Bolivia In Crisis: The Legacy of Evo Morales

by Marc Camanag
Staff Writer

Although there is little consensus on whether Bolivia’s recent shift in leadership constitutes a coup, there is a power struggle plaguing the nation. Amidst widespread protests, it is clear that the resignation of former president Evo Morales carried very real consequences for the Latin American nation and its people. But to what extent? The fall of Morales — the country’s first indigenous president — after nearly fourteen years in office sparked violent protests between his native loyalists and defected police forces. While mostly rooted in deep-seated fears of regression, strong opposing ideologies in Bolivia date back to earlier times involving oppressive post-colonial structures

The current interim president and successor, Jeanine Áñez, is a senator of European descent with a problematic history of anti-indigenous tweets. And since Morales’ resignation, Áñez has only served to further aggravate this ethnic tension. All things considered, Morales’ legacy may be the only tangible piece in the complex puzzle of Bolivia’s future. 

Morales’ ascension to power in 2006 was strongly regarded as a victory for indigenous Bolivians, who have long been subjected to hegemonic rule under a small elite of European descent. For many, Morales was a much-needed break from the tradition of the Spanish colonial era that had long divided the population. Under his administration, the stark social divisions of the past were completely disrupted by a rhetoric of populism and racial distinction. Morales’ Bolivia saw a growing number of indigenous representatives within the government, along with a revival of indigenous culture and the establishment of the Wiphala as an official flag. Despite criticism that his discourse was polarizing and sparked disunity, it is apparent that Morales had a major hand in uplifting the long-marginalized indigenous people of his nation.

Economically, the impoverished Bolivia thrived under his presidency, with two million people being lifted out of poverty through the redistribution of natural gas assets and maintenance of a balanced national budget. For a country that has long suffered from instability and poverty, Evo Morales was a beacon of hope — and then things started to change.

Eventually, Morales’ desire to protract his rule manifested in increasingly concerning behaviors. As more and more of his opponents were prosecuted and institutions become packed with pro-Morales figures, Bolivians began to search for a way out. Their victory in a referendum that enacted term limits was short-lived; soon after, the nation’s Constitutional Court ruled that such an imposition would violate Morales’ human rights. Years of dissatisfaction with the president culminated in this year’s presidential election, during which results were halted for an entire day prior to the announcement that Morales’ lead margin was enough to avoid a runoff. Amid mass accusations of fraud by the incumbent president, the Organization of American States confirmed the presence of irregularities and urged for a new election. This revelation only further incensed Bolivians, who took to the streets in late October to protest against Morales. 

These demonstrations proved to be the conditions for Morales’ fall, but the death blow came when police commandos in Cochabamba sided with protestors against the president’s re-election. The initially localized mutiny triggered a nationwide defection of security forces — an action that foreshadowed Morales’ demise. Now in the streets themselves, police officers across the nation voiced their disdain for Morales, burning the Wiphala flag and tearing the symbol from their uniforms. After weeks of protest, the military requested that Morales resign from the presidency to restore peace in the country. The demand — coup d’état or not — was successful, and the embattled Morales left Bolivia for Mexico soon after. 

Into today, the ex-president’s retreat has not become the solution that the military expected it to be. As Morales’ opponents scaled back from the streets, they were subsequently replaced by his supporters, who fear the loss of political gains made for indigenous communities. Jeanine Áñez — the self-proclaimed interim president — has done little to pacify this new unrest, seemingly condoning the police’s escalating violence against indigenous defenders of Morales and ignoring the rising death toll of these protests. Even with the promise of new presidential elections within ninety days, the opposition senator has faced incredible condemnation, particularly for creating a caretaker cabinet without any indigenous members and having made derogatory tweets against indigenous people — including one that referred to Morales as a “poor Indian”. With the nation in such a fragile state, Áñez must work quickly — before the crisis escalates into a violent and unforgiving civil war

For now, Evo Morales will likely remain in Mexico, where he has been granted asylum. Despite his desire to return to Bolivia and finish his term, it may be too late to make amends. For many, Morales’ legacy is already set in stone. 

Featured image courtesy of Ruperto Miller

Opinion: No Crackdown in Hong Kong

by Marshall Wu
Staff Writer

When Hong Kong was returned to China by the end the of its lease to the United Kingdom in 1997, among the agreements made between the United Kingdom and China was a fifty-year guarantee of one country, two systems. After over one hundred years under British rule, today Hong Kong is uniquely part-Western and part-Chinese. It is no longer the same city it once was under Chinese emperors. This is apparent in a common viewpoint among Chinese today, who may find Hong Kongers ‘spoiled’. In dramatic difference from the city of Shenzhen, fewer than thirty minutes north, Hong Kong has truly become a dual-language populace. In Hong Kong, cab drivers speak English and street signs retain both Chinese and English spellings.

Continue reading “Opinion: No Crackdown in Hong Kong”

The Closure of the WTO Appellate Body: The End of World Trade As We Know It?

by Pankhuri Prasad
Staff Writer

Is the world coming to an end? Hopefully not. But it could be the end of world trade as we have known it for the past two decades. During a course I took in the winter of 2018, my International Economics and Politics professor mentioned how the World Trade Organization (WTO) may face a severe crisis in the near future. At the time, the likelihood of such a crisis seemed low and distant. However, with the end of 2019 looming near, international trade is quickly heading into uncharted waters as the Appellate Body of the organization is facing extinction. The World Trade Organization (WTO) can be understood as the only global organization mediating nations by establishing the international rules of trade. At its core, the WTO is held up by the many multilateral agreements that are signed and negotiated by a majority of the world’s trading nations. The WTO is unique from other major international organizations because it yields effective enforcement through its dispute settlement mechanism. The dispute settlement mechanism, as the name suggests, is a system of solving disputes that may arise when one country or a group of countries believe that another country’s trade policies could be considered as a violation of WTO policies and principles. If the dispute cannot be settled through negotiations, an impartial panel of experts issue a ruling on the matter. 

The Appellate Body essentially acts as a supreme court and hears appeals about rulings issued by panels. This translates into a strong enforcement mechanism because the ruling goes into effect unless all WTO members vote unanimously to block the ruling. The defendant must then end the offending policy or pay compensation to the complainant. If no agreement can be reached on compensation, the injured party is authorized to impose retaliatory tariffs. Thus, this system differentiates the WTO from other international organizations because it imposes real economic consequences for flouting rules. 

As mentioned before, the Appellate Body may shut down at the end of this year. How did this happen? The answer is complicated. The immediate reason is that the United States vetoed the appointment of judges to such body. On December tenth of this year, two of the three remaining members will retire. Without them, the body will not be in quorum and will be forced to stop operations. The body typically consists of seven people but needs a minimum of three judges to hear cases and issue rulings. It is important to note that WTO panels will still be functional, but there will be no finality on issues since appeals to these decisions will be impossible.  

Why has the United States blocked appointments of judges? They have a long-standing list of complaints and criticisms of the WTO. Most importantly, the United States believes the Appellate Body has strayed away from its original mandate of a body that simply clarified existing rules. Instead, in many cases the system has been accused of “judicial activism”—taking decisions that are not grounded in preexisting rules of the organization. The reason for this is that the original rules of the WTO have seen almost no revision since the organization was created twenty-four years ago. Negotiations on new rules have been slow. The last round of negotiations started in 2001 and ended in failure in 2015. Other than asserting that the body is overly deliberative, the United States also believes the dispute mechanism process simply takes too much time. The 2019 Annual Report presented by the body showed that the average trade dispute takes about three and a half years, in total, before it is settled. 

How are other countries reacting to this? Canada and the European Union have agreed on a “shadow Appellate Body” that will operate similar to the current body. The United States expressed concern that other WTO members, including the European Union, are not as concerned about how the body has overstepped its jurisdiction. Although the Trump administration has been more assertive about the issue than other administrations, America’s grievances with the organization go back to President Obama’s term when his administration blocked the appointment of judges in 2016. 

The possibility of resolution seems low when there is disagreement among members on whether a problem exists or not with the dispute settlement mechanism itself. Furthermore, the United States has not signaled that it would be willing to lead reforms that might save the Appellate Body. Any leverage the White House might have will be substantially lowered once the body ceases to function in December. In fact, quite the opposite direction, as they are going from leading reform to threatening to block the passing of the international organization’s budget. 

Photograph of the second WTO Ministerial Conference which was held in Geneva, Switzerland in May of 1998.

What will this mean for world trade? Some have argued that dispute settlements should proceed as usual, only without America’s involvement, but that comes at the risk of ostracizing the system’s most frequent user. Disputes will still be decided by the panels. Without an appeals system however, the decisions could be used by countries to pressure trade rivals. Without a functional appeals system, international trade disputes could evolve into tit-for-tat tariff wars. Countries may feel emboldened to flout trade laws. 

There is no question that the WTO needs structural reform, but the United States will not lead this reform unless other countries concede that the international organization has overstepped its jurisdiction. This is yet another example of the country’s decreasing appreciation of international organizations. Earlier this year, the United Nations declared a cash crisis, partly due to lack of funding from its largest contributor, the United States. The question remains whether the economic hegemon sees these global regimes as worth saving. Do they see the WTO as vital to strengthening the global trading system and thus the American economy? The verdict is out. Meanwhile, what is certain is that global trade is entering a period of unprecedented uncertainties. 

Photos courtesy of:

Chutter Snap

World Trade Organization