.”  It also
couldn’t resist raising the specter of Fidel Castro
and the fact that Chavez and Morales signed a free
trade accord over the past weekend with the man the
imperial US hates most.

There’s more to this story as well which the Journal
points out into their long article.  The leading
Peruvian candidate, Ollanta Humala, in the upcoming
presidential runoff election against US choice by
default Alan Garcia, has also called for
nationalization of the country’s natural gas and
mining resources.  And Evo Morales has made it clear
he intends to nationalize Bolivia’s other natural
resources likely beginning with its forests and mines.
Further, to cap off a growing US Latin American
nightmare, last month Equador passed a law designed to
cut the windfall profits of foreign crude producers
(including US based Occidental Petroleum) by giving
the government (meaning the people) 50% of oil company
profits whenever the international oil market exceeds
the prices established in existing contracts.

What These Developments Mean for the US and How It’s
Likely to Respond

There certainly is trouble for the US in Latin America
and in the oil patch there as well as in Iraq, Iran,
Nigeria and who knows where else it may spread.  So
what can we make of all this, and what’s most likely
to happen going forward.  The US is now spending
hundreds of billions of dollars trying to hold on to
the oil treasure it stole by invading Iraq.  It’s also
made it clear it has designs on those same resources
in neighboring Iran and may attack that country using
nuclear weapons. And if that isn’t enough on one plate
to digest, it faces a dilemma in Venezuela it’s tried
unsuccessfully three times to solve.

Venezuela has even greater hydrocarbon reserves than
Iraq or Iran (possibly the largest in the world even
above Saudi Arabia’s) and is led by a courageous man
unwilling to surrender his nation’s sovereignty (or
its resources) to its imperial northern neighbor
demanding it and them.  And now the heavenly virus of
the desire to be truly independent is beginning to
spread to Bolivia, Peru if Hamala wins the runoff
election, hopefully Equador and significant opposition
groups outside the governments in other countries as
well like Nigeria and Nepal.  These nations, or
opposition groups in them, are demanding equity and
justice for their people, and are beginning to raise
their heads and demand the rights they’re entitled to.
If they all get them, that’s bad news for the US and
the dominant corporate interests here that profit
handsomely by exploiting the resources of
underdeveloped nations and its cheap labor as well.
Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales know this and have spoken
out and acted courageously against these longtime
abuses in defense the rights of their own people.  But
their doing so is intolerable to the US which will do
everything in its power to reverse the loss of its
special privilege.

So what can we expect ahead.  I have no doubt
whatever, and I’ve written about this several times.
When the heat is turned up against US interests, this
country won’t go quietly into the night.  The plans
are well underway now for a fourth attempt to oust
Hugo Chavez that may include assassinations and
possibly an armed assault by US invading forces.  Last
Sunday VHeadline published a commentary/review I wrote
about Noam Chomsky’s new book Failed States.  In an
email I received from Chomsky on April 29 he updated
the views he stated in his new book and gave a blunt
assessment of what may be in prospect which I’ll quote
again here: he said he “wouldn’t be surprised to see
(US inspired) secessionist movements in the oil
producing areas in Iran, Venezuela and Bolivia, all in
areas that are accessible to US military force and
alienated from the governments, with the US then
moving in to ‘defend’ them and blasting the rest of
the country if necessary.” 

I share that view although I’m not privy to what
hostile plans my government has in mind.  I’ll only
state my strong belief that something big is planned
to oust President Chavez (and now maybe Evo Morales as
well) that will only become apparent once the
fireworks begin.  Today’s feature article in the Wall
Street Journal only strengthens my view.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).  Also visit his blog
address at sjlendman.blogspot.com